HOOSIERS?

[Dan Chambers]

Okay; now that the "Pot is on the boil" I want to clarify a few things:

1) I am not complaining about losing to Paul (and Don M.) last weekend, nor am I making any excuses. I simply drove poorly (Shifting from the top of 2nd back into first gear on the first straight didn't help, either ). They drove well... very well. They beat me fair and square. So, Dan A. and Jad, I offer NO excuses, just a statement of poor driving. If you interpreted my post as anything else, I think you misunderstood me.

2) My post was to instigate thoughts and reviews of current policies regarding classes. Yes Tom T. and Dan A., I have the option of driving on Hoosiers. Obviously, I've chosen otherwise. I'm not making excuses. I'm pointing out my opinions and my concerns as to what constitutes a Stock-catagory car, as was the intent of Gary's original post, yes?

3) Paul Y. is perfectly within the rules as they are currently written. He is not and should not be penalized for playing by the rules. Like Piech and Singer, Paul has carefully reviewed the rules and optimized his car to that end ... with good results (He's been in the top 3 of class since January). I have no complaint with Paul Young, or anyone else who carefully utilizes all options on their prepared cars. That is "how the game is played" as Tom T. once told me.

I'm glad everyone is taking an interest in this, since it needs reviewing. It is this man's opinion that a Stock car should be only a couple of tic's up from a Street Stock car in modifications (6 tic's to be more exact), and should be a car that can be driven on the street in any kind of weather safely, with two people seated in the front seats. This is just my own opinion. Currently, it appears to be the only opinion of this nature.


What are other people's ideas of what "Stock" means? Do I stand alone in the opinion that a "Stock" car is only a slightly modified car from a Showroom Street Stock car? What do others think?

[gulf911]

Dan,

You are describing a separate class that already exists, its Street Stock. Maybe another way to look at it might be mechanically? When referring to Stock, its typically engine and mechanicals no? So they give you additional points to improve the performance leaving the engine alone? I am positive using the 6 tics coincidentally leaves out the Hoosiers...

Just throwing out stuff to see what sticks.

[LUCKY DAVE]

I'm currently at 6 points (spring rate, camber plates and 888's)
My car has a full interior, stock seats/belts, air conditioning, a good stereo, cruise control, bla bla bla, all the stock stuff. Heck, I even have floor mats!
Use your 8 points as you see fit.
I think the rules allow my car to be competitive in stock. If I don't win, it's sure not the car (bring out the magic cone for Kieth more often ) The rules make stock a pretty even playing field, which is a good thing for everybody.
In street stock, the playing field is less level than it could be, because of the stock wheel/tire sizes, but that's the way it is. If you don't like your car's chances in street stock and winning is important to you, you should have bought a different car in the first place. Stock fixes this problem (usually, nothing's perfect) for those of us who aren't prepared to prepare our cars to run in prepared.

[Gary Burch]

Tom Tweed wrote;

I would rather see you work on a rule change that would allow for older cars to meet the S/S qualifications, somehow. Or else just go buy a S/S Boxster and chase Kim and Charlie with it.

I chase them now.

This may be the actual point in this whole discussion. It has actually taken me 6 points to get my car to the point of being competitive. Granted, I could have done it back to stock, but, that's no fun. So with the LSD I am on the bubble. Last year I ran the Azenias because I didn't have the points to spare. And got beaten decisively, tell me tires aren't important. But, I think it made me a better driver trying to overcome my tires. The rules don't take into consideration the amount of points it takes to modernize an old car.

Anyway, I am not so sure a spec tire isn't such a bad idea for stock class. Almost everyone runs the RA-1's as it is, plus it does save money and there is nothing wrong with that. This way it would be more about car and driver instead of tires and money, that's what P and I and all that are for.

[Mark Garriott]

The adjectives associated with levels of preparation are red herrings.

Points is points and the words associated with classification should mean nothing, other than a handy mnemonic. You got 2, 8, 20, 40, 60 and umpteen point cars.

Is it reasonable for me to expect others to reconfigure their car because I ‘pointed’ myself into a corner?

[vntgspd]

This may be the actual point in this whole discussion. It has actually taken me 6 points to get my car to the point of being competitive. Granted, I could have done it back to stock, but, that's no fun. So with the LSD I am on the bubble. Last year I ran the Azenias because I didn't have the points to spare. And got beaten decisively, tell me tires aren't important. But, I think it made me a better driver trying to overcome my tires. The rules don't take into consideration the amount of points it takes to modernize an old car.

Well, if the LSD is the issue, we can rectify that easily by switching diffs! Mine even has new bearings.

[Irksome]

What are other people's ideas of what "Stock" means? Do I stand alone in the opinion that a "Stock" car is only a slightly modified car from a Showroom Street Stock car? What do others think?

For what it's worth, I agree with you and Gary. I believe there should be some limits on the S class beyond just the 8 points available. I'm not sure how to define it, so I've been keeping sorta quiet. I'm not worried about it from a competitive perspective as much as safety: the better tires allow you to achieve higher speeds, which in turn can create conditions more dangerous than can be achieved on lesser tires. Not having spent points elsewhere might give you more 'stick' than the rest of your hardware can handle, and may give you less capability to recover once that 'stick' breaks free.

One other point I'll make is that everyone seems to agree that tires are the single biggest improvement to be found, excluding the driver. Perhaps we haven't put appropriate points against the tire improvements? Recognizing that the treadwear ratings are arbitrary at best, we may still solve this 'problem' by defining the points thusly:
140+ = 0 points
50-139 = 3 points
<50 = 9 points
race (or non-DOT) = 12

This would keep the current S/S restriction without requiring any callout (just the 3 points pushes you out of S/S), and would also keep DOT-rated super-sticky tires out of Stock (9 points pushes you to Prepared). It also seems more in line with the value of sticky tires.

Finally, on the competitive side, and the 'spirit of Stock' discussion, I would personally like to see Stock be just a wee bit more restricted. I would like to have my car suspension improved, not just for A/X but also for daily drive and bling bling. If I do that, I am now playing in Stock, and by current definition I would compete against Hoosiers (which feel like more value than ANY 4 points I could take elsewhere).

[Dan Chambers]

Dan,

You are describing a separate class that already exists, its Street Stock. Maybe another way to look at it might be mechanically? When referring to Stock, its typically engine and mechanicals no?

So they give you additional points to improve the performance leaving the engine alone? I am positive using the 6 tics coincidentally leaves out the Hoosiers...

Just throwing out stuff to see what sticks.

Okay, so your definition of Stock is a car with engine and "mechanicals" left intact and everything else open to change? Define "mechanicals." Suspension? Weight reduction? Reconfiguring suspension by welding? Changing gear ratios and/or adding LS diff.? I'm not sure what you mean. by "mechanicals."

Or "give you additional points to improve the performance leaving the engine alone?" I think that is what we currently have? Yes? No?

Anyway, thanks for your interpretation of "Stock." As I suspected, each person appears to have his/her own idea or interpretation of what "Stock" is.

[LUCKY DAVE]

What are other people's ideas of what "Stock" means? Do I stand alone in the opinion that a "Stock" car is only a slightly modified car from a Showroom Street Stock car? What do others think?

Recognizing that the treadwear ratings are arbitrary at best, we may still solve this 'problem' by defining the points thusly:
140+ = 0 points
50-139 = 3 points
<50 = 9 points
race (or non-DOT) = 12

This would keep the current S/S restriction without requiring any callout (just the 3 points pushes you out of S/S), and would also keep DOT-rated super-sticky tires out of Stock (9 points pushes you to Prepared). It also seems more in line with the value of sticky tires.

Finally, on the competitive side, and the 'spirit of Stock' discussion, I would personally like to see Stock be just a wee bit more restricted. I would like to have my car suspension improved, not just for A/X but also for daily drive and bling bling. If I do that, I am now playing in Stock, and by current definition I would compete against Hoosiers (which feel like more value than ANY 4 points I could take elsewhere).

I agree with this, I think the current points system isn't in line with the true performance improvement stickier tires provide.
But..... many like me want to own and drive a really super handling car without cutting it up to remove weight as is required to be competitive in prepared.
Where's the middle ground?

[Greg Phillips]

I got tired of eating popcorn and decided to join in on this one

I think that the club would be better served by having stock and street stock as >140 wear classes. Yes there will always be the search for the fastest >140 tire, but overall the tires will last longer and have less influence on the results. I spent several years in SS and had a great time watching everyone swapping tires and then putting on another set of tires for timed runs. Now I am one of those

But I think I did benefit from my time driving on true street tires. Going to sticky rubber will cover up a lot of driver mistakes but will also make the learning curve steeper.
Maybe increasing the points for tires will fix the problem, but I think we would be better served to have SS and S classes without R tires. The present points are truly not representative of their value. I put on a new set of R Hankook tires at California Speedway replacing used RA1 tires and dropped over 3 seconds with no fuss (other than the cost)
I can't think where another 2 points will have that great an impact. Granted that is on a 2 minute lap, but it also a lot of straight where the grip is not helping much, the improvement is likely to be even greater on a tight autocross circuit.
So is it time for another rules proposal to restrict SS and Stock classes to tires with treadwear >140

Greg

[Irksome]

I got tired of eating popcorn and decided to join in on this one

I think that the club would be better served by having stock and street stock as >140 wear classes. Yes there will always be the search for the fastest >140 tire, but overall the tires will last longer and have less influence on the results. I spent several years in SS and had a great time watching everyone swapping tires and then putting on another set of tires for timed runs. Now I am one of those

But I think I did benefit from my time driving on true street tires. Going to sticky rubber will cover up a lot of driver mistakes but will also make the learning curve steeper.
Maybe increasing the points for tires will fix the problem, but I think we would be better served to have SS and S classes without R tires. The present points are truly not representative of their value. I put on a new set of R Hankook tires at California Speedway replacing used RA1 tires and dropped over 3 seconds with no fuss (other than the cost)
I can't think where another 2 points will have that great an impact. Granted that is on a 2 minute lap, but it also a lot of straight where the grip is not helping much, the improvement is likely to be even greater on a tight autocross circuit.
So is it time for another rules proposal to restrict SS and Stock classes to tires with treadwear >140

Greg

I like the way you think. BUT... There is one notable problem with 140+, which is that the GT3 and GT2 cars are delivered from the showroom with Michelin Pilot Sport Cups, which are 80 treadwear. As delivered, they cannot run in QS/S. I think it is important to let them run in QS. The change in values would allow this, but straight disallowing 139 and below would not.

[Irksome]

I agree with this, I think the current points system isn't in line with the true performance improvement stickier tires provide.
But..... many like me want to own and drive a really super handling car without cutting it up to remove weight as is required to be competitive in prepared.
Where's the middle ground?

You don't HAVE to run Hoosiers. With an adjusted value for 50-139, you could run any number of excellent tires and take 1 point LESS than you take today for Hoosiers. Since tires will be replaced regularly anyway, this will be a pretty painless adjustment (since everyone would be in the same boat). You could even find a way to spend that extra point if you chose to do so.

[LUCKY DAVE]

[quote
You don't HAVE to run Hoosiers. With an adjusted value for 50-139, you could run any number of excellent tires and take 1 point LESS than you take today for Hoosiers. Since tires will be replaced regularly anyway, this will be a pretty painless adjustment (since everyone would be in the same boat). You could even find a way to spend that extra point if you chose to do so.[/quote]


I'm not running Hoosiers, I'm running 888's.
I suppose Hoosiers would be faster, but I haven't decided where to spend my remaining 2 points. Wider 888's are an option, and I already own another set of wheels wide enough to fit them, but I may get non-stock sway bars instead.

[Dan Chambers]

I got tired of eating popcorn and decided to join in on this one

I think that the club would be better served by having stock and street stock as >140 wear classes. Yes there will always be the search for the fastest >140 tire, but overall the tires will last longer and have less influence on the results. I spent several years in SS and had a great time watching everyone swapping tires and then putting on another set of tires for timed runs. Now I am one of those

But I think I did benefit from my time driving on true street tires. Going to sticky rubber will cover up a lot of driver mistakes but will also make the learning curve steeper.
Maybe increasing the points for tires will fix the problem, but I think we would be better served to have SS and S classes without R tires. The present points are truly not representative of their value. I put on a new set of R Hankook tires at California Speedway replacing used RA1 tires and dropped over 3 seconds with no fuss (other than the cost)
I can't think where another 2 points will have that great an impact. Granted that is on a 2 minute lap, but it also a lot of straight where the grip is not helping much, the improvement is likely to be even greater on a tight autocross circuit.
So is it time for another rules proposal to restrict SS and Stock classes to tires with treadwear >140

Greg

Agreed. 100%. Although I might miss the extra grip off the Toyo's, I won't miss the cost, especially sharing a car with another driver. I also think this come much closer to the philosophy of the "Spirit of Stock Class" that was eluded to earlier. >140 tires in stock, you've got my vote.

Now, I have received a couple of PM's and an email expressing what others thought were "Stock" cars, sighting "Snickers" as compared to "The Black Pearl." Well, all you need do is park the cars side by side and tell me which car looks like a "stock" street driving 911SC vs a 911 race car. I'll even pit next to Paul next AX, and you can see for yourself which car more represents what Porsche built and sold as a "stock" 911SC and which car has been altered beyond a street car to a race car. Then, after viewing the two cars, you can tell me why two such radically different cars compete in the same exact class. The images wil speak for themselves.

[993Panzer]

I got tired of eating popcorn and decided to join in on this one

I think that the club would be better served by having stock and street stock as >140 wear classes. Yes there will always be the search for the fastest >140 tire, but overall the tires will last longer and have less influence on the results. I spent several years in SS and had a great time watching everyone swapping tires and then putting on another set of tires for timed runs. Now I am one of those

But I think I did benefit from my time driving on true street tires. Going to sticky rubber will cover up a lot of driver mistakes but will also make the learning curve steeper.
Maybe increasing the points for tires will fix the problem, but I think we would be better served to have SS and S classes without R tires. The present points are truly not representative of their value. I put on a new set of R Hankook tires at California Speedway replacing used RA1 tires and dropped over 3 seconds with no fuss (other than the cost)
I can't think where another 2 points will have that great an impact. Granted that is on a 2 minute lap, but it also a lot of straight where the grip is not helping much, the improvement is likely to be even greater on a tight autocross circuit.
So is it time for another rules proposal to restrict SS and Stock classes to tires with treadwear >140

Greg

Agreed. 100%. Although I might miss the extra grip off the Toyo's, I won't miss the cost, especially sharing a car with another driver. I also think this come much closer to the philosophy of the "Spirit of Stock Class" that was eluded to earlier. >140 tires in stock, you've got my vote.

Now, I have received a couple of PM's and an email expressing what others thought were "Stock" cars, sighting "Snickers" as compared to "The Black Pearl." Well, all you need do is park the cars side by side and tell me which car looks like a "stock" street driving 911SC vs a 911 race car. I'll even pit next to Paul next AX, and you can see for yourself which car more represents what Porsche built and sold as a "stock" 911SC and which car has been altered beyond a street car to a race car. Then, after viewing the two cars, you can tell me why two such radically different cars compete in the same exact class. The images wil speak for themselves.

Don't forget what was posted earlier. Some of the newer cars come with tires rated at 80. These cars are right off the dealers showroom floor and would be put in a prepared class by the rules being suggested here. So by changing tread wear rating a car direct from Porsche will now be a prepared class car and not stock. The newer cars are already put in a separate class due to HP etc but to push them into prepared on top of this because of factory delivered tires seems a bit much. My point is that if we start messing with the rules because of tread wear someone some where gets the short end. We're all human/competitive and we don't want to be on the short end but changing rules because you're on the short end isn't practical or in the "spirit" of the class. Each class is assigned x number of points. Use them wisely. How do you think Porsche has won so many championships?