RX7 KLR

Like I said, you may have been misinformed. Someone that is on one of the Advisory Committees (AC) that may not have been consulted likely gave you an emotionally charged version that is not 100% accurate. There is no requirement in the Solo rules for the SEB to consult, use or follow the guidance of an AC. The AC is there to serve the "pleasure" of the SEB, not the other way around.

The only way this proposal hits Fastrack is via the SEB. Fastrack gives you a lot of information. The fact that this proposal went out after the Feb 21st SEB call means they have been working on this for some time, likely since the Spring SEB meeting - although looking at the way it was written it sure could have used more time.

They also presented this plan in person to the BoD at the SCCA Natl Convention a week later (read the BoD minutes).
The SEB is reviewing their Strategic Action Plan focusing on structure and goals. The first draft will be presented to the BoD
later in Convention.

I agree with you that it sucks, you just need to have you anger focused in the right direction.

For the most part the BoD is hands off with Solo. The SEB and Natl office do an excellent job with the program 99% of the time, so the BoD has had no reason to get involved - and being largely road race centric they really don't know all the ins and outs. As a past SEB member I can recall being in and out of our annual BoD meeting in less than 30mins, while the Club Racing Board (CRB) would get drilled for the better part of a day.

Regardless of how people may try and twist things all indicators are the Solo program is healthy. SCCA National Convention participation stats 2012 Vs 2011:
Tire Rack Championship Tour (aka Solo National Tour) up 6%
ProSolo up 10%
Regional Solo up 4.6% (68,153 entries)
And Club membership was up in 2012

Considering the 2012 numbers only makes this big shakeup more mindbogglingly.

Remember a proposal is just that, this is not a rule change until the process runs its course. If you don't want to see it happen write a letter to the SEB.

talon95

The SoloMatters article explains it pretty well. Like the article states, stock class participation is way down compared to a few years ago. Of course that is partly due to the ST classes, but then again, one of the big draws of those classes is the fact they run on street tires.

I think people need to think of what I'll call the "middle" national competitor. All the folks that are serious, but not the top 1%. They make up the majority of the national event entries in reality. When they go away, then the classes shrink. These are the same people that have more limited budgets, probably don't win very many tires, and hence are more interested in proposals like this.

Also though, I don't think it's that street tires are so compelling as the current top R-tire (A6) is just so horribly bad for durability, particularly when you put it on a more typical stock class vehicle (not a SS car).

What *I* would really like in an ideal world would be to go back to the mid-late 90's with the BFG R1 and Kumho Victoracer.

And again, I still think SS will be preserved simply because the vast majority prefer the class as it is (and may not be viable otherwise). And IMO it is not a great idea to try to force all of stock to stay as it is for one class. I think the better solution is to preserve SS, but go forward with this change in some form or another.

Dave G.

RX7 KLR

Got to love the very one-sided SoloMatters story, great image of doom and gloom for all. You can always make a more compelling argument when you only use data that supports your side... In 2007 STS2 (now STS) was not a Natl class and was on the border of being eliminated, STU was in its first year as a Natl class. That category was an infant at that point and was not nearly the powerhouse it is today - or drain on other classes entries, depending on how you want to look at it. From 2008+ this category has grown leaps and bounds. The Success of ST should not mandate the reworking of stock... If ST classes are what people want those should be created, and other classes that are not supporting themselves should be consolidated, but this does not necessitate the complete reorg of stock.

ltborg

And that is exactly why I would like to see a reason from the SEB themselves.


Again, also why I think a more detailed explanation of the logic behind the proposal would be enlightening to the membership, both those for and against the decision.

For the record, I am against the proposal personally because I want a place to run race tires in a class that doesn't require massive levels of car prep, making the current rules a very close match to my ideal situation. That said, it's about the SCCA as a whole and it seems like I may be in the minority in that respect.

That said, I will be competing nationally in the new A-Street (or wherever I end up) if it goes through. Driving a Corvette fast is more fun than a lot of things, even if the grip is lower. I will NOT be competing in the limited prep SP as it will very likely be unfair to the existing SP contingent or I would be massively outclassed.

TedDBere

I'm looking at a new set of golf clubs just in case even one of these proposed rules goes through.

And I just finished 2nd in Dixie, I've never been more discouraged about the SCCA than I have been after these proposals were issued.

Letter written. And I don't buy into the "you should explain what you don't like about the proposal" argument or they won't count it. Just put me down as a no vote on every single one of the proposed changes.

8 years of running Nationals and thrown under the bus....

RX7 KLR

I agree, but doubt we will get anything beyond the one paragraph attached to the begging of the proposal.

Being that they had this draft done (going by the call date in Fastrack) and presented it to the BoD at the National Convention, I have to wonder why they did not bring it up at the SEB town hall? Sure would have been a great opportunity to get some more insight.

RX7 KLR

This is a prime example of how not to get what you want. It is not based on votes, it is based on data and feedback. If you don't care enough to supply anything other than a yes/no then don't be surprised when it does not come out the way you want.

Cutting and pasting the feedback you waste time scribbling on a forum is worth more than a no. *not aimed at you in particular, but for all that don't bother to send in feedback then bitch at the results.

It is shocking at how few letters most items get, and how quickly something like this proposal can get changed with just a few well thought out letters.

TedDBere

Jason, I hear what you are saying, and you are probably right. But the way this was done was just wrong.

The solution to declining stock numbers, and the use of street tires in stock classes to revive stock class participation is easily solved with a win win solution: Run Street Tire equiped stock cars in the same classes, in the same heats, with the same rules as all the same stock cars. Give the top three finishing street tired cars their own trophies, jackets and contingencies.

Done.

What the SEB said was that in order to improve stock class participation they wanted to:

1) Ban Dot-R tires, Use only 200T and up street tires. History shows this is only good until the tire companies decide they actually want to win.
2) Take back and eliminate canister shocks. Non canister shocks can be just as expensive if someone wants to spend the money. Rule does nothing to expenses or performance.
3) Open up sway bars at both ends of the car to unlimited. Rule goes from improving the balance of a stock car to improving the performance.
4) Allow only strut equipped cars to add unlimited camber. Seems unfair to non-strut equiped cars. GT3 gets more camber, Z06 gets squat.
5) Allow rims to vary in diameter plus or minus 1 inch. Varying the rim was proposed because A6s didn't come in 19s and 20s. If you ban A6s why do you need to vary the rim diameter?
6) Allow computer tuning. You gots to be kidding...this is supposed to be a stock rule?

Non of these things makes a noob in a noob car more likely to want to play with SCCA in stock classes. It's harder with this proposal to show up with a stock car and compete than with my simple solution up front.

When the solution is simple and not followed then there is another agenda going on here. IMHO.

Golf may be in my future.

hklvette

I chuckled a bit when I read this. I started a thread about the mythical "STZ" a while back on the other forum, and some really interesting opinions came out...

Link For anyone who is interested in reading it...

talon95

I think this year's combination of most of the stock classes to index classes for ProSolo is a real indication. They are so poorly subscribed now (except for SS and the 1 or 2 others that did not get combined) that they never even make a full class anymore at so many events that it was necessary to combine them.

Admittedly some parts of the country this is not true (east coast), but most other places it is. Just look at the entries for the upcoming west coast events for an example. Huge turnout for RT. Equaling or exceeding the regular stock classes. And RT is just provisional and an index class which has to hurt participation some.

You can blow that article off all you want, but IMO it was well written and hits the nail on the head.

Dave G.

RX7 KLR

So your simple solution is to double the number of classes? Yes, please, don't write a letter.

Just give everyone a trophy as soon as they pay the entry fee because you wont have three cars in every class when you double up.

froggy47

Can a single member write more than one comment to SEB? I already sent one (about the shocks), but the more I think about it & discuss it with people the more arguments & questions about the proposal I come up with.

ltborg

I don't know if there is a limit, but if it is on different topics, I would think it would be OK. I'm drafting mine now...

Solofast

There is no limit.

Some folks write concise short letters and others write long winded letters that cover multiple aspects. I've always felt that a short, to the point well written letter gets across better. On a proposal such as this it is perhaps better to write a letter on each aspect so that you point in one area won't get lost in a response that covers a lot of issues.

JMHO but you are trying to make a point and if you make 12 points, some will get lost in the mix, and if the person reading the letter disagrees with one point he may discount your opinion on the others...

ltborg

Well said.

TedDBere

No, there are still just 8 stock classes. From an event running and rules point of view there are only 8 stock classes. In fact my proposal reduces the number of classes by eliminating the three street tire classes and distributing those competitors back into the regular stock classes. The only thing that changes is the trophy ceremony. And I wouldn't object to limiting the trophies to the top three in the class, and the top three street tired competitors in the class, which might actually be the same people.

This allows the transition from Dot-Rs to street tires to occur naturally without disenfranchising anyone. Why is this so hard to accept? I'm proposing to keep the events and rules the same while growing stock class participation without relying on indexing to select winners. Seems easy to me.

SteveC68

Because the BFG Rival doesn't come in a 19" size.

SteveC68

Not that I'm doubting your statement about the success of ST, but do you have actual numbers to back up your statement? The SoloMatters article has actual numbers and it's really difficult to argue with the 2007 Stock entrants of 428 sliding to 237 in 2012. That's damn near a 50% reduction. Even the almighty SS has declined over 35% according to article. I'd have a tough time believing they ALL went to ST. Obviously something is wrong with the Stock class formula in it's present form. The SEB is taking a stab at making some changes to the rules to reverse the trend.

talon95

SS has taken a hit too, just not as badly,

2007: 77
2008: 69
2009: 73
2010: 72
2011: 52
2012: 50

And there is no ST class for those cars, so you can't say creating more classes caused it. I do know that there are multiple former SS competitors in the ST classes now though. Why they moved I don't know for certain.

Dave G.

RX7 KLR

In 2007 there were 186 ST competitors at the Solo Nationals (1157 total entries).
In 2012 there we 254 ST competitors (1128 total entries).

Stock has gone down 44% since 2007.
ST has gone up 36% since 2007.
Attendance at the Solo natls dropped 2.5% from 2007 to 2012 - however, 2012 was up over 2011.

Looking at results the biggest single hit is glaringly oblivious, and it is not SS, which went from 77 in 2007 to 50 in 2012.
In 2007 there were 66 cars in AS/ASL, which was then S2000 territory. In 2012 BS/BSL (the S2000 and associated cars were moved down to B in 2010) totaled 31 cars, a 53% decline. Where did they all go? STR/L had 60 cars - 26 of them S2000s.

As I have said before, if people want ST classes, give them to them. But don't change the stock rules in a half@ss attempt to get there. You consolidate/eliminate under-performing classes to make room for new ones.