|
Re: SCCA is adding a Solo class just for Pro-Touring cars!
[Re: mopardamo]
#1553167
12/26/13 08:49 PM
12/26/13 08:49 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,406
Pikes Peak Country
TC@HP2
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,406
Pikes Peak Country
|
Quote:
Problem is that the 200TW is not a standard in of itself.
All the 200tw rule will drive is turning 100tw tires into 200s to meet the rule.
I mentioned it in the 295 tire thread, but tread wear ratings are not absolutes. Instead they are a relative ratings within that specific manufacturers line of tires.
Mickey Thompson makes a lot of very specialized, high grip racing tires. If a race slick is rated 0, then a tire that lasts twice as long is 100 and one that last four times as long is 200. However, at the four times longer tread life, they are only claiming 15,000 mile capability on a street car, I'd say that tire is fairly soft.
By contrast, Multi-Mile makes tires regularly rated at 400tw ratings that go 50-60,000 miles. To cut that mileage in half and get a 200tw rating, they change the formula and give up 30,000 miles, but you have a tire that is still twice as hard as the MT example above.
Even the recent Hot Rod tire test showed that not all 200 rated tires are equal in grip. If the 200tw rating was an absolute, then it would have produced results a whole lot narrower.
Maybe the key is to call out a durometer rating instead. This prevents anyone from soaking their 200tw tires in compounds to turn them into 40s.
|
|
|
Re: SCCA is adding a Solo class just for Pro-Touring cars!
[Re: TC@HP2]
#1553168
12/26/13 08:54 PM
12/26/13 08:54 PM
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 96,666
On The Boat, On The Lake, Wa. ...
amxautox
Still Retired. Still Posting on Moparts. A Lot.
|
Still Retired. Still Posting on Moparts. A Lot.
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 96,666
On The Boat, On The Lake, Wa. ...
|
At what tire temp is the durometer to be used? Before a run, immediately after a run or a couple runs? After every run and average the readings? Before the first run and after the first run for a comparison?
Tom
"Everyone should believe in something; I believe I'll go fishing."
-Henry David Thoreau
Men and fish are alike. They both get into trouble when they open their mouths
author unknown
|
|
|
Re: SCCA is adding a Solo class just for Pro-Touring cars!
[Re: IndyDave]
#1553170
12/26/13 11:11 PM
12/26/13 11:11 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,302
Nebraska
72Swinger
master
|
master
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,302
Nebraska
|
Dave,
Keep plugging away at getting more, hopefully less expensive yet user friendly, classes going. I get pissed about the tire thing because my RA1's are 140tw but probably have twice the tread depth of a Rival. Tires are a huge expense and any that are stamped 200AA on the side are only getting more expensive. Hopefully with all the TW mandates they will become cheap and dime a dozen.
Mopar to the bone!!!
|
|
|
Re: SCCA is adding a Solo class just for Pro-Touring cars!
[Re: 72Swinger]
#1553171
12/27/13 12:58 AM
12/27/13 12:58 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 163
Speedway In.
IndyDave
OP
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 163
Speedway In.
|
Been playing with race cars of one kind or another my entire adult life and tires and tire rules have always been a hotly argued topic. No tire rule or the lack of any tire rule, someone is going to be unhappy.
In my experience, treadwear limits seem to be the best compromise. 140, 200, 500, whatever, it really doesn't matter. 200TW is the number most bodies settled on so 200 it is. That's how the TW rating for CAM was decided. Most other series that promote pro-touring autocrosses require 200TW so it would be the same in SCCA's rules. From what I understand 140TW tires are on their way to becoming extinct so 200TW will be the softest UHP tires in regular production by most manufactuers in the near future.
Dave Dusterberg
1979 Aspen R/T (soon to be #19 CAM/T)
2002 Ram 1500 SLT
2005 Magnum R/T
2005 Mustang GT SCCA CAM/C #19
|
|
|
Re: SCCA is adding a Solo class just for Pro-Touring cars!
[Re: EV2DEMON]
#1553172
12/27/13 01:14 AM
12/27/13 01:14 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,491
Lethbridge, AB, Canada
dangina
pro stock
|
pro stock
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,491
Lethbridge, AB, Canada
|
Quote:
Quote:
sounds like fun but the bigger dollar builds might blow away any competition because of the low # of restrictions, I like to see maybe class A stock pickup points(bolt in stock suspension) no cage, but can weld braces on the body,
class B unlimited
or
pre-64 class A
64-74 as class B
75+ class C
If the car has stock suspension pick up points etc.., it probably fits into an already existing class. This was created for cars that are modified beyond what the typical class rules would allow, but are still street cars as opposed to all out race cars.
I agree that the 3000 lbs is strange. They're forcing a bunch of cars to ballast right off the bat.
I mentioned stock pick up points but allowing extra bracing, scca classes are very strict on what you can and cannot weld. For example they don't allow stitch welding the chassis, or you can weld on one side of the subframe connectors but not to the floor plans.. I'd like to see a how much a car can look stock and pushed to the limits, just like the F.A.S.T series but taken to a new level 
|
|
|
Re: SCCA is adding a Solo class just for Pro-Touring cars!
[Re: IndyDave]
#1553173
12/27/13 02:08 AM
12/27/13 02:08 AM
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 96,666
On The Boat, On The Lake, Wa. ...
amxautox
Still Retired. Still Posting on Moparts. A Lot.
|
Still Retired. Still Posting on Moparts. A Lot.
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 96,666
On The Boat, On The Lake, Wa. ...
|
The 3,000 min weight. Would that be with or without the driver?
Tom
"Everyone should believe in something; I believe I'll go fishing."
-Henry David Thoreau
Men and fish are alike. They both get into trouble when they open their mouths
author unknown
|
|
|
Re: SCCA is adding a Solo class just for Pro-Touring cars!
[Re: IndyDave]
#1553179
01/05/14 10:15 PM
01/05/14 10:15 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,302
Nebraska
72Swinger
master
|
master
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,302
Nebraska
|
Im actually pretty cool with the 3000 lb thing. I will be hard pressed to get my Dart down there with driver especially if I ever put in a cage. The 68-69 Camaroes weigh in the 3500 range with cages with no driver but with all aluminum LS engine. If once my car gets back to making smoke one of these events is fairly close, im game. Even if I have to get some Dunlops for the front and Rivals or Michelins for the rear.
Mopar to the bone!!!
|
|
|
Re: SCCA is adding a Solo class just for Pro-Touring cars!
[Re: jcc]
#1553180
01/07/14 03:18 AM
01/07/14 03:18 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,491
Lethbridge, AB, Canada
dangina
pro stock
|
pro stock
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,491
Lethbridge, AB, Canada
|
Quote:
Quote:
Why the 3000lb weight limit ?
Why not 3200lb?
Seems like a lighter weight scares off more cars then a heavier car spec or adding ballast, which can be a track advantage as already mentioned vs those that don't need to to.
I'd prefer 3200 or even heavier so some of the bigger cars can be competitive, - I like to see a guy out with a monaco or fury tearing it up with the rest of the pack
|
|
|
Re: SCCA is adding a Solo class just for Pro-Touring cars!
[Re: jcc]
#1553183
01/07/14 12:12 PM
01/07/14 12:12 PM
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 841
Santa Fe Springs, CA
Dan@Hotchkis
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 841
Santa Fe Springs, CA
|
Quote:
Quote:
I'd rather have stricter rules that get loosened, vice the other way around. Best way to scare off competitors is to constantly strangle out purpose built cars that disenfranchised your intended participant crowd in the first place.
You lost me. 
Could you clarify?
Sure thing. The ruleset that I drafted and proposed was very similar to SM, however it catered to cars with a more resto-mod build in mind to compete rather than an all out pro-touring build. The intent was that a guy could spend 4-5k on a car to "prep" it, and be competitive. Suspension was limited to bolt on kits using factory suspension pick-up points. Engine blocks were restricted to the same alloy as manufactured, no fire wall modifications, etc. For the folks with coil over conversions, aftermarket subframes, and LS swaps, SCCA has classes for those(EP,XP,CP). And as I like to put it bluntly, if you can afford 15k in suspension, you can afford 1500 in tires and run with the big boys.
This method was widely agreed on in our region because out of the 6-8 regulars and 12 or so that come occasionally, it only really banned a couple of the higher end cars, and many of the guys who have been becoming tired of the rule sets at Good Guys wanted a place to be competitive....everyone wants a chance at a trophy, lol.
Good Guys finally had a rude awakening this year with the final shootout. An XP Lotus showed up, passed tech and was allowed to run Qual day. The following day of the shootout, he was "re-tech'd" and found illegal. At the pace he was running, he would have definitely been a top 3. What I'm getting at is Good Guys is becoming atomic warfare for cars. Big money cars are starting to show up in force and it is ruining a bit of the spirit of the event for competitors.
My fear with this current SCCA ruleset is that with the liberal rules now, people will invest a lot of money and man hours to build a car that is competitive in that liberal class. The big money builds will come out and the little guys (80% of the class' intended participants)will sulk away. Once the rules start to tighten year after year, it will be harder for the "purpose" built guys to forcast the class and they will go back to run what ya brung type events. The class will wither and die. Here in San Diego Region(SDR) we just voted this year that there will be only CAM1, and it will be 1978 and older. This will eliminate Fox bodies and the newer American Muscle guys in SM and ESP who were frothing at the mouth because they are not as competitive in their classes and feel they could clean up for easy trophies and a jacket in CAM.
All in all, I spent a lot of time making a ruleset for a class I was not going to compete in(I'll be in SM so I have no actual skin in the game), and I wanted it accessible(and winnable) to the nut and bolt/garage guys. They said my baby was ugly and now we'll just have to see how this ruleset pans out. I'll be doing my best to keep cranking out customer cars and herding them in that direction, at a couple events this year we had 4 customer cars out battling each other, and it was great to watch!
|
|
|
Re: SCCA is adding a Solo class just for Pro-Touring cars!
[Re: Dan@Hotchkis]
#1553184
01/07/14 03:32 PM
01/07/14 03:32 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 23,554
Here
jcc
No soup for you!!!
|
No soup for you!!!
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 23,554
Here
|
If I understand what your goal is then , since the main contention so far seems to be weight, then a 3600?b or higher weight would include a much wider group and at lower cost, then a 3000lb weight with driver, so then why 3,000lb? Getting to 3,000lbs will leave out a lot of cars that owners don't want to chop up, and hundreds of pounds is a big disadvantage. And I sympathizes with any rulemakers, as everyone is trying to find and edge.
I'm with Helmuth Hübener, and no soup is being served today.
|
|
|
Re: SCCA is adding a Solo class just for Pro-Touring cars!
[Re: jcc]
#1553185
01/07/14 04:06 PM
01/07/14 04:06 PM
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 96,666
On The Boat, On The Lake, Wa. ...
amxautox
Still Retired. Still Posting on Moparts. A Lot.
|
Still Retired. Still Posting on Moparts. A Lot.
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 96,666
On The Boat, On The Lake, Wa. ...
|
So...why should I have to add 500-600 pounds to my car to play? THAT'S not fair either.
Tom
"Everyone should believe in something; I believe I'll go fishing."
-Henry David Thoreau
Men and fish are alike. They both get into trouble when they open their mouths
author unknown
|
|
|
|
|
