S197 Mustang in SCCA Solo: STX vs STU vs ESP?

[Mountain]

neither has both of mine or Terry Fair's been read.

 

[sholzer]

I was looking forward to seeing the response in there. Had another abysmal (IMO) weekend in STX due to some issues with broken lug nuts for my new wheels/tires lol

 

[Whiskey11]

I was looking forward to seeing the response in there. Had another abysmal (IMO) weekend in STX due to some issues with broken lug nuts for my new wheels/tires lol

Ouch... =\

I wouldn't mind Dave giving us some more insight onto what the SEB/STAC is thinking on the move. I really wish we could have some sort of chat with these folks in real time. I just really wish we had a better data set from which to compare an STX prepped car to an STU car on 265s vs 285s and get some real world data points from which to compare the cars in each trim level.

 

[sholzer]

Ouch... =\

I wouldn't mind Dave giving us some more insight onto what the SEB/STAC is thinking on the move. I really wish we could have some sort of chat with these folks in real time. I just really wish we had a better data set from which to compare an STX prepped car to an STU car on 265s vs 285s and get some real world data points from which to compare the cars in each trim level.

It was disheartening to say the least. Still managed 15th overall pax out of 109 drivers and 2nd in class, losing to a decently prepped FRS on coils and fresh R-S3s by .1 seconds. I should've just stayed in ESP though, would've won that class with the time I ran lol, competition wasn't too strong there.

But huge +1 to wishing we could get some realtime feedback rather than having to wait months for a response

 

[dontlifttoshift]

Anything coming out of the rumor mill on this?

 

[Whiskey11]

Anything coming out of the rumor mill on this?

Rumor Mill, not really anything. Apparently a comment was made on an RX8 forums about the Mustangs getting moved but nothing official. I didnt see anything in the SEB minutes about it being discussed only the "Street" proposal stuff. The letter tracker says that my letter hasnt left the STAC yet...

 

[Vorshlag-Fair]

Speaking of the SEB minutes...

http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/assets/May%20SEB%20Draft%20Minutes1.pdf

That is a very disappointing read. There were bold new big proposals that were made earlier this year (read this to see what I'm talking about) to finally update the Stock class, for the first time in 40 years. This is the "entry level" set of classes that is supposed to attract the new autocrossers, or those with the tightest budgets, and the appeal is supposed ot be that the car is nearly "stock". But over the years the following mods were allowed in Stock:

1. R compound tires. Lately this is 0-40 treadwear gumball tires like the Hoosier A6. These can last literally less than 20 runs on certain cars with compromised OEM suspensions that lack front camber (which is most). You can use any size tire that fits the wheel, and it can have no tread visible as long as there are no cords. And even-softer-special compound "wet" tires are allowed. These will chunk in 1-2 autocross runs if used in the dry, but int he wet they allow for god-like grip and if it rains and you don't have the special "wet" race tires, you just better plan on being slower than everyone that does... by a LOT.
2. Crazy money custom shocks. I showed an example in my first post on this thread, and these can literally costs $6-10K. I know, because I have spec'd, built and sold these to too many Stock class people. I always try to talk them out of these, but they DO help dramatically, and at the top levels of Stock autocrossing, cost is no object. In Stock you can build double adjustable, remote reservoir, custom valved shocks with LOTS of extra Nitrogen pressure that look nothing like the OEM strut or shock layout. You can go from a 22mm shaft OEM strut to a 50mm shaft inverted. As long as it was within 1" of the factory stroke and kept the car at the same ride height, it was cool. The shock rules are written TERRIBLY, and we've said as much for many years. And we make money off of this flaw in the rules, so it goes against my business sense to fight this rule set.
3. Custom lightweight exhaust systems and even stock or custom systems that don't go halfway the length of the car.
4. Custom swaybar on either end of the car, but not both ends. These have "unrestricted" mounting (don't ask me what that words means!), and we have seen splined bars with adjustable aluminum ends, ball bearing "pillow ball" chassis mounts, etc.
5. Any aftermarket wheel that is with 1/4" of the stock offset, but has to be identical width and diameter. So you can drop $3000 on 3-piece Forgelines, but you have to use the OEM diameter, which often precludes you from R-compound tires (if that diameter isn't supported). Ex: when I bought a new C6 Corvette in 2004 it took Hoosier 3 years before they made 19" R-compounds, but this car came with 19x10" rears so we couldn't autocross it in stock (and later sold the car because of this limitation).
6. SOME cars can alter the camber outside of the stock range IF their factory repair manual allow for slotted struts, "crash bolts", or other alternate repair methods. This applies to very few cars. Many cars that seem to dominate Stock classes have double A-arm suspensions, and those with McPherson struts that DON'T have these factory authorized fixes are usually either not raced at all or the owners live with extreme front tire wear (and generally not being competitive as well).

That's not all of the allowed changes in Stock, but the most significant ones. With the gumball tires and uber shocks allowed, many of the top Stock class cars are trailered race cars that never see any other uses - which is fine, I guess. With the right prep, a good driver, and fresh A6 tires a Stock class car can be 5-10+ seconds faster around a typical autocross course than any random newbie's similar model that just shows up to his first autocross. The top racers tend to swap out their cars to the "new hot model" every 3-4 years, as new cars are built and placed in their preferred class. So after you buy the latest special model of the hot car, get the custom shocks, your two sets of race wheels/tires (dry and wet), the titanium exhaust, and all of the other tricks are performed... it becomes one of the MOST expensive classes in all of SCCA Solo to win in, and the opposite of the "entry level category" that SCCA claims.

--------changes are afoot!----------

Enter the proposed changes, turning Stock into Street. Here's what was originally proposed...

1. R-compound tires are gone. The UTQG rating changes to 140 treadwear in 2014 and 200 treadwear in 2015 and beyond. This will massively save racers on "costs per run" and not make for these HUGE disparities between the OEM tires and custom race-only dry and wet tires used by Stock class racers today, which were used for only 1-2 events by the top racers (as they would "fall off" in performance quickly, even before wearing away all of the rubber).
2. Wheel diameter can be changed +/-1" from the OEM size, to allow for more tire choices and better tire pricing. Many have been asking for this for a decade or two! This isn't a performance change, it is a COST savings and allows cars with ridiculous wheel diameters to hopefully get into something more manageable or covered by the right tire makers.
3. Camber plates are allowed! This will finally add some parity to the long-suffering McPherson strut cars, putting them a step closer to the double-A arm cars. It will also save racers LOTS OF MONEY in tire wear, typically paying for the camber plate costs in the first set of tires used.
4. Full exhaust systems are required, just like the factory systems these cars come with. It has to exit where the stock system did. Duh.
5. Crazy remote reservoir shocks were banned, with them grandfathered in 2014 and phased out by 2015. Big cost savings for anyone wanting to compete in Street.
6. Traction Control and Stability Control systems can be defeated. This is key on the latest cars being built, most of which have ESC and/or TCS that cannot be turned off without some fuse being pulled or wire being cut (which wasn't allowed before). These massively hinder autocross performance, where wheelspin and yaw are needed to get a car to rotate, and stay competitive to the old cars that don't have these non-defeatable electronic nannies.
7. A "Limited Prep Street Prepared" was proposed for those who wanted to keep their

Again, all of reasons behind these proposed changes are better explained by the SEB themselves in this article: http://www.solomatters.com/2013/03/street-catagory-proposal-explained/

In the thread linked here I explained more about why camber is SO important to modern McStrut cars. I even showed the example of one of the OEM spring camber plates we make for the BMW 1M, and how well it has been received - because it pays for itself in the owners first track day.

Left: OEM 1M tires after 2 track sessions (no camber). Right: BMW 1M with Vorshlag OEM spring camber plates (up to -2.9° adjustment)

----------where are we now?------------

So what has happened since this was proposed in March? A lot of people agreed with most or all of the proposed changes. I wholeheartedly endorsed ALL of them, as each one both lowers the running costs of racing as well as opens the category up to the modern cars that the "new blood" members the club desperately needs to attract and keep seem to be bringing to autocrosses. But the folks in Super Stock pitched a royal fit, as they cannot live without their R compound crutch. And a few key members got pretty riled up and put some pressure on the SEB, and muddied the waters enough online to confuse SCCA members into thinking they would be spending MORE money racing in Street vs Stock (which is the opposite of reality). And then this happened...

• May 2013 FasTrack (March 27th): http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/assets/13-fastrack-may-solo.pdf
• Minutes from SEB meeting, May 11-12: http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/assets/May SEB Draft Minutes1.pdf

Between the March and May SEB meetings they have completely gutted the original proposal. So now all of the meat has been pulled, except for the tires and wheel diameter. Gone is the great equalizer: camber allowances for all. Gone are the limits on spending with respect to crazy custom shocks and the two swaybar option, as the old rules fell back into place. And Super Stock gets to keep R compounds, and essentially has no changes.

------------oh well!-----------------

In short... Stock class is still the same old same old broken category where you can spend too much money and make pretty small improvements, but can do none of the sensible mods that really transform the handling or fix tire wear issues (swaybars, camber allowance). They did reign in some spending by banning R compounds, but the camber limited cars (aka: the vast majority) will be in as much if not more trouble with front tire wear as before, and of course will be no more competitive with the double A-arm cars than previously.

I feel that the SEB caved to pressure from a few old, entrenched blow-hards and let the internet zoo turn the tables on these much needed changes. This will not revive this entry level category in Solo and attendance will likely continue to decline.

So for those of you that were looking at "Street" as the cost saving, entry level autocross class... it is probably time look elsewhere. So far the SCCA has a stranglehold on autocrossing, but time might see some other options. HPDE and Time Trial/Time Attack are always options, too. But if you want to autocross against real competition, the SCCA is pretty much it for now.

Other than a few obtuse rules I strongly disagree with you can look at Street Prepared ($$HOOSIER$$) for the extreme prep Mustang, but Street Touring would still be the right place for most S197 folks, as this class allows you to fix the suspension problems the right way (no, not $6000 custom shocks that keep the stock spring - go to proper coilovers fir 1/3rd that cost), swaybars, and most importantly WIDER WHEELS AND TIRES than stock, and you can move down to 17 or 18" diameters, not 19". And without the costs of R compounds, and no "hybrid" drivetrain swaps (update/backdate). The S197 Mustang is still stuck in the "wrong" ST class for the moment (STX), but if/when it gos to STU this will be a fun place to autocross this car. You can make a difference... write those letters! http://www.sebscca.com/.

Cheers,

 

[Roadracer350]

I have tried to read their rules and its to confusing.
Im still trying to figure out what class to see about running in.

 

[lost won]

SCCA circus

Stay tuned. Monday, May 20 should see the release of V3 (and hopefully the FINAL) of the proposal we've been talking about.
Probably will see the release of the new "Appendix A" (car classing) for the new Street classes, also.
This should finally set the stage for rules for 2014 and beyond.


I kid a lot; but I wouldn't want to be in the middle of the battle going on in the SEB/SAC world right now. The collateral damage is already the resignation of two very well known SAC members.

Needless to say; I'm not investing a another dime in my now F Stock Mustang until I get a feel for the 2014/15 rule set.

Update 17 May: Found a "draft" of the above mentioned Version 3 and Appendix A as follows:
http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/assets/May%20SEB%20Draft%20Minutes1.pdf

Could easily be a whole new ballgame...
Sorry for getting off the subject. Now back to your regularly scheduled Corner Carvers thread.

 

[Vorshlag-Fair]

Good input there, Lost Won.

The "final" (aka 4th) Street Category proposal is out: http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/assets/13-fastrack-june-solo.pdf

This matches the "SEB Minutes" link I put in my last post, showing most of the bold new proposals for Street mostly being gutted. They have yanked out the camber plate allowance, which as I stated above will crush the hopes of many owners of modern cars with McPherson strut suspensions.

If your car doesn't have a "crash bolt" or camber slotting allowance repair from the factory (for YOUR year and model car) in the shop manual then you are SOL. Street tires are as easily damaged by lack of camber as R compounds, and in some cases worse so (Hoosier A6 is designed to work with less camber).

So when you guys running in the new Street class get tired of shredding your now 140 treadwear front tires, there's always Street Touring or Street Prepared (but those categories are hardly perfect). The first mod that is allowed in both classes that most people should do is: camber adjustment!

The two pictures at the top of my post are from an autocross 2 days ago, and both were Stock classed McPherson strut cars on street tires. Both suffered from a severe lack of front camber and exhibited MASSIVE understeer and significant front tire wear. That is common. Our red Mustang above ran at the same event, and made a metric truckload more grip on 315 A6 tires, but as you can see had less bodyroll and less camber loss, which came from the fact that it started off with -3.5° front negative camber... from our adjustable camber plates. This is a part that will pay for itself quickly, but the SEB failed to see that.

Cheers,

 

[boardkat]

letter finally submitted. strongly suggested the STAC figure out how to make this car competitive in STX/STU, in light of those of us that will be on the outside looking in with overpower/overweight/undersprung/limited camber mcstrut cars in the new "street" world

suggested 285/10" allowance in STX, or a 315 allowance in STU for heavy live axle late model muscle cars.

 

[Whiskey11]

letter finally submitted. strongly suggested the STAC figure out how to make this car competitive in STX/STU, in light of those of us that will be on the outside looking in with overpower/overweight/undersprung/limited camber mcstrut cars in the new "street" world

suggested 285/10" allowance in STX, or a 315 allowance in STU for heavy live axle late model muscle cars.

I personally think the move to STU + 315's makes the most sense... You can move the "late model" Mustangs (05+) to STU and give us some wheels and tires and not mess with any of the "classics" in STX. Heck you could take the Mustang back to 1994 if you were REALLY concerned about leaving out the SN95 guys.

Right now I think the Mustang is the only Pony Car left in STX made after the millennium and certainly the only once since the 3rd Gen Camaro/Trans Am (Firebird?) stopped being produced. Both the LT1 and LS1 4th gen's are already in STU as well as the new ones based on engine displacement alone... Even the 3rd Gen Camaro/Trans Am had engines that would place them out of STX (the L98 was a 5.7L) depending on which engine you got.

The thought of having 315's at all four corners next year makes my mouth salivate! Not that it will necessarily get approved...

EDIT: Boardkat, I brought up your interest (not specifically naming you) as one of the potential stock guys looking at ST because of the Street proposal. I hope that is ok!

 

[sholzer]

submitted another letter asking for a move and/or live rear axle tire allowance #11557

 

[Whiskey11]

I just received an email stating that the STU move letter has moved out of the STAC and will be on the next SEB conference call. I'm assuming that means it will not be on THIS FasTrack but the one that comes out the 20th of July.

Of course, this decision is going to probably negatively impact those of us who just recently purchased wheels and tires, but it will hopefully be a step in the right direction either way.

 

[sholzer]

^^ +1 got the email earlier today about the letter that I sent in

 

[boardkat]

x2..

 

[sholzer]

Here's to hoping for a wider tire allowance as well lol.. looking through the choices that would be available now, most are still pretty short, best height wise would be the 275/40 RE-11. Only the RS3's come in 285/35's and 285/30 options are way too short, at least for those of us with 3.73s (24.8" vs 27" stock), but there is a 295/35 Rival, and a 315/30 Rival. Looks like either way (STU or STX), our tire choices are still pretty slim

 

[boardkat]

Here's to hoping for a wider tire allowance as well lol.. looking through the choices that would be available now, most are still pretty short, best height wise would be the 275/40 RE-11. Only the RS3's come in 285/35's and 285/30 options are way too short, at least for those of us with 3.73s (24.8" vs 27" stock), but there is a 295/35 Rival, and a 315/30 Rival. Looks like either way (STU or STX), our tire choices are still pretty slim

lucky for us, FD's are easy (and cheap) to replace
i'll hold my breath until i see the write-up, but i really hope we get some kind of bone thrown to us. you won't hear me complaining if we get to run 285's on 10" rims in STX, even if the only realistic tire option is the 'kook. and i salivate at the thought of being able to run 315's on 18x12's in STU, definitely makes it a smooth (and ultimately cheaper) transition into ESP

 

[Whiskey11]

lucky for us, FD's are easy (and cheap) to replace
i'll hold my breath until i see the write-up, but i really hope we get some kind of bone thrown to us. you won't hear me complaining if we get to run 285's on 10" rims in STX, even if the only realistic tire option is the 'kook. and i salivate at the thought of being able to run 315's on 18x12's in STU, definitely makes it a smooth (and ultimately cheaper) transition into ESP

Yeah but you 5.0's only have two options in ST rules... 3.31's or 3.73's. You'd have to see what would work out best for performance.

I do get the distinct impression that there will be allowances... because that is what happens when Whiskey spends money on "maxing out" to the rules, only to find out that "maxing out" NOW, means getting screwed next year. Sometimes I wonder if the rule makers hate my bank account!

It's either that or they will throw their arms up in the air and go "I Don't Fucking know!" and then move along.

 

[boardkat]

Yeah but you 5.0's only have two options in ST rules... 3.31's or 3.73's. You'd have to see what would work out best for performance.

I do get the distinct impression that there will be allowances... because that is what happens when Whiskey spends money on "maxing out" to the rules, only to find out that "maxing out" NOW, means getting screwed next year. Sometimes I wonder if the rule makers hate my bank account!

It's either that or they will throw their arms up in the air and go "I Don't Fucking know!" and then move along.

huh? the 3.55 was a factory option for me too (at least it was when i built my 2013).. not that it matters, i'd be sticking with the 3.31 on either of a 285/315 anyway..

as for your 18x9's, they'll still have great value as an FStreet-legal 5.0 brembo option if the +/- 1" rule goes through (my stock wheels are 19x9 +42)