Why it is not about washer bottles

[AntonioGG]

I like Orval too!

[jackedrabbit]

I plan on installing a radio in the GTI ITB I'm building. The tape deck just dosen't cut it. A pair of
Rockford Fosgate 12" subs should add just enough weigh in the back to keep the rear tires down. I have one of those DVD players thst folds down from the roof too... Yellow flags would be less borring being able to catch a few minutes of "Gone in 60 Seconds". (The original one of course)

[ITC Racer]

I know of several IT/SM cars that get driven to and from the track and drove my car to and from when I started out.

I like the original (and mostly current) intent of IT and worry about creeping too far down the slope. I do not want to race Prod and SS is too stock for me. Touring would be fun but too expensive for my budget.

[JoshS]

I like the original (and mostly current) intent of IT and worry about creeping too far down the slope. I do not want to race Prod and SS is too stock for me. Touring would be fun but too expensive for my budget.
[/b]

This comment baffles me, and I've heard it a bunch. The only significant differences between SS and T:

- T allows replacement shocks/struts
- T allows replacement differentials
- T allows ECU upgrades (same rules as IT)
- The CRB might give individual car allowances.
- The slowest T class has faster cars than the fastest SS class

So, SS is too stock, but T sounds fun? They are, for all practical purposes, the same thing.

[lateapex911]

It's interesting that Touring fixes some of what I see as problems with SS:

Due to the absolute stockness of SS, it can become a car of the month/year category. Kaching!$$$ Nice car today, worthless tomorrow.

And then theres the special shock/trunk kit stuff...

And ECU problems, like top speed limiters, etc.

So, by allowing shocks, ECUs, and individual car allowances, Touring has the potential to fix some of the SS issues. But Touring cars seem to be much more expensive right out of the box.

Of course, the allowances are a bit of a Pandoras box, but, sometimes I wonder if SS wouldn't be better off with the touring rules? Cheaper, and longer wearing? Tastes better, AND less filling???

[Bill Miller]

It's interesting that Touring fixes some of what I see as problems with SS:

Due to the absolute stockness of SS, it can become a car of the month/year category. Kaching!$$$ Nice car today, worthless tomorrow.

And then theres the special shock/trunk kit stuff...

And ECU problems, like top speed limiters, etc.

So, by allowing shocks, ECUs, and individual car allowances, Touring has the potential to fix some of the SS issues. But Touring cars seem to be much more expensive right out of the box.

Of course, the allowances are a bit of a Pandoras box, but, sometimes I wonder if SS wouldn't be better off with the touring rules? Cheaper, and longer wearing? Tastes better, AND less filling???
[/b]

Jake,

That's pretty much what SS was when they still had trunk kits.

[Daryl DeArman]

"Ask any Formula car driver and he'll tell you that a "real race car" isn't made by Chevy or ford or even Porsche.

Think Lola, Reybard, etc.

Ask any formula car driver with wings and he'll tell you it's gotta have wings to be "real". it's all about your perspective....
[/b]

Every once in a while a man bites a dog....

I race a formula car and whether it was when I raced a FF or a FV I felt there isn't a difference between a race car and a "real" race car. Any car that someone races is a race car. ALL of them have a list of compromises in their design. Some of them are just closer to cars you and I drive on the street than others. When an open wheel guy says real race cars have wings think of the cars that he is excluding from his elitist mind...When an open wheel guy says real race cars don't have fenders...he forgets that he is racing a car with a motor that originated in a tractor, a pinto or worse yet is air cooled and makes maybe 60HP. Some of them have H-Beams and swing axles, or spindles from a sprite.

Back on topic....

[charrbq]

A few years ago the powers that were tried to convert all SS into Touring and drop the SS rules. It was met with a huge clamor of negativity. Most of the complaints were from the SSB and SSC crowd made up of mostly Neon drivers that went into both classes that were now becoming one. I would suppose that the Chrysler Corp. bunch had some influence in the complaining, but that's only conjecture. Sooo, the powers that were retained SSB and SSC sorta as they were, but gave us T1 and later T2 for the guys with incredible amounts of bucks to afford the car of the year program that can be modified to run faster than AS and in the rarified air of GT1. They still talk of doing away with all of SS, and probably eventually will.

I wonder if it will ever happen to IT...in the way distant future, when the attempts will be made to move us into "limited prep" in order to go national racing or whatever. I hope not. It's all I can do to afford this "cheap" class of racing.

[JoshS]

Actually just this year, the SEB tried to merge SSB and T3, and convert SSC to T4.

Combining SSB and T3 was shot down primarily because the manufacturers didn't want to combine their cars into one class. SSC to T4 was shot down primarily because the SSC drivers didn't want to have to fork out money for upgraded shocks, which can be a huge cost item on a showroom stock budget.

There were other concerns as well, of course. My opinion is that even if the SSB/T3 merge wasn't proposed (i.e., SSB->T4 and SSC->T5), the members still would have shot it down.

[charrbq]

Shot down...probably, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen in the near future, guns loaded or not. Just an opinion.

I still don't understand how a shock upgrade or such being expensive can be used in the same sentence with SS racing and "tight budget". A new car every couple of years to remain competitive is hardly what I'd call a tight budget. The only true advantage I can see to SS is that there just isn't as much that's allowed to be messed with (improved upon) as there is in Touring or even IT. Therefore, you don't spend as much time in the garage...or do you?

[Bill Miller]

Shot down...probably, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen in the near future, guns loaded or not. Just an opinion.[/b]

It was the mfg's that got it shot down, plain and simple. There was a copy of a letter floating around from Mr. Heinricy and his counterparts from some of the other mfg's (Mazda, Suburu, etc.) that pretty much strong-armed the BoD into scratching the idea. I later spoke w/ a Director, and he confirmed that it was the pressure from the mfg's that killed the idea.

I still don't understand how a shock upgrade or such being expensive can be used in the same sentence with SS racing and "tight budget". A new car every couple of years to remain competitive is hardly what I'd call a tight budget. The only true advantage I can see to SS is that there just isn't as much that's allowed to be messed with (improved upon) as there is in Touring or even IT. Therefore, you don't spend as much time in the garage...or do you?
[/b]

Thank you Chris! I'm glad I'm not the only one that sees it this way. The whole "It's SS, so we don't have to have big budgets to run the cars." is one of the biggest red herrings out there. If you don't believe that, just look at the cost of a top-tier Spec Miata. You don't hear much about prices for SS cars, because there's just not that large of a secondary market for them. But if people are spending $6k on a Sunbelt 'stock' SM motor, you can believe that people at the front of the SS grids are spending big $$$ on their cars (parts-bin blueprinting, etc.)

Merry Christmas everyone!

[lateapex911]

Agreed!

If you want to be a fast SS guy (Runoffs bound) I bet SS is pretty darn pricey.

Here's the steps:
Buy car: 25k?
Cage and misc gear: 2-3k
Blueprint motor 8k plus minus.
Wheels tires: 2-3k

rough total to get rolling: 37 -40K

Race for a year.

New car gets introduced in class. Welcome to the mid pack.

Car value???

Uggggg....8k?

Net cost for a year? 30K...plus expenses. Now that doesn't always happen, but if things don't go right, it can. Not to mention the possible write off.

At least in touring, from what I understand, the mechanism to avoid the "car of the year" syndrome exists, somewhat protecting the investment. In SS, you're praying they get the new classifications spot on, becasue if they don't, you are up the creek with no paddle, and the canoe is leaking.....and the water is cold...and filled with poisonous snakes, lol.

[JoshS]

Not as bad as you say. I built an SSC car (Mazda3) for the '05 season.

The car was $16K brand new and the motor was $4K. So it was already $13K under your estimate, to get rolling. It's resale value was better than your estimate too.

[lateapex911]

True, it can be done for less, of course, and it's not guaranteed that the car will become an also ran, but it can happen. The classing aspect can bite from time to time. Happens in Stock class autocrossing. Not often, but it does happen.

(Or, ask the guy who heard that they were doing away with SSC last year, sold his car before it was REALLY too late, then found out that they changed their mind. Ugg! LOL)

[charrbq]

Here&#39;s a good example of an SSB winner. The champion SSB Pontiac Solstice for 2006 had a hired driver that didn&#39;t own the car and was surrounded by GM mechanics at every possible moment. The car was as perfect and legal as the rules and GM would allow. The same scenario happened a couple of years ago with the same driver in a Cadillac CTS-V. I would imagine that the monetary investment in those two cars was in the area of Donald Trump land. Next year, all those eager to win guys will go out and buy two seater Pontiacs in hopes of winning a national championship. Trade those Miatas in for another $25,000 car that probably won&#39;t win again...unless you can trace you ancestory back to Chief Pontiac. But SS is a cheap class...more than touring...and much more than IT. <_<

[Bill Miller]

Not as bad as you say. I built an SSC car (Mazda3) for the &#39;05 season.

The car was $16K brand new and the motor was $4K. So it was already $13K under your estimate, to get rolling. It&#39;s resale value was better than your estimate too.
[/b]

Yes Josh, but you didn&#39;t include the cage/safety gear, or wheels/tires. And I&#39;ll give you the benefit of the doubt, say the car was $25k w/ everything. Where&#39;d you finish in the Division, and how&#39;d you do at the Runoffs?

[JoshS]

Me and two friends built identical cars, all for about that price ($25K is a lot less than Jake&#39;s estimate).

We finished 1-2-3 in the division, and finished 4th, 5th, and 13th at Runoffs (of 39 cars). If I hadn&#39;t had to miss the one cool qualifying day, I wouldn&#39;t have gotten caught up in first-turn mayhem, and I&#39;m sure I would have finished higher. After the first turn I found myself in 27th place, so I&#39;m happy enough with 13th.

Still, one of the reasons I&#39;m going to IT is because I&#39;ve realized that if you&#39;re just "a guy with a race car," who has a day job that&#39;s not car related, national club racing is a tough place to be if you&#39;re as competitive as I am. I don&#39;t have the time or the resources to compete with some of those teams. SSC is probably one of the few classes where "a guy with a race car" can win.

[charrbq]

Welcome to IT, where the racing is fun and competitive, and the cost is not how much have you got to spend, but how much do you want to spend.

[41hstock]

My biggest beef with stock classes are the ability for some cars to legally adjust camber while others cannot. Just make camber adjustment legal across the board. Saves cost on tires!!!

[lateapex911]

My biggest beef with stock classes are the ability for some cars to legally adjust camber while others cannot. Just make camber adjustment legal across the board. Saves cost on tires!!! [/b]

Ah...and therein lies the rub.

Making cambber adjustable would ,
-A- Decrease tire costs
or
-B- Increase performance
or
-C- Both of the above

"C" is correct, and when the B part is realized the sompetitive balance is upset. That can be good, or bad, but if the class setters have it right to begin with, then it&#39;s bad. And when you change an allowance like that for an entire category, the results will be a change in performance equity. Which could result in the need to adjust the classing.

So changes like that can be double edged swords.