I have asked this question before but never given it it's own thread....

When do we get a street-tire class? All the SCCA needs to do is drop the back seat requirement for STU and the Z could race against the same cars it races against in B-Stock. (RX-8's, E36 M3's etc.) I don't see how the lack of a back seat, (that I never had in B-stock) suddenly becomes an unfair advantage when the RX-8's and E-36's throw on street tires and go to STU.

And I will be glad to take my chances against S2000's on street tires when they drop the competitively-irrelevant back seat requirement.

Ok. End rant

To those of you that run a street tire class in local autocross events; What class do your local autocross clubs allow you to run in?

 

I don't think there's a class for the Z that dedicates it to street tires. I just ended up buying r-comps to be competitive. I do believe you have a great argument though.

 

Your post really gets back to the whole issue of "stock" classes being allowed to run R-comp tires. Take that away from the stock classes and there's no need for a street-tire class.

Personally, I run "street" tires anyway in the stock classes. Sure, the car will never be as fast as potentially possible but with limited $ to spend that will have to suffice.

 

Ive heard rumors of an STU2 coming up soon

 

I wouldn't hold my breath. I know that a couple of regions are allowing the Z to run in STU with limited tire widths (basically the same tire widths as the AWD cars).

 

I can tell you there will be no new classes for 2008.

 

BSP

 

our local club has a stock (as well as other classes) street tire class and the times are indexed of your normal class...works well and makes sense to me

 

We have something similar in san diego also. Stock class rules except you are limited to street tires.

 

Yeah, the 350Z gets the royal dick in the butt form the SCCA for Solo classing. End of story. No one in the SCCA cares and no one is going to do anything about it. It's bullsh!t but what can you do.

DavidV, you're not very competative in BSP are you? Not with streets and those mods listed.

What screws the Z more, is that even if you have the $ for r-compounds, there's no way to transport them to events. It's goddamned rediculous that something hasn't been done since 2003.
This season, my local SCCA region (CCR) has a class called 'tire'
Any car from any non-tire class is welcome, and the winners are determined by pax. Like a pro class for street tire drivers. I won the season title in Tire this year.

 

? Haven't you seen all of the threads about hitches, trailers and such? I've towed a tire trailer with two different Z's in the last 3 years.

 

Certainly not. My competition (competition tires and racers skills) is tough. Street tires are challenging to say the least. Fun but challenging.

 

In truth the SCCA has had issues with the Z since 1973 thanks to the Z dominating it's classes for 10 straight years. SCCA finally decided to bump it up in classes, and has kept it there even though the others in the class (BS, BSP) like the M3 and 911 have gotten much better (and more expensive) over the years. If you really want to see desparity, try running the S30 cars (240z-280Z) in larger courses against M3's and the like.

 

You can fit 4 wheels/tires, jack, etc. in the Z as long as you don't have a roll cage or passenger. R comps last about as long as Falken RT-615's anyway. It's more a matter of- how much time do you want to spend changing tires at the event? Or is it the PAX you're trying to get around? I get annoyed because it'd be nice to see how we stack up against the EVO and STi on comparable tires and PAX indices.

 

SCCA provides a class for pretty much every car but they don't guarantee every car will be competitive. If you don't like the classsing, write a letter and then get your friends and fellow competitors to write letters. Cars do get reclassed based on member input. They aslo don't get reclassed based on member feedback - the proposed E36 BMW move from DSP to BSP is a classic example of member feed back having a huge affect on a supposedly "done deal." Stop bitching and start writing.

 

There is no street-tire class for the 350Z.

Well, actually the 350Z is an STU car with no back seat. I say this because the back-seat requirement is competitively-irrelevant. Hell, why not class cars by the presence or absence of a trunk? How about the number of seat belts? We don't want 4-seaters to have an unfair advantage over the true five seaters right? The back-seat requirement seems to be an arbitrary and meaningless requirement that could be easily removed without having to create a whole new class. If two cars can run against each other in a given stock class, the same cars should be allowed to compete in a street-tire class with the same limits.

As far as being competitive, I thing the 8's and the S2k's would still give us fits when driven by good drivers, but I would much rather take on an S2k on street tires than just about anything on race rubber. (When I'm on street tires of course.)

 

Re: How about that STU2?
« Reply #7 on Jun 22, 2007, 11:34am »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STU2..............WHY?

the Sti=AS,BSP,STU
the evo=AS,BSP,STU
the RX8=BS,BSP,STU
(I'm sure several BMWs also fit in these classes)

If the Z is considered competitve with these cars stock and street preped (on race tires) then why shouldn't it be in STU? Who cares if has 2 seats.....the performance potential is similar to other cars in the class. If anything it would be at a disadvantage b/c the rally cars can still use all their power on st tires. Thinking that the number of seats matters is an antiquated notion that the SCCA should get past.

(steps down from soap box)

mike


Here is my rant from the local club's board.

ulllose....As a member of the SEB, how would you respond to this argument? Unofficially, of course.

 

Why is this some kind of anti-Z conspiracy? Here's a short list of sports cars too small to carry race tires inside the cabin which aren't allowed in ST:

• Chevrolet Corvette
• Honda S2000
• Lotus Elise
• Pontiac Solstice
• Porsche Boxster
• Porsche GT3

How is this an anti-Z conspiracy again?

 

There are a number of ways to approach this.... I seriously doubt any answers I provide to you will make anyone happy, because they are not necessarily the answers you want to hear, but I will give it a whirl.

STU, like all of the ST classes except STS2, was founded on sedans and four seat cars from day one. At one time there was discussion of excluding the RX-8, before my time, some consider it a "sports car", but I think when it showed it was not competitive in STU that talk was dropped. Funny thing is one of the slowest cars in BS, the E36 M3 has been a contender in STU. The cars that tend to not be so good in stock class trim, like the M3, are often great ST/SP cars because you can fix the issues they have in stock. Much like the Z, the stock class M3 suffers from a lack of front camber, crappy LSD, soft springs and skinny front wheels. All of these issues go away in SP/ST giving you the opportunity to make the car much faster. The RX-8 on the other hand does not have a camber or LSD issue, and with its light weight even the wheels and tires are proportionately right, so it works great in stock. However, once you leave stock you can spend north of $15k on it, ask Sipe sometime, and the car will see little if any improvement. This makes the RX-8 a dog in SP/ST.

As far as your comparison to the rally cars in ST, remember they are limited to a 245mm tire while the 2wd cars get a 275.

I thought it would be nice if we allowed the S2K, 350Z and other two seat cars run in STU with the same tire limitation as the AWD cars. This imho would limited the benefit to the "lighter more powerful" two seat cars yet still allow them a place to play. But to be honest I have never written a letter to that effect, and even in my position that is the only way to get something on the table.

I think it would be cool to give the two seat cars a place to play, but I would never support allowing them in to STU without a restriction. The class is very successful as is and to upset it appease a few Z owners would be crazy. I say a few because we have never seen more than a few in any class. As long as your numbers are low you will continue to "get the shaft" just like BMW and Porsche owners. I am still at a loss as to how people can say the Z is not classed competitively when a number of them have had top finishes at natls and the prosolo finale.

I see lots of people **** and moan about how their car is classed on forums, I have also seen lots of people say that R tires should not be in stock... I can count the number of SCCA members that have sent in letters about it on one hand. Are you sure the demand for this is as big as you think? Most of the time we find it is just a few people asking for an I Class.

 

These are fine;

• Honda S2000
• Pontiac Solstice
• Porsche Boxster

These are from SS and SS is a faster class than the A and B stock classes that mostly feed STU.

• Chevrolet Corvette
• Lotus Elise
• Porsche GT3

A and B stock cars are already allowed in STU. I am suggesting that they should all be allowed. Again the abcense of a back seat is competitively-irrelevant for the stock classes. Are we to think it suddenly makes a difference when the cars throw on street tires?

My brother is winning our local STU class this year in his STI. He and I have had our own "unofficial" STU competition this year. With the exception of two events, out of something like 12 total, the gap between he and I has been close all year long. Before you chalk this up to driver discrepancy, consider that he and I had only a .113 second gap between us at the Orlando "Rev it up" competition when we raced identical-preped cars.

http://www.revitup.com/results_searc...lts&searchStr=
(We are the Lawson brothers @ the 16th and 18th spot)

Also, at the Subaru Challenge, we raced the same exact car (his STI) and had only 2 tenths between us.

I think the fact that his STU STI and my Z (which is prepped to the STU RWD standards -275 rubber on the rear) run so close on a consistent basis shows parity between the two cars. Think about it. I doubt the SCCA has tracked the performance of Z's or S2K's on street rubber because they have no street tire class for them to demonstrate their competitivenes (or lack thereof). It should at least be tried.