From bfetch at tpg.com  Mon Dec  7 14:45:07 2009
From: bfetch at tpg.com (Fetch, Brandon)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 15:45:07 -0600
Subject: [Autox] (autox) Towing Upgrades
Message-ID: <A22AB7AA11C57342918639C100566F244671E77832@TXMAIL.texpac.com>

Seeing all the talk about towing reminded me of my recent trip through "towing
lane"...

I stumbled upon SCCAForums.com and they have a towing section with lots of
good tidbits (http://sccaforums.com/forums/70/ShowForum.aspx).

Anyway, Steve Hoelscher (that name rings a bell...) supplied enough data for
me to avoid any half-ton GM product like the plague.  He offered if I was
insisting on a GM product to be sure and get at least the 3/4 ton puppies as
their transmissions are seriously stronger/better/whatever than their half-ton
cousins.  His anecdote was from his trans repair shop owning days and he'd see
3-5 GM's per week needing full rebuilds, whereas the Dodge & Fords were 3-5
per month.  Of course, going with diesel from the outset would put you at the
top of the game regardless of what you're towing.

Since I was "only" towing a Spec Miata in an open trailer my requirements were
a bit lower than most which expanded my options considerably.

Between the Dodge or Ford products he indicated I couldn't go wrong with
either option but to be sure and get ones with the factory towing packages
(Class IV receiver, trans cooler, wiring...) as they have the rudimentary
accessories to assist with our greater (race car) towing requirements (300+
mile hauls, up/down terrain...)

I managed to find an '05 Expedition with the 5.4L and all the trimmings (no
Eddie Bauer for me thankyouverymuch!) and though it's only been 3-4k miles so
far on it (all towing mind you) I can say I'm pleased.

Good job on the 2500-series pick up with the bigger engine Phil...

L8R,
Brandon



This message is intended only for the person(s) to which it is addressed
and may contain privileged, confidential and/or insider information..
If you have received this communication in error, please notify us
immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action concerning
the contents of this message and any attachment(s) by anyone other
than the named recipient(s) is strictly prohibited.

From pethier at comcast.net  Mon Dec  7 15:45:40 2009
From: pethier at comcast.net (pethier at comcast.net)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 22:45:40 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Autox] (autox) Towing Upgrades
In-Reply-To: <A22AB7AA11C57342918639C100566F244671E77832@TXMAIL.texpac.com>
Message-ID: <1613476713.11157531260225940699.JavaMail.root@sz0119a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>

---- "Brandon Fetch" <bfetch at tpg.com> wrote:

> Good job on the 2500-series pick up with the bigger engine Phil...
> 
> L8R,
> Brandon

Thanks, but I don't do pickups.  It's a K-2500 Suburban.  Took the wife, her mom and all the grandkids out to get a couple holiday trees.  


Phil Ethier West Side Saint Paul Minnesota USA
1962 Triumph TR4 CT2846L
1979 Caterham 7
1994 Miata C-package
2004 Suburban 8.1
2007 Saturn Ion 3 2.4
http://www.triumphtransamerica.org.uk
http://forum.mnautox.com/forums
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pethier

From ebsalem1 at cox.net  Mon Dec  7 22:48:33 2009
From: ebsalem1 at cox.net (Eric Salem)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 23:48:33 -0600
Subject: [Autox] (autox) Towing Upgrades
References: <A22AB7AA11C57342918639C100566F244671E77832@TXMAIL.texpac.com>
	<1613476713.11157531260225940699.JavaMail.root@sz0119a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <004901ca77ca$14c2f2a0$3e48d7e0$@net>

What's a 'holiday tree'

-----Original Message-----
From: autox-bounces at autox.team.net [mailto:autox-bounces at autox.team.net] On
Behalf Of pethier at comcast.net
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 4:46 PM
To: Brandon Fetch
Cc: autox at autox.team.net
Subject: Re: [Autox] (autox) Towing Upgrades

---- "Brandon Fetch" <bfetch at tpg.com> wrote:

> Good job on the 2500-series pick up with the bigger engine Phil...
> 
> L8R,
> Brandon

Thanks, but I don't do pickups.  It's a K-2500 Suburban.  Took the wife, her
mom and all the grandkids out to get a couple holiday trees.  


Phil Ethier West Side Saint Paul Minnesota USA
1962 Triumph TR4 CT2846L
1979 Caterham 7
1994 Miata C-package
2004 Suburban 8.1
2007 Saturn Ion 3 2.4
http://www.triumphtransamerica.org.uk
http://forum.mnautox.com/forums
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pethier
Autox mailing list

http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/autox

http://www.team.net/archive

You are subscribed as ebsalem1 at cox.net

From autox at pursued-with.net  Tue Dec  8 01:36:46 2009
From: autox at pursued-with.net (Kevin Stevens)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 00:36:46 -0800
Subject: [Autox] (autox) Towing Upgrades
In-Reply-To: <004901ca77ca$14c2f2a0$3e48d7e0$@net>
References: <A22AB7AA11C57342918639C100566F244671E77832@TXMAIL.texpac.com>
	<1613476713.11157531260225940699.JavaMail.root@sz0119a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
	<004901ca77ca$14c2f2a0$3e48d7e0$@net>
Message-ID: <F3F6F276-42A6-4402-9963-FC0A8F03071A@pursued-with.net>

http://www.festivuspoles.com/pages/Festivuspoles.htm

It's like a Christmas tree but without the staging lights.

KeS


On Dec 7, 2009, at 21:48, Eric Salem wrote:

> What's a 'holiday tree'
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: autox-bounces at autox.team.net [mailto:autox-bounces at autox.team.net] On
> Behalf Of pethier at comcast.net
> Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 4:46 PM
> To: Brandon Fetch
> Cc: autox at autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: [Autox] (autox) Towing Upgrades
>
> ---- "Brandon Fetch" <bfetch at tpg.com> wrote:
>
>> Good job on the 2500-series pick up with the bigger engine Phil...
>>
>> L8R,
>> Brandon
>
> Thanks, but I don't do pickups.  It's a K-2500 Suburban.  Took the wife,
her
> mom and all the grandkids out to get a couple holiday trees.
>
>
> Phil Ethier West Side Saint Paul Minnesota USA
> 1962 Triumph TR4 CT2846L
> 1979 Caterham 7
> 1994 Miata C-package
> 2004 Suburban 8.1
> 2007 Saturn Ion 3 2.4
> http://www.triumphtransamerica.org.uk
> http://forum.mnautox.com/forums
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/pethier
> Autox mailing list
>
> http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/autox
>
> http://www.team.net/archive
>
> You are subscribed as ebsalem1 at cox.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
>
> Autox mailing list
>
> http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/autox
>
> http://www.team.net/archive
>
> You are subscribed as autox at pursued-with.net

From spitfirejoe at email.com  Tue Dec  8 23:35:26 2009
From: spitfirejoe at email.com (spitfirejoe at email.com)
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 01:35:26 -0500
Subject: [Autox] Towing discussion - another view point
In-Reply-To: <mailman.27.1260298802.24169.autox@autox.team.net>
References: <mailman.27.1260298802.24169.autox@autox.team.net>
Message-ID: <8CC46B0ED865468-11C4-3B68@web-mmc-m06.sysops.aol.com>

 A friend of mine just told me he talked a North East Iowa manufacturer into
building a "Small Bore" trailer.  It's a single axle design - built to be
"HEAVY DUTY, LIGHT WEIGHT, LOW COST, EASY TO LOAD, AND EASY TO TOW....AND
GARAGABLE"  (his words).  Basic trailer is only $1875.  It doesn't have all
the bells and whistles, but looks darn nice and rugged enough to do the job
for those of us that drive little race cars.  Some bells and whistles are
available as options - nose fairing, electric brakes, alloy wheels, strap
winch were listed.

I pull my AutoX Spitfires around on a homebuilt (not by me) single axle
trailer with my bone stock V6 Automatic Ford F150 Supercab.  I have not had a
lick of trouble, though it does knock my gas mileage down to about 14.  ;-)
After reading all the notes on this list about trailer towing, I'm certainly
going to have an auxiliary trans cooler installed before I do any more towing.
It just makes sense.  I do have a good hitch, and there was a wiring kit on
the truck from the factory.  Everything has worked well, but I'm not towing
excess tons of stuff.

My point here is that if you HAVE to have a big trailer and lots of spares and
lots of tools - they you have to have a big truck.  Many of us need to look at
the costs associated with all this, however.  If I don't have to carry
everything, I can get by with a lighter trailer and therefore a lighter truck.
You guys that are chasing your dreams all over the country certainly need to
have bigger trucks and trailers - no question about that.

The discussion was enlightening on several issues, and I appreciate all the
information.



Joe Guinan
Fremont, NE
NASS Member #31
spitfirejoe at email.com
********************************

From l8apexrs at q.com  Wed Dec  9 21:43:28 2009
From: l8apexrs at q.com (Paul and Meredith Brown)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 21:43:28 -0700
Subject: [Autox] Towing discussion - another view point
In-Reply-To: <8CC46B0ED865468-11C4-3B68@web-mmc-m06.sysops.aol.com>
References: <mailman.27.1260298802.24169.autox@autox.team.net>,
	<8CC46B0ED865468-11C4-3B68@web-mmc-m06.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <Snt132-w340FA7E2233A351E97DF139D8D0@phx.gbl>

Single-axle trailers scare me, though I do see quite a few of them around.
They are going to be a LOT less forgiving of weight distribution issues than
dual-axle trailers, and don't have the nice inherent sway damping.  Add to
that the feature you like, towing with a lighter tow vehicle, and your margin
for error goes down further.  Which is all to say, pay attention when you set
it up, and keep an eye on things like your tires and wheel bearings.  Do
something to make SURE the car is always loaded in the same place, and be very
careful about everything else that gets loaded on the trailer.  Probably a
good idea to even carry the same amount of gas in the race car, though if the
gas tank is over the trailer axle that wouldn't make much difference.

> To: autox at autox.team.net
> Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 01:35:26 -0500
> From: spitfirejoe at email.com
> Subject: [Autox] Towing discussion - another view point
>
> A friend of mine just told me he talked a North East Iowa manufacturer into
> building a "Small Bore" trailer. It's a single axle design - built to be
> "HEAVY DUTY, LIGHT WEIGHT, LOW COST, EASY TO LOAD, AND EASY TO TOW....AND
> GARAGABLE" (his words). Basic trailer is only $1875. It doesn't have all
> the bells and whistles, but looks darn nice and rugged enough to do the job
> for those of us that drive little race cars. Some bells and whistles are
> available as options - nose fairing, electric brakes, alloy wheels, strap
> winch were listed.
>
> I pull my AutoX Spitfires around on a homebuilt (not by me) single axle
> trailer with my bone stock V6 Automatic Ford F150 Supercab. I have not had
a
> lick of trouble, though it does knock my gas mileage down to about 14. ;-)
> After reading all the notes on this list about trailer towing, I'm
certainly
> going to have an auxiliary trans cooler installed before I do any more
towing.
> It just makes sense. I do have a good hitch, and there was a wiring kit on
> the truck from the factory. Everything has worked well, but I'm not towing
> excess tons of stuff.
>
> My point here is that if you HAVE to have a big trailer and lots of spares
and
> lots of tools - they you have to have a big truck. Many of us need to look
at
> the costs associated with all this, however. If I don't have to carry
> everything, I can get by with a lighter trailer and therefore a lighter
truck.
> You guys that are chasing your dreams all over the country certainly need
to
> have bigger trucks and trailers - no question about that.
>
> The discussion was enlightening on several issues, and I appreciate all the
> information.
>
>
>
> Joe Guinan
> Fremont, NE
> NASS Member #31
> spitfirejoe at email.com
> ********************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
>
> Autox mailing list
>
> http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/autox
>
> http://www.team.net/archive
>
> You are subscribed as l8apexrs at q.com

From kd4z at amsat.org  Thu Dec 10 13:15:45 2009
From: kd4z at amsat.org (Warren)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:15:45 -0500
Subject: [Autox] Current R compound choices
Message-ID: <4B2110A1.27391.1C6F869@kd4z.amsat.org>

It's been a long while since I turned a wheel on course (over 10 years) and am now tossing 
around the idea to jump back in to play in AS for next season.   When I last paid attention to 
such things, the BFG-R1 206 compound  was the hot ticket.   Yea, I just dated myself there...

What has risen to the top of the heap as far as DOT R compounds go now?  Is BFG still in 
the "TeamTA" game? 

Looking at the last Nats results, it appears that it might be the  Hoosier R6? 

I'm looking at a 245/45-18 application for a Solstice GXP.

Warren Merkel
Atlanta Region

From george.ryan at sbcglobal.net  Thu Dec 10 14:00:28 2009
From: george.ryan at sbcglobal.net (George Ryan)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:00:28 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Autox] Towing discussion - another view point
In-Reply-To: <mailman.29.1260471604.23517.autox@autox.team.net>
Message-ID: <637177.34576.qm@web82304.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

All excellent points, Paul
 
But there is another point of view that i would like to address. When it comes
to single axle trailers let's take a moment and talk about where the rubber
meets the road - the tires/wheels/hubs.
 
First the tires - trailer tires lead a different life from the tires on your
truck. Trailer tires generally sit for days and weeks - even months - without
ever turnng a revolution. Then they are expected to haul a lot of weight at
speed almost instantaneously before they sit for more days, weeks, etc.
 
If there is anybody that pulls a trailer with any consistancy that hasn't had
a tire blow out while under tow, raise your hand! These tires can look good
(no weather checking, proper pressures, good tread  - I don't think I have
ever seen a bald trailer tire, FWIW . . ) and still let go in an instant.
 
And don't forget the not uncommon bearing and/or hub failure - even with
proper greasing, torquing, and care. Then you have to consider the quality of
the average trailer wheel . .
 
When a trailer tire lets go (and one will sooner or later), a hub comes apart,
or one of those cheap trailer wheels decides to come unglued - - I like the
idea of having another axle on that side of the trailer!
 
G 

--- On Thu, 12/10/09, autox-request at autox.team.net
<autox-request at autox.team.net> wrote:


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 21:43:28 -0700
From: Paul and Meredith Brown <l8apexrs at q.com>
Subject: Re: [Autox] Towing discussion - another view point
To: <spitfirejoe at email.com>, Autox <autox at autox.team.net>
Message-ID: <Snt132-w340FA7E2233A351E97DF139D8D0 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Single-axle trailers scare me, though I do see quite a few of them around.
They are going to be a LOT less forgiving of weight distribution issues than
dual-axle trailers, and don't have the nice inherent sway damping.  Add to
that the feature you like, towing with a lighter tow vehicle, and your margin
for error goes down further.  Which is all to say, pay attention when you set
it up, and keep an eye on things like your tires and wheel bearings.  Do
something to make SURE the car is always loaded in the same place, and be
very
careful about everything else that gets loaded on the trailer.  Probably a
good idea to even carry the same amount of gas in the race car, though if the
gas tank is over the trailer axle that wouldn't make much difference.

> _______________________________________________
> Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
>
> Autox mailing list
>
> http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/autox
>
> http://www.team.net/archive
>
> You are subscribed as l8apexrs at q.com


------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Autox mailing list
Autox at autox.team.net
http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/autox


End of Autox Digest, Vol 1, Issue 23
************************************

From jdinnis at gmail.com  Thu Dec 10 15:08:02 2009
From: jdinnis at gmail.com (John Innis)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:08:02 -0600
Subject: [Autox] Towing discussion - another view point
In-Reply-To: <8CC46B0ED865468-11C4-3B68@web-mmc-m06.sysops.aol.com>
References: <mailman.27.1260298802.24169.autox@autox.team.net>
	<8CC46B0ED865468-11C4-3B68@web-mmc-m06.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <abb8688a0912101408q7c672be0ga4e80edd64875a24@mail.gmail.com>

My problem with those is the price.  I bought a nice middle of the
road double axel flatbed with electric brakes (both axles) and
slide-under ramps for $2100.  It is more than I needed to haul the
Spit, but it was a LOT of trailer for the money.  And it sure came in
handy when I needed to put a Suburban on it.

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:35 AM,  <spitfirejoe at email.com> wrote:
>  A friend of mine just told me he talked a North East Iowa manufacturer
into
> building a "Small Bore" trailer.  It's a single axle design - built to be
> "HEAVY DUTY, LIGHT WEIGHT, LOW COST, EASY TO LOAD, AND EASY TO TOW....AND
> GARAGABLE"  (his words).  Basic trailer is only $1875.  It doesn't have all
> the bells and whistles, but looks darn nice and rugged enough to do the job
> for those of us that drive little race cars.  Some bells and whistles are
> available as options - nose fairing, electric brakes, alloy wheels, strap
> winch were listed.
>
> I pull my AutoX Spitfires around on a homebuilt (not by me) single axle
> trailer with my bone stock V6 Automatic Ford F150 Supercab.  I have not had
a
> lick of trouble, though it does knock my gas mileage down to about 14.  ;-)
> After reading all the notes on this list about trailer towing, I'm
certainly
> going to have an auxiliary trans cooler installed before I do any more
towing.
> It just makes sense.  I do have a good hitch, and there was a wiring kit on
> the truck from the factory.  Everything has worked well, but I'm not towing
> excess tons of stuff.
>
> My point here is that if you HAVE to have a big trailer and lots of spares
and
> lots of tools - they you have to have a big truck.  Many of us need to look
at
> the costs associated with all this, however.  If I don't have to carry
> everything, I can get by with a lighter trailer and therefore a lighter
truck.
> You guys that are chasing your dreams all over the country certainly need
to
> have bigger trucks and trailers - no question about that.
>
> The discussion was enlightening on several issues, and I appreciate all the
> information.
>
>
>
> Joe Guinan
> Fremont, NE
> NASS Member #31
> spitfirejoe at email.com
> ********************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
>
> Autox mailing list
>
> http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/autox
>
> http://www.team.net/archive
>
> You are subscribed as jdinnis at gmail.com
>



--
=================================
= Never offend people with style when you   =
= can offend with substance --- Sam Brown  =
=================================

From kd4z at amsat.org  Fri Dec 11 06:29:10 2009
From: kd4z at amsat.org (Warren)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:29:10 -0500
Subject: [Autox] Current R compound choices
In-Reply-To: <F2139F65-3E21-49BB-B52E-2D6756D48E17@mac.com>
References: <4B2110A1.27391.1C6F869@kd4z.amsat.org>,
	<F2139F65-3E21-49BB-B52E-2D6756D48E17@mac.com>
Message-ID: <4B2202D6.21576.3BDB9B@kd4z.amsat.org>

Thanks for the info guys.   

Couple more questions then since this list is so quiet these days:  (Been lurking since 1989)

Would you say the Hoosier is still a tire that likes / allows lots of slip angle or do they need to 
be driven with smoothness?  The Hoosier (non-radial) in the past only worked best when 
hung way out.  The BFG would get greasy doing that.    

Do the A8's hang on up to the edge and then break away with little notice (say like the old 
Yoka A008R) or give up forgivingly at the limit like the old BFGs?




On 10 Dec 2009 at 23:10, Alan Dahl wrote:

> On Dec 10, 2009, at 12:15 PM, Warren wrote:
> > Looking at the last Nats results, it appears that it might be the 
> > Hoosier R6? 
> 
> Close, it's the Hoosier A6, the R6 is a little too hard for Solo.
> 
> > I'm looking at a 245/45-18 application for a Solstice GXP.
> 
> That size would be way too short for the GXP unless you plan on
> shifting all the time. The 295/30-18 A6 is the tire of choice for
> folks racing the Solstice GXP as it gives the highest speed (56-57mph)
> in second.
> 
> FYI the autocross section at solsticeforum.com is a good place for
> advice or I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.
> 
> - Alan Dahl
> (3rd place in AS at Nationals this year :-)

From kd4z at amsat.org  Thu Dec 17 06:05:51 2009
From: kd4z at amsat.org (Warren)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 08:05:51 -0500
Subject: [Autox] Current R compound choices
In-Reply-To: <F2139F65-3E21-49BB-B52E-2D6756D48E17@mac.com>
References: <4B2110A1.27391.1C6F869@kd4z.amsat.org>,
	<F2139F65-3E21-49BB-B52E-2D6756D48E17@mac.com>
Message-ID: <4B29E65F.11151.34DB20@kd4z.amsat.org>

On 10 Dec 2009 at 23:10, Alan Dahl wrote:
> > I'm looking at a 245/45-18 application for a Solstice GXP.
> 
> That size would be way too short for the GXP unless you plan on
> shifting all the time. The 295/30-18 A6 is the tire of choice for
> folks racing the Solstice GXP as it gives the highest speed (56-57mph)
> in second.
> 

Thanks for that Alan.  I have noticed the gearing is really short.    Going up to 295 is quite a 
jump from stock.  I am wondering about the stock 8" wheel width being wide enough for a 
295?    No fender rub at limits?    I don't have the Z0K so I'm not too worried I'd have a 
problem.

The specs on Tirerack are recommending a 9.5" minimum.   Does it look like it's bulging out !  
I am guessing it's a trade off.   How's the turn-in with this setup?

From tom at sth2.com  Thu Dec 17 08:11:06 2009
From: tom at sth2.com (Tom Holt)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 09:11:06 -0600
Subject: [Autox] Current R compound choices
In-Reply-To: <4B29E65F.11151.34DB20@kd4z.amsat.org>
References: <4B2110A1.27391.1C6F869@kd4z.amsat.org>,
	<F2139F65-3E21-49BB-B52E-2D6756D48E17@mac.com>
	<4B29E65F.11151.34DB20@kd4z.amsat.org>
Message-ID: <20091217150744.M42328@sth2.com>

So, what am I missing here...

A 245-45-18 has a diameter of 26.7"
a 295-30-18 has a diameter of 25"

How does a smaller diameter tire increase your top speed in second? Did 
somebody transpose a number?

Tom


---------- Original Message -----------
From: "Warren" <kd4z at amsat.org>
To: Autox at autox.team.net
Sent: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 08:05:51 -0500
Subject: Re: [Autox] Current R compound choices

> On 10 Dec 2009 at 23:10, Alan Dahl wrote:
> > > I'm looking at a 245/45-18 application for a Solstice GXP.
> > 
> > That size would be way too short for the GXP unless you plan on
> > shifting all the time. The 295/30-18 A6 is the tire of choice for
> > folks racing the Solstice GXP as it gives the highest speed (56-57mph)
> > in second.
> >
> 
> Thanks for that Alan.  I have noticed the gearing is really short.    
Going up to 295 is quite a 
> jump from stock.  I am wondering about the stock 8" wheel width being wide 
enough for a 
> 295?    No fender rub at limits?    I don't have the Z0K so I'm not too 
worried I'd have a 
> problem.
> 
> The specs on Tirerack are recommending a 9.5" minimum.   Does it look like 
it's bulging out !  
> I am guessing it's a trade off.   How's the turn-in with this setup?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
> 
> Autox mailing list
> 
> http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/autox
> 
> http://www.team.net/archive
> 
> You are subscribed as tom at sth2.com
------- End of Original Message -------

From alandahl at mac.com  Thu Dec 17 12:36:50 2009
From: alandahl at mac.com (Alan Dahl)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 11:36:50 -0800
Subject: [Autox] Current R compound choices
In-Reply-To: <20091217150744.M42328@sth2.com>
References: <4B2110A1.27391.1C6F869@kd4z.amsat.org>
	<F2139F65-3E21-49BB-B52E-2D6756D48E17@mac.com>
	<4B29E65F.11151.34DB20@kd4z.amsat.org>
	<20091217150744.M42328@sth2.com>
Message-ID: <A4D3D466-F075-4ABD-9F7C-CA66C00EAAB3@mac.com>

On Dec 17, 2009, at 7:11 AM, Tom Holt wrote:
> So, what am I missing here...
> 
> A 245-45-18 has a diameter of 26.7"
> a 295-30-18 has a diameter of 25"
> 
> How does a smaller diameter tire increase your top speed in second? Did 
> somebody transpose a number?

Hoosier doesn't make a 245/45-18 so I assumed he meant the 245/35-18 A6 which is only 24.7" tall vs 25.3" for the 295. I see now however that Hoosier lists a 245/40-18 with a listed height of 25.7" which is taller than the 295. However it's tread width is 9.3" vs 10.8 for the 295 so I'm not sure it would be a performance advantage. It would be interesting to hear if anyone's tried them and what the results were.

- Alan Dahl

From rocky at spitfire4.com  Fri Dec 25 21:15:30 2009
From: rocky at spitfire4.com (Rocky Entriken)
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2009 22:15:30 -0600
Subject: [Autox] A new Rule 4.9
Message-ID: <E6C6F4F3002746DAA4B3D8F39680CDDE@rocky>

Tried to post a letter I sent the SEB yesterday. Of course it's way too long
-- to fit within the 5 kb limit I'd have to break it into about 10 parts!

Bottom line, I suggest they quit trying to define what constitutes a class and
instead define what constitutes a champion -- delete the current Rule 4.9 and
replace it with:

4.9 National Champions

The winner of any single class competing at the Solo National Championships
comprising seven (7) or more starters will be declared a National Champion.
The first-place driver of any class not meeting this criteria will be
recognized as a National Winner.



To see the full letter, I just posted it on SCCA Forums, under "SCCA Solo and
all autocross discussions."



--Rocky Entriken

From rocky at spitfire4.com  Thu Dec 24 17:41:33 2009
From: rocky at spitfire4.com (Rocky Entriken)
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 18:41:33 -0600
Subject: [Autox] Rule 4.9
Message-ID: <7D8A5E8ABC594211B75184456859E3CA@rocky>

Sent the following today to the SEB (with cc the BoD)--



Merry Christmas to the SEB. I bring to you a proposal that could solve a
number of issues currently creating problems within SCCA Solo.



Simply put, I propose that we cease trying to define what constitutes a class
and instead define what constitutes a champion.



This would eliminate the problems and hard feelings caused by Rule 4.9 -- much
despised by many of us in the Prepared and Modified classes who feel
specifically targeted. This would resolve the eternal discussion over ladies
classes and whether a class with one or two entries should crown a champion.
This could even be used to recognize the fact that some Supplemental classes
are nevertheless highly competitive classes whose winners have totally earned
the sobriquet of champion but for a rulebook technicality.



And totally coincidentally -- since I have been formulating this proposal
since before this years (2009) Nationals -- it is almost exactly the same
concept just adopted by the SCCA Board of Directors to determine Club Racings
national champions. Which means you would have a BoD highly receptive to such
an approach.



Basically the change would be this: Eliminate the current Rule 4.9 and in its
place institute a new one:



4.9 National Champions

The winner of any single class competing at the Solo National Championships
comprising seven (7) or more starters will be declared a National Champion.
The first-place driver of any class not meeting this criteria will be
recognized as a National Winner.



Currently, in attempting to define a National Class as one that fields 17
entrants, combined Open and Ladies, we place a number of classes in jeopardy
every year. Most of them are the built classes in the Prepared and Modified
categories, classes which are mostly populated by our most long-term and
dedicated solo competitors. It is significant that of the eight 100 Percenters
still competing in Nationals, six drive Prepared and Modified cars. It is
significant that of the 58 drivers currently enshrined in the Silver Circle --
those who have competed in 25 or more Nationals -- 41 of them (70%) have
competed primarily in Prepared and Modified classes.



And yet these are the drivers -- our most dedicated, our most loyal, our most
deeply involved with a car they prepare and maintain and love for years, even
decades -- who are most threatened by Rule 4.9. And the tragedy is, there is
no real need, no true benefit, derived by placing the Prepared and Modified
drivers in such a precarious situation on an annual basis.



After the 2009 Nationals, the following classes failed to meet the 17-car
standard: AM, BM, FSAE, FJA, FJB, SMF. Yes, I realize the last four were
supplemental classes, but this proposal can be applied to that as well. Also
noteworthy is that the following classes brought 22 or fewer drivers --
classes threatened because they could easily drop below 17 by the loss of as
few as five entries just because of the uncertainties of who might be able to
enter from one year to the next: CM, DM, DP, EP, GP, SM.



After the 2008 Nationals, classes failing to meet the 17-car standard were:
AM, BM, CM, FJA, FJB, XP, FP, BSP. Threatened classes with 22 or fewer drivers
included: DM, EM, FSAE, DP, GP, ASP, SM.



The rule also discourages people from building new cars for the threatened
classes. Why would someone want to invest time and money to build for a class
that may or may not exist in a few years? Guarantee the existence, and the
negative reasons go away.





A former SEB member asked me who would come to a Nationals if they knew their
class would not crown a champion. I replied it would be the same types of
drivers who currently populate the supplemental classes hoping to elevate to
championship status, not to mention the hopefuls in the Ladies classes. The
proposed rule would not discourage participation. To the contrary, it makes it
possible for competitors to aspire to championship status without a death
penalty awaiting those who do not achieve it.



Yes, I realize A Modified is specifically exempted, which actually only
illustrates the problem when you have to make a special dispensation for one
class that you want to keep regardless of its performance instead of simply
recognizing that the drivers of AM cars want the same thing as the drivers of
every other class -- to compete without having to worry about how many show
up. And by the way, why does their class deserve an exemption while my
class doesnt? Again, the result is to upset your most long-term, loyal and
dedicated members.



Rule 4.9 has already cost us B Prepared. How incredible that the Corvette, the
original true American sports car, an icon in Americas motoring history, has
no true place to compete in solo in full-race form. No, XP doesnt count
because thats something far beyond what BP was. Only one Corvette (Su Brude)
even tried XP this year. Randy Herrick went back to his RX7. Sam Platt took
his Corvette to E Mod. Claire Ball, a 100 Percenter, quit coming as did most
of the rest of the BP Corvette drivers.



And the limitations of Rule 4.9 are simply not necessary. Unlike the Runoffs
where you can only cram in so many races during a day (and they will resolve
that with multi-class races for the least-subscribed classes), at the Solo
Nationals it is how many cars we can run through the courses over four days --
a limit currently established at 1250 cars although we have yet to get within
approximately 100 cars of that limit (current record, 1157 cars in 2007). It
doesnt matter if those 1250 cars are in one class or 100 classes, the car
count is the controlling factor.



And now with the new Lincoln site -- spacious enough for the possibility of
having a three-course Nationals even though we may be years from that as a
necessity -- the car-count limit could be raised to something in the 1800
range or more. Even less reason why we need any kind of class-size limit.



And yet, we have those who say it is all about the competition, and that a
small class is not competitive. While I refute that -- I say it is more about
the participation -- the proposal still recognizes and rewards the competitive
aspect. We get to have and enjoy both -- competition and participation.



We eliminate the current rule 4.9. We dont care if a class shows up with
fewer than seven cars -- as (including Ladies) 24 classes did this year. Yes,
while we bleat about competitiveness and some imagined need to have bigger
classes, we gave champions jackets to four drivers who were the only
competitor in their class, and to 15 drivers where the winner claimed the only
trophy finish in the class (a class of three or fewer drivers). Most, but not
all, were Ladies classes, two of which had no entries at all. Yes, of 74
classes, 17 of them, 23 percent, could not even put a second driver on the
podium. And yet we want to tell a class that puts 15 drivers on course that
they are not worthy to compete?



My proposal requires a class of seven drivers to declare a National Champion.
Why seven? I choose that number because it is a full podium under current Solo
Rules. Three trophy winners. It is a number even the ladies classes can
achieve, as 13 of them did this year. It is a number that, if achieved by a
supplemental class, would declare that winner a champion (FSAE and FJA this
year, but not SMF or FJB).



It is a number that, if not achieved, does not threaten a classs existence,
only its status for this year. It is a number that lets anyone come and enjoy
the event -- eminently in keeping with current qualification policy that
requires only that a driver participate in a Divisional or Tour event.



It is also a number that could be easily modified. You want to make the
standard a four-trophy class (10 drivers)? Fine. Or even four trophies in
Open, three in ladies? Go for it. There is no real magic in the number. The
magic is in the fact anyone can play, no one needs to worry about their class
going away. Whether you have enough to declare your winner a champion is a
separate matter.



A supplemental class would still be running under a proposed ruleset for
purposes of evaluation, but in the past we have had some supplementals produce
solid entries and stiff competition, only to denigrate its winner by refusing
him the mantle (and jacket) of champion. I submit that that driver competed
under the rules as they existed at that moment -- which is true of any class
since the rules can always change for next year -- and the fact that the
ruleset is not in final mode is no reason to demean the accomplishment of the
class winner. F125 was supplemental for five years before being accorded
championship status. Did their rules really change much during their
evaluation period? Why shouldnt FSAE get the same consideration? (Borrowed
rules is not a valid rationale since F125 and the FJ classes also use borrowed
rules.) But under the proposal there is no need to rush to judgment, nor to
unreasonably delay judgment. Any time you get seven competitors, you make a
champion.



I would also address the oft-raised issue of too many classes. I contend we
have nothing of the sort. Given that Ladies classes are merely a duplication,
we really have 38 classes (including the two Formula Juniors) plus 36 Ladies.
In 1973, the first Nationals, we had 14 classes plus one Ladies. In 1973 we
had 224 drivers at Nationals, in 2009 we had 1148. So over the years, our
class count has increased 271 percent while our entry count has increased at
twice that rate, 513 percent. The increase of Ladies classes from one to 36 is
irrelevant -- theyre the same classes and rules governing the specific cars.
The new classes weve added merely addresses the needs of our membership and
new technologies, and frankly if you add a new Whatever class it really
doesnt affect my enjoyment of my class one bit, so theres no reason I should
care -- other than somebody else might enjoy my sport.



This is not any support for an I class. As the SEB sees classes fading away,
it should rightly step in and do what seems necessary. Maybe it needs new
cars, maybe it needs a different rule structure, maybe it really does need to
fade away with whatever few cars are left being assimilated elsewhere. But
few I would suggest is probably a class chronically below the full-podium
mark. It certainly isnt a class able to put  12 or 15 or more cars on track.



The SEB has never needed a Rule 4.9 to make changes in the class structure. It
has always been the SEBs mandate to create the best competitive balance it
can, which includes combining or splitting classes, creating new ones, or
changing the entire makeup of a classs ruleset. If you decide that all
Corvettes are not really competitive in Super Stock, go ahead and drop some of
the older models to A Stock. If you decide that the new GP needs some
capability to grow the current rules dont provide, go ahead an add a limited
prep concept. You never needed 4.9 to permit you to do that. But when you (in
an earlier incarnation, not the current SEB) looked at BP and it didnt make
numbers, BP was eliminated and its drivers told they could become AP (XP) or
EM cars. Well that didnt work out so well, did it? Under the proposal you
could bring BP back. And if it doesnt make championship numbers, well so
what? The point is, theyd still get to play.



For that more accurately fulfills the purpose of SCCA and its competition
programs. As surprising as it may be to some, the purpose of the competition
programs is much less to make champions than it is to provide a place to
compete. SCCA exists to give members a place to play with their cars,
front-runner and backmarker alike.



Our Solo National Championships have always been an inclusive event. To
qualify to come all we need to do is compete in a Divisional or a Tour. We
dont even have to do well there, just participate -- just demonstrate some
commitment to the sport. Over in Club Racing theyve just taken this page from
the Solo program and applied it to their own -- all a race driver needs to do
is compete, doesnt even have to do well, doesnt even have to score a single
point(!) in order to go to the Runoffs as of 2010. And where for the past few
years only the top 24 or 25 classes could go, as of 2010 all 29 classes can
go.



Theyve seen the success of the Solo Nationals with 1100+ entries. But in
their changes they eliminated what had been their version of Rule 4.9. Now, it
is simply if a class doesnt bring 10 cars, then its winner doesnt get to be
listed as champion.



Same basic thing I propose for the replacement Rule 4.9.



--Rocky Entriken

  Salina Region SCCA

  #4 GP



The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not winning but taking part;
the essential thing in life is not conquering but fighting well.  --Baron
Pierre de Coubertin



To win is nice. To race is enough.  --Clay Regazzoni

From rjbfspso at sbcglobal.net  Sun Dec 27 07:25:05 2009
From: rjbfspso at sbcglobal.net (Robert Barone)
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 06:25:05 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Autox] Rule 4.9
Message-ID: <843099.23609.qm@web82101.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

  All these proposals are a possible step forward. The currant Rule 4.9
discourages participation and will eliminate classes based on participation
numbers alone.

Rocky's proposal is a step forward but in my oppinion may only
delay for a few more years what Rule 4.9 would do now.

What is truly needed
is a thorough and sincere discussion by the SEB and the SOLO comunity as to
why class numbers are low and what can be done about it.

Bob Barone

From burgerc at iquest.net  Mon Dec 28 18:28:43 2009
From: burgerc at iquest.net (burgerc at iquest.net)
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:28:43 -0500
Subject: [Autox] Autox Digest, Vol 1, Issue 27
In-Reply-To: <mailman.21.1261854003.30087.autox@autox.team.net>
References: <mailman.21.1261854003.30087.autox@autox.team.net>
Message-ID: <1262050123.4b395b4b28b80@webmail.iquest.net>

Quoting autox-request at autox.team.net:

Rocky,

I think your proposal makes sense and would be a lot happier with your new Rule
4.9 than the current Rule 4.9.  I am probably going to reference your proposal
in my next letter to the SEB.

To all who would like to see Rule 4.9 to be changed or eliminated and to all who
like Rocky's proposal, please write an email to seb at scca.com stating your
position.  Even if your email consists of only a couple sentences.  The more
people the SEB hears from, the better.  They only seem to react to letters, and
only when received in large numbers.  I think the SEB started to listen about
people's concern about Rule 4.9, but we can't let off until the rule has
actually changed.  The most effective thing you can do to get Rule 4.9 changed
is sending your letter.


Clemens


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2009 22:15:30 -0600
> From: "Rocky Entriken" <rocky at spitfire4.com>
> Subject: [Autox] A new Rule 4.9
> To: ".Team.Net" <autox at autox.team.net>
> Message-ID: <E6C6F4F3002746DAA4B3D8F39680CDDE at rocky>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Tried to post a letter I sent the SEB yesterday. Of course it's way too long
> -- to fit within the 5 kb limit I'd have to break it into about 10 parts!
>
> Bottom line, I suggest they quit trying to define what constitutes a class
> and
> instead define what constitutes a champion -- delete the current Rule 4.9 and
> replace it with:
>
> 4.9 National Champions
>
> The winner of any single class competing at the Solo National Championships
> comprising seven (7) or more starters will be declared a National Champion.
> The first-place driver of any class not meeting this criteria will be
> recognized as a National Winner.
>
>
>
> To see the full letter, I just posted it on SCCA Forums, under "SCCA Solo and
> all autocross discussions."
>
>
>
> --Rocky Entriken
>
>
> ------------------------------

From jlieberman37 at comcast.net  Mon Dec 28 19:49:43 2009
From: jlieberman37 at comcast.net (John Lieberman)
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:49:43 -0600
Subject: [Autox] Autox Digest, Vol 1, Issue 27
In-Reply-To: <1262050123.4b395b4b28b80@webmail.iquest.net>
References: <mailman.21.1261854003.30087.autox@autox.team.net>
	<1262050123.4b395b4b28b80@webmail.iquest.net>
Message-ID: <4B396E47.7060909@comcast.net>

I sent mine -- and quoted Rocky's proposal as a perfect example of how 
we could fix the problem.  Keep those cards and letters coming!!!  8<{)

John


burgerc at iquest.net wrote:
> Quoting autox-request at autox.team.net:
>
> Rocky,
>
> I think your proposal makes sense and would be a lot happier with your new Rule
> 4.9 than the current Rule 4.9.  I am probably going to reference your proposal
> in my next letter to the SEB.
>
> To all who would like to see Rule 4.9 to be changed or eliminated and to all who
> like Rocky's proposal, please write an email to seb at scca.com stating your
> position.  Even if your email consists of only a couple sentences.  The more
> people the SEB hears from, the better.  They only seem to react to letters, and
> only when received in large numbers.  I think the SEB started to listen about
> people's concern about Rule 4.9, but we can't let off until the rule has
> actually changed.  The most effective thing you can do to get Rule 4.9 changed
> is sending your letter.
>
>
> Clemens
>
>
>   
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2009 22:15:30 -0600
>> From: "Rocky Entriken" <rocky at spitfire4.com>
>> Subject: [Autox] A new Rule 4.9
>> To: ".Team.Net" <autox at autox.team.net>
>> Message-ID: <E6C6F4F3002746DAA4B3D8F39680CDDE at rocky>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>
>> Tried to post a letter I sent the SEB yesterday. Of course it's way too long
>> -- to fit within the 5 kb limit I'd have to break it into about 10 parts!
>>
>> Bottom line, I suggest they quit trying to define what constitutes a class
>> and
>> instead define what constitutes a champion -- delete the current Rule 4.9 and
>> replace it with:
>>
>> 4.9 National Champions
>>
>> The winner of any single class competing at the Solo National Championships
>> comprising seven (7) or more starters will be declared a National Champion.
>> The first-place driver of any class not meeting this criteria will be
>> recognized as a National Winner.
>>
>>
>>
>> To see the full letter, I just posted it on SCCA Forums, under "SCCA Solo and
>> all autocross discussions."
>>
>>
>>
>> --Rocky Entriken
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
>
> Autox mailing list
>
> http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/autox
>
> http://www.team.net/archive
>
> You are subscribed as jlieberman37 at comcast.net

From l8apexrs at q.com  Tue Dec 29 14:30:50 2009
From: l8apexrs at q.com (Paul and Meredith Brown)
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 14:30:50 -0700
Subject: [Autox] Rule 4.9
In-Reply-To: <843099.23609.qm@web82101.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <843099.23609.qm@web82101.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <SNT132-w1E670F6EF4EC8E0FEEB129D7A0@phx.gbl>

I agree 100% with Bob here.



Letters to the SEB are useful if they contain actual solutions, not just
complaining.  Nor is sheer volume of any particular use other than to show
that there is some level of interest in the issue - if there isn't a
reasonable solution (either obvious by itself or suggested by at least one of
the letters) then the SEB may be in a position of just being able to agree
with the letter-writers that there is a problem, thank them for their input,
and go on with applying whatever rule is in force.



In this case, it doesn't seem that simply reducing the required numbers is a
real solution.  When the participation numbers continue to go down, then
you'll be back in this situation later on asking for a further reduction in
the requirement.  Rocky does present a solution, but it's very much imperfect;
I've already responded as to why I don't think it's really a great approach.
It might be the best one that can be implemented, and may be a crutch for a
bad situation, but I still think that improving participation in the
low-turnout classes is still the right approach.  And yes, some sort of "soft
landing" for an ailing class may help to reduce the losses and help encourage
people to make a commitment to a class that may be on the edge now.



This all from someone who will be starting a 10th year in E Stock soon rather
than taking the leap to a CP car  :-)



> Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 06:25:05 -0800
> From: rjbfspso at sbcglobal.net
> To: autox at autox.team.net
> Subject: [Autox] Rule 4.9
>
> All these proposals are a possible step forward. The currant Rule 4.9
> discourages participation and will eliminate classes based on participation
> numbers alone.
>
> Rocky's proposal is a step forward but in my oppinion may only
> delay for a few more years what Rule 4.9 would do now.
>
> What is truly needed
> is a thorough and sincere discussion by the SEB and the SOLO comunity as to
> why class numbers are low and what can be done about it.
>
> Bob Barone

From lollipop487 at comcast.net  Tue Dec 29 17:30:26 2009
From: lollipop487 at comcast.net (Pat Kelly)
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:30:26 -0800
Subject: [Autox] Rule 4.9
In-Reply-To: <SNT132-w1E670F6EF4EC8E0FEEB129D7A0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <C75FDF22.B01E%lollipop487@comcast.net>

    I've been watching the SEB as it has apparently taken on the job of
reducing the number of classes, coincidentally during the same period of
time when the 'demand' started for the Street Touring classes...to make room
for those new classes.
    Nobody ever asked why the ST classes were created, I think because they
started with guidance from Howard Duncan and, I believe, demand from Dennis
Grant. No one ever said, "there are too many classes." These ST classes made
decent places for AWD and FWD cars.
   When a newbie shows up with a particular car, they will look at the rules
to see where his/her car fits best, and Howard was right, the newbies liked
the new rules and opted for them.
    My real question is: why do anything about low class numbers? If the SEB
keeps adding classes, of course, some will drop, others will grow. Depends
on how many folks they appeal to. If you read many of the chat groups, there
is a strong demand for 'real' street tire classes, yet we all have
difficulty defining a street tire (until it works for my MY class). :)
    I'm not bothered by low entry in a particular class.
--Pat K
    
    

> From: Paul and Meredith Brown <l8apexrs at q.com>
> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 14:30:50 -0700
> To: <rjbfspso at sbcglobal.net>, Autox <autox at autox.team.net>
> Subject: Re: [Autox] Rule 4.9
> 
> I agree 100% with Bob here.
> 
> 
> 
> Letters to the SEB are useful if they contain actual solutions, not just
> complaining.  Nor is sheer volume of any particular use other than to show
> that there is some level of interest in the issue - if there isn't a
> reasonable solution (either obvious by itself or suggested by at least one of
> the letters) then the SEB may be in a position of just being able to agree
> with the letter-writers that there is a problem, thank them for their input,
> and go on with applying whatever rule is in force.
> 
> 
> 
> In this case, it doesn't seem that simply reducing the required numbers is a
> real solution.  When the participation numbers continue to go down, then
> you'll be back in this situation later on asking for a further reduction in
> the requirement.  Rocky does present a solution, but it's very much imperfect;
> I've already responded as to why I don't think it's really a great approach.
> It might be the best one that can be implemented, and may be a crutch for a
> bad situation, but I still think that improving participation in the
> low-turnout classes is still the right approach.  And yes, some sort of "soft
> landing" for an ailing class may help to reduce the losses and help encourage
> people to make a commitment to a class that may be on the edge now.
> 
> 
> 
> This all from someone who will be starting a 10th year in E Stock soon rather
> than taking the leap to a CP car  :-)
> 
> 
> 
>> Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 06:25:05 -0800
>> From: rjbfspso at sbcglobal.net
>> To: autox at autox.team.net
>> Subject: [Autox] Rule 4.9
>> 
>> All these proposals are a possible step forward. The currant Rule 4.9
>> discourages participation and will eliminate classes based on participation
>> numbers alone.
>> 
>> Rocky's proposal is a step forward but in my oppinion may only
>> delay for a few more years what Rule 4.9 would do now.
>> 
>> What is truly needed
>> is a thorough and sincere discussion by the SEB and the SOLO comunity as to
>> why class numbers are low and what can be done about it.
>> 
>> Bob Barone
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
> 
> Autox mailing list
> 
> http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/autox
> 
> http://www.team.net/archive
> 
> You are subscribed as lollipop487 at comcast.net

From mark at sirota.org  Tue Dec 29 18:20:25 2009
From: mark at sirota.org (Mark Sirota)
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:20:25 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [Autox] Rule 4.9
In-Reply-To: <SNT132-w1E670F6EF4EC8E0FEEB129D7A0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <1485891168.19865121262136025098.JavaMail.root@zm-mbx-levy.zimbra.upenn.edu>

----- "Paul and Meredith Brown" <l8apexrs at q.com> wrote:
> Letters to the SEB are useful if they contain actual solutions, not
> just complaining.  Nor is sheer volume of any particular use other
> than to show that there is some level of interest in the issue ...
> 
> In this case, it doesn't seem that simply reducing the required
> numbers is a real solution.  When the participation numbers
> continue to go down, then you'll be back in this situation later on
> asking for a further reduction in the requirement.

What he said.

> Rocky does present a solution, but it's very much imperfect; I've
> already responded as to why I don't think it's really a great
> approach.  It might be the best one that can be implemented, and may
> be a crutch for a bad situation, but I still think that improving
> participation in the low-turnout classes is still the right approach.
> And yes, some sort of "soft landing" for an ailing class may help to
> reduce the losses and help encourage people to make a commitment to a
> class that may be on the edge now.

Let me follow up on that by reiterating that in addition to offering
a possible solution, you also need to clearly state what problem you're
trying to solve, and why it's a problem for the health of the sport as
a whole, not just a problem for you.

I think it's a reasonable argument that the current implementation of
4.9 does present a real problem which Paul alludes to here -- it
discourages participation in classes which need participation (assuming
you agree with the concept of "need participation" -- Rocky's position
is that it's fine for some classes to have low participation).  Start
with that (or something similar) as a problem statement, and then work
your way to a solution for your stated problem.

Mark (former SEB member with Paul, on a break from the sport since 2004)

From gt40d at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 29 19:22:55 2009
From: gt40d at yahoo.com (Charlie Davis)
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:22:55 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Autox] Fw:  Rule 4.9
In-Reply-To: <C75FDF22.B01E%lollipop487@comcast.net>
References: <C75FDF22.B01E%lollipop487@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <490192.1184.qm@web54202.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Charlie Davis <gt40d at yahoo.com>
To: Pat Kelly <lollipop487 at comcast.net>
Sent: Tue, December 29, 2009 6:22:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Autox] Rule 4.9

The ST classes were created because there was a need for them, just as there was a need for SP in the early '80's.  SP filled the bill at the time, but the rules were not far sighted.  Technology surpassed the rules, and a competitive SP car is not street legal in most cases.  SP has become "another Prepared category."

I doubt Dennis Grant had anything to do with ST, Dennis being one of the champions of the Street Mod category.

You are correct that the number of classes has grown faster than the number of people autocrossing, so class density does go down.  My frustration has been the instability in P and M classes that causes people to not gravitate toward them.  I think the Prepared an Mod rulesets have been fairly stable recently, but this constant threat of 4.9 hanging over our heads keeps people from building cars.

Charlie



----- Original Message ----
From: Pat Kelly <lollipop487 at comcast.net>
To: Autox <autox at autox.team.net>
Sent: Tue, December 29, 2009 4:30:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Autox] Rule 4.9

    I've been watching the SEB as it has apparently taken on the job of
reducing the number of classes, coincidentally during the same period of
time when the 'demand' started for the Street Touring classes...to make room
for those new classes.
    Nobody ever asked why the ST classes were created, I think because they
started with guidance from Howard Duncan and, I believe, demand from Dennis
Grant. No one ever said, "there are too many classes." These ST classes made
decent places for AWD and FWD cars.
   When a newbie shows up with a particular car, they will look at the rules
to see where his/her car fits best, and Howard was right, the newbies liked
the new rules and opted for them.
    My real question is: why do anything about low class numbers? If the SEB
keeps adding classes, of course, some will drop, others will grow. Depends
on how many folks they appeal to. If you read many of the chat groups, there
is a strong demand for 'real' street tire classes, yet we all have
difficulty defining a street tire (until it works for my MY class). :)
    I'm not bothered by low entry in a particular class.
--Pat K
    
    

> From: Paul and Meredith Brown <l8apexrs at q.com>
> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 14:30:50 -0700
> To: <rjbfspso at sbcglobal.net>, Autox <autox at autox.team.net>
> Subject: Re: [Autox] Rule 4.9
> 
> I agree 100% with Bob here.
> 
> 
> 
> Letters to the SEB are useful if they contain actual solutions, not just
> complaining.  Nor is sheer volume of any particular use other than to show
> that there is some level of interest in the issue - if there isn't a
> reasonable solution (either obvious by itself or suggested by at least one of
> the letters) then the SEB may be in a position of just being able to agree
> with the letter-writers that there is a problem, thank them for their input,
> and go on with applying whatever rule is in force.
> 
> 
> 
> In this case, it doesn't seem that simply reducing the required numbers is a
> real solution.  When the participation numbers continue to go down, then
> you'll be back in this situation later on asking for a further reduction in
> the requirement.  Rocky does present a solution, but it's very much imperfect;
> I've already responded as to why I don't think it's really a great approach.
> It might be the best one that can be implemented, and may be a crutch for a
> bad situation, but I still think that improving participation in the
> low-turnout classes is still the right approach.  And yes, some sort of "soft
> landing" for an ailing class may help to reduce the losses and help encourage
> people to make a commitment to a class that may be on the edge now.
> 
> 
> 
> This all from someone who will be starting a 10th year in E Stock soon rather
> than taking the leap to a CP car  :-)
> 
> 
> 
>> Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 06:25:05 -0800
>> From: rjbfspso at sbcglobal.net
>> To: autox at autox.team.net
>> Subject: [Autox] Rule 4.9
>> 
>> All these proposals are a possible step forward. The currant Rule 4.9
>> discourages participation and will eliminate classes based on participation
>> numbers alone.
>> 
>> Rocky's proposal is a step forward but in my oppinion may only
>> delay for a few more years what Rule 4.9 would do now.
>> 
>> What is truly needed
>> is a thorough and sincere discussion by the SEB and the SOLO comunity as to
>> why class numbers are low and what can be done about it.
>> 
>> Bob Barone
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
> 
> Autox mailing list
> 
> http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/autox
> 
> http://www.team.net/archive
> 
> You are subscribed as lollipop487 at comcast.net
Autox mailing list

http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/autox

http://www.team.net/archive

You are subscribed as gt40d at yahoo.com