From burgerc at iquest.net  Tue Nov  3 18:32:25 2009
From: burgerc at iquest.net (Clemens Burger)
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:32:25 -0500
Subject: [Autox] Class Participation (Part 1)
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.1.20091030213800.0443ba08@mail.iquest.net>

I sent a message to this list couple weeks ago, but I received a return 
message that, at 10 kB, it was too large, and it was being reviewed by the 
moderator (like this list is suffering from too much content).  It appears 
the the message was never approved, and I never heard back from the 
moderator as promised in the automated reply, despite follow-ups.  I guess 
the next best option is to break up the message.  Here it goes:


I posted the message shown below on SCCAForums a little while 
ago.  However, things are so fragmented now with various discussion forums 
and social networks, that I suspect that only a very limited number of 
people have seen this information.  I can see the number of views, but the 
majority of those are repeated views by the same people.  I estimate that 
the number of different people who have looked at this thread is somewhere 
below 200.  Things were so much easier 10-15 years ago when Team.net was 
the only option...

Anyway, below is a copy of my message about Rule 4.9 in the hope that a few 
more people get a chance to see this and learn about some of the effects 
this rule has.  Hey, maybe we can even get a few more letters written to 
the SEB (the address is seb at scca.com), in which people state their 
positions on this rule.  I really want something done about this rule since 
I don't think it is good for the sport the way it is written, and my 
understanding is that the SEB generally only reacts to letters, and only if 
they come in in large quantities.  Therefore, if you believe that Rule 4.9 
has issues, please support with a letter to the SEB.

Thanks for listening.


Clemens


"An observing person attending the 2009 Solo National Championship in 
Lincoln probably noticed that a number of cars displayed stickers that 
looked like this:

(can't show a picture here, the 3"x3" sticker shows the test "Rule 4.9" 
inside a red circle with a red line through it)

I assume that not everyone is fully aware of what these stickers are about, 
and I want to explain. Rule 4.9 appears on page 33 of the 2009 Solo 
Rulebook and is titled "Minimum Participation Level for National Classes":

"If in three consecutive years at the Solo National Championship a class 
fails to field a combined total (Open and Ladies) of at least seventeen 
(17) entrants, then for the following year that class will be consolidated, 
eliminated, or restructured, using competition adjustments (for example, 
weights and/or wheel sizes) if necessary and applicable within the affected 
category."

As far as I understand, this rule was put in place to ensure "deep" classes 
and tight competition. It may have also been an attempt to give competitors 
an idea of how classes will be adjusted. I am sure this rule was 
well-intended, but it has a very negative effect on a number of classes. 
Rather than driving competition, it is threatening entire categories of 
classes. To illustrate the problem, here are some of the entry numbers from 
the 2008 National Championships:

AM 10 cars
BM 14 cars
CM 16 cars
DM 18 cars
EM 18 cars
DP 17 cars
EP 23 cars
FP 15 cars
GP 18 cars
XP 16 cars
ASP 20 cars
BSP 15 cars

to be continued.....

From burgerc at iquest.net  Tue Nov  3 18:32:32 2009
From: burgerc at iquest.net (Clemens Burger)
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:32:32 -0500
Subject: [Autox] Class Participation (Part 2)
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.1.20091103202502.04369748@mail.iquest.net>

These numbers show that last year, all modified and prepared classes, with 
the exception of CP, where hovering around the 17-driver limit, and so were 
the top two street prepared classes. As far as I am concerned, all these 
classes are on the "bubble". What this means is that they are at the risk 
of declining further as potential new class members shy away with an eye on 
Rule 4.9 and the uncertainties it generates. This could lead to major rule 
changes, restructuring, combining of classes, all the way to the 
elimination of some of them, turning Rule 4.9 into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Granted, the situation has improved this year and most of the classes 
listed above had higher entries at the 2009 Nationals, although some had 
only marginally higher entry levels. I am sure that the new site and the 
excitement that acres and acres of concrete in Lincoln generated had 
something to to with. This is definitely a good thing, and I certainly hope 
that this trend will continue, but you never know. Trends can turn around 
pretty quick, and anybody thinking that a class may be safe because it drew 
more than 17 competitors this year may be fooling themselves. Examples for 
how fast entry numbers can drop are EM, which had 27 entries in 2007, but 
only 18 in 2008, barely above the magic number 17. An even more extreme 
example is SM2, which had 35 drivers in 2005, but only 16 twelve months 
later in 2006.

While some people look at 17 as the critical number, many others get 
concerned about numbers in the low to mid-twenties. Building and developing 
a car for quite a few of the classes listed above takes significant time, 
possibly quite a bit more than the three years that is written into Rule 
4.9 (which, by the way, was two years until the SEB changed it early last 
year, which was a positive change, but not enough), and people considering 
to join such classes may wonder if the class will still be around when they 
have the car ready, at least in its current configuration. This creates an 
environment that counters growth and keeps people from joining the 
lower-subscribed classes, again, turning Rule 4.9 into a self-fulfilling 
prophecy. This is exactly the opposite of what we need.

I believe I speak for a large part of the membership when I say that we 
want rule stability. I ran stock classes for several years, where just one 
new car put into your class can turn everything upside down and force 
people to purchase a new car if one wants to stay competitive. Ever since I 
started autocrossing, I viewed the rules for the prepared and modified 
classes as the most stable ones, which was one of the attractions when I 
purchased my current car. Maybe that was an incorrect perception of mine, 
but, for example, I don't recall CM ever changing since I started 
autocrossing. That is something stock class entrants can only dream about. 
However, I see Rule 4.9 as a threat to rule stability. It creates 
uncertainty, and once a class drops below the 17-car count at Nationals, 
the elimination of a class may just be around the corner. When that 
happens, the cars running that class could all of the sudden be worth only 
a fraction of what they were worth with the class in place. This is the 
last thing the people amongst us, who had to work hard for the money to buy 
or build their cars, which includes me, want to see.

As you may have noticed by now, I don't like Rule 4.9, and I want to see it 
gone. By no means am I promoting 5-car classes at nationals. No, I want to 
see well-populated classes, but based on where a lot of the faster classes 
are at, that is difficult to achieve with Rule 4.9 in effect. The SEB needs 
to create a rule-set and an environment that encourage growth, not an 
environment that can lead to the elimination of entire categories of 
classes. By now, I have talked to a large number of people about Rule 4.9, 
and I have not come across a single person who told me that Rule 4.9 was a 
good idea. Everybody, including the two who did not want to put the Rule 
4.9 stickers on their cars, acknowledged that this rule was less than ideal.

to be continued....

From burgerc at iquest.net  Tue Nov  3 18:32:40 2009
From: burgerc at iquest.net (Clemens Burger)
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:32:40 -0500
Subject: [Autox] Class Participation (Part 3)
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.1.20091103202525.044375a8@mail.iquest.net>

Unfortunately, the SEB has not addressed this issue. They are encouraging 
members to write letters to give them feedback on the rule-making process. 
One former SEB member commented to me that they never received an 
overwhelming amount of letters on this topic, which is why they have not 
addressed it. However, I don't expect that they will ever receive that 
overwhelming amount of letters, since only a few members are directly 
affected by this rule, independent of how effective it is. So, how can we 
get this rule changed or eliminated? We need to first raise awareness 
amongst the membership and then signal to the SEB in any way we can that 
there is a problem with Rule 4.9 that needs to be addressed.

There are a number of things you can do to support the activities related 
to eliminating or fixing Rule 4.9:

1. The easiest thing you can do is to display the Rule 4.9 stickers on your 
car to help raising awareness.
2. You can also talk to fellow members about the rule and how it affects 
many of the existing classes.
3. You can help distributing the stickers.
4. If you believe there is an issue, you should also talk to the SEB and 
BOD members in your area to make sure they are aware that there is an issue.
5. The ultimate you can do is write a letter to the SEB to make your case 
in the way they like it.

So, who should become active and pursue one or several of the 
aforementioned activities? Here it goes:

1. If you compete in a class that has entry levels of 25 or lower at the 
national level, it is pretty much essential that you make yourself heard, 
or otherwise your class may be gone sooner or later.
2. If you have any interest ever campaigning a car in a class that 
currently has 25 entires or less at the national level, you need to make 
yourself heard, or otherwise, you might never get to run in the class you 
like. In the worst case, you purchase or start building a car that you can 
never run competitively and will have wasted a whole lot of money and time 
in the case your class is eliminated.
3. If you just like watching those cool and fast cars that compete in the 
modified and prepared classes, you should make yourself heard, or 
otherwise, you may not see those anymore sometime down the road.

Again, the support has been great so far, but we need more. In only three 
weeks, we were able to get stickers on about 150 cars, almost all of which 
competed at the National Championships in Lincoln. This includes cars from 
pretty much all the classes, no matter if it is HS, ST, SM, CP, or AM, and 
you can find the Rule 4.9 stickers on cars in pretty much all the classes. 
In addition, people started to talk and think about the effects of this 
rule, and some even decided to join the letter-writing campaign. For 
example, totally unexpected, an STU driver promised me to write a letter to 
the SEB the same day when I handed him the stickers for his car.

With all the talk about stickers and letters, lets not forget the most 
important thing, growth of our sport and especially the classes on the 
bubble. That really what we want. If you ever thought about running in a 
prepared or modified class, try it. It's a hoot. Help promoting them. Let's 
also promote rule stability to make sure that we have a predictable 
rule-making process and can enjoy our sport at a reasonable cost.

If you want stickers for you car, let me know. Better yet, get enough for 
all your friends and cars in your region. There are still plenty of 
stickers available. Send me a PM or an email at burgerc at iquest.net if you 
want any, and we'll work something out." 

From bill at fuhrmann.us  Wed Nov  4 06:26:30 2009
From: bill at fuhrmann.us (Bill Fuhrmann)
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 07:26:30 -0600
Subject: [Autox] Class Participation (Part 1)
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.1.20091030213800.0443ba08@mail.iquest.net>
References: <6.2.1.2.1.20091030213800.0443ba08@mail.iquest.net>
Message-ID: <002001ca5d52$6f01c990$0202fea9@HP>

I don't think you have proven your case.
Are you cherry picking data?
How about 3-5 years of the most recent participation lists (with notes if
rules changes would have moved cars to a different class?

What number are you proposing?  You said that 5 is too low, what about 10?
What about 15?  
Everything you say about 17 can be said about 10.
Any number is a compromise, what makes your unchosen number better than 17?

How much do you think the SEB is going to listen to letters that say.
"This rule stinks, replace it with something else but we have no clue what."
You neeed to make a complete proposal. 
Otherwise they can say 16.5 and your wish has been granted.

I have been away from autocross for a long time and never was part of the
SCCA.
I have no play in the rule either way but feel that I understand it enough
to play devil's advocate.

The rule does not suddenly drop classes.  It gives them three years.
Knowing that autocrossers will read the letter of the law to benefit them,
all the class die hards have to do is get together and bring road kill to
drive their cars every three years to reset the clock.
If I had written the rule, it probably would have been based on a three year
average to avoid the years being 10-10-17.

Again, what is your solution?



> -----Original Message-----
> From: autox-bounces at autox.team.net 
> [mailto:autox-bounces at autox.team.net] On Behalf Of Clemens Burger
> Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 7:32 PM
> To: autox at autox.team.net
> Subject: [Autox] Class Participation (Part 1)
> 
> I sent a message to this list couple weeks ago, but I 
> received a return message that, at 10 kB, it was too large, 
> and it was being reviewed by the moderator (like this list is 
> suffering from too much content).  It appears the the message 
> was never approved, and I never heard back from the moderator 
> as promised in the automated reply, despite follow-ups.  I 
> guess the next best option is to break up the message.  Here it goes:
> 
> 
> I posted the message shown below on SCCAForums a little while 
> ago.  However, things are so fragmented now with various 
> discussion forums and social networks, that I suspect that 
> only a very limited number of people have seen this 
> information.  I can see the number of views, but the majority 
> of those are repeated views by the same people.  I estimate 
> that the number of different people who have looked at this 
> thread is somewhere below 200.  Things were so much easier 
> 10-15 years ago when Team.net was the only option...
> 
> Anyway, below is a copy of my message about Rule 4.9 in the 
> hope that a few more people get a chance to see this and 
> learn about some of the effects this rule has.  Hey, maybe we 
> can even get a few more letters written to the SEB (the 
> address is seb at scca.com), in which people state their 
> positions on this rule.  I really want something done about 
> this rule since I don't think it is good for the sport the 
> way it is written, and my understanding is that the SEB 
> generally only reacts to letters, and only if they come in in 
> large quantities.  Therefore, if you believe that Rule 4.9 
> has issues, please support with a letter to the SEB.
> 
> Thanks for listening.
> 
> 
> Clemens
> 
> 
> "An observing person attending the 2009 Solo National 
> Championship in Lincoln probably noticed that a number of 
> cars displayed stickers that looked like this:
> 
> (can't show a picture here, the 3"x3" sticker shows the test 
> "Rule 4.9" 
> inside a red circle with a red line through it)
> 
> I assume that not everyone is fully aware of what these 
> stickers are about, and I want to explain. Rule 4.9 appears 
> on page 33 of the 2009 Solo Rulebook and is titled "Minimum 
> Participation Level for National Classes":
> 
> "If in three consecutive years at the Solo National 
> Championship a class fails to field a combined total (Open 
> and Ladies) of at least seventeen
> (17) entrants, then for the following year that class will be 
> consolidated, eliminated, or restructured, using competition 
> adjustments (for example, weights and/or wheel sizes) if 
> necessary and applicable within the affected category."
> 
> As far as I understand, this rule was put in place to ensure 
> "deep" classes and tight competition. It may have also been 
> an attempt to give competitors an idea of how classes will be 
> adjusted. I am sure this rule was well-intended, but it has a 
> very negative effect on a number of classes. 
> Rather than driving competition, it is threatening entire 
> categories of classes. To illustrate the problem, here are 
> some of the entry numbers from the 2008 National Championships:
> 
> AM 10 cars
> BM 14 cars
> CM 16 cars
> DM 18 cars
> EM 18 cars
> DP 17 cars
> EP 23 cars
> FP 15 cars
> GP 18 cars
> XP 16 cars
> ASP 20 cars
> BSP 15 cars
> 
> to be continued.....
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
> 
> Autox mailing list
> 
> http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/autox
> 
> http://www.team.net/archive

From notstock at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  4 11:40:20 2009
From: notstock at yahoo.com (j g)
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 10:40:20 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Autox] Fw: Re:  Class Participation (Part 1)
Message-ID: <369619.2620.qm@web30903.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Clemens ;
 
I believe that  the competators themselves are the problem not 4.9, In classes
that have huge differences in vehicle mix  the rules need to change to allow
equal competition with the mix . Right now competators are not willing to
accept added weight in an over dog car to allow equal competition . The
attitude is as the forums show is "why should Ibe penalized by making my car
slower , make the slower cars faster ". Sounds nice to the uneducated or peer
group.
 
 As a bmod competator , and understanding 4.9 , I believe 4.9 is a rule that
quite frankly serves 2 purposes. If  a class ends up with specific cars
dominating at the local and national level due to improper leveling of
perfromance among the vehicles in class  due to the solo rules,  then the once
main stay of the class will leave or not participate at the national level.  I
think this is quite appropriate,  Bmod has this problem . If the SEB is
attempting to eliminate mod classes then 4.9 also serves the purpose as well
as allowing rules that distort the class , In a GCR based class IMHO very
diligent  effort needs to be done to equilize the slowest cars to the fastest
cars if the diversity of cars is high (not to all the same GCR rules such as a
spec class cmod, fmod ) . Care must be taken to ensure that the rule changes
do not devalue the most valuable vehicles by creating a rule to equilize that
cannot be achieved  without destroying the
 integrity of the car. A good example is trying to lower weight on GCR
atlantics , The whole club race scene knows that even the current most modern
swift 018  cars  cannot be reduced in weight much below 1265 with a small
driver  and they are carbon fiber . so a lower weight rule just does not work
for GCR legal atlantics . adding weight is usually easy in a GCR car because
the construction already requires the vehicle to be able to sustain complete
crashes at race speeds and survive  those loads are orders of magnitudes above
even 200 pounds added weight.   Non automotive derived powerplants  need a
significant weight penality and or cars with less than say 84 inch wheel base
need  weight added (say 200 pounds)  before other class eligible but
completely GCR legal will compete. I will never bring my ralt back to a
national championship as long as there is such disparity due to newer
motorcycle technology effecting the class. The Ralt and
 other historic formula atlantics are just too valuable to cut up or
bastardize  to run solo . A Ralt in excellent shape just as a swift 008a is
worth more on the open market  kept as close to original than most of the the
entire homemade  sports racers combined are worth.  And because of
international racing history on especially March and Ralt cars any one doing
anything that destroys the value of the car is a criminal imho .
 
Lets add weight to the non automotive derived powered cars  and wheel bases
shorter than 84 inches  and the class will come back . If the owners of these
cars have the attitude that
"you should cut your car up"  "don't make me add simple weight cus I like the
over dog role  . then the class deserves to die  by rule 4.9 .  The formula
atlantics will still have value in vintage and even in normal club racing  ,
the others will fall back to where they were . IMHO the rules changes as well
as the nationals site all contributed to this problem in Bmod  and probably
other classes
 
John Garcia   Equilize the rules and the classes will servive on their own .


---

From rocky at spitfire4.com  Wed Nov  4 15:15:00 2009
From: rocky at spitfire4.com (Rocky Entriken)
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 16:15:00 -0600
Subject: [Autox] Class Participation (Part 3)
Message-ID: <32910924FFD24332996587E83588F807@rocky>

Re-sending (original too large)...


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rocky Entriken" <rocky at spitfire4.com>
To: <autox at autox.team.net>; "Clemens Burger" <burgerc at iquest.net>
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 6:22 AM
Subject: Re: [Autox] Class Participation (Part 3)


> I'm planning a letter. I visited briefly with Tina Reeves a few weeks ago, 
> and she recommended I wait until around first of the year to send it, when 
> it would get into the next "rules season." Too late (even as of Nationals) 
> to do anything for 2010. We're looking at a 2011 change.
>
> Since then, some may have noticed, the BoD has passed rules in Club Racing 
> that almost exactly match what we want to do in Solo. Including:
> * All National classes (there are 29 now) will race in the Runoffs. Until 
> now only the top 24 or 25 got in.
> * The 2.5 rule which specifies Runoffs eligibility and whether a class 
> will even survive is eliminated -- this parallels Solo's Rule 4.9.
> * Instead of determining what constitutes a viable class, they will now 
> determine what constitutes a National Champion -- the class must have at 
> least 10 entries.
> * Classes that fall below 10 entries will be labeled "supplemental." They 
> still get to race, they still have a winner, but not a champion.
>
> My planned letter to the SEB -- and I had this plan before the BoD action 
> in Club Racing -- is that we quit trying to define what constitutes a 
> class and instead define what constitutes a champion. If a small class 
> shows up, so what? In Club Racing you can only do so many races in a day 
> (and now some of the small classes will be combined with others in a 
> single race). Solo's limiting factor is how many cars we can push through 
> a course in a day and we have yet to get within about 100 of that limit. 
> And now with the Lincoln site there is a new option -- a 3-course 
> Nationals (a given class runs two of the three), which raises the 
> potential entry limit from 1250 to something over 1800, and we may never 
> even get close to that one.
>
> My suggestion will be to eliminate Rule 4.9 and replace it with a 
> definition of a National Champion -- the winner of any class with at least 
> seven competitors. Seven, because that is the number at which we have a 
> full podium, three trophy winners.
>
> This puts it even within reach of Ladies classes, which should also go to 
> eliminating the perennial discussion of whether they should even exist 
> (let 'em run, but winners of 1-car classes are not champions). AND, any 
> class meeting that number, including "supplemental classes," would crown a 
> champion that year. It would also serve as incentive for competitors in 
> light classes to build their classes, without having to fear being 
> eliminated altogether.
>
> The change in Club Racing, and a similar change in Solo if enacted, 
> eliminates the "bubble" altogether. It eliminates the fear factor that 
> becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy and instead becomes a security blanket 
> that allows members to compete without paranoia and greater hope of 
> boosting their numbers -- to work toward positive goals rather than 
> working to ward off negative goals.
>
> The BoD's approval of the Club Racing change demonstrates they would 
> perhaps be of a mind to address the same issue in solo the same way. If 
> you write a letter to the SEB (seb at scca.com), copy it to bod at scca.com. 
> Don't expect the BoD to initiate action -- their action would be to refer 
> it to the SEB --  but you copy them to let them know there is an issue 
> pending and if at such time as the item is sent up to them the BoD would 
> already have some idea of member sentiment.
>
> --Rocky Entriken

From mark at sirota.org  Wed Nov  4 16:57:05 2009
From: mark at sirota.org (Mark Sirota)
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:57:05 -0500
Subject: [Autox] Class Participation (Part 3)
In-Reply-To: <32910924FFD24332996587E83588F807@rocky>
References: <32910924FFD24332996587E83588F807@rocky>
Message-ID: <D7CE85F3A1A3F443C43159D2@mark-sirotas-macbook-pro-17.local>

--On November 4, 2009 4:15:00 PM -0600 Rocky Entriken <rocky at spitfire4.com> 
wrote:
>> My planned letter to the SEB -- and I had this plan before the BoD
>> action  in Club Racing -- is that we quit trying to define what
>> constitutes a  class and instead define what constitutes a champion.

I've been out of action for several years now and I don't know what has 
transpired since then, but a concern I have about this is that every class 
comes with a cost.

The engine that runs SCCA Solo involves quite a lot of volunteer time -- 
it's a very expensive commodity.  And every class has rules, particularly 
the lower-participation classes in the higher modification categories, 
because every class doesn't just share rules with other classes in the 
category.  There are letters, discussions, clarifications, etc. and all of 
this takes a lot of time.  Most of the members don't see the amount of time 
that goes in, but trust me, it's a lot.

So there's real value in keeping the number of classes to a reasonable 
minimum.

Rocky, if you take your proposal to the extreme, do classes ever go away? 
Will there be dozens of classes someday, many of them empty or close to it?

The flip side of this argument is that quite a lot of time and effort is 
spent figuring out what to do with the smaller classes, to bring their 
numbers up or to resolve the "problem" in other ways.  They probably get a 
disproportionate amount of effort, compared to their participation levels. 
Just ignoring the problem may be cheaper than trying to address it.

Mark

From rocky at spitfire4.com  Wed Nov  4 18:14:38 2009
From: rocky at spitfire4.com (Rocky Entriken)
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 19:14:38 -0600
Subject: [Autox] Class Participation (Part 3)
References: <32910924FFD24332996587E83588F807@rocky>
	<D7CE85F3A1A3F443C43159D2@mark-sirotas-macbook-pro-17.local>
Message-ID: <7512DB497FA94FCAB117B6CA044E0EC1@rocky>

In 1973 we had 15 classes at the first Solo Nationals, which included one 
Ladies class on Index. Or, as a practical matter 14 classes in which 224 
drivers competed. That's an average of 16 cars per class.

in 2009 we had 38 separate classes, all but the FJs having parallel Ladies' 
classes. We had 1148 entrants, or an average of 30.2 entrants each. of 
course, when you include the Ladies classes we had 72, and that included 16 
"empty or close to it" (one trophy, or in two cases, none). But I believe my 
proposal does not go to the extreme, but backs away from it. It says if we 
have a class of one or two or three cars (or up to six), well you people 
have fun, enjoy the event, but you haven't risen to the level of champion. 
However, you might next year because we aren't taking your class away. You 
have nothing to fear, but you do have the possibility of striving to achieve 
something better.

We anointed 67 champions this year, plus five "winners" of supplemental 
classes (two of which had four drivers in trophies). Had my proposal been in 
effect, we'd have crowned 49 champions and declared 23 "winners." It would 
have made the mantle of champion more exclusive and more deserving, which 
still not disenfranchising anybody.

I don't think that just because someone came up with Street Touring as a 
good idea (and it was), adding eight more total classes to the mix, that 
that should mean members with many years' investment -- financial and 
emotional -- in their Prep or Mod cars should have to be on some artificial 
bubble or have to worry that their years of involvement in SCCA can be wiped 
away because some relative newbie (who may not have even been born yet when 
some of us began doing this) thinks we should eliminate classes just so we 
can have fewer classes. When the average entry nowadays is five times what 
it was at the beginning, but the total number of classes has merely doubled, 
I think "too many classes" is a bogus issue. (But if you think it's too many 
for local events, then combine 'em or revise 'em. The rules let you do 
that.)

IMHO, the new classes we have are in response to members wanting to compete 
under that kind of concept, and good for them. That doesn't invalidate those 
who want to continue competing with the earlier concepts. But again, if it 
becomes obvious to the SEB they need to do something about a class, they've 
never needed a Rule 4.9 to do it. All 4.9 does is create an artificial Sword 
of Damocles hanging over the heads of those in the threatened classes. There 
Is No Need to have threatened classes. It is counterproductive to the 
concept of SCCA sportsmanship.

--Rocky Entriken

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Sirota" <mark at sirota.org>
To: "Rocky Entriken" <rocky at spitfire4.com>; <autox at autox.team.net>; "Clemens 
Burger" <burgerc at iquest.net>
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Autox] Class Participation (Part 3)


> --On November 4, 2009 4:15:00 PM -0600 Rocky Entriken 
> <rocky at spitfire4.com> wrote:
>>> My planned letter to the SEB -- and I had this plan before the BoD
>>> action  in Club Racing -- is that we quit trying to define what
>>> constitutes a  class and instead define what constitutes a champion.
>
> I've been out of action for several years now and I don't know what has 
> transpired since then, but a concern I have about this is that every class 
> comes with a cost.
>
> The engine that runs SCCA Solo involves quite a lot of volunteer time -- 
> it's a very expensive commodity.  And every class has rules, particularly 
> the lower-participation classes in the higher modification categories, 
> because every class doesn't just share rules with other classes in the 
> category.  There are letters, discussions, clarifications, etc. and all of 
> this takes a lot of time.  Most of the members don't see the amount of 
> time that goes in, but trust me, it's a lot.
>
> So there's real value in keeping the number of classes to a reasonable 
> minimum.
>
> Rocky, if you take your proposal to the extreme, do classes ever go away? 
> Will there be dozens of classes someday, many of them empty or close to 
> it?
>
> The flip side of this argument is that quite a lot of time and effort is 
> spent figuring out what to do with the smaller classes, to bring their 
> numbers up or to resolve the "problem" in other ways.  They probably get a 
> disproportionate amount of effort, compared to their participation levels. 
> Just ignoring the problem may be cheaper than trying to address it.
>
> Mark

From bthatch at juno.com  Thu Nov  5 14:20:49 2009
From: bthatch at juno.com (Ben Thatcher)
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:20:49 -0500
Subject: [Autox] Class Participation at Nationals
Message-ID: <4AF341B1.6000308@juno.com>

Rocky, I like your idea for getting rid of the class sunset rules.

It amazes me how really insensitive the SCCA Solo BOD are to the 
investment of money and time on the part of competitors.

Those of us with C4 Corvettes in BSP got a real taste of this 
insensitivity in 2006 when the Rally Cars were moved into the class. In 
2005 we had 29 competitors all RWD and a lot of fun. Each year, since, 
BSP participation numbers have plummeted.

I spent well north of $20k setting up my Corvette and all that went 
south in 2006. I haven't been back to Nationals since 2005.

I believe that Solo is amateur motorsports at its finest. But SCCA 
should have a system to NOT make driver's investments obsolete with the 
stroke of a pen. SCCA Solo should be inclusive, not exclusive.

Ben Thatcher
____________________________________________________________
Online College Degrees
Advance your education and jumpstart your career. Research schools!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=4svQYdr8uU72bCQfQUTjpAAAJ1DZa0lCkDC51P2k9OWuFy8pAAQAAAAFAAAAADvfTz4AAANSAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABSJAAAAAA=

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type text/x-vcard which had a name of bthatch.vcf]

From jlieberman37 at comcast.net  Thu Nov  5 19:07:11 2009
From: jlieberman37 at comcast.net (John Lieberman)
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:07:11 -0600
Subject: [Autox] Class Participation (Part 3)
In-Reply-To: <7512DB497FA94FCAB117B6CA044E0EC1@rocky>
References: <32910924FFD24332996587E83588F807@rocky>
	<D7CE85F3A1A3F443C43159D2@mark-sirotas-macbook-pro-17.local>
	<7512DB497FA94FCAB117B6CA044E0EC1@rocky>
Message-ID: <4AF384CF.6060209@comcast.net>

I agree with what you're trying to do here, Clemens -- but I also like 
Rocky's proposal.  To me, it make more sense.  And, since it's already 
been done in Club Racing, that should give us some leverage with Solo, 
too. 

I'm in the same boat that Rocky's in -- we both run in GP -- and I know 
that we've both had to live with this artificial "bubble" ever since our 
class was created from DP a few years ago.  When I built my Mini (as a 
DP car) 23 years ago, I wasn't even thinking about National classes.  I 
just did it because it was a whole lot easier and cheaper to turn the 
pile of parts that I had bought into a Prepared car than it would have 
been to take it back to Street Prepared or even Stock class status.  The 
money I would have had to spend on interior and exterior trim parts -- 
let alone, ancillary engine parts -- was better spent, in my book, on 
performance parts.  I just wanted something that I could have fun with 
locally.  I didn't even attend my first Nationals until '97 and I didn't 
drive at Nationals until '98.  By then, I had already sunk far more time 
and money into my little car than I should have, and I still wasn't a 
competitive driver -- even though the little car might have been up to 
the task in the right hands. 

Unfortunately, I've had to miss the last couple of Nationals -- but not 
because of the rules.  It was strictly for financial reasons!!!  
However, by not being there, I also know that I contributed to the 
problem in our class.  I DO plan to be there in 2010 -- even if GP isn't 
recognized as a National class -- but that doesn't help us with where we 
are now.

BTW -- I would love to get my hands on a couple of those stickers.  
Please let me know the best way to go about doing that.

John Lieberman

Rocky Entriken wrote:
> In 1973 we had 15 classes at the first Solo Nationals, which included 
> one Ladies class on Index. Or, as a practical matter 14 classes in 
> which 224 drivers competed. That's an average of 16 cars per class.
>
> in 2009 we had 38 separate classes, all but the FJs having parallel 
> Ladies' classes. We had 1148 entrants, or an average of 30.2 entrants 
> each. of course, when you include the Ladies classes we had 72, and 
> that included 16 "empty or close to it" (one trophy, or in two cases, 
> none). But I believe my proposal does not go to the extreme, but backs 
> away from it. It says if we have a class of one or two or three cars 
> (or up to six), well you people have fun, enjoy the event, but you 
> haven't risen to the level of champion. However, you might next year 
> because we aren't taking your class away. You have nothing to fear, 
> but you do have the possibility of striving to achieve something better.
>
> We anointed 67 champions this year, plus five "winners" of 
> supplemental classes (two of which had four drivers in trophies). Had 
> my proposal been in effect, we'd have crowned 49 champions and 
> declared 23 "winners." It would have made the mantle of champion more 
> exclusive and more deserving, which still not disenfranchising anybody.

From burgerc at iquest.net  Thu Nov  5 20:16:33 2009
From: burgerc at iquest.net (Clemens Burger)
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:16:33 -0500
Subject: [Autox] Class Participation (Part 3)
In-Reply-To: <98655E85720F4196BE2DF5B9A6895DD3@rocky>
References: <6.2.1.2.1.20091103202525.044375a8@mail.iquest.net>
	<98655E85720F4196BE2DF5B9A6895DD3@rocky>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.1.20091105220735.04342e58@mail.iquest.net>

Rocky,

Great comments.  However, I hope you won't with your letter until next 
year.  In fact, send one before this "rule season" is over, and then 
another one once the next one starts.  I've never participated in the 
rule-making process before, because I never saw the need to do 
so.  Therefore, I am not very familiar with how this process works, but I 
am learning.  By talking to people, I have found out that a number of 
people had tried to fight Rule 4.9, but have given up, because they thought 
that nothing was happening.  On the other side, apparently, the SEB only 
reacts to letters, and I have heard that they never received enough letters 
to give them reason to address the concerns about Rule 4.9.

It looks like we have to reach a critical mass to get something 
done.  Therefore, please write your letter before the year is over.  If 
that does not accomplish anything, we need to continue with another round 
of letters once the next "rule season starts".


Clemens


At 07:22 AM 11/4/2009, you wrote:
>I'm planning a letter. I visited briefly with Tina Reeves a few weeks ago, 
>and she recommended I wait until around first of the year to send it, when 
>it would get into the next "rules season." Too late (even as of Nationals) 
>to do anything for 2010. We're looking at a 2011 change.
>
>Since then, some may have noticed, the BoD has passed rules in Club Racing 
>that almost exactly match what we want to do in Solo. Including:
>* All National classes (there are 29 now) will race in the Runoffs. Until 
>now only the top 24 or 25 got in.
>* The 2.5 rule which specifies Runoffs eligibility and whether a class 
>will even survive is eliminated -- this parallels Solo's Rule 4.9.
>* Instead of determining what constitutes a viable class, they will now 
>determine what constitutes a National Champion -- the class must have at 
>least 10 entries.
>* Classes that fall below 10 entries will be labeled "supplemental." They 
>still get to race, they still have a winner, but not a champion.
>
>My planned letter to the SEB -- and I had this plan before the BoD action 
>in Club Racing -- is that we quit trying to define what constitutes a 
>class and instead define what constitutes a champion. If a small class 
>shows up, so what? In Club Racing you can only do so many races in a day 
>(and now some of the small classes will be combined with others in a 
>single race). Solo's limiting factor is how many cars we can push through 
>a course in a day and we have yet to get within about 100 of that limit. 
>And now with the Lincoln site there is a new option -- a 3-course 
>Nationals (a given class runs two of the three), which raises the 
>potential entry limit from 1250 to something over 1800, and we may never 
>even get close to that one.
>
>My suggestion will be to eliminate Rule 4.9 and replace it with a 
>definition of a National Champion -- the winner of any class with at least 
>seven competitors. Seven, because that is the number at which we have a 
>full podium, three trophy winners.
>
>This puts it even within reach of Ladies classes, which should also go to 
>eliminating the perennial discussion of whether they should even exist 
>(let 'em run, but winners of 1-car classes are not champions). AND, any 
>class meeting that number, including "supplemental classes," would crown a 
>champion that year. It would also serve as incentive for competitors in 
>light classes to build their classes, without having to fear being 
>eliminated altogether.
>
>The change in Club Racing, and a similar change in Solo if enacted, 
>eliminates the "bubble" altogether. It eliminates the fear factor that 
>becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy and instead becomes a security blanket 
>that allows members to compete without paranoia and greater hope of 
>boosting their numbers -- to work toward positive goals rather than 
>working to ward off negative goals.
>
>The BoD's approval of the Club Racing change demonstrates they would 
>perhaps be of a mind to address the same issue in solo the same way. If 
>you write a letter to the SEB (seb at scca.com), copy it to bod at scca.com. 
>Don't expect the BoD to initiate action -- their action would be to refer 
>it to the SEB --
>but you copy them to let them know there is an issue pending and if at 
>such time as the item is sent up to them the BoD would already have some 
>idea of member sentiment.
>
>--Rocky Entriken

From burgerc at iquest.net  Thu Nov  5 20:34:50 2009
From: burgerc at iquest.net (Clemens Burger)
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:34:50 -0500
Subject: [Autox] Class Participation (Part 1)
In-Reply-To: <002001ca5d52$6f01c990$0202fea9@HP>
References: <6.2.1.2.1.20091030213800.0443ba08@mail.iquest.net>
	<002001ca5d52$6f01c990$0202fea9@HP>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.1.20091105221717.043382d0@mail.iquest.net>

Bill,

This is not a law suit, and there is not necessarily a right or wrong 
answer.  Fact is that no matter what timeframe I look at, there are way too 
many classes close enough to the 17-car limit to keep people who are 
seriously interested in those classes from making a step and joining 
them.  I do not need to cherry pick data to show that.  Rule 4.9 is 
counterproductive, and I don't see any use for it.  Rocky has already 
responded with a number of arguments against the rule.  Rule 4.9 is not 
required to make adjustments to classes.  I have not ever seen the rule 
kick in with respect to stock classes, and it seems like they get looked at 
every other year and adjusted on a regular basis anyways.

You said that any number is a compromise.  That is absolutely 
correct.  These numbers are arbitrary.  Why is the number 17 and not 5 or 
10 or 15 or 60?  However, the fact that Rule 4.9 threatens the existence of 
the majority of two entire categories of classes tells me that there is 
something wrong with the rule.  Do we want to ban what I call real race 
cars from Solo competition?  If so, we can move the minimum participation 
requirement up to 30 cars, but that would not be the club that I want to 
belong to.  In my opinion, the Sports Car Club of America needs to give the 
race cars a place to run.  Otherwise, we can rename it to the Miata Club of 
America, the Honda Club of America, or the Subary Club of America.

Also, my posting was a message to team.net, not a letter to the SEB.  I am 
neither trying to change the opinion of the people who believe that the 
minimum participation level should be higher than the current 17-car 
minimum, nor am I making a proposal to the SEB with my post.  However, I am 
trying to point out to people the issues that Rule 4.9 creates, and many 
people I have talked so far have agreed with me.


Clemens

At 08:26 AM 11/4/2009, Bill Fuhrmann wrote:
>I don't think you have proven your case.
>Are you cherry picking data?
>How about 3-5 years of the most recent participation lists (with notes if
>rules changes would have moved cars to a different class?
>
>What number are you proposing?  You said that 5 is too low, what about 10?
>What about 15?
>Everything you say about 17 can be said about 10.
>Any number is a compromise, what makes your unchosen number better than 17?
>
>How much do you think the SEB is going to listen to letters that say.
>"This rule stinks, replace it with something else but we have no clue what."
>You neeed to make a complete proposal.
>Otherwise they can say 16.5 and your wish has been granted.
>
>I have been away from autocross for a long time and never was part of the
>SCCA.
>I have no play in the rule either way but feel that I understand it enough
>to play devil's advocate.
>
>The rule does not suddenly drop classes.  It gives them three years.
>Knowing that autocrossers will read the letter of the law to benefit them,
>all the class die hards have to do is get together and bring road kill to
>drive their cars every three years to reset the clock.
>If I had written the rule, it probably would have been based on a three year
>average to avoid the years being 10-10-17.
>
>Again, what is your solution?

From rjbfspso at sbcglobal.net  Fri Nov  6 13:53:43 2009
From: rjbfspso at sbcglobal.net (Robert Barone)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 12:53:43 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Autox] Rule 4.9
Message-ID: <919617.57821.qm@web82106.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Many good points have been raised here in discussing the pros and cons on the
4.9 rule. I have a few points to add:

Since this rules proposal started
gaining momentum several years ago I canceled plans to build a new chassis for
my A Mod car. (Why spend money if I have no place to play.) I have also
drasticly reduced the amount I have spent on upgrades and tires. (Same reason
as above.) Remarkably I found other things that were more important to spend
my hard earned money on. The house got a new roof, gutters, windows,
insulation and siding. The new chassis is out of the picture permantly. 

My
Participation in SCCA SOLO has been drasticly reduced. After 35 years of some
degree if SCCA SOLO involvement I attended -ZERO - SCCA SOLO's in 2009. 

If
my car did not break some important pieces at the non-SCCA autocross I
attended this year my winter SOLO/car expenses would have been ZERO. As it now
stands the repairs and upgrades  that are being done have a strict budget
limit. Low enough that if the class is eliminated I will not have spent money
on something I cannot enjoy. I briefly considered parting out or scrapping the
car!

Rather than the 4.9 proposal forcing me to INCREASE my participation
level it has caused me to show up less!

Here is a point or two that do not
seem to be discussed enough and should be.  Why are the class participation
levels low? Is there someting we can do about it?

Bob Barone

From rocky at spitfire4.com  Fri Nov  6 15:32:39 2009
From: rocky at spitfire4.com (Rocky Entriken)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:32:39 -0600
Subject: [Autox] Rule 4.9
References: <919617.57821.qm@web82106.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <F66353A0F2954A34975487606B545659@rocky>

The funny irony here, Bob (and everyone) is that the SEB has specifically 
exempted AM because they recognized a need to have an AM class no matter how 
many (or few) show up!

They need to realize that rationale also works for BM, SM, EP, GP, all the 
other P and M classes. Yes even BP -- it's still stupid that race-prepped 
Corvettes have no place to play in SCCA Solo (unless they turn them into 
something that is quite a ways beyond being a race-prepped Corvette).

--Rocky

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert Barone" <rjbfspso at sbcglobal.net>
To: <Autox at autox.team.net>
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 2:53 PM
Subject: [Autox] Rule 4.9


> Many good points have been raised here in discussing the pros and cons on 
> the
> 4.9 rule. I have a few points to add:
>
> Since this rules proposal started
> gaining momentum several years ago I canceled plans to build a new chassis 
> for
> my A Mod car. (Why spend money if I have no place to play.) I have also
> drasticly reduced the amount I have spent on upgrades and tires. (Same 
> reason
> as above.) Remarkably I found other things that were more important to 
> spend
> my hard earned money on. The house got a new roof, gutters, windows,
> insulation and siding. The new chassis is out of the picture permantly.
>
> My
> Participation in SCCA SOLO has been drasticly reduced. After 35 years of 
> some
> degree if SCCA SOLO involvement I attended -ZERO - SCCA SOLO's in 2009.
>
> If
> my car did not break some important pieces at the non-SCCA autocross I
> attended this year my winter SOLO/car expenses would have been ZERO. As it 
> now
> stands the repairs and upgrades  that are being done have a strict budget
> limit. Low enough that if the class is eliminated I will not have spent 
> money
> on something I cannot enjoy. I briefly considered parting out or scrapping 
> the
> car!
>
> Rather than the 4.9 proposal forcing me to INCREASE my participation
> level it has caused me to show up less!
>
> Here is a point or two that do not
> seem to be discussed enough and should be.  Why are the class 
> participation
> levels low? Is there someting we can do 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

From rocky at spitfire4.com  Sat Nov  7 21:19:59 2009
From: rocky at spitfire4.com (Rocky Entriken)
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 22:19:59 -0600
Subject: [Autox] Rule 4.9
Message-ID: <379FC21BD87145BEAFFA5699134F3F00@rocky>

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Rocky Entriken
  To: Paul and Meredith Brown ; Autox
  Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 2:57 AM
  Subject: Re: [Autox] Rule 4.9


  You ask how many would show up if they knew a class wasn't a "Championship"
class?
  1. As many as have shown up for Supplemental classes over the years -- most
times sufficiently enough to make it a championship class (and often in
greater numbers than existing championship classes sometimes for several years
(see F Mod) before the SEB finally relented and let their winners have a
jacket.
  2. Possibly more if they knew going in that all they needed to make it a
championship class was to show up in sufficient number -- but even if they
missed the number this year they would be secure in the knowledge that that
didn't mean they were threatened with extinction -- they could always try
again next year. Being a championship class thus is totally in the hands of
the competitors. It gives them a goal to strive for, not an execution to try
to ward off. It becomes a positive incentive, not a negative one.
  3. And such a situation is likely to develop what you call "cheerleaders"
who work to whip up the competition to get there. Yes, CP has Grayden Obenour,
GP now seems to be doing it with Bill Cutrer. SM had Dennis Grant in its
Supplemental years. Now Clemens is beginning to do it with BM. I like the
cheerleaders, but I like it better when they do it to achieve something
outrageous (CP wanted to set a one-class entry record, and eventually they
did) than be forced to just try to survive.

  I find it hard to say "if nobody shows up it's not much of a class" when
"nobody" is defined as SIXTEEN cars. My suggestion for defining a champion is
SEVEN cars. Why seven? Because that's a 3-trophy, full-podium class. And if
somehow that definition of champion ended up with a different magic number
than my proposed seven, I still would not care that much -- as long as a class
itself is not threatened.

  --Rocky


  ----- Original Message -----
    From: Paul and Meredith Brown
    To: Rocky Entriken ; Autox
    Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 12:42 AM
    Subject: RE: [Autox] Rule 4.9


    <snip>

From l8apexrs at q.com  Sun Nov  8 22:51:24 2009
From: l8apexrs at q.com (Paul and Meredith Brown)
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 22:51:24 -0700
Subject: [Autox] Rule 4.9
In-Reply-To: <190D127E06BF4B4CA3F1BF0C49A4C073@rocky>
References: <919617.57821.qm@web82106.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<COL117-W3298E4346618E3D88B980E9DAE0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <COL117-W487B0B63F38FC0758A46CF9DAC0@phx.gbl>

Replying to Rocky's post:




>You ask how many would show up if they knew a class wasn't a "Championship"
class?
>1. As many as have shown up for Supplemental classes over the years -- most
times sufficiently enough to make it a championship class (and often in
>greater numbers than existing championship classes sometimes for several
years (see F Mod) before the SEB finally relented and let their winners have a
>jacket.

Supplemental classes are the "up and comers," which seems like an easier sell
than trying to revive a dying class.  What I'd like to do is turn things
around and not have the dying classes dying.  What Clemens did in BM is
inspirational, and should be an example of why these existing classes are
entirely approachable by the rest of the world who might think otherwise.
Clemens, an article written for Sports Car about how you did what you did (and
I'm not talking about specifics like air pressures, alignment settings, and
shocks, just things like how you chose the class and car, how you went about
setting it up, and why you think you were successful) might go an awfully long
ways towards convincing those afraid to make such a foray into the
"builder/tuner" classes that such a foray isn't quite so crazy as we might
have thought.  When Mark Daddio plays for a year in CM and wins, that doesn't
really give the rest of us mortals a lot of hope; he gave SM a scare with a
FWD Neon.  When someone who graduated from E Stock without ever threatening to
win does something similar, that's different, and I'm interested in hearing
the story.

>3. And such a situation is likely to develop what you call "cheerleaders" who
work to whip up the competition to get there. Yes, CP has Grayden Obenour, >GP
now seems to be doing it with Bill Cutrer. SM had Dennis Grant in its
Supplemental years. Now Clemens is beginning to do it with BM. I like the
>cheerleaders, but I like it better when they do it to achieve something
outrageous (CP wanted to set a one-class entry record, and eventually they
did) than >be forced to just try to survive.

So doing something outrageous is more important than class survival?  Not in
my world...

>I find it hard to say "if nobody shows up it's not much of a class" when
"nobody" is defined as SIXTEEN cars. My suggestion for defining a champion is
>SEVEN cars. Why seven? Because that's a 3-trophy, full-podium class. And if
somehow that definition of champion ended up with a different magic number
>than my proposed seven, I still would not care that much -- as long as a
class itself is not threatened.

No, I didn't define nobody as being sixteen.  I just noticed that you seem to
want to keep a class alive even if it reaches zero, which I suspect you would
agree with as being a reasonable definition of "nobody?"  You also lamented
that there's nowhere for a race prepared Corvette to play.  Seems to me that
the Whitney/Brude Corvette has been having plenty of success of late, when
they can stay off the cones.  Watching that car, I have often wondered about
the legality of building a V-6 Corvette in the class.  Lighter weight and less
power might just be a killer combination there :-)

Another issue not addressed is that by replacing a class but keeping the name,
your solutions do nothing to help the cars that used to populate the class (as
in Mr Thatcher's complaint).  I would tend to repeat my earlier assertion that
if the cars quit showing up immediately, then they don't really deserve a
class.  For cars that require development, if you can demonstrate that you
have the interest and cannot be competitive, you might very well get relief.
If you just quit showing up, you demonstrate that you really didn't care that
much in the first place.  I do have some sympathy - my situations have all
been in Stock, which despite having less development time, still has a
considerable investment in hardware.  My Conquest was moved to B Stock from GA
Stock in 1993 (the MR2 turbo class at the time;  MR2 turbos are still pretty
competitive in BS, but the Conquest is now back in GS where I think it's
really not competitive now).  I had an MX-6 when the Type-R was put in GS.
The Type-R is now the car for DS, and the MX-6 is another uncompetitive GS
car.  I had an MR2 turbo when the S2000 was put in AS.  The S2000 is still one
of the contenders in AS, and the MR2 is now in BS, and not the car of choice
there.  Not really a different situation to owning a Corvette when the rally
cars were put in ESP, then BSP.  At some point, it seems to make sense to give
the rally cars their own SP class.  But if that leaves a complete vacuum in
BSP, then why not skip a step and just say that BSP is the rally car class
because there just aren't BSP Corvettes left in the world? What I see is a lot
of giving up even before it has been demonstrated that there's a problem.
Hard to argue that you deserve a class to be competitive in when you do
that...

From notstock at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  9 12:30:54 2009
From: notstock at yahoo.com (j g)
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 11:30:54 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Autox] Rule 4.9
In-Reply-To: <F66353A0F2954A34975487606B545659@rocky>
Message-ID: <340556.77113.qm@web30908.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

proposal that is fair.




Modified Class B

From pethier at comcast.net  Mon Nov  9 14:02:35 2009
From: pethier at comcast.net (pethier at comcast.net)
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 21:02:35 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Autox] Suburban 6.0 2500, how do they tow?
Message-ID: <46847722.509471257800555063.JavaMail.root@sz0119a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>

I've been looking around for a Suburban 8.1 to tow my enclosed trailer.  Getting difficult to find.

The newer 3/4-ton Suburban (and badge-engineered Yukon XL) have a 6.0-litre V8.  How are these things at towing a 5-6 thousand-pound brick through the air?




Phil Ethier West Side Saint Paul Minnesota USA
1962 Triumph TR4 CT2846L   1979 Caterham 7
1993 Suburban  1994 Miata C-package  2007 Saturn Ion 3 2.4
http://www.triumphtransamerica.org.uk
http://forum.mnautox.com/forums   http://www.flickr.com/photos/pethier 

From notstock at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  9 14:51:53 2009
From: notstock at yahoo.com (j g)
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:51:53 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Autox] part 2 bmod
Message-ID: <737956.31508.qm@web30901.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

proposal that is fair.



Production cars as recognized in DM/EM running in BM as
sports racers must have the tires as viewed from above at least
= covered. Cycle fenders may be used to comply with a sports
racer classification.
F. Aerodynamic restrictions for Formula Atlantic (all open wheel in
BM) shall follow the current GCR, no additional Solo wing limitations.
G. Minimum weights for FSCCCA and SRSCCA, prepared as specified
by the GCR (lbs):
FSCCA: 1200
SRSCCA: 1200
H. Formula S is a special and relegated to AMOD - 
All vehicles competing must be from  GCR national classes , must be as close
to homologated as possible and cannot change wheel base or track more that 1.5
inches from the original design of the vehicle as homologated to meet the
minimum wheel base / track requirement  (outside normal wide/narrow track
construction varients).  Vehicles previously running under  water cooled VW
formula super VEE or old  formula B cars are allowed to bring their vehicle up
to current atlantic maximums as well as professional class preparation . Home
builts, must declare the rules set by which they are building the vehicle to
and this establishes the baseline wheel base as well as construction lineage
to which the appropriate weight shall be applied . This rule allows
homologated and competitive cars from all years to be equalized across the
class origins.
Cars that are derivatives of previously homologated vehicles, (regardless of
origin)  and have wheel bases shorter than 84 inches non inclusive shall have
weights adjusted by 150 pounds added.
Since all GCR classes allow a mix of powerplant options , vehicles with
automotive derived powerplants and transmissions shall have no weight penalty
and shall follow the above weight table .  Vehicles utilizing non automotive
derived powerplants due to the huge money invested each year by multinational
corporations to increase power, decrease weight and the huge aftermarket
performance modifications available at low cost  present an advantage that the
average competator cannot compete against without the same utilization ,
This rule's intent is to ensure that  GCR FIA defined classes currently ,at
significant disadvantage if maintained at the required construction and
transmission for club competitiveness ,can become equalized .  The vehicles
powered by non automotive derived power plants and not described above shall
have 110 pounds added to the base weight plus any adder required by  wheel
base . This rule allows homologated and competitive cars from all years to be
equalized across the class origins. Modifications as referred to  above are
defined as follows changes to , , air box , factory computer with programming
changes , after market computer  , injectors,, throttle bodies ,
carburetores  , porting, compression , cams, fuel injection , piggy back
computers, non factory pistons, piston rings, internal gears, cranks ,
bearings connecting rods . Changes to rocker arm ratio in applications with
rocker followers, Non factory castings or machined parts on
 any part making up the long block of the engine except to provide dry sump
availability and no other advantage or modification.    What is not considered
modifications are aftermarket clutches, dry sump oiling, and headers as long
as no reprogramming of the computer ,, water pumps ,alternators ,  adjustable
cam sprockets
JG 

From notstock at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  9 14:52:42 2009
From: notstock at yahoo.com (j g)
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:52:42 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Autox] Rule 4.9 bmod part one
Message-ID: <776990.97791.qm@web30905.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

proposal that is fair.




Modified Class B
All national classed  Formula Cars or Sports Racers legal under the current
year GCR and one previous ,
unless specifically classed elsewhere, with the following exceptions..
 The  intent  of BMOD is to allow FIA and GCR legal vehicles of any year  a
way to maintain value by modifications that are reversible by weight or
minimum changes
that do not involve major subassemblies  of the vehicle to be modified to
compete both in solo or club racing as desired by the competitor.
 A solo only vehicle should be the exclusion not the norm in this class.
(weights shown are with driver): all references to displacement unless
otherwise
stated are to 4 stroke, otto cycle derived , unless specified.
A. Spec tires are not required.
However all tires used by any competitor must be available in sizes ,
compounds and construction used by any competitor in the included classes
be  announced 10 weeks in advanced and  available for purchase as well as
stocked at national events ; if not available within 6 weeks of national
events.  
The intent of this rule is to prevent rogue or test tires not available to all
competitors to be used in preparation and running at any  national event .
B. Minimum wheelbase of 80 inches.,
C. Sports Racers and All Open Wheel Cars Including Formula
Atlantics
1. May use any automotive based 2-valve motor up to 1300cc,
any 2-stroke motor up to 900cc Normally aspirated only   1100pounds ,
2. May use any 2-valve  production engines up to 1615cc or any rotary piston
engine meeting  GCR rules .
and non modified production non automotive based engines Up to 1005cc at a
Minimum Weight: 1110 lbs normally aspirated only
3. May use any four- or more valve engine up to 1615cc. Any 2-
stroke up to 1300cc, Mazda 12A rotary with any porting, any
carburetion. May use fuel injection without weight penalty
required by the GCR. Minimum weight: 1200 lbs Normally aspirated only.
4. May use any naturally aspirated automotive derived engine up to 3000cc.
Minimum
weight: 1300 lbs
5. Minimum rim width: none.
6. Maximum allowed rim width: 15 inches.
D. Formula 2000, classed in Formula Continental per FCS no engine
modifications
1. Minimum weight 1090 lbs
2. Rim width is unrestricted.
3. Airfoil maximum size per Formula Atlantic GCR rules.
E. Aerodynamic restrictions for Sports Racers:
The total area when viewed from the top of all wings shall not
exceed 8 square feet. The current GCR CSR and DSR 45% flat
bottom rule and all other aero specifications shall also apply to
ASR. No aerodynamic device not part of the body work 
 may extend forward of a plane running vertically
through the front axle more than 16 inches , out riggers booms or
Attachments not originally part of the body work  intended to circumvent the
intent
of this rule are considered in violation of this rule.
 
 

From notstock at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  9 14:57:41 2009
From: notstock at yahoo.com (j g)
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:57:41 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Autox] rules bmod fair 4.9 3rd try
Message-ID: <971405.21125.qm@web30903.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Sure
Modified Class B

From notstock at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  9 16:09:06 2009
From: notstock at yahoo.com (j g)
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 15:09:06 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Autox] rules bmod fair 4.9 4th try part one
Message-ID: <643574.29567.qm@web30906.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Mon, 11/9/09, j g <notstock at yahoo.com> wrote:


From: j g <notstock at yahoo.com>
Subject: rules bmod fair 4.9 3rd try
To: Autox at autox.team.net
Date: Monday, November 9, 2009, 3:57 PM







Sure
Modified Class B
All national classed  Formula Cars or Sports Racers legal under the current
year GCR and one previous ,
unless specifically classed elsewhere, with the following exceptions..
 The  intent  of BMOD is to allow FIA and GCR legal vehicles of any year  a
way to maintain value by modifications that are reversible by weight or
minimum changes
that do not involve major subassemblies  of the vehicle to be modified to
compete both in solo or club racing as desired by the competitor.
 A solo only vehicle should be the exclusion not the norm in this class.
(weights shown are with driver): all references to displacement unless
otherwise
stated are to 4 stroke, otto cycle derived , unless specified.
A. Spec tires are not required.
However all tires used by any competitor must be available in sizes ,
compounds and construction used by any competitor in the included classes
be  announced 10 weeks in advanced and  available for purchase as well as
stocked at national events ; if not available within 6 weeks of national
events.  
The intent of this rule is to prevent rogue or test tires not available to all
competitors to be used in preparation and running at any  national event .
B. Minimum wheelbase of 80 inches.,
C. Sports Racers and All Open Wheel Cars Including Formula
Atlantics
1. May use any automotive based 2-valve motor up to 1300cc,
any 2-stroke motor up to 900cc Normally aspirated only   1100pounds ,
2. May use any 2-valve  production engines up to 1615cc or any rotary piston
engine meeting  GCR rules .
and non modified production non automotive based engines Up to 1005cc at a
Minimum Weight: 1110 lbs normally aspirated only
3. May use any four- or more valve engine up to 1615cc. Any 2-
stroke up to 1300cc, Mazda 12A rotary with any porting, any
carburetion. May use fuel injection without weight penalty
required by the GCR. Minimum weight: 1200 lbs Normally aspirated only.
4. May use any naturally aspirated automotive derived engine up to 3000cc.
Minimum
weight: 1300 lbs
5. Minimum rim width: none.
6. Maximum allowed rim width: 15 inches.
D. Formula 2000, classed in Formula Continental per FCS no engine
modifications
1. Minimum weight 1090 lbs
2. Rim width is unrestricted.
3. Airfoil maximum size per Formula Atlantic GCR rules.
E. Aerodynamic restrictions for Sports Racers:
The total area when viewed from the top of all wings shall not
exceed 8 square feet. The current GCR CSR and DSR 45% flat
bottom rule and all other aero specifications shall also apply to
ASR. No aerodynamic device not part of the body work 
 may extend forward of a plane running vertically
through the front axle more than 16 inches , out riggers booms or
Attachments not originally part of the body work  intended to circumvent the
intent
of this rule are considered in violation of this rule.
 
Production cars as recognized in DM/EM running in BM as
sports racers must have the tires as viewed from above at least
= covered. Cycle fenders may be used to comply with a sports
racer classification.
F. Aerodynamic restrictions for Formula Atlantic (all open wheel in
BM) shall follow the current GCR, no additional Solo wing limitations.
G. Minimum weights for FSCCCA and SRSCCA, prepared as specified
by the GCR (lbs):
FSCCA: 1200
SRSCCA: 1200
H. Formula S is a special and relegated to AMOD - 
 
JG 

From notstock at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  9 16:11:20 2009
From: notstock at yahoo.com (j g)
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 15:11:20 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Autox] rules bmod fair 4.9  4th try part 2 try
Message-ID: <589923.24262.qm@web30904.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

 
All vehicles competing must be from  GCR national classes , must be as close
to homologated as possible and cannot change wheel base or track more that 1.5
inches from the original design of the vehicle as homologated to meet the
minimum wheel base / track requirement  (outside normal wide/narrow track
construction varients).  Vehicles previously running under  water cooled VW
formula super VEE or old  formula B cars are allowed to bring their vehicle up
to current atlantic maximums as well as professional class preparation . Home
builts, must declare the rules set by which they are building the vehicle to
and this establishes the baseline wheel base as well as construction lineage
to which the appropriate weight shall be applied . This rule allows
homologated and competitive cars from all years to be equalized across the
class origins.
Cars that are derivatives of previously homologated vehicles, (regardless of
origin)  and have wheel bases shorter than 84 inches non inclusive ( and above
80inches) shall have weights adjusted by 150 pounds added.
Since all GCR classes allow a mix of powerplant options , vehicles with
automotive derived powerplants and transmissions shall have no weight penalty
and shall follow the above weight table .  Vehicles utilizing non automotive
derived powerplants due to the huge money invested each year by multinational
corporations to increase power, decrease weight and the huge aftermarket
performance modifications available at low cost  present an advantage that the
average competator cannot compete against without the same utilization ,
This rule's intent is to ensure that  GCR FIA defined classes currently ,at
significant disadvantage if maintained at the required construction and
transmission for club competitiveness ,can become equalized .  The vehicles
powered by non automotive derived power plants and not described above shall
have 110 pounds added to the base weight plus any adder required by  wheel
base . This rule allows homologated and competitive cars from all years to be
equalized across the class origins. Modifications as referred to  above are
defined as follows changes to , , air box , factory computer with programming
changes , after market computer  , injectors,, throttle bodies ,
carburetores  , porting, compression , cams, fuel injection , piggy back
computers, non factory pistons, piston rings, internal gears, cranks ,
bearings connecting rods . Changes to rocker arm ratio in applications with
rocker followers, Non factory castings or machined parts on
 any part making up the long block of the engine except to provide dry sump
availability and no other advantage or modification.    What is not considered
modifications are aftermarket clutches, dry sump oiling, and headers as long
as no reprogramming of the computer ,, water pumps ,alternators ,  adjustable
cam sprockets
JG 

From mark at bradakis.com  Mon Nov  9 17:19:38 2009
From: mark at bradakis.com (Mark J Bradakis)
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:19:38 -0700
Subject: [Autox] rules bmod fair 4.9  4th try part 2 try
In-Reply-To: <589923.24262.qm@web30904.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <589923.24262.qm@web30904.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4AF8B19A.8010005@bradakis.com>

Okay, I give up.

What, exactly, is the point you are trying to make?

mjb.

From lorenzoscribe at hotmail.com  Wed Nov 11 19:33:16 2009
From: lorenzoscribe at hotmail.com (Larry Steckel)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:33:16 -0500
Subject: [Autox] Suburban 6.0 2500, how do the
In-Reply-To: <46847722.509471257800555063.JavaMail.root@sz0119a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
References: <46847722.509471257800555063.JavaMail.root@sz0119a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <COL110-W4442CE3FE3D85A668DB5C9ACA90@phx.gbl>

No matter how the truck is set up from the factory, assume that it needs
everything from a big ass tranny oil cooler to supplemental electrics.  I have
heard of too many cases of Chevy trucks having fires etc if not set up
correctly.



Larry Steckel

> Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 21:02:35 +0000
> From: pethier at comcast.net
> To: autox at autox.team.net
> Subject: [Autox] Suburban 6.0 2500, how do they tow?
>
> I've been looking around for a Suburban 8.1 to tow my enclosed trailer.
Getting difficult to find.
>
> The newer 3/4-ton Suburban (and badge-engineered Yukon XL) have a 6.0-litre
V8. How are these things at towing a 5-6 thousand-pound brick through the
air?
>
>
>
>
> Phil Ethier West Side Saint Paul Minnesota USA
> 1962 Triumph TR4 CT2846L 1979 Caterham 7
> 1993 Suburban 1994 Miata C-package 2007 Saturn Ion 3 2.4
> http://www.triumphtransamerica.org.uk
> http://forum.mnautox.com/forums http://www.flickr.com/photos/pethier
>
> _______________________________________________
> Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
>
> Autox mailing list
>
> http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/autox
>
> http://www.team.net/archive

From sjm at us.ibm.com  Wed Nov 18 07:22:29 2009
From: sjm at us.ibm.com (Steven J Miller)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:22:29 -0500
Subject: [Autox] rivnut inventory for sale
Message-ID: <OF34E61589.01AE384E-ON85257672.004D443C-85257672.004EF6F8@us.ibm.com>

Longtime SCCA, NER, FCSCC and CART member Brian Moran passed away a while 
back. He was the local distributor for Rivnuts, and there is still a large 
inventory of Rivnuts that his kids need to sell.

For information on what Rivnuts are, here is a good explanation:
http://www.eaa.org.za/articles/rivnuts

They are very useful in race car and aircraft fabrication.

Some of the items have certifications, as his customers included aerospace 
companies and others that required certifications. The inventory also 
includes some tools for installing Rivnuts, I believe including manual and 
pneumatic tools.

If you or anyone you know is interested, I have scanned copies of 
inventory sheets. Please send me an email and I will send you the files.

The inventory is located near Bridgeport, CT.

Steve

From sjm at us.ibm.com  Wed Nov 18 13:38:18 2009
From: sjm at us.ibm.com (Steven J Miller)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:38:18 -0500
Subject: [Autox] rivnut inventory - inventory sheets
Message-ID: <OF177E75A0.7C929623-ON85257672.0070B56B-85257672.00715F1B@us.ibm.com>

I loaded the inventory sheets to photobucket. 

You can access them here:

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w296/skadsm/RivNut/img146.jpg
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w296/skadsm/RivNut/img147.jpg
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w296/skadsm/RivNut/img148.jpg
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w296/skadsm/RivNut/img149.jpg
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w296/skadsm/RivNut/img150.jpg
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w296/skadsm/RivNut/img151.jpg
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w296/skadsm/RivNut/img152.jpg
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w296/skadsm/RivNut/img153.jpg
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w296/skadsm/RivNut/img154.jpg
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w296/skadsm/RivNut/img155.jpg
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w296/skadsm/RivNut/img156.jpg
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w296/skadsm/RivNut/img157.jpg
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w296/skadsm/RivNut/img158.jpg
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w296/skadsm/RivNut/img159.jpg
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w296/skadsm/RivNut/img160.jpg

Steve

From jacarriere at jacircuits.com  Thu Nov 19 20:07:48 2009
From: jacarriere at jacircuits.com (John A. Carriere)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:07:48 -0500
Subject: [Autox] Suburban 6.0 2500, how do they tow?
In-Reply-To: <mailman.31.1258052404.13228.autox@autox.team.net>
References: <mailman.31.1258052404.13228.autox@autox.team.net>
Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.2.20091119215607.038b8920@jacircuits.com>

Hi Larry,

I do not know how recent your experience with towing with Chevy 
products is, but I have to disagree with your statement about needing 
extra equipment.

I had no problem towing an enclosed trailer with a Chevy Express van 
with a 6.0l six speed.  Don Elzinga and I towed from Michigan to 
Lincoln on-cruise control and never opened up the torque converter 
clutch!!  We got 13 MPG!!

Regarding Suburbans,  I thought I'd ask someone who does trailering 
validation testing at GM.  Here's Greg's reply:

John,
The 2010 3/4 ton Suburban with the L96 6.0L engine has a maximum 
vehicle weight of 8,600 pounds. With the curb weight for the 2WD 
model, C20906 around 6,040 pounds there is a maximum payload of 2,560 
pounds for the vehicle. The maximum trailer weight for this truck is 
9,600 pounds. The maximum combined weight (trailer and vehicle 
combined) has been evaluated in some of the most extreme conditions 
in North America, including Townes Pass in Death Valley, CA. during 
the hottest summer months. This evaluation is considered the most 
extreme for worse case grade and temperature conditions. These 
evaluations are conducted with only factory installed components. 
This vehicle is more than capable to towing the 5,000 to 6,000 pound, 
high frontal trailer mentioned below with out any additional, 
after-market cooling components. If you have any questions feel free 
to give me a call.

Greg P. Martuch
Energy, Drive Quality
GMT900
Hope this helps,

John Carriere

>Send Autox mailing list submissions to
>         autox at autox.team.net
>
>Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Suburban 6.0 2500, how do the (Larry Steckel)
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:33:16 -0500
>From: Larry Steckel <lorenzoscribe at hotmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [Autox] Suburban 6.0 2500, how do the
>To: <pethier at comcast.net>, Team.Net Autocross <autox at autox.team.net>
>Message-ID: <COL110-W4442CE3FE3D85A668DB5C9ACA90 at phx.gbl>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>No matter how the truck is set up from the factory, assume that it needs
>everything from a big ass tranny oil cooler to supplemental electrics.  I have
>heard of too many cases of Chevy trucks having fires etc if not set up
>correctly.
>
>
>
>Larry Steckel
>
> > Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 21:02:35 +0000
> > From: pethier at comcast.net
> > To: autox at autox.team.net
> > Subject: [Autox] Suburban 6.0 2500, how do they tow?
> >
> > I've been looking around for a Suburban 8.1 to tow my enclosed trailer.
>Getting difficult to find.
> >
> > The newer 3/4-ton Suburban (and badge-engineered Yukon XL) have a 6.0-litre
>V8. How are these things at towing a 5-6 thousand-pound brick through the
>air?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Phil Ethier West Side Saint Paul Minnesota USA
> > 1962 Triumph TR4 CT2846L 1979 Caterham 7
> > 1993 Suburban 1994 Miata C-package 2007 Saturn Ion 3 2.4
> > http://www.triumphtransamerica.org.uk
> > http://forum.mnautox.com/forums http://www.flickr.com/photos/pethier
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
> >
> > Autox mailing list
> >
> > http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/autox
> >
> > http://www.team.net/archive
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Autox mailing list
>Autox at autox.team.net
>http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/autox
>
>
>End of Autox Digest, Vol 1, Issue 14
>************************************


JACircuits Autocross Timing Systems
     http://www.jacircuits.com
- Timing the SCCA Solo II Nationals since 1985
                                 *********** 

From pethier at comcast.net  Thu Nov 19 21:51:10 2009
From: pethier at comcast.net (pethier at comcast.net)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 04:51:10 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Autox] Suburban 6.0 2500, how do they tow?
In-Reply-To: <1365005950.4949191258692560947.JavaMail.root@sz0119a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <1249191790.4950011258692670700.JavaMail.root@sz0119a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>

Thanks for the info.  I did purchase a 2004 8.1L K2500 Suburban in Mankato Minnesota.  Nothing exceeds like excess.

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 

----- "John A. Carriere" <jacarriere at jacircuits.com> wrote:

> From: "John A. Carriere" <jacarriere at jacircuits.com>
> To: autox at autox.team.net
> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 9:07:48 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
> Subject: Re: [Autox] Suburban 6.0 2500, how do they tow?
>
> Hi Larry,
> 
> I do not know how recent your experience with towing with Chevy 
> products is, but I have to disagree with your statement about needing
> 
> extra equipment.
> 
> I had no problem towing an enclosed trailer with a Chevy Express van 
> with a 6.0l six speed.  Don Elzinga and I towed from Michigan to 
> Lincoln on-cruise control and never opened up the torque converter 
> clutch!!  We got 13 MPG!!
> 
> Regarding Suburbans,  I thought I'd ask someone who does trailering 
> validation testing at GM.  Here's Greg's reply:
> 
> John,
> The 2010 3/4 ton Suburban with the L96 6.0L engine has a maximum 
> vehicle weight of 8,600 pounds. With the curb weight for the 2WD 
> model, C20906 around 6,040 pounds there is a maximum payload of 2,560
> 
> pounds for the vehicle. The maximum trailer weight for this truck is 
> 9,600 pounds. The maximum combined weight (trailer and vehicle 
> combined) has been evaluated in some of the most extreme conditions 
> in North America, including Townes Pass in Death Valley, CA. during 
> the hottest summer months. This evaluation is considered the most 
> extreme for worse case grade and temperature conditions. These 
> evaluations are conducted with only factory installed components. 
> This vehicle is more than capable to towing the 5,000 to 6,000 pound,
> 
> high frontal trailer mentioned below with out any additional, 
> after-market cooling components. If you have any questions feel free 
> to give me a call.
> 
> Greg P. Martuch
> Energy, Drive Quality
> GMT900
> Hope this helps,
> 
> John Carriere

From magazine at pacbell.net  Fri Nov 20 17:36:43 2009
From: magazine at pacbell.net (craig naylor)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:36:43 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Autox] (no subject)
Message-ID: <739976.59208.qm@web82108.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Hi John,

No dog in this fight.... but do you really think an employee of GM "quality
control" is going to say... yea your right, extra equipment is needed for our
product to meet what we say it can do?  Nor will he address longevity beyond
the warranties period if used at rated limits.

I think the two statements are at the extremes, no it probably doesn't need
"everything" upgraded just to do what its rated for.  Also, the longest life
will probably not be met without any upgrades.

Lets face it, almost all of us who tow push the boundaries of what our trucks
are rated for, that is if we don't just jump right over them. Iif the
questioner is like most of use who push the weights, push the posted, push the
hours of constant running at the aformentioned limits on straight through
drives.... over time some of these upgrades will make a longevity difference.

Then again if he is one who sells before the warranty expires... well thats
more likley to be the next owners worries/problems.

Craig

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:07:48 -0500
From: "John A. Carriere" <jacarriere at jacircuits.com>
Subject: Re: [Autox] Suburban 6.0 2500, how do they tow?
To: autox at autox.team.net
Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.2.20091119215607.038b8920 at jacircuits.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hi Larry,

I do not know how recent your experience with towing with Chevy
products is, but I have to disagree with your statement about needing
extra equipment.

I had no problem towing an enclosed trailer with a Chevy Express van
with a 6.0l six speed.  Don Elzinga and I towed from Michigan to
Lincoln on-cruise control and never opened up the torque converter
clutch!!  We got 13 MPG!!

Regarding Suburbans,  I thought I'd ask someone who does trailering
validation testing at GM.  Here's Greg's reply:

John,
The 2010 3/4 ton Suburban with the L96 6.0L engine has a maximum
vehicle weight of 8,600 pounds. With the curb weight for the 2WD
model, C20906 around 6,040 pounds there is a maximum payload of 2,560
pounds for the vehicle. The maximum trailer weight for this truck is
9,600 pounds. The maximum combined weight (trailer and vehicle
combined) has been evaluated in some of the most extreme conditions
in North America, including Townes Pass in Death Valley, CA. during
the hottest summer months. This evaluation is considered the most
extreme for worse case grade and temperature conditions. These
evaluations are conducted with only factory installed components.
This vehicle is more than capable to towing the 5,000 to 6,000 pound,
high frontal trailer mentioned below with out any additional,
after-market cooling components. If you have any questions feel free
to give me a call.

Greg P. Martuch
Energy, Drive Quality
GMT900
Hope this helps,

From lorenzoscribe at hotmail.com  Sat Nov 21 09:22:23 2009
From: lorenzoscribe at hotmail.com (Larry Steckel)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:22:23 -0500
Subject: [Autox] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <739976.59208.qm@web82108.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <739976.59208.qm@web82108.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <COL110-W16159140F765FFFB8E7EC9ACA00@phx.gbl>

Grreg et Al.

Say what you will, but about ten years ago, I had a clubmate who bought a
brand new Suburban and specifically ordered all of the trailer towing packages
based on the weight of his car and trailer. His goal was to eventually go to
Nationals.  He did the following year towing a Honda Civic (1989 I think) on
an open aluminum trailer behind the Suburban. He got from Pittsburgh almost to
Columbus Ohio and discovered that his truck was on fire.



Once the fire was out, he discovered that the transmission had overheated blew
out the dipstick and burped Dexron onto the Catyclismic diverter. Of course it
lit up in a cheery fire which burned the wiring looms that ran across the back
of the engine bay as well as some engine wiring. It didn't do the paint any
good either.



GM didn't want to cover it under warrenty. They told him that if he was towing
he needed to install an aftermarket transmission oil cooler. He showed them
all of his paperwork that proved that he had ordered the approved GM equipment
the dealer said he needed.  They finally repaired the truck. He sold it and
went with a different brand.



Now those TrailX aluminum trailers are only about 1500 pounds. One of those
early Civics may be 2500 pounds soaking wet. So he was pulling a little over
4,000 pounds behind his Suburban.  A bare bones 1/2 ton pickup with no
equipment can tow 5,000 lbs. so one would think that this Suburban "should"
have been able to drag that Civic to the ends of the earth without a hitch.



Given his experience, I wouldn't regularly tow anything without installing the
biggest tranny oil cooler I can find.  No matter what claims are made by the
manufacturer.



Larry Steckel

> Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:36:43 -0800
> From: magazine at pacbell.net
> To: autox at autox.team.net
> Subject: [Autox] (no subject)
>
> Hi John,
>
> No dog in this fight.... but do you really think an employee of GM "quality
> control" is going to say... yea your right, extra equipment is needed for
our
> product to meet what we say it can do? Nor will he address longevity beyond
> the warranties period if used at rated limits.
>
> I think the two statements are at the extremes, no it probably doesn't need
> "everything" upgraded just to do what its rated for. Also, the longest life
> will probably not be met without any upgrades.
>
> Lets face it, almost all of us who tow push the boundaries of what our
trucks
> are rated for, that is if we don't just jump right over them. Iif the
> questioner is like most of use who push the weights, push the posted, push
the
> hours of constant running at the aformentioned limits on straight through
> drives.... over time some of these upgrades will make a longevity
difference.
>
> Then again if he is one who sells before the warranty expires... well thats
> more likley to be the next owners worries/problems.
>
> Craig
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:07:48 -0500
> From: "John A. Carriere" <jacarriere at jacircuits.com>
> Subject: Re: [Autox] Suburban 6.0 2500, how do they tow?
> To: autox at autox.team.net
> Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.2.20091119215607.038b8920 at jacircuits.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hi Larry,
>
> I do not know how recent your experience with towing with Chevy
> products is, but I have to disagree with your statement about needing
> extra equipment.
>
> I had no problem towing an enclosed trailer with a Chevy Express van
> with a 6.0l six speed. Don Elzinga and I towed from Michigan to
> Lincoln on-cruise control and never opened up the torque converter
> clutch!! We got 13 MPG!!
>
> Regarding Suburbans, I thought I'd ask someone who does trailering
> validation testing at GM. Here's Greg's reply:
>
> John,
> The 2010 3/4 ton Suburban with the L96 6.0L engine has a maximum
> vehicle weight of 8,600 pounds. With the curb weight for the 2WD
> model, C20906 around 6,040 pounds there is a maximum payload of 2,560
> pounds for the vehicle. The maximum trailer weight for this truck is
> 9,600 pounds. The maximum combined weight (trailer and vehicle
> combined) has been evaluated in some of the most extreme conditions
> in North America, including Townes Pass in Death Valley, CA. during
> the hottest summer months. This evaluation is considered the most
> extreme for worse case grade and temperature conditions. These
> evaluations are conducted with only factory installed components.
> This vehicle is more than capable to towing the 5,000 to 6,000 pound,
> high frontal trailer mentioned below with out any additional,
> after-market cooling components. If you have any questions feel free
> to give me a call.
>
> Greg P. Martuch
> Energy, Drive Quality
> GMT900
> Hope this helps,
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 lorenzoscribe at hotmail.com

From jdmurphy47 at aol.com  Sun Nov 22 14:11:28 2009
From: jdmurphy47 at aol.com (jdmurphy47 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:11:28 -0500
Subject: [Autox] Towing Upgrades
Message-ID: <8CC39CF7DA565BA-2114-1B9FF@webmail-d087.sysops.aol.com>

I was told by an old veteran race car driver who has towed just about any
weight car in many kinds of trailers over 40 years now
that if what you are towing exceeds 50% of the factory capacity limits then
upgrades are called for and as you get closer to these limits,
more protection needs to be added like an engine oil cooler or bigger radiator
or more fans in addition to the transmission cooler.
He also says that aftermarket water, oil and transmission fluid temperature
gauges (each installed in the correct location) that you trust are absolutely
required - he does NOT trust most factory gauges or digital readouts.

Hope that this helps.

Jim

From george.ryan at sbcglobal.net  Mon Nov 23 16:12:41 2009
From: george.ryan at sbcglobal.net (George Ryan)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:12:41 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Autox] (autox) Towing Upgrades
In-Reply-To: <mailman.28.1259002802.22229.autox@autox.team.net>
Message-ID: <759693.12999.qm@web82305.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I hauled cars nationwide professionally from 1995 to 2006 pulling both tag
single car enclosed trailers from 18' to 32' (and one 48' gooseneck two car
enclosed trailer) and open car haulers from a 36' two car low-boy to
an 18' single open car hauler. The name of my company was Vehicle Valet, we
specialized in door-to-door direct hauling of exotic, antique, and other
cars for which the owner wanted the personalized care we offered and delivery
within hours from pickup (max 5 days from Miami to Seattle) - and were willing
to pay extra for that service. All have been pulled using either a 1998
Dodge 3/4 ton Cummins 5 spd  or a 2005 Dodge dually with a 6 speed (still have
them both!).  
 
The 3/4 ton was upgraded with an airbag on the rear suspension, overload
springs, and 19.5" wheels/tires (rode rough as a cob but gave fantastic tire
life!). But the only engine/powertrain upgrades were a heavier duty clutch at
160,000 miles when the original wore out, and a towing chip. I DID install a
full set of guages - I mionitored the EGT guage closely - a K&N filter, a 4"
exhaust. and a FASS system ( as the ISB Dodges were famous for their lift pump
failures so the FASS was purchased after I had one).
 
However, the dually only has a towing chip. Period.
 
The oil was changed every 7500 miles (about every third week) - but no special
maintenance was ever needed. I never have had a hauling related breakdown in
over 540,000 miles between my two trucks. I have added no additional coolers
(of course, both mine are standard trans 2WD units), both trucks still have
the stock fans and radiators. I have never had either engine exceed normal
operating temps, even in the desert in the summer.  
 
I have had multiple drivers lease to me during that period also. I have had
two other drivers that used one-ton Dodges (one was a single axle), one driver
that used his Chevy Duramax/Allison one-ton, and 4 Fords that leased to me (2
with the dreaded 6.0L and 2 with the old reliable 7.3 Powerstroke). The Chevy
required maintenance and repairs almost as much as the two 6.0L Fords did -
they were in the shop every couple months for one thing or the other. The
older 7.3 Powerstrokes and all the Dodges were totally reliable. (Not wanting
to start a flame war or brand loyalty discussion, but just sharing my
experiences).
 
I have listed the above qualifiers to show that I perhaps can speak with some
degree of authority and knowledge.
 
Now to the subject matter. For the casual hauler like those being addressed, I
DO agree that an aftermarket trans cooler should be used with an auto trans.
And i might add that I personally would NEVER haul heavy any distance with a
4WD unit (even as a casual hauler) - too hard on the diffy's.
 
Other than a larger or updated trans cooler, however, my experiences have
shown that there is not any need for any other upgrades to haul an enclosed
trailer with a 3/4 or one-ton diesel truck - even for a few hundred mile
tow occasionally.
 
Just my .02 - - take it or leave it.
 
G 


Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:11:28 -0500
From: jdmurphy47 at aol.com
Subject: [Autox] Towing Upgrades
To: autox at autox.team.net
Message-ID: <8CC39CF7DA565BA-2114-1B9FF at webmail-d087.sysops.aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I was told by an old veteran race car driver who has towed just about any
weight car in many kinds of trailers over 40 years now
that if what you are towing exceeds 50% of the factory capacity limits then
upgrades are called for and as you get closer to these limits,
more protection needs to be added like an engine oil cooler or bigger
radiator
or more fans in addition to the transmission cooler.
He also says that aftermarket water, oil and transmission fluid temperature
gauges (each installed in the correct location) that you trust are absolutely
required - he does NOT trust most factory gauges or digital readouts.

Hope that this helps.

Jim

From l8apexrs at q.com  Mon Nov 23 22:08:55 2009
From: l8apexrs at q.com (Paul and Meredith Brown)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:08:55 -0700
Subject: [Autox] (autox) Towing Upgrades
In-Reply-To: <759693.12999.qm@web82305.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.28.1259002802.22229.autox@autox.team.net>,
	<759693.12999.qm@web82305.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <SNT132-w2170128843D2B974FA74B99D9D0@phx.gbl>

I've put about 300,000 miles on two Cummins Dodges.  Both were 3/4-ton X-cab
4X4 automagics.  Can't live without 4WD here for 5 months of the year, and
can't afford to have two trucks, so we tow with a 4X4.  Never had problems,
and on occasion the 4WD is a nice feature when towing either near home or
through Flagstaff...  The Cummins is a wonderful powerplant, though they had
problems both times diesel standards changed, first to the low sulfur, then
more recently to the ultra low sulphur (thanks, Bosch).  Never had problems
with the automagics, and I let it spend as much time as it will in OD (to be
fair, the trailer is about 4000 pounds, so we aren't anywhere near what should
cause a 3/4-ton truck any issues).  The Dodge automagics have a bit of a
reputation for being fragile, though we've never had any issues.  My
understanding of that is that people really like to overload the trucks (haul
30,000 pound trailers with them) which the clutch in the lockup torque
converter can't deal with;  when that clutch fails, the parts go through the
trans, and poof.

As to the Fords, I know a number of people with 7.3 Powerstrokes.  They all
like their trucks, but every last one of them has had multiple problems with
the injector wiring.  Not a big surprise - they run 100V DC wiring under the
valve covers (in the oil) and that is one of the problem areas in the trucks.
My first diesel was an '83 Ford, with the old 6.9.  The only thing I ever want
from Ford is an apology for that POS (and it wasn't just the engine).  Made my
'71 Fiat seem like a reliable, well-engineered vehicle...

The one guy I  keep in touch with who has a Chevy Duramax is on a first-name
basis with not only the service writers but several mechanics at two different
dealerships.  To be fair, that was a problem he had with it when it was nearly
new, and it's been good since then.

Towing with a half-ton ought to be OK, based on their ratings, but lots of
them don't seem to be able to handle that sort of duty.  The 90's Generally
Mediocre Corporation products were particularly bad - that 700R4 trans was a
cruel joke.  They lost enough on warranty work on those that they actually
seem to have improved things.

Overkill in this case is a good thing, so we've used 3/4-ton trucks to do our
light towing.

> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:12:41 -0800
> From: george.ryan at sbcglobal.net
> To: autox at autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: [Autox] (autox) Towing Upgrades
>
> I hauled cars nationwide professionally from 1995 to 2006 pulling both tag
> single car enclosed trailers from 18' to 32' (and one 48' gooseneck two car
> enclosed trailer) and open car haulers from a 36' two car low-boy to
> an 18' single open car hauler. The name of my company was Vehicle Valet, we
> specialized in door-to-door direct hauling of exotic, antique, and other
> cars for which the owner wanted the personalized care we offered and
delivery
> within hours from pickup (max 5 days from Miami to Seattle) - and were
willing
> to pay extra for that service. All have been pulled using either a 1998
> Dodge 3/4 ton Cummins 5 spd or a 2005 Dodge dually with a 6 speed (still
have
> them both!).

