treinhar

Part of the reasons given for some of the moves from BS to STX is the feeling that the RX8 won't do well in the merged class. Also your comment of wanting to move to the new AS begs an additional question about who fills out this new class. It will need to rob from other classes to be successful which does effect their participation levels. But more important why create it without data showing that the new class has enough true interest. It seems that Most of the new non-stock classes in recent history have been created from a provisional class. They first measured competitor interest/# in the provisional class. Some took a couple of years to prove themselves but the long list of stock class reorganization options is focused on one thing and that is one new class at potentially the expense of a successful class. Why does the new AS or Superduper stock get to be created out of thin air prior to demonstrable proof that >30 will show at Nationals.

ULLLOSE

iTrader: (1)

Well this is not a "new" class, it is a consolidation - just moving existing cars - so it does not have to endure the provisional status.

There is no doubt that any change has risk involved. However, looking at what is popular and what the grids are full of, the formula in SS and AS is working. Is there enough there to support a third version, who knows, but I know I would line up to join the new AS. I think there are more than enough cars within the AS proposal to fill a class, C5, RX-7tt, Box/CayS, 996 911, BMW, great mix of stuff with prices for any budget. Best part is they all go fast.

treinhar

I agree that CS/BS is a consolidation but the rest of it is creation of a new class from cars in currents classes

ULLLOSE

iTrader: (1)

You are right. But I am sure this is why the SEB/SAC is taking so long to do it, and continuing to float other ideas. You could kill one healthy class (BS), and one that has been big in the past (CS) that just needs to find its direction. And in doing so you could have a new class (AS.2) that is an epic failure.

On the other hand I would say that if the new CS maintained levels similar to the current BS, and the new AS drew more than was lost in the combination, it would be a successful move. No one has a crystal ball, its all a guess.

GeorgeH

iTrader: (2)

+1 on that. My planned move to STX is at least partially driven by the thought that the RX-8 will be sqeezed by CS cars on tight courses, and the 370Z on fast courses. As Jason says above, nobody knows for sure, but a big peice of what drives me is the thought that, if I get to nats this year and manage two good days in a row, I might just squeeze out a trophy. That seems much less likely in the merged class.

But I will also say I have often complained about the lack of a "tweener" class, so I'll agree there is some good with the bad in this proposal, and maybe I'll get that Boxster I've always wanted.

Cito

Has anyone run the data comparing the top drivers in each class at national-level events to see whether there will truly be dominance by the CS cars? If not, maybe I will do that in my spare time

tomsn16

Here's the results of the first 2009 "get-to-gether" of top drivers. The SD Tour had top drivers as well but I'm not sure course conditions were equal.At El Toro course conditions were the same and the course was fast.
El Toro Pro


1. 83.812 MR2T Heitkotter........1. 83.568 Miata Cawthorne
2. 85.102 RX8 Thompson........2. 83.793 Miata DiSimo
3. 85.430 RX8 Isley................3. 85.294 Miata Buetzer
4. 85.660 RX8 Sipe

mwood

^There's no meaningful data from SD, because the course was shortened by approximately one second (or so) after the first run groups on Saturday.

If CS were actually a growing, healthy class, I'd be much less opposed to the merge idea, as the RX8 has had a long (longer than most) run as top dog in class and all cars have a "sold by" date, in terms of competitiveness. But, I'm not convinced that CS is going to ever have the numbers it used to, given the decision on the MS-R (unavailable, must build) and the lack of interest in folks running the Z0K (available, can be built or ordered, no AC)

StrokerAce

It's a reminder that stock really isn't as cheap as you would be led to believe. If you want to run up front (in the trophies) at a national level. Not only is the prep and the cost in tires not cheap. Also every car has a expiration date on it and it's rare for a car to really be a top dog for more that two or three years. It's just waiting for a new cool car to come along and have a bunch of people clamoring for the SEB to classify it as the new hot thing. Depreciation is the hidden expense of stock.

tomsn16

My letter to the SEB listing reasons for NOT supporting a BS/CS merger sent today.Many thanks to those of you who have done same and encouragement to do so to those who have not.

chiketkd

iTrader: (5)

Very, very true - especially if you change your car every 2-3 years in order to always have the 'it' car for a class.

That's one reason why I also won't be back in BS in 2010. I'll either be driving my car in STX or co-driving an STU STi. I could also co-drive an STS miata, so my options will be plenty.

[Soap Box]
While the different advisory committees come up with their own proposals, I really wish the STAC would look into adding more street touring classes. The NB & NC miatas could use a place to play in ST* as could the S2000 owners (previously would have ben called STX2 & STU2, but now might be SSTX & SSTU????). While regions could add these classes, top talent won't build a car until these classes are added at least provisionally to solo nats.
[/Soap Box]

ULLLOSE

iTrader: (1)

I don't agree. There are more classes won by cars 3+ year old, then classes won by new cars. Depreciation is a part of owning any automobile. Putting extra $$$$ into an ST/SP/SM car does not mean you get more back. Most of the mods make the car harder to sell to someone who does not autox, and if you are lucky you will see .50 on the dollar for your parts.

For ME, owning the BS car cost me about $3K in 2005 when I set it up, beyond that initial investment I only incur the same cost I would with any other daily driver. And I would wager that anyone using there Stock class car as a daily driver is way ahead of anyone in another class.

altiain

iTrader: (3)

Actually, what Street Touring needs is a complete realignment that does away with the retarded "2-door/4-door" differentiation and instead classes cars on speed potential, like all of the rest of the categories. Then you could include everything from Vettes and Exiges down to those 20-year old Honda shitboxes, and everyone gets a place to play.

Of course this would be successful, so it would just rob more participation from Stock classes. I doubt it'll happen.

mwood

My autocross experience...all in stock class:

1. Started 2005 with 2002 Z06, bought for cash @ $32k. Sold end of 2006 for $31k.
2. 2007-2008 ran RX8. Two year lease @ $316/mo, no money down. Gave Mazda the keys back, September 2008, sold Konis and OZ's at $850 loss approx.
3. 2009-?. Bought used for cash Mustang @ $27k in May 2008. Approx. $1900 in set up costs. Current value probably $25-26k for package. I'm taking the biggest beating, yet, on this car...but, I like it...the car, not the beating...

So, stock class doesn't have to be a big depreciation hit or expensive, if you pick your spots, I'd say

StrokerAce

You've got to be luck AND smart to not be whacked by depreciation. Compare your positive experience to say.....Mini guys. Get mini competitive hot car, oops next year a limited slip is mandatory, sell/trade get new mini...couple of years later turbo mini oops here we go again.

chiketkd

iTrader: (5)

+1 Exactly. Many don't always have the ability to buy the 'it' car used. When the Shelby's first came out, they had to be acquired new and a few dealers even had mark-ups on them.

FWIW, I don't take depreciation into account as that's the cost all drivers incur when they choose to purchase any newer car. Personally, if I wanted to take it out of the equation completely, I would have bought an '89 Civic Si...

mwood

Like I said, you do have to pick your spots...

Right now, used Shelbys at $23-24k (and less, if you find a distress sale) are a pretty good bet. I can't see values going much below $20k over the next couple of years, worst case.

In AS, you can find used GXP's for $15-16k, that might be a pretty good bet. Of course, the S2K can always be found at low prices (earlier model, most all depreciation built in). Both of those can win.

Used Elises and Z06's are in the mid 20k range now...seriously. Both of those have to be very good bets and a blast to drive. Heck, the Z06 gets 28mpg pulling a tire trailer and is a great daily driver...you don't even need to buy shocks.

I'd stay away from CS, DS (unless you stumble onto a mint IT-R), and GS.

Used Mini's are around $8-10k now, so HS is fair game...

And, of course, the RX8 in BS (if the status quo is maintained) is a fantastic "bang for the buck", if you own an oil company...

ULLLOSE

iTrader: (1)

Not a good example. Mini's have a great following and good resale value outside of the autox world. And in each case where the owner made the upgrade they were able to reuse all their existing autox parts. So while they would see normal deprecation on the car, they had no investment in parts for the second and third go around - I say that puts them ahead of the game. People were also enjoying contingency money from Mini during that time period. Isn't it amazing how people flock to cars that offer any type of support.

The only case I have seen in recent years of news cars being required is SS 2001, and FS with the Shelby. Everyone thought that spec Z06 was going to be a dud until we saw a million dollars worth of them at natls. As for FS, it was that or chuck the class, because pre Shelby it was dead. While I would say FS still has room to improve, it is growing.

Aside from this, nearly every example you can find of a new car improving over an old model will also have a direct effect on ST, and may require an update/backdate (trans/engine) to an SP car. Unless you ban new cars from Solo, you will always have progress that will cost someone money.

edit: to further discredit the Mini example look at the 2007 Natls results. While the turbo car took the top two spots, "old school" 2005 cars were 3rd and 4th only 3 tenths back - not what I would call uncompetitive.

BryanH

Keep in mind when looking at this data that the MR2 Turbo enjoys an advantage over CS and the rest of BS at Pro starts, roughly 3-4 tenths on each side I'd say. That advantage would be eliminated or nearly so at the majority of local or Tour courses.

Buetzer was having setup issues and coned away his fast run on each side -- had they been clean his overall time would have improved by ~1.4 seconds.

tomsn16

Yes indeed the MR2T has the launch advantage:

El Toro ave 60' times from best R&L times
BS
2.088.............MR2T Heitkotter
2.371 +.283....RX8 Thompson
2.400 +.312....RX8 Isley
2.300 +.212....RX8 Sipe

CS
2.434 +.346....MX5 Cawthorne
2.354 +.266....MX5 DiSimo
2.309 +.221....MX5 Buetzer

Even with the MR2T launch advantage CS was 1 and 2 and as Bryan mentioned, if Buetzer had not had issues it could have easily been a 1-2-3 finish in a combined BS/CS. Granted the season is still young, but CS sure looks faster to me....and Houston was another CS win in a fair fight(top drivers and equal course conditions).
Don't forget,Member Input,let the SEB hear from you.