THSCC Forums

I'll check that out at work tomorrow...

Without looking, I suspect you are right to some degree, obviously the new classes (STS, STX, SM and SM2) all have stolen drivers away from stock open classes. What Jim sees as a decline in open classes, might actually be stock classes. Look at this years, STS, SM, SM2, CSP and DSP classes, and you will see that *some* open classes are thriving.

There was a large number of stock class competitors in TIR, particularly GS (as many as 9 at a single event).

In my car I could add a rear sway bar and be much better than stock and have an easier PAX (assuming I am already on street tires), so STS suddenly looks very attractive for a DS driver on a budget.

Hmmm, that's kind of tempting...

Scott

How about this idea?

Don't restrict/eliminate TIR class tire eligibily in TIR.

HOWEVER

Eliminate TIR as an ALTERNATE "Class"

RATHER

Have TIR as a SUPPLEMENTAL OR "OVERLAY" class

Have people who qualify (i.e. current SCCA definition of STS and STX legal tires) run in the Normal Classes AND ALSO declare for a "supplemental" TIR Pax class. STS and STX, of course, would not be eligible. The idea of allowing Prepared and Mod cars to Run TIR on any DOT R tire could be used as suggested by somebody last week.

This way people with "less sticky" tires can be in BOTH the Normal Class (and could even win/trophy) and could win the TIR version of PAX if they care enough about a PAX win to "declare" their TIR eligible status.

Ditto for Novice. Make it a supplemental/overlay class within the normal classes.

Seems like the only "hard part" about this idea will be whether the registration and timing and scoring software can have an additional data field for TIR/Novice eligible status.

We can probably afford any extra normal class trophies higher class participation might require.

This approach increases participation in Normal classes since they will be the only classes while still allowing the people who want an alternative PAX based competition to have it.

On Edit: Another thought since some comments have indicated that the TIR folk like to be able to identify their fellow TIR competitors. People who declare for TIR could be required to put a clear "T" or "TIR" or some other designation on their car in addition to the normal class designation. It would not be part of the normal class letters and would not be relevant to timing/scoring/cone counting.

This seems like a "have your cake and eat it too" solution.

What have I missed?

_________________
Dick Rasmussen

FS 50 2018 Mustang GT

Uh, the people who have to score events where a single car may now be running in multiple classes?

If you can find good software that will allow it, I'll be happy to check it out...

_________________
Carl Fisher

Be Cool to the Pizza Dude:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=4651531

Carl,

I figured that might be a significant issue that I don't know how to resolve.

How is it done now for determining Normal Class Pax when the results are posted?

Maybe we make the people interested in a PAX class do the work manually themselves sometime within a week or so after the event. Seems like a small price to pay compared to buying expensive tires:D

_________________
Dick Rasmussen

FS 50 2018 Mustang GT

It is amazing how numbers can be twisted to prove any one's point

I believe the 2002/2003 numbers are skewed by the NCAC events we hosted. Those are our largest turnout for Open due to the other clubs participants. Then the 2003 VMP event will skew the results due to the very low TIR turnout.

The increase in Open's pure numbers can be attributed to the inclusion of the two national street tire classes the past couple of years. Even with the street tire classes, we still have a decrease in the percentage of participants running in Open classes in relationship to the total entrants.

Some people have mentioned the TIR class as JV (although I never refered to it as that). If the participants in that class look at it as JV, the decrease in Open and the increase in TIR says to me that we do not have people moving from the JV to the Varsity.

We have encouraged varsity players to move to the pros because of their skills and the misconception their cars are better prepped. But we have not been diligent in encouraging jv players to move to the varisty because of their skill and car prep. If we had, I believe we would of substained the percentage of Open participants in relation to the total participants.

I agree with Mike, that some street tires are "race tires" in repsect to the TIR class. These tires are the choice of national street tire classes, they have a playing field (they are the choice for some classes in THSCC). When the TIR class was created, this was not the case. Times and technology change, we as a club need to embrace the changes and act accordingly.

Yea, I have a dog in the fight. It is not what some think. If I wanted to get flamed even more I would tell y'all

_________________
Jim Pastorius
2008 Silverado VortecMax
1992 Camaro CMC#92
2002 BMW R1150R

2009 3rd Place CMC Mid-Atlantic Championship
2009 CMC Hyperfest Winner

So if youre going to ban azenis, you would have to ban KDs, and then also the kumho MX. Waiit!! what about the S03, its only a subjective 0.5 behind the azenis on a 60 second course with equal car and driver, you'd have to ban that one too. And don't forget that STi and lancer tire, those are kinda fast too, ban them....

Aren't some of the pirellis or goodyears pretty good tires too? BAN them.

Mike, the reason you guys are fast on azenis is that you are at SANFORD. At sanford street tires rule. Go out to laurinburg, run some decently fresh kumho race tires (not the 100 run bricks you usually run ) and THEN see what the difference is. Only after that will you be able to convince me that the azenis are close to kumho race tires. Another thing you also have to consider is the fact that your car is PREPARED. On a otherwise stock car a race tire will have a huge difference. On a car that has tons of camber and a good suspension you will be able to utilize a street tire better. There is a reason a stock WRX with race tires is supposed to run just as fast as a prepared WRX on street tires. The suspension makes the difference!

Now THIS I agree with. But its also the same for ANY tire. If you bought any type of tire to be your "race" tire you should be in open class. But how do you police that? You cannot.

I know this isnt the thread for it (but I really don't care) I think one way to fix the TIR issue would be to make it a pax only class. You get no trophy, no year end, no nothing for running in TIR class. You can HAVE FUN in TIR class. If youre here for competition and wood, run open, if youre here to have fun only, run TIR.

-Tom

would that be one of the legless dogs that are with you at all the events?

_________________
'88 bmw 535is
'98 honda civic ex

OK, just for Jim (since I "twist" the numbers)... BTW I'm just listing the numbers, like I said, these numbers are FACT. They are not "twisted" or skewed in any way shape or form. They were averages. Jim suggested that the NCAC events change the trends ("trends" is my word, not his), as it turns out, I don't think the trends are changed, but, yes, the relative ratio is changed.

Original "all" event results and [-NCAC] next to them
1999
Open: 42 [33]
Tire: 8 (15%) [7, 17%]
Pro: 2

2000
No results available

2001
Open: 74 [60]
Tire: 22 (22%) [18, 22%]
Pro: 5 [5]

2002
Open: 77 [64]
Tire: 21 (20%) [19, 22%]
Pro: 6 [5]

2003
Open: 77 [63]
Tire: 25 (23%) [22, 24%]
Pro: 9 [8]

So, there you have it, if we eliminate the NCAC events from the equation we have at most a 2% change, hardly earth shattering (that equates to 1 or 2 drivers.

If we plot year vs percent we find that tire class is growing at 1.6% per year since 1999, open class is diminishing at 2.5% per year and pro class is growing at 0.86% per year. The obvious conclusion here
<sarcasm>
is that we will eventually have only open class and pro class. That will occur in the year 2030. Thank goodness we have the foresight to fix it now! </sarcasm>

<wild mega sarcasm>
But wait, if we twist the numbers further we see that with the NCAC events *included* we have the following results: Tire class growth: 1.8% annually, open class diminshing at an astonishing rate of -2.6%. That cuts our timeline to *early* 2030 rather than late 2030.
</wild mega sarcasm>

So much for the NCAC skewing things.

But wait, there's more... (eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee - that's the sound numbers make when you twist and wring them till it hurts).

1999 is an anomoly, we didn't have attendence caps back then, so lets eliminate it from the equation, since we have been capping events (and had fairly static attendence in 2001-2003)

Now we see that tire class is growing at a whopping rate of 1% annually, open class is now only diminishing at a rate of 2% but Pro class is growing at 1.5%. So, we just bought open class another 7.5 years of life, and at that time (2037.5) Pro class will be dominant at 60% of all non-novice entrants! Holy cow we all ROCK.

Scott

PS: This all assumes an awful lot of things, one of which is straight lines.[/list]

Chill dude. I was referring to general use of the numbers. I can use the percentage change to support my arguement and it looks pretty good. For example, the percentage of drivers in Open class has dropped 16% in the past x number of years. That is a true statement.

Likewise, your statement of an increase of 30 drivers in Open class over the same period of time is true. That bolsters your point.

_________________
Jim Pastorius
2008 Silverado VortecMax
1992 Camaro CMC#92
2002 BMW R1150R

2009 3rd Place CMC Mid-Atlantic Championship
2009 CMC Hyperfest Winner

They aren't legless, they are lowered.

_________________
Jim Pastorius
2008 Silverado VortecMax
1992 Camaro CMC#92
2002 BMW R1150R

2009 3rd Place CMC Mid-Atlantic Championship
2009 CMC Hyperfest Winner

I love the level of dedication!

_________________
Has no responsibility whatsoever.