Just because you volunteer doesn't mean you get picked. I volunteered... twice? I think no one knew me and they were more comfortable picking someone they were familiar with. So there is definitely a who-you-know factor there too.

I PM'd DavidSS on the other board to ask about the raw data. I'm not going to go all conspiracy theory yet but that does not jive with my experience pulling out of 25 mph digs. There has to be an explanation.

 

Anyone else notice that the proposal #10437 changed from when it was submitted for comment in the August Fastrack to when it was recommended to the BoD?

Originally the C5 line was listed as non-Z06 non-FRC and was recommended as non-Z06. So the FRC is allowed now?

Not that it matters - since the FRC didn't come with an auto. (Not buying that the auto really puts down more than the manual. Maybe in pure gearing - but there has to be drivetrain loss that cuts into that. Right?)

-'chono'

 

Oh.. well that changes it. And here I was thinking that had I volunteered my class wouldn't have just ended.

I agree. I don't think there's any conspiracy or political shenanigans here.
Maybe the plot in question has some (well intentioned but overstated) AWD torque multiplier? Something to take into account that an AWD platform can put down the torque better than a RWD platform. (Which of course doesn't take into account that we can't put that power down until well after the apex in a sweeper..)

 

Those plots are meaningless, and we all know they're junk.

How do we get the SCCA to remove the C5 from that list? Shall we all (STU drivers) call and cancel our memberships = )

Also, where on the STI forums, or others are they discussing this?

 

edited

 

Email the BOD before their next meeting. Convince many others to do the same.
I don't know either the email addr or the date of the next meeting.

 

I emailed two folks on the SEB
Response:
I emailed the Maryland BOD person (go to ams.scca.com to find yours though I am not 100% sure about mapping the regions) to verify if they were the right person. If they do get back to me I'll write up a letter.

The things that seem the worst to me about this move:
* The STAC may have been using bad data to justify its decision (thrust curves above)
* STU would be the most course dependent class in ST*
* The Z just won STR and there is no good reason to move it
* The proposal went from "in Fastrack for everyone to see" to "recommended by the SEB" in no time flat
* There are alternatives, like delaying a year, a supplemental class for such cars, etc etc
* The class is at worst in a slow decline, and it outperformed STC / STS this year (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...3c&usp=sharing)
* It's not fair to hold STU to the same standard as STX / STR - it was the 9th biggest open class at Nationals and STABILITY will grow the class far more than adding cars - this proposal is just going to scare people off

The goal will be to make it as succinct as possible as I am sure the BOD has a bunch of stuff to discuss.

Any ideas on this front, please share

 

I mean, I know you know, but a lot of times, someone complains about a various *AC, and someone says "you think it's so easy, YOU volunteer!" so a lot of people (including me) probably think "oh, I guess they really need help, I'll try". And then no one answers your SEB ticket for 2 months

 

It still strikes me as strange that it the assumption is more power = faster autoX car... if that was the case wouldn't the vettes killed the SP evos?! once someone looks at the cg, car balance, car dimensions, and many other factors they could see that a 'boost buggy' certainly isn't the fastest thing on street tires... STR will end up faster than STU I have no doubt... balance, width, etc will make for a better autox platform. Oh well, I have wrote my letters (yes plural) and tried to bring up the conversation in other medias... but ignored. So I'm out on this debate for now...

 

You are completely correct. Why do we make acceleration / thrust spreadsheets? Because we can. It's relatively straightforward and provides a really convenient way to compare cars. If we could (easily) make a spreadsheet that showed lateral acceleration we would do that too. But we can't.
Same thing happens in my industry when we make decisions. There are several things that should affect the decision. One of those things has plots. The rest, even though equally (or more) important, don't have plots. We spend a disproportional amount of time discussing the plots. We opine about the other factors. Then we package that decision up for management -- with the plots. Why? Maybe we like decisions to seem 'data driven.' Maybe having plots gives something concrete to discuss.

Speaking of plots .. the 5.0 mustang should kill in STX:



-'chono'

 

If you want to have any chance of affecting the class change write a well thought out email to the SCCA BoD:
bod@scca.com
And write that letter this week; the BoD meets next week.

A number of well thought out, succinct, not sour grapes emails could change the course of this decision.


An aside:
the STAC is made up of good people; our friends
and this bologna about David buying / prepping an STU vette is just that: bologna


-'chono'

 

I think the FRC has lower gearing than the base C5. Wonder how that would effect the C5 thrust graph? Also curious how the 2012 winning M3 would compare.

 

good to hear that it's bologna! I was a bit concerned when I saw his (empty) photobucket album titled "Grey C5 Corvette." Definately trying to keep an open mind on all this; as you say, we're all friends.

An Aside,
STU needs someone on the STAC

 

Its an unfounded rumor. David owns a vette and has owned several. If he's planning on building an STU vette he hasn't told my friends on the STAC.

And yeah - we do need someone on the STAC. (Or did..)

 

Just sent my letter to the BOD. I hope it doesn't get lost in all the chaos of the street proposal.

Things to focus on, IMHO:
* Lots of shakeup in Solo this year - STU doesn't need it
* STU is healthy, 10th biggest class at Solo Nationals last year
* This move increases course dependency and course dependency drives participation down
* 350Z competitive in STR already
* C5 potentially dominant on the right course due to tire/torque/cg advantages

Things not to focus on:
* Whining
* That the thrust curve doesn't jive with what we all know (an STU Evo would have to be making 310 ft-lbs at the wheels to hit those sorts of numbers - without E85? Good luck)
* Whether anyone on the STAC is going to buy a Vette (irrelevant)

Anyone who wants to see my letter, drop me a PM. Obviously any letter you write should be in your own voice but I'm happy to share.

Thanks
John