Notices
Motor Sports If you like rallying, road racing, autoxing, or track events, then this is the spot for you.

2019 - SCCA Time Trials

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Dec 13, 2018 | 11:53 AM
  #16  
wanabgts's Avatar
Evolving Member
5 Year Member
Liked
 
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 153
Likes: 17
From: Portland, Oregon
Originally Posted by kyoo
i think that's just typical scca. they feel that unless every single aspect of every single car is somehow covered under a specific rule, people will go crazy building monsters and it's not fair, and thus would harm competition and participation.

nasa, gridlife, every other racing series: hold my beer...
I just want to point out that those are basically the only successful time trial series in the united states.......why would you throw all that away for this system?

Zack
Reply
Old Dec 13, 2018 | 12:15 PM
  #17  
kyoo's Avatar
Evolved Member
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (29)
 
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 10,834
Likes: 283
From: US
Originally Posted by wanabgts
I just want to point out that those are basically the only successful time trial series in the united states.......why would you throw all that away for this system?

Zack
i messed up that idiom lol, i meant to say that none of those racing series have had any harm in competition or participation due to the more "lax" rules that scca predicts will cause the downfall of any racing series
Reply
Old Dec 13, 2018 | 12:55 PM
  #18  
Dallas J's Avatar
Thread Starter
EvoM Guru
Veteran: Army
Photogenic
Liked
Community Favorite
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,969
Likes: 811
From: Portland, Or
I am bummed my car doesn't fit well in both SM and Max2, Really seems like its more XP and Max2 better matched excluding stripped interiors. But like I said before, thin panels arent that heavy. Would have to read through the rules again but doesnt seem that far off from Zust or McKee running it other than maybe weight limits.

I do hope they find some parity between the series and the whole thing is successful. TA/TT is pretty much all I have interest in as a next stage from AutoX but the PNW has tried and failed everytime so far.
Reply
Old Dec 13, 2018 | 01:28 PM
  #19  
kaj's Avatar
kaj
EvoM Community Team Leader
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (60)
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 13,634
Likes: 824
From: Fresno, CA
Originally Posted by wanabgts
The first thing that I see is that there are far too many classes, you will be lucky to have one other person in your class to compete with unless the series just explodes. Also, that is the worst organized set of rules I have ever tried to read online. Unless you read all the classes cover to cover it is a lot harder to get a feel for what is allowed and what isn't.

They have a Portland date, and I would like to participate. I feel however they are off on the wrong foot with have 5 levels of classification within every class......

Zack
Welcome to SCCA You have to start with the lowest class and work your way up the ladder of rules until you find a class where your mods aren't disallowed. It's pretty un-intuitive, IMO, but I'm sure there's a way they have been doing it all this time.
Have you seen how many classes they have for AutoX? It's nuts. Having a different badge on your car is enough to bump you from one class to a much higher one. It's kinda fun to see people scramble to figure it all out, though LOL
Reply
Old Dec 16, 2018 | 07:08 PM
  #20  
white_turbo's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 259
Likes: 18
Really? You find the TT rules not intuitive? In what sense? Or you just meant the way they have them organized?

I believe the rules are generally consistent with the Gridlife and GTA, so that's a good thing. I mean if you already have a competitive autox cars, anything beyond the Street Touring classes, you will be in the Max/Unlimited category but most likely be somewhat competitive until a dedicated entry comes in. Hard to be competitive in both IMO. Tuner is as far as I would go personally. Shooting for Thompson in July if all things line up by then.
Reply
Old Dec 16, 2018 | 07:12 PM
  #21  
white_turbo's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 259
Likes: 18
Talking

Originally Posted by rocknsnoboarder
200TW tires in all classes but unlimited?
I actually like that. No mixing up Hoosiers and street tires like NASA does. Better yet, find a spec tire like WTA....just don't pick Falken Azenis.
Reply
Old Dec 16, 2018 | 07:14 PM
  #22  
white_turbo's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 259
Likes: 18
Anyone knows the ballpark cost of entry yet? I hope is not something silly like GTA.
Reply
Old Dec 17, 2018 | 08:04 AM
  #23  
Meathooker's Avatar
Evolved Member
10 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 826
Likes: 149
From: Idaho
Originally Posted by ayoustin
es.

I think it's possible to get an evo down into the high 2400lb range with a cage but that's the extreme far end requiring a fair bit of money .

its possible for sure unless your areo is crazy.
Reply
Old Dec 17, 2018 | 08:13 AM
  #24  
Dallas J's Avatar
Thread Starter
EvoM Guru
Veteran: Army
Photogenic
Liked
Community Favorite
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,969
Likes: 811
From: Portland, Or
I think Zacks car is in the 22xx range with no aero and ballast removed. I know pulling ballast would have terrible weight dist, but man that seems like its be a riot to drive a 2200lbs track evo.
Reply
Old Dec 17, 2018 | 08:33 AM
  #25  
Ayoustin's Avatar
EvoM Guru
10 Year Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,989
Likes: 648
From: SC
I don't recall Zach's car having a cage. A good 8 point cage is 180-200lbs.
Reply
Old Dec 17, 2018 | 08:37 AM
  #26  
Dallas J's Avatar
Thread Starter
EvoM Guru
Veteran: Army
Photogenic
Liked
Community Favorite
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,969
Likes: 811
From: Portland, Or
Cage was only required in Ultimate. Not saying its good to not have a cage, just not required
Reply
Old Dec 17, 2018 | 08:41 AM
  #27  
Ayoustin's Avatar
EvoM Guru
10 Year Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,989
Likes: 648
From: SC
Haha yea I wouldn't go on track in a gutted car without a cage. Rather just add some power to make up for the extra weight.
Reply
Old Dec 17, 2018 | 09:26 AM
  #28  
Balrok's Avatar
Evolved Member
15 Year Member
Photogenic
Photoriffic
Shutterbug
iTrader: (15)
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,167
Likes: 210
From: North GA
Weight distro has always been the bummer. There's a LOT of useless stuff to be pulled out of the back half of the car but that just makes things worse because then you had to re-add ballast as you said and then re-strengthen bits from where you took metal out. Worth it if the class had a HP limit and a 2.0L min weight like STU could have been. But people just aren't willing to do that if all the other factors aren't there like tire, car count, freedom on design, etc. I'd be happy with 2700lb race weight if that didn't require $$ in carbon and 3lbs of boost lol.
Reply
Old Dec 17, 2018 | 11:18 AM
  #29  
Ayoustin's Avatar
EvoM Guru
10 Year Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,989
Likes: 648
From: SC
I've always prioritized weight reduction over distribution, but I've also never had to worry about a minimum weight. I'm happy they're not imposing power limits, that's the biggest reason I'm not really interested in NASA stuff. Almost everyone I know/talk to that's successful in NASA series are cheating or "loop holing" in one way or another. I just don't care for dealing with stringent rule books, if there's an obvious disadvantage in favor of something then it's pretty easy for sanctioning bodies to adjust the rules the majority of the time.

Anyone who makes 600+ hp on a 4 cylinder doesn't last long, I mean look at how many engines the RS guys went through in just this past season alone, I think they were somewhere in the 3-5 range.
Reply
Old Dec 17, 2018 | 12:17 PM
  #30  
Meathooker's Avatar
Evolved Member
10 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 826
Likes: 149
From: Idaho
Originally Posted by ayoustin
I've always prioritized weight reduction over distribution, but I've also never had to worry about a minimum weight. I'm happy they're not imposing power limits, that's the biggest reason I'm not really interested in NASA stuff. Almost everyone I know/talk to that's successful in NASA series are cheating or "loop holing" in one way or another. I just don't care for dealing with stringent rule books, if there's an obvious disadvantage in favor of something then it's pretty easy for sanctioning bodies to adjust the rules the majority of the time.

Anyone who makes 600+ hp on a 4 cylinder doesn't last long, I mean look at how many engines the RS guys went through in just this past season alone, I think they were somewhere in the 3-5 range.

in my autox car all i cared about was weight. in the hillclimb car we tried super hard to get weight in the rear (center actually) of the car and i end we added and EASY 100-120lbs doing so. radiator alone was probably 30-40 and the oil cooler that much again.

cut the front of the frame off and made a tubular moly set and we were still 60% front weight bias! so disheartening
Reply



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:26 AM.