Tire rule update for SEDIV

[Garey Guzman]

As another thread had mentioned allowing the VFF tire for CF in SCCA, I made the request to allow this additional tire option for my Division. I've been informed today that this change will be in effect for SEDIV for 2025.

If your CF works well on VFF tires, no changes required to run in SEDIV at any Regional race. I look forward to seeing more people out there and although I bought a new set of R60s earlier this year, I will probably only buy VFF for my CF and HF cars from now on!

[RideMore]

We are finalizing the idea and hopefully the wording of a tire rule change in the ZOOM call tomorrow night. We really hope to capture the wishes of this team. Please participate if you care about this topic. The ZOOM Address is now in the about section, but also here:

https://us05web.zoom.us/j/82013141123?pwd=6fYy6kZCrpFsUTp9IyE2YweV8a3HBw.1

Meeting ID: 820 1314 1123

Passcode: G5G7wm

[RideMore]

January 23rd Zoom Tire Rule Discussion
Right or wrong, I’ve decided to do these meeting notes as a summary story rather than a list of points people were making. It was a 3-hour 20 minute meeting so it’s likely you wouldn’t want to read a transcript anyway. I meant to record it but forgot – sorry.
Why have the meeting at all? The overwhelming majority of current drivers are content with the radial tire rule. Many note they don’t care deeply about which tire is required, as long as it doesn’t make the racing more expensive or make the cars less like the high-performance race car it currently is (precise, high grip, and predictable).
However, on our journey to increase participation, we have been finding many people who have cars but are not running SCCA races. Actually, most cars are not racing in SCCA. The overwhelming reason is that they don’t like the current tire rule. Many of us have shared our positive experience with the radial tire to no avail. The main concerns being an inability to get their car to around 3 degrees of camber and fear of peaky performance. So, our goal was to discuss whether a tire rule could be agreed on that would keep the cars performance at a high level to meet current drivers’ expectations while breaking through the barrier for those concerned about the current radial tire. In addition, we need to be realistic that not every era of car is going to be competitive with every other era of car. So, is there a way to have each era race against cars in their own era and not necessarily the other eras? By about 90 minutes in there was a general agreement on a proposed solution. The rest of the time was challenging that solution to see if it stuck – which it did.

Ideas presented that we choose not to pursue (all good, but not chosen)
· Complete switch to the treaded Hoosier Vintage tire (VFF): Two verbal voting sessions 45 minutes apart rejected this idea after at least 30 minutes in total of discussion. The general feeling being that it would not provide the high-performance modern race experience many currently enjoy (precise, high-grip, and predictable). Plus, it was noted the look of the tire on the car was also worth considering (classic vs modern). It was a passionate conversation, but the group passed.
· Complete switch to the Hoosier R60 bias ply: Everyone believes this is a good tire and nearly everyone noted that it wouldn’t be a bad choice. However the reality of this being late January, and the season has already started, ultimately led us to think it’s simply not realistic and terribly inconvenient for Hoosier to move away from the radial for 2025.
· Continue having everyone run the Hoosier radial: It is obvious at this point that a radial-only rule limits participation and we’re harming participation. So, nearly everyone saw the logic of a multi-tire solution. This concept had been discussed with Bruce Foss at Hoosier before the meeting and they are supporting it. Fortunately, that’s not a barrier.

The Multi-tire proposal we are going to pursue (approximately 75% approval)
· All agreed that the following is a 2025 experiment, and we would revisit the results in August of 2025 with the distinct possibility of changes for 2026 based on learnings. But done in time to be realistic. All agreed we need to experiment, or we will stay where we are forever.
· “Modern” FF’s will continue to run the radials. Which once again, they are content to run. Therefore, no rule change is needed.
· A new November 2024 GCR change we discovered this week allows CFF to run in non-HST Majors at the discretion of the host region. This rule has CFF run per the divisions CFF rules. Therefore, this group of drivers will be allowed to run their current tires. As a result, we don’t need to take any tire rule action on their behalf. Naturally, individual drivers can choose to run the radials if they wish. More on CFF below in the action section since there is some unfinished business.
· There is one more group that is not yet addressed. We have heard a lot from DB1 and pre-90 Reynard drivers that their cars will not work on the radials as noted above. There are a lot of these cars in existence. They are well-built cars and fun to see on track, Therefore we want to help them get on track with us. Most of the meeting was spent discussing how to accommodate this group. After a lot of brainstorming and discussion it was decided to propose a new rule for this generation of cars. Some wanted the VFF, but in the end the majority chose the R60 bias ply. Some believe these tires are the same speed as the radial, others around a second faster. We went around and around on this with many stories and fading memories shared. But in general, there are no real concerns of a problem either way. If faster, it will tighten up the field and likely make the races more fun. In general, we believe tire wear will be similar to the radials. If there is an unforeseen problem or unfairness, we will address it seven months from now for 2026. Naturally, individual drivers can choose to run the radials if they wish.
· We are going to make top three decals for each era of car to pass out at impound. Let’s celebrate our uniqueness and successes together.

Action items
1. Think up a name to describe this DB1/pre-’90 Reynard generation of cars. Most have rocker-arm suspension, but not all. It would be nice if the name made it logically obvious for a tech inspector to identify this generation so they can ensure the right tire is on the car. Like “Rock and Roll” “DBRock” “DBR”. For example, CFF always includes outboard suspension on at least one end (I’m talking todays SCCA language here, way to complicated to convert our language to all the various vintage organizations on the planet). Your ideas for the name, please? Today I got advice from a wise and very influential SCCA insider to stay focused on the rocker-arm suspension as the identifier and not year to make it clear for tech and everyone else even if it doesn’t catch the unusual car here and there from that era. We have to keep it simple and very clear who’s who. Note: Our discussion led to us calling 1991 and newer cars “modern”. Mainly justified by the fact that two 1991 push-rod DB-6’s crossed the line first and fourth at the most recent Runoffs and a 1997 Piper was on pole. I propose we actually refer to the “modern” cars as ‘Push-rod” to get a descriptive theme going.
2. Write the rule change request letter to the SCCA (Tony Stefanelli with volunteer help)
3. Very important: We need a large group of people submitting letters to the SCCA in support of the request letter once submitted. It simply needs to say, “I support letter XXXXX”. We will need 75+ people to have a reasonable showing is my guess.
4. A mistake was caught relative to the CFF Majors situation: Prior to the meeting we were told that CFF’s entering a major would be counted as FF entries. We were informed on Friday morning that this was in error, and they would not be counted per the current GCR. But apparently there is a previously submitted letter that requests they be counted. I was told that there are about 10 letters supporting the original letter and that we should offer more support. We need you to submit a letter giving additional support to the original letter. We are trying to track down that letter number for you to reference – hold tight for a couple days. If you happen to be aware of that letter, please let me know.

Team, those are the highlights and most importantly the decisions those who attended reached. I’d like to share an observation that I think is accurate. The SCCA’s charter is to write the rules down that the competitors want (5.2 of the Operations Manual). Our role as competitors is to tell them what we want. Ideally it needs to be in an organized fashion so people can interpret the request with confidence and take action. Why are SRF and Spec Miata working? Well, people at Mazda are paid to have the vision for the class, monitor effectiveness, then give the SCCA a plan – which makes it easy for the SCCA to adopt it and move forward. SRF - people at SCCA Enterprises are paid to have the vision for the class, monitor effectiveness, then present a plan – which makes it easy for SCCA to adopt it and move forward. FF – typically we just send in random fly-by letters as individuals – which makes it hard for the SCCA to identify what to adopt and move forward. That approach is kind of a hot mess of input. Let’s continue to talk as a team, narrow in on our vision, and agree to provide a cohesive plan. No, it’s not easy for us to do, but it would be even harder for them to untangle the Christmas lights when they have a couple dozen classes doing the same. And no, not all of us are going to love every element of the plan. As the Rolling Stones said “You can't always get what you want, But if you try sometime you'll find, You get what you need”.

Thank you for caring, please help, please provide guidance.