by Heyward Wagner A decade ago, Stock Class was hands down the most vibrant category in our sport.  The norm was double-digit fields in multiple classes at National Tour and ProSolos and many classes posting 50 plus car fields at the National Championship event.  In fact, from 2003 to 2008 at the Tire Rack SCCA Solo Nationals, the combined open and ladies Stock Class entry made up roughly 36 percent of the total event.  The high over that time period was in 2008, at 37.98%.  Since then, however, the numbers for Stock Classes have been in a steady decline, dropping to 30 percent in 2009 and fell again to 28 percent in 2010.  This trend has come at a time where Super Stock has seen significant growth, going from 14 percent of the total Stock Category in 2003 to 28 percent in 2010.  That leaves the remainder of the Category, which was 32 percent of Nationals in 2003, making up just 21 percent of the 2010 event. To gain some perspective on the issue, I approached three drivers who have helped shape the sport of autocross over the last 20 years, Bob Tunnell, GH Sharp and John Rogers.  Bob Tunnell, the 2002 Driver of Eminence and 2007 Solo Cup recipient, is one of the most successful drivers in the history of the sport.  Along with wife Patty, they hold 18 Solo National Championships, many coming in the iconic 1995 BMW M3 that has won in every Category and now resides in E-Modified.  GH Sharp, a National Champion in his own right, served eight years on the Solo Events Board with a two-year term as the board’s chair.  During that time, Sharp established himself as a near universally accepted voice of reason within the Solo community.  While those two names are virtual household names in the world of autocross, it is likely that the third name has had the greatest impact on the sport.  You may know him better as “Woody” Rogers, of the Tire Rack.  As a national level competitor, John has enjoyed a 20-year Stock Class career that began with a 1988 CRX Si and one of the earliest R-compound tires to hit our sport, built by Yokohama. To understand the current state of the Stock Category one needs to have an understanding of the evolution of the R-Compound tire.  For many the heyday of Stock Class competition was the early to mid nineties when the BFGoodrich Tires produced the tire to have.  The R1 was reasonably priced, wore at an acceptable rate and, unlike previous R-Compounds, had otherworldly grip.  Eventually, BFGoodrich replaced the R1 with the G-Force, which never really amounted to a serious autocross tire and was quickly over taken by the Kumho Victoracer.  The Victoracer was similar to the R1 but was eventually out paced by Kumho’s new tire, the Escta 700 and offerings from Hoosier.  Hoosier was developing their own autocross specific compounds, and was the first manufacturer to produce a virtual slick with just a ghost tread pattern for the sake of appearances, but they had not yet reached the current dominance they enjoy today.  In Rogers’ opinion, the game changed in the early 2000’s when Kumho introduced the 710.  The 710 was another “virtual slick” that provided ultimate performance and reasonable wear. Hoosier was quick to respond with a new tire of their own and from there the guys in purple have never looked back. To put the affordability of the R1 in perspective, in 2000, Bridgestone’s high performance street tire, the 225/45R17 RE-71 sold for $146 a tire.  Currently, it’s descendent; the RE-760 Sport has actually dropped the price to $137 a tire.  According to Rogers, this is due in part to the performance tire segment’s strong growth over that time.  In contrast, the BFGoodrich R1, in a 205/50-R15 sold for $128 dollars.  Currently, the same size tire from Hoosier lists on the Tire Rack site at $221. Using 205/50R15 as a reference, here is some historical pricing for perspective:

1996
Yokohama ADVAN A008 RS	$123
1998-2000
BFGoodrich Comp T/A R1 230	$128
Hoosier A3S02	$154
Bridgestone Potenza RE71	$65
2003-2004
Hoosier A3S03	$173
Kumho Ecsta V710	$143
Bridgestone Potenza RE730	$96
2007
Hoosier A3S05	$182
Bridgestone Potenza RE750	$103
2011
Hoosier A6	$221
Kumho Ecsta V710	$196
Bridgestone Potenza RE-11	$137

Or 275/40R17

	275/40-17
2000	BFGoodrich Comp T/A R1 230	$155
2000	Yokohama ADVAN A008 RS/2	$135
2000	Bridgestone Potenza RE71	$119
2011	Bridgestone Potenza RE760 Sport	$172
2011	Hoosier A6	$294

Many are quick to vilify Hoosier for their pricing.  Rogers however, points to the factors that drive the current cost of tires, most notably, the variety of applications, sizes and compounds.  The cost to build a single tire mold in a single size is around $40,000.  In the 90’s, BFGoodrich could get by with just a few molds and less diversity of materials as road racing and autocross used the same compounds.  Only about 25 sizes, ranging in diameter from 13” to 17”, were needed.  Rain tires were simply full tread dry tires.  Today, Hoosier makes tires in 40 different sizes ranging from 13” to 19” in diameter, separate compounds for autocross and road racing and a separate line of wet condition tires.  Part of this fracture is due to higher demands for performance, but the variety of vehicles and wheel sizes currently competing is as big, if not a bigger factor.   The end result is far fewer tires sold per size, driving production cost per tire up significantly. Another factor at work is Hoosier’s position in the market.  Hoosier is a large race tire manufacturer, but remains small in comparison to most road tire manufacturers. To quantify their economies of scale, Hoosiers A6 annual tire production is on par with what a traditional consumer grade tire manufacturing plant produces in a few days.  While these larger companies have the option to view their motorsports programs as part of a marketing strategy and thus have an incentive to sell tires at or below cost, Hoosier’s entire business is motorsports.  The fact is, to stay in business Hoosier must make money racing and to do that they must make the best tire on the market. It was, however, those larger manufactures, powered by marketing dollars, which created the climate of the late 80’s and early 90’s.  Companies like Yokohama and BFGoodrich became fixtures in the sport with on site tire support, big-rig trucks, generous contracts and lots and lots of contingency dollars.  These dollars were often matched, if not exceeded by automotive manufactures like Chrysler and more recently Mini. Tunnell recalled a particular ProSolo weekend in the early 90’s where he and Patty drove their Jetta to Montana and returned home with just short of $4000 in winnings.  According to Sharp, it was this kind of potential that fueled the success of the Neons in the mid nineties, contributing to the general health of the category at that time.  If it is not self evident that those numbers were driven by contingency dollars, the mass exodus when Chrysler pulled their program clearly shows that it was not the sporty appeal of the Neon that motivated Soloist. For Rogers, contingency was a secondary motivator.  The money was the gravy on top of the satisfaction of a solid drive.  Sharp and Tunnell, on the other hand, point to contingency as a key motivator.  For the top drivers it was a huge part of the annual racing budget, offsetting if not eclipsing racing expenses.  Thanks to contingency dollars and tire contracts, Tunnell was actually able to autocross in the black for 3 consecutive seasons.  For less successful drivers, contingency was the promise that, should they do their best, there would be a reward.  This not only drove participation, but it also contributed to a culture where there was a premium value set on having a Stock Class package that could win.  If you did not, and you drove well, the perception was that your equipment was effectively costing you money. Today, contingency is still paid by many of the sports sponsors, however the earning potential has been far reduced from its height. In light of the drop in contingency money and the rise in tire cost, shocks have become the insult to the Stock Class injury. Sharp, who was also the ‘S’ in SF Motorsports, a preeminent Koni dealer in the 1990s has a unique perspective on the the issue.  According to Sharp, in the era of the R1 shocks were also a similarly simple game.  The top of the line in those days was the Double Adjustable Koni Sport, or DAs as it has come to be known.  The DA Konis were based on a single adjustable street application, rebuilt to add compression adjustment.  Typically the cost of these shocks ranged from $1500 to $2000 depending on fitment and who did the DA conversion.  Since then, the sport has seen an influx of high dollar, sophisticated race-bred shocks from companies like Moton and Penske as well as Koni.  This new breed of shock brings remote reservoirs, finer adjustment and price tags ranging from $5000 to as much as $7000 for a set.  However, according to both Tunnell and Sharp, despite the perception, these shocks many not be the be-all-end-all of stock class performance. In September of 2003 an article appeared in Grassroots Motorsports in which Tunnell tested a number of shock options on a competitive D-Stock BMW 330.  The test compared the Koni Sport and DA built by TC Kline to the more expensive Moton.  When the results came in, it was found that the Moton was only marginally quicker than the Koni Sport, and actually a tick off the pace of the TC Kline DAs.  What was more remarkable is that all of the aftermarket offerings were only marginally quicker than the original equipment shocks on the car. Sharp added that there have been several real world examples of drivers doing exceedingly well on stock shocks.  Most recently, Greg Hahn’s win in 2008, taking the B-Stock National Championship in a S2000 CR on stock shocks. Tunnell, Sharp and Rogers all agree that the current shock rule is not the Stock Class problem, rather it is the perception that needs a review. Sharp added, “in Solo, and particularly in Stock, it's usually the driver who figures out the course a little quicker, and who makes the fewest mistakes, who wins on a given day.  And he may be doing it with a car that's not set up as well as the one you or I are driving.  It's just human nature for our ego to regularly get in the way of making that leap of logic.” Despite the agreement on shocks, the three do see different reasons for the shrinking Stock Class numbers.  For Rogers, who has recently transitioned to Street Touring R, it was the ultimate cost of Stock Class that pushed him away.  Prior to STR, Rogers campaigned a Stock Class RX-8.  While the operating cost of the RX-8 was significant, it was the cost of keeping up with an ever evolving ‘car to have’ mentality that really drove the cost. On the other hand, Tunnell sees the success of ST as a direct contributor, noting that this was the first rule set that the sport has developed specifically as a reaction to what potential new autocrossers would most be interested in.  It only speaks to the success of that attempt that many of the current new generation have skipped Stock to compete in ST. Sharp, however takes a broader view citing the relative cost of competition and the ever-increasing gap between the Stock Class haves and have-nots.  The reality is, as our national economy has struggled, the cost of autocross in general has increased, while the number of people who can compete at the top level has decreased.  By virtue of this, many of those who are still able to compete are able to compete on a grander scale.  This drives a perception that to be competitive, you need to have the best shocks, the top car and you may even need to trailer the car to events.  All of these factors lead to a possibly false perception that it takes a lot of money to compete in Stock Class.  Sharp is quick to warn, “Racing will always be expensive.”  The question is, how expensive does it really have to be? In looking for potential solutions, one place of disagreement is the direction of the Stock Class tire allowance.  While both Tunnell and Sharp admit to personal preferences and prejudice, they both believe that R-Compounds belong in all Stock Classes, both citing reasons that revolve around cost.  For Sharp the issue is venturing into the unknown. Right now, the only way anyone can outspend you is by having a fresher set of stickies. The cost to match that fresh set is a known, fixed cost. However, if street tires were introduced, then the testing factor would kick in.  Drivers with the resources to test and find the silver bullet would have a real advantage over those who could not afford to do so.  Tunnell’s concern is that the most dedicated competitors will still spend the money to have the very best and freshest tires at all times.  As a result, the only reduction in cost would be in the price per tire which, as the demand for more specific tires increases, would continue to drive up the cost, effectively returning us to our present state. Rogers sees another option.  With the caveat that Super Stock is a class for super cars and thus should have access to super tires, he sees a place for street tires in the remainder of the Stock Category.  Aside from the immediate potential cost benefits of lower cost tires, Rogers likes the idea of the reshuffle it would create.  Much like a rain condition, the reduction in grip category-wide would likely make room for more diversity at the top of each class.  It may also reduce the need for the ultra rare package cars.  Rogers points to the MX-5 as an example. The MX-5 has proven to be an autocross favorite since it debuted 20 years ago, and responded well to bolting on sticky tires.  However, the 3^rd generation NC Miata handled well with its OEM performance summer tires, but once the car was shod with R-Comps, the car became harder to drive, less balanced and for lack of a better term, unhappy.  The fix was the MSR package, which stiffened the car, giving it the ability to maximize the higher grip tires.  The other notable change, according to Rogers, is a possible reduction in the effectiveness of the high dollar shocks when paired with stock springs and lower grip tires.  Rogers, who test street tires on stock suspension cars on a weekly basis, is also quick to debunk the notion that street tires would make stock class less fun.  It would change the fun, but he feels strongly that the challenge of managing grip is as big a thrill as the ultimate grip of R-Compounds. Each of these three competitors represent a different take on the stock class concept, and this factor alone may play as big a role in the stock class decline as any other.  Sharp’s attraction to Stock Class is to the idea of a level playing field.  For Tunnell, however, stock class is about the opportunity to innovate, to prove the notion of ‘the car to have’ wrong.  This dichotomy between the philosophies of Sharp and Tunnell is where drivers like Rogers can easily get caught out.  While the Sharps of the world are seeking parity and the Tunnells are looking to break new ground, Rogers represents the vast majority of Stock class competitors that are looking for an affordable way to be competitive and have fun. Tunnell points out a meaningful division in National level competitors, drawing a distinction between the ‘vast majority’ and the minority that will do whatever it takes to win.  Those who will do whatever it takes will ruthlessly look for advantages whenever and wherever possible.  This mentality can be as simple as a fresh set of tires at each top-level event.  However, as the innovators of the sport push to find new ways to achieve, they effectively conspire with the ‘do whatever it takes’ minority to create a climate of rapid change.  Simply, once beaten by a different model, ‘doing whatever it takes to win’ dictates that a car change is required for success.   This ‘car to have’ shift breeds a perception that drivers such as Sharp and Rogers have to follow suit or become uncompetitive.  For those willing to do whatever it takes, this has become an accepted part of the game. What is unclear is whether it is the ‘car to have’ that is the actual root of Stock Class success, or if it is the ‘whatever it takes to win’ attitude that determines order.  In reality, as long as the two are linked, the perception in Stock Class will remain that there is a singular, yet ever changing package to have. The end result is that each time the establishment is successfully challenged, the boat gets rocked and, if Rogers’ cost driven exit from Stock is any evidence, people fall off. It is notable that all three, Tunnell, Sharp and Rogers are on hiatus from Stock Class at this time.  As mentioned, Rogers has recently moved to a temporary home in STR thanks to a joint project between Grassroots Motorsports and The Tire Rack.  Nonetheless, Rogers thinks his stock class days are behind him.  He enjoys the challenge of executing on street tires and despite being employed by a tire retailer, does not miss the cost of R-Compounds. Sharp has been away from the sport for a few years now but is looking for a path back in to Stock Class, most likely borrowing seat time from friends in the familiar and formidable Mini.  For Tunnell it has been a quest to claim a title in each Category that has taken him from Stock.  A quest he fears will end on Jeff Kiesel’s doorstep.  With a greater budget, Tunnell would like to stay in a Modified Class, but since other priorities have taken hold he too is contemplating a return to Stock.  The most likely formula; a BMW 1 Series M Coupe on Hoosier Tires, a front bar, an aftermarket exhaust and a set of Double Adjustable Konis.