What is a "touring car?"

[Greg Amy]

Damn -- I feel for you, and I mean that. I know you tried to setup STL as purely objective...

Yeah, well, everyone's vision of Utopia eventually meets Reality...ours just happened sooner (welcome to Majors/National racing). On the other hand, its attraction was quite evident -- it pulled me right in immediately -- so I'm not that surprised. We/I resisted spec lines and tables for a bit, but once that cherry was popped it was apparent that's the direction we're heading. For now, we'll continue to adjust based on general characteristics and use those tables to address the highs and lows; I abhor the idea of having to spec-line everything and deal with letters and consistent argumentation about comp adjustments so I'll continue to resist it as long as it makes sense.

To that end...put in your 2c on the "sports car" proposal.

And read my sig again.

GA

[JS154]

I think we would all agree that a Miata is a "sporty econobox" while an Elise, NSX, and S2000 are more pure 'sports car'...

But where do you draw the line? And does that apply for STU and STO/GT2 as well?

IMO, the Miata belongs in STL no matter what label you try to put on it. It's a Japanese econobox 4-banger that just happens to have a small body and 2 seats.. and a damn good suspension.

Disagree, completely.

The STI and EVO support your argument, high performance derivatives of the crappy lancer and impreza econoboxes.

The Miata is a pure sports car, primarily designed for superior handling with small size and low weight/height.

[JS154]

I stand corrected.. I guess a 1.6l engine with 100whp and 0-60 in >8sec is a sports car now.. sure coulda fooled me. Fook my old Maxima with 200whp and 6.5s 0-60 must be a supercar!! :shrug:

Sports CAR not sports ENGINE.

[tom91ita]

I am wondering if RWD is the proper criteria.....

or should it be F/R weight distribution? 50/50 is base case and 60/40 gets a 5% reduction.

Is it the driving location or the benefit of distribution that contributes the most to the sum of the parts?

[Chip42]

it's a LOT of things. RWD is a characteristic, not an inherent behavior or capability. ditto FWD. that some platforms have more of the good and others less while sharing drive wheels and some other adjectives is the issue that's hard to address without naming names.

[Ron Earp]

What does a 2L RWD car have to weigh in STL?

Looks like 2800 lbs?

[adamjabaay]

I think everything BUT 1.5 L and under should be heavier....

[Greg Amy]

I think everything BUT 1.5 L and under should be heavier....

Where's that thumbs-up icon...?

Dude, default weight for 2.0L is 2700#. Adders/subtractors from there...read the rulez, newb!!

[Chip42]

for Ron:
2.0L STL weights
RWD w/ SLA: 2849
RWD w/ F Struts: 2795
RWD w/ SLA and non USDM 2% penalty (i.e. BMW S14B20): 2905
RWD w/ F Strut and non USDM 2% penalty: 2850

FWD w/ SLA:2700
FWD w/ F Struts: 2633
FWD w/ SLA and non USDM 2% penalty: 2754
FWD w/ F Strut and non USDM 2% penalty: 2685

:shrug:

[adamjabaay]

Where's that thumbs-up icon...?

Dude, default weight for 2.0L is 2700#. Adders/subtractors from there...read the rulez, newb!!

hahaha

[tom91ita]

I think everything BUT 1.5 L and under should be heavier....

Could a first gen crx get to weight with a 1.3?

[Knestis]

Before Ron replies - yes, it's a problem that the power/weight math tries to accommodate tweaked B-Spec cars.

K

[Greg Amy]

Could a first gen crx get to weight with a 1.3?
Please put one of those dune buggy flags on it, so we can see it coming as we pass it every other lap...


Before Ron replies - yes, it's a problem that the power/weight math tries to accommodate tweaked B-Spec cars.
We actually increased the weights across-the-board in STL (Dec 2011?) to attract/accommodate 1.5L cars...with B-Spec'rs as the targets.

[adamjabaay]

Could a first gen crx get to weight with a 1.3?

seeing as the lemons 1g crx you and I drive, gutted to crap, weighs 1730, and we have glass , big battery, and bumper bars, and all steel body, I bet it could....the 1.3l 12v head sucks though, and I bet you couldn't get 125whp out of a max effort motor without insane porting, custom intake, and wild comrpression, all not legal...

while thinking about this dumb 1.5l d series I just built, I looked at all the SMALLER honda motors, and they all have almost nothing going for them.....AND parts are all custom.

I think my d15 will be competative, especially with the results I got from V1 , power-wise, and I still want to do .040/crank scraper/ coatings/ slightly bigger cam/not ancient injectors for v2.....(my cam is biggest regrind he could do, lift is only .390 or something though)


I think I can force another 5-10 whp out of v2, but intake manifold is the choker.

I think the only "smaller" Honda motors id even consider are the newer 1.4L d series sold overseas, as they have the same "better" heads we have here, but you'd get a non-usdm weight penalty

and I still need to get another 75+ lbs out !

[tom91ita]

Greg,

so no replacement for displacement? since your own car saw gains with the change of the 1.7 to 1.8L plus weight last year, have you thought much of going to 2.0? Or do you that's too heavy for the chassis/brakes/bearings, etc?

[Greg Amy]

Not to dissuade lower-displacement efforts -- I'm really looking forward to Adam's efforts -- but it just seems that in STL higher-horsepower wins. Equal horsepower will go to the better chassis (e.g., Miata, RX-8, etc). If you have both then you're invincible. Granted, it's Road America, but in the last two Runoffs I predicted the order of finish based solely on estimated horsepower, and I've been correct. I predict the podium for Laguna Seca will go to the highest-horsepower cars this year as well, with more nods to sports cars*.

I could install a K20 in my Integra - there's bolt-on kits for it - but it's still a lot of work, and a lot of expense. I don't mind the work but I'm pretty much done spending any more significant development time for STL; I just don't think I can afford to compete at the pointy end of that money tree. I'll continue doing some lower-end tuning and enjoy competing/driving instead.

GA

* Haven't given it detailed thought, but leading candidates are Jim Drago in the 1.8L Miata, Robert Schader in the 2L MX-5, Brian Laughlin in the 1.8L Miata, Oscar Jackson in the Miata (noticing a theme here...?) Leading FWD candidates are Brian Shanfield in the 2L Civic, Cliff Ira in the 1.8L Integra, and I see there's another CA-based driver in a 2L Civic; the latter is interesting simply because he probably has experience at the track.

There's a lot of unknown-to-me in there, folks that race on the West Coast; they'll have home field advantage. And you might see some strong 2L FWD cars at the pointy end, especially those in the FG Civics, which have the better suspension. But in the end, I predict the pointy end of the Runoffs will be sporty cars - let's just say it: Miatas - with some higher-powered FWD cars sprinkled in there for good luck.

Me? I'll take that 1.7 liters of pure Honda FWD fury and enjoy the HELL out of a track I've wanted to race for a long time. And beer. Lots of beer.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'll leave this here one more time:

Please do NOT use interior volume or frontal area or some generic description of a 'sports car' to handicap cars. Those items may be teeny-tiny factors but as some have said above, it's HP above all that wins. Then go down the list after that.

What people are really afraid of (in it's true definition) is a configuration of front AND rear double wishbones. The cars that can outhandle anything are equipped as such. Miata, S2000, RX8. Use this as a starting point for CA's IF you feel like you have to (or need to) after you get the HP situation in line.

[Greg Amy]

I'll leave this here one more time:

* You can post here, but it just don't count unless you submit it to the CRB via crbscca.com...
Just sayin.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'm not trying to 'make it count', I am trying to influence those who race in the class or who may be thinking about it, when it comes time for them to 'make it count'.

[Greg Amy]

No offense Andy, but that's kinda cowardly. In casually reviewing this thread, and looking at the list below of those that have read at this thread (of the ones I recognize), I count fewer than five persons that have actually turned a wheel in this class. But that's irrelevant because, as you are aware, these decisions are not left up to just those "who race in the class or who may be thinking about it"; it's open for anyone in the Club to decide.

But most importantly, those that may not race in the class probably have some good ideas -- which, last I checked, is the whole point of a "what do you think". "What do you thinks" are not votes; in fact, we give very little credence to the number of votes that go one way or the other (I personally ignore the numbers). Encouraging people to submit "I support this" or "I oppose that" are pointless; that's not what we want. We are looking for ideas. We are looking for different viewpoints to consider positions that we did not think about (see Tip #1 in "Greg's How to Write a Rule (http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?22779)"). And we give even less credibility - if any at all - to Internet forum rants.

You can sit here on the Internet, presiding on the sidelines and "influencing" people all you want; feel free to leave as many things on the Internet as you want "one more time". But unless we get some ideas submitted to the CRB, then the STAC is going to make recommendations to the CRB based on existing evidence, observations, and opinions.

Fastrack has yet to be formally published - due out this week - so take this with a grain of salt, but despite all the argumentetation and hand-wringing here on this subject, and the fact that the pre-Fastrack was published over a week ago, I'm kinda surprised that the total number of letters on this subject that have been forwarded to the STAC for review is...

...zero. Dunno, maybe there's less interest in this subject than the current players like to project? Our next concall is in a week and a half; I guess we'll see how that goes...

GA

[adamjabaay]

I'll be turning my first "wheel" in STL within a month or so. I can't wait to run against miatas, personally.....

[Andy Bettencourt]

Cowardly is a stupid term to use Greg. What in the world would I be afraid of in writing a letter? It's an internet BB, we debate. At this time I feel that it's the responsibility of the people who race in the class to weigh in officially. I am not at that point yet where I feel the CRB needs to hear from a non-driver on this topic mostly because the concept has been debated here extensively and we have given those who do race - or may, some information to chew on in order to write a letter.

And it's disingenuous to insinuate that an 'idea' that you heard, that you might think has merit, could not be brought up as part of the monthly STAC calls, by you - or any other board member who reads this BB as part of the committee debate and problem resolution. Just because it's not submitted via the SCCA site doesn't mean the thought process isn't out there. My concept isn't an actionable item anyway, it's a potential piece of someone else's idea who may see merit in next-wave comp-adjustments or even a redefining of the class as we know it now.

Right now, I don't see a problem with the class that needs immediate action.

[Andy Bettencourt]

WRT the 'what do you think', I also need to be more educated on what the SCCA has done in the past. STL has the same 'issue' as other classes. I bet EP and FP also have the same 'issue'. Getting some success stories from the Prod ranks on how they have attempted to balance Miata's, Preludes, 240Z's, Integra's, 2002's, S2000's, RX8's, Caterham's, 914's, 944's etc.

Seems like the concepts may already live inside the CRB.

[Greg Amy]

And it's disingenuous to insinuate that an 'idea' that you heard, that you might think has merit, could not be brought up as part of the monthly STAC calls, by you - or any other board member who reads this BB as part of the committee debate and problem resolution. Just because it's not submitted via the SCCA site doesn't mean the thought process isn't out there.
Wait, whut? Dude, is has been brought up, and it has been discussed by the STAC, and we have discussed various options. All we're doing with this process is asking for other thoughts to ensure that the small committee that is talking about this issue hasn't missed any opportunities or ideas before we make a recommendation. That's what this process is for.

We don't need a vote. I don't give a flying doggy-doo about vote numbers or "influencing" positions. I care about ideas, opportunities, and ensuring that we make the right decisions for the good of the category as a whole. We could get 27 brazillion "we hate this idea" votes and if it's actually the right thing to do, then we're still going to recommend it. In the end, we'll make decisions based on what we see as the good of the category despite opinion numbers that may deviate from that position. That's our minimum responsibility. And we're using the "what do you think" option as a way to ensure we have all reasonable information.

If you don't have any new information to add, well then "thanks for your input".

As for your 'influencing'..."The lady doth protest too much, methinks" (the vernacular interpretation).

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

So what the F are you asking me to write a letter for if you have 'brought it up, discussed in committee and bantered various options'? It's not a new concept that you need to hear via official communication because you are not 'missing' my idea.

Why are you asking me to write in? I don't get it. I am restating the concept to those 'regular' IT.com readers who may be interested in what I think is the 'real' problem they are trying to 'fix'.

And PS: You don't have to keep telling me your responsibilities. I know them. I have lived them. I have been on more National SCCA committees than I care to admit.

[Flyinglizard]

I have noted prior that IMHo the lateral performance is limited by the dynamic front tire loading.Less weight on that tire, the faster the cornering speed. Well guess what? the more rear weight the better the car balance. As a designer gets some parameters for a sports car, the first is a good balance. 50/50 is the target many times. 40/60 is super car, 70/30 is econobox.
The good weight balnce also seems to come with good aero kinda as a side benefit. At the same time, the FWD cars have all of the opposite values, IE lots of nose weight , tall greenhouse, poor chassis, less than the sum of it's parts.
What it appears is that among the cars listed and raced in ST. the better cars have 50% or more rear weight. These same cars have a better aero package, some what as a result of the weight placement.
That is one reason why the sum of it's parts(Miata) are better than expected. It has great balance and good aero, great drivers/ great factory support/ doesnt break/ and is pretty cheap to keep.

You could " easily" come up with a multiplier based upon rear weight percent. IE 60% rear weight car gets a base weight times 107% or something like that. At the other extreme is the 70/30 FWD car that would have to get weight times 95% or something like that.
The only outlier that I see fast may be the Honda CRX that has a smalll nose and lots of front weight.

[Z3_GoCar]

Greg will get the chance to race a fast CRX at the runoffs, although when I talked to Paul at his first race with us he was running a 1.6 dual cam. But he was competitive with the best of the uncorked SM's from Rush.

The answer for me is 242hp. That's what I got, we'll see if that's competitive with the S-2k at 2550lbs (he added a sequential just because,) I think they're at that power but with 200lbs less :( Then there's the turbo version of the 2.5 that's got 270 at the wheel at 2550lbs. Yeah, I don't think the "Turbo" problem is fixed yet, they need to add another 200lbs, and take 200 off me.

[Ron Earp]

Dude, default weight for 2.0L is 2700#. Adders/subtractors from there...read the rulez, newb!!

RIF fail. 2L RWD.


Before Ron replies - yes, it's a problem that the power/weight math tries to accommodate tweaked B-Spec cars.

K

I wasn't gonna say anything...honest.


for Ron:
2.0L STL weights
RWD w/ F Struts: 2795
:shrug:

Thanks, I was just asking it see if I could build something in my wheelhouse that would be competitive in the class. Sort of doubt it.

We race the ITS Mustangs at 27XX-2800 lbs now. We have 185 rwhp, but, we get it from 3.8L so we have a lot of area under the horsepower curve when compared to say a 1.8L Honda of the same power. For STL and 2L displacement RWD heavy car it'd be a different ball game:

*86ish light Ford Fox like a notch back or Merkur, probably could get that sans driver at around 2400 lbs or there abouts.
*2L Ford/Mazda power plant at 11:1 compression
*T5 tranny ; open ratios
*Same basic suspension design we have now (could we convert to IRS in the rear, not sure I would).

With 2L at 11:1, 0.425 valve lift, and open cams I reckon it'd be possible to make 240hp at the crank with a lot of work, or around 210hp at the wheels. But we'd be racing at the same weight we are now, and the little 2L engine will have a pretty narrow power band to pull that off. Not sure it'd work out at that weight.

Be a fun project though.

Back to the regular program, which is good reading for me to understand this class.

[Z3_GoCar]

Not to dissuade lower-displacement efforts -- I'm really looking forward to Adam's efforts -- but it just seems that in STL higher-horsepower wins. Equal horsepower will go to the better chassis (e.g., Miata, RX-8, etc). If you have both then you're invincible. Granted, it's Road America, but in the last two Runoffs I predicted the order of finish based solely on estimated horsepower, and I've been correct. I predict the podium for Laguna Seca will go to the highest-horsepower cars this year as well, with more nods to sports cars*....


This points to the failure of the straight weight/displacement method of determining competitiveness. So, I'd argue that other than classing the not otherwise classed, it's time to move on to spec lines for at least motors, and leave the reminder of the modifiers in place. Maybe even make a flow chart so that Tech has a coherent way to check ultimate weight.

I put this in my request #14859.


WRT the 'what do you think', I also need to be more educated on what the SCCA has done in the past. STL has the same 'issue' as other classes. I bet EP and FP also have the same 'issue'. Getting some success stories from the Prod ranks on how they have attempted to balance Miata's, Preludes, 240Z's, Integra's, 2002's, S2000's, RX8's, Caterham's, 914's, 944's etc.

Seems like the concepts may already live inside the CRB.

Don't forget that in GT/Production the open cars get to remove their windshield's and have asymmetrical cages to minimize air drag and top weight. So the ST spec roadster (even with a hard top) would be slower than the GT/Production version. Prather has the data to prove it as well.

http://prodracing.com/prodcar/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=15691&start=10

[Andy Bettencourt]

Which compounds this problem if you allow 'sports cars' better aero. So what is Prod doing to compensate? I think the baseline knowledge is there already.

[Z3_GoCar]

Which compounds this problem if you allow 'sports cars' better aero. So what is Prod doing to compensate? I think the baseline knowledge is there already.

EP has the perfect example in three cars that share the same displacement motors, the e36 sedan/Z3/and Z4

e36 325 sedan - 2525lbs
e36 Z3 2.5l - 2450lbs -> 75lbs lighter
Z4 2.5l - 2550lbs -> 25lbs heavier

then there's the:

e36 328 sedan - 2725lbs
Z3 2.8l - 2650lbs -> 75lbs lighter

There's two thing going on, first the Z3 has semi trialing arm rear suspension instead of the multi-link that the sedan and Z4 have, so roadster aero with the removed windshield net 25lbs, with the hard top you still get the 25lbs but aren't competitive. but the semi-trailing arm rear suspension gets a 100lb weight break for the net 75lbs removed. I'd argue that in the case of a ST Z3 it should have the full 100lbs removed because I can't take advantage of removing the windshield and using a roadster cage.
Net the reason that Miatae/Rx8 are taking names in STL has more to do with the power plant and suspension than roadster/sportcar aero.

[Knestis]

Anyone who thinks 25 pounds - or even 75 pounds - is enough to make a repeatable difference, let alone serve as a purposeful "competition adjustment," is demented.

K

[Ron Earp]

Anyone who thinks 25 pounds - or even 75 pounds - is enough to make a repeatable difference, let alone serve as a purposeful "competition adjustment," is demented.K

Truth.

[Z3_GoCar]

Then you have STU's 50lb weight break for solid rear axle cars, and 50lb weight penalty for alternate rear suspension for solid axle/semi-trailing arms. Seems it's already in writing. It seems Greg's observation on the final order is based more on motor output than on what it's wrapped in.

[Knestis]

I didn't say it wasn't common practice; I said it's an act of the demented. :)

Greg's picks are dominated by sports cars with the most powerful engine eligible. Why? Because people willing to spend coin to try to run up front understand that's the formula for success. Why would anyone do otherwise given the physics of the situation?

My proposition was that, particularly with the human beings we have at the levers of policy, a sports car is going to have an inherent advantage over a touring with the SAME engine.

K

[JeffYoung]

I didn't say it wasn't common practice; I said it's an act of the demented. :)

Greg's picks are dominated by sports cars with the most powerful engine eligible. Why? Because people willing to spend coin to try to run up front understand that's the formula for success. Why would anyone do otherwise given the physics of the situation?

My proposition was that, particularly with the human beings we have at the levers of policy, a sports car is going to have an inherent advantage over a touring with the SAME engine.

K

But with all due respect, that's due to assumptions that CG is lower, that CD is lower, and that frontal area is smaller. That MAY be the case, or it may not. My gut non-scientific observation is that Miatas don't draft as well as Integras, and over 120 mphish (again, total observation bias here) the Integra has the advantage. But without numbers it is all guess work.

Which is the problem with trying to quantify difficult "effects" like aero, or torque, or "bad rear suspension" (as the owner of a live rear axle car, I frankly couldn't justify giving it a break against most stuff out there given what we can do with the rules in IT) -- it's just WAY above our skill level to do so in my opinion.

I would, however, really like to see numbers on aero, real CD x Frontal area numbers, of sedans/coupes v. sports cars. I'm sure some sports cars do quite well. I'm also pretty sure some coupes/sedans do as well.

Was at Homestead this weekend, was down there for work Friday and stayed and rented Mike VS's ITS Miata. Ran with the STL cars -- I think there were 5 dedicated STL cars. Two twin Celica GTSes, an Integra (Peter Keane?) and two Miatas. The Celicas were pretty. Peter's car is black and looks bad ass.

[Greg Amy]

...a sports car is going to have an inherent advantage over a touring with the SAME engine.
All discussions in regard to Super Touring must always, always, always divorce engine and chassis discussions. Because we can so freely swap family engines in family chassis, they may be coincidental but they are not directly related.

So for example, "the RWD Miata is not dominant because it has a lower-powered engine" or "the Honda Civic is a great car because it has a powerful engine" is an invalid discussion point. On the other hand, "the Honda Civic is a great strut chassis" and "the Miata is a great sports car option" are valid discussion points.

Engines should be adjusted by engine-related inputs/factors; chassis should be adjusted by chassis-related inputs/factors. There are crossovers, such as power-to-weight considerations and/or effects of weight on chassis, but they are otherwise parallel lines that should not meet.


I would, however, really like to see numbers on aero, real CD x Frontal area numbers, of sedans/coupes v. sports cars.
Because we have some flexibility with aero in Super Touring, I'm not that stuck on aero considerations. We add air dams, undertrays, splitters, and wings, and we lower the car to reduce the amount of underbody airflow. All go a long way toward improving - and in some case, hurting - aero, but in a generally-equitable way*.

There are other non-quantifiable; the Miata, for example, gets its factory cD numbers off the base car, which is a convertible. Yet, we allow the factory hard top, which no doubt goes a helluva long way toward improving that cD. And, related to above, the STL-compliant airdam goes a long way toward cleaning up the jelly bean nose that forces a lot of air under the car.

The one manufacturer-published aero factor that seems significant to me is frontal area. I see that as a general characteristic of the size of the hole that the car has to punch through the air.

GA

* "Hurting" meaning rear wings. Which, of course, benefit RWD cars a shat-ton better than they do FWD cars... Airdams increase drag as well but their benefits far outweigh that, and generally equitably among most cars, regardless of drive layout.

[JeffYoung]

Yeah, I agree -- I think frontal area is a more significant factor at this level of racing than CD. It seems to play out in the real world as well. My car has crappy CD, but is tiny. Seems to do ok at 120+ as a result.

Note also that I think "downforce" aero at these speeds and with these implements is a mistake. Just my opinion but whatever downforce you generate is going to be far offset by drag, which is the key thing to me from observation. For IT, and I would think STL, you want the slipperiest car possible with the smallest frontal area.

For the NSX fanbois (I've been toying with the idea), CD looks good but frontal area? That car is WIDE and not all that short.....

[Ron Earp]

Some data I had handy in a spreadsheet:



Car
Cd
Area (sq ft)
CdA


RX7
0.31
19.19
5.95


Integra
0.33
19.50
6.44


Camaro
0.34
22.00
7.44


Mustang
0.36
22.50
8.10


280zx
0.39
21.00
8.09


TR8
0.42
20.70
8.69


240Z
0.44
21.00
9.24

[Matt93SE]

That's nifty info. Do you have the years those numbers apply as well? i.e. RX7 had 3 body styles and various bumpers and whatnot across its life. Same with Integra, Camaro, Mustang...

[Ron Earp]

Those are for ITS bodies. Second gen RX7 etc.

[Matt93SE]

OK, thx. just curious. I'm sure the Camaro bodies over the years have had quite the change in cd...

[JS154]

What does a 2L RWD car have to weigh in STL?

Looks like 2800 lbs?

I think more like 2950?

[JS154]

for Ron:
2.0L STL weights
RWD w/ SLA: 2849
RWD w/ F Struts: 2795
RWD w/ SLA and non USDM 2% penalty (i.e. BMW S14B20): 2905
RWD w/ F Strut and non USDM 2% penalty: 2850

FWD w/ SLA:2700
FWD w/ F Struts: 2633
FWD w/ SLA and non USDM 2% penalty: 2754
FWD w/ F Strut and non USDM 2% penalty: 2685

:shrug:

Honda K20 vs BMW S14B20: Honda wins on any track : 20+ more hp and almost 300# lighter.

[JS154]

We actually increased the weights across-the-board in STL (Dec 2011?) to attract/accommodate 1.5L cars...with B-Spec'rs as the targets.

I thought that was becuase of the expected increased base weight of all cars due to increased chassis rollover protection requirements, and the inability of cars to get down to current base weight.

[JS154]

WRT the 'what do you think', I also need to be more educated on what the SCCA has done in the past. STL has the same 'issue' as other classes. I bet EP and FP also have the same 'issue'. Getting some success stories from the Prod ranks on how they have attempted to balance Miata's, Preludes, 240Z's, Integra's, 2002's, S2000's, RX8's, Caterham's, 914's, 944's etc.

Seems like the concepts may already live inside the CRB.

Prod allows relocation of suspension pickup points, increased compression, head porting and non factory gearboxes. I other words, STU, but with lower power and different bodywork allowances.

Do sedans or "sports cars" win more frequently in the prod classes? Hmm...

[Greg Amy]

Honda K20 vs BMW S14B20: Honda wins on any track : 20+ more hp and almost 300# lighter.
Logic fale: my cohort has fallen into the trap! ;)


I thought that was becuase of the expected increased base weight of all cars due to increased chassis rollover protection requirements, and the inability of cars to get down to current base weight.

Nope. As I recall the conversation, it was to give the 1.5L cars a chance to make minimum weight, with the idea that B-Spec cars may gradually migrate to STL once their usefulness is past.

I remember it vividly, as I had just finished spending a winter cutting out sh*t and replacing panels with plastic to lose 90# to get down exactly to the pound to my minimum 2340# weight with an empty fuel tank with me in it...and then we added 90# to my car...I now carry 100# of ballast in the back of the car to make 2430#...damn you Nemesis!!!

[Chip42]

Eric, the BMW 2.0L is saddled with a 2% weight penalty because Americans wouldn't buy it so BMW didn't sell it here. That k20 in an s2000 or nsx would be a lot closer to a bmw in weight, too.

And read up on prod. The VAST majority of cars allowed in both P and ST are prep 2, with stock pickup points and the same head prep, and usually 11 or 12:1 cr and 0.400ish cam. So... Not that different.

[JeffYoung]

Is this the appropriate time to disclose I've actually considered and starting pricing stuff for a mid 1990s Lotus Esprit with the European DM 2.0 motor for STL?

Take that, FWD shitboxes!

[Greg Amy]

Is this the appropriate time to disclose I've actually considered and starting pricing stuff for a mid 1990s Lotus Esprit with the European DM 2.0 motor for STL?
LOL! What in the hell is a European DM 2.0 motor...?

I think that would be fun.

[JeffYoung]

They made a 2.0 (the regular four pot was 2.2) for tax purposes for sale in Italy and then sold a bunch of the leftovers in the UK in the mid 90s. EDM = European Domestic Market, such as it is...lol....

You can get an Esprit "shell" for $10kish, less than the FrankenNSX. The motor bits are more expensive though. Probably a $60-75k build.

Letter coming this weekend! Woohoo!

[Ron Earp]

Letter coming this weekend! Woohoo!

Does it have to be explicitly classed? 2L or under, RWD, calculate weight. If it fits then it's legit.

How long did they make Delorans and what sort of whack job Renault 2L box of fail could I find to stuff in that?

[dhrmx5]

Good luck with your weird builds. The NSX starts off at 3500 lbs. Think you can find 850 lbs of fat on an aluminum bodied car to trim? Only then can you start adding a cage and 200lbs driver and hope to make weight with a 2.0 engine at close to 2900 lbs. The Lotus? bring a LOT of money for your engine program. Be nice if you chipped in to the worker fund to help defray the cost of the oil absorbent they will be needing.

Super Touring wasn't created out of nothing. It started with the B and D Prod ruleset that was for old WC cars but they never showed up. As ST exists now it isn't about 4 doors or dumpy looking grocery getters. The STL benchmark has always been the Miata 1.8 and the 1.8 GSR. The Mazdas have shown up. Where are the well prepped FWD?

ST is supposed to be interesting. Those oddball builds are welcome to show up. Just don't complain when they aren't competitive.

[Ron Earp]

As ST exists now it isn't about 4 doors or dumpy looking grocery getters.

I'm confused. ST is full of Miatas and Integras. Are there cars in the class that aren't dumpy looking grocery getters?

[adamjabaay]

225's on an nsx. That'd be silly. Haha

[Matt93SE]

Is this the appropriate time to disclose I've actually considered and starting pricing stuff for a mid 1990s Lotus Esprit with the European DM 2.0 motor for STL?

Take that, FWD shitboxes!

But it'll have to breathe through a straw!!

[Ron Earp]

225's on an nsx. That'd be silly. Haha

You know, when I was building my theoretical Ford 2L RWD car a few posts down I didn't consider the 225 tire limit. I think that will be a detriment to a program like we're running with the Mustangs. I could see us swapping in a hot 2L into a lighter Ford chassis (86 Fox type), making STL mods and so forth, but, our ITS Mustang effort is built around the 245 tire and we're testing this weekend with a larger 275-50-15s. I'm pretty sure the 2800 lbs RWD chassis we use now in ITS, and it'd be similar and at the same weight in STL, would be slower on a 225 tire. Something to consider for those pondering a RWD STL build.

[Matt93SE]

IMO, one of the equalizers in the class.. you can run more power in a heavy car with tires that won't last a race, or you can run less power and less weight and have tires at the end.. choose wisely.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Good luck with your weird builds. The NSX starts off at 3500 lbs. Think you can find 850 lbs of fat on an aluminum bodied car to trim? Only then can you start adding a cage and 200lbs driver and hope to make weight with a 2.0 engine at close to 2900 lbs.

Curb weight on a 1991 NSX is 3010lbs. Figure about 2975 with 1/2 tank of gas. Still tough to get to.

[Greg Amy]

So let's do this little mental/Internet exercise: discuss the physical, objective, quantifiable characteristics that define a "sports car".

Go.

[Ron Earp]

SPORTS CAR

*Two doors
*Two seats
*Better than average power to weight ratio; straight line performance exceeds that of average sedans and coupes
*Excellent handling characteristics; handling well above average for sedans and coupes of same basic drivetrain layout

In other words, a great handling car that can hold it's own with respect to power and won't get smoked by my wife's Acura at a stoplight.

[jdrago1]

- We put data acq boxes in many front-running cars during the Majors season and at the Runoffs;
- Experienced observations;
- Race results.

GA

This is my opinion as a Miata driver in STL, not a CRB member.

1)data boxes...
Have you seen this data? How do you distinguish cornering advantage from "because miata" versus "better Driver"?

2)Experienced Observations.. Often very biased.. Especially when coming from those who race in the class, even with the best intentions, it is human nature. In the past, 2011 and 2012 my observations were directly responsible in adding weight to my miata as I felt it was the right thing to do. This year, I mentioned to you and others on STAC that I felt the plate was a bit too small on the civic, to my knowledge,nothing was done with that info? What I have seen in 2013 is two similar quality FWD Honda drivers run similar cornering speeds to mine, similar lap times to mine and some good races. I have seen Integras with significant straight line speed advantage but seconds off the pace in terms of lap time. Still confused why it is OK for FWD Civics to run "miata" STL times and no one complains, but when the same times are run by 'miatas", most say "because Miata.

3)Race results..
If the best driver is a properly classed car wins every race? Is there a problem? If a car at a slight disadvantage is driven
by a pro wins every race, do we handicap the car? Or we put a wanker in a car that everyone else would win in, but he
doesnt, do we speed that car up? Race results are rewards weights, nothing more.

IMO it has gotten to the point where many feel that all good results are 95% "because miata", which is just ridiculous. I have a spare SM, prepared identical to mine. Greg and Kirk are welcome to come and race it in SM no charge at any race I attend, just let me know a few weeks out and I will have the car set up and scaled to your weight and liking. We can do a test day, a race weekend, whatever you like. The ARRC may be a good weekend? That will tell you where you really are in terms of pace. With all due respect, the over/under will be 3 seconds from pole. You guys are simply putting way too much on car and I am willing to prove my point. When you are seconds off the pace, it is more than 'frontal area", "Sports car' and "double wish bone'.

Huffmaster is one of the best drivers in the SCCA. His RX8 WAS NOT at an advantage IMO. It was driven exceptionally well and the car was very well sorted. The RX8 was the best prepped car in the Runoffs the last two years and the best driven this year, period. I have not once complained about that car. I did not win because I did not put enough time and effort into my car, it had nothing to do with the RX8 being an over dog. Gilsinger could have also won last year had he entered in an equally prepared civic. They showed up with a SS car that they basically de cammed.

Jim

[Greg Amy]

Have you seen this data? How do you distinguish cornering advantage from "because miata" versus "better Driver"?
Of course I have; haven't you? And I can distinguish that easily, because I know what I'm doing with data.


Experienced Observations.. Often very biased.
Of course it is, by definition. But then again, so is racing against a guy one(?) time and deciding he needs a bigger hole to breathe through.


This year, I mentioned to you and others on STAC that I felt the plate was a bit too small on the civic, to my knowledge,nothing was done with that info?
I'm sure you recall that the restrictor plates on the 2L engines after the 2013 Runoffs came directly from the CRB, not the STAC. The STAC does not have the information that the CRB has/had when it did that. If the CRB believes that situation has changed, then by all means it should be addressed.


If the best driver is a properly classed car wins every race? Is there a problem?
Of course not. But that's the crux of this discussion. Is the "best" driver actually winning races? How are you determining that? Are all cars "properly" classed? What's the basis for that position? What's the objective, unbiased, subjective definition of "best"? And of "proper"?

You could very well be right. In hindsight, were I to invest into building another car for this class it's not very likely that I'd spend money on anything different than what you did.

But in the end, if not "data acq, experienced observations, and race results" then what should the CRB use to consider competition adjustments? Should it consider competition adjustments at all? What does it use now for the basis of comp adjustments in other categories?

GA

[Knestis]

Color me intrigued about the idea of racing a competitive Spec Miata but luckily I'm old enough and smart enough to understand that there's exactly zero chance that I'm going to find all three of those seconds in one weekend, in a car that's so different from what I've raced almost exclusively since I last had any serious seat time in a rear-drive car (an SSA Mazda, by the way) in 1987.

I'll check my calendar though. :D

That mental masturbation out of the way, I would HOPE that everyone notices that at no point did I ever invoke relatively competitiveness between me in a particular Civic (or anyone/anything else) and "sports cars." Never. My argument is strictly about the physics of the two broad chassis options, and I've frankly not heard anyone make any substantive case that my principles are flawed...

Now, I did point out a few observations from the NJMP Majors weekend this spring. First, that I was still leaving at least a second on the table, relative to what my experience tells me I should be doing. Second, Farbman only went as fast as he needed to in order to win; which was 2 seconds off the pace he accidentally set in P1. In race 1, I did a 34, he did a 33. In race 2, I reeled him in, caught him, then he drove away from me. I did a 33, he did a faster 33. That is NOT about how fast the car or the driver really is; that's about managing the competition by sandbagging, which is only possible with a car that's substantially better than the competition.

I didn't just fall off of the sports car turnip truck. I KNOW that's how the National/Major (and especially "pro") programs work. I know that you know all of that but I just want to make sure it's in the record, because frankly, I think that's the game you're playing. I don't have any confidence that you can actually take your STL driver hat off when your making CRB decisions, and - if it's possible - I believe even less that you are operating in good faith with the STAC (a la the restrictor example that Greg shared). That's based on my firsthand experience watching you operate when I was on the ITAC. You're too hooked into the game to stop playing it. If nothing else, you might solemnly believe that you're' "doing what's right for the class" but from the outside looking in, it simply looks hinky.

But equally, I know that vehicle dynamics says that a car with the qualities of a Miata is going to be faster than a car with the qualities of a Civic, given the same power, level of preparation, and driver skill. NO QUESTION. Tell me I'm wrong if you dare, but do *not* play the results comparison game and tell me that I'm whining because I'm getting beat by any particular EXAMPLES of car/driver combinations. I'm not. Get over that. Further, arguing that's what I'm doing, without addressing my actual proposition, is disingenuous and only reinforces to me that you aren't willing - or able - to look objectively at the technical aspects of the issue at hand.

I also know that it's a fool's errand, trying to fix that problem with competition adjustments when someone moving the levers of the process - and more importantly, controlling the flow of information to the CRB - has an interest in, and the ability to manage, the outcome.

K

[adamjabaay]

I must comment that I'm really enjoying this thread, overall. I feel this class is headed In a positive direction, from the outside looking in. I can't wait to be in.


thoughts about wide variety of weight cars running all on the same tire? Do the 2700 lbs cars start having managment issues with tires 3/4 into race?

[dhrmx5]

Curb weight on a 1991 NSX is 3010lbs. Figure about 2975 with 1/2 tank of gas. Still tough to get to.

My mistake. Looked at Motor trend for specs and got GVWR

[dhrmx5]

Reply to Kurt: If you look at results around the country it will show that FP/STL/T3 are generally right on each other as far as lap times.

In looking at times from that NJMP weekend I see that Farbman managed a .31 which mirrored the T3/FP times so I would conclude he was on the mark.

You, on the other hand did a .33 with a car that you admitted was 200 lbs overweight in your first time driving it. If you got rid of the 200 lbs and found that second you felt you left on the table I would guess .31s aren't out of the question for your civic (although that chassis is too heavy for a 1.6 engine to make weight)

Sounds like parity to me. The real question is why neither of you are going as fast as the ITS track record?

[dhrmx5]

As far as insinuating that Drago or members of the ST rules adhoc are advocating for their cars as they adjust rules, nothing could be further from the truth.

With the exception of Greg's pathological hatred for all things rotary (I am assuming his high school nemesis was conceived in one), the committee looks at all sides of the argument before voting their interests.

[Knestis]

Reply to Kurt: If you look at results around the country it will show that FP/STL/T3 are generally right on each other as far as lap times.

In looking at times from that NJMP weekend I see that Farbman managed a .31 which mirrored the T3/FP times so I would conclude he was on the mark.

You, on the other hand did a .33 with a car that you admitted was 200 lbs overweight in your first time driving it. If you got rid of the 200 lbs and found that second you felt you left on the table I would guess .31s aren't out of the question for your civic (although that chassis is too heavy for a 1.6 engine to make weight)

Sounds like parity to me. The real question is why neither of you are going as fast as the ITS track record?

All of which is you explaining that you didn't read - or don't understand - my proposal.

If we write the rules for a class based on observed (perceived) "parity" based on two cars at one track on one weekend, without controlling variables that are SUPPOSED to differ between a "good" racer and a "less good racer," then it's an amateur-hour, tail-chasing exercise.

K

EDIT - And I'm curious, if we also have "parity" between STL, FP, and T3 in this gold-standard comparison, why the heck do we have three separate classes? They're all running the same times on the track, right...?

[Knestis]

As far as insinuating that Drago or members of the ST rules adhoc are advocating for their cars as they adjust rules, nothing could be further from the truth.

With the exception of Greg's pathological hatred for all things rotary (I am assuming his high school nemesis was conceived in one), the committee looks at all sides of the argument before voting their interests.

I like your idealism but my direct experiences show otherwise.

K

PS - what's your name?

[dhrmx5]

Dave Mead

T3= showroom stock based, DOT tires
FP= major car mods, slicks
STL= major mods, DOT tires

Different strokes for different folks. I currently own cars that run in all 3 classes.

I am well aware of some of the shenanigains pulled on the committees but haven't seen it in the ST committee.

What I haven't seen is any prepped to the limits FWD cars show up at an STL race. Until I see that, I will resist any changes to the status quo

[Greg Amy]

PS - what's your name?

Dave Mead, currently a member of the STAC and my personal stalker.

GA

[Flyinglizard]

Again, sportcars have more rear weight.

I watched some STL vid of Sebring. Might have been GA in Teggy or honda maybe chasing a Miata. The Honda had more power but was very slow entry - exit speeds. IE at T 4-5 the Honda touched the brake while I know that a Miata just flicks left. Same @ T1, Miata, just lifts and turns left @ 99MPH/4th gear, and the Honda maybe even down geared.
Had they swapped cars and got rid of the Honda push, the Honda would maybe be faster.

On another note, ask Drago how much 50#slows his car!! .6-.8 per lap at Ssebring in a Miata.

[jdrago1]

I didn't just fall off of the sports car turnip truck. I KNOW that's how the National/Major (and especially "pro") programs work. I know that you know all of that but I just want to make sure it's in the record, because frankly, I think that's the game you're playing. I don't have any confidence that you can actually take your STL driver hat off when your making CRB decisions, and - if it's possible - I believe even less that you are operating in good faith with the STAC (a la the restrictor example that Greg shared). That's based on my firsthand experience watching you operate when I was on the ITAC. You're too hooked into the game to stop playing it. If nothing else, you might solemnly believe that you're' "doing what's right for the class" but from the outside looking in, it simply looks hinky.


K

Lets be completely frank.. You don't know me at all.. Nor do I know you at all. I couldn't even point you out in a crowd of three people. I think it is fair to say that what you "think" you know about me you don't like and I can say the same. I never had any iron in the fire with the ITAC deal, I was new on the CRB and was genuinely trying to find a happy medium between the two committees as a non IT involved CRB member. I think we can agree that there was a lot of tension at the time between the two boards and not a very good position to be put in. I did not know IT at all at the time, was not and is still is not my thing. It was almost five years ago now? Maybe it is time to let the past go and start living in the present? I think most are tired of hearing about it already. I am willing to bury the hatchet if you are.

As far as any game I am playing...
I must not be too good at it. It is VERY clear that I was DIRECTLY responsible for the weight put on the Miata. If you search this forum, I wrote up a detailed write up after the first Runoffs that recommended adding weight to my car as it was the right thing to do for the class. Two years in a row I suggested my car get weight. How often does that happen? I was directly responsible for taking my car from 2485? to 2635. Since being on the SMAC and now CRB, NO CAR I HAVE EVER DRIVEN HAS BEEN HELPED, ONLY SLOWED DOWN BY weight or speeding up the other cars. For two years I said my car had an advantage and I had not brought properly prepared car to compete. My opinion now is that the cars are very close. I am not playing any game. I have been clear to all that ask, STL is NOT my main focus even though it is a far better chance to win. The "game" I am playing , so we are clear. I run take off SM tires whenever possible so I can save my stickers for the Runoffs. But never race a tire more than three sessions old. I race every race to win. I run as fast as I possibly can every lap.

[jdrago1]

Again, sportcars have more rear weight.


On another note, ask Drago how much 50#slows his car!! .6-.8 per lap at Ssebring in a Miata.

I did not want to stoke that fire... :)

[jdrago1]

But equally, I know that vehicle dynamics says that a car with the qualities of a Miata is going to be faster than a car with the qualities of a Civic, given the same power, level of preparation, and driver skill. NO QUESTION. Tell me I'm wrong if you dare, but do *not* play the results comparison game and tell me that I'm whining because I'm getting beat by any particular EXAMPLES of car/driver combinations. I'm not. Get over that. Further, arguing that's what I'm doing, without addressing my actual proposition, is disingenuous and only reinforces to me that you aren't willing - or able - to look objectively at the technical aspects of the issue at hand.

I also know that it's a fool's errand, trying to fix that problem with competition adjustments when someone moving the levers of the process - and more importantly, controlling the flow of information to the CRB - has an interest in, and the ability to manage, the outcome.

K

I think I agreed with you some where along the road on this already? Also in two posts up I commented that results are nothing more than rewards weights IMO.. So I think we are in violent agreement here..

Where we disagree or maybe you didn't lay this option out above.. We ARE NOT in a place where "Miata is going to be faster than a car with the qualities of a Civic, given the same power, level of preparation, and driver skill."

It is my opinion..

"most" of the moderately prepped Hondas make more HP and weigh less than the miata in STL. I think we can agree that it is FACT that an equally built Honda 1.8 engine will make substantially more HP than a 1.8 Miata engine. So IMO, the debate is how much more power does the FWD integra/Honda need to make to be "competitive" with all else being equal. It is my opinion that none of those things are close to "equal" in the small comparison sample we have in STL. This is where personal agendas, different opinions and drama come in.

[JeffYoung]

Does it have to be explicitly classed? 2L or under, RWD, calculate weight. If it fits then it's legit.

How long did they make Delorans and what sort of whack job Renault 2L box of fail could I find to stuff in that?

Yeah, the 2.0 European motor would have to be approved since it wasn't USDM.

You can't use any Renault motor in the DeLorean. Only an engine swap by the CHASSIS manufacturer is allowed. Thus, the Exige/Elise (if they were legal) are tuck with the 1.8 Toyota motor or any Lotus motor. Not any Toyota motor and Lotus motor.

[JeffYoung]

Good luck with your weird builds. The NSX starts off at 3500 lbs. Think you can find 850 lbs of fat on an aluminum bodied car to trim? Only then can you start adding a cage and 200lbs driver and hope to make weight with a 2.0 engine at close to 2900 lbs. The Lotus? bring a LOT of money for your engine program. Be nice if you chipped in to the worker fund to help defray the cost of the oil absorbent they will be needing.

Super Touring wasn't created out of nothing. It started with the B and D Prod ruleset that was for old WC cars but they never showed up. As ST exists now it isn't about 4 doors or dumpy looking grocery getters. The STL benchmark has always been the Miata 1.8 and the 1.8 GSR. The Mazdas have shown up. Where are the well prepped FWD?

ST is supposed to be interesting. Those oddball builds are welcome to show up. Just don't complain when they aren't competitive.

Yo dude! We gots the 'sperience wit odd balls.

Champeenship winning ITS TR8 right here boss. Ron started with a Jensen Wheely, then shocked the world with a winning ITS 3.8 Mustang.

Plus, we know Lotus motors -- better'in than youse! Have actually owned Esprits and shit, plus da Wheeley!

On top of that I'm on the ITAC so I know all about the no-whiny rule and enforce it as often as I can. Even on myself!

[Knestis]

Lets be completely frank...

I can be frank.

At one critical juncture during the ITAC mess, we had sent up something like 15 recommendations for weight adjustments for make/model examples that were judged to be out of whack. Some of them, by the time we reached the highest point of "tension," had been in the CRB's hands literally for MONTHS without any action. Members were very frustrated, many complaining loudly about it on this board.

One member - again, a regular poster here at the time - emailed you to complain/ask about what was probably the most egregious example of the "black hole" or "perma-tabled" recommendations your board's docket. You replied, telling him in some detail how messed up the ITAC was, and how we weren't "doing our job..."

...except you didn't notice that he'd cc'd me on the original message when you hit "Reply to All." I got to see you trashing the ad hoc to a member, and kindly offering your personal help as a CRB member to fix the problem for him. I called you on your duplicitous, Secret Car Club of America, back-room BS in a reply email; that the ad hoc was doing its job (recommending) and that the CRB was the SOURCE of this member's problem, NOT doing theirs (deciding).

I heard nothing back from you; no acknowledgement that maybe what you did was a problem. You didn't do what you COULD have done - make up or down decisions on all of those stagnant recommendations - to address the member's concern. That was instrumental to my outing the CRB for stonewalling the process in this forum, the resulting gag order from the CRB (okay, Andy, it was a gag REQUEST :) ), and my subsequent resignation from the committee.

SO, frankly, while I do not KNOW you, you have given me fair reason to say that I do not TRUST you. You've earned that.

Not being on the inside anymore, I can't see the day-to-day workings of the relationship between the STAC and the CRB, but when I see an example like Greg mentioned above - fast-tracking a proposal through the board under the guise of it being a recommendation from the ad hoc - my opinions are reinforced. I know based on my decades of experience in the Club, that if one example gets out, there are lots more that don't.

When I see that two individuals with a vested competitive AND commercial interests in the outcomes of rules decisions - yourself and Mr Keane - control all messaging from from the STAC back to the board's deliberation, I know how you can shade the conversation. (That was, in my estimation, a key cause of the problems we had during that meltdown, although it was not you personally playing the role then.) I thought that process was going to change. It's a problem that it hasn't, if nothing else because it's lazy, sloppy policy making.

I know that CRB members are deferential to their respective category "experts," so your position can easily steer the body's decision. When you deny here that a tall box with a high center of gravity will, all other things being equal, be slower than a short box with a low CoG with the same power, I know you're using criteria other than physics or some other objective measure to make determinations about how you direct those conversations.

Heck, the board couldn't even represent my proposal accurately when it was put to the membership in the the October prelims, turning it into a request to "Consider Differences Between Sports Cars and Touring Cars in STL" and making it sound like I proposed "adding more weight to all rear-
wheel drive cars." That's completely not accurate but you know that if you control the message, you control the process. YOU CAN'T HELP YOURSELVES.

So, yeah - I'm still a little pissed off, I'm an ideologue, and I value transparency and character - or at least the appearance of character - above the tradition and culture of these rule-making bodies. If you and the board want my trust, get the two guys benefiting from STL rules out of their position as sole conduit of information beyond what's captured in the web-based system. Recuse yourselves from board decisions that benefit you. Be transparent. Don't engineer any more end runs around the ad hoc.

Kirk (who figures he's probably un-invited on that ARRC seat deal now :p )

[jdrago1]

I know that CRB members are deferential to their respective category "experts," so your position can easily steer the body's decision. When you deny here that a tall box with a high center of gravity will, all other things being equal, be slower than a short box with a low CoG with the same power, I know you're using criteria other than physics or some other objective measure to make determinations about how you direct those conversations.


So, yeah - I'm still a little pissed off, I'm an ideologue, and I value transparency and character - or at least the appearance of character - above the tradition and culture of these rule-making bodies. If you and the board want my trust, get the two guys benefiting from STL rules out of their position as sole conduit of information beyond what's captured in the web-based system. Recuse yourselves from board decisions that benefit you. Be transparent. Don't engineer any more end runs around the ad hoc.

Kirk (who figures he's probably un-invited on that ARRC seat deal now :p )



So I guess that is a no? You can't let this go:). Do you have any long lasting hostility with your first grade teacher you would like to bring up while we are at it? Maybe the kid who stole your milk money growing up?

I am not going to discuss this again other than to say what wont be popular here. I did not think you in particular or the ITAC as a whole was doing a very good job at the time. I don't deny saying that. We will always have a difference of opinions there. This is nothing new.

The rest ITAC drama, I read blah, blah blah, blah blah blah.. I have heard all of this from you before, responded several times before. To my knowledge, no email you ever sent me went unanswered. You have a pretentious way about your emails and posts that keeps sucking me in, so I doubt I could have not replied even if I really wanted to.


I am going to move forward with STL now.. If you want to continue here with 5 year old ITAC stuff, unfortunately you will be discussing without me.

1)I have read here several times that no one on STAC has any issues with things going through the CRB? yet you keep beating that drum. I am not even a liaison on that call. I think I have sat in on post runoffs calls to share my opinions and maybe 2 other calls in three years?

2)I think for the 3rd or forth time I am saying in 3 or 4 different ways... A miata, a sportscar, a car with a frontal are x is always going to be faster than econobox with all other things being equal..

But again for the second or third time... all other things ARE NOT EQUAL NOW.. In fact very few are equal.
A proper built econobox is at a HP and straight line advantage and weighs less. I agree the debate is open for how much faster it should be, why and how to get there.


As for ARRC deal... Still stands for both of you. If lucky, we may have a broken brake line or stuck throttle cable at just the right time:)

[Knestis]

So business as usual.

At least we can count on you to be what you are. I guess I can kind of respect that.

K

PS - Our Ops Manager IM'd me today to ask if the "ARRC" note I have in my calendar was firm. I asked him not to schedule anything, as it was still tentative.

[dhrmx5]

Dave Mead, currently a member of the STAC and my personal stalker.

GA

Greg, I meant to mention, the whole rainbow thing is passe'. Be proud and wear regular guy clothes when out and about.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I did not think you in particular or the ITAC as a whole was doing a very good job at the time. I don't deny saying that. We will always have a difference of opinions there. This is nothing new.



So this one I take personally. I'll disagree with you here in saying that I think that the ITAC was doing an EXCELLENT job at the time because we spent hours upon hours attempting to codify the Ops manual. To an outsider looking in it may have looked like a ton of mental masturbation but every possible path needs to be driven down on before you can put something in writing as a guiding principle. I honestly think we had to slop around in the mud for a while to get that heavy lifting done and to some on the CRB it looked like a waste of time because it wasn't part of the culture of the other competition-adjustment based classes. In order to be able to follow the Ops manual as well as is being done now, the Ops manual has to be a good document.

Also, the fundamental principles of the Ops-manual type classing, was for some reason never explained or ingrained into the CRB by our ITAC liaisons. When I got on that CRB call, well over half of the group had never heard of 'the Process'...that to me was a GIANT fail. How could the core of how we classed cars, with the knowledge of at least two key CRB members for YEARS, suddenly be a negative and a unknown quantity? No idea.

I have no hard feelings about that time. Mostly because I still like most everyone involved and believe that most everyone has the best for the SCCA at heart. Reasonable people can, will and do, disagree.

[Greg Amy]

Greg, I meant to mention, the whole rainbow thing is passe'. Be proud and wear regular guy clothes when out and about.

You broke my heart, man...you broke my heart.

[adamjabaay]

wow. Dang thing got real

[Z3_GoCar]

You broke my heart, man...you broke my heart.

That's ok because I'll buy you a Beer over Authentic Mexican food in Monterey.

[Greg Amy]

That's ok because I'll buy you a Beer over Authentic Mexican food in Monterey.
Sweeeeeet!

[JeffYoung]

I too agree with Andy.

I think it is entirely unfair to say the ITAC wasn't doing a good job during that time period. We routinely spent 4-5 hours on the calls, talking into the wee hours of the night, to come up with the (at the time) ONLY objective, repeatable and written down system for classing cars in the SCCA. That was a sea change of epic proporitions.

There were miscommunications between the CRB and the ITAC, but I tihnk everyone -- Bob Dowie, Andy, everyone -- was trying hard to do the right thing. THe problem was that we were really doing something revolutionary, and the basis for it (stock horsepower) was causing the CRB a lot of heartburn (as it should).

But not doing a good job? No, that is simply wrong.

The ITAC has, or at least had, one of the toughtest jobs in the SCCA. We have the most popular multi marque class that actually is multi marque, and we had to come up with an objective process to set car weights that covered something like 300 chassis stretching from 1968 until 2008.

[Clark18]

Drago said something I also posted some time ago--the RX8 doesn't seem an overdog, the Runoffs winning car was simply very well prepared and driven. My T4 RX8 has run times similar to decent STL cars like Walke's RX7, but is seconds behind top STL builds. Walke's car and an ITS Miata running STL were quite a bit faster than the RX8 down the Road America straights, I made up time in the corners (more tire). Admittedly my T4 RX8 is a bit heavier and less prepared than an STL version, but the straight line speeds will not be much different. If I took out the weight to run STL I would then reduce the tire so overall the car would not be much faster; under the current rules I would also have to run the plate which slows the car even more making it uncompetitive. The plate seems like an over-reaction to the Runoffs; do any of you on the CRB/STAC have an opinion on chances of removing the plate?

[JS154]

They made a 2.0 (the regular four pot was 2.2) for tax purposes for sale in Italy and then sold a bunch of the leftovers in the UK in the mid 90s. EDM = European Domestic Market, such as it is...lol....

You can get an Esprit "shell" for $10kish, less than the FrankenNSX. The motor bits are more expensive though. Probably a $60-75k build.

Letter coming this weekend! Woohoo!

EXACT same reason the BMW S14B20 exists, for the Italian and Portugal markets.

[ITA_Rx3]

All this Miata talk....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3MhS_TzPbA

[Matt93SE]

Exactly!

[JS154]

The ITAC has, or at least had, one of the toughtest jobs in the SCCA. We have the most popular multi marque class that actually is multi marque, and we had to come up with an objective process to set car weights that covered something like 300 chassis stretching from 1968 until 2008.

ST has taken that job over, considering ST allows engine swaps, turbo charged and supercharged cars and allows different levels of engine and drivetrain modifications.

Nedless to say, it's not easy, and the lack of strong full-build true ST cars running regularly against each other - and the resultant lack of head to head competition and onboard data - is not helping.

THAT said, can we move the ITAC issue from 5 years ago or whatever to a different thread and keep this one on ST "DEFINITION OF A TOURING CAR"

[p.keane]

The BOP between the Miatas and Integra looked pretty good this weekend at the SARRC Championship race at Daytona. Equally prepped and driven. PK

[Chip42]

agreed, BUT... weren't they an ITS car (ISC / Mike VS) and an SM, not proper STL cars? agreed that they were equally WELL prepped and well driven, and that they appeared to be well balanced with you overall (lap times and observation support that statement) but they weren't "equally prepped" as it were. separate but equal and all that... :shrug:

infamously bad miata aero revealed itself on the banking, somewhere around middle backstretch Pete's car gained legs on the miatae who stayed in a 2 car drafting pack on his bumper to that point for the first few laps. once there was a separation between the 3 cars by SRF traffic the miatae fell back sooner. was very cool to watch.

This is not to take away from the good drive by you, PK - we saw you in the "west hairpin" sliding the snot out of the car and the poor decision by a SRF driver to divebomb when you slid a bit too much. congrats on the win and, I assume, the championship. condolences to Deuce, too breaking with a commanding lead - was it driveline? he's had rough luck the past few years.

[p.keane]

I do not know what engine package Mike Van was running ITS or STL, but it was equal to Raymond's power. Raymond car has been in STL for a long time and has a Rossini built STL engine. SM do not run 140 mph through the tri-oval. In the second qualifying session I could not draft up to Raymond his car is that strong. As I would start to gain on him entering the tri-oval I was running out of gear. We bumped up the rev limit for the race and jeopardized my motor.

When they drafted past me going down the back straight, I knew I was in for a long day. If they did not race each other I was done. I got lucky to draft back past them, Raymond was not trying to draft Mike, I got a run on Raymond coming out of the Bus Stop. When I side drafted off of Raymond, I was then one car behind Mike and that gave me a run on him. Mike left me enough room on the bottom to put my left side tires on the first yellow line and beat him down into turn one. I might have seen that move on "Days of Thunder" or "Talladega Nights". I guaranty they would not let me do that again. Even with my good run, I did not get past Raymond until I between turn 4 and the tri-oval. I got past Mike after Start Finish.

The re-start was key as well, I put a bunch of SRFs between us going into turn one. I think at one point I was five wide going through the tri-oval. Racing SRFs stinks and I felt bad I was in the middle of the top three, ok leading the top three. I needed them as a buffer if the Miatas got back to me. I apologized to the SRF guys in impound and they where all smiles because they knew what I was doing and thought it was good racing.

My STL assessment, the Miatas are not as slow as people think on the outside and the Integra not as bad as people think in the infield. I also think the three of us are 4 to 5 seconds off the pace when the show comes to town. I will admit that my engine is ITS+, but not as good as the I blew up in Sebring. I'm sure the two Miatas can gain HP, because they do not have Drago power. I also think you will need a partner to win next year.

Deuce broke the left front hub with two to go.

[Chip42]

so an admittedly not full tilt STL integra, a full tilt ITS miata (99-00), and a less than East Street spec STL 99-00 miata are all roughly on par at a specific track. groovy. I agree with your assessment in general but just want to point out that the BOP observed is not actually representative of the rule set. it was a good race though. I also agree that when K20 powered FA or later civics hit the joint at the runoffs next year 4-5s will fall from the lap record. and I still like kirk's general idea that there ought to be a class for actual touring cars among the myriad classes with the name of touring, currently being won by a select few, non touring, cars.

What's the skinny on the "concorde agreement" and in what way will STL, Prod, GT, and Touring (IT??) be merged, killed off, or otherwise affected? arguing about category rules now might be a moot point with that in the distance.

[webmaster]

This is a Touring Car


http://vimeo.com/108443116

[Greg Amy]

I'm a bit bummed that this forum has been down during a very critical point in our evolution. The STAC/CRB has been in deep discussions regarding "sports cars" and how to define them, and what, if anything, to do about it. We solicited feedback from members (see Fastrack note below); we were looking for assistance in defining "sports car" and how to deal with it. We received several letters but most simply expressed support for, or disagreement with, the idea.

Given the "rules year" we are at the final opportunities to do anything for 2015; once the January GCR is approved we can only change weights, tires, and restrictors. The STAC is looking to create a "placeholder" in the GCR, with maybe a token weight number in there just to save the place and give us the opportunity to adjust later. In our meeting last night, there was support for this idea, and we are looking to recommend something to the CRB for their next meeting.

It's almost really too late to send an email to the CRB with input - we have to submit something by next week - but if you have ideas for defining a "sports car", now is the time to do it. Don't bother sending letters "for" or "against", we're well past that stage... - Greg



October Fastrack WDYT: Instead of adding more weight to all rear-wheel drive cars, the CRB is considering a performance equalizer in STU and STL specifically for "sports cars", as opposed to standard "touring cars".

The definition of "sports cars" include such features as:

1. Engine location (front, front-mid, rear-mid, rear),
2. Number of doors,
3. Suspension design,
4. Overall dimensions, and/or
5. Manufacturer-published interior volume.

Among the equalizers being considered are (for sports cars) are:

1. Smaller tire section width,
2. Additional weight(with or without reducing overall class base weights), and
3. Restrictors.

The CRB would like membership input on the general idea, as well as thoughts on definitions/characterization of a sports car as well as suggested performance equalizers. Please send your feedback through the SCCA letter system at crbscca.com.

[Knestis]

This is a Touring Car


http://vimeo.com/108443116

Hell, yeah.

K

PS - thanks, Webmeister, for the fix.

[autoxmike]

Note: I spent the last 5 months building a "true" STL car so was too busy to read this and the threads is too long now to read every post...

I'm a "new" STL guy that just found this thread. This summer I built a 90%-95% build 95 Civic Coupe with a B18 GSR motor with the goal of playing in STL and seeing how well I can do at the Runoffs the next 2 years. I built the Civic knowing that there are combinations of chassis/motors out there (mainly RWD sports cars) that should be much faster - but I did so counting on "performance adjustments" that are continuously re-examined & tweaked so that cars like mine won't be relegated to Mid-pack status. We will see. If after 2016 this is the case then I'll take the car to IT or Prod somewhere....

That said - I see the class as a non-sports car class. One where Miatas, RX-7s, Porsche 944 type vehicles aren't overdogs and quite honestly slight underdogs. IF it turns into a Miata/Porsche./RXT/Must have a RWD class then I'm gone. My hope of that the "powers that be" realize that if it does indeed turn into a "sports car class" then people like me that are starting to build "true" STL cars will leave for other pastures. IMHO the rules must be written to allow a wide variety of chassis/engine combos to have a shot at running near the front if the class has a chance at thriving.

[dropkick317]

So I sold my FP Civic and bought a Z4 with the intent to build an STU car... Should I just stop? :shrug:

[adamjabaay]

my guess is you'll be fine

[Knestis]

My perception is that STU suffers from a completely different - or at least bigger - challenge, that being reconciling turbo/blown and NA engines. I got very excited about the potential of the Jetta TDI I drove 2 years ago, and the tuners seemed to think we could get it to where it needed to be, power-wise, if we were willing to compromise the endurance and/or smoke expectations we'd set for the project. However, I had a realization that if I had any interest in being competitive in Majors or the Ruboffs, the second it was competitive - as the ONLY example of a forced-induction diesel in the crowd - it was going to have a huge target on it for a lead or inlet diameter screwing. That didn't sound like a good use of money.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

I sent my letter two days ago. Touring classes in the SCCA were never meant to exclude Sports cars. People need to understand it's just a name, not a philosophy. The 2014 results from Majors and the Runoffs clearly show me that the current system of weight penalties for RWD etc is working.

Edit: If I were king for a day I would actually EXPAND the class to include older chassis and super cool iterations.

[autoxmike]

SM Field Fillers: I like them. Sure it takes a well prepared and driven STL car to beat a national caliber prepped and driven SM - so if I;m getting beaten by them then I KNOW that I have to step up my game. Good to have decent yardsticks to race with. IMHO of coarse.

Competitive Adjustments: If the goal is to have a many chassis/motor combos that can win then I see no way that a pure displacement/drive configuration/suspension type formula that adjusts weights will work. The spread of performance potential is greater than within an IT class, and if I understand the IT regs then more than a few cars have additional weight adjustments to the "formula weight". The K20 already has a restrictor -right? is this proof that there will be overdog motors, chassis, and motor/chassis combos? I think so. So the door is open to "line item" adjustments. Why not do that for chassis as well once they prove to be overdogs? IMHO if the Miata starts "dominating" then it should get adjusted with added weight, less tire, etc. - as should any other Frankenstein that someone dreams up.

[Greg Amy]

Saw your letter, Andy, but the timeframe for sending "for or against" letters has long, long passed. The STAC is looking for feedback not on "if", but "how".

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

No issues. 'How' can be 'nothing'. To make a change now, with the results we saw in 2014, is total BS. Unless you split the classes and give the two types of cars separate places to play.

[Greg Amy]

Thank you for your input, Andy.

;)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Thank you for your input, Andy.

;)

:)

[JeffYoung]

I think further fracturing of classes in the SCCA (sports car STL v. non-sports car STL or whatever) is a huge mistake.

That said, I understand the issue and that I am part of the problem. I probably WOULD build a FrankenNSX or an Esprit or some nonsense for the class....

It seems to me if you are at the "how" v. "why" stage that the real difference between sports cars and non-sports cars is frontal area. If so, what you are looking for is a CD X frontal area modifier of some sort.

Beyond that, I think any of the characteristics you are looking at are red herrings.

[Andy Bettencourt]

If the SCCA is at the 'why' stage then they had better 'fracture' the class. To create a class, have people build dedicated cars and then potentially outlaw those cars would be ridiculous.

If we are simply talking about a reorganization of how to 'penalize' sportscars, then I could potentially listen to that - as long as it is done on a fresh piece of paper.

If we are talking about any addition of 'penalty' to what the weights are right now, I call total BS as the data that I see simply does not support it. The Majors and the Runoffs results show parity. Any other data that proves the contrary I would love to see.

And Jeff, I suggest that you would choose a 'frankenNSX' or Esprit because you would simple rather drive that layout, not because you see an advantage that you could expose. The weight differences are quite significant. And only 7" wheels...

[Z3_GoCar]

As I stated in my letter, the parity you seek can't be achieved by whole sale changes based off of vehicle architecture. Thank you for the polite reply, but it appears you're not ready for the reality of the situation. I predict that no matter what happens my car will be made even less competitive than it already is. Talk about kicking an under dog while it's already down.

[adamjabaay]

you guys make it sound like the sky is falling..they talked for HOURS about this the other night..... Nothing was rushed, no conclusions were jumped to...

I'm sorta betting that, after the runnoffs this year, nothing drastic is happening

[Greg Amy]

I'm'a not gonna get into an Internet play-by-play, ain't got no time for that. But something you need to keep in mind is that there will be no more new classes. In fact, you need to start paying attention: within 5 years the SCCA will start whittling down the classes to "14-16". So you're just wasting your time arguing that.

More importantly, however, if Super Touring gets caught up in that consolidation, then the "competitiveness of our cars" is the least of our worries...for STU/STL to continue to exist as discrete classes, they need to differentiate themselves from all the other categories; they need to be something more than a "DOT-tired and winged version of EProd".

Right now they're decisively not.

GA

[JeffYoung]

If the SCCA is at the 'why' stage then they had better 'fracture' the class. To create a class, have people build dedicated cars and then potentially outlaw those cars would be ridiculous.

If we are simply talking about a reorganization of how to 'penalize' sportscars, then I could potentially listen to that - as long as it is done on a fresh piece of paper.

If we are talking about any addition of 'penalty' to what the weights are right now, I call total BS as the data that I see simply does not support it. The Majors and the Runoffs results show parity. Any other data that proves the contrary I would love to see.

And Jeff, I suggest that you would choose a 'frankenNSX' or Esprit because you would simple rather drive that layout, not because you see an advantage that you could expose. The weight differences are quite significant. And only 7" wheels...

Not entirely. I think frontal area is a huge overlooked (maybe for good reason) advantage/disadvantage in IT. I see it in my car. CD sucks. But frontal area is small. It matters and probably would with an Elan, ESprit or NSX.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Not entirely. I think frontal area is a huge overlooked (maybe for good reason) advantage/disadvantage in IT. I see it in my car. CD sucks. But frontal area is small. It matters and probably would with an Elan, ESprit or NSX.

So how do you qualify that frontal area as an 'advantage'? If it's top speed vs other cars in ITS, how do you then separate frontal area from 'class leading torque'?

Just curious how anyone is mathematically coming to the conclusion that poor CD + small frontal area is...what?

As to the SCCA and classes, no doubt we don't want to add more. But the issue is to look beyond that hard stop and see where growth could happen while at the same time actually consolidating something. I would say, 'we have X classes today. If we were to clean sheet this we would go with the elimination of these 3 and the addition of these 2'...or something like that. Rip the bandaid off if you have to. I like that there is an effort not to expand, but you can still add classes without 'expanding', you just have to be willing to trim the dead branched to allow for new growth.

No ideas what classes those would be, just a conceptual example. Maybe all the classes are perfectly healthy. LOL

[JeffYoung]

Uh, my car doesn't have class leading torque, trust me.

The data I've seen of Miata v. RX7 v. Z car v. TR8 v. Mustang shows me that you either need slippery, or small frontal area. It IS an advantage over 100 mph, sometimes markedly so.

I fully agree with you it is hard to quantify this stuff, which is why we stayed away from it in IT.

However, if STL is looking for the difference between "sports car" and "nonsports car" then this is it. Everything else seems like a red herring to me (doors, engine orientation, etc.).

[Z3_GoCar]

... "DOT-tired and winged version of EProd"....


GA

Except IF I were in EP my car would be 300lbs lighter and the 1st and 2nd place cars would be 116lbs heavier.

[Knestis]

...you just have to be willing to trim the dead branched to allow for new growth.

How do you reconcile the above with your earlier admonition that "outlawing cars" built for STL would be "ridiculous?"

EVERY class has a philosophy, Andy, and (not holding my breath) should the PTBs get it together and start paring classes for Majors, the distinctions among those philosophies are going to become extremely important. In the SCCA Club Racing paradigm, those distinctions are about mechanical attributes of the cars involved. The less homogenous any given class is, in terms of those attributes, the fewer are its distinctions from other classes. If Prod and ST have lots of commonalities, Greg's right that the argument for having both gets pretty thin.

The other option, a more inclusive (dare I say "progressive") approach, is to allow greater latitude in mechanical attributes in a class. That's not typically been the first principle for the Club, but we have been drifting that direction. If that's what we want to do, someone needs to make a strategic decision and really commit - like to indexed or "break-out" classes set by lap time rather than car design and improvements. I don't think the NASA PT experiment hasn't been a resounding endorsement for that kind of approach but if we're just going to look at "parity" at the RubOffs, then we're really doing it even if we don't fess up and admit it.

My argument has been, and continues to be, that STL is new enough that P. Keane's original vision for the class still has a lot of untapped potential, particularly in a mix with fewer classes, as long as it maintains what makes it different.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

It's simple Kirk, STL is new. It has participants. It has new builds. It has rules. The classes I talk about possibly being weeded out are the ones that have floated around the Mendoza line for years and years while the SCCA continually lowers the bar for minimum participation.

This is a new class that is growing, and by most accounts has achieved some semblance of parity. Whatever Peter's original 'vision' may have been, that isn't the class that was created form the first day it was in the GCR. What was created was a cc/weight class allowing family-based engine swaps, regardless of chassis. Period.


Super Touring Light (STL) is a small-bore 'tuner' class for reciprocating engines of displacements of 2.0 liters and under. STL encompasses a lower level of allowed modifications compared to STU. As with STU, spec lines are not required for eligibility; unless otherwise specified, any vehicle meeting the model year and engine displacement limits is eligible for this class.


When I babble about this stuff, I am specifically babbling about the potential of either eliminating a configuration/configurations within a class that has been legal since day 1, and/or the ADDITIONAL competition adjustments from what is already rule, that is obviously working.

Again, if we are talking about redoing the 'adders' by renaming them things like 'sports car', 'interior volume', 'frontal area', etc...then fine...as long as the net isn't any more difference in weight that we see today and that has proven NOT to give any of the 'designs in question' an advantage.

I do not see what is broken here. If you are worried about looking too similar to another class (EP with wings or whatever) then it's the allowances, not the cars.

[adamjabaay]

so if they consolidate classes, how rapidly would that process take place? Kill/consolidate a couple a year?

is this talk something well know club racing directors are leaving the national office over?

[Greg Amy]

From December Fastrack (my emphasis):

MOTION: Instruct CRB to administer a 10-year Class management program that contains the following elements:

1. Immediately institute a 3 year stability period for all classes during which no new classes will be considered. Note that an exception will be made for SRF3 due to timing.
2. Undertake a 6 month study to determine a 14-16 class Majors (national) club racing structure to be fully achieved by 2025.
3. Based on 2025 class structure, establish category-based committees populated with subject matter experts. These committees to specify best path for current classes to arrive at 2025 targets. The process to be complete within 12 months of program start.
4. Based on category committee results and internal deliberation, establish and administer a phased approach to reach 2025 class configuration in year 4 through 10 of the program.


Lewis/Kephart. For: Patullo, Walsh, Butler, Kephart, Lewis, Lindstrand, Helman, Pulliam, Harris. Against Hanushek, Langlotz, Zekert PASSED 9-3.

[adamjabaay]

I NEVER remember what the date is and thusly, never remember when fastrack is out. Adam FTL

[Knestis]

From December Fastrack (my emphasis):

MOTION: Instruct CRB to administer a 10-year Class management program that contains the following elements:

1. Immediately institute a 3 year stability period for all classes during which no new classes will be considered. Note that an exception will be made for SRF3 due to timing.
2. Undertake a 6 month study to determine a 14-16 class Majors (national) club racing structure to be fully achieved by 2025.
3. Based on 2025 class structure, establish category-based committees populated with subject matter experts. These committees to specify best path for current classes to arrive at 2025 targets. The process to be complete within 12 months of program start.
4. Based on category committee results and internal deliberation, establish and administer a phased approach to reach 2025 class configuration in year 4 through 10 of the program.


Lewis/Kephart. For: Patullo, Walsh, Butler, Kephart, Lewis, Lindstrand, Helman, Pulliam, Harris. Against Hanushek, Langlotz, Zekert PASSED 9-3.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS-KxPx2Ii6gW1jIwBHlftSZvzUbmoRH2J1jTPPdRDANpmDjQhjAA

[Matt Rowe]

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS-KxPx2Ii6gW1jIwBHlftSZvzUbmoRH2J1jTPPdRDANpmDjQhjAA

Kirk I'll have to save this picture for future use but I think you are way off base. Clearly there is a path to 13 classes for Miatas plus a catch all for everything else. In all seriousness, I would be happy to see a well thought out long term class strategy and transition plan but I also have my doubts that as an organization we can get there.

I am so glad that the forum is back in time for the black helicopter (winter) season.

[Knestis]

Oh, make no mistake - I'd be VERY glad if this idea were to work but I've got 35 years of experience with the Club that's telling me it won't survive the initial planning. The decision making process is too "responsive" to small numbers of loud voices. Again, I hope I'm wrong but...

K

[Matt93SE]

The decision making process is too "responsive" to small numbers of loud voices.

It also seems to be relatively deaf to large numbers of softer voices....

[ner88]

So, why do we have a need to consolidate?
Solo has 50 or 60 classes (:-)) and pulls big numbers at the runoffs.
We/SCCA is not in a position to be sending racers away!
Why can't everyone be a winner??? Trophies are cheap and entry fees are high!

[Ed Funk]

And for every one of those 50-60 Solo classes, there's a Ladies class. WTF! Is it a muscle sport?

[Greg Amy]

I want my own class with no Miatas allowed.

Crap, just realized that's against the rules.

[Matt93SE]

I want my own class with no Miatas allowed.

Crap, just realized that's against the rules.
No it's not. you just need to run open wheel. But then you're again stuck racing with those damn rotaries...

[ner88]

i want my own class with no miatas allowed.

Crap, just realized that's against the rules.

srf

[Greg Amy]

srf

No, Miatas are allowed in there now.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'm just glad IT.com just jumped back over eBay in my FireFox feed...

[Terry Hanushek]

srf


No, Miatas are allowed in there now YET.

FIFY

Terry

[Wreckerboy]

SRF and Miatas together at last? Kinda solves my problems (as detailed on the brown board).
Thanks SCCA!

[Matt93SE]

SRF and Miatas together at last? Kinda solves my problems (as detailed on the brown board).
Thanks SCCA!

Don't ever run Midwest division.. They run/ran SM and SRF together at Hallett...

[callard]

Two new classes to consider:
IT-80 - Age of car and driver together must be at least 80 years, No Japanese cars, No FWD. IT prep rules apply. (Reduced entry fee)
IT-30 - Age of car and driver must be less than 30 years, All Japanese cars, No FWD. SM, SSM, or It prep rules apply. (Enhanced entry fee)
Go!

[Ralf]

Don't ever run Midwest division.. They run/ran SM and SRF together at Hallett...

When was that? They have not run together the last 3 years.

[Matt93SE]

When was that? They have not run together the last 3 years.

Maybe that's the local (COMMA) stuff I'm remembering? I remember seeing race results with SM and SRF together, but it's been some time now..

[Ralf]

Our last Majors at Topeka had SRF and SM together, but there were only 2 SM cars and only one was running competitive lap times. I don't recall if they had a split start or not, but they probably did. http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/assets/results/14-HPT-SatRace-GP1.pdf

[Matt93SE]

A Majors event with only 2 SM entries? Yeah, that's progress for ya! Keep it up Topeka!! :dead_horse:

[Greg Amy]

A Majors event with only 2 SM entries? Yeah, that's progress for ya! Keep it up Topeka!!

Dude, entry just opened up...and there's still significant questions as to what the rules will be going forward (though I predict they'll revert to 2014 regs for the January Florida Majors).

GA, noting that the STAC is looking for resumes...maybe someone we know would want to get involved in the process(es)...?

[Matt93SE]

Greg, I was referring to the HPT race last August with only 14SRF and 2SM.. (See post 392). Both of the strongest spec classes with fewer entries than a December Regional, yet the mothership is touting the Majors program as a resounding success.. ;)

With my life and work commitments, I can't volunteer for a committee like that due to the time involved. I had to resign from my local car club stuff that only required 3-4hrs a month because I simply didn't have it to spare. Plus I'm going to Prod. it's cheaper there. :wall:

[Greg Amy]

Greg, I was referring to the HPT race last August with only 14SRF and 2SM.
Heartland Park? I'm surprised they got two... ;)

Sadly, MidDiv is not a useful indicator of the health of Club Racing.

GA, who lived in Texas Region and raced in SWDIV and MidDiv for many years ('90 SSA MidDiv champ, baby!), was in teh very first HPT National, all before deciding to move to New England for better racing pastures...and got stuck here. Oh well, there's always retirement...and I do miss Hallett a lot.

[Matt93SE]

Heartland Park? I'm surprised they got two... ;)

Sadly, MidDiv is not a useful indicator of the health of Club Racing.

GA, who lived in Texas Region and raced in SWDIV and MidDiv for many years ('90 SSA MidDiv champ, baby!), was in teh very first HPT National, all before deciding to move to New England for better racing pastures...and got stuck here. Oh well, there's always retirement...and I do miss Hallett a lot.

Agreed.. SWDIV has a strong SM, SRF, and FM contingent, but almost zilch for IT and GT. Reynolds is in Dallas area and the Saurinos in Tulsa, so Prod is wrapped up. (That said, the Saurino boys are looking to go open wheel and the cars so the throne will be vacant for FP soon.)

There are several tracks in the area, but only a couple that are capable of supporting a Club Race due to lack of facilities/grid/paddock space. We are losing TWS in a few months, but there is talk of another track being built nearby. If it comes through, there will be 9 tracks within a 6 hr tow- 6 or 7 of which could support a club race. Then there's the help of year-round racing if you don't mind racing in a swamp in August! Money is good here with industry and oil, so I'm at a bit of a loss why attendance is lacking here.

[Greg Amy]

Though we're treading off the beaten thread path on this one...here was the state of SWDiv/MWDiv in 1989. This was an email I sent to a guy in regard to the history of my SSA Shelby CSX...

Pulled up the logbook...it was issued 11/11/88, first event
11/12-13/88 at Texas World Speedway. Bill Saunders drove the car in
the SCCA driver's schools the weekends of April 8th 1989 at TWS and
then the following weekend of April 15th at Hallett Motor Speedway,
the car's 4th and 5th race weekends. He apparently passed the second
school, as he finished 1st in the SCCA Regional on Saturday. That
first year the car also raced at Hutchinson Aerodrome in Kansas (an
ex-WW2 Navy airfield), the very first SCCA National at the then-new
Heartland Park in Topeka, another ex-WW2 airfield in Big Spring TX,
the Ponca City (OK) Grand Prix July 4th weekend (probably where that
photo came from), again in Big Spring, won the Solo 1 National
Championship in Showroom Stock A at Hutchinson Aerodrome, finished 23rd
in the 1989 SCCA Runoffs at Road Atlanta, then topped off the year at
the "Bass Ackwards" (reverse direction) annual race at Hallet in
November and the "Early Bird Enduro" at Texas World Speedway in
December.

And it did all this while being driven to each race with tools and
tires in the hatchback...busy year!

[Matt93SE]

Hallett gets one SCCA race a year now. TWS gets 1-2, but they're closing forever in May.. Never been to HPT but it's obviously still open. The rest of the tracks and even SOLO sites are long gone.. :\

...Back to your previously scheduled topic...