PDA

View Full Version : What is a "touring car?"



Pages : [1] 2

Knestis
07-08-2014, 11:12 AM
In addition to a Miata and a guard rail, something else struck me (ba-dump, ching!) this past weekend at WGI. The very fundamental issue that I raised here a couple years ago seems to be manifesting itself on the STU and STL grids - that of sports/GT cars edging out, if not potentially totally eclipsing, actual "touring cars" in these classes. If we nip it in the bud now, we can head off an unintended consequence for the entire category...

All other things being equal, a chassis with two seats is going to have an advantage over one with four - frontal area, aero "licked surface," impact of bluff rear surfaces on Cd, and center of gravity to name a few. The formula for setting spec weights doesn't take these variables into consideration, nor can it really be expected to in any repeatable, consistent way.

There are literally dozens of sub-2.0, 4-cylinder, make/model options that might be viable STL cars, for example, that are less likely to get built because, in addition to engine breathing challenges they won't EVER be able to get back what they lose to the sports cars in terms of basic architecture. And the Lotus is NOTHING like any of the other cars running in STU, in very fundamental ways.

The FIA has long used interior volume to define what was - and wasn't - a Touring Car. They have to be able to carry four real adults in sensible condition (e.g., not cut up in garbage bags). And there are WAY more real touring car options out there than there are "sports/GT" cars, as defined by the same approach, which makes for a more vital, viable class.

My modest proposal is that a minimum interior volume be established for the STx classes - now, while it's still early days. A cohesive vision or plan for "what a class should be" is crucial to its long-term success, the other option being to base listings and specs on ideas about the "on-track performance" of individual cases. That leads to individual allowances and the inevitable shenanigans, power brokering, dealing, and other silliness that follow.

I'm going to write a proposal but thought I'd get some input before doing so. Thoughts?

K

webhound
07-08-2014, 11:58 AM
Not apples v apples, but the 2 vs 4 seats dividing line is what separates two classes in one category in SCCA Solo, SM (Street Mod-4) vs SSM (Super Street Mod-2). There they allow more open engine swaps, still along manufacturer lines but with some sort of sliding weight scale or something for displacement and valves/cyl.

And although not apples/apples, this distinction actually holds more sway in road racing vs autocross because, as Kirk says, frontal area and overall aero comes more into play at the higher speeds.

So agreed. And precedent.

Will

cjb25hs
07-08-2014, 12:08 PM
I agree with this as well. With my next car most likely going to be an STU car it makes sense.

Greg Amy
07-08-2014, 12:20 PM
:popcorn:

dickita15
07-08-2014, 12:38 PM
Not apples v apples, but the 2 vs 4 seats dividing line is what separates two classes in one category in SCCA Solo, SM (Street Mod-4) vs SSM (Super Street Mod-2). There they allow more open engine swaps, still along manufacturer lines but with some sort of sliding weight scale or something for displacement and valves/cyl.

And although not apples/apples, this distinction actually holds more sway in road racing vs autocross because, as Kirk says, frontal area and overall aero comes more into play at the higher speeds.

So agreed. And precedent.

Will

historically that is the way it was in SCCA production and sedan classes before they both migrated to GT. it made some oddities. a mustang was a sedan, Shelby gt350 was a prod car. same with the Corvair and Yenko.

Ed Funk
07-08-2014, 01:44 PM
Oddities in SCCA?!? Shirley you jest!

dickita15
07-08-2014, 02:58 PM
Oddities in SCCA?!? Shirley you jest!

and don't call me.....oh never mind

Terry Hanushek
07-08-2014, 02:59 PM
Kirk


In addition to a Miata and a guard rail, something else struck me (ba-dump, ching!) this past weekend at WGI. The very fundamental issue that I raised here a couple years ago seems to be manifesting itself on the STU and STL grids - that of sports/GT cars edging out, if not potentially totally eclipsing, actual "touring cars" in these classes. If we nip it in the bud now, we can head off an unintended consequence for the entire category...

We have the parallel situation with roadsters being introduced into GT, particularly GTL and a little bit into GT3.

In both instances we have permitted roadsters (primarily meotters) in to 'make the numbers'. In both cases, there seems to be a healthy dose of 'be careful what you wish for'.

Just sayin

Terry

Andy Bettencourt
07-08-2014, 03:45 PM
Haven't we had this conversation before? The 'Touring' in the Super Touring category is not, and was never meant for traditional 'touring cars' (I think of the BTCC in it's heyday). It was created for a destination for World Challenge cars (in both categories) to land and otherwise to be built to the rules. Says so right in the Purpose statement of the class. Heck, 'Improved Touring' has nothing to do with 4 door saloon cars either.

Be careful what you wish for here. People largely build and race what they like. You create a class for 4-door (assuming your interior spacial numbers necessitate that) you are really limiting your audience IMHO.

Maybe it's separating the STL class into STL-SC (sports car) and STL-TC (touring car) that you are driving at?

Greg Amy
07-08-2014, 04:42 PM
The Super Touring category...was created for a destination for World Challenge cars (in both categories) to land and otherwise to be built to the rules.

Cars eligible for World Challenge Touring in 2009 (from PCR Appendix A v9, the basis for the category regs). Basically, our STU cars:
Acura RSX (02-06)
Acura TSX (04-08)
Acura TSX (04-08)
Acura TSX (2009)
Audi A4 B7 (05-08)
BMW E46 325
BMW E90 325
Dodge SRT-4 (03-05)
Ford Focus Coupe (05-07)
Ford Focus Sedan (05-07)
Honda Civic Type R (03-06)
Lexus IS300 2.8L (01-05)
Lexus IS300 3.0L (01-05)
Mazda 6 (03-08)
Mercedes Benz C230 (02-05)
Subaru Impreza WRX STi (04-07)
Toyota Celica GTS (00-05)
Volkswagen Jetta Mk4 (99-05)
Volkswagen Jetta Mk5 (06-08)
Volvo S40 (05-07)
Honda Civic (-02)
Mazda Protégé (-03)


Maybe it's separating the STL class into STL-SC (sports car) and STL-TC (touring car) that you are driving at?
Not a terrible idea. But I don't see the org buying into any new classes right now.

GA

JS154
07-08-2014, 06:50 PM
Cars eligible for World Challenge Touring in 2009 (from PCR Appendix A v9, the basis for the category regs). Basically, our STU cars:
Acura RSX (02-06)
Acura TSX (04-08)
Acura TSX (04-08)
Acura TSX (2009)
Audi A4 B7 (05-08)
BMW E46 325
BMW E90 325
Dodge SRT-4 (03-05)
Ford Focus Coupe (05-07)
Ford Focus Sedan (05-07)
Honda Civic Type R (03-06)
Lexus IS300 2.8L (01-05)
Lexus IS300 3.0L (01-05)
Mazda 6 (03-08)
Mercedes Benz C230 (02-05)
Subaru Impreza WRX STi (04-07)
Toyota Celica GTS (00-05)
Volkswagen Jetta Mk4 (99-05)
Volkswagen Jetta Mk5 (06-08)
Volvo S40 (05-07)
Honda Civic (-02)
Mazda Protégé (-03)


Not a terrible idea. But I don't see the org buying into any new classes right now.

GA

How many 2 seaters are there in
WCTC
ITCC
BTCC
DTM

Keep it simple.

Touring cars have 4 seats. Sports cars have two seats. 2+2 qualifies as a touring car.

Knestis
07-08-2014, 07:34 PM
GT cars - Grand Touring - come in all shapes and sizes so the inclusion of "sports cars" in GTL (et al.) isn't the conceptual issue that it is if GT cars are plopped in with touring cars. And I'd argue that the same problem I describe here exists in Improved Touring but I don't really care anymore.

But most importantly, to the question of "limiting the audience," my point is that we de facto limit the audience by allowing GT/sports cars in ST. We allow a tiny handful of make/model options and give them enough of an advantage that they beat out the DOZENS of 2- and 4-door chassis out there that might well be competitive and interesting, were they not prejudiced against by the fundamentals of the rules and listings. (Number of doors, by the way, hasn't been a general criterion for definition of touring cars around the world.) The way things are headed right now, absent any intervention, the future is STL populated with modded Miatas. Why would anyone build anything else at this point?

The CURRENT grids shouldn't however be used to gauge any kind of success, with the ITA/SM double dippers making up the numbers. People most emphatically did *not* build those cars for STL; they run the class out of convenience. Tailoring the rules to encourage them to do that is going to result in a very one-dimensional class.

In STU, something close to a dealer-showroom Lotus will beat up on a purpose-built AWD turbo sedan, or exotic multivalve "real" touring car. And it's not an economical solution, either.

Looking at some numbers, the interior volume of a typical coupe/sedan in the 4-cylinder, 4-person people hauler is about 2x that of the Miatas and Lotuses. That's not a close thing. The one interesting anomaly is the RX8, with more interior volume than (for example) the new Civic Coupe that has run STL.

K

benspeed
07-08-2014, 08:42 PM
Love the thread! Would those little excuses for backseats in a 968/44 count? Lol

cjb25hs
07-08-2014, 09:14 PM
Love the thread! Would those little excuses for backseats in a 968/44 count? Lol

Alot more interior volume than a miata or lotus

backformore
07-08-2014, 10:39 PM
For what it's worth, which is slightly less than nothing, I agree with Kirk and like the direction he is headed. When I decided to convert my SSC Civic to something else, part of the motivation was the creation of STL which looked like a class that was designed for "tuner" cars, which are often "touring" cars and maybe even aimed at FWD. As time has marched on though, it appears that the evolution of the class, whatever the motivating factors, keeps moving away from my first impressions. Heck, I just noticed my car's engine has been penalized. Not that I'm aware of a 1.6 liter anything showing any dominance anywhere.

At the last STL race at Rd Atl (my home track), the car to beat was, surprise, a Miata. Don't get me wrong, I love the miata. I am, however, getting kinda tired of every class, new or old, being dominated by them. Kudos to Mazda for building such a kick-ass car.

So, I am for a 4 seat/interior volume or some other criteria to make STL a class for "other than sports cars". Like Kirk said, you eliminate a few options while making a large number of cars suddenly viable.

Andy Bettencourt
07-08-2014, 11:38 PM
Cars eligible for World Challenge Touring in 2009 (from PCR Appendix A v9, the basis for the category regs). Basically, our STU cars:
Acura RSX (02-06)
Acura TSX (04-08)
Acura TSX (04-08)
Acura TSX (2009)
Audi A4 B7 (05-08)
BMW E46 325
BMW E90 325
Dodge SRT-4 (03-05)
Ford Focus Coupe (05-07)
Ford Focus Sedan (05-07)
Honda Civic Type R (03-06)
Lexus IS300 2.8L (01-05)
Lexus IS300 3.0L (01-05)
Mazda 6 (03-08)
Mercedes Benz C230 (02-05)
Subaru Impreza WRX STi (04-07)
Toyota Celica GTS (00-05)
Volkswagen Jetta Mk4 (99-05)
Volkswagen Jetta Mk5 (06-08)
Volvo S40 (05-07)
Honda Civic (-02)
Mazda Protégé (-03)


Not a terrible idea. But I don't see the org buying into any new classes right now.

GA

Correct, but again, 'Super Touring' was created for WC GT and WC TC.

STO has/had everything from 4 door FWD sedans to 2-seat mid engined platforms and everything in-between.

Never had the intent on being for 'touring cars' only.

Andy Bettencourt
07-08-2014, 11:47 PM
For what it's worth, which is slightly less than nothing, I agree with Kirk and like the direction he is headed. When I decided to convert my SSC Civic to something else, part of the motivation was the creation of STL which looked like a class that was designed for "tuner" cars, which are often "touring" cars and maybe even aimed at FWD. As time has marched on though, it appears that the evolution of the class, whatever the motivating factors, keeps moving away from my first impressions. Heck, I just noticed my car's engine has been penalized. Not that I'm aware of a 1.6 liter anything showing any dominance anywhere.

At the last STL race at Rd Atl (my home track), the car to beat was, surprise, a Miata. Don't get me wrong, I love the miata. I am, however, getting kinda tired of every class, new or old, being dominated by them. Kudos to Mazda for building such a kick-ass car.

So, I am for a 4 seat/interior volume or some other criteria to make STL a class for "other than sports cars". Like Kirk said, you eliminate a few options while making a large number of cars suddenly viable.

- your engine probably didn't get penalized in the context of everything getting more weight too
- actually I think the class is trying to keep it within your first impressions. Weight for RWD has been added since inception
- You take away the Miata from STL and you would be surprised what you had...23 cars at the Glen Majors...4 were non-Otters. Of those 19 Otters, I bet no more than 4 were real STL cars...maybe 3.

It's a displacement to weight class with adders for 'stuff'. That's a cool concept. If we need a FWD car to win, we should have never allowed other platforms in. I say enjoy the revenue stream with one eye on the cash and the other on competitive balance...and I think the PTB are doing that now.

StephenB
07-08-2014, 11:58 PM
At least my RX8 is a 4 door :-)

Andy Bettencourt
07-09-2014, 12:02 AM
I honestly think you could break them out if you really wanted an 'interior volume' minimum for STL. But is the core market there? Maybe!

gpeluso
07-09-2014, 12:42 AM
This is very interesting. Not that my opinion matters but I think of touring meaning 4 passenger cars... Not 4 doors but cars that were meant to carry 4 adults. I think this maybe the problem with STU because we are not seeing many ex pro cars running like many thought would be .....

Greg

Greg Amy
07-09-2014, 07:16 AM
...the car to beat was, surprise, a Miata. Don't get me wrong, I love the miata. I am, however, getting kinda tired of every class, new or old, being dominated by them.


...23 cars at the Glen Majors...4 were non-Otters. Of those 19 Otters, I bet no more than 4 were real STL cars...maybe 3.
QFT.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Are people not building other cars for the class "because Miata" or are Miatas simply dominant in double-dipping numbers because no one else is building cars? Which is the cause, and which is the effect? What happened to all the "this is gonna be a FWD Honda class!!!" STL hand-wringing back when the Miatas weighed something like 4% less than they do now (and weren't even yet developed for the class)...?

I am personally aware of a few competitors that are actively choosing to not participate in STL "because Miata". And I'm also aware of some, active in STL, who are looking for alternative classes that do not have Miatas. STU is hurting overall, but I hear the same stories from competitors about the Lotus in there.

Miatas are wonderful cars. I went to the WGI Inner and Outer Loop and watched the SM race this past weekend and I was f*****g amazed at how fast they blasted through there. Shocked, actually. Even the slowest of the group was going through there gangbusters. And I immediately recognized that there's no way my big car would ever do that, certainly not consistently, short of my not caring about bringing it home intact (or having to worry about paying for it afterward). And the pointy-end SM double-dippers creamed me through there in the races.

Miatas bring the numbers and the revenue; of that there is absolutely no doubt. But as rulemakers and leaders, should that be our over-riding goal? If so, I'm quite certain we could create many more classes for these cars and increase our revenues even more. Hell, let's look into getting rid of all those other pesky classes and focus on what's really important to the Club (he says, quite tongue-in-cheek).

So...chicken, or egg...? I'm sure everyone will have their own opinion on that.

GA, who recognizes this discussion at this point as nothing more than IT.com paddock blah-blah...

adamjabaay
07-09-2014, 08:18 AM
as someone who just started a honda STL build, and a weird one (just brought engine to machine guy, a 1.5 sohc, shooting to be just a tad over 2klbs, becausetinymotor), the "miata" problem sort of concerns me, but I'm buildiing this car to be easy on consumables, and fun, as half my use for it will be during HPDE stuff I organize or instruct at, yet I want it to be competative, and its looking like it might be


those dumb little miatas are awesome cars. I REALLY wish I wanted one....because they are so good

Andy Bettencourt
07-09-2014, 09:40 AM
QFT.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Are people not building other cars for the class "because Miata" or are Miatas simply dominant in double-dipping numbers because no one else is building cars? Which is the cause, and which is the effect? What happened to all the "this is gonna be a FWD Honda class!!!" STL hand-wringing back when the Miatas weighed something like 4% less than they do now (and weren't even yet developed for the class)...?

I am personally aware of a few competitors that are actively choosing to not participate in STL "because Miata". And I'm also aware of some, active in STL, who are looking for alternative classes that do not have Miatas. STU is hurting overall, but I hear the same stories from competitors about the Lotus in there.

Miatas are wonderful cars. I went to the WGI Inner and Outer Loop and watched the SM race this past weekend and I was f*****g amazed at how fast they blasted through there. Shocked, actually. Even the slowest of the group was going through there gangbusters. And I immediately recognized that there's no way my big car would ever do that, certainly not consistently, short of my not caring about bringing it home intact (or having to worry about paying for it afterward). And the pointy-end SM double-dippers creamed me through there in the races.

Miatas bring the numbers and the revenue; of that there is absolutely no doubt. But as rulemakers and leaders, should that be our over-riding goal? If so, I'm quite certain we could create many more classes for these cars and increase our revenues even more. Hell, let's look into getting rid of all those other pesky classes and focus on what's really important to the Club (he says, quite tongue-in-cheek).

So...chicken, or egg...? I'm sure everyone will have their own opinion on that.

GA, who recognizes this discussion at this point as nothing more than IT.com paddock blah-blah...

It's an interesting debate for sure. What I don't like about it is that a well built and well driven STL should beat every one of the double-dippers. What is the REAL 'because Miata' issue? To me (and I only know the Drago and Farbman cars) 90% of the Miatas out there are double dipping. A class that can hold 19 card-carrying, entry-paying drivers that doesn't upset the competitive balance gets a resounding HELL YES from me...and it should from everyone who likes their entry fees where they are and their participation numbers way above average.

Then there is the mindset of the current drivers and prospective drivers. I would think they would love the 'goal' of beating all the double dippers and then targeting the real cars at the front as the second tier goal. Now as far as the Drago car goes, drivers have to realize that this is a multi-time National Champ, in that chassis with now 3 years of development in motor, suspension and aero. Is it a Miata problem really or a Drago problem?

No offense meant here but I think the Miata issue in STL is BS and almost an excuse. Drivers SHOULD be able to beat 90% of the field with driver talent and a well prepped car...fact. Now if the issue is about one cars build and driver skill - and we think there are other FWD 'touring' builds out there with equal development and driver skills that can't compete...then that is another topic completely. And a Comp adjustment is the answer if it's warranted.

Knestis
07-09-2014, 11:41 AM
There are multiple "problems" here so try to focus on the one I'm arguing for a moment: ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, a 2-seat sports/GT car has inherent advantages, thanks to Newtonian physics, over a "touring car" (seats for four adults). This is the "better than the sum of the parts" issue personified in Club Racing by the Miata ('cause there's a huge sample to work from) but operationalized by car designers ANY TIME the priority is performance over utility.

I take it a little personally to be told that "my issue is BS" since I *THINK* I have a clue. Our showing at NJMP at least suggests that we're in the ballpark with the Si - beating, as Andy suggests we should, all of the double-dippers and getting within a fraction of Farbman's new lap record. However, qualitatively, having followed him around there, I KNOW that's a soft record. I KNOW that as we develop the car, it will go faster. I KNOW that I'm not a complete wanker, but I equally KNOW that I'm not as fast as the really good guys/gals out there.

I KNOW all of that but I also KNOW that a lower Cd, frontal area, COG, and MMOI are going to beat up on higher values.

The point at which we confound that physical reality with rotary engines, rear wheel drive, and National Champion-caliber drivers, we go completely SCCA-screwy.

I'm also more than a little bothered when we start talking about revenues, particularly when the quest for entries becomes a driver of short-term policy decisions that often result in longer-term unintended consequences that the Club has a TERRIBLE time undoing. The "we'll let in [whatever] to make up the numbers" trap is going to be an increasing problem - particularly in light of the fact that most of those are double- or triple-dippers rather than new members. If we just care about participation and the dollars people bring, why don't we just have Group 1 be "Everyone," Group 2 be "Everyone's Second Entry," Group 3 be the tiny handful of small formula cars we keep subsidizing with options for multi-dipping, Group 4 be "Everyone's Third Entry Including Friends and Relatives," and so forth...

Make the classes make sense. Have a limited number of them. Have a cohesive program. Stop catering to handfuls of whiners. Build a program.

K

callard
07-09-2014, 12:08 PM
How about charging more for the second entry? Let the double-dippers rethink cheap track time and focus on which wooden trophy is meaningful.

Andy Bettencourt
07-09-2014, 01:09 PM
There are multiple "problems" here so try to focus on the one I'm arguing for a moment: ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, a 2-seat sports/GT car has inherent advantages, thanks to Newtonian physics, over a "touring car" (seats for four adults). This is the "better than the sum of the parts" issue personified in Club Racing by the Miata ('cause there's a huge sample to work from) but operationalized by car designers ANY TIME the priority is performance over utility.

I take it a little personally to be told that "my issue is BS" since I *THINK* I have a clue. Our showing at NJMP at least suggests that we're in the ballpark with the Si - beating, as Andy suggests we should, all of the double-dippers and getting within a fraction of Farbman's new lap record. However, qualitatively, having followed him around there, I KNOW that's a soft record. I KNOW that as we develop the car, it will go faster. I KNOW that I'm not a complete wanker, but I equally KNOW that I'm not as fast as the really good guys/gals out there.

I KNOW all of that but I also KNOW that a lower Cd, frontal area, COG, and MMOI are going to beat up on higher values.

The point at which we confound that physical reality with rotary engines, rear wheel drive, and National Champion-caliber drivers, we go completely SCCA-screwy.

I'm also more than a little bothered when we start talking about revenues, particularly when the quest for entries becomes a driver of short-term policy decisions that often result in longer-term unintended consequences that the Club has a TERRIBLE time undoing. The "we'll let in [whatever] to make up the numbers" trap is going to be an increasing problem - particularly in light of the fact that most of those are double- or triple-dippers rather than new members. If we just care about participation and the dollars people bring, why don't we just have Group 1 be "Everyone," Group 2 be "Everyone's Second Entry," Group 3 be the tiny handful of small formula cars we keep subsidizing with options for multi-dipping, Group 4 be "Everyone's Third Entry Including Friends and Relatives," and so forth...

Make the classes make sense. Have a limited number of them. Have a cohesive program. Stop catering to handfuls of whiners. Build a program.

K

Kirk,

I think you and I are more on the same page than you think. To you, it's not the 'Miata problem' where you are upset at a horde of Otter just for the sake of being pissy. You are the subset of drivers that do need to be heard for one simple reason only - you think STL is a touring car class and it should allow touring cars only. No problem. You are fast and can see the light at the end of teh tunnel in terms of speed and development - and maybe a track record.

My point is that without the 'cars people like to race', there is almost no class. 4 cars at the Major? Then we revert to Greg's point. Were there only 4 cars there because of Drago and his Miata or was it because of the 15 SM's that were double-dipping on some weird principle issue? If it was a Miata issue at all. If it was, lets decipher between the BS reason and the legit reason. That's all I am saying. I see you on the 'legit' side - even though I may disagree.

I think you will have trouble weeding out the cars you don't want so that strut FWDers are the class of the field. I am sure there are choices that can provide 4 seats and 4 corners of DW's (RX-8).

Let's handle it with CA's like in other National classes. No?

One of the issues I see is that the Miata is so good, so cheap and so popular it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the top 3 SM drivers in my area all jumped into my old ITA car right now, I don't think any of my track records would stand for more that the time it took to run their 2nd lap. Point being if Miata can run in 'x' class, you can bet a but-load or talented drivers with development bucks will eventually try it. (See EP, FP, STL, ITA, etc)

The Miata has been an absolute miracle for the SCCA. It draws drivers, revenue and competition.

The real problem here is the CRB and their desire to allow 'field fillers' into new classes to boost numbers and profits. If we wanted STL to be a FWD piston-based class, then they should have locked it down from the beginning and let it sink or swim on it's own. It takes balls to do that and you have to believe 100% in your class concept. Personally I think it would fail. Would anyone build anything other than a Honda if it was just FWD? Isn't that just Honda Challenge? Would the CRB make CA's to entice other platforms to be competitive with their strut-based chassis? Then if they are, do we have the same problem we 'have' now? (Now I'm just playing things out hypothetically)

Andy Bettencourt
07-09-2014, 01:17 PM
How about charging more for the second entry? Let the double-dippers rethink cheap track time and focus on which wooden trophy is meaningful.

Because that is the total opposite of what a Club should do for it's members.

Knestis
07-09-2014, 01:47 PM
I do think we're generally in agreement on most of that, Andy. I will fix this for you though:


The Miata has been a mixed blessing for the SCCA. It draws drivers, revenue and competition from other classes.

:D

K

Andy Bettencourt
07-09-2014, 02:16 PM
I do think we're generally in agreement on most of that, Andy. I will fix this for you though:



:D

K

There are plenty of guys who start their SCCA 'career' in SM. Let's also not underestimate the impact 'keeping' a driver who would have normally have left SCCA by staying in a Miata in whatever class.

Back on topic: If we need STL to be sedans (or some interior volume class) then so be it. Make sure you give the 'sports cars' a place to play with that same ruleset because that is where the entries will pile up.

JS154
07-09-2014, 02:41 PM
The way things are headed right now, absent any intervention, the future is STL populated with modded Miatas. Why would anyone build anything else at this point?

Yes, I see this as a problem. The Miata and the K20 and , well nothing else makes any sense to consider for STL.





In STU, something close to a dealer-showroom Lotus will beat up on a purpose-built AWD turbo sedan, or exotic multivalve "real" touring car. And it's not an economical solution, either.



K

Disagree, my car and Irish Mike's car can bring the fight to the Lotus, if driven perfectly and built to the limit of the rules. The Lotus is easy to regulate though pulley size. I don't have an issue with the Lotus in there at all. I dO have an issue being stuck in a run group with a gazillion Miatae and B-Spec cars. What's Heinricy and Lipperini hitting on the back straight at WGI? 110 in a draft with a tailwind? You put three Miatae together and awareness of the world around them evaporates to only their own little microcosm.

STU is not economical. Aftermarket ECU's, sequentials, relocated suspension pickup points, unlimited shocks. That's easily $60K for those items alone, and you still need the rest of the car to hang those bits off of.

STU is so expensive it will never be a big class. The only way to really get it bigger is slash the cost to compete (eliminate modified/alternate gearboxes and dry sumps and relocated pickup points) - which is effectively STL. There's a gazillion E36 and E46 BMWs that should be running in STU. Where are they? Nasa GTS I'm afraid.

Greg Amy
07-09-2014, 02:46 PM
Disagree, my car and Irish Mike's car can bring the fight to the Lotus. The Lotus is easy to regulate though pulley size.

So you're advocating crippling a 4-cyl sports car's advantages in a field of large-displacement touring cars via targeted spec-line power reductions? Note Kirk's premise of "all else being equal"; can you think of any other ~200hp car that would be competitive in STU?

And how does that category philosophy translate to STL, given we are generally not crippling cars' engine output (except for 2L cars)?

GA, wondering if we're heading for category-wide individual spec lines a lot faster than we think...

Andy Bettencourt
07-09-2014, 03:01 PM
Originally Posted by Knestis http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?p=355821#post355821)

The way things are headed right now, absent any intervention, the future is STL populated with modded Miatas. Why would anyone build anything else at this point?






I reject this statement. :)

There is exactly one, ONE uber-prepped and driven Miata in STL. It has a National Champ driver as it's pilot. Is this setting a trend? The fields are double dippers, not track record setters. Yes, we (FOM) like to build our own stuff and don't have a customer who wants to drop the coin to develop the BP 1.8 into what it needs so we went with what we knew, a trick 13B conversion. Plenty quick but limited in it's development for power. Given it's power to weight, I am not sure it would smash any solid records. Maybe Steve E can find us 15whp!

Maybe we will see 20 Drago-prepped STL cars out there soon. But I'd like to see the other stuff keep coming. Greg has proven you can podium at a Major and is as fast as our 13B car.

Greg Amy
07-09-2014, 03:16 PM
Greg has proven you can podium at a Major and is as fast as our 13B car.

I reject this statement. :) I had to work my ass off to get there, whereas as Jon made several big mistakes (missed shifts, overcooking corners/braking) and was able to easily move back to the fore and pass without issue. Just compare my front and rear views of him coming up on me and going into corners, versus my unable to come up on him on the straights. Had Jon not made those mistakes he would have been right up there in the front, possibly for the win.

That aside...it's a trend Andy, anyone paying attention can see it. Kirk is not using single examples to make general conclusions, he's using general trends to make single conclusions. How is it that Spec Miatas are able to fill out the middle of the field, to the point where they're beating almost all non-Miatas (the few there are)? Hell, Gorriaran was chewing on my ass on Saturday at WGI, despite my easy 50hp advantage; only reason he wasn't doing it Sunday is because he went home (along with a large chunk of the other SM'ers, leaving the top third of our class pretty empty).

And if double-dippers (who are not serious about the class such that they're leaving before the race) are taking away positions from legit STL competitors, how is that good for the class? And if it's not good for the class, why should we promote it? I'd gladly give up the 4th in participation numbers in order to improve the competition among legit, serious STL competitors. And I've been quite public that I'd rather the class stand or fall based on legit competitors, versus falsely riding a wave of double-dippers.

Chicken or egg?

GA, always amused at how "most competitors have excuses on why they lost...Miatas always have excuses on why they won."

Knestis
07-09-2014, 03:20 PM
Part of the reason STL is attractive to me is that it's not a "spec-line special" class. Spec-line CAs invite what I dislike most about Club Racing - the classing/specification shenanigans and the massive incentive for backroom dealing that goes with it. Greg's note reminds me that I shouldn't get too attached to the idea that STL might be less crappy in that regard.


My point is that without the 'cars people like to race', there is almost no class. 4 cars at the Major? Then we revert to Greg's point. Were there only 4 cars there because of Drago and his Miata or was it because of the 15 SM's that were double-dipping on some weird principle issue? If it was a Miata issue at all. If it was, lets decipher between the BS reason and the legit reason. ...

Take the longer view - with the admission that I see value in classes that offer variety... The grid last weekend isn't as important as what the grid might look like 3-5 years. The way it is now, there's a built-in incentive - again, physics - to build a 2-seat STL car over a 4-seat STL car, and there are damned few options. That's going to influence make/model variety in the class, and so its appeal, I think. Why use a spot in a class to satisfy the interests of someone who's already running their "regular class" on any weekend, that might appeal to someone who would 'like to race' a mildly modified, 4-cylinder Toyota, Nissan, VW, Hyundai, Ford, Chevy, Kia, etc. sedan, hatch, or coupe that isn't otherwise accommodated somewhere in the mix? Someone who looks at the math is going to know that's a fool's errand. Someone who votes with his heart is going to see a class that doesn't fit their vision of what they want to do.


The real problem here is the CRB and their desire to allow 'field fillers' into new classes to boost numbers and profits. If we wanted STL to be a FWD piston-based class, then they should have locked it down from the beginning and let it sink or swim on it's own. It takes balls to do that and you have to believe 100% in your class concept. Personally I think it would fail. Would anyone build anything other than a Honda if it was just FWD? Isn't that just Honda Challenge? Would the CRB make CA's to entice other platforms to be competitive with their strut-based chassis? Then if they are, do we have the same problem we 'have' now? (Now I'm just playing things out hypothetically)

The "make up the numbers" game is a loser, ultimately, and yes - I DO indeed think that STL should have been held to what it was originally envisioned to be, without letting the sports car (and rotary) camel's nose under the tent flap. It's matters of degree, I admit, but differences in general engine architecture could have been dealt with well enough on a formulaic basis (not making the leap to make/model spec lines) to get a bunch of options in the same ballpark, if there were all FWD platforms of the same basic dimensions. The rotary experiences in IT should have told us that the point at which a categorical adjustment (struts/DWB, FWD/RWD, etc.) bear on only ONE case in a class, things can get stupid right quick...

K

backformore
07-09-2014, 03:44 PM
I really like that people are talking and thinking about this.

At the risk of contradicting myself though, another thing that has been appealing about STL has been the large fields. I realize most are "fillers", but I kinda like having fillers. That means if you build or are building an actual STL car, you will have cars to race with while you develop your car since the field fillers tend to run the gamut from not particularly fast (for the class) to pretty darn fast for the class. I do think, however, that no "filler" car should, given comparable drivers, be able to beat a fully prepped STL car. I think SMs are a great choice for fillers because they do seem to turn times that require a good STL car with a good driver to beat, but likely can't really compete against a full tilt STL car.

The thing is, since a "filler" car is a specific exception to the rules, I don't think it has to meet the criteria for the class. Which is to say, just because you allow SMs as fillers, I don't think you have to make Miatas fit in STL. Conversely, if you don't allow Miatas in STL (by seats or volume or whatever), that does not mean you can't allow SMs as fillers. (or IT cars or anything else)

For the record, I know all of this is really difficult and I really appreciate the folks who take this on and I think they are doing and have done a great job. I am looking forward to getting my car on track and proving once again that the car is the least of my problems.

Rory

Andy Bettencourt
07-09-2014, 04:59 PM
I reject this statement. :) I had to work my ass off to get there, whereas as Jon made several big mistakes (missed shifts, overcooking corners/braking) and was able to easily move back to the fore and pass without issue. Just compare my front and rear views of him coming up on me and going into corners, versus my unable to come up on him on the straights. Had Jon not made those mistakes he would have been right up there in the front, possibly for the win.

Your fast lap bested his?


That aside...it's a trend Andy, anyone paying attention can see it. Kirk is not using single examples to make general conclusions, he's using general trends to make single conclusions.

What trends? The fact 2 really well prepared full-on STL cars are getting to the podium against 3 other cars? What about Shanfeld's Civic? No mention of that performance yet. Qualified .002 behind Drago in Q1 and ahead of him in Q2. Drago won race 1 by .290 over Shanfeld (who ran a faster lap time). In the second race, Drago again bested Shanfeld this time by 2.987 seconds and also had the fastest lap just over .2. Your fast laps in both races were faster than the 13B Miata.


How is it that Spec Miatas are able to fill out the middle of the field, to the point where they're beating almost all non-Miatas (the few there are)? Hell, Gorriaran was chewing on my ass on Saturday at WGI, despite my easy 50hp advantage; only reason he wasn't doing it Sunday is because he went home (along with a large chunk of the other SM'ers, leaving the top third of our class pretty empty).

At the Glen there were 4 non-Miata. 1 got crashed out and 2 were in the top 4. Trend?

2400lb SM's with 120whp too fast? You out qualified him by a second each day. Shanfeld's Civic was 3 seconds quicker in qualifying than any SM and 2.5 seconds quicker per lap in the race.


And if double-dippers (who are not serious about the class such that they're leaving before the race) are taking away positions from legit STL competitors, how is that good for the class? And if it's not good for the class, why should we promote it? I'd gladly give up the 4th in participation numbers in order to improve the competition among legit, serious STL competitors. And I've been quite public that I'd rather the class stand or fall based on legit competitors, versus falsely riding a wave of double-dippers.

You can't take away a spot from a legit competitor if you don't show up to race. Looking at the numbers, STL is third in participation behind SRF and SM. If 20% of the fields were real STL cars and ZERO double dippers, STL would be 2nd from the bottom with about 61 entries Nationwide. I'm ok with that but hardly a ringing endorsement of success just above B-Spec.


GA, always amused at how "most competitors have excuses on why they lost...Miatas always have excuses on why they won."

AB, always amused at how fast 'some give up when they see a Miata on grid no matter what like cars are doing' :)

Seriously though, I see a wickedly fast Miata and a wickedly fast Civic right on top of each other battling for top Q spot, fast laps and race wins. And I mean RIGHT ON TOP OF EACH OTHER. A trend it is not in my mind. Will I always think that a light, balanced and DW-equipped car will make a better racecar than a FWD car? You bet, but that's why they currently weigh 5.5% more than good FWDers and 8% more than strut FWDers.

Greg Amy
07-09-2014, 06:11 PM
Andy, I'm not gonna blow-by-blow you. No insult intended but you weren't there, all you have is finishing results and a couple of videos. Come spend some time with us at the track (we actually do miss you; well, at least the chance to bust your stones...;)) and watch with us.

You remind me a lot of George Roffe in the early-aughts. We kept talking (on this board and elsewhere) about how f*****g fast the E36 BMWs were in ITS, and George was always all about "but look at the results! Look at the lap times! Hey, look, Joe DiMinno won ITS at Watkins Glen in a Sentra!" and we were all about "hey, dude, come to the track with us." Then one year George went to the ARRC and came back home all "Jeesum krist those cars a f*****g FAST!!!" and the next year (or so) we had SIRs on 'em...

Ain't nuthin' like being there, brother...

GA

Knestis
07-09-2014, 06:38 PM
Rory makes some good points, that helped clarify some things for me.

Despite the fact that I don't think "field fillers" are a good policy solution, the concept of SMs (and IT) running in STL doesn't really give me any major concern. They should, indeed, not be competitive. And the "fun to race with while developing" point is a good one. I said the same thing when explaining to someone (Eric maybe) about why I chose the Civic in STL over continuing with the STU Jetta.

It WAS helpful to be reminded that the question about 2-seaters in PROPERLY PREPARED STL CARS is a separate issue from the SM/IT crossover allowance. Basic chassis architecture of "real" cars built for the class is the primary issue I'm worried about, and it's one that I still think we might nip in the bud when only a few cars in the nation actually qualify as such.

Also (because it seems to have been assumed somewhere along the line) please note that I don't think the "touring" model has got be exclusively FWD. We should be able to quantify and accommodate with adjusters the differences there. The sum contribution of being an entirely different type of tub, not so much.

Andy - with respect, you're making some pretty broad generalizations here based on one race. None of my arguments are based on lap times.

K

Andy Bettencourt
07-09-2014, 07:01 PM
I am refuting the idea that 'if STL keeps trending the way it is then it's going to be all Miata's'.

Ya, I wasn't there but I can read. 2 qualifiers and 2 races worth of Major shows me that a Civic can run WITH the fastest STL Miata in the country.

The only thing trending is that SM guys use STL as a place to tune for their SM race...and if they are faster than any STL car, there is work to do there. The best STL cars are a mega-ton faster than the best SM cars...or at least they were on a decent track with decent drivers.

Kirk, if you want STL to 'look' like something, I am all for it. But like I said, what you will have left over is the second weakest subscribed class in the SCCA. And those who 'will build it' when the Miata's are gone, simply aren't looking hard enough at what a non-Miata has already done and are using that as an excuse IMHO.

I think the STAC is close to balance right now. Maybe another tweak if more info comes to light but I see parity.

YMMV.

Z3_GoCar
07-10-2014, 01:53 AM
The vast majority of SM guys in STL out here are there because they won't get enough points to qualify in SM for the Runoffs. So to qualify for a class, any class, they can race in and earn a decent number of points and qualify for the big race that the other class they're going to race in.

In addition to removing the allowances that Eric had to make STU more cost competitive, I'd add get rid of Forced Induction or at least throw another 300 lbs on a given size TIR. When you make both more power and torque and weight 200lbs less, there's something wrong.

Flyinglizard
07-11-2014, 08:53 AM
A Touring car has 4 real seats. The 2 seat 4 seat performance difference is mostly the sum of windshield angle and vertical CG ratio to track.
The CRX/Civic perform about 100# apart as do the VW Scirocco/Rabbit. Both cars are about 6in lower than the sedan version and turn better as a result.
For the ST cars there are no direct comparison RWD cars. (Lotus 7 and Lotus Cortina? ) Maybe the Miata and Ford escort GT?
The Miata are very well driven,and can out perform their expectations due to the best drivers trail braking to the apex. Not many FWD cars can do that.
The miata can sustain very high lateral grip values that taller cars cant due to overheated outer (front) tires. The notes about WGI with breaking parts and high G loads is common in the T5, T6 and toe turns- the banking adds a lot of loading that the Miata loves. 1.5-1.6 is common there. The feel of the Miata is very solid, while the sedan is more like HS I'm gunna punch that outer tire wall evry lap.
I dont see why the class exist either.

Jeremy Billiel
07-11-2014, 12:15 PM
We all know Miata's are a fantastic car where the sum of its parts create a supurb racing platform. Isn't it going to be true that ANY multi-marquee class racing the miata will win all things being equal? :shrug:

Isn't the only way to handle this situation, regardless of class, to dis-advantage the miata in some means? (weight, restrictors, etc?)

I don't see STL being any different that ITA, etc...

Andy Bettencourt
07-11-2014, 03:19 PM
We all know Miata's are a fantastic car where the sum of its parts create a supurb racing platform. Isn't it going to be true that ANY multi-marquee class racing the miata will win all things being equal? :shrug:

Isn't the only way to handle this situation, regardless of class, to dis-advantage the miata in some means? (weight, restrictors, etc?)

I don't see STL being any different that ITA, etc...

Already happening, no? 5.5% more weight than a FWD car with double wishbones and 8% more weight than a FWD car with struts.

2731lbs for the 13B powered Miata
2635lbs for a BP powered 1.8 Miata
2430 for a 1.8L double wishbone FWDer
2370 for a 1.8 strut FWDer

All on the same 225 width tire.

The question is simple, are these weight differences sufficient given what we are seeing in the results? What do you think Jeremy?

Jeremy Billiel
07-11-2014, 03:38 PM
Already happening, no? 5.5% more weight than a FWD car with double wishbones and 8% more weight than a FWD car with struts.

2731lbs for the 13B powered Miata
2635lbs for a BP powered 1.8 Miata
2430 for a 1.8L double wishbone FWDer
2370 for a 1.8 strut FWDer

All on the same 225 width tire.

The question is simple, are these weight differences sufficient given what we are seeing in the results? What do you think Jeremy?

I personally don't think 5.5% is enough difference between a FWD and RWD car with double wishbones.

I think we need a Miata multiplier! If Miata, then add an additional 3% to the calculation (or something....) Edit 1: I am just making up numbers and have ZERO data - Just throwing something against the wall

Edit 2: And I say that being out of racing for 4+ years and no longer having a dog in this fight or honestly caring.... I simply think that the car is a fantastic package and not sure how to equalize apprpriately...

Edit 3: 5.5% may be fine for double wishbone cars that are RWD and not a miata. Its the specific car (miata) that seems to be what breaks all the logic.

Andy Bettencourt
07-11-2014, 04:08 PM
I personally don't think 5.5% is enough difference between a FWD and RWD car with double wishbones.

I think we need a Miata multiplier! If Miata, then add an additional 3% to the calculation (or something....) Edit 1: I am just making up numbers and have ZERO data - Just throwing something against the wall

Edit 2: And I say that being out of racing for 4+ years and no longer having a dog in this fight or honestly caring.... I simply think that the car is a fantastic package and not sure how to equalize apprpriately...

Edit 3: 5.5% may be fine for double wishbone cars that are RWD and not a miata. Its the specific car (miata) that seems to be what breaks all the logic.

There are plenty of cars that can handle as well as a Miata given the same weight. 3rd gen RX-7, Porsche 968 (and not DW's at 4 corners either).

I think 200-300lbs difference is a lot given the same size wheel/tire. The 13B car is almost 400lbs more than a strut FWDer. That's a bunch. Given the WGI results between the Miata and the Civic, I'd say it's dang close if not there for now.

Greg Amy
07-11-2014, 04:27 PM
Given the WGI results between the Miata and the Civic, I'd say it's dang close if not there for now.
Even if we were to assume that's true - and it's absolutely not, simply because you were not there and all you have is a results sheet which doesn't tell the whole story - what about everybody else in the class...? Is the class to be limited solely to the best example of RWD sports car available versus the best example of FWD strut car available to use today*?

Given the evidence at hand, I suggest you've just offered excellent supporting anecdotal evidence for slowing down a couple of front-running cars.

GA

*As the Miata is to small 2-seater sports cars, the FG Civic is to FWD strut cars. When Honda decided to ditch the wishbone suspension for the Civic, they didn't just throw some crappy struts on the car as they did with the RSX; they really did that car right. The suspension geometry is as good as it gets for struts, to the point where many pro teams did not even bother moving pickup point and relocating ball joints as allowed by the rules; it just wasn't needed.

A lot of people think that car does well because of the very good ~200hp K20Z3 (which has to de-cam and run a restrictor for STL); that's certainly part of the equation. But that chassis is a super package all on its own. Bob Beede actively moved from a 1.8LGSR engine in a '99 DWB Civic in 2012, to a lightly-modded SSB FG Civic Si in 2013 and thought it was the better package.

The ongoing "Miata Penalty" will continue to vex all RWD cars. In the same vein, it's quite possible that FWD strut cars may eventually suffer the "Civic penalty" (unless we choose to slow down those specific examples instead...)

Regardless, the CRB will continue to adjust vehicles as needed to ensure reasonable parity within the Majors program. And since the class is based on general mechanical characteristics of the vehicles versus line-item classifications the CRB will, no doubt, continue to create and adjust these characteristics as needed to ensure that direction.

Knestis
07-11-2014, 05:28 PM
It bothers me when we leap to "because Miata," particularly since that's not my argument here - it's just a case that illustrates my concern. There are separate variables involved:

** 2-seat vs. 4-seat (touring car) chassis layout - influencing frontal area, height (so windshield angle; thanks Lizard!), CG height, MMI, etc.

** Strut vs. DWB suspension architecture

** FWD vs. RWD

I personally don't think that we can accommodate everything that's included in the first with an adder, and (as admitted) have a theoretical/conceptual issue with a "touring car" class including sports cars. It might be, though, that an additional penalty for sports/GT cars would be appropriate, on top of penalties for suspension design and drive layout.

The net for the Miata stacks up but that's probably appropriate as its inherent advantages do, too.

K

Andy Bettencourt
07-11-2014, 09:02 PM
Even if we were to assume that's true - and it's absolutely not, simply because you were not there and all you have is a results sheet which doesn't tell the whole story - what about everybody else in the class...? Is the class to be limited solely to the best example of RWD sports car available versus the best example of FWD strut car available to use today*?

Given the evidence at hand, I suggest you've just offered excellent supporting anecdotal evidence for slowing down a couple of front-running cars.

GA


Ugh. Just split them up now. FWD/RWD. This way you have a class with the numbers already there and you can have a class without fillers and Miata and RWD and everyone will be happy.

Greg Amy
07-11-2014, 09:21 PM
Ugh. Just split them up now. FWD/RWD. This way you have a class with the numbers already there and you can have a class without fillers and Miata and RWD and everyone will be happy.
Already have it. It's called "Spec Miata".

Andy Bettencourt
07-11-2014, 09:26 PM
Already have it. It's called "Spec Miata".

Right, because each model should only be able to run one prep level.

Seriously, just split them up and you won't have to worry about RWD cars anymore. It's a win/win.

Greg Amy
07-11-2014, 09:40 PM
Seriously, just split them up and you won't have to worry about RWD cars anymore. It's a win/win.
No, if we went that direction then it would be a direct prohibition of the car in the category...but you're right, we should all be thankful for the bounty that Spec Miata bringeth...hallelujah PRAISE the Spec Miata lord!

:lol: ;)

GA, who doesn't fall for the sarcasm...but is truly delightfully entertained by it...and prays to the goddess each night for true forgiveness for his soul...

Andy Bettencourt
07-11-2014, 10:15 PM
Are we talking about the same thing? I'm not talking about field-filling, slower-than-real-STL SM's, I'm talking about the fear of Miata's. Solve the issue by breaking up STL into FWD and RWD. This allows the original concept to vet itself on one side while the other side provides a place to play for the other 80% of the entries.

It makes comp adjustments easier. It lets Miata eat their young on that side of the fence while the STAC concentrates on balancing the FWDers and facilitation the original idea.

Truly a win/win.

backformore
07-11-2014, 11:54 PM
Let's pretend for a second that Miatas don't exist. The reality is that it has no real impact on Kirk's initial post.

The question was whether a class whose name includes the word "touring" should be limited to "touring" cars, and if so, what are they and how are they defined. It seems to me the question is mostly aimed at STL, which I think removes the issues of the original intent being to give ex-World Challenge cars a place to play which I believe was originally part of the STU rules. If I recall correctly, the STL rules came about after that.

So let's look just at STL and pretend Miatas don't exist. Kirk is suggesting that STL cars should be "touring" cars and suggests an interior volume method for defining that. I personally like the idea of a class specifically for small engined "touring" cars. I like the idea of a field made up of "daily drivers" that include cars that almost everyone can identify with. The FWD vs RWD is really not Kirk's argument. I think the rules currently do a pretty good job of addressing that, just as they do with strut vs. DWB. I actually like the variety since each car will make it's speed in a different way.

Just thought I'd try to drag this discussion back a little closer to the original post.

Carry on.

Rory

Flyinglizard
07-12-2014, 09:03 AM
2731lbs for the 13B powered Miata-- heavy but the streetdriven swaps that run the track days with me pull as hard as my turbo jett, 200hp or so it seems.
2635lbs for a BP powered 1.8 Miata-- Thats a lot of weight
2430 for a 1.8L double wishbone FWDer- needs another 50# over the FWDstrut car based on Roll center height and camber gain
2370 for a 1.8 strut FWDer- needs 70# off cuz it has all of the wrong items. Box on struts. try 2250 until it wins.

IMHO you need to run the data for Hp to weight/ and lateral power. No way that any FWD box is going to match lateral with the Miata- within 200#, maybe 300#

Andy Bettencourt
07-12-2014, 09:37 AM
2731lbs for the 13B powered Miata-- heavy but the streetdriven swaps that run the track days with me pull as hard as my turbo jett, 200hp or so it seems.
2635lbs for a BP powered 1.8 Miata-- Thats a lot of weight
2430 for a 1.8L double wishbone FWDer- needs another 50# over the FWDstrut car based on Roll center height and camber gain
2370 for a 1.8 strut FWDer- needs 70# off cuz it has all of the wrong items. Box on struts. try 2250 until it wins.

IMHO you need to run the data for Hp to weight/ and lateral power. No way that any FWD box is going to match lateral with the Miata- within 200#, maybe 300#

I am willing to bet the street driven rotards are street-ported, significantly improving power.
The BP may seem heavy but at the claimed power outputs I would say they are dang close.
The DW/strut debate is about to heat up. Greg is calling out the newer Civic's struts as very advanced and they are categorized with some really crappy stuff. What to do there? Line item exception on how good we think the suspension design is or go to a 'warts and all' philosophy? Tough to do that in the big-leagues of National racing in the SCCA where trying to balance everything on the head of a pin is the norm.

Maybe DW, Advanced non DW, and strut. Cars with complex multi-links may fit the middle category. Spitballin.

Chip42
07-15-2014, 12:27 PM
I'd wager that getting specific on cars with known outlier setups is a good idea. They specline specific engines, no reason they would not specline specific chassis, too. So generic strut car gets generic weight, F code civics get this adder (probably as a %), rx8 chassis gets this, and so on. The current recipe of generic weights based on displacement and architecture is cool because you can run anything and not have to bug the rulesmakers to get it approved first. Adding a but wait, there's more... Section handles the outliers cleanly.

Agree with Kirk's assertion about touring vs sports cars not being on equal footing, and I think blurring the old sedan and roadsters lines was a shame given that ramification. Dealing with it by driving out "proper sportscars" Is not likely to happen, so regulations are the best way to rebalance things.

JamesL
07-15-2014, 02:43 PM
There either needs to be car/chassis spec lines for everyone or for no one... Singling out specific makes/models like the Miata/F-Civics is ridiculous. All that will happen is the cars get lead trophies/restrictors to the point of no longer being competitive, then someone will find the next fastest thing. After a year of winning, that car will magically get its own spec line. And so on and so forth.

Having the new Civics weigh more than a VW of the same displacement because Honda actually took the time to engineer a decent strut-based front suspension for the car? What is the deciding factor here? Camber-curve? What qualifies the Honda F-series struts as too-good?

I thought the whole point of finally having a weight/displacement class was to let the cream rise to the top?

JS154
07-15-2014, 03:25 PM
So you're advocating crippling a 4-cyl sports car's advantages in a field of large-displacement touring cars via targeted spec-line power reductions? Note Kirk's premise of "all else being equal"; can you think of any other ~200hp car that would be competitive in STU?

..

No. The point was the Lotus is an outlier - mid engine supercharged sports car (what about that says touring car to anyone? ) - no other Lotii engines or chassis to mix-n-match - the Lotus is easy to regulate competitiveness via pulley size. The rest of the 2-seater sports cars - not so much.

JS154
07-15-2014, 03:29 PM
I think we need a Miata multiplier! If Miata, then add an additional 3% to the calculation (or something....) Edit 1: I am just making up numbers and have ZERO data - Just throwing something against the wall


Edit 3: 5.5% may be fine for double wishbone cars that are RWD and not a miata. Its the specific car (miata) that seems to be what breaks all the logic.


Earthbreaking, ground shattering logic at work here, how come we've never heard that suggestion before [/SARCASM]

Jeremy Billiel
07-15-2014, 03:42 PM
Clearly JS154 you know everything... So what is your recommendation?

JS154
07-15-2014, 03:46 PM
Clearly JS154 you know everything... So what is your recommendation?

i"m agreeing with you and have been saying the same thing for a while now.

Jeremy Billiel
07-15-2014, 04:55 PM
i"m agreeing with you and have been saying the same thing for a while now.

Got it... I missed your prior posts. Sorry about that.

Chip42
07-15-2014, 06:07 PM
I thought the whole point of finally having a weight/displacement class was to let the cream rise to the top?

well, if it's done well, the added weight just equalizes and does not sink the car. if "the cream rises to the top" is your thinking, then yeah - you WILL have a very limitte dnumber of entries that are viable. you know why? because most car companies exist to make money, and they do that by making platforms they can sell cheaply (or relatively so) to everymen that fit 4 fat people, a dog, and a shitload of luggage or groceries and get good economy and tolerable ride and handling. on occasion they take a page from the muscle car era and drop in a motor and some dampers that make us touring car wierdos all excited, but it's still a massively compromised chassis. then every now and then you get an MRS, a Miata, an FRS, or a Civic Si. short lists mean small numbers and the attraction to this type of racing is diversity. if a VW doens't stand a chance (and be honest, it doesn't - outside of a VW motor in a Porsche) then why would anyone build one? what, then, is VW's incentive to help out the club, the club racers, the class, the market of good touring cars, etc...?

Flyinglizard
07-16-2014, 09:08 AM
Mike and I run the Golf vs the Miata all of the time. The Golf weighs about 2250 RTR and the Miata around 2350. The issue is trying to compare huge variances of dynamic front tire loading.
The Golf with welded diff has about 64% or more front weight ,or 1400 # on the outer front tire @ max lateral load. ( I mention welded diff because that makes the most lateral grip for a FWD car. Not sure why but it does.)
The Miata has about 49% , or around 1200# or under. Put these cars on the same tire and the Miata exits the turns near 4mph faster about everywhere.
We even trade tires. The Golf overheats the fronts sooner, (even with lots of rear axle steer, that adds weight to the rear).
The Golf needs about 10% more power to #, and around 400# less than the Miata. To be close at 80mph. As speeds go up the Miata gets faster. To try and balance these types of cars is a night mare.
The Miata with Chumper 180TW tires and the Golf with SRF slicks is pretty close and the cornering speeds are very close. FWIW the Miata Sebring T1 entry speed on R6 is about 98mph and 180TW is 91mph. The apex speeds are 82 and 70 respt.

Andy Bettencourt
07-16-2014, 10:14 AM
All that will happen is the cars get lead trophies/restrictors to the point of no longer being competitive, then someone will find the next fastest thing. After a year of winning, that car will magically get its own spec line. And so on and so forth.



This is National racing in every class. Spec lines are dynamic based on results.

JamesL
07-19-2014, 11:01 AM
well, if it's done well, the added weight just equalizes and does not sink the car. if "the cream rises to the top" is your thinking, then yeah - you WILL have a very limitte dnumber of entries that are viable. you know why? because most car companies exist to make money, and they do that by making platforms they can sell cheaply (or relatively so) to everymen that fit 4 fat people, a dog, and a shitload of luggage or groceries and get good economy and tolerable ride and handling. on occasion they take a page from the muscle car era and drop in a motor and some dampers that make us touring car wierdos all excited, but it's still a massively compromised chassis. then every now and then you get an MRS, a Miata, an FRS, or a Civic Si. short lists mean small numbers and the attraction to this type of racing is diversity. if a VW doens't stand a chance (and be honest, it doesn't - outside of a VW motor in a Porsche) then why would anyone build one? what, then, is VW's incentive to help out the club, the club racers, the class, the market of good touring cars, etc...?

Oh I understand what you're saying.... but what I don't understand then, is why market the STx classes as weight/displacement in the first place? When the classes were first proposed, the idea seemed to be that the powers-that-be were making an effort to equalize the motors, by weight, restrictors, valves/cylinder, etc.... But that there was no guarantee of competitiveness for your combination of chassis/motor. Meaning specific cars would not be singled out due to their strengths and/or shortcomings.

And that seemed to be what attracted a lot of people in the first place. Basically, that there was a published formula for establishing the weight/etc of a given chassis/motor package. And that, as a competitor, you knew exactly what that formula was prior to building your car. Everybody gets the same playbook and you get to choose which knife you want to come to the fight with.

Greg Amy
07-19-2014, 11:10 AM
this is national racing in every class. Spec lines are dynamic based on results.

qft.

Rabbit07
07-19-2014, 09:25 PM
This is National racing in every class. Spec lines are dynamic based on results.

I will fight that as long as I have the strength.
:dead_horse:

Chip42
07-21-2014, 10:09 AM
And that seemed to be what attracted a lot of people in the first place. Basically, that there was a published formula for establishing the weight/etc of a given chassis/motor package. And that, as a competitor, you knew exactly what that formula was prior to building your car. Everybody gets the same playbook and you get to choose which knife you want to come to the fight with.

I always looked at the attraction as being an OEM-agnostic weight, a place to run (more) open engines than IT and SM (the major feeder classes) without going prod or GT crazy on the car itself, and the optionto finally swap out that [insert POS engine designation here] your favorite or chosen chassis came with for the awesome one that came in some unobtanium foreign market ride or was misused in some big roll-happy sedan. from the start, OEM head and intake design meant displacement to weight with universally limitted prep specs were going to creat winners and loosers. the same argument can be (and just has been) made for chassis. There are attmepts wiothin the current rules to try and generically bin RWD/FWD, strut/multilink, valve count, etc... with different weight percentages, so it's not being "ignored". The trouble is that when a particularly good 3V or bad 4V head, a very good strut FWD, etc.. show up and poop in the punch bowl. because of the very general weight assignments they unbalance the class. Currently there's no way to deal with these issues on the chassis side. particularly over/under achieving engines can at least get a specline within precedent (restrictors, weight changes, stock cam specs, etc...)

Matt93SE
07-21-2014, 10:23 AM
ST* has always been a warts & all class. The way I see this discussion, it's now to the point of plastic surgery in attempt to remove the warts.. Are you SURE this what you want?

Chip42
07-21-2014, 11:23 AM
I'm just calling what I see and agreeing that the rules as-is will limit viability to a small number of platforms as far as potential winners (very good chassis / engine combo available). significant outlier engines are already "being dealt with" via restrictors, so surgery in some form has already begun. where the line should be drawn, if indeed it should, in terms of overachieving chassis, engines, etc... is entirely up tot he STAC and CRB, and I believe that they will do (or not do) what they percieve to be the best interests of the class. 100% people pleased isn't an ioption, so should not be an objective.

FWIW, I think the mazda BP engine is NOT on the list of awesome motors - just really well known ones. sometimes that's even better then well designed from the start.

Greg Amy
07-21-2014, 11:48 AM
ST* has always been a warts & all class. The way I see this discussion, it's now to the point of plastic surgery in attempt to remove the warts.. Are you SURE this what you want?

No, it's not. But given the history of the organization, and given the category's recent responses to competition results, it's not a very realistic expectation. Despite Chris' (and my) desire to fight it.

This is serius bizns.

GA

JS154
07-21-2014, 02:44 PM
ST* has always been a warts & all class. The way I see this discussion, it's now to the point of plastic surgery in attempt to remove the warts.. Are you SURE this what you want?

ST warts and all? Don't you mean IT?

Greg Amy
07-21-2014, 02:50 PM
ST warts and all? Don't you mean IT?

No, he's referring to the inference of the intent of the Super Touring philosophy being one of adjustments based on generalized characteristics and letting the chips fall where they may. In other words, "pick your car and its associated warts."

Maybe that's still possible; maybe we can avoid specific line-item classifications. However all the regular Table A adjustments is evidence to the contrary; that box is already wide open. The committee will continue to fight for that concept, but it may mean adding an extra characteristic adjustment (or two. Or three.)

GA

Andy Bettencourt
07-21-2014, 03:24 PM
No matter what the original intent was (warts and all), it was born as a 'National' class and will always be one. Therefor it will be subject to competition adjustments. If not just by the nature of the CRB wanting to try and maintain what they think is competitive balance, but maybe also by 'molding' the shape of the class to fit the original 'vision'.

This is a common fear when the discussion of taking IT National comes up. Even though the 'W&A' theory is part of the culture (while still having mechanisms in there to fix problems within the Process), if it were to become a popular National class, people would lobby for CA's and the CRB would feel that pressure to accommodate the squeaky wheels. I personally think that when you state the intent of a class upfront, people have limited recourse when then don't like the results....kind of like complaining about noisy planes when you move into a house near the airport.

dickita15
07-21-2014, 03:36 PM
But Andy it should not have to be that way. a class should be able to have a philosophy and culture that makes it stand apart from other classes. the problem seems to be IMHO that the committees and the CRB sit and read dozens of letters each month asking for a change to make it more fair. it is very difficult to constantly say yes we understand what you are asking for would make it more fair but it goes against the culture and purpose of the class. maybe you bought the wrong car.

Andy Bettencourt
07-21-2014, 03:47 PM
But Andy it should not have to be that way. a class should be able to have a philosophy and culture that makes it stand apart from other classes. the problem seems to be IMHO that the committees and the CRB sit and read dozens of letters each month asking for a change to make it more fair. it is very difficult to constantly say yes we understand what you are asking for would make it more fair but it goes against the culture and purpose of the class. maybe you bought the wrong car.

Hey, you know me, I am all about IT going National and having it NOT get messed with. I think it is reasonable to let the ITAC and CRB continue doing what they are doing without any threat of traditional CA's...but I have my doubts that the CRB could leave it alone.

Matt93SE
07-21-2014, 04:39 PM
ST warts and all? Don't you mean IT?

Nope... June 2014 GCR: (emphasis mine)

9.1.4.A. Purpose and Philosophy
The intent of the Super Touring category is to allow competition of
production-based vehicles, at a higher level of preparation, using DOTapproved
tires. Vehicles used in this category must be identifiable with
the vehicles offered for sale to the public and available through the
manufacturer’s distribution channels in the US. No chassis or engines
older than 1985 will be eligible, except that model runs that began
before 1985 are eligible (e.g., if a model was produced in 1983-1988,
the 1983 and 1984 cars are eligible). The SCCA does not guarantee the
competitiveness of any car.

Super Touring Under (STU) vehicles are mid-level multi-purpose
performance cars of 3.2 liters and under...
...Spec lines are not required for STU
eligibility; unless otherwise specified, any vehicle meeting the model year
and engine displacement limits is eligible for this class.


It seems that too many people are forgetting the competitiveness guarantee.

Maybe the formula needs to be adjusted slightly, (how about RWD McStrut cars have a smaller weight penalty than RWD double-wishbone? ;) ) but I'm certainly not in favor of a Prod/GT-level spec where this car gets brakes and that car gets bigger restrictor.

Give everyone the same prep rules and let the cards fall where they may. I chose my car knowing it's NOT a Miata or a Solstice, and I'm gonna race it anyway, heavy iron engine, McStruts and all.

Andy Bettencourt
07-21-2014, 05:49 PM
Nobody is forgetting. The issue is that you are reading that as gospel. Just because you aren't going to guarantee competitiveness, doesn't preclude you from trying.

All National classes try.

I don't think you will see line-item adjustments in STx but you will certainly see engine-specific adjustments and platform adjustments. Not a total CA scenario but certainly not CA-free.

Z3_GoCar
07-21-2014, 09:28 PM
Nobody is forgetting. The issue is that you are reading that as gospel. Just because you aren't going to guarantee competitiveness, doesn't preclude you from trying.

All National classes try.

I don't think you will see line-item adjustments in STx but you will certainly see engine-specific adjustments and platform adjustments. Not a total CA scenario but certainly not CA-free.

Aka: The rules are what they are, until they're not.

Andy Bettencourt
07-21-2014, 11:33 PM
Or: It's an SCCA National class...they WILL make Comp Adjustments.

And that is OK...unless the mission statement says otherwise.

Knestis
07-22-2014, 08:08 AM
Submitted for consideration by the CRB:

Change 9.1.4.B.1. to read as follows (changes indicated by underline):

"1985 and newer cars with SAE passenger volume greater than 60 cubic feet (per the standards defined by SAE J1100 as adopted by the manufacturer), built specifically under these ST rules."

The proposed passenger volume requirement would clarify as a first principle of the category that Super Touring cars be passenger vehicles typically designed to safely seat four adults (i.e., to the exclusion of light trucks, sports, and Grand Touring [GT] cars). Note that this proposal should not be interpreted as affecting
9.1.4.B.3., the allowance that alternate categories/classes of cars may compete in their own specification.

Respectfully submitted,
Kirk Knestis
103210

Andy Bettencourt
07-22-2014, 04:06 PM
Where is the database or the gold standard resource on researching passenger volume?

Where did you come up with 60 cu/ft?

Are you stating a problem in your request and an associated solution or just a simple contraction of eligible cars? You don't really state the goal your request aims at. (We know it but will the CRB?)

Knestis
07-22-2014, 05:37 PM
60 cf is unequivocally less than is required for a four seat car, not so close to currently eligible models that its likely to arbitrarily exclude new options. Passenger volume is an sae standard dimension published by the manufacturers. We don't have "gold standard data" for any of the other info we need for rules making. Why apply that expectation now?

Matt93SE
07-22-2014, 05:37 PM
Where is the database or the gold standard resource on researching passenger volume?

Where did you come up with 60 cu/ft?

I'm going to bet that a Miata has 59 cu ft of interior volume.. ;)

Manufacturers typically publish this information with their list of new car specs. you can find interior volumes on just about any car review site- edmunds, motor trend, car mfr brochure or website, etc. As there is a standard test method to calculate this number, I would rely on any of those sites to provide usable data (Mfr's owner or service manual data first).

As a side note, the standard measurements for interior volumes to classify cars include trunk volume. Reference: http://books.google.com/books?id=F3Q7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA339#v=onepage&q&f=false

Knestis
07-22-2014, 09:28 PM
No. I specified PASSENGER VOLUME. It means a particular measurement, per SAE standard cited.

K

Andy Bettencourt
07-22-2014, 10:11 PM
60 cf is unequivocally less than is required for a four seat car, not so close to currently eligible models that its likely to arbitrarily exclude new options. Passenger volume is an sae standard dimension published by the manufacturers. We don't have "gold standard data" for any of the other info we need for rules making. Why apply that expectation now?

What I mean is where do you find specs for interior volume? I tried today for about 10 min to find the spec for a Porsche 944.

Z3_GoCar
07-23-2014, 01:08 AM
I'm going to bet that a Miata has 59 cu ft of interior volume.. ;)



I'd argue, rather successfully I might add:rolleyes:, that the passenger volume of a car without a roof is essentially infinite. With Special Me specifically called out as being included in both STL and STU along with all IT cars... this will probably go in the not recommended list. :cavallo:

Matt93SE
07-23-2014, 10:07 AM
No. I specified PASSENGER VOLUME. It means a particular measurement, per SAE standard cited.

K

The EPA standard is widely published with car specs. Is the SAE standard measurement as widely published and as easy to find?

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, just asking a question. It seemed a lot easier to find interior volume published than passenger volume.

jdrago1
07-23-2014, 12:07 PM
I haven't been on here in a long time. This is a very interesting read. I find myself in an awkward position of agreeing with Kirk here. :) When I think touring car.. my opinion is even tighter than what was originally allowed in TC. I feel all small sub 2 liter cars with four doors, not even coupes. But that is just my opinion. Unfortunately, if we use the 'touring car" definition as what was allowed in touring car for STL., we simply don't have a class. What do we have 3-4 converted IT cars on a good day? I never looked at a Miata or an RX8 as a "touring car" While I agree with Kirk's interpretation, I can't see this getting any traction as it would for all intents and purpose kill the class. I would have never entered STL if it was a true touring car class as it would have been a much bigger step. The way STL was ssetup, it almost dared me not to come out and play. Whether we agree or disagree, allowing the SM guys to double dip in STL is what grew the class so large and so quickly. If we kill the SM double dippers, we have to think what it will do to the class and events on a whole. I am sure the regions appreciate the extra 15-25 entrees.
I have never really understood the resentment of the Sm double dippers in IT and certainly not in STL. If you have an IT or STL car and are racing with SM double dippers, you more than likely have other more pressing issues as they should not be close to you. The ones that should be closest are the front runners and despite popular opinion, these guys RARELY run into anyone. The positive of the double dippers.. there is always enough cars to get contingency and many of these guys transform their cars to STL miatas. Bruce Anderson and the drillmaster Flat Out Miata both started as SM cars.

As far as the miata goes.. I tend to agree a lot with what Andy said and I was at Watkins Glen. Brian Shanfield is a very good driver, (as good as the best SM guys I race with routinely IMO) former NASA champion. His car is good, but not fully developed either, just swapped cams to meet the rule. We have raced VERY close all year. I don't think either of us have been stickering up each race. Brians car falls off after 1/2 the race or so. But in the first half of every race, we are as even as you can possibly make a miata and a FWD car. At Watkins, if I was not in his draft we were dead even up the esses. I had to make sure I was in his draft to be able to make any ground. Previously I thought the club hit the car a little too hard on the restrictor plate. After watkins I feel the honda easily makes back that 4-5 hp and probably a little more. That is a luxury no Miata driver will ever have in STL, You need to build the car to the edge( or over) reliability to get close on power to the Hondas. I would love an option of a Mazda engine that I could run stock and win with. It doesn't exist.

I don't see this getting very far, because it would hurt the club financially. But it is a good topic and I can appreciate it. As far as my program. I am thinking seriously of turning one of my third gen Rx7's into a STKL car with an MZR engine or doing an NSX with 2.0l in it. I think I have another 1.5 years left in me in SM and would like a place to fall into. it would be nice to race a REALLY nice car like one of the two above. If not, I have an 06 MX5 that we will build for next year. Who knows.. maybe an insight with a 2.0l Honda engine for Daytona :)
Jim

Chip42
07-23-2014, 01:41 PM
Not that I disagree with your statements about the request having traction - and I also agree re: definition of a touring car, thoguh I'd allow coupes and the like so long as the car was generally larger, but note that Kirk's request specifically DOES NOT affect double dipper SM or IT cars, so they are free to play, but the SMs would not be able to "tranisition" to ST like many of the IT cars could.

jdrago1
07-23-2014, 03:04 PM
N but note that Kirk's request specifically DOES NOT affect double dipper SM or IT cars, so they are free to play, but the SMs would not be able to "tranisition" to ST like many of the IT cars could.
Good point.

Knestis
07-23-2014, 03:59 PM
And that was purposeful. The conversation here kept getting derailed with discussions about double-dippers, which has nothing to do with my proposition. I do *not* love the idea of making classes - or rationalizing their continuance - based on the idea that they give someone a place to add another entry. If that were the point, we wouldn't have classes. But that's a different letter to the CRB.

Mr Drago makes my point pretty eloquently, I think. By invoking MZR-powered RX7 III, swapped NSXs, etc., he reinforces that anyone who's serious about being competitive under the current regime absolutely MUST build their plan around a Frankenstein GT or sports car - because even a short think about vehicle dynamics makes it clear that they will have a substantial advantage. Enough, in fact, to warrant building something that never existed in nature. Is that a sound basis for a healthy class? Someone who does want to race a sub-2 liter sedan in mildly modified form on radial tires is NOT going to choose STL knowing that they'll be fighting a losing battle based on fundamental chassis attributes.

I have zero doubt that this isn't what the designers of STL had pictured when the class was conceptualized. We should get it back on track now, before the class is irretrievably busted.

K

Andy Bettencourt
07-23-2014, 04:00 PM
STL just needs to evaluate what it wants to be. Again, STO and STU never had a 'touring car' requirement. They were places for WC cars to go from the 2 different classes...so STL is an extension of that via engine size. Why should the interior volume apply here and not to STO?

Knestis
07-23-2014, 04:44 PM
The EPA standard is widely published with car specs. Is the SAE standard measurement as widely published and as easy to find?

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, just asking a question. It seemed a lot easier to find interior volume published than passenger volume.

Based on the information I could find, SAE provides a measuring standard under J1100, which has been updated periodically. 1984 version, for example, here (https://law.resource.org/pub/us/cfr/ibr/005/sae.j1100.1984.pdf). It defines how to determine "passenger," "cargo," and total "interior" volumes (the latter being the sum of the other two). EPA requires reporting of dimensions to the SAE spec, standardized to one particular year's standards. They don't - again, based on what I found - vary much, year to year, but manufacturers may quote their "official" spec based on whatever standard they choose. The "cargo" volume spec varies (obviously) for hatchbacks vs. cars with trunks, but the passenger number should rely on similar first principles within a year's spec.

The difference between a 2-seater and a 4-seater is, irrespective of the specifics of any given spec, something in the nature of 1.5-2.0x. It's not like there should be any hair-splitting required to make the distinction. Heck - a simpler proxy (number of seats for adults, roof height, whatever) can be the standard for our purposes. Or the STAC can make a list.

K

Chip42
07-23-2014, 04:46 PM
STO was WC GT, not TC. GT fits the type of car Kirk is describing as "not a touring car". STU was TC and if there were a few non touring cars there, too (I cannot think of any, and I was a huge fan of the series back in the days of Speedvision/channel - I remember BMWs, mazda6, proteges, focii, audi A4s, etc...) then just remember that in pro racing the balance was maintained actively and changes made between races were commonplace in that effort and if it allowed a manufacturer to come and play... we do not have that ability with the way the ST rules are written, so another way to weigh down or exclude "inherently better" cars is being discussed / requested. these are not very numerous chassis, it wouldn't be hard to identify them and specline adjust them via weight% change as needed, and such a method makes tools available to deal with things like "advanced" struts that I know Andy so keen on pointing out, without drawing arbitrary lines that affect all strut cars from a given manufacturer (or whatever descriptor) because of key examples they share a badge with. singling out a known chassis is a way to balance it with the more traditional chasis of the same arrangement than is any attempt to further categorize that chassis with the few similalrly higher performing ones.

Matt93SE
07-23-2014, 04:50 PM
STU had the "touring car" requirement by intention of the class being for retired WC Touring Class cars..
I'm not sure what requirements World Challenge originally had for them to be in the class, but the point of the class's origin being specifically called "touring car" means the intent was there. ;)

Frankly, I don't care one way or the other. STU is at the bottom end of the participation list right now, and there are lots of eyes looking at it. The Prod guys want us to go away so we'll quit mucking up their EP/FP races. The GT boys don't want to play with us either because we don't have slicks.. But give it another year or two at the current participation levels and many people that purpose-built cars for the class will be hoping they can fit into GT/Prod. There's no longer the 2.5 requirement, but we're averaging 1.9x cars per race.. You think they're going to give us a slot at Ruboffs with that kind of participation?
not trying to be pessimistic, just looking at the hazy side of my crystal ball....

Knestis
07-23-2014, 04:51 PM
STL just needs to evaluate what it wants to be. Again, STO and STU never had a 'touring car' requirement. They were places for WC cars to go from the 2 different classes...so STL is an extension of that via engine size. Why should the interior volume apply here and not to STO?

Where do the WCGT cars that were targeted by the STO rules fit in the current STU/STL scheme? I think the answer is "nowhere." There were never any GT or sports cars in WCT, until we got to the most recent silly crossover-please-bring-something-to-race-with-us rules. There was no need to have a "touring cars only" rule in WCT, because the class simply didn't accommodate anything else. Unless I'm confused - which is possible - STU was for ex-WCT cars so, de facto, "touring cars." STL is a second derivative of the STO/STU false start. Leaning heavily on that as history seems like a distant stretch.

K

EDIT - Whoops. Slow to that party. What they said.

Andy Bettencourt
07-23-2014, 09:50 PM
Right, but the class is 'Super Touring'. A place for WC cars to go if they wanted to retire. Super Touring 'Over' and Super Touring 'Under'. DISPLACEMENT.

In neither category was there in the beginning, or ever has been a rule on having to be a 'Touring' car. No interior volume, no door count. Even in todays WC 'Touring' car A-spec division you see cars like FR-S, MX5 and Civics.

Touring does not mean what you want it to mean in the SCCA.

So to recap, Super Touring is just a name, not a philosophy of what a car should look like. STO and STU from their inception have never been linked to a body style. In fact, STO has had specific cars eligible - most sports cars...and STU (while including WC-TC which did have many sedans and some coupes) had NO spec lines and was a displacement class with no chassis limits.

I submit that STL is simply a slice right out of STU that ALSO gives cars is under 2000cc's a place to play based on DISPLACEMENT, not chassis design.

There was never an intent in ANY of these classes to limit to a 'traditional' T-car.

Knestis
07-23-2014, 10:02 PM
Paging Peter Keane to the white phone. Peter Keane please pick up the house phone for an important call...

Andy Bettencourt
07-23-2014, 10:25 PM
Core car yes, but never to exclude everything but 'touring cars'. TC's are 4 doors.

Edit: I'm not trying to be argumentative here Dr. K. I'm just trying to point out that Super 'Touring' O has sports cars and Super 'Touring' U is a displacement-based class with no limitations.

No place in the infancy of Super Touring (STO and STU) was the requirement to be a traditional touring-car written. STL is a subset of these classes and unless specifically exclusionary and incongruent to the parent classes, it would seem that it's a displacement class too.

Chip42
07-24-2014, 11:02 AM
I admire the hell out of mazda for taking the initiative in creating an amazingly good, low cost RWD sportscar platform that to date has remained uncoppied to any real level of success by any other manufacturer, and to continue to make it in the face of declining sales. They built a car everyone thought would fail in the US market, proved them wrong, and hit the formula so precisely that no one who has tried has managed to get anywhere close to their level of success.

but it's not a touring car. it would be nice to have a touring car class, because there are so many good options, many pro series that could feed it, and I believe there's interest in it. if STL/U is too far gone, we should make a new one and consolidate the redundancy in the current mix of classes. the old days had sedan and production, and while entropy from those days certinaly led to the mess we are in now re: over abundance of classes, the groundwork laid then seems more appropriate to the realities on the ground today for reasons I do not think the folks at the time appreciated - namely those that Kirk elaborated on. ITB and C cannot be the last place small-discplacement, comnpromise-laiden boxes (AKA "touring cars" among other things) can race around in relative partiy without a miata or suchlike more purposefully built machine messing up the formula.

Andy Bettencourt
07-24-2014, 12:02 PM
Chip - I really believe that a class for just 'Touring cars' is a total non-starter. Who the heck wants to race these econo-boxes? How is B-spec working out?

People want to race what they like. Other than Hondas which can have decent front suspensions, great engines and have a following, what on earth is there to draw people in any kind of numbers? What is the real potential market here? I submit nothing but a bottom-feeder entry-wise.

Greg Amy
07-24-2014, 12:16 PM
Chip - I really believe that a class for just 'Touring cars' is a total non-starter. Who the heck wants to race these econo-boxes? How is B-spec working out?
So Super Touring Light is nothing more than another place for Mazda Miatas and Mazda RX-7s to play?

Nice.

GA, bottom-feeder for over three decades....sure wish I'd had someone back then to show me The Real Way To Nirvana...

Chip42
07-24-2014, 01:51 PM
not econoboxes - "boxes". ITB is the only "touring" style class without miatas in the engine size range we are discussing, thus it's mention. evrything faste rthan that is full of sports cars. when I say "touring car" I'm thinking everything from civic and protege to GS350, IS300, and 5series BMWs. obviously not all of those fit the STL mold but...

there is NOT a class for THAT that does not also include miatas and a few other "not touring cars". Andy, I think you are hung up on the definition of what a touring car is and confusing it with econoboxes. everyone knows there's a limitted and shrinking market for sub 110hp hatchbacks to race. one look at B Spec and ITB/C entries will tell you that. but the inherent compromises to handling in order to accomodate passenger and luggage volume that a touring car has make it a lesser car to a sportscar which compromises luggage and passenger volume for handling. OBVIOUSLY a sportscar will be better than a touring car, everything else being equal as defined by the broad-strokes of classiifcation used in Super Touring (drive wheels, generic suspsension design family, engine displacement). in fact, that's the point of Kirks first post - that touring cars can't compete in super touring becasue not touring cars are in super touring, and it'd be really cool if there were a place for touring cars.

I'm done now. this is just a stupid discussion that will go nowhere because the club is terrified to make a stand and actually draw lines that make the various categories substantially different. ST and IT and GT and Prod are all cuttin ginto each other's numbers because they are all different shades of the same color. it can be fixed, but that will take serious courgae on the part of the PTB as it WILL piss people off in the short term.

Andy Bettencourt
07-24-2014, 02:56 PM
So Super Touring Light is nothing more than another place for Mazda Miatas and Mazda RX-7s to play?

Nice.

GA, bottom-feeder for over three decades....sure wish I'd had someone back then to show me The Real Way To Nirvana...

Exclude Miatas if that makes you feel better I don't really care. The point is simply that a 'touring car only' class IMHO can't drive the numbers.

And I will be quick to point out that I have only known you to run 2 cars, an NX2000 and an Integra GSR coupe. Both non 'touring cars'.

If we want real TC's then it's a dead class. If we want an interior volume-based class then I have serious doubts because by design you are eliminating many chassis people gravitate to. Maybe I'm wrong and there is a ton of people who are chomping at the bit to build or convert their TC's for STL.

Andy Bettencourt
07-24-2014, 03:03 PM
not econoboxes - "boxes". ITB is the only "touring" style class without miatas in the engine size range we are discussing, thus it's mention. evrything faste rthan that is full of sports cars. when I say "touring car" I'm thinking everything from civic and protege to GS350, IS300, and 5series BMWs. obviously not all of those fit the STL mold but...

So are you just talking STL here because more than half your examples aren't even examples. If you want to include STU then I'll buy into your philosophy at the conceptual level.


there is NOT a class for THAT that does not also include miatas and a few other "not touring cars". Andy, I think you are hung up on the definition of what a touring car is and confusing it with econoboxes. everyone knows there's a limitted and shrinking market for sub 110hp hatchbacks to race. one look at B Spec and ITB/C entries will tell you that. but the inherent compromises to handling in order to accomodate passenger and luggage volume that a touring car has make it a lesser car to a sportscar which compromises luggage and passenger volume for handling. OBVIOUSLY a sportscar will be better than a touring car, everything else being equal as defined by the broad-strokes of classiifcation used in Super Touring (drive wheels, generic suspsension design family, engine displacement). in fact, that's the point of Kirks first post - that touring cars can't compete in super touring becasue not touring cars are in super touring, and it'd be really cool if there were a place for touring cars.

I'm not getting hung up on that at all, in fact I feel like you are. By saying that I mean that the 'Touring' in the nomenclature of these classes MEANS NOTHING...NOTHING. STO and STU as I have said never relied exclusively on what Kirk or anyone here 'wants' a TC to look and smell like. Hence the same philosophy for STL.

And I have said it all along, if you want onlt TC type stuff, then cut the weeds immediate and see what grows...I submit not much. And the guy who was THERE says the Civic is fast...on a stock motor with class-legal cams. Broken? Doubtful...unless as some have said both the Miata AND the 2L Honda are broken.


I'm done now. this is just a stupid discussion that will go nowhere because the club is terrified to make a stand and actually draw lines that make the various categories substantially different. ST and IT and GT and Prod are all cuttin ginto each other's numbers because they are all different shades of the same color. it can be fixed, but that will take serious courgae on the part of the PTB as it WILL piss people off in the short term.

I think if you 'fix' it, you won't have anything 'more' than you did at the beginning.

I will close my part with this as we are all getting frustrated: If you want STL to be something, make it that...and that is what Kirk has proposed. I just don't want others cheer-leading from the sidelines yelling 'ya, it's a touring car class anyway!'...because it's not, never has been and the parent classes never were either.

If STL can grow with 60+ cu/feet of interior volume as the minimum, awesome! Just say what you want to be, believe in it, and sink or swim. That's all I ask.

Greg Amy
07-24-2014, 03:33 PM
And I will be quick to point out that I have only known you to run 2 cars, an NX2000 and an Integra GSR coupe. Both non 'touring cars'.
Uuuuuumm...wut? Both exceed Kirk's 60cu-ft interior volume standard for definition of "touring car".

What, exactly, are you defining "Touring Car" as? Anything rectangular 3-box design that's shaped like a Datsun 510...?

Keep in mind that, as I'm inferring it, Kirk is simply saying that, by their design, "touring cars" cannot compete fairly against GT or sports cars. He is proposing a characteristic of the former in order to easily define - and as needed, account for - that inequity.


I'm done now. this is just a stupid discussion that will go nowhere because the club is terrified to make a stand and actually draw lines that make the various categories substantially different...
You're gonna loooove the "Concorde Agreement"...

Andy Bettencourt
07-24-2014, 03:45 PM
Uuuuuumm...wut? Both exceed Kirk's 60cu-ft interior volume standard for definition of "touring car".

What, exactly, are you defining "Touring Car" as? Anything rectangular 3-box design that's shaped like a Datsun 510...?

Keep in mind that, as I'm inferring it, Kirk is simply saying that, by their design, "touring cars" cannot compete fairly against GT or sports cars. He is proposing a characteristic of the former in order to easily define - and as needed, account for - that inequity.


You're gonna loooove the "Concorde Agreement"...

And I want a definition that doesn't provide any holes. If the NX2000 is 60+ then a 924/944 must be. 2nd gen RX-7 had a 2+2 option.

Greg Amy
07-24-2014, 04:07 PM
Man, you are all over the place...if one were to accept that a "touring car" were at a significant disadvantage due to its design, and if one were to assume that a "touring car" were defined as having an interior volume of 60 cu-ft (which would cause a large, higher body with tighter suspension packaging and exhibiting the inferior performance characteristics), and if your specific examples above meet that definition...

...then why in the hell are you arguing with everyone about this?

Knestis
07-24-2014, 04:08 PM
You're not arguing Andy but you're using web board Argument #12 - the "it's got to be this extreme or that extreme and can't possibly be in between" gambit. There's a world between "touring car means nothing" and "touring cars MUST have four doors."

Your position is that STL will be a vibrant, healthy class when made up of only three chassis options - Miatae, rx7s, and NSXs - each with its optimum swap....?

K

jdrago1
07-24-2014, 04:08 PM
not econoboxes - "boxes".
I'm done now. this is just a stupid discussion that will go nowhere because the club is terrified to make a stand and actually draw lines that make the various categories substantially different. ST and IT and GT and Prod are all cuttin ginto each other's numbers because they are all different shades of the same color. it can be fixed, but that will take serious courgae on the part of the PTB as it WILL piss people off in the short term.



There is more than drawing a line in the sand,courage, black helicopters and PTB. This 'fix' kills the class. Whether you agree or disagree, the class has numbers now.. if "fixed", STL will be dropped as a non performer as quickly as it could be done within the clubs rules. That is not a sound decision by the PTB in any way. The club has members who are willing to pay entry fees in this class as it is now. The PTB that have the responsibility to do what is "best " for the club. Losing that many entries and killing one of the best performing classes does not fit within that responsibility even if it does have a few warts on it.

If it makes us feel "feel" better, we can rename the classes CFO, CFU and CFL and leave the class and eligible cars alone. We could always start a new regional touring car only class? Who really thinks that has any chance wjhatsoever of going anywhere?

Knestis
07-24-2014, 04:29 PM
You lose the entries only if IT/SM "in their class spec" crossovers are excluded and I did not propose that. You going to argue your case by misrepresenting my position to those "ptb" folks...?

Kirk (who is probably delusional if he thinks Mr Drago won't just drown this sack of kittens before anyone has a chance to think about adopting them or not)

Andy Bettencourt
07-24-2014, 04:39 PM
Man, you are all over the place...if one were to accept that a "touring car" were at a significant disadvantage due to its design, and if one were to assume that a "touring car" were defined as having an interior volume of 60 cu-ft (which would cause a large, higher body with tighter suspension packaging and exhibiting the inferior performance characteristics), and if your specific examples above meet that definition...

...then why in the hell are you arguing with everyone about this?

Ugh... What I am saying is that if all you want a 'touring car' to be a non-sports car and all you qualify is a 60+ interior volume, then I am submitting that you are missing the boat based on the examples that I gave.

Define what you REALLY want the class to be. If you don't want sports-car based stuff because nothing else has a chance in hell (already proven wrong), then MAKE IT SO. Don't use some silly 60+ number that some 'sports cars' can already hit (924/944/FC RX7/RX8 assuming similar size to the NX that you say hits)

Andy Bettencourt
07-24-2014, 04:44 PM
rs."

Your position is that STL will be a vibrant, healthy class when made up of only three chassis options - Miatae, rx7s, and NSXs - each with its optimum swap....?

K

My position is, "Be careful what you eliminate from eligibility because from what has been built and raced so far, there ain't much left'.

Now if the class comes alive because 'sports cars are gone, I will admit I was wrong. I just don't see a big market for other stuff. Heck, I'd like to actually see the envelope EXPANDED to stuff older than the current rule. I would love an 510 or 240Z with a SR20 in it.

Andy Bettencourt
07-24-2014, 04:49 PM
You lose the entries only if IT/SM "in their class spec" crossovers are excluded and I did not propose that. You going to argue your case by misrepresenting my position to those "ptb" folks...?

Kirk (who is probably delusional if he thinks Mr Drago won't just drown this sack of kittens before anyone has a chance to think about adopting them or not)

So it's ok to allow all the field fillers to pay the bills and keep a class afloat when the core premise is flawed? Ok. At what point is the class a good class? You would never know. 3 'real' cars show up and 20 fillers. Not a recipe for success IMHO. Sounds like a trophy for everyone on the back of other drivers.

The whole concept is flawed IMHO because we have a well driven and UNDER-PREPARED (stock motor with legal cams) Civic running with the best Miata in the country (quote from a guy who was there).

jdrago1
07-24-2014, 05:15 PM
You lose the entries only if IT/SM "in their class spec" crossovers are excluded and I did not propose that. You going to argue your case by misrepresenting my position to those "ptb" folks...?

Kirk (who is probably delusional if he thinks Mr Drago won't just drown this sack of kittens before anyone has a chance to think about adopting them or not)

So you want to sustain the class with uncompetitive IT and SM cars and take their entry fees, but cut out other competitive cars that look like those that are subsidizing your new class? Does anyone else see that as a little hypocritical?

I DOUBT VERY SERIOUSLY your letter makes it out of the committee level ( so do you, BTW) and that does not involve me at all. Just in case it does, I will make my position clear. I would not support your letter.

I simply do not agree with your vision in regards to the direction of this class, nothing personal. This class was not started as a touring car only class and many have spent racing dollars building Miatas, MX5's and other cars that will be excluded in your idea of what STL should be. Just not something I agree with or willing to do. We have unlimited abilities to adjust these cars in STL if need be and I would prefer to exhaust those methods before excluding eligible cars from the class. I have personally been instrumental in putting weight on the Miata at least twice in STL, my data and dyno sheets are public knowledge. You are welcome to either as is anyone else. If the Miata needs further penalties, I would be the first to support them, you can confirm that with Greg.

Knestis
07-24-2014, 07:29 PM
I'm on record here and elsewhere that I think building classes that count on crossover entries is bad policy. I just want to keep the issues clear and separate.

So how much weight, Andy, is required to put an Integra on par with an NSX if both have the same 1.8 engine? You HONESTLY think that parity can be achieved there; that anyone will really give it that quantity of lead?

k

Chip42
07-24-2014, 07:36 PM
The whole concept is flawed IMHO because we have a well driven and UNDER-PREPARED (stock motor with legal cams) Civic running with the best Miata in the country (quote from a guy who was there).

The lightest possible chassis type at 2.0L vs the heaviest with 1.8. And, as noted, that fwd strut car is outlier good in terms of handling, thus 2 pages of discussion about making spec line weight modifiers for known oddball chassis rather than trying to accomodate them in general rules. This situation was created in an effort to neutralize the Miata, but I submit that no other 1.8L car would be in that hunt, nor would most (any?) other cars with larger engines. And the same quote said the car fell off pace after half race as it's tires over heated. Its still fwd...

Kirk's original point was that sports cars aren't touring cars. We agree that this is true and that nothing will be done about it. So recognize the outcome of the problem and support change to bring parity to the class when outlier chassis are identified.

Knestis
07-24-2014, 07:37 PM
....and to your field filler question Andy, a bunch of SMs and IT cars areNOT going to dissuade someone from building a four seat 2.0 car for STL. Knowing that sports cars are always going to have an advantage certainly will.

Kirk (who needs to talk with Brandon before he goes hog wild with a bigger engine for the civic)

Andy Bettencourt
07-24-2014, 08:54 PM
I'm on record here and elsewhere that I think building classes that count on crossover entries is bad policy. I just want to keep the issues clear and separate.

So how much weight, Andy, is required to put an Integra on par with an NSX if both have the same 1.8 engine? You HONESTLY think that parity can be achieved there; that anyone will really give it that quantity of lead?

k

I have no idea the answer to that question. Way above my pay grade. If the problem you are trying to solve by kicking out the sports-cars is that equity can't be achieved at any weight, then no problem.

Andy Bettencourt
07-24-2014, 09:00 PM
Kirk's original point was that sports cars aren't touring cars.

My point is SO WHAT? How many times do I have to point out that the words in the name of this category never meant to describe the kinds of cars that were exclusively allowed?


We agree that this is true and that nothing will be done about it. So recognize the outcome of the problem and support change to bring parity to the class when outlier chassis are identified.

And my point here is that the sky is not falling yet. What data is being cited to show that there is a problem? I see NONE. An under-prepared Civic with a top driver is running dead nuts on a uber-prepared Miata with an equally capable driver. Grumblings are that BOTH cars may need to come back to the pack...but that's hardly a 'sports car' issue.

Yes, sportscars are better than non-sportscars...hence the significant weight differences at the current moment. If the premise from Kirk's post and the general feeling is that equity can never be achieved, then shit-can what you want to and start from scratch (basically Kirk's idea) but make sure it outlaws what you want it to in the first cut to be fair to membership...because any change now porks some people hard.

Knestis
07-24-2014, 09:31 PM
I have no idea the answer to that question. Way above my pay grade. If the problem you are trying to solve by kicking out the sports-cars is that equity can't be achieved at any weight, then no problem.

Post 1, paragraph 2.


K

benspeed
07-24-2014, 09:57 PM
For what its worth I highly doubt that many drivers really zero in on the chassis being defined by the name of the class. I think most drivers pick cars three ways, what they have in the driveway already and tune on, what they think will win or what they think is cool and fun. Touring, sports or GT - i bet many folks would have tough time defining these chassis (lol - like a bunch of folks on this thread bahaha!)

Narrowing a class to fit a chassis definition is a loser business model.

Andy Bettencourt
07-24-2014, 09:59 PM
Post 1, paragraph 2.


K


All other things being equal, a chassis with two seats is going to have an advantage over one with four - frontal area, aero "licked surface," impact of bluff rear surfaces on Cd, and center of gravity to name a few. The formula for setting spec weights doesn't take these variables into consideration, nor can it really be expected to in any repeatable, consistent way.

But this is a National class so the 'formula' can change by changing the rules every year. If you are saying that weight alone can't compensate, no matter the quantity, ok.

Andy Bettencourt
07-24-2014, 10:00 PM
Narrowing a class to fit a chassis definition is a loser business model.

Unless that chassis definition is cheap, abundant and popular.

benspeed
07-24-2014, 10:11 PM
Agreed but then it sorta ends up as a spec class, no? Maybe we have underlying paranoia that all classes become dominated by Miata? I'm building a GT1 Miata with a twin turbo LS9...

Flyinglizard
07-24-2014, 11:53 PM
"So how much weight, Andy, is required to put an Integra on par with an NSX if both have the same 1.8 engine? You HONESTLY think that parity can be achieved there; that anyone will really give it that quantity of lead?"

Dynamic loading on the outer front tire must be pretty close to even; For road racing. frontal area,glass angles. .
Better off just adding weight until both drivers cant pass each other.After rolling both on the dyno.

IMHo take weight out of the shoebox cars and add a tiny bit to the Miata until the Miata guys bitch.

How many real cars are really out there? I cant think of any dedicated STL cars here in CFR. Enlighten me.
Just plain kicking out the 2 seaters is dumb. Who wants to race a shoe box? BMW will rule this playground.

Greg Amy
07-25-2014, 09:18 AM
I'll jump in here with some opinion as a competitor, not as a STAC member...

It was once remarked to me, by someone within the SCCA, that they envisioned the concept of Super Touring Light as a place for the (PC version) "mentally handicapped" kids to play: the FWD street ricer crowd. Within the SCCA there is a distinct void for that type of car, little econoboxes that uses street tires, has wings and body cladding, lowered, fancy paint and vinyl (very much along the lines of my Modified Touring 2 concept (http://www.it2.evaluand.com/compare.php3), circa 2004). I agreed with that initial mindset, as that's the type of cars I like to drive, and short of a slot somewhere in Improved Touring was no other place to play. With that mindset, I became an enthusiastic supporter of STL's inclusion in the National racing program and jumped on board as a competitor to support it, later volunteering to be on the Super Touring Advisory Committee, with an intent to support that idea(l).

Since then, in my opinion, we've gone off those rails. We -- the committee as a whole, I can't speak for the individuals -- did not recognize the capability of the Mazda RX-8 when we allowed it into the class (though I was a vociferous opponent of allowing that engine into the class from the start). I was indifferent to the inclusion of the IT-spec RX-7s into the class, but I've been opposed to having the engines on separate spec lines so they could be installed into other chassis (it is, explicitly by the class philosophy, a 2L piston-engine class). And, recognizing that there are distinct differences between the dynamics of the two designs, I've been a long-time proponent, from the very beginning, of a 7.5% minimum RWD adder (recall my discussion from some time ago, comparing the S2000 and Integra chassis, each equipped with the same engine, same driver, same track).

Our lack of foresight, coupled to a lack of understanding the scope of imagination of the breadth of competitors we have in this organization (see "Greg's How to Write a Rule (http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?22779-How-To-Write-a-Rule)") has resulted, in my opinion, as a class headed far away from that original concept, whether you agree with that original concept or not. It is clear, given recent STL's history, that only the most ardent fanatic of "mentally-handicapped" cars would, with clear objective thought, pick one of those cars to win an STL championship. Said differently, if someone were to stand back and objectively choose a car to win STL competitively, it would be a sports/GT car into which they'd stuff the most-powerful family engine.

Regardless of what our present-company Miata fans will tell you, even the best FWD chassis does not have a long-term chance against a good RWD sports/GT car, everything else being equal. No offense to these guys, but I don't think either of them has ever raced one (I'd love to swap rides one weekend...) The CRB has attempted to equalize this via the RWD adder, but this ends up penalizing cars that are RWD but are not a sports/GT car (e.g., not a Miata or Honda S2000). I'm getting the impression that CRB is not willing to pursue this line of adjustment much further, if at all. That's where Kirk's proposal is coming in.

As for all the double-dippers, they've been both a blessing and a curse. Adding in other categories/classes to STU and STL has clearly allowed the classes to survive and the fast-track to thrive (and to bring STL to #3 in national participation). But at the same time they've been a curse by making the classes appear to be nothing more than another place for these cars to play...no, let's be honest: another place for Spec Miatas to play. And, maybe that's correct in reality. But is no one building Nissan Sentras (for example) for STL "because of Miatae", or are Miatae dominating numbers because no one's building a Nissan Sentras? Who would want to build a Nissan Sentra only to be dropped into a field of Miatae? It's a fine question to ask 'what would happen if Miatas were banned from STL?' Well, what would happen? Would other non-Miatae suddenly see a void (that many in present company are implying is there, but is obscured within a forest of Miatae) and jump into the fray?

So what would happen if we cut Miatae entirely (ignoring the fact that it's highly unlikely that the Club would do that)...? Our present-company Miatae drivers are implying the class would die off completely, but that assumes that the class was initially created with a vision of it succeeding only by allowing in SMs...is that the case? Was it envisioned as nothing more than another place for SM to play? Or was there an original vision where we'd bring out a lot of diverse vehicles?

If the latter, what killed that that vision?

All this talk of the value of extra entries is, frankly, absurd, and borderline insulting. We do not - should not - create entire categories for our National/Majors racing program for the purpose of attracting double-dippers; that's putting the cart before the horse. The only reason we should be creating additional classes is to satisfy a demand for a level of prep that is not being serviced by the existing infrastructure. I thought that's what we were doing with Super Touring...was I wrong? And this isn't an "anti-Miata" thing, Jim; while I sincerely appreciate how the Miata double-dippers effectively built STL (and STU before that) the last thing this org needs is a fake class with its primary goal as another place for Spec Miatas to play. We have plenty of other categories (Prod, for example) that would embrace those numbers, we don't need an extra category just for that.

The fact that other cars may fit within that new class should be purely coincidental. As does Kirk, I believe a class should stand or fall on its own merits; if STL cannot stand without double-dipping Miatae then I strongly believe it should either be folded into another category or cut entirely. Extra entries from Spec Miatas (or other categories) must be nothing more than icing on the cake, not the cake itself.

So where do we go from here for Super Touring? That's not so clear. The long-term plan will depend on what the organization decides to do with the proposed "Concorde Agreement". It's quite possible that many of our categories will look decisively different than they do now. Short-term, while I am not rejecting Kirk's position outright (I've yet to hear all the sides of the story, or hear what my fellow committee members have to say about it) it's unlikely that the CRB will support a wholesale change to the category as he proposes. Instead, we're likely to see continuing ongoing "general character adjustments" (for lack of a better term) in STL with the attempt to try and equalize these different characteristics; things like RWD adder changes, maybe even adding add'l adders referencing characteristics such as interior volume. And it's quite possible that we'll start adding outlier cars to Allowances/Requirements tables to start hobbling specific models as needed. But that's all up for discussion.

As Andy said, "This is National Racing" and no one, least of all the CRB, wants to see any particular make/model/engine clearly dominating the class.

GA, encouraging people to read my signature...

Andy Bettencourt
07-25-2014, 09:56 AM
Very well written.

My only comment is that I really hope that 'people with Sentras' aren't so short sighted that they are staying away because of Miata DD's. Maybe the sheer quantity of cars on grid is intimidating to some drivers who might want to take a shot at STL but to not join a class that interests them because of a group of cars that is slower than they should be is not the kind of driver that will sustain the long-term health of any class.

STL has had 2-3 years to cook. If you take out SM's you are left with the core STL class. What numbers are being drawn? Maybe the real answer here is that nobody is building real STL cars because of a couple purpose-built Miata and the perception that nothing else can ever compete - and it's stunted the growth of the class. If this is a viable concept, then maybe future growth can be seen without 'sports cars'.

What would be a total bummer (and part of this proposed 'solution') is to send some of these members 'investments' down the toilet.

jdrago1
07-25-2014, 11:35 AM
I agree with Andy very good post ... A few comments..

First, whenever you would like to swap cars or drive mine, you are welcome to do so. I may need a crow bar to get in yours.


I agree that the double dippers should be the icing. I dont believe the class was founded at all in any as a second class for Spec miatas to double dip. But there is no doubt that it has become one. I agree that the class SHOULD stand on it's own merits, but it cant. Why? I dont know that answer, but way fewer cars got on board than many of us projected. The question/ problem is this.. Regardless of how we got here, this is where we are now. The class ( while we can all agree by artificial means) is successful and #3 performer right now. I dont think any of the PTB (CRB or BOD) would want to do anything to risk doing serious damage or reducing the numbers in the class.

In a perfect world, I love Kirks idea. A real touring car class with 20 plus cars per weekend would really interest me as a competitor and I would certainly build one. ( looking at Spec E46) I just dont believe at this point and time it seems like we can support such a class? So where do we go? Keep what we have and try treating some of the warts or just put a bullet in there heads because the warts will never be completely gone?

Knestis
07-25-2014, 12:49 PM
You keep doing it Andy, mixing the issues. It's NOT the DD SMs that will keep drivers - heck, ME - from investing in trying to make the civic competitive. It's the vehicle dynamics reality of doing so against sports and GT cars with inherent advantages that will allow entrants of those cars to "control the gap" - both on the track and where competition adjustments happen.

Farbman made a strategic error by going two seconds faster in practice than his eventual race lap record at NJMP this spring. He went back to the hymnal in the race and only went as fast as he needed to. Watch how hard he doesn't have to work to catch Greg in his glen video.

The fundamental differences in chassis layouts, in the moving-target world of nationals, makes it a fool's errand to build anything other than one of the very short list of swapped sports cars for STL.

K

Greg Amy
07-25-2014, 12:49 PM
Where to go from here? I see this situation/problem as two-fold: perception and reality.

First, perception. To Andy's question, if I were a new STL candidate with a Nissan Sentra (or even a Honda Integra) and interested in the prep level offered by STL, I would most certainly pause before entering into the existing STL field.

Whether deserved or not, Spec Miatas have a reputation of being aggressive drivers, and many people do not like racing with them.

Exacerbating that is the fact that the level of prep, and the level of driving skill, of Majors-quality Spec Miata has gotten so good that the difference between the "real" STL cars and front-end Spec Miatas are not really that massively different. I have been shocked at how relatively competitive the pointy-end Spec Miatas are with my 60-more-hp Integra...it doesn't help that an STL-compliant Spec Miata is now ~250# lighter than the comparable STL-spec Miata, and is not - and will not be - subject to any of the RWD adder changes going forward...and SMs continue to get faster.

Bottom line, the performance potential between SM and STL is too small. That potential difference needs to be large enough to attract mid-pack "true" STL entries while creating disincentives for mid-pack Spec Miatas. It is not. So you have a guy in a Nissan Sentra who's interested in STL, but realizes that unless he's got a 100% build car and drives the damn thing 100%, he's going to be mired in a large field of aggressive Majors-quality Spec Miatas. That's not going to be fun.

What could we do to resolve this? Well, it's unrealistic to try and slow down the Spec Miatas when they're competing in STL: it's impractical to add weight or a restrictor to them, or for that matter change any of their equipment. That leaves us with two choices: remove the explicit SM allowance (which I suggest should be a long term goal), forcing them to prepare to the same standards as everyone else; or we find a way to make STL as a whole faster. Neither of these is an attractive short-term solution, the former for its effects on participation numbers and the latter for increased costs for everyone else, just to address a "too fast" included category.

So we kinda stuck ourselves in a tight situation between a rock and a hard place with no reasonable, practical answers, a situation that is only going to get worse as time goes along. We're in a self-perpetuating circle: SM'rs are getting faster and participating in STL in greater numbers and causing a perception problem for those interested in STL, but we can't remove the SM'rs because they're the bulk of the class.

Simply put, while Spec Miata was the lift that the class needed to become a Majors class (ironically) Spec Miata may also be the cause of its ultimate death...

Then there's reality. If we ignore the above issue of perception, and we take the Spec Miatas out of our consideration for equitably classifying "real" STL cars, we're back to the whole idea of how to make econoboxes - ricer cars - competitive against sports/GT cars. We've been trying to do this via the RWD adder/crowbar, but that has been ineffective. We started with 2.5% (I believe?), went to 3.5%, now we're at 5.5% all with the goal of trying to, basically, make FWD cars competitive with the Miata (and with the limited exception of one FWD outliers that happens to have a buttload of power/torque, there are no FWD cars competitive with the Miata). Problem is, the Miata is so gawd-awful-dammed good that added weight doesn't really seem to be working as a deterrent, and it's killing it for other RWD cars.

Kirk's position is that we're attacking the wrong characteristic; he's basically saying that it's not just the RWD piece of it that hurts, it's the overall characteristics of a sports car that hurts, things like overall size, windshield, frontal area, weight placement and balance, suspension design.

So while I seriously doubt we're going to de-classify sports cars in STL, I do see the opportunity for having some type of adder to accommodate those sports/GT car characteristics, and adjusting the RWD adder appropriately. We've got two letters in our STAC queue for this discussion, and it's something we'll give serious consideration to for 2015 (we're pretty much "done" with changes for 2014).

We haven't heard a lot about this, but next year's big fracas is going to be engines; we're going to America's Dyno in 2015 for the Runoffs. I predict this time next year we won't care too much about things like sports cars and RWD adders... But if we get the chassis right this year and the engines right next year, then it'll all come home to one big Kumbaya session at Mid-Ohio in 2016... :happy204:

We'll see how things go.

GA

Knestis
07-25-2014, 01:00 PM
...and I'm SHOCKED to hear from Greg that the framers of the original STL rules didn't envision the NSX being the answer. Ask Keane, who pretty much wrote around the Integra as the bogey, what the "T" meant. Maybe I'm off base but if I'm NOT, does it argue FOR my proposal as powerfully as Andy thinks the world challenge roots idea argues AGAINST it...?

k

Andy Bettencourt
07-25-2014, 01:26 PM
Kirk, I'm not mixing the issues, I am just addressing all the issues people bring up. See Greg's post above as prove it's an 'issue'.

I think I have had the solution all along. FWD weight, RWD +x%, RWD with DW's +X%.

Maybe that looks like FWD +0%, RWD +3%, RWD with DW +6%.

Greg Amy
07-25-2014, 01:35 PM
Andy, we're already doing that.

To clarify: currently it's FWD +0%, RWD with front struts +3.5%, RWD with DWB +5.5%.

IMO, your add'l 0.5% - basically, +50 pounds - will offer nothing significant over what we're doing now...if we're to rely solely on RWD adders to accomodate differences between econoboxes and sports/GT cars then it will need to be significantly larger, will affect *all* RWD cars based on drive layout and suspension design only, and does not address the characteristic in question. - GA

Knestis
07-25-2014, 02:40 PM
There's simply a fundamental mismatch between the two basic layouts. This manifested itself as the "Miata is better than the sum of its parts" situation back in the ITAC days.

Edit - two 1.8 rear drive cars with wishbone suspensions will NOT be equal if one is a Spyder and the other is a 3-box grocery getter.

K

Andy Bettencourt
07-25-2014, 02:53 PM
Then you need an exclusive class Kirk. Not one class in the SCCA has a mechanism to deal with your issue other than weight and/or power adders/subtractors.

Your problem after you create it is finding enough people who want to race a 3-box grocery getter where you can spend $10K on a motor (which could actually be a problem now).

Ed Funk
07-25-2014, 04:53 PM
Late to the party, but put in my nickle's worth. About 1 1/2 years ago, I decided I wanted to be a Major player and qualify to go to the Runoffs. Seriously thought about building an STL CRX, also thought about running in H Prod 1st Gen CRX...we have clean, straight rust free chassis for each of those choices. Figured it would cost nearly the same for either, planned on 25-30K. I don't expect to win the Runoffs, but I really don't want to be "that guy" 25 seconds off the pace trundling around at the back of the field. Then I looked at what was going on in STL and realized that there wasn't any FWD going to be competitive against the rotary powered Miatae. We're about $17,000 into a H Prod build, waiting on a quote from King Motorsports on the motor. Will I win? Nope! But it will be because of my skill or lack thereof, and not because of the car. STL lost us.

Chip42
07-25-2014, 08:17 PM
I also think its worth noting that the type of tuner the class was expected to attract is largely not already within the scca fold, and we both didn't do a good Job as an organization to attract them, and filled the class with "wrong looking" cars (miatas) that detract from the appeal of a hot hatch class to hot hatch people.

In cfr there's a company that's very big in the import drag scene called IPG Parts. They joined scca with an ITA Integra, got an EP CIVIC si, and most recently are building an fd civic si. They also support the local crowd with parts and a racer or two with services. There's also an ex ita EG civic si with a B16 run by Richie Gonzalez in this Area. These 2 cars, the integras like tGA and PK, and a few others are, to me, the target. They are out there. Give the class time, but make it so the target cars have a chance. Not sure how to do that. Other than huge amounts of weight.

Z3_GoCar
07-26-2014, 01:14 AM
STU had the "touring car" requirement by intention of the class being for retired WC Touring Class cars..
I'm not sure what requirements World Challenge originally had for them to be in the class, but the point of the class's origin being specifically called "touring car" means the intent was there. ;)

Frankly, I don't care one way or the other. STU is at the bottom end of the participation list right now, and there are lots of eyes looking at it. The Prod guys want us to go away so we'll quit mucking up their EP/FP races. The GT boys don't want to play with us either because we don't have slicks.. But give it another year or two at the current participation levels and many people that purpose-built cars for the class will be hoping they can fit into GT/Prod. There's no longer the 2.5 requirement, but we're averaging 1.9x cars per race.. You think they're going to give us a slot at Ruboffs with that kind of participation?
not trying to be pessimistic, just looking at the hazy side of my crystal ball....

I wouldn't be so pessimistic about STU's future. Sure the majors participation isn't as high as it had been in the past, but we're already at 11 STU cars signed up and I'm sure there's at least a half dozen that'll come from the local regions through the divisional route. We've been ahead of AS, GT1, T3, and T4. In fact this may be the largest the STU field to date.

As for roles, I see STU as more of the current GTS and less of the TC of old. Maybe that's the solution to the STL dilemma, banish the DD Miatas to STU, and remove the rotary's to only the chassis that they came with, which can be regulated back to parity.

adamjabaay
07-28-2014, 07:49 AM
I can think of a half dozen cars in process for STL , all fwd...

it just looks like a fun place to play. My crx might not dominate anyone nationally, but it will be fun and budget friendly, and mike taylors gsr b18 EG should run well too, albeit a focus on enduro stuff

Matt93SE
07-28-2014, 06:00 PM
I wouldn't be so pessimistic about STU's future. Sure the majors participation isn't as high as it had been in the past, but we're already at 11 STU cars signed up and I'm sure there's at least a half dozen that'll come from the local regions through the divisional route. We've been ahead of AS, GT1, T3, and T4. In fact this may be the largest the STU field to date.

As for roles, I see STU as more of the current GTS and less of the TC of old. Maybe that's the solution to the STL dilemma, banish the DD Miatas to STU, and remove the rotary's to only the chassis that they came with, which can be regulated back to parity.

I'm not using Runoffs entries as the measuring stick- there's too many variables over who makes it each year, and IMO isn't a true look at the health of the class. Take a look at overall class participation nationwide- we're in the bottom few classes. Any idea how the 'regional' race entries stack up?
Also there's a bit of weirdness in the participation numbers.. there are only 22 "participants" listed for the Mid-states majors races, yet if you look at the point standings, there's 39 finishers. maybe those include out of conferences races... ???

Also keep in mind that runoffs registration has only been open a few days. I know of 3 people from around here that are planning to go that aren't on the list- if they don't sell the cars first. Runoffs registrations 4 days into things shouldn't be a go-by for much of anything.


I also think its worth noting that the type of tuner the class was expected to attract is largely not already within the scca fold, and we both didn't do a good Job as an organization to attract them, and filled the class with "wrong looking" cars (miatas) that detract from the appeal of a hot hatch class to hot hatch people.

Racing a 240SX here.. Can't tell you how many times I get the "What's the drift car doing Club Racing?" jokes. (especially when it rains and the no-electronics-nannies RWD car starts getting more tail happy than usual)..
most of the world running them didn't want to touch the class because the SR20DET wasn't legal. With its homologation, they chokes down the inlet restrictor -2mm less than any of the other turbo cars.. Since I don't have the budget to do a full-on engine build and "prove" it can't make the power before asking, I'm not even going to waste my time to spend money I don't have and still get out-powered by a Solstice for another year....

so yeah.. I feel your pain when you talk about pissing off the 'tuners'.....

benspeed
07-30-2014, 09:16 PM
My 968 would run at 3300 pounds in STU. Already have 150 pounds bolted to the floor to make 3055 for ITR... 'nuff said....:-(

Chip42
07-31-2014, 10:37 AM
Racing a 240SX here.. Can't tell you how many times I get the "What's the drift car doing Club Racing?" jokes. (especially when it rains and the no-electronics-nannies RWD car starts getting more tail happy than usual)..
most of the world running them didn't want to touch the class because the SR20DET wasn't legal. With its homologation, they chokes down the inlet restrictor -2mm less than any of the other turbo cars.. Since I don't have the budget to do a full-on engine build and "prove" it can't make the power before asking, I'm not even going to waste my time to spend money I don't have and still get out-powered by a Solstice for another year....

so yeah.. I feel your pain when you talk about pissing off the 'tuners'.....

I was speaking specifically about STL - but I agree that the way we have treated JDM/EDM motors with additionally restricitve TIRs and additional weight penalties just because they are not USDM is part of why specifically STL hasn't caught on with the hot hatch crowd. SR20VE's, 20V 4AGE's (now allowed at +2.5% weight), etc... are all popular swaps that allow existing cars better options for the class AND often have a certain "cool" factor that likely outweighs their ACTUAL performance capabilities under the allowed mods of STL (but... perception = reality, in this case at the CRB level). the SR20DET and RB25/26DET/TT's are EXACTLY the type of motors that could bring more J-Tin to STU. Excluding them or allowing them but cuttting their nuts off (wether it did or did not, again, perception is reality) isn't helping the cause AND perpetuates the "SCCA is not a place for me" mindset of a bunch of the people we could have reached with this class.

best chance for STL and to some degree STU is to get it out from under SCCA, which I hate to say as I'm a lifelong SCCA guy, but I'm pretty sure it's true.

Z3_GoCar
08-01-2014, 07:41 PM
....best chance for STL and to some degree STU is to get it out from under SCCA, which I hate to say as I'm a lifelong SCCA guy, but I'm pretty sure it's true.

I'm going by the number of racers who will be at the runoffs because there are a number that qualified outside the Majors path. As for what would happen if STU were to go the way of STO. I could either continue to race with Cal-Club or for me GTSx is a well subscribed option.

Knestis
08-25-2014, 10:15 PM
... Your letter has been reviewed by the Super Touring Committee and sent to the Club Racing Board.
...where it will be quashed by individuals with a vested interest in the outcome of the decision.

K

JS154
08-28-2014, 05:57 PM
. Maybe that's the solution to the STL dilemma, banish the DD Miatas to STU, and remove the rotary's to only the chassis that they came with, which can be regulated back to parity.

Send in a letter.

www.crbscca.com

JS154
08-28-2014, 06:00 PM
what would happen if STU were to go the way of STO.

I'd go back to BMW CR with the Gulf car and either build a spec pinata for NER regionals or build a SpecE46 for races I want to travel to.

Andy Bettencourt
08-28-2014, 10:45 PM
No, that's not the solution. The solution is to work with what you have created. People have real money into cars based on rules that have been presented for more than enough time to fix any wayward intent.

The rotards aren't the perceived issue. The 'non touring cars' are. Split the classes and see what happens if you have to.

'We never wanted RWD'
'We never wanted rotories'

Well we included them. People built cars. People are running the class in huge numbers.


Send in a letter.

www.crbscca.com (http://www.crbscca.com)

Greg Amy
08-29-2014, 07:17 AM
Nope, it's now unofficially - and inevitably - "Yet Another Miata Class".

Us retarded kids will just go find another sandbox to play in. - GA

Knestis
08-29-2014, 10:15 AM
Nope, it's now unofficially - and inevitably - "Yet Another Miata Class".

Us retarded kids will just go find another sandbox to play in. - GA

QFT

I've gone from being one of the biggest proponents of IT in the nation; to being an IT leper; to being massively excited about ST; to the sorry realization that unless I want to build some whack-job swapped NSX or some shit, I'm destined to be a field filler in that class.

I don't think I'm an idiot about the racing biz, I feel like three decades plus of commitment to the Club probably SHOULD matter, but I find myself now taking substantive steps to go run NASA. Not that my dollars are as important as those of, say, a CRB member who's built a car to take advantage of a loophole that the STAC couldn't quite keep closed or anything...

But the academic in me will ask this, Andy: How many PURPOSE-BUILT-TO-THE RULES "sports car" or "GT" STL cars are actively running in the ENTIRE United States...? More than the three I can think of?

K

Greg Amy
08-29-2014, 10:29 AM
QFT

I've gone from being one of the biggest proponents of IT in the nation; to being an IT leper; to being massively excited about ST; to the sorry realization that unless I want to build some whack-job swapped NSX or some shit, I'm destined to be a field filler in that class.

I don't think I'm an idiot about the racing biz, I feel like three decades plus of commitment to the Club probably SHOULD matter, but I find myself now taking substantive steps to go run NASA.

Ditto.

I left ITA to go to ITS....because Miata.

I left ITS to go to STL...because Miata (and RX-7).

I'm now looking to leave STL and go to Somewhere I'm Not Yet Prepared to Declare (though vintage beckons long-term)...because Miata (and rotary engine).

They're excellent little cars. We, car guys, are all better for them. But when the answer I get is "so, why don't you build a Miata?" then, well, that tells me no one is listening to the question.

:shrug:

GA

Knestis
08-29-2014, 10:48 AM
Send in a letter.

www.crbscca.com (http://www.crbscca.com)

Actually, it occurs to me that since my letter has been sent up to the CRB for consideration, there must have been some action on the STAC's part. My big complaint - the reason I quit the ITAC - was that the CRB was sitting on recommendations from that ad hoc, or in some cases individual CRB members were actively misrepresenting or twisting those recommendations to others. Letters to the Board might in this case actually be a good idea for anyone who cares about this issue.

K

Matt93SE
08-29-2014, 10:48 AM
Ditto.

I left ITA to go to ITS....because Miata.

I left ITS to go to STL...because Miata (and RX-7).

I'm now looking to leave STL and go to Somewhere I'm Not Yet Prepared to Declare (though vintage beckons long-term)...because Miata (and rotary engine).

They're excellent little cars. We, car guys, are all better for them. But when the answer I get is "so, why don't you build a Miata?" then, well, that tells me no one is listening to the question.

:shrug:

GA

So work on the rules such that "other than a Miata" is actually competitive?

Knestis
08-29-2014, 10:53 AM
So work on the rules such that "other than a Miata" is actually competitive?

...he says to the guy on the inside who can theoretically influence "the rules."

Big hint, guys - when someone on an ad hoc committee decides it's not worth tilting at a windmill, that particular windmill has won.

K

Matt93SE
08-29-2014, 10:57 AM
So who's the problem so we can vote 'em out?!

Greg Amy
08-29-2014, 11:16 AM
Let's not form a lynch mob...it's not a conversation about any specific person(s), it's about concepts and culture. We're still having that conversation. - GA

Matt93SE
08-29-2014, 11:20 AM
If the concept is "Make the Mazdas win ALL teh classeses!!!11!!" then it sounds like they're doing a bang-up job... but it sounds like that can't even be agreed upon..

Chip42
08-29-2014, 12:59 PM
the concept isn't "make the miatas win" nor "make the mazdas win". the issue is that everythign has been distilled to a power/weight and prep level NOT a classification based on other sorts of factors like "sedan" or "roadster" or "touring car" and as such, the light, small, low power miata fits nicely pretty much everywhere and (at the current level of development knowledge) is beter than pretty much everything else under the general criteria. Given the criteria are all pretty much just general (objective) and not car specific, becasue we wanted that (the process, power to weight, etc...) we wind up with a set of rules that miatas excel within.

the fact that mazda in general is very supportive of racers and the miata in particular is so increadibly well developed just makes the problem "worse" in that it encourages participation in more classes (more winners getting contingencies) and significantly flattens the learnign curve so that winning comes quickly.

Large pool of cars, relatively easy to come to grips with a new class, massive development already done, manufacturer support, great package overall - keeping the miatas away from a class looks like more of a loosing proposition than keeping the rules such that they (and simillar cars) are excluded. on paper, anyway. And when miatas are allowed in, the numbers in the class tend to swell, at first. The longer term effects are harder to measure, but among them are the droves of people who have packed it up and called it quits in a world where their investment or interest in a class got overshadowed by the miata juggernaut.

The one category that the miata seems like a perfect fit for is prod (you know, cuz its a roadster and stuff) and it's NOT the class killer there that it is everywhere else. it IS a very good, strong car in FP and decent in EP, but not a class killer. Interestingly, in prod, cars are balanced subjectively based on their individual performance merits...

Matt93SE
08-29-2014, 01:24 PM
Well the issue I see is that the STAC seems to be corking everything else down (SR20DET and turbos in general :dead_horse: ) while opening the rotaries up.. So from the non-Miata driver's view, it sure looks like there's something going on..

....Why do you think I bought meself an RX7 to play in EP???

Knestis
08-30-2014, 08:01 AM
... But the academic in me will ask this, Andy: How many PURPOSE-BUILT-TO-THE RULES "sports car" or "GT" STL cars are actively running in the ENTIRE United States...? More than the three I can think of?

K

Yo, Andy! How's the counting going...? :)

Seriously, though - I think it's germane to the conversation, exactly how many we're talking about when we say, "People built cars." How many do we risk disenfranchising by taking all of those sedan-vs-sports/GT car variables out of the formula for equalizing STL options...?

K

Greg Amy
08-30-2014, 08:18 AM
Here's one of the latest ones. Can't wait to compete against that using a 60/40 weight split FWD Honda...even with a 400# advantage. Any bets?

3813

adamjabaay
08-30-2014, 01:18 PM
Here's one of the latest ones. Can't wait to compete against that using a 60/40 weight split FWD Honda...even with a 400# advantage. Any bets?

3813

you totally got this. no worries (man i'm dumb. a 1.5 SOHC stl car. what was i thinking)

Andy Bettencourt
08-30-2014, 11:25 PM
If you think STL-TC can actually survive, then freaking make it happen. Just don't close the playing field for 90% of the entries, make them STL-SC. Ya I know, a class for everyone...except the SC version has entries. Maybe the TC version will get flooded with ITA/ITB field fillers, who knows?

I hate the fact that a franken-NSX is being even mentioned as the pinnacle when nobody have even built one yet...and if the mere CONCEPT of it is scaring people off, then the rules makes for this class have really screwed the pooch.

Andy Bettencourt
08-30-2014, 11:27 PM
Just got back from a little vacation...

I bet you there are just as many sports car based STL cars as there are touring-car based that were built just for this class. Maybe more. So I say 'more than half your class'.



Yo, Andy! How's the counting going...? :)

Seriously, though - I think it's germane to the conversation, exactly how many we're talking about when we say, "People built cars." How many do we risk disenfranchising by taking all of those sedan-vs-sports/GT car variables out of the formula for equalizing STL options...?

K

Andy Bettencourt
08-30-2014, 11:34 PM
Is there ANY middle ground here for you guys? Can we split the class or does it HAVE to be 'kill the sports cars'? The solution Kirk has in process is the kill shot. Can both run in parallel and see if either can survive?

Greg Amy
08-31-2014, 08:25 AM
Settle down, Beavis. Sports cars will not be eliminated from Super Touring. - GA

Andy Bettencourt
08-31-2014, 09:24 AM
Settle down, Beavis. Sports cars will not be eliminated from Super Touring. - GA

Not saying they will but the goal is to try and make everyone as happy as can be...cripes you don't even think that you can compete...so how is that good? What is the best solution for everyone, including the 'Club'?

Greg Amy
08-31-2014, 09:28 AM
Not saying they will but the goal is to try and make everyone as happy as can be...cripes you don't even think that you can compete...so how is that good? What is the best solution for everyone, including the 'Club'?
We'd certainly love to hear your thoughts on that. Read the next Fastrack, then select this link:

http://www.crbscca.com

Andy Bettencourt
08-31-2014, 09:38 AM
Yo, Andy! How's the counting going...? :)

Seriously, though - I think it's germane to the conversation, exactly how many we're talking about when we say, "People built cars." How many do we risk disenfranchising by taking all of those sedan-vs-sports/GT car variables out of the formula for equalizing STL options...?

K

So I 'know' of 5 Miata...Ron M's car, Farbman, Drago and 2 new MX5's. I know of Greg's, the Civic and a CRX on IT.com. Figure at least 2 more exist. Assuming I know of EVERY SC-based car (which is impossible) you probably have at least equal builds? So what's your action from that data?

Andy Bettencourt
08-31-2014, 09:41 AM
We'd certainly love to hear your thoughts on that. Read the next Fastrack, then select this link:

http://www.crbscca.com

I am asking the 'squeaky wheels' for a solution to their problem. Right now I don't see a problem I need to weigh in on. I am weighing in on a perceived problem based on cars that haven't been built and races that haven't been raced.

Knestis
08-31-2014, 10:28 AM
So I 'know' of 5 Miata...Ron M's car, Farbman, Drago and 2 new MX5's. I know of Greg's, the Civic and a CRX on IT.com. Figure at least 2 more exist. Assuming I know of EVERY SC-based car (which is impossible) you probably have at least equal builds? So what's your action from that data?

So we run the risk of alienating less than a half dozen sports/gt STL cars if we take the lead out of them, uncork em and move them to stu, and get STL on a path to (a) what it was intended to be and (b) without huge systematic inequities baked into the class structure.

I hate the NSX idea too Andy but the option exists for someone to do it. You used to say that the ITAC had to write the rules presuming someone will go full tilt with whatever they allow. I always thought that was smart thinking.

K

Ron Earp
08-31-2014, 12:34 PM
So I 'know' of 5 Miata...Ron M's car,

Ron Munnerlyn's car is a straight up ITS car only. Not sure if that is the same Ron M....

Andy Bettencourt
08-31-2014, 12:35 PM
I guess my point is that you run the risk of alienating 'over half the people who actually built cars'. It's just as easy to eliminate the TC's. If there was 25 TC's and 5 SC's I'd say go for it but I think your 'issue' outweighs the 'ideal'.

Split them by class and run them in the same group.

- SC's will always have cars and they can reap the benefit of double-dip $$$
- TC's can grow without the fear of 'I left STL because Miata'
- The CRB can watch the relative performance of the two classes
- You can actually see what class is a good idea and eliminate/add as it's proven out
- You can expand the chassis years to really have fun without fear of hurting a layout

Andy Bettencourt
08-31-2014, 12:39 PM
Ron Munnerlyn's car is a straight up ITS car only. Not sure if that is the same Ron M....

Meant Tyler R.

Greg Amy
08-31-2014, 04:56 PM
Split them by class...
The BoD will not support new classes. See "Concorde Agreement" where there are distinct actions toward a significant reduction in the number of classes.

Don't waste effort talking about a new class; it's a non-starter and thus not a viable solution.

GA

Knestis
08-31-2014, 07:06 PM
I guess my point is that you run the risk of alienating 'over half the people who actually built cars'. It's just as easy to eliminate the TC's. If there was 25 TC's and 5 SC's I'd say go for it but I think your 'issue' outweighs the 'ideal'.

Split them by class and run them in the same group.

- SC's will always have cars and they can reap the benefit of double-dip $$$
- TC's can grow without the fear of 'I left STL because Miata'
- The CRB can watch the relative performance of the two classes
- You can actually see what class is a good idea and eliminate/add as it's proven out
- You can expand the chassis years to really have fun without fear of hurting a layout


Of course new builds are going to skew toward sports cars. Anyone making a considered decision will go that way based on the built in advantages. The option of doing that encourages it and discourages building touring car. It's going to become a sports/gt class. Why would it NOT?

...and how many viable chassis will that route include? Is that the basis of a vital class? Does anyone care?

K

Andy Bettencourt
08-31-2014, 08:55 PM
Well if I loved TC's and I felt the weight advantages we 'correct' then I would have no reason not to build one.

Knestis
09-01-2014, 06:25 AM
If I had any confidence that this CRB would put the ballast on the sports/GT cars necessary to achieve any kind of parity, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

K

Andy Bettencourt
09-01-2014, 10:24 AM
Well the class is still very new. Changes have come every year so far in an effort to achieve parity have they not?

dickita15
09-01-2014, 10:46 AM
If I had any confidence that this CRB would put the ballast on the sports/GT cars necessary to achieve any kind of parity, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

K
well now that is the real conversation is it not. in order to be inclusive and not drive away real touring car should there be an adder for cars that are not sedans?

Flyinglizard
09-01-2014, 11:42 AM
Take out 4% for any real TC until the full builds run pretty even.

Z3_GoCar
09-02-2014, 12:17 AM
But in the end what Sports/GT type cars are being a problem in STL? I'd contend it's not a Z3, S2000, or even a NSX, if there's only one or two Sports/Gt cars being an issue then why throw all the Sports/Gt cars out with the bath water? So to speak in mixed metaphor.

Knestis
09-02-2014, 05:50 AM
But in the end what Sports/GT type cars are being a problem in STL? I'd contend it's not a Z3, S2000, or even a NSX, if there's only one or two Sports/Gt cars being an issue then why throw all the Sports/Gt cars out with the bath water? So to speak in mixed metaphor.

We're nowhere near "the end." The S2000 (for example) is only a non-issue at this point because nobody has done one yet. Hamstring the fast Miatas while leaving other cars with the same advantages alone - a typical reactive competition adjustment approach - and the problem moves somewhere else. Why have a car as different in fundamental design as the NSX (not my example; remember Mr Drago came up with the idea of building one) even in the wings?

How about we put FIA GT3 cars in STU and equalize each individually with weight as it becomes a "problem?"

K

Andy Bettencourt
09-02-2014, 07:27 AM
well now that is the real conversation is it not. in order to be inclusive and not drive away real touring car should there be an adder for cars that are not sedans?

There is.

RWD with strut front add 3.5% to their baseline weight
RWD all other add 5.5% to their baseline weight
FWD strut -2.5% from their baseline weight

Knestis
09-02-2014, 07:43 AM
There is.

RWD with strut front add 3.5% to their baseline weight
RWD all other add 5.5% to their baseline weight
FWD strut -2.5% from their baseline weight

Your contention is that the ONLY factor that matters, among the difference between this...

3820

...and this...

3821

...is the pair of wheels that are doing the driving...?

K

Andy Bettencourt
09-02-2014, 07:49 AM
No, certainly not. I was pointing out to DP that there is some balancing going on.

The problem is that there are RWD 'sedans' and FWD 'sports cars' by almost any definition. Interior volume is a slippery slope. Amount of seats is a slippery slope. If you had to write down the parameters right now, I am sure I could find cars that don't work on both sides of the fence (meaning 'I did mean to exclude that and it's not' and 'I didn't mean to exclude that and it is')

Greg Amy
09-02-2014, 08:45 AM
If you had to write down the parameters right now, I am sure I could find cars that don't work on both sides of the fence (meaning 'I did mean to exclude that and it's not' and 'I didn't mean to exclude that and it is')

So what's your recommendation? "Nothing" means the retarded kids go find someplace else to play instead of in YAMC. - GA

Andy Bettencourt
09-02-2014, 08:54 AM
No. I am asking for a better solution than 'ban the sports cars' in a power-to-weight class.

More weight% difference?
Wheel width allowances?

I don't know but I'm not going to do the homework here. Throw out some real suggestions and lets slice 'em and dice 'em.

There is actually more at play here than just chassis. Isn't there some concern that the K20 can make more power than intended? So you throw one of those into a Civic and it can run with a Miata so now we have to limit both. Throw one of those into an S2000 and you have a double-edged sword.

I still think the class is to young to make a drastic change. Keep tweaking.

Greg Amy
09-02-2014, 09:04 AM
I don't know but I'm not going to do the homework here.
Sitting there throwing stones becomes quite tiring, quite quickly.

And again, Andy: "sports cars" will not be banned from Super Touring. Put that stone down.


There is actually more at play here than just chassis.
Irrelevant. Engines and chassis are considered separately in Super Touring, which is exactly why I've been saying - for how many years now? - that the direct useful comparisons are a Honda Integra with a K20 installed versus a Honda S2000 with the same K20 installed. Or a Mazda Protege with the MZR installed versus a Mazda Miata with the MZR installed.

Which are you going to choose, and at what weight/adjustments? The point where either is a viable choice is where we need to be. We are far from that point right now.

Apples versus apples, si?


Isn't there some concern that the K20 can make more power than intended?
Which is exactly why the CRB tossed a flat plate restrictor on that engine after the 2013 Runoffs. Pay attention, brother.

What I'm hearing from you is "don't take away our Miatas' advantages, bro!!"

GA

Chip42
09-02-2014, 09:38 AM
it's not just a ban this, ban that, add weight problem. it is that, but there's so much more.

it's a combination of development curve and emotional problem. Small, RWD sportscars, epitomized by miatae, are better than generally more compromised trunk and 4 seat touring cars. fact. but a fact that CAN be dealt with. miatas will always (or have always, since about 5 years into the existence of SM) be ahead of the curve because of the massive numbers and existing development of the car and the drivers of them, so coaching, parts, setups, etc.. are all well vetted and avaialable. that means that without fail, miatas show up quickly, and some of them show up up front.

the other fact, though harder to provide objective evidence for, is that people are sick to death of getting beaten by miatas. true or not, the perceived advantages, success rate, and "miataness" irks people who want to run competitively with similar cars to their own and FEEL, true or not, that they CANNOT compete with a miata in [insert favorite FWD/TC/larger 2 or 3 box car here]. just because SOME examples of other chassis/engines have been identified as overdogs DOESN'T change that feeling. and frankly, $ to $ and hour per hour, the development IN miatas means Joe Average CAN get a faster miata for less effort and money than he can get an equally fast [whatever]. this puts the burden on the not miata guys to A: work harder than the other guys, B: buy a miata, C: just suck it up and go for best of the rest, or D: park it, find another hobby. a lot of people don't want to or have time/resources enough for A, and B might be unnatractive or no longer financially viable leading to C and, often, D.

if you have a civic, IS300, VW, or Focus (or hell, even an S2000, 240SX, or other good sportscar) and are thinking about running in STL - you have to look at the class and start figuring out how to beat miatas and the difficulty of that is going to stop some builds before they start. it will inspire some people, too - but I bet there's a smaller number of those.

a large part of the reason we spend the money to do this is the emotional connection to the car, and that comes with a lot of baggage notions. Just as the bomber IT guys were driven out by the pro-build IT guys, the miatas run the risk of driving the touring car guys out of STL (or preventing them from coming to play in the first place) as they unbalance the class as perceived. this isn't all about how to make it work on a spreadsheet, even if that spreadsheet is based on real-world facts. the single fact to consider is the happiness of the "customer" because the happy customer comes back and comes back more often. some people don't pick a class, pick the car, and go out to win. many people want to race their favorite car, and they want to feel like they COULD win, even if they do not. they are sick of seeing miatas, sharing tracks with maiata, HEARING the miatas.

I know I'm not offering a solution, but seriously, some of you vulcans seriously miss the point. this is a place where people throw away money that would be better spent in college and retirement savings, philanthropy, whatever. as soon as the experience is "not fun" enough that someone thinks about that vs. WANTING to spend the money to come out and play, they'll stop. since everyone seems to like metaphors here: the carrot has to appear in reach, and it has to look fresh and tasty, too.

Andy Bettencourt
09-02-2014, 09:50 AM
If that is what you are hearing, then you aren't listening. The premise here, in the original post, is to take 'sports cars' away because no matter what you do, you will never make them 'equal' to touring cars.

What I am asking for are suggestions, by those who have already thrown in the proverbial towel, on what additional parity moves can be made instead of wholesale exclusion. Yes, I know you have said it won't happen, but that is the concept and the letter we are discussing.

We are far from 'that' point right now? Really? What data are we using to determine that? What examples of FWD TCs and RWD SCs are we citing with the same engine that you are basing your statement on? I haven't seen any. And if it's totally in the abstract, it sure as shit is something that should have been ironed out in the conceptual stages of the class not 3-4 years in.

If the K20 is limited already then its even more of a reason to say that that motor in a nice FWD chassis can run with a top Miata.

So to your apples to apples question. How far apart are we and what data are you using to determine we are?

Greg Amy
09-02-2014, 10:00 AM
"Data"...you make me chuckle all the time, Andy...ok, as always you're right: we have no "data", therefore we have no proof of a problem. Therefore, we have nothing to support what we see as an apparent and looming issues, so therefore we are wrong. There's no data, so a problem does not exist. We all envision seeing many, many more non-sports cars coming into Super Touring Light in droves, many more build threads, to the point where we can expect at least 50% "non-sports cars" numbers within the next competition year or two, at which point we can declare "parity". All is well.

I'm glad someone finally brought that to my attention. I truly feel much better now.

GA

Edit: just to be clear, "data" does not include going to the track, watching racing, speaking to competitors, having a vision for the future of the category, all while observing trends and directions -- unless of course that vision is accompanied by at least one supporting spreadsheet with numbers and shit on it...

Andy Bettencourt
09-02-2014, 10:02 AM
I know I'm not offering a solution, but seriously, some of you vulcans seriously miss the point. this is a place where people throw away money that would be better spent in college and retirement savings, philanthropy, whatever. as soon as the experience is "not fun" enough that someone thinks about that vs. WANTING to spend the money to come out and play, they'll stop. since everyone seems to like metaphors here: the carrot has to appear in reach, and it has to look fresh and tasty, too.

And we have talked about this too. We know perception can swing the pendulum. But I refuse to allow that swing to happen based on top level SM's beating up on low level STL cars. It's short sighted and those people who bitch about SM's in STL need a reality check. They should NOT be faster than you. Use them as a bogey for development. Once you pass them, then get another target.

If we are talking about REAL STL Miata, then I continue to ask where the data is that shows this dominance. As you said, the Miata effect (TME) can bring top drivers in top cars to the surface quickly and it can affect perception...but it shouldn't to the people in the know. Drago has a top car and it's driven extremely well. He was run with, and out-qualified by on a power & handling track, a FWD Honda with restrictions. This does not address our 'apples to apples' issue in my post above, but to say that currently the Miata's can't be beaten is silly.

Maybe the pendulum has to swing so far the other way that the numbers look stooopid good for FWD. Then you get them built, and adjust the other way for parity?

Andy Bettencourt
09-02-2014, 10:05 AM
"Data"...you make me chuckle all the time, Andy...ok, as always you're right: we have no "data", therefore we have no proof of a problem. Therefore, we have nothing to support what we see as an apparent and looming issues, so therefore we are wrong. There's no data, so a problem does not exist. We all envision seeing many, many more non-sports cars coming into Super Touring Light in droves, many more build threads, to the point where we can expect at least 50% "non-sports cars" numbers within the next competition year or two, at which point we can declare "parity". All is well.

I'm glad someone finally brought that to my attention. I truly feel much better now.

GA

When you state something as fact, it would be nice to hear why you think it and what a better idea would be...but if you shout it enough times you will certainly get some to believe you.

I don't believe or disbelieve. I just want to see some justification as to why you think the way you do. Simple.

Edit: What I want to do is discuss solutions to problems I can sink my teeth into. I am all for parity. Show us where there is a problem and what ideas we have to fix them. I don't see issue with this concept.

Greg Amy
09-02-2014, 10:13 AM
Sorry Andy, no offense intended (really!), I'm done Internet-arguing with you. Feel free to continue to bitch and toss stones - this is, after all, the Internet - but you can't get a full understanding of what's going on by reading results on My Laps...come spend some time with us - time away from the Miata bubble - and we can walk through the whole situation, talk to other people, see how things fit together, and get a much bigger understanding and vision.

GA

Andy Bettencourt
09-02-2014, 10:20 AM
...or by talking with people in the race, getting their opinions, etc.


As far as the miata goes.. I tend to agree a lot with what Andy said and I was at Watkins Glen. Brian Shanfield is a very good driver, (as good as the best SM guys I race with routinely IMO) former NASA champion. His car is good, but not fully developed either, just swapped cams to meet the rule. We have raced VERY close all year. I don't think either of us have been stickering up each race. Brians car falls off after 1/2 the race or so. But in the first half of every race, we are as even as you can possibly make a miata and a FWD car. At Watkins, if I was not in his draft we were dead even up the esses. I had to make sure I was in his draft to be able to make any ground. Previously I thought the club hit the car a little too hard on the restrictor plate. After watkins I feel the honda easily makes back that 4-5 hp and probably a little more. That is a luxury no Miata driver will ever have in STL, You need to build the car to the edge( or over) reliability to get close on power to the Hondas. I would love an option of a Mazda engine that I could run stock and win with. It doesn't exist.

Still not good enough. Fine.

We can resume the debate when we actually have something to debate. Remember, it's not my topic and not my stones. It's concepts brought up in the OP and also by you that we are far from parity right now. (edit to specify that I realize these are two separate subjects. SC vs TC and weight diff between FWD and RWD)

Let's lay out the issues, the causes, the supporting facts, and then the solutions.

Ed Funk
09-02-2014, 10:25 AM
Izit the silly season already?

Chip42
09-02-2014, 10:32 AM
And we have talked about this too. We know perception can swing the pendulum. But I refuse to allow that swing to happen based on top level SM's beating up on low level STL cars. It's short sighted and those people who bitch about SM's in STL need a reality check. They should NOT be faster than you. Use them as a bogey for development. Once you pass them, then get another target.

If we are talking about REAL STL Miata, then I continue to ask where the data is that shows this dominance. As you said, the Miata effect (TME) can bring top drivers in top cars to the surface quickly and it can affect perception...but it shouldn't to the people in the know. Drago has a top car and it's driven extremely well. He was run with, and out-qualified by on a power & handling track, a FWD Honda with restrictions. This does not address our 'apples to apples' issue in my post above, but to say that currently the Miata's can't be beaten is silly.

Maybe the pendulum has to swing so far the other way that the numbers look stooopid good for FWD. Then you get them built, and adjust the other way for parity?

1 - specifically referring to STL miatas, not SMs running in STL, and the huge influence from the knowledge of SM on all miatas in SCCA, from GTL down.
2 - there are more than one problem in STL. the overly generic chassis designations for weighting purposes (i.e. the late civics are good FWD strut cars effectively running light) and flattening of the power curve as the displacement approaches the 2.0L limit are OTHER problems. don't confuse "really fast civic" with "miata problem", and I promise you the perception of really fast civic is less troublesome to many than miata.

anyhow, I have a job to do...

Andy Bettencourt
09-02-2014, 10:38 AM
More good stuff Chip. I hesitate to try and slice up 'good strut' and 'bad strut'. If the late Civics are struts but they are really good, then so be it. It's just something that has to be dealt with. 'Warts and all' can go both ways. 'Better than on paper' can be applied to anything.

And I also agree with the general sentiment of point 2. Just not sure how to fix. If the club is losing TC's to other clubs 'because SCCA Miata' and there is a large enough pocket of members to create a class for, then let's do it!

Chip42
09-02-2014, 11:04 AM
no slicing. identify significantly strong chassis and add weight to them. "soup" as they say.

Knestis
09-02-2014, 12:40 PM
...I refuse to allow that swing to happen based on top level SM's beating up on low level STL cars. It's short sighted and those people who bitch about SM's in STL need a reality check. They should NOT be faster than you. Use them as a bogey for development. Once you pass them, then get another target.

Nobody - I think, and certainly not me - is arguing from that point of view, Andy. My personal bogey very quickly became the class frontrunners in the NE, most of which happen to be the tiny handful of real STL-spec Miatas running. My proposal was VERY clear about that. I don't particularly like the idea of using other classes/categories as field fillers but there's exactly NO excuse for an SM beating up on a "real" STL car. The class structure should be - and is currently, I think - set up so that those "participatory," "double dip," or "give it a try" entries are not truly competitive.

I KNEW going in that, as soon as I crossed the Regional/National barrier, that we're in competition adjustment territory. (Note that I don't even put a "bleah!" in there when I type it in this context.) That said, I'm convinced that the "better than the sum of its parts" or "better than on paper" part of the puzzle can largely be encapsulated in the definitions associated with what makes a sports car a "sports car." It's a proxy variable but it should be a pretty good one, as it takes a number of hard-to-measure factors into account.

We shouldn't have to wait until a particular sports car has beaten up on every other option to put lead on it - thereby, as it happens, clearing the top of the podium for another make/model with inherent advantages over the pedestrian 4-seaters. We SHOULD design a class that's got as many make/model options as can be practically put on a relatively level playing field. I personally don't have any real issue with Miatas but I DO have a huge concern with the Club limiting the appeal of its racing program by giving them - and other 2-seaters - another place where they and their 2-seat friends bring a pretty fundamental relative advantage to running at the pointy end.

K

seckerich
09-02-2014, 01:10 PM
Sometimes you need to give drivers a real reason to build a new car, toss them a bone so to speak.

Look at ITR when it started. Many people were very excited to see a car they loved on the list and wanted to build one. Then the weights came out so stupid high that any car other than an E36 made no sense. Had those other cars been given a more realistic weight there would be more diverse builds to compare, and possible adjustments made for any overdog. It is a huge money and time commitment to build a new car and won't happen unless it looks pretty darn good on paper.

Seems like a good time to toss a bone to the FWD cars in STL if you want the class to grow. I "helped" with some of the cars you are talking about but racing alone sucks. Need to do what is needed now to make the class attractive or "concord" will get you too. :023:

Andy Bettencourt
09-02-2014, 02:30 PM
We shouldn't have to wait until a particular sports car has beaten up on every other option to put lead on it - thereby, as it happens, clearing the top of the podium for another make/model with inherent advantages over the pedestrian 4-seaters. We SHOULD design a class that's got as many make/model options as can be practically put on a relatively level playing field. I personally don't have any real issue with Miatas but I DO have a huge concern with the Club limiting the appeal of its racing program by giving them - and other 2-seaters - another place where they and their 2-seat friends bring a pretty fundamental relative advantage to running at the pointy end.

K

I think we need a better definition of what is the real physical trait we are trying to get a handle on. I submit it is NOT 2 seats. I submit it is RWD with DW's at both ends. Del Sol's, Capri's, Fiero's...all pedestrian. RX-8's, not pedestrian. Then you have the tweeners (cars that don't fit either category)...2nd gen RX7, 944, 968, etc.

JS154
09-02-2014, 05:16 PM
My 968 would run at 3300 pounds in STU. Already have 150 pounds bolted to the floor to make 3055 for ITR... 'nuff said....:-(
Stick a 944 motor in there or a 2.7L Boxster engine.

JS154
09-02-2014, 05:26 PM
No. I am asking for a better solution than 'ban the sports cars' in a power-to-weight class.

.
Nobody is talking about banning sports cars in ST.

That said, it took 3 years to bring turbos into parity, and in the meantime we've lost a bunch of NA cars. Whatever changes need to be made to bring a reasonable degree of parity to the class should be made right away, or people are going to be gone. Can;t blame them, there are too many other offereings for peple to race their cars these days, SCCA isn;t the only game in town.

Knestis
09-02-2014, 05:38 PM
Eh, technically I AM talking about that. It doesn't sound like an idea with much traction at this point but taking the long view - and shifting lightweighted versions of current STL sports cars to STU - i still think it's a viable solution. Problem is, it's a solution that's not only going to piss off four people, at least one of those people is pretty much in a position to prevent it from happening.

Do we wonder why classes don't prosper, even as they have expanded in number, when the wishes of so few individuals can drive an entire nationwide category...?

K

Knestis
09-02-2014, 05:42 PM
Stick a 944 motor in there or a 2.7L Boxster engine.

Blake Meredith - who has the smarts to know - suggested "elsewhere on the web" a Boxter with a 2-liter 16v VW engine for STL. I think that would be pretty freaking cool but holy hell, ka-CHING.

K

JS154
09-02-2014, 05:49 PM
Eh, technically I AM talking about that. It doesn't sound like an idea with much traction at this point but taking the long view - and shifting lightweighted versions of current STL sports cars to STU - i still think it's a viable solution. Problem is, it's a solution that's not only going to piss off four people, at least one of those people is pretty much in a position to prevent it from happening.

Do we wonder why classes don't prosper, even as they have expanded in number, when the wishes of so few individuals can drive an entire nationwide category...?

K

Top contenders in STU this year look to be a S2000 and a Z3. Both 2 seat sports cars. If a certain driver in a certain Lotus shows up that's a guaranteed win, why bother playing.

I believe that number of seats is a very valid starting point, as they are lower, with smaller frontal area, better weight balance, better handling than pretty much any 4 seat car. engine location is another huge handling advantage Mid engine for example.

How many Toyotas, Nissans, BMWs, Aduis, in other words, anything other than a Honda or Mazda, are running in STL?

jdrago1
09-02-2014, 08:47 PM
If I had any confidence that this CRB would put the ballast on the sports/GT cars necessary to achieve any kind of parity, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

K


The CRB has not over ridden any weight increase or change in the adders in STL that was put forward by the STAC.

Z3_GoCar
09-02-2014, 08:55 PM
I'm just looking to do the best I can, there are actually two S2000 to watch for. While Rylan scored the #1 spot in the Majors, he doesn't hold the lap record for STU at MRLS. That belongs to another S2000 driver that qualified via the divisional route. Then we have Jim Rogerson in his Solstice. I hope this is the closest STU Runoffs finish ever, the class needs that to put the super/turbo-charged over dog behind.

Matt93SE
09-03-2014, 09:22 AM
Rogerson's Solstice is fast in a line, as long as it can stay together. They have the wick turned up so high on those things that they continually go through engines and turbos. If they would dial back the power a little, the cars will be MUCH more reliable. That said, I know they did turn one down about 50hp last weekend to finish the race so he could qualify for runoffs, but he still nearly burned it down by the end of a 30min regional.. That said, Tony Rivera brought out his WC-TC FRS and schooled both of us with a car that was 500lb heavy.

If someone would build an FRS/BRZ to the limit and could get the weight down, it would definitely be a contender for both STL and STU. (4 seats- it's a touring car!) Or keep the weight in and throw an STI engine in the thing and you'd have some real power to go with the handling..

quadzjr
09-03-2014, 01:36 PM
I too looked at STL long and hard. I decided that I should not build a car for STL not necessarily because of Miata, but the miata did influence a lot of it. I bought a engine, high end simulation software and did as much homework as I could. I knew the bogey car and times (RWD mazda product or K20 powered Honda).

After many many hours of simulation I found that even with nearly infinite money I could not build my small RWD (non Mazda) car to compete against the top level bogey cars. I found that the big role is my choice of low displacement. From a power to weight ratio it was right on or even exceeded, however the larger displacement cars had torque. Something the rule set does not directly address.

I mentioned that I believe this class is turning into a displacement class and basically you take a chassis and throw the biggest motor you can. The results seemed to support this fact with the exception of the 1.8L miatas. They were the exception to my belief and was thrown back against me.

They addressed some of the 2.0L cars and added more RWD weight, due to the success of the mazda products. This only hampered the other RWD cars more, putting me farther behind. The percent difference between RWD and RWD DWB is less than the adder I got on the engine I requested due to it’s unknown.

I still believe the weight/displacement factor is off.. There is a full built 1.6L down here in the South east run by ISC. I would consider that a well built car by a team that knows miatas.

Simulations showed that I would be running times only marginally quicker than ITS times with my 1.6L car, no torque, engine adder due to JDM, and the fear of RWD cars that are mainly focused at Mazda have affected my car. I ran a few races this year, but unless things change, which I assume they will a non Mazda STL car is not in my future. I did look at FDRX7 prices was shocked what just a rolling chassis cost!:o

Andy Bettencourt
09-03-2014, 04:00 PM
Top contenders in STU this year look to be a S2000 and a Z3. Both 2 seat sports cars. If a certain driver in a certain Lotus shows up that's a guaranteed win, why bother playing.

I believe that number of seats is a very valid starting point, as they are lower, with smaller frontal area, better weight balance, better handling than pretty much any 4 seat car. engine location is another huge handling advantage Mid engine for example.

How many Toyotas, Nissans, BMWs, Aduis, in other words, anything other than a Honda or Mazda, are running in STL?

Stay away from seats - it's NOT the factor that is the potential problem, really. STL doesn't have the forced induction problem. I think that the S2000 and Z3 are great additions to STU because they are normally aspirated and they can win or lose on their merits as opposed to underestimating power output by a ton on some turbo of SC'd car.

Toyota's aren't know for their power potential, a Nissan could be fun but there would be a development curve for a SR20-powered 240SX (FWD cars have sucky suspensions), BMW's are typically too large cc-wise to consider, and I am not sure what Audi package you would run. Honda's and Mazda's are probably the top 2 cars in amateur motorsports by a ton, because they are cheap and fun.

Matt93SE
09-03-2014, 05:02 PM
the SR-240SX is a well known quantity, turbo restrictors and all. (and non-turbo version in STL). There's a few that ran well in Australian Improved Production class. Until they take the BecauseJDM handcuffs off it, it's not going to get built. I was **ALMOST** there until they stuck the -2mm restrictor on it and I figured out how much cheaper it is to run a rotary in Prod and go faster.

GT3 supposedly has the SR16 allowed as well, so there's another option depending on how light you think you can get the chassis.

Greg Amy
09-05-2014, 06:01 PM
October Prelim Minutes: http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/assets/October2014%20Prelim%20Minutes.pdf

And...go*!

STL
1. #14472 (Kirk Knestis) Consider Differences Between Sports Cars and Touring Cars in STL

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" includes 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 and suggested performance equalizers. Please send your feedback through the SCCA letter system at crbscca.com.

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

Knestis
09-05-2014, 06:34 PM
The CRB has not over ridden any weight increase or change in the adders in STL that was put forward by the STAC.

I'm curious, Greg, what - given the above - the process will be moving forward. Since the CRB has solicited input on the issue (if not actually on my proposal), does that mean that has the STAC had its say on the issue? Or will the STAC consider the input and make a specific recommendation re: one or more "performance equalizers" to the CRB...?

K

Greg Amy
09-05-2014, 06:41 PM
I'm curious, Greg, what - given the above - the process will be moving forward. Since the CRB has solicited input on the issue (if not actually on my proposal), does that mean that has the STAC had its say on the issue? Or will the STAC consider the input and make a specific recommendation re: one or more "performance equalizers" to the CRB...?
Standard procedure: the STAC will discuss the issue and make recommendations to the CRB. The CRB will discuss the recommendations and decide what to do. In the end, the CRB is free to over-ride and/or complement any recommendations from the STAC - or ignore them entirely. We are just an advisory committee, the CRB is the legislative body.

It was the STAC that requested to publish the WDYT for membership input prior to making any recommendations. - GA

Knestis
09-06-2014, 07:44 AM
Standard procedure: the STAC will discuss the issue and make recommendations to the CRB. The CRB will discuss the recommendations and decide what to do. In the end, the CRB is free to over-ride and/or complement any recommendations from the STAC - or ignore them entirely. We are just an advisory committee, the CRB is the legislative body. ...

Absolutely.

My complaint with the CRB when i was on the ITAC was that they were not legislating. Simply not making decisions by using a "pocket veto" or doing what some of us on the ITAC started calling the "perma-table" on recommendations. Worse, at least one individual was compounding that by communicating through back channels to members that delays in responding to THEIR - the members' - requests were the fault of the ad hoc not doing its job. We were - making recommendations so the board could decide.

My tolerance for that kind of Secret Car Club of America stuff is at an absolute zero point as a result. My trust and confidence in their practices continues to be low, particularly in any instance where a member's personal interests might constitute a conflict.

Sorry - one more procedural question: We used to have an assigned liaison from the CRB who served as a conduit to the ITAC. Is that still the practice and if so, who serves in that role for the STAC?

K

Greg Amy
09-06-2014, 09:09 AM
We are not experiencing what you describe. The STAC's recommendations are reviewed at subsequent CRB meetings and dispatched by next Fastrack. Some items may come back to us for clarification, some are over-ridden, but the majority go through as recommended. Very rarely an item will have a genesis from within the CRB without STAC input, but that is rare.

Speaking only for myself, I don't always agree with what the CRB decides, but for the most part it has been above board and mostly transparent.

Peter Keane is the CRB's liaison for the STAC. Jim Drago occasionally joins our concalls as well.

GA

Andy Bettencourt
09-06-2014, 12:10 PM
We are not experiencing what you describe. The STAC's recommendations are reviewed at subsequent CRB meetings and dispatched by next Fastrack. Some items may come back to us for clarification, some are over-ridden, but the majority go through as recommended. Very rarely an item will have a genesis from within the CRB without STAC input, but that is rare.

Speaking only for myself, I don't always agree with what the CRB decides, but for the most part it has been above board and mostly transparent.

Peter Keane is the CRB's liaison for the STAC. Jim Drago occasionally joins our concalls as well.

GA

And this is how the ITAC/CRB relationship worked for well over 90% of my tenure. We had a hiccup in there for some reason but I think it is fine now.

Z3_GoCar
09-06-2014, 11:39 PM
So if I do better than the 328 sedan would that be because I'm a 2-seat sports car, or because I have the same head/intake manifold/throttle body and he's saddled with an extra 330lbs for the extra 300cc of displacement? In IT that difference is only worth an extra 140lbs and that's because my rear suspension has semi-trailing arms and it's got a modern multi-link.

Knestis
09-07-2014, 05:38 PM
And this is how the ITAC/CRB relationship worked for well over 90% of my tenure. We had a hiccup in there for some reason but I think it is fine now.

One of the changes to the system that Dick P proposed post-ITAC blowup, was that the communication channel between the ad hoc and the CRB should not be controlled by individuals with a vested personal interest - or even perceived interest - in the outcomes of recommendations coming from the committee to the board. I agreed that it was bad practice, convinced that it contributed to the problems then. I haven't changed my opinion...

...but I'll try to be hopeful that it won't be a problem in this instance.

K

JeffYoung
09-08-2014, 09:52 AM
ITAC/CRB relationship is great. They've bought into the Process and basically that is what we do. We know we have clean up to do on ITB and ITR and possibly fix the power to weight multiplier problem in both (ITB is difficult, ITR the bogey car was set too light so that everything else is too heavy).

In any event, this was an interesting thread I don't think STL succeeds without sports cars. I also think that the difference between "sports car" and "touring car" is both overstated and understated.

It's understated in that as we have learned in IT, aero/frontal area/car height DOES MATTER -- quite a lot -- over 100ish mph. No SCCA category I'm aware of accurately accounts for this, or probably even could accurately account for it. So, here, the difference is understated and I'm not sure correctable via Kirk's proposal.

It's also overstated. Take a look at the CD/frontal area on a Miata. Or an NSX. I bet the overall aero is not much better than most modern sedans. And why isn't a GSR a "sports car?" Slippery, two doors, etc.

You've got to dig deeper I think. I think Andy is on to something that RWD + double wishbones is causing most of your problem. And even then, I still don't see the STL Miata dominance that others do. I've driven Tyler's car at Roebling and seen his dyno sheet. Good S cars will beat his car (no knock on it, it's well done). I've talked at length to Mike at ISC about 1.6 and 1.8 Miatas and he thinks (a) they will be ridiculousy expensive to make power in STL and still not competitive.

So it is interesting to me. The non-Miata guys claim the Miata is an overdog, and the Miata guys say it isn't. From the outside looking in, I don't see the data to support the overdog assertion but maybe I'm missing something.

And i probably am. Torque. Miatas never have, and RX7s no longer do, dominate ITS in the SEDiv. The one GSR down here is very competitive. Cars with less capable suspensions are equally if not more competitive, primarily (in my view) due to torque. If you build an ITS Miata, you are taking a huge chance on competitiveness.

So maybe look at why that is, in that power/weight range, the case and see if you can find something that will help you sort things out in STL.

We, the SCCA, need that class to succeed.

Chip42
09-08-2014, 04:30 PM
I agree with Jeff Re: ITAC/CRB. Things have gone really well over the last year or 2, and other than a a couple of pretty well publicized issues, well for the total amount of time I've been involved.

re: touring cars - Jeff, I think you might be missing the point, but I agree the need for ST to succeed is huge. of course a low roof, small frontal area car is going to have better aero than a modern sedan, that's crazy talk. Even a shockingly good 0.26Cd of a new Mazda6 or Ford Fusion (Ok, 0.27) equates to more actual drag because drag ≈ Af*Cd, and Af sedan >> Af miata (or integra or whatever car you want to consider pre ~2005) and Cd sedan < Cd miata. the frontal area is just SO MUCH BIGGER that the overall drag works out to be about the same at best, usually advantage: miata (or other small sporty car). Throw in the compromises for trunk space, build cost, live human bodies (i.e. those not in the trunk), and a generally higher starting weight and you can see where kirk is coming from. plus there's that whole perception issue. I think in order for STL to be meaningful it SHOULD NOT have sportscars in it. no elise, no NSX, no S2000, no miata. I care less about STU because engine size and hairdryer allowances get the big sedans a torque number they can do something with, but I think the equalization there needs to be understood and addressed before we have an all small car with forced induction class.

don't conflate IT issues with ST, guys. the Z3 and 328 are different in IT NOT because of suspension, but because of factory rated hp and REALLY CRAPY intake. NOTHING in IT that has been run in the past 5+ years is different because of aero. if a school bus and a miata shared a driveline, they would be classed the same in IT. ST is NOT IT, despite sharing SOME prep similarities.

Matt93SE
09-08-2014, 04:47 PM
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.

Greg Amy
09-08-2014, 04:51 PM
I think we would all agree that a Miata is a "sporty econobox" while an Elise, NSX, and S2000 are more pure 'sports car'...
No, we would not.

Andy Bettencourt
09-08-2014, 06:14 PM
No, we would not.

Agreed. Nothing more 'pure' than a Miata. A 'sporty econobox' IMHO would be something that looks like a sports car but has econobox underpinnings like a Mercury Capri or a Fiero. It's all about what's under the skin.

Chip42
09-08-2014, 08:37 PM
The miata is FAR from an econobox - it IS a sportscare in all of the ways that matter. I'd agree that from the list given, the miata has the most "econobox" of motors, but in the sub 2L arena, most engines ARE econobox motors. one of the biggest issues IMHO with the fundemental principles of the class' displacement/weight formula. I like production's answer to that equation better. it allows for flaws to be equalized even under a limitted prep philosohpy.

Matt93SE
09-09-2014, 09:17 AM
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:

StephenB
09-09-2014, 09:55 AM
I have just been reading along so no real input here since I am not a contributing member or supporter to the whole ST idea.

Now that the miata is being considered as a sports car I guess people can stop calling the SCCA the Mazda car club of America and we can go back and call it the Sports Car Club of America again!

Stephen

Matt93SE
09-09-2014, 10:07 AM
:023:

Chip42
09-09-2014, 10:34 AM
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:

you have to contextualize the comments. think Austin-Healy, MGA, Elan, etc... THOSE are quintessential sportscars and what the miata was emulating, albeit an evolved version. Like them, the miata isn't about OMG face ripping acceleration, it's about balance. in that, it has a SUPERB chassis and a good enough motor. the miata is also a very unique car in the current automotive landscape, being one of very few and by far the most successful low hp sportscar. the HP gains in stock cars over the last few decades, and specifically the era from ~2000 to 2010 have been insane. old supercars (lambo miura, pick a ferrari) are slower than modern family sedans by 0-60 and 1/4 mile measurements. engine tech came on strong in the wake of better computer modelling. conversely, most chassis engineering has devolved into beams and struts liek it was in the original rabbit to make them cheaper and easier to build and to make more room for our fat asses and copious amounts of crap we seem to carry about.

We're talking about a 2.0L and under 4cyl class in STL - i.e. an econobox class, and a 3.2L and under class in STU - sedans, touring cars, etc... The definition of sportscar being put forward is that it is one with substantially better handling, balance, and smaller frontal area / better aero than the bulk of the sedans, econoboxes, and "touring cars" that otherwise fit in STL and U, ostensibly those cars for which the class was created. this offers such "sportscars" an advantage. lets list cars that even approach the miata in terms of chassis and "sportscar" characteristics built since 1985. miatas, S2000, Z3/Z4, MR2 SW20 and spyder (the AW11 is a corolla in reverse and much better remembered than it is to experience today), supra, RX7/8, 30/5/70Z, 200/240SX, corvette, elise, exige, boxter, cayman.... you can see the list elevates out of the STL range QUICKLY and out of the STU range nearly as fast. "sportscars" today pretty much are "super cars" of yesterday.

Your maxima with the stock V6 doesn't meet the requirements of STL and might not even fit in STU, depending on year (anything after the VG30 is out). The fact that modern cars are by and large SERIOUSLY overpowered for most SCCA classes is a whole 'nother discussion.

Matt93SE
09-09-2014, 12:27 PM
Thank you for the clear and concise description. However, this IS the Sports Car Club of America, right? This isn't the Boxy Family Sedan Club of America, and IMO this goes back to the warts and all. you can cut up classifications until there's a different class for every car on the planet, and you'll STILL find someone that will argue that it shouldn't be there. again, IMO, but you guys are picking nits that just don't need to be picked. If you didn't want Miatas in STL, then you shouldn't have allowed them from day one.

Arguing theory of "what's a touring car?" three years into the game really doesn't make sense to me. stop bitching on the interweb and go make your Civic faster!!

(FYI, the Maxima thing was a joke.. It would be legal for STU at 3300lbs, but the car itself is so ungodly tall and has a horrible suspension for performance, so it simply wouldn't ever stand a chance of being competitive.)

Peter Olivola
09-09-2014, 02:39 PM
I wonder if any of the founders of the SCCA, who had to contend with a decade plus controversy over the definition of a sports car, are reading this and screaming at their wives.

Greg Amy
09-09-2014, 03:03 PM
I wonder if any of the founders of the SCCA, who had to contend with a decade plus controversy over the definition of a sports car, are reading this and screaming at their wives.

Ok, I LOL'd at that... ;)

tyler raatz
09-09-2014, 04:36 PM
And even then, I still don't see the STL Miata dominance that others do. I've driven Tyler's car at Roebling and seen his dyno sheet. Good S cars will beat his car (no knock on it, it's well done). I've talked at length to Mike at ISC about 1.6 and 1.8 Miatas and he thinks (a) they will be ridiculousy expensive to make power in STL and still not competitive.



Jeff, to be fair, I need to be clear on 1 thing. The car you drove at the time had a 99SM engine sans restrictor with a few bolt on parts. It made weak ITS power at best, the aero bits slower it down to less than ITS speeds. The current version of the car has about 40hp more and is significantly faster, however, the current weight of the car is way too high to be competitive and it is much less fun to drive. Thus the reason I run it in STU on the few occasions it comes out of the garage.

Knestis
09-09-2014, 08:54 PM
... (FYI, the Maxima thing was a joke.. It would be legal for STU at 3300lbs, but the car itself is so ungodly tall and has a horrible suspension for performance, so it simply wouldn't ever stand a chance of being competitive.)

Waitaminute. You think "ungodly tall" is some kind of a design disadvantage on the race track? And that suspension design was a compromise from ultimate performance to maximize passengers and luggage space, and minimize production cost...? REALLY?

We can revisit how the Miata (et al.) found its way into STL if you want but it wasn't by design.

Asking about a first principle of a class is certainly not "picking nits." I think maybe you don't know what that term means.

K

Andy Bettencourt
09-10-2014, 08:18 AM
We can revisit how the Miata (et al.) found its way into STL if you want but it wasn't by design.



K

Sure it was. It's a power to weight class based on engine volume. That door is wide open for any chassis newer than the designated year in the rules. The tweaks toward equity in a National class are always ongoing but let's not pretend the Miata somehow snuck in the back door to this party. The invitee list has been clear since inception and there has been no change since the original GCR version that has magically allowed 'sports cars'.

Matt93SE
09-10-2014, 03:57 PM
Asking about a first principle of a class is certainly not "picking nits." I think maybe you don't know what that term means.

K


Sure it was. It's a power to weight class based on engine volume. That door is wide open for any chassis newer than the designated year in the rules. The tweaks toward equity in a National class are always ongoing but let's not pretend the Miata somehow snuck in the back door to this party. The invitee list has been clear since inception and there has been no change since the original GCR version that has magically allowed 'sports cars'.

This. Remember that whole disclaimer about 'competitiveness not guaranteed' ?? Well now people are whining Because Miata and you're trying to make the other chassis more competitive.. The door's been open to 'any car after 1985' since the inception of both STU and STL, so trying to decide now that you didn't want 'sports cars' to be included is picking nits to me..

Yeah.. let's kick the running back off the football team because he's too fast and none of the kids on defense can catch him! Then trophies for all!!

Greg Amy
09-10-2014, 04:14 PM
Remember that whole disclaimer about 'competitiveness not guaranteed' ??
Know how I know you've not been involved in Nationals/Majors racing...?

;)

Greg Amy
09-10-2014, 04:23 PM
...let's not pretend the Miata somehow snuck in the back door to this party.
Concur, it was always invited to the party. However, in our ongoing - and decisively not yet resolved - quest to enable parity between FWD and RWD cars, we've consistently increased the RWD adder from (I think?) 2%, to 3.5%, to today's 5.5%. And, of course, IMO we're not there yet (I think it needs to be 7.5% minimum).

However, it is only recently that we're finally realizing that one reason we're not there yet is not necessarily FWD vs. RWD; in fact, it's becoming more apparent that there's additional characteristics beyond RWD that make them a better package. It is because of this recent realization that we're now discussing implementation of an additional characteristic, one that does a better job of taking into account "better than the sum of its parts". The Miata is just one clear, obvious, and numerically advantageous illustration of that concept. Other examples include the Honda S2000, Acura NSX, etc.

In other words: "sports cars".

So the questions at hand are...do "sports cars" actually exist, do they have a performance advantage over "non sports cars", and if so how - or if - should they be appropriately classified?

GA

Matt93SE
09-10-2014, 04:38 PM
Know how I know you've not been involved in Nationals/Majors racing...?

;)

Don't go there. That colossal cluster**** is completely unrelated to this. :P

Knestis
09-10-2014, 06:11 PM
I stand corrected re: inclusion of 2-seaters in the initial design of STL. I may be confusing the explanations I've heard, between that and the allowance for rotaries. That's a bad thing, too, I think - but it's a different conversation. It would still be interesting to see what Keane et al. ENVISIONED when they penned the first rule set, though. I'd love to ask him. Was it an oversight, allowed, or intended?

K

JeffYoung
09-11-2014, 09:21 AM
I ask this because I truly don't know.

What evidence is there that Miatas dominant STL (other than easy crossover and a few top SM guys not surprisingly run up front in STL)?

What data supports the %age weight adder for rear wheel drive STL cars?

Greg Amy
09-11-2014, 09:37 AM
- We put data acq boxes in many front-running cars during the Majors season and at the Runoffs;
- Experienced observations;
- Race results.

Majors classifications are held to a different standard than Improved Touring; while we may start with hard numbers and a general formula, it's a guideline; we are not beholden to it. The CRB's goal is to ensure reasonably equitable competition among a wide breadth of participants within any Majors class. If something sticks out, it gets whacked; if something is seriously being prepared and driven and it sucks, it gets a break.

Read my sig. And think about the above paragraph next time you want to go National/Majors racing with Improved Touring.

Now read my sig again.

GA

Chip42
09-11-2014, 09:51 AM
and in response to tGA's post I would like to resubmit my belief that overachieving chassis in ST be speclined with weight modifiers, just as over achieving, perceived overachieving, alternate prep, and non USDM motors not made by VW are given modifiers to or wholly unique base weights. THAT WAY the "miata" can be "dealt with" while not sticking a similar penalty on a 86 fiero, which is a far lesser platform that HAPPENS to share drive wheels and general suspension design designators with the mazda.

JeffYoung
09-11-2014, 10:57 AM
- We put data acq boxes in many front-running cars during the Majors season and at the Runoffs;
- Experienced observations;
- Race results.

Majors classifications are held to a different standard than Improved Touring; while we may start with hard numbers and a general formula, it's a guideline; we are not beholden to it. The CRB's goal is to ensure reasonably equitable competition among a wide breadth of participants within any Majors class. If something sticks out, it gets whacked; if something is seriously being prepared and driven and it sucks, it gets a break.

Read my sig. And think about the above paragraph next time you want to go National/Majors racing with Improved Touring.

Now read my sig again.

GA

Damn -- I feel for you, and I mean that. I know you tried to setup STL as purely objective based on displacement to avoid some of the subjectivity in the IT process, and it looks like there is actually MORE subjectivity now in STL.

I still think it is a good class, and a key to our future. If you are going to be putting weight on RWD cars and such, glad you are using actual data to do it rather than what we did with LapSim.

But I think Chip and Andy are right. I think the Miata may be poisoning the well for all RWD cars, which is a shame.

Anyway, I'll continue to watch the class closely and see where it goes. I have some interest in it, and yes, I'm one of those guys you'd have to worry about buliding a FrankenNSX.

Chip42
09-11-2014, 12:20 PM
FWIW, I think ST in general and STL in particular are the most objective class in SCCA. IT has gain numbers, classing, tq and other adders ... STL at least just has displacement, valve count, drive wheels, and strut or no. STU adds some other variables but still, pretty damned objective. Really, that's the whole problem being discussed here with the Miata.

Benevolent dictator, ala prod, is super subjective. Which works great, except when it doesn't. it's a lot easier to cause bad feelings towards the club in a subjective system, its a lot harder to offer something for everyone in an objective one. No easy answers.