Or: It's an SCCA National class...they WILL make Comp Adjustments.
And that is OK...unless the mission statement says otherwise.
Printable View
Or: It's an SCCA National class...they WILL make Comp Adjustments.
And that is OK...unless the mission statement says otherwise.
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
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?)
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?
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=F3Q...page&q&f=false
No. I specified PASSENGER VOLUME. It means a particular measurement, per SAE standard cited.
K
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:
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.
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
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.
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
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?
Based on the information I could find, SAE provides a measuring standard under J1100, which has been updated periodically. 1984 version, for example, here. 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
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.
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....
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.
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.
Paging Peter Keane to the white phone. Peter Keane please pick up the house phone for an important call...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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 think if you 'fix' it, you won't have anything 'more' than you did at the beginning.Quote:
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 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.
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"...
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?
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
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?
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)
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)
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.
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).
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.
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
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.
....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)