The Turbo problem in STU

[Greg Amy]

...except that if it is an "engine" class - which it is - any given drivetrain option is going to be more competitive in a 2-seat platform than it will in a 4-seat platform. That kind of makes it a "chassis" class.

Bingo.

There's no discussion on this within the STAC; we're simply talking amongst us girls here. But it brings up a very good point that I'd not directly considered (or realized). It's also an issue that orgs try to address inferentially via the RWD adders. Unfortunately, if we continue to address this inferentially (say, try to equalize the S2000 chassis with the Integra using same K20 engine), then as a result any comparable non-2-seater is going to be placed at a significant disadvantage. But that's the direction we're going.

I envision absolutely no support within the Club to have separate adders for 2- and 4-seaters, and without explicit spec lines I see no way within the existing STCS to adequately express that regulation without potential conflict and disagreement (e.g., is the RX-8 a 2- or 4-seater? What about the 911? Would we have to implement The Cleveland Test, as in "I'd ride back there all the way to Cleveland"? Who gets to decide that?).

- GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

I would agree it's a chassis class. But I would also submit that it has little to nothing to do with the amount of seats. I don't see many people jumping to build Ford EXP's, Fiero's, Mercury Capri's or any other 2-seater on a shit platform.

The Lotus, Miata and RX-8 all have one thing in common - great suspension design. Is that 'typical' of cars with 2 seats? Maybe more so than 4 seats but there are plenty of 4-seat sporty cars...and plenty of 2 seat turds. If you want to regulate something, regulate suspension design.

As with any racing class, you need to look at suspension design and potential for power. Pick the weapon that combines your perception of the best combination of attributes.