What is a "touring car?"

[JeffYoung]

- 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]

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.

[Greg Amy]

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

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

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

And read my sig again.

GA

[Ron Earp]

Those are for ITS bodies. Second gen RX7 etc.

[Matt93SE]

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

[Ron Earp]

Some data I had handy in a spreadsheet:

Car	Cd	Area (sq ft)	CdA
RX7	0.31	19.19	5.95
Integra	0.33	19.50	6.44
Camaro	0.34	22.00	7.44
Mustang	0.36	22.50	8.10
280zx	0.39	21.00	8.09
TR8	0.42	20.70	8.69
240Z	0.44	21.00	9.24

[Matt93SE]

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