Results 1 to 20 of 399

Thread: What is a "touring car?"

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    ...you just have to be willing to trim the dead branched to allow for new growth.
    How do you reconcile the above with your earlier admonition that "outlawing cars" built for STL would be "ridiculous?"

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

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

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

    K

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

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

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

    Super Touring Light (STL) is a small-bore 'tuner' class for reciprocating engines of displacements of 2.0 liters and under. STL encompasses a lower level of allowed modifications compared to STU. As with STU, spec lines are not required for eligibility; unless otherwise specified, any vehicle meeting the model year and engine displacement limits is eligible for this class.
    When I babble about this stuff, I am specifically babbling about the potential of either eliminating a configuration/configurations within a class that has been legal since day 1, and/or the ADDITIONAL competition adjustments from what is already rule, that is obviously working.

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

    I do not see what is broken here. If you are worried about looking too similar to another class (EP with wings or whatever) then it's the allowances, not the cars.
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    107

    Default

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

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

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    From December Fastrack (my emphasis):

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

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

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    107

    Default

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

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Amy View Post
    From December Fastrack (my emphasis):

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

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

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Enfield, CT, USA
    Posts
    488

    Default

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

    I am so glad that the forum is back in time for the black helicopter (winter) season.
    ~Matt Rowe
    ITA Dodge Neon
    NEDiv

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

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

    K

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •