What is a "touring car?"

[Andy Bettencourt]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

I do think we're generally in agreement on most of that, Andy. I will fix this for you though:





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.

[Andy Bettencourt]

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)