you guys make it sound like the sky is falling..they talked for HOURS about this the other night..... Nothing was rushed, no conclusions were jumped to...
I'm sorta betting that, after the runnoffs this year, nothing drastic is happening
you guys make it sound like the sky is falling..they talked for HOURS about this the other night..... Nothing was rushed, no conclusions were jumped to...
I'm sorta betting that, after the runnoffs this year, nothing drastic is happening
I'm'a not gonna get into an Internet play-by-play, ain't got no time for that. But something you need to keep in mind is that there will be no more new classes. In fact, you need to start paying attention: within 5 years the SCCA will start whittling down the classes to "14-16". So you're just wasting your time arguing that.
More importantly, however, if Super Touring gets caught up in that consolidation, then the "competitiveness of our cars" is the least of our worries...for STU/STL to continue to exist as discrete classes, they need to differentiate themselves from all the other categories; they need to be something more than a "DOT-tired and winged version of EProd".
Right now they're decisively not.
GA
How do you reconcile the above with your earlier admonition that "outlawing cars" built for STL would be "ridiculous?"...you just have to be willing to trim the dead branched to allow for new growth.
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
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.
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.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.
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.
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?
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.
Bookmarks