What is a "touring car?"

[Knestis]

Part of the reason STL is attractive to me is that it's not a "spec-line special" class. Spec-line CAs invite what I dislike most about Club Racing - the classing/specification shenanigans and the massive incentive for backroom dealing that goes with it. Greg's note reminds me that I shouldn't get too attached to the idea that STL might be less crappy in that regard.

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. ...

Take the longer view - with the admission that I see value in classes that offer variety... The grid last weekend isn't as important as what the grid might look like 3-5 years. The way it is now, there's a built-in incentive - again, physics - to build a 2-seat STL car over a 4-seat STL car, and there are damned few options. That's going to influence make/model variety in the class, and so its appeal, I think. Why use a spot in a class to satisfy the interests of someone who's already running their "regular class" on any weekend, that might appeal to someone who would 'like to race' a mildly modified, 4-cylinder Toyota, Nissan, VW, Hyundai, Ford, Chevy, Kia, etc. sedan, hatch, or coupe that isn't otherwise accommodated somewhere in the mix? Someone who looks at the math is going to know that's a fool's errand. Someone who votes with his heart is going to see a class that doesn't fit their vision of what they want to do.

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)

The "make up the numbers" game is a loser, ultimately, and yes - I DO indeed think that STL should have been held to what it was originally envisioned to be, without letting the sports car (and rotary) camel's nose under the tent flap. It's matters of degree, I admit, but differences in general engine architecture could have been dealt with well enough on a formulaic basis (not making the leap to make/model spec lines) to get a bunch of options in the same ballpark, if there were all FWD platforms of the same basic dimensions. The rotary experiences in IT should have told us that the point at which a categorical adjustment (struts/DWB, FWD/RWD, etc.) bear on only ONE case in a class, things can get stupid right quick...

K