Page 16 of 20 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 320 of 399

Thread: What is a "touring car?"

  1. #301
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    raleigh, nc, usa
    Posts
    5,252

    Default

    They made a 2.0 (the regular four pot was 2.2) for tax purposes for sale in Italy and then sold a bunch of the leftovers in the UK in the mid 90s. EDM = European Domestic Market, such as it is...lol....

    You can get an Esprit "shell" for $10kish, less than the FrankenNSX. The motor bits are more expensive though. Probably a $60-75k build.

    Letter coming this weekend! Woohoo!
    NC Region
    1980 ITS Triumph TR8

  2. #302
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JeffYoung View Post
    Letter coming this weekend! Woohoo!
    Does it have to be explicitly classed? 2L or under, RWD, calculate weight. If it fits then it's legit.

    How long did they make Delorans and what sort of whack job Renault 2L box of fail could I find to stuff in that?

  3. #303
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Good luck with your weird builds. The NSX starts off at 3500 lbs. Think you can find 850 lbs of fat on an aluminum bodied car to trim? Only then can you start adding a cage and 200lbs driver and hope to make weight with a 2.0 engine at close to 2900 lbs. The Lotus? bring a LOT of money for your engine program. Be nice if you chipped in to the worker fund to help defray the cost of the oil absorbent they will be needing.

    Super Touring wasn't created out of nothing. It started with the B and D Prod ruleset that was for old WC cars but they never showed up. As ST exists now it isn't about 4 doors or dumpy looking grocery getters. The STL benchmark has always been the Miata 1.8 and the 1.8 GSR. The Mazdas have shown up. Where are the well prepped FWD?

    ST is supposed to be interesting. Those oddball builds are welcome to show up. Just don't complain when they aren't competitive.

  4. #304
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dhrmx5 View Post
    As ST exists now it isn't about 4 doors or dumpy looking grocery getters.
    I'm confused. ST is full of Miatas and Integras. Are there cars in the class that aren't dumpy looking grocery getters?

  5. #305
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    107

    Default

    225's on an nsx. That'd be silly. Haha

  6. #306
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Houston-ish
    Posts
    932

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JeffYoung View Post
    Is this the appropriate time to disclose I've actually considered and starting pricing stuff for a mid 1990s Lotus Esprit with the European DM 2.0 motor for STL?

    Take that, FWD shitboxes!
    But it'll have to breathe through a straw!!
    Houston Region
    STU Nissan 240SX
    EProd RX7

  7. #307
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by adamjabaay View Post
    225's on an nsx. That'd be silly. Haha
    You know, when I was building my theoretical Ford 2L RWD car a few posts down I didn't consider the 225 tire limit. I think that will be a detriment to a program like we're running with the Mustangs. I could see us swapping in a hot 2L into a lighter Ford chassis (86 Fox type), making STL mods and so forth, but, our ITS Mustang effort is built around the 245 tire and we're testing this weekend with a larger 275-50-15s. I'm pretty sure the 2800 lbs RWD chassis we use now in ITS, and it'd be similar and at the same weight in STL, would be slower on a 225 tire. Something to consider for those pondering a RWD STL build.

  8. #308
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Houston-ish
    Posts
    932

    Default

    IMO, one of the equalizers in the class.. you can run more power in a heavy car with tires that won't last a race, or you can run less power and less weight and have tires at the end.. choose wisely.
    Houston Region
    STU Nissan 240SX
    EProd RX7

  9. #309
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dhrmx5 View Post
    Good luck with your weird builds. The NSX starts off at 3500 lbs. Think you can find 850 lbs of fat on an aluminum bodied car to trim? Only then can you start adding a cage and 200lbs driver and hope to make weight with a 2.0 engine at close to 2900 lbs.
    Curb weight on a 1991 NSX is 3010lbs. Figure about 2975 with 1/2 tank of gas. Still tough to get to.
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  10. #310
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,376

    Default

    So let's do this little mental/Internet exercise: discuss the physical, objective, quantifiable characteristics that define a "sports car".

    Go.

  11. #311
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    SPORTS CAR

    *Two doors
    *Two seats
    *Better than average power to weight ratio; straight line performance exceeds that of average sedans and coupes
    *Excellent handling characteristics; handling well above average for sedans and coupes of same basic drivetrain layout

    In other words, a great handling car that can hold it's own with respect to power and won't get smoked by my wife's Acura at a stoplight.

  12. #312
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Posts
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Amy View Post
    - We put data acq boxes in many front-running cars during the Majors season and at the Runoffs;
    - Experienced observations;
    - Race results.

    GA
    This is my opinion as a Miata driver in STL, not a CRB member.

    1)data boxes...
    Have you seen this data? How do you distinguish cornering advantage from "because miata" versus "better Driver"?

    2)Experienced Observations.. Often very biased.. Especially when coming from those who race in the class, even with the best intentions, it is human nature. In the past, 2011 and 2012 my observations were directly responsible in adding weight to my miata as I felt it was the right thing to do. This year, I mentioned to you and others on STAC that I felt the plate was a bit too small on the civic, to my knowledge,nothing was done with that info? What I have seen in 2013 is two similar quality FWD Honda drivers run similar cornering speeds to mine, similar lap times to mine and some good races. I have seen Integras with significant straight line speed advantage but seconds off the pace in terms of lap time. Still confused why it is OK for FWD Civics to run "miata" STL times and no one complains, but when the same times are run by 'miatas", most say "because Miata.

    3)Race results..
    If the best driver is a properly classed car wins every race? Is there a problem? If a car at a slight disadvantage is driven
    by a pro wins every race, do we handicap the car? Or we put a wanker in a car that everyone else would win in, but he
    doesnt, do we speed that car up? Race results are rewards weights, nothing more.

    IMO it has gotten to the point where many feel that all good results are 95% "because miata", which is just ridiculous. I have a spare SM, prepared identical to mine. Greg and Kirk are welcome to come and race it in SM no charge at any race I attend, just let me know a few weeks out and I will have the car set up and scaled to your weight and liking. We can do a test day, a race weekend, whatever you like. The ARRC may be a good weekend? That will tell you where you really are in terms of pace. With all due respect, the over/under will be 3 seconds from pole. You guys are simply putting way too much on car and I am willing to prove my point. When you are seconds off the pace, it is more than 'frontal area", "Sports car' and "double wish bone'.

    Huffmaster is one of the best drivers in the SCCA. His RX8 WAS NOT at an advantage IMO. It was driven exceptionally well and the car was very well sorted. The RX8 was the best prepped car in the Runoffs the last two years and the best driven this year, period. I have not once complained about that car. I did not win because I did not put enough time and effort into my car, it had nothing to do with the RX8 being an over dog. Gilsinger could have also won last year had he entered in an equally prepared civic. They showed up with a SS car that they basically de cammed.

    Jim
    Last edited by jdrago1; 09-17-2014 at 05:43 PM.

  13. #313
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,376

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jdrago1 View Post
    Have you seen this data? How do you distinguish cornering advantage from "because miata" versus "better Driver"?
    Of course I have; haven't you? And I can distinguish that easily, because I know what I'm doing with data.

    Experienced Observations.. Often very biased.
    Of course it is, by definition. But then again, so is racing against a guy one(?) time and deciding he needs a bigger hole to breathe through.

    This year, I mentioned to you and others on STAC that I felt the plate was a bit too small on the civic, to my knowledge,nothing was done with that info?
    I'm sure you recall that the restrictor plates on the 2L engines after the 2013 Runoffs came directly from the CRB, not the STAC. The STAC does not have the information that the CRB has/had when it did that. If the CRB believes that situation has changed, then by all means it should be addressed.

    If the best driver is a properly classed car wins every race? Is there a problem?
    Of course not. But that's the crux of this discussion. Is the "best" driver actually winning races? How are you determining that? Are all cars "properly" classed? What's the basis for that position? What's the objective, unbiased, subjective definition of "best"? And of "proper"?

    You could very well be right. In hindsight, were I to invest into building another car for this class it's not very likely that I'd spend money on anything different than what you did.

    But in the end, if not "data acq, experienced observations, and race results" then what should the CRB use to consider competition adjustments? Should it consider competition adjustments at all? What does it use now for the basis of comp adjustments in other categories?

    GA
    Last edited by Greg Amy; 09-17-2014 at 08:10 PM.

  14. #314
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    Color me intrigued about the idea of racing a competitive Spec Miata but luckily I'm old enough and smart enough to understand that there's exactly zero chance that I'm going to find all three of those seconds in one weekend, in a car that's so different from what I've raced almost exclusively since I last had any serious seat time in a rear-drive car (an SSA Mazda, by the way) in 1987.

    I'll check my calendar though.

    That mental masturbation out of the way, I would HOPE that everyone notices that at no point did I ever invoke relatively competitiveness between me in a particular Civic (or anyone/anything else) and "sports cars." Never. My argument is strictly about the physics of the two broad chassis options, and I've frankly not heard anyone make any substantive case that my principles are flawed...

    Now, I did point out a few observations from the NJMP Majors weekend this spring. First, that I was still leaving at least a second on the table, relative to what my experience tells me I should be doing. Second, Farbman only went as fast as he needed to in order to win; which was 2 seconds off the pace he accidentally set in P1. In race 1, I did a 34, he did a 33. In race 2, I reeled him in, caught him, then he drove away from me. I did a 33, he did a faster 33. That is NOT about how fast the car or the driver really is; that's about managing the competition by sandbagging, which is only possible with a car that's substantially better than the competition.

    I didn't just fall off of the sports car turnip truck. I KNOW that's how the National/Major (and especially "pro") programs work. I know that you know all of that but I just want to make sure it's in the record, because frankly, I think that's the game you're playing. I don't have any confidence that you can actually take your STL driver hat off when your making CRB decisions, and - if it's possible - I believe even less that you are operating in good faith with the STAC (a la the restrictor example that Greg shared). That's based on my firsthand experience watching you operate when I was on the ITAC. You're too hooked into the game to stop playing it. If nothing else, you might solemnly believe that you're' "doing what's right for the class" but from the outside looking in, it simply looks hinky.

    But equally, I know that vehicle dynamics says that a car with the qualities of a Miata is going to be faster than a car with the qualities of a Civic, given the same power, level of preparation, and driver skill. NO QUESTION. Tell me I'm wrong if you dare, but do *not* play the results comparison game and tell me that I'm whining because I'm getting beat by any particular EXAMPLES of car/driver combinations. I'm not. Get over that. Further, arguing that's what I'm doing, without addressing my actual proposition, is disingenuous and only reinforces to me that you aren't willing - or able - to look objectively at the technical aspects of the issue at hand.

    I also know that it's a fool's errand, trying to fix that problem with competition adjustments when someone moving the levers of the process - and more importantly, controlling the flow of information to the CRB - has an interest in, and the ability to manage, the outcome.

    K

  15. #315
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    107

    Default

    I must comment that I'm really enjoying this thread, overall. I feel this class is headed In a positive direction, from the outside looking in. I can't wait to be in.


    thoughts about wide variety of weight cars running all on the same tire? Do the 2700 lbs cars start having managment issues with tires 3/4 into race?

  16. #316
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt View Post
    Curb weight on a 1991 NSX is 3010lbs. Figure about 2975 with 1/2 tank of gas. Still tough to get to.
    My mistake. Looked at Motor trend for specs and got GVWR

  17. #317
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Reply to Kurt: If you look at results around the country it will show that FP/STL/T3 are generally right on each other as far as lap times.

    In looking at times from that NJMP weekend I see that Farbman managed a .31 which mirrored the T3/FP times so I would conclude he was on the mark.

    You, on the other hand did a .33 with a car that you admitted was 200 lbs overweight in your first time driving it. If you got rid of the 200 lbs and found that second you felt you left on the table I would guess .31s aren't out of the question for your civic (although that chassis is too heavy for a 1.6 engine to make weight)

    Sounds like parity to me. The real question is why neither of you are going as fast as the ITS track record?

  18. #318
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    10

    Default

    As far as insinuating that Drago or members of the ST rules adhoc are advocating for their cars as they adjust rules, nothing could be further from the truth.

    With the exception of Greg's pathological hatred for all things rotary (I am assuming his high school nemesis was conceived in one), the committee looks at all sides of the argument before voting their interests.

  19. #319
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dhrmx5 View Post
    Reply to Kurt: If you look at results around the country it will show that FP/STL/T3 are generally right on each other as far as lap times.

    In looking at times from that NJMP weekend I see that Farbman managed a .31 which mirrored the T3/FP times so I would conclude he was on the mark.

    You, on the other hand did a .33 with a car that you admitted was 200 lbs overweight in your first time driving it. If you got rid of the 200 lbs and found that second you felt you left on the table I would guess .31s aren't out of the question for your civic (although that chassis is too heavy for a 1.6 engine to make weight)

    Sounds like parity to me. The real question is why neither of you are going as fast as the ITS track record?
    All of which is you explaining that you didn't read - or don't understand - my proposal.

    If we write the rules for a class based on observed (perceived) "parity" based on two cars at one track on one weekend, without controlling variables that are SUPPOSED to differ between a "good" racer and a "less good racer," then it's an amateur-hour, tail-chasing exercise.

    K

    EDIT - And I'm curious, if we also have "parity" between STL, FP, and T3 in this gold-standard comparison, why the heck do we have three separate classes? They're all running the same times on the track, right...?
    Last edited by Knestis; 09-18-2014 at 06:03 AM.

  20. #320
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dhrmx5 View Post
    As far as insinuating that Drago or members of the ST rules adhoc are advocating for their cars as they adjust rules, nothing could be further from the truth.

    With the exception of Greg's pathological hatred for all things rotary (I am assuming his high school nemesis was conceived in one), the committee looks at all sides of the argument before voting their interests.
    I like your idealism but my direct experiences show otherwise.

    K

    PS - what's your name?

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
  •