What is a "touring car?"

[Greg Amy]

Given the WGI results between the Miata and the Civic, I'd say it's dang close if not there for now.

Even if we were to assume that's true - and it's absolutely not, simply because you were not there and all you have is a results sheet which doesn't tell the whole story - what about everybody else in the class...? Is the class to be limited solely to the best example of RWD sports car available versus the best example of FWD strut car available to use today*?

Given the evidence at hand, I suggest you've just offered excellent supporting anecdotal evidence for slowing down a couple of front-running cars.

GA

*As the Miata is to small 2-seater sports cars, the FG Civic is to FWD strut cars. When Honda decided to ditch the wishbone suspension for the Civic, they didn't just throw some crappy struts on the car as they did with the RSX; they really did that car right. The suspension geometry is as good as it gets for struts, to the point where many pro teams did not even bother moving pickup point and relocating ball joints as allowed by the rules; it just wasn't needed.

A lot of people think that car does well because of the very good ~200hp K20Z3 (which has to de-cam and run a restrictor for STL); that's certainly part of the equation. But that chassis is a super package all on its own. Bob Beede actively moved from a 1.8LGSR engine in a '99 DWB Civic in 2012, to a lightly-modded SSB FG Civic Si in 2013 and thought it was the better package.

The ongoing "Miata Penalty" will continue to vex all RWD cars. In the same vein, it's quite possible that FWD strut cars may eventually suffer the "Civic penalty" (unless we choose to slow down those specific examples instead...)

Regardless, the CRB will continue to adjust vehicles as needed to ensure reasonable parity within the Majors program. And since the class is based on general mechanical characteristics of the vehicles versus line-item classifications the CRB will, no doubt, continue to create and adjust these characteristics as needed to ensure that direction.

[Knestis]

It bothers me when we leap to "because Miata," particularly since that's not my argument here - it's just a case that illustrates my concern. There are separate variables involved:

** 2-seat vs. 4-seat (touring car) chassis layout - influencing frontal area, height (so windshield angle; thanks Lizard!), CG height, MMI, etc.

** Strut vs. DWB suspension architecture

** FWD vs. RWD

I personally don't think that we can accommodate everything that's included in the first with an adder, and (as admitted) have a theoretical/conceptual issue with a "touring car" class including sports cars. It might be, though, that an additional penalty for sports/GT cars would be appropriate, on top of penalties for suspension design and drive layout.

The net for the Miata stacks up but that's probably appropriate as its inherent advantages do, too.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Even if we were to assume that's true - and it's absolutely not, simply because you were not there and all you have is a results sheet which doesn't tell the whole story - what about everybody else in the class...? Is the class to be limited solely to the best example of RWD sports car available versus the best example of FWD strut car available to use today*?

Given the evidence at hand, I suggest you've just offered excellent supporting anecdotal evidence for slowing down a couple of front-running cars.

GA

Ugh. Just split them up now. FWD/RWD. This way you have a class with the numbers already there and you can have a class without fillers and Miata and RWD and everyone will be happy.

[Greg Amy]

Ugh. Just split them up now. FWD/RWD. This way you have a class with the numbers already there and you can have a class without fillers and Miata and RWD and everyone will be happy.

Already have it. It's called "Spec Miata".

[Andy Bettencourt]

Already have it. It's called "Spec Miata".

Right, because each model should only be able to run one prep level.

Seriously, just split them up and you won't have to worry about RWD cars anymore. It's a win/win.

[Greg Amy]

Seriously, just split them up and you won't have to worry about RWD cars anymore. It's a win/win.

No, if we went that direction then it would be a direct prohibition of the car in the category...but you're right, we should all be thankful for the bounty that Spec Miata bringeth...hallelujah PRAISE the Spec Miata lord!



GA, who doesn't fall for the sarcasm...but is truly delightfully entertained by it...and prays to the goddess each night for true forgiveness for his soul...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Are we talking about the same thing? I'm not talking about field-filling, slower-than-real-STL SM's, I'm talking about the fear of Miata's. Solve the issue by breaking up STL into FWD and RWD. This allows the original concept to vet itself on one side while the other side provides a place to play for the other 80% of the entries.

It makes comp adjustments easier. It lets Miata eat their young on that side of the fence while the STAC concentrates on balancing the FWDers and facilitation the original idea.

Truly a win/win.

[backformore]

Let's pretend for a second that Miatas don't exist. The reality is that it has no real impact on Kirk's initial post.

The question was whether a class whose name includes the word "touring" should be limited to "touring" cars, and if so, what are they and how are they defined. It seems to me the question is mostly aimed at STL, which I think removes the issues of the original intent being to give ex-World Challenge cars a place to play which I believe was originally part of the STU rules. If I recall correctly, the STL rules came about after that.

So let's look just at STL and pretend Miatas don't exist. Kirk is suggesting that STL cars should be "touring" cars and suggests an interior volume method for defining that. I personally like the idea of a class specifically for small engined "touring" cars. I like the idea of a field made up of "daily drivers" that include cars that almost everyone can identify with. The FWD vs RWD is really not Kirk's argument. I think the rules currently do a pretty good job of addressing that, just as they do with strut vs. DWB. I actually like the variety since each car will make it's speed in a different way.

Just thought I'd try to drag this discussion back a little closer to the original post.

Carry on.

Rory