What is a "touring car?"

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'm on record here and elsewhere that I think building classes that count on crossover entries is bad policy. I just want to keep the issues clear and separate.

So how much weight, Andy, is required to put an Integra on par with an NSX if both have the same 1.8 engine? You HONESTLY think that parity can be achieved there; that anyone will really give it that quantity of lead?

k

I have no idea the answer to that question. Way above my pay grade. If the problem you are trying to solve by kicking out the sports-cars is that equity can't be achieved at any weight, then no problem.

[Knestis]

I have no idea the answer to that question. Way above my pay grade. If the problem you are trying to solve by kicking out the sports-cars is that equity can't be achieved at any weight, then no problem.

Post 1, paragraph 2.


K

[benspeed]

For what its worth I highly doubt that many drivers really zero in on the chassis being defined by the name of the class. I think most drivers pick cars three ways, what they have in the driveway already and tune on, what they think will win or what they think is cool and fun. Touring, sports or GT - i bet many folks would have tough time defining these chassis (lol - like a bunch of folks on this thread bahaha!)

Narrowing a class to fit a chassis definition is a loser business model.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Narrowing a class to fit a chassis definition is a loser business model.

Unless that chassis definition is cheap, abundant and popular.

[benspeed]

Agreed but then it sorta ends up as a spec class, no? Maybe we have underlying paranoia that all classes become dominated by Miata? I'm building a GT1 Miata with a twin turbo LS9...

[Flyinglizard]

"So how much weight, Andy, is required to put an Integra on par with an NSX if both have the same 1.8 engine? You HONESTLY think that parity can be achieved there; that anyone will really give it that quantity of lead?"

Dynamic loading on the outer front tire must be pretty close to even; For road racing. frontal area,glass angles. .
Better off just adding weight until both drivers cant pass each other.After rolling both on the dyno.

IMHo take weight out of the shoebox cars and add a tiny bit to the Miata until the Miata guys bitch.

How many real cars are really out there? I cant think of any dedicated STL cars here in CFR. Enlighten me.
Just plain kicking out the 2 seaters is dumb. Who wants to race a shoe box? BMW will rule this playground.

[Greg Amy]

I'll jump in here with some opinion as a competitor, not as a STAC member...

It was once remarked to me, by someone within the SCCA, that they envisioned the concept of Super Touring Light as a place for the (PC version) "mentally handicapped" kids to play: the FWD street ricer crowd. Within the SCCA there is a distinct void for that type of car, little econoboxes that uses street tires, has wings and body cladding, lowered, fancy paint and vinyl (very much along the lines of my Modified Touring 2 concept, circa 2004). I agreed with that initial mindset, as that's the type of cars I like to drive, and short of a slot somewhere in Improved Touring was no other place to play. With that mindset, I became an enthusiastic supporter of STL's inclusion in the National racing program and jumped on board as a competitor to support it, later volunteering to be on the Super Touring Advisory Committee, with an intent to support that idea(l).

Since then, in my opinion, we've gone off those rails. We -- the committee as a whole, I can't speak for the individuals -- did not recognize the capability of the Mazda RX-8 when we allowed it into the class (though I was a vociferous opponent of allowing that engine into the class from the start). I was indifferent to the inclusion of the IT-spec RX-7s into the class, but I've been opposed to having the engines on separate spec lines so they could be installed into other chassis (it is, explicitly by the class philosophy, a 2L piston-engine class). And, recognizing that there are distinct differences between the dynamics of the two designs, I've been a long-time proponent, from the very beginning, of a 7.5% minimum RWD adder (recall my discussion from some time ago, comparing the S2000 and Integra chassis, each equipped with the same engine, same driver, same track).

Our lack of foresight, coupled to a lack of understanding the scope of imagination of the breadth of competitors we have in this organization (see "Greg's How to Write a Rule") has resulted, in my opinion, as a class headed far away from that original concept, whether you agree with that original concept or not. It is clear, given recent STL's history, that only the most ardent fanatic of "mentally-handicapped" cars would, with clear objective thought, pick one of those cars to win an STL championship. Said differently, if someone were to stand back and objectively choose a car to win STL competitively, it would be a sports/GT car into which they'd stuff the most-powerful family engine.

Regardless of what our present-company Miata fans will tell you, even the best FWD chassis does not have a long-term chance against a good RWD sports/GT car, everything else being equal. No offense to these guys, but I don't think either of them has ever raced one (I'd love to swap rides one weekend...) The CRB has attempted to equalize this via the RWD adder, but this ends up penalizing cars that are RWD but are not a sports/GT car (e.g., not a Miata or Honda S2000). I'm getting the impression that CRB is not willing to pursue this line of adjustment much further, if at all. That's where Kirk's proposal is coming in.

As for all the double-dippers, they've been both a blessing and a curse. Adding in other categories/classes to STU and STL has clearly allowed the classes to survive and the fast-track to thrive (and to bring STL to #3 in national participation). But at the same time they've been a curse by making the classes appear to be nothing more than another place for these cars to play...no, let's be honest: another place for Spec Miatas to play. And, maybe that's correct in reality. But is no one building Nissan Sentras (for example) for STL "because of Miatae", or are Miatae dominating numbers because no one's building a Nissan Sentras? Who would want to build a Nissan Sentra only to be dropped into a field of Miatae? It's a fine question to ask 'what would happen if Miatas were banned from STL?' Well, what would happen? Would other non-Miatae suddenly see a void (that many in present company are implying is there, but is obscured within a forest of Miatae) and jump into the fray?

So what would happen if we cut Miatae entirely (ignoring the fact that it's highly unlikely that the Club would do that)...? Our present-company Miatae drivers are implying the class would die off completely, but that assumes that the class was initially created with a vision of it succeeding only by allowing in SMs...is that the case? Was it envisioned as nothing more than another place for SM to play? Or was there an original vision where we'd bring out a lot of diverse vehicles?

If the latter, what killed that that vision?

All this talk of the value of extra entries is, frankly, absurd, and borderline insulting. We do not - should not - create entire categories for our National/Majors racing program for the purpose of attracting double-dippers; that's putting the cart before the horse. The only reason we should be creating additional classes is to satisfy a demand for a level of prep that is not being serviced by the existing infrastructure. I thought that's what we were doing with Super Touring...was I wrong? And this isn't an "anti-Miata" thing, Jim; while I sincerely appreciate how the Miata double-dippers effectively built STL (and STU before that) the last thing this org needs is a fake class with its primary goal as another place for Spec Miatas to play. We have plenty of other categories (Prod, for example) that would embrace those numbers, we don't need an extra category just for that.

The fact that other cars may fit within that new class should be purely coincidental. As does Kirk, I believe a class should stand or fall on its own merits; if STL cannot stand without double-dipping Miatae then I strongly believe it should either be folded into another category or cut entirely. Extra entries from Spec Miatas (or other categories) must be nothing more than icing on the cake, not the cake itself.

So where do we go from here for Super Touring? That's not so clear. The long-term plan will depend on what the organization decides to do with the proposed "Concorde Agreement". It's quite possible that many of our categories will look decisively different than they do now. Short-term, while I am not rejecting Kirk's position outright (I've yet to hear all the sides of the story, or hear what my fellow committee members have to say about it) it's unlikely that the CRB will support a wholesale change to the category as he proposes. Instead, we're likely to see continuing ongoing "general character adjustments" (for lack of a better term) in STL with the attempt to try and equalize these different characteristics; things like RWD adder changes, maybe even adding add'l adders referencing characteristics such as interior volume. And it's quite possible that we'll start adding outlier cars to Allowances/Requirements tables to start hobbling specific models as needed. But that's all up for discussion.

As Andy said, "This is National Racing" and no one, least of all the CRB, wants to see any particular make/model/engine clearly dominating the class.

GA, encouraging people to read my signature...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Post 1, paragraph 2.


K

All other things being equal, a chassis with two seats is going to have an advantage over one with four - frontal area, aero "licked surface," impact of bluff rear surfaces on Cd, and center of gravity to name a few. The formula for setting spec weights doesn't take these variables into consideration, nor can it really be expected to in any repeatable, consistent way.

But this is a National class so the 'formula' can change by changing the rules every year. If you are saying that weight alone can't compensate, no matter the quantity, ok.