What is a "touring car?"

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'm not trying to 'make it count', I am trying to influence those who race in the class or who may be thinking about it, when it comes time for them to 'make it count'.

[Greg Amy]

No offense Andy, but that's kinda cowardly. In casually reviewing this thread, and looking at the list below of those that have read at this thread (of the ones I recognize), I count fewer than five persons that have actually turned a wheel in this class. But that's irrelevant because, as you are aware, these decisions are not left up to just those "who race in the class or who may be thinking about it"; it's open for anyone in the Club to decide.

But most importantly, those that may not race in the class probably have some good ideas -- which, last I checked, is the whole point of a "what do you think". "What do you thinks" are not votes; in fact, we give very little credence to the number of votes that go one way or the other (I personally ignore the numbers). Encouraging people to submit "I support this" or "I oppose that" are pointless; that's not what we want. We are looking for ideas. We are looking for different viewpoints to consider positions that we did not think about (see Tip #1 in "Greg's How to Write a Rule"). And we give even less credibility - if any at all - to Internet forum rants.

You can sit here on the Internet, presiding on the sidelines and "influencing" people all you want; feel free to leave as many things on the Internet as you want "one more time". But unless we get some ideas submitted to the CRB, then the STAC is going to make recommendations to the CRB based on existing evidence, observations, and opinions.

Fastrack has yet to be formally published - due out this week - so take this with a grain of salt, but despite all the argumentetation and hand-wringing here on this subject, and the fact that the pre-Fastrack was published over a week ago, I'm kinda surprised that the total number of letters on this subject that have been forwarded to the STAC for review is...

...zero. Dunno, maybe there's less interest in this subject than the current players like to project? Our next concall is in a week and a half; I guess we'll see how that goes...

GA

[adamjabaay]

I'll be turning my first "wheel" in STL within a month or so. I can't wait to run against miatas, personally.....

[Andy Bettencourt]

Cowardly is a stupid term to use Greg. What in the world would I be afraid of in writing a letter? It's an internet BB, we debate. At this time I feel that it's the responsibility of the people who race in the class to weigh in officially. I am not at that point yet where I feel the CRB needs to hear from a non-driver on this topic mostly because the concept has been debated here extensively and we have given those who do race - or may, some information to chew on in order to write a letter.

And it's disingenuous to insinuate that an 'idea' that you heard, that you might think has merit, could not be brought up as part of the monthly STAC calls, by you - or any other board member who reads this BB as part of the committee debate and problem resolution. Just because it's not submitted via the SCCA site doesn't mean the thought process isn't out there. My concept isn't an actionable item anyway, it's a potential piece of someone else's idea who may see merit in next-wave comp-adjustments or even a redefining of the class as we know it now.

Right now, I don't see a problem with the class that needs immediate action.

[Andy Bettencourt]

WRT the 'what do you think', I also need to be more educated on what the SCCA has done in the past. STL has the same 'issue' as other classes. I bet EP and FP also have the same 'issue'. Getting some success stories from the Prod ranks on how they have attempted to balance Miata's, Preludes, 240Z's, Integra's, 2002's, S2000's, RX8's, Caterham's, 914's, 944's etc.

Seems like the concepts may already live inside the CRB.

[JS154]

WRT the 'what do you think', I also need to be more educated on what the SCCA has done in the past. STL has the same 'issue' as other classes. I bet EP and FP also have the same 'issue'. Getting some success stories from the Prod ranks on how they have attempted to balance Miata's, Preludes, 240Z's, Integra's, 2002's, S2000's, RX8's, Caterham's, 914's, 944's etc.

Seems like the concepts may already live inside the CRB.

Prod allows relocation of suspension pickup points, increased compression, head porting and non factory gearboxes. I other words, STU, but with lower power and different bodywork allowances.

Do sedans or "sports cars" win more frequently in the prod classes? Hmm...

[Chip42]

Eric, the BMW 2.0L is saddled with a 2% weight penalty because Americans wouldn't buy it so BMW didn't sell it here. That k20 in an s2000 or nsx would be a lot closer to a bmw in weight, too.

And read up on prod. The VAST majority of cars allowed in both P and ST are prep 2, with stock pickup points and the same head prep, and usually 11 or 12:1 cr and 0.400ish cam. So... Not that different.

[Greg Amy]

And it's disingenuous to insinuate that an 'idea' that you heard, that you might think has merit, could not be brought up as part of the monthly STAC calls, by you - or any other board member who reads this BB as part of the committee debate and problem resolution. Just because it's not submitted via the SCCA site doesn't mean the thought process isn't out there.

Wait, whut? Dude, is has been brought up, and it has been discussed by the STAC, and we have discussed various options. All we're doing with this process is asking for other thoughts to ensure that the small committee that is talking about this issue hasn't missed any opportunities or ideas before we make a recommendation. That's what this process is for.

We don't need a vote. I don't give a flying doggy-doo about vote numbers or "influencing" positions. I care about ideas, opportunities, and ensuring that we make the right decisions for the good of the category as a whole. We could get 27 brazillion "we hate this idea" votes and if it's actually the right thing to do, then we're still going to recommend it. In the end, we'll make decisions based on what we see as the good of the category despite opinion numbers that may deviate from that position. That's our minimum responsibility. And we're using the "what do you think" option as a way to ensure we have all reasonable information.

If you don't have any new information to add, well then "thanks for your input".

As for your 'influencing'..."The lady doth protest too much, methinks" (the vernacular interpretation).

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

So what the F are you asking me to write a letter for if you have 'brought it up, discussed in committee and bantered various options'? It's not a new concept that you need to hear via official communication because you are not 'missing' my idea.

Why are you asking me to write in? I don't get it. I am restating the concept to those 'regular' IT.com readers who may be interested in what I think is the 'real' problem they are trying to 'fix'.

And PS: You don't have to keep telling me your responsibilities. I know them. I have lived them. I have been on more National SCCA committees than I care to admit.

[Flyinglizard]

I have noted prior that IMHo the lateral performance is limited by the dynamic front tire loading.Less weight on that tire, the faster the cornering speed. Well guess what? the more rear weight the better the car balance. As a designer gets some parameters for a sports car, the first is a good balance. 50/50 is the target many times. 40/60 is super car, 70/30 is econobox.
The good weight balnce also seems to come with good aero kinda as a side benefit. At the same time, the FWD cars have all of the opposite values, IE lots of nose weight , tall greenhouse, poor chassis, less than the sum of it's parts.
What it appears is that among the cars listed and raced in ST. the better cars have 50% or more rear weight. These same cars have a better aero package, some what as a result of the weight placement.
That is one reason why the sum of it's parts(Miata) are better than expected. It has great balance and good aero, great drivers/ great factory support/ doesnt break/ and is pretty cheap to keep.

You could " easily" come up with a multiplier based upon rear weight percent. IE 60% rear weight car gets a base weight times 107% or something like that. At the other extreme is the 70/30 FWD car that would have to get weight times 95% or something like that.
The only outlier that I see fast may be the Honda CRX that has a smalll nose and lots of front weight.

[Ron Earp]

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.