What is a "touring car?"

[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.