What is a "touring car?"

[Matt93SE]

Thank you for the clear and concise description. However, this IS the Sports Car Club of America, right? This isn't the Boxy Family Sedan Club of America, and IMO this goes back to the warts and all. you can cut up classifications until there's a different class for every car on the planet, and you'll STILL find someone that will argue that it shouldn't be there. again, IMO, but you guys are picking nits that just don't need to be picked. If you didn't want Miatas in STL, then you shouldn't have allowed them from day one.

Arguing theory of "what's a touring car?" three years into the game really doesn't make sense to me. stop bitching on the interweb and go make your Civic faster!!

(FYI, the Maxima thing was a joke.. It would be legal for STU at 3300lbs, but the car itself is so ungodly tall and has a horrible suspension for performance, so it simply wouldn't ever stand a chance of being competitive.)

[Peter Olivola]

I wonder if any of the founders of the SCCA, who had to contend with a decade plus controversy over the definition of a sports car, are reading this and screaming at their wives.

[Greg Amy]

I wonder if any of the founders of the SCCA, who had to contend with a decade plus controversy over the definition of a sports car, are reading this and screaming at their wives.

Ok, I LOL'd at that...

[Knestis]

... (FYI, the Maxima thing was a joke.. It would be legal for STU at 3300lbs, but the car itself is so ungodly tall and has a horrible suspension for performance, so it simply wouldn't ever stand a chance of being competitive.)

Waitaminute. You think "ungodly tall" is some kind of a design disadvantage on the race track? And that suspension design was a compromise from ultimate performance to maximize passengers and luggage space, and minimize production cost...? REALLY?

We can revisit how the Miata (et al.) found its way into STL if you want but it wasn't by design.

Asking about a first principle of a class is certainly not "picking nits." I think maybe you don't know what that term means.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

We can revisit how the Miata (et al.) found its way into STL if you want but it wasn't by design.



K

Sure it was. It's a power to weight class based on engine volume. That door is wide open for any chassis newer than the designated year in the rules. The tweaks toward equity in a National class are always ongoing but let's not pretend the Miata somehow snuck in the back door to this party. The invitee list has been clear since inception and there has been no change since the original GCR version that has magically allowed 'sports cars'.

[Matt93SE]

Asking about a first principle of a class is certainly not "picking nits." I think maybe you don't know what that term means.

K

Sure it was. It's a power to weight class based on engine volume. That door is wide open for any chassis newer than the designated year in the rules. The tweaks toward equity in a National class are always ongoing but let's not pretend the Miata somehow snuck in the back door to this party. The invitee list has been clear since inception and there has been no change since the original GCR version that has magically allowed 'sports cars'.

This. Remember that whole disclaimer about 'competitiveness not guaranteed' ?? Well now people are whining Because Miata and you're trying to make the other chassis more competitive.. The door's been open to 'any car after 1985' since the inception of both STU and STL, so trying to decide now that you didn't want 'sports cars' to be included is picking nits to me..

Yeah.. let's kick the running back off the football team because he's too fast and none of the kids on defense can catch him! Then trophies for all!!

[Greg Amy]

Remember that whole disclaimer about 'competitiveness not guaranteed' ??

Know how I know you've not been involved in Nationals/Majors racing...?

[Matt93SE]

Know how I know you've not been involved in Nationals/Majors racing...?

Don't go there. That colossal cluster**** is completely unrelated to this. :P

[Knestis]

I stand corrected re: inclusion of 2-seaters in the initial design of STL. I may be confusing the explanations I've heard, between that and the allowance for rotaries. That's a bad thing, too, I think - but it's a different conversation. It would still be interesting to see what Keane et al. ENVISIONED when they penned the first rule set, though. I'd love to ask him. Was it an oversight, allowed, or intended?

K

[Greg Amy]

...let's not pretend the Miata somehow snuck in the back door to this party.

Concur, it was always invited to the party. However, in our ongoing - and decisively not yet resolved - quest to enable parity between FWD and RWD cars, we've consistently increased the RWD adder from (I think?) 2%, to 3.5%, to today's 5.5%. And, of course, IMO we're not there yet (I think it needs to be 7.5% minimum).

However, it is only recently that we're finally realizing that one reason we're not there yet is not necessarily FWD vs. RWD; in fact, it's becoming more apparent that there's additional characteristics beyond RWD that make them a better package. It is because of this recent realization that we're now discussing implementation of an additional characteristic, one that does a better job of taking into account "better than the sum of its parts". The Miata is just one clear, obvious, and numerically advantageous illustration of that concept. Other examples include the Honda S2000, Acura NSX, etc.

In other words: "sports cars".

So the questions at hand are...do "sports cars" actually exist, do they have a performance advantage over "non sports cars", and if so how - or if - should they be appropriately classified?

GA