What is a "touring car?"

[jdrago1]

N but note that Kirk's request specifically DOES NOT affect double dipper SM or IT cars, so they are free to play, but the SMs would not be able to "tranisition" to ST like many of the IT cars could.

Good point.

[Knestis]

And that was purposeful. The conversation here kept getting derailed with discussions about double-dippers, which has nothing to do with my proposition. I do *not* love the idea of making classes - or rationalizing their continuance - based on the idea that they give someone a place to add another entry. If that were the point, we wouldn't have classes. But that's a different letter to the CRB.

Mr Drago makes my point pretty eloquently, I think. By invoking MZR-powered RX7 III, swapped NSXs, etc., he reinforces that anyone who's serious about being competitive under the current regime absolutely MUST build their plan around a Frankenstein GT or sports car - because even a short think about vehicle dynamics makes it clear that they will have a substantial advantage. Enough, in fact, to warrant building something that never existed in nature. Is that a sound basis for a healthy class? Someone who does want to race a sub-2 liter sedan in mildly modified form on radial tires is NOT going to choose STL knowing that they'll be fighting a losing battle based on fundamental chassis attributes.

I have zero doubt that this isn't what the designers of STL had pictured when the class was conceptualized. We should get it back on track now, before the class is irretrievably busted.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

STL just needs to evaluate what it wants to be. Again, STO and STU never had a 'touring car' requirement. They were places for WC cars to go from the 2 different classes...so STL is an extension of that via engine size. Why should the interior volume apply here and not to STO?

[Chip42]

STO was WC GT, not TC. GT fits the type of car Kirk is describing as "not a touring car". STU was TC and if there were a few non touring cars there, too (I cannot think of any, and I was a huge fan of the series back in the days of Speedvision/channel - I remember BMWs, mazda6, proteges, focii, audi A4s, etc...) then just remember that in pro racing the balance was maintained actively and changes made between races were commonplace in that effort and if it allowed a manufacturer to come and play... we do not have that ability with the way the ST rules are written, so another way to weigh down or exclude "inherently better" cars is being discussed / requested. these are not very numerous chassis, it wouldn't be hard to identify them and specline adjust them via weight% change as needed, and such a method makes tools available to deal with things like "advanced" struts that I know Andy so keen on pointing out, without drawing arbitrary lines that affect all strut cars from a given manufacturer (or whatever descriptor) because of key examples they share a badge with. singling out a known chassis is a way to balance it with the more traditional chasis of the same arrangement than is any attempt to further categorize that chassis with the few similalrly higher performing ones.

[Matt93SE]

STU had the "touring car" requirement by intention of the class being for retired WC Touring Class cars..
I'm not sure what requirements World Challenge originally had for them to be in the class, but the point of the class's origin being specifically called "touring car" means the intent was there.

Frankly, I don't care one way or the other. STU is at the bottom end of the participation list right now, and there are lots of eyes looking at it. The Prod guys want us to go away so we'll quit mucking up their EP/FP races. The GT boys don't want to play with us either because we don't have slicks.. But give it another year or two at the current participation levels and many people that purpose-built cars for the class will be hoping they can fit into GT/Prod. There's no longer the 2.5 requirement, but we're averaging 1.9x cars per race.. You think they're going to give us a slot at Ruboffs with that kind of participation?
not trying to be pessimistic, just looking at the hazy side of my crystal ball....

[Z3_GoCar]

STU had the "touring car" requirement by intention of the class being for retired WC Touring Class cars..
I'm not sure what requirements World Challenge originally had for them to be in the class, but the point of the class's origin being specifically called "touring car" means the intent was there.

Frankly, I don't care one way or the other. STU is at the bottom end of the participation list right now, and there are lots of eyes looking at it. The Prod guys want us to go away so we'll quit mucking up their EP/FP races. The GT boys don't want to play with us either because we don't have slicks.. But give it another year or two at the current participation levels and many people that purpose-built cars for the class will be hoping they can fit into GT/Prod. There's no longer the 2.5 requirement, but we're averaging 1.9x cars per race.. You think they're going to give us a slot at Ruboffs with that kind of participation?
not trying to be pessimistic, just looking at the hazy side of my crystal ball....

I wouldn't be so pessimistic about STU's future. Sure the majors participation isn't as high as it had been in the past, but we're already at 11 STU cars signed up and I'm sure there's at least a half dozen that'll come from the local regions through the divisional route. We've been ahead of AS, GT1, T3, and T4. In fact this may be the largest the STU field to date.

As for roles, I see STU as more of the current GTS and less of the TC of old. Maybe that's the solution to the STL dilemma, banish the DD Miatas to STU, and remove the rotary's to only the chassis that they came with, which can be regulated back to parity.

[adamjabaay]

I can think of a half dozen cars in process for STL , all fwd...

it just looks like a fun place to play. My crx might not dominate anyone nationally, but it will be fun and budget friendly, and mike taylors gsr b18 EG should run well too, albeit a focus on enduro stuff

[JS154]

. Maybe that's the solution to the STL dilemma, banish the DD Miatas to STU, and remove the rotary's to only the chassis that they came with, which can be regulated back to parity.

Send in a letter.

www.crbscca.com

[Andy Bettencourt]

No, that's not the solution. The solution is to work with what you have created. People have real money into cars based on rules that have been presented for more than enough time to fix any wayward intent.

The rotards aren't the perceived issue. The 'non touring cars' are. Split the classes and see what happens if you have to.

'We never wanted RWD'
'We never wanted rotories'

Well we included them. People built cars. People are running the class in huge numbers.

Send in a letter.

www.crbscca.com

[Greg Amy]

Nope, it's now unofficially - and inevitably - "Yet Another Miata Class".

Us retarded kids will just go find another sandbox to play in. - GA

[Knestis]

Send in a letter.

www.crbscca.com

Actually, it occurs to me that since my letter has been sent up to the CRB for consideration, there must have been some action on the STAC's part. My big complaint - the reason I quit the ITAC - was that the CRB was sitting on recommendations from that ad hoc, or in some cases individual CRB members were actively misrepresenting or twisting those recommendations to others. Letters to the Board might in this case actually be a good idea for anyone who cares about this issue.

K

[Knestis]

STL just needs to evaluate what it wants to be. Again, STO and STU never had a 'touring car' requirement. They were places for WC cars to go from the 2 different classes...so STL is an extension of that via engine size. Why should the interior volume apply here and not to STO?

Where do the WCGT cars that were targeted by the STO rules fit in the current STU/STL scheme? I think the answer is "nowhere." There were never any GT or sports cars in WCT, until we got to the most recent silly crossover-please-bring-something-to-race-with-us rules. There was no need to have a "touring cars only" rule in WCT, because the class simply didn't accommodate anything else. Unless I'm confused - which is possible - STU was for ex-WCT cars so, de facto, "touring cars." STL is a second derivative of the STO/STU false start. Leaning heavily on that as history seems like a distant stretch.

K

EDIT - Whoops. Slow to that party. What they said.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Right, but the class is 'Super Touring'. A place for WC cars to go if they wanted to retire. Super Touring 'Over' and Super Touring 'Under'. DISPLACEMENT.

In neither category was there in the beginning, or ever has been a rule on having to be a 'Touring' car. No interior volume, no door count. Even in todays WC 'Touring' car A-spec division you see cars like FR-S, MX5 and Civics.

Touring does not mean what you want it to mean in the SCCA.

So to recap, Super Touring is just a name, not a philosophy of what a car should look like. STO and STU from their inception have never been linked to a body style. In fact, STO has had specific cars eligible - most sports cars...and STU (while including WC-TC which did have many sedans and some coupes) had NO spec lines and was a displacement class with no chassis limits.

I submit that STL is simply a slice right out of STU that ALSO gives cars is under 2000cc's a place to play based on DISPLACEMENT, not chassis design.

There was never an intent in ANY of these classes to limit to a 'traditional' T-car.

[Knestis]

Paging Peter Keane to the white phone. Peter Keane please pick up the house phone for an important call...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Core car yes, but never to exclude everything but 'touring cars'. TC's are 4 doors.

Edit: I'm not trying to be argumentative here Dr. K. I'm just trying to point out that Super 'Touring' O has sports cars and Super 'Touring' U is a displacement-based class with no limitations.

No place in the infancy of Super Touring (STO and STU) was the requirement to be a traditional touring-car written. STL is a subset of these classes and unless specifically exclusionary and incongruent to the parent classes, it would seem that it's a displacement class too.

[Chip42]

I admire the hell out of mazda for taking the initiative in creating an amazingly good, low cost RWD sportscar platform that to date has remained uncoppied to any real level of success by any other manufacturer, and to continue to make it in the face of declining sales. They built a car everyone thought would fail in the US market, proved them wrong, and hit the formula so precisely that no one who has tried has managed to get anywhere close to their level of success.

but it's not a touring car. it would be nice to have a touring car class, because there are so many good options, many pro series that could feed it, and I believe there's interest in it. if STL/U is too far gone, we should make a new one and consolidate the redundancy in the current mix of classes. the old days had sedan and production, and while entropy from those days certinaly led to the mess we are in now re: over abundance of classes, the groundwork laid then seems more appropriate to the realities on the ground today for reasons I do not think the folks at the time appreciated - namely those that Kirk elaborated on. ITB and C cannot be the last place small-discplacement, comnpromise-laiden boxes (AKA "touring cars" among other things) can race around in relative partiy without a miata or suchlike more purposefully built machine messing up the formula.