What is a "touring car?"

[Knestis]

...I refuse to allow that swing to happen based on top level SM's beating up on low level STL cars. It's short sighted and those people who bitch about SM's in STL need a reality check. They should NOT be faster than you. Use them as a bogey for development. Once you pass them, then get another target.

Nobody - I think, and certainly not me - is arguing from that point of view, Andy. My personal bogey very quickly became the class frontrunners in the NE, most of which happen to be the tiny handful of real STL-spec Miatas running. My proposal was VERY clear about that. I don't particularly like the idea of using other classes/categories as field fillers but there's exactly NO excuse for an SM beating up on a "real" STL car. The class structure should be - and is currently, I think - set up so that those "participatory," "double dip," or "give it a try" entries are not truly competitive.

I KNEW going in that, as soon as I crossed the Regional/National barrier, that we're in competition adjustment territory. (Note that I don't even put a "bleah!" in there when I type it in this context.) That said, I'm convinced that the "better than the sum of its parts" or "better than on paper" part of the puzzle can largely be encapsulated in the definitions associated with what makes a sports car a "sports car." It's a proxy variable but it should be a pretty good one, as it takes a number of hard-to-measure factors into account.

We shouldn't have to wait until a particular sports car has beaten up on every other option to put lead on it - thereby, as it happens, clearing the top of the podium for another make/model with inherent advantages over the pedestrian 4-seaters. We SHOULD design a class that's got as many make/model options as can be practically put on a relatively level playing field. I personally don't have any real issue with Miatas but I DO have a huge concern with the Club limiting the appeal of its racing program by giving them - and other 2-seaters - another place where they and their 2-seat friends bring a pretty fundamental relative advantage to running at the pointy end.

K

[seckerich]

Sometimes you need to give drivers a real reason to build a new car, toss them a bone so to speak.

Look at ITR when it started. Many people were very excited to see a car they loved on the list and wanted to build one. Then the weights came out so stupid high that any car other than an E36 made no sense. Had those other cars been given a more realistic weight there would be more diverse builds to compare, and possible adjustments made for any overdog. It is a huge money and time commitment to build a new car and won't happen unless it looks pretty darn good on paper.

Seems like a good time to toss a bone to the FWD cars in STL if you want the class to grow. I "helped" with some of the cars you are talking about but racing alone sucks. Need to do what is needed now to make the class attractive or "concord" will get you too.

[Andy Bettencourt]

We shouldn't have to wait until a particular sports car has beaten up on every other option to put lead on it - thereby, as it happens, clearing the top of the podium for another make/model with inherent advantages over the pedestrian 4-seaters. We SHOULD design a class that's got as many make/model options as can be practically put on a relatively level playing field. I personally don't have any real issue with Miatas but I DO have a huge concern with the Club limiting the appeal of its racing program by giving them - and other 2-seaters - another place where they and their 2-seat friends bring a pretty fundamental relative advantage to running at the pointy end.

K

I think we need a better definition of what is the real physical trait we are trying to get a handle on. I submit it is NOT 2 seats. I submit it is RWD with DW's at both ends. Del Sol's, Capri's, Fiero's...all pedestrian. RX-8's, not pedestrian. Then you have the tweeners (cars that don't fit either category)...2nd gen RX7, 944, 968, etc.