Results 1 to 20 of 399

Thread: What is a "touring car?"

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    BEAVER,PA
    Posts
    273

    Default

    This is very interesting. Not that my opinion matters but I think of touring meaning 4 passenger cars... Not 4 doors but cars that were meant to carry 4 adults. I think this maybe the problem with STU because we are not seeing many ex pro cars running like many thought would be .....

    Greg

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    109

    Default

    This is a Touring Car

    - Webmaster

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    I'm a bit bummed that this forum has been down during a very critical point in our evolution. The STAC/CRB has been in deep discussions regarding "sports cars" and how to define them, and what, if anything, to do about it. We solicited feedback from members (see Fastrack note below); we were looking for assistance in defining "sports car" and how to deal with it. We received several letters but most simply expressed support for, or disagreement with, the idea.

    Given the "rules year" we are at the final opportunities to do anything for 2015; once the January GCR is approved we can only change weights, tires, and restrictors. The STAC is looking to create a "placeholder" in the GCR, with maybe a token weight number in there just to save the place and give us the opportunity to adjust later. In our meeting last night, there was support for this idea, and we are looking to recommend something to the CRB for their next meeting.

    It's almost really too late to send an email to the CRB with input - we have to submit something by next week - but if you have ideas for defining a "sports car", now is the time to do it. Don't bother sending letters "for" or "against", we're well past that stage... - Greg



    October Fastrack WDYT: Instead of adding more weight to all rear-wheel drive cars, the CRB is considering a performance equalizer in STU and STL specifically for "sports cars", as opposed to standard "touring cars".

    The definition of "sports cars" include such features as:

    1. Engine location (front, front-mid, rear-mid, rear),
    2. Number of doors,
    3. Suspension design,
    4. Overall dimensions, and/or
    5. Manufacturer-published interior volume.

    Among the equalizers being considered are (for sports cars) are:

    1. Smaller tire section width,
    2. Additional weight(with or without reducing overall class base weights), and
    3. Restrictors.

    The CRB would like membership input on the general idea, as well as thoughts on definitions/characterization of a sports car as well as suggested performance equalizers. Please send your feedback through the SCCA letter system at crbscca.com.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by webmaster View Post
    This is a Touring Car

    Hell, yeah.

    K

    PS - thanks, Webmeister, for the fix.

  5. #5

    Default

    Note: I spent the last 5 months building a "true" STL car so was too busy to read this and the threads is too long now to read every post...

    I'm a "new" STL guy that just found this thread. This summer I built a 90%-95% build 95 Civic Coupe with a B18 GSR motor with the goal of playing in STL and seeing how well I can do at the Runoffs the next 2 years. I built the Civic knowing that there are combinations of chassis/motors out there (mainly RWD sports cars) that should be much faster - but I did so counting on "performance adjustments" that are continuously re-examined & tweaked so that cars like mine won't be relegated to Mid-pack status. We will see. If after 2016 this is the case then I'll take the car to IT or Prod somewhere....

    That said - I see the class as a non-sports car class. One where Miatas, RX-7s, Porsche 944 type vehicles aren't overdogs and quite honestly slight underdogs. IF it turns into a Miata/Porsche./RXT/Must have a RWD class then I'm gone. My hope of that the "powers that be" realize that if it does indeed turn into a "sports car class" then people like me that are starting to build "true" STL cars will leave for other pastures. IMHO the rules must be written to allow a wide variety of chassis/engine combos to have a shot at running near the front if the class has a chance at thriving.
    Last edited by autoxmike; 11-25-2014 at 03:27 PM.
    _____________________
    Mike Taylor
    1995 MX-3 LeChump/ITX

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    cleveland,oh
    Posts
    46

    Default

    So I sold my FP Civic and bought a Z4 with the intent to build an STU car... Should I just stop?
    Scott
    STU Z4?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    107

    Default

    my guess is you'll be fine

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    My perception is that STU suffers from a completely different - or at least bigger - challenge, that being reconciling turbo/blown and NA engines. I got very excited about the potential of the Jetta TDI I drove 2 years ago, and the tuners seemed to think we could get it to where it needed to be, power-wise, if we were willing to compromise the endurance and/or smoke expectations we'd set for the project. However, I had a realization that if I had any interest in being competitive in Majors or the Ruboffs, the second it was competitive - as the ONLY example of a forced-induction diesel in the crowd - it was going to have a huge target on it for a lead or inlet diameter screwing. That didn't sound like a good use of money.

    K

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •