What is a "touring car?"

[Andy Bettencourt]

For what it's worth, which is slightly less than nothing, I agree with Kirk and like the direction he is headed. When I decided to convert my SSC Civic to something else, part of the motivation was the creation of STL which looked like a class that was designed for "tuner" cars, which are often "touring" cars and maybe even aimed at FWD. As time has marched on though, it appears that the evolution of the class, whatever the motivating factors, keeps moving away from my first impressions. Heck, I just noticed my car's engine has been penalized. Not that I'm aware of a 1.6 liter anything showing any dominance anywhere.

At the last STL race at Rd Atl (my home track), the car to beat was, surprise, a Miata. Don't get me wrong, I love the miata. I am, however, getting kinda tired of every class, new or old, being dominated by them. Kudos to Mazda for building such a kick-ass car.

So, I am for a 4 seat/interior volume or some other criteria to make STL a class for "other than sports cars". Like Kirk said, you eliminate a few options while making a large number of cars suddenly viable.

- your engine probably didn't get penalized in the context of everything getting more weight too
- actually I think the class is trying to keep it within your first impressions. Weight for RWD has been added since inception
- You take away the Miata from STL and you would be surprised what you had...23 cars at the Glen Majors...4 were non-Otters. Of those 19 Otters, I bet no more than 4 were real STL cars...maybe 3.

It's a displacement to weight class with adders for 'stuff'. That's a cool concept. If we need a FWD car to win, we should have never allowed other platforms in. I say enjoy the revenue stream with one eye on the cash and the other on competitive balance...and I think the PTB are doing that now.

[StephenB]

At least my RX8 is a 4 door :-)

[Andy Bettencourt]

I honestly think you could break them out if you really wanted an 'interior volume' minimum for STL. But is the core market there? Maybe!

[gpeluso]

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

[webmaster]

This is a Touring Car

[Greg Amy]

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.

[Knestis]

This is a Touring Car

Hell, yeah.

K

PS - thanks, Webmeister, for the fix.

[autoxmike]

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.

[Greg Amy]

...the car to beat was, surprise, a Miata. Don't get me wrong, I love the miata. I am, however, getting kinda tired of every class, new or old, being dominated by them.

...23 cars at the Glen Majors...4 were non-Otters. Of those 19 Otters, I bet no more than 4 were real STL cars...maybe 3.

QFT.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Are people not building other cars for the class "because Miata" or are Miatas simply dominant in double-dipping numbers because no one else is building cars? Which is the cause, and which is the effect? What happened to all the "this is gonna be a FWD Honda class!!!" STL hand-wringing back when the Miatas weighed something like 4% less than they do now (and weren't even yet developed for the class)...?

I am personally aware of a few competitors that are actively choosing to not participate in STL "because Miata". And I'm also aware of some, active in STL, who are looking for alternative classes that do not have Miatas. STU is hurting overall, but I hear the same stories from competitors about the Lotus in there.

Miatas are wonderful cars. I went to the WGI Inner and Outer Loop and watched the SM race this past weekend and I was f*****g amazed at how fast they blasted through there. Shocked, actually. Even the slowest of the group was going through there gangbusters. And I immediately recognized that there's no way my big car would ever do that, certainly not consistently, short of my not caring about bringing it home intact (or having to worry about paying for it afterward). And the pointy-end SM double-dippers creamed me through there in the races.

Miatas bring the numbers and the revenue; of that there is absolutely no doubt. But as rulemakers and leaders, should that be our over-riding goal? If so, I'm quite certain we could create many more classes for these cars and increase our revenues even more. Hell, let's look into getting rid of all those other pesky classes and focus on what's really important to the Club (he says, quite tongue-in-cheek).

So...chicken, or egg...? I'm sure everyone will have their own opinion on that.

GA, who recognizes this discussion at this point as nothing more than IT.com paddock blah-blah...

[adamjabaay]

as someone who just started a honda STL build, and a weird one (just brought engine to machine guy, a 1.5 sohc, shooting to be just a tad over 2klbs, becausetinymotor), the "miata" problem sort of concerns me, but I'm buildiing this car to be easy on consumables, and fun, as half my use for it will be during HPDE stuff I organize or instruct at, yet I want it to be competative, and its looking like it might be


those dumb little miatas are awesome cars. I REALLY wish I wanted one....because they are so good

[Andy Bettencourt]

QFT.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Are people not building other cars for the class "because Miata" or are Miatas simply dominant in double-dipping numbers because no one else is building cars? Which is the cause, and which is the effect? What happened to all the "this is gonna be a FWD Honda class!!!" STL hand-wringing back when the Miatas weighed something like 4% less than they do now (and weren't even yet developed for the class)...?

I am personally aware of a few competitors that are actively choosing to not participate in STL "because Miata". And I'm also aware of some, active in STL, who are looking for alternative classes that do not have Miatas. STU is hurting overall, but I hear the same stories from competitors about the Lotus in there.

Miatas are wonderful cars. I went to the WGI Inner and Outer Loop and watched the SM race this past weekend and I was f*****g amazed at how fast they blasted through there. Shocked, actually. Even the slowest of the group was going through there gangbusters. And I immediately recognized that there's no way my big car would ever do that, certainly not consistently, short of my not caring about bringing it home intact (or having to worry about paying for it afterward). And the pointy-end SM double-dippers creamed me through there in the races.

Miatas bring the numbers and the revenue; of that there is absolutely no doubt. But as rulemakers and leaders, should that be our over-riding goal? If so, I'm quite certain we could create many more classes for these cars and increase our revenues even more. Hell, let's look into getting rid of all those other pesky classes and focus on what's really important to the Club (he says, quite tongue-in-cheek).

So...chicken, or egg...? I'm sure everyone will have their own opinion on that.

GA, who recognizes this discussion at this point as nothing more than IT.com paddock blah-blah...

It's an interesting debate for sure. What I don't like about it is that a well built and well driven STL should beat every one of the double-dippers. What is the REAL 'because Miata' issue? To me (and I only know the Drago and Farbman cars) 90% of the Miatas out there are double dipping. A class that can hold 19 card-carrying, entry-paying drivers that doesn't upset the competitive balance gets a resounding HELL YES from me...and it should from everyone who likes their entry fees where they are and their participation numbers way above average.

Then there is the mindset of the current drivers and prospective drivers. I would think they would love the 'goal' of beating all the double dippers and then targeting the real cars at the front as the second tier goal. Now as far as the Drago car goes, drivers have to realize that this is a multi-time National Champ, in that chassis with now 3 years of development in motor, suspension and aero. Is it a Miata problem really or a Drago problem?

No offense meant here but I think the Miata issue in STL is BS and almost an excuse. Drivers SHOULD be able to beat 90% of the field with driver talent and a well prepped car...fact. Now if the issue is about one cars build and driver skill - and we think there are other FWD 'touring' builds out there with equal development and driver skills that can't compete...then that is another topic completely. And a Comp adjustment is the answer if it's warranted.

[Knestis]

There are multiple "problems" here so try to focus on the one I'm arguing for a moment: ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, a 2-seat sports/GT car has inherent advantages, thanks to Newtonian physics, over a "touring car" (seats for four adults). This is the "better than the sum of the parts" issue personified in Club Racing by the Miata ('cause there's a huge sample to work from) but operationalized by car designers ANY TIME the priority is performance over utility.

I take it a little personally to be told that "my issue is BS" since I *THINK* I have a clue. Our showing at NJMP at least suggests that we're in the ballpark with the Si - beating, as Andy suggests we should, all of the double-dippers and getting within a fraction of Farbman's new lap record. However, qualitatively, having followed him around there, I KNOW that's a soft record. I KNOW that as we develop the car, it will go faster. I KNOW that I'm not a complete wanker, but I equally KNOW that I'm not as fast as the really good guys/gals out there.

I KNOW all of that but I also KNOW that a lower Cd, frontal area, COG, and MMOI are going to beat up on higher values.

The point at which we confound that physical reality with rotary engines, rear wheel drive, and National Champion-caliber drivers, we go completely SCCA-screwy.

I'm also more than a little bothered when we start talking about revenues, particularly when the quest for entries becomes a driver of short-term policy decisions that often result in longer-term unintended consequences that the Club has a TERRIBLE time undoing. The "we'll let in [whatever] to make up the numbers" trap is going to be an increasing problem - particularly in light of the fact that most of those are double- or triple-dippers rather than new members. If we just care about participation and the dollars people bring, why don't we just have Group 1 be "Everyone," Group 2 be "Everyone's Second Entry," Group 3 be the tiny handful of small formula cars we keep subsidizing with options for multi-dipping, Group 4 be "Everyone's Third Entry Including Friends and Relatives," and so forth...

Make the classes make sense. Have a limited number of them. Have a cohesive program. Stop catering to handfuls of whiners. Build a program.

K

[callard]

How about charging more for the second entry? Let the double-dippers rethink cheap track time and focus on which wooden trophy is meaningful.

[Andy Bettencourt]

How about charging more for the second entry? Let the double-dippers rethink cheap track time and focus on which wooden trophy is meaningful.

Because that is the total opposite of what a Club should do for it's members.

[Knestis]

I do think we're generally in agreement on most of that, Andy. I will fix this for you though:

The Miata has been a mixed blessing for the SCCA. It draws drivers, revenue and competition from other classes.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

There are multiple "problems" here so try to focus on the one I'm arguing for a moment: ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, a 2-seat sports/GT car has inherent advantages, thanks to Newtonian physics, over a "touring car" (seats for four adults). This is the "better than the sum of the parts" issue personified in Club Racing by the Miata ('cause there's a huge sample to work from) but operationalized by car designers ANY TIME the priority is performance over utility.

I take it a little personally to be told that "my issue is BS" since I *THINK* I have a clue. Our showing at NJMP at least suggests that we're in the ballpark with the Si - beating, as Andy suggests we should, all of the double-dippers and getting within a fraction of Farbman's new lap record. However, qualitatively, having followed him around there, I KNOW that's a soft record. I KNOW that as we develop the car, it will go faster. I KNOW that I'm not a complete wanker, but I equally KNOW that I'm not as fast as the really good guys/gals out there.

I KNOW all of that but I also KNOW that a lower Cd, frontal area, COG, and MMOI are going to beat up on higher values.

The point at which we confound that physical reality with rotary engines, rear wheel drive, and National Champion-caliber drivers, we go completely SCCA-screwy.

I'm also more than a little bothered when we start talking about revenues, particularly when the quest for entries becomes a driver of short-term policy decisions that often result in longer-term unintended consequences that the Club has a TERRIBLE time undoing. The "we'll let in [whatever] to make up the numbers" trap is going to be an increasing problem - particularly in light of the fact that most of those are double- or triple-dippers rather than new members. If we just care about participation and the dollars people bring, why don't we just have Group 1 be "Everyone," Group 2 be "Everyone's Second Entry," Group 3 be the tiny handful of small formula cars we keep subsidizing with options for multi-dipping, Group 4 be "Everyone's Third Entry Including Friends and Relatives," and so forth...

Make the classes make sense. Have a limited number of them. Have a cohesive program. Stop catering to handfuls of whiners. Build a program.

K

Kirk,

I think you and I are more on the same page than you think. To you, it's not the 'Miata problem' where you are upset at a horde of Otter just for the sake of being pissy. You are the subset of drivers that do need to be heard for one simple reason only - you think STL is a touring car class and it should allow touring cars only. No problem. You are fast and can see the light at the end of teh tunnel in terms of speed and development - and maybe a track record.

My point is that without the 'cars people like to race', there is almost no class. 4 cars at the Major? Then we revert to Greg's point. Were there only 4 cars there because of Drago and his Miata or was it because of the 15 SM's that were double-dipping on some weird principle issue? If it was a Miata issue at all. If it was, lets decipher between the BS reason and the legit reason. That's all I am saying. I see you on the 'legit' side - even though I may disagree.

I think you will have trouble weeding out the cars you don't want so that strut FWDers are the class of the field. I am sure there are choices that can provide 4 seats and 4 corners of DW's (RX-8).

Let's handle it with CA's like in other National classes. No?

One of the issues I see is that the Miata is so good, so cheap and so popular it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the top 3 SM drivers in my area all jumped into my old ITA car right now, I don't think any of my track records would stand for more that the time it took to run their 2nd lap. Point being if Miata can run in 'x' class, you can bet a but-load or talented drivers with development bucks will eventually try it. (See EP, FP, STL, ITA, etc)

The Miata has been an absolute miracle for the SCCA. It draws drivers, revenue and competition.

The real problem here is the CRB and their desire to allow 'field fillers' into new classes to boost numbers and profits. If we wanted STL to be a FWD piston-based class, then they should have locked it down from the beginning and let it sink or swim on it's own. It takes balls to do that and you have to believe 100% in your class concept. Personally I think it would fail. Would anyone build anything other than a Honda if it was just FWD? Isn't that just Honda Challenge? Would the CRB make CA's to entice other platforms to be competitive with their strut-based chassis? Then if they are, do we have the same problem we 'have' now? (Now I'm just playing things out hypothetically)