Page 2 of 20 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 399

Thread: What is a "touring car?"

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by backformore View Post
    ...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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt View Post
    ...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...
    Not my circus...not my monkeys...

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    107

    Default

    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

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Amy View Post
    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.
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  4. #24
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    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

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rockville, MD
    Posts
    274

    Default

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

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Knestis View Post
    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)
    Last edited by Andy Bettencourt; 07-09-2014 at 01:16 PM.
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by callard View Post
    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.
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  8. #28
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    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

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Knestis View Post
    I do think we're generally in agreement on most of that, Andy. I will fix this for you though:





    K
    There are plenty of guys who start their SCCA 'career' in SM. Let's also not underestimate the impact 'keeping' a driver who would have normally have left SCCA by staying in a Miata in whatever class.

    Back on topic: If we need STL to be sedans (or some interior volume class) then so be it. Make sure you give the 'sports cars' a place to play with that same ruleset because that is where the entries will pile up.
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    192

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Knestis View Post
    The way things are headed right now, absent any intervention, the future is STL populated with modded Miatas. Why would anyone build anything else at this point?
    Yes, I see this as a problem. The Miata and the K20 and , well nothing else makes any sense to consider for STL.



    In STU, something close to a dealer-showroom Lotus will beat up on a purpose-built AWD turbo sedan, or exotic multivalve "real" touring car. And it's not an economical solution, either.



    K
    Disagree, my car and Irish Mike's car can bring the fight to the Lotus, if driven perfectly and built to the limit of the rules. The Lotus is easy to regulate though pulley size. I don't have an issue with the Lotus in there at all. I dO have an issue being stuck in a run group with a gazillion Miatae and B-Spec cars. What's Heinricy and Lipperini hitting on the back straight at WGI? 110 in a draft with a tailwind? You put three Miatae together and awareness of the world around them evaporates to only their own little microcosm.

    STU is not economical. Aftermarket ECU's, sequentials, relocated suspension pickup points, unlimited shocks. That's easily $60K for those items alone, and you still need the rest of the car to hang those bits off of.

    STU is so expensive it will never be a big class. The only way to really get it bigger is slash the cost to compete (eliminate modified/alternate gearboxes and dry sumps and relocated pickup points) - which is effectively STL. There's a gazillion E36 and E46 BMWs that should be running in STU. Where are they? Nasa GTS I'm afraid.
    Last edited by JS154; 07-21-2014 at 02:51 PM.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JS154 View Post
    Disagree, my car and Irish Mike's car can bring the fight to the Lotus. The Lotus is easy to regulate though pulley size.
    So you're advocating crippling a 4-cyl sports car's advantages in a field of large-displacement touring cars via targeted spec-line power reductions? Note Kirk's premise of "all else being equal"; can you think of any other ~200hp car that would be competitive in STU?

    And how does that category philosophy translate to STL, given we are generally not crippling cars' engine output (except for 2L cars)?

    GA, wondering if we're heading for category-wide individual spec lines a lot faster than we think...
    Not my circus...not my monkeys...

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Originally Posted by Knestis

    The way things are headed right now, absent any intervention, the future is STL populated with modded Miatas. Why would anyone build anything else at this point?



    I reject this statement.

    There is exactly one, ONE uber-prepped and driven Miata in STL. It has a National Champ driver as it's pilot. Is this setting a trend? The fields are double dippers, not track record setters. Yes, we (FOM) like to build our own stuff and don't have a customer who wants to drop the coin to develop the BP 1.8 into what it needs so we went with what we knew, a trick 13B conversion. Plenty quick but limited in it's development for power. Given it's power to weight, I am not sure it would smash any solid records. Maybe Steve E can find us 15whp!

    Maybe we will see 20 Drago-prepped STL cars out there soon. But I'd like to see the other stuff keep coming. Greg has proven you can podium at a Major and is as fast as our 13B car.
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,347

    Default

    Greg has proven you can podium at a Major and is as fast as our 13B car.
    I reject this statement. I had to work my ass off to get there, whereas as Jon made several big mistakes (missed shifts, overcooking corners/braking) and was able to easily move back to the fore and pass without issue. Just compare my front and rear views of him coming up on me and going into corners, versus my unable to come up on him on the straights. Had Jon not made those mistakes he would have been right up there in the front, possibly for the win.

    That aside...it's a trend Andy, anyone paying attention can see it. Kirk is not using single examples to make general conclusions, he's using general trends to make single conclusions. How is it that Spec Miatas are able to fill out the middle of the field, to the point where they're beating almost all non-Miatas (the few there are)? Hell, Gorriaran was chewing on my ass on Saturday at WGI, despite my easy 50hp advantage; only reason he wasn't doing it Sunday is because he went home (along with a large chunk of the other SM'ers, leaving the top third of our class pretty empty).

    And if double-dippers (who are not serious about the class such that they're leaving before the race) are taking away positions from legit STL competitors, how is that good for the class? And if it's not good for the class, why should we promote it? I'd gladly give up the 4th in participation numbers in order to improve the competition among legit, serious STL competitors. And I've been quite public that I'd rather the class stand or fall based on legit competitors, versus falsely riding a wave of double-dippers.

    Chicken or egg?

    GA, always amused at how "most competitors have excuses on why they lost...Miatas always have excuses on why they won."
    Last edited by Greg Amy; 07-09-2014 at 03:18 PM.
    Not my circus...not my monkeys...

  14. #34
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    Part of the reason STL is attractive to me is that it's not a "spec-line special" class. Spec-line CAs invite what I dislike most about Club Racing - the classing/specification shenanigans and the massive incentive for backroom dealing that goes with it. Greg's note reminds me that I shouldn't get too attached to the idea that STL might be less crappy in that regard.

    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. ...
    Take the longer view - with the admission that I see value in classes that offer variety... The grid last weekend isn't as important as what the grid might look like 3-5 years. The way it is now, there's a built-in incentive - again, physics - to build a 2-seat STL car over a 4-seat STL car, and there are damned few options. That's going to influence make/model variety in the class, and so its appeal, I think. Why use a spot in a class to satisfy the interests of someone who's already running their "regular class" on any weekend, that might appeal to someone who would 'like to race' a mildly modified, 4-cylinder Toyota, Nissan, VW, Hyundai, Ford, Chevy, Kia, etc. sedan, hatch, or coupe that isn't otherwise accommodated somewhere in the mix? Someone who looks at the math is going to know that's a fool's errand. Someone who votes with his heart is going to see a class that doesn't fit their vision of what they want to do.

    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)
    The "make up the numbers" game is a loser, ultimately, and yes - I DO indeed think that STL should have been held to what it was originally envisioned to be, without letting the sports car (and rotary) camel's nose under the tent flap. It's matters of degree, I admit, but differences in general engine architecture could have been dealt with well enough on a formulaic basis (not making the leap to make/model spec lines) to get a bunch of options in the same ballpark, if there were all FWD platforms of the same basic dimensions. The rotary experiences in IT should have told us that the point at which a categorical adjustment (struts/DWB, FWD/RWD, etc.) bear on only ONE case in a class, things can get stupid right quick...

    K
    Last edited by Knestis; 07-09-2014 at 03:24 PM.

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Gainesville, GA
    Posts
    493

    Default

    I really like that people are talking and thinking about this.

    At the risk of contradicting myself though, another thing that has been appealing about STL has been the large fields. I realize most are "fillers", but I kinda like having fillers. That means if you build or are building an actual STL car, you will have cars to race with while you develop your car since the field fillers tend to run the gamut from not particularly fast (for the class) to pretty darn fast for the class. I do think, however, that no "filler" car should, given comparable drivers, be able to beat a fully prepped STL car. I think SMs are a great choice for fillers because they do seem to turn times that require a good STL car with a good driver to beat, but likely can't really compete against a full tilt STL car.

    The thing is, since a "filler" car is a specific exception to the rules, I don't think it has to meet the criteria for the class. Which is to say, just because you allow SMs as fillers, I don't think you have to make Miatas fit in STL. Conversely, if you don't allow Miatas in STL (by seats or volume or whatever), that does not mean you can't allow SMs as fillers. (or IT cars or anything else)

    For the record, I know all of this is really difficult and I really appreciate the folks who take this on and I think they are doing and have done a great job. I am looking forward to getting my car on track and proving once again that the car is the least of my problems.

    Rory

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Amy View Post
    I reject this statement. I had to work my ass off to get there, whereas as Jon made several big mistakes (missed shifts, overcooking corners/braking) and was able to easily move back to the fore and pass without issue. Just compare my front and rear views of him coming up on me and going into corners, versus my unable to come up on him on the straights. Had Jon not made those mistakes he would have been right up there in the front, possibly for the win.
    Your fast lap bested his?

    That aside...it's a trend Andy, anyone paying attention can see it. Kirk is not using single examples to make general conclusions, he's using general trends to make single conclusions.
    What trends? The fact 2 really well prepared full-on STL cars are getting to the podium against 3 other cars? What about Shanfeld's Civic? No mention of that performance yet. Qualified .002 behind Drago in Q1 and ahead of him in Q2. Drago won race 1 by .290 over Shanfeld (who ran a faster lap time). In the second race, Drago again bested Shanfeld this time by 2.987 seconds and also had the fastest lap just over .2. Your fast laps in both races were faster than the 13B Miata.

    How is it that Spec Miatas are able to fill out the middle of the field, to the point where they're beating almost all non-Miatas (the few there are)? Hell, Gorriaran was chewing on my ass on Saturday at WGI, despite my easy 50hp advantage; only reason he wasn't doing it Sunday is because he went home (along with a large chunk of the other SM'ers, leaving the top third of our class pretty empty).
    At the Glen there were 4 non-Miata. 1 got crashed out and 2 were in the top 4. Trend?

    2400lb SM's with 120whp too fast? You out qualified him by a second each day. Shanfeld's Civic was 3 seconds quicker in qualifying than any SM and 2.5 seconds quicker per lap in the race.

    And if double-dippers (who are not serious about the class such that they're leaving before the race) are taking away positions from legit STL competitors, how is that good for the class? And if it's not good for the class, why should we promote it? I'd gladly give up the 4th in participation numbers in order to improve the competition among legit, serious STL competitors. And I've been quite public that I'd rather the class stand or fall based on legit competitors, versus falsely riding a wave of double-dippers.
    You can't take away a spot from a legit competitor if you don't show up to race. Looking at the numbers, STL is third in participation behind SRF and SM. If 20% of the fields were real STL cars and ZERO double dippers, STL would be 2nd from the bottom with about 61 entries Nationwide. I'm ok with that but hardly a ringing endorsement of success just above B-Spec.

    GA, always amused at how "most competitors have excuses on why they lost...Miatas always have excuses on why they won."
    AB, always amused at how fast 'some give up when they see a Miata on grid no matter what like cars are doing'

    Seriously though, I see a wickedly fast Miata and a wickedly fast Civic right on top of each other battling for top Q spot, fast laps and race wins. And I mean RIGHT ON TOP OF EACH OTHER. A trend it is not in my mind. Will I always think that a light, balanced and DW-equipped car will make a better racecar than a FWD car? You bet, but that's why they currently weigh 5.5% more than good FWDers and 8% more than strut FWDers.
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,347

    Default

    Andy, I'm not gonna blow-by-blow you. No insult intended but you weren't there, all you have is finishing results and a couple of videos. Come spend some time with us at the track (we actually do miss you; well, at least the chance to bust your stones...) and watch with us.

    You remind me a lot of George Roffe in the early-aughts. We kept talking (on this board and elsewhere) about how f*****g fast the E36 BMWs were in ITS, and George was always all about "but look at the results! Look at the lap times! Hey, look, Joe DiMinno won ITS at Watkins Glen in a Sentra!" and we were all about "hey, dude, come to the track with us." Then one year George went to the ARRC and came back home all "Jeesum krist those cars a f*****g FAST!!!" and the next year (or so) we had SIRs on 'em...

    Ain't nuthin' like being there, brother...

    GA
    Not my circus...not my monkeys...

  18. #38
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    Rory makes some good points, that helped clarify some things for me.

    Despite the fact that I don't think "field fillers" are a good policy solution, the concept of SMs (and IT) running in STL doesn't really give me any major concern. They should, indeed, not be competitive. And the "fun to race with while developing" point is a good one. I said the same thing when explaining to someone (Eric maybe) about why I chose the Civic in STL over continuing with the STU Jetta.

    It WAS helpful to be reminded that the question about 2-seaters in PROPERLY PREPARED STL CARS is a separate issue from the SM/IT crossover allowance. Basic chassis architecture of "real" cars built for the class is the primary issue I'm worried about, and it's one that I still think we might nip in the bud when only a few cars in the nation actually qualify as such.

    Also (because it seems to have been assumed somewhere along the line) please note that I don't think the "touring" model has got be exclusively FWD. We should be able to quantify and accommodate with adjusters the differences there. The sum contribution of being an entirely different type of tub, not so much.

    Andy - with respect, you're making some pretty broad generalizations here based on one race. None of my arguments are based on lap times.

    K

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    I am refuting the idea that 'if STL keeps trending the way it is then it's going to be all Miata's'.

    Ya, I wasn't there but I can read. 2 qualifiers and 2 races worth of Major shows me that a Civic can run WITH the fastest STL Miata in the country.

    The only thing trending is that SM guys use STL as a place to tune for their SM race...and if they are faster than any STL car, there is work to do there. The best STL cars are a mega-ton faster than the best SM cars...or at least they were on a decent track with decent drivers.

    Kirk, if you want STL to 'look' like something, I am all for it. But like I said, what you will have left over is the second weakest subscribed class in the SCCA. And those who 'will build it' when the Miata's are gone, simply aren't looking hard enough at what a non-Miata has already done and are using that as an excuse IMHO.

    I think the STAC is close to balance right now. Maybe another tweak if more info comes to light but I see parity.

    YMMV.
    Last edited by Andy Bettencourt; 07-09-2014 at 07:09 PM.
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,717

    Default

    The vast majority of SM guys in STL out here are there because they won't get enough points to qualify in SM for the Runoffs. So to qualify for a class, any class, they can race in and earn a decent number of points and qualify for the big race that the other class they're going to race in.

    In addition to removing the allowances that Eric had to make STU more cost competitive, I'd add get rid of Forced Induction or at least throw another 300 lbs on a given size TIR. When you make both more power and torque and weight 200lbs less, there's something wrong.
    STU BMW Z3 2.5liter

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
  •