In addition to a Miata and a guard rail, something else struck me (ba-dump, ching!) this past weekend at WGI. The very fundamental issue that I raised here a couple years ago seems to be manifesting itself on the STU and STL grids - that of sports/GT cars edging out, if not potentially totally eclipsing, actual "touring cars" in these classes. If we nip it in the bud now, we can head off an unintended consequence for the entire category...
All other things being equal, a chassis with two seats is going to have an advantage over one with four - frontal area, aero "licked surface," impact of bluff rear surfaces on Cd, and center of gravity to name a few. The formula for setting spec weights doesn't take these variables into consideration, nor can it really be expected to in any repeatable, consistent way.
There are literally dozens of sub-2.0, 4-cylinder, make/model options that might be viable STL cars, for example, that are less likely to get built because, in addition to engine breathing challenges they won't EVER be able to get back what they lose to the sports cars in terms of basic architecture. And the Lotus is NOTHING like any of the other cars running in STU, in very fundamental ways.
The FIA has long used interior volume to define what was - and wasn't - a Touring Car. They have to be able to carry four real adults in sensible condition (e.g., not cut up in garbage bags). And there are WAY more real touring car options out there than there are "sports/GT" cars, as defined by the same approach, which makes for a more vital, viable class.
My modest proposal is that a minimum interior volume be established for the STx classes - now, while it's still early days. A cohesive vision or plan for "what a class should be" is crucial to its long-term success, the other option being to base listings and specs on ideas about the "on-track performance" of individual cases. That leads to individual allowances and the inevitable shenanigans, power brokering, dealing, and other silliness that follow.
I'm going to write a proposal but thought I'd get some input before doing so. Thoughts?
K
All other things being equal, a chassis with two seats is going to have an advantage over one with four - frontal area, aero "licked surface," impact of bluff rear surfaces on Cd, and center of gravity to name a few. The formula for setting spec weights doesn't take these variables into consideration, nor can it really be expected to in any repeatable, consistent way.
There are literally dozens of sub-2.0, 4-cylinder, make/model options that might be viable STL cars, for example, that are less likely to get built because, in addition to engine breathing challenges they won't EVER be able to get back what they lose to the sports cars in terms of basic architecture. And the Lotus is NOTHING like any of the other cars running in STU, in very fundamental ways.
The FIA has long used interior volume to define what was - and wasn't - a Touring Car. They have to be able to carry four real adults in sensible condition (e.g., not cut up in garbage bags). And there are WAY more real touring car options out there than there are "sports/GT" cars, as defined by the same approach, which makes for a more vital, viable class.
My modest proposal is that a minimum interior volume be established for the STx classes - now, while it's still early days. A cohesive vision or plan for "what a class should be" is crucial to its long-term success, the other option being to base listings and specs on ideas about the "on-track performance" of individual cases. That leads to individual allowances and the inevitable shenanigans, power brokering, dealing, and other silliness that follow.
I'm going to write a proposal but thought I'd get some input before doing so. Thoughts?
K
opcorn:
