What is a "touring car?"

More good stuff Chip. I hesitate to try and slice up 'good strut' and 'bad strut'. If the late Civics are struts but they are really good, then so be it. It's just something that has to be dealt with. 'Warts and all' can go both ways. 'Better than on paper' can be applied to anything.

And I also agree with the general sentiment of point 2. Just not sure how to fix. If the club is losing TC's to other clubs 'because SCCA Miata' and there is a large enough pocket of members to create a class for, then let's do it!
 
...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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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. :023:
 
Knestis said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
No. I am asking for a better solution than 'ban the sports cars' in a power-to-weight class.

.
Click to expand...
Nobody is talking about banning sports cars in ST.

That said, it took 3 years to bring turbos into parity, and in the meantime we've lost a bunch of NA cars. Whatever changes need to be made to bring a reasonable degree of parity to the class should be made right away, or people are going to be gone. Can;t blame them, there are too many other offereings for peple to race their cars these days, SCCA isn;t the only game in town.
 
Eh, technically I AM talking about that. It doesn't sound like an idea with much traction at this point but taking the long view - and shifting lightweighted versions of current STL sports cars to STU - i still think it's a viable solution. Problem is, it's a solution that's not only going to piss off four people, at least one of those people is pretty much in a position to prevent it from happening.

Do we wonder why classes don't prosper, even as they have expanded in number, when the wishes of so few individuals can drive an entire nationwide category...?

K
 
JS154 said:
Stick a 944 motor in there or a 2.7L Boxster engine.
Click to expand...

Blake Meredith - who has the smarts to know - suggested "elsewhere on the web" a Boxter with a 2-liter 16v VW engine for STL. I think that would be pretty freaking cool but holy hell, ka-CHING.

K
 
Knestis said:
Eh, technically I AM talking about that. It doesn't sound like an idea with much traction at this point but taking the long view - and shifting lightweighted versions of current STL sports cars to STU - i still think it's a viable solution. Problem is, it's a solution that's not only going to piss off four people, at least one of those people is pretty much in a position to prevent it from happening.

Do we wonder why classes don't prosper, even as they have expanded in number, when the wishes of so few individuals can drive an entire nationwide category...?

K
Click to expand...

Top contenders in STU this year look to be a S2000 and a Z3. Both 2 seat sports cars. If a certain driver in a certain Lotus shows up that's a guaranteed win, why bother playing.

I believe that number of seats is a very valid starting point, as they are lower, with smaller frontal area, better weight balance, better handling than pretty much any 4 seat car. engine location is another huge handling advantage Mid engine for example.

How many Toyotas, Nissans, BMWs, Aduis, in other words, anything other than a Honda or Mazda, are running in STL?
 
Knestis said:
If I had any confidence that this CRB would put the ballast on the sports/GT cars necessary to achieve any kind of parity, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

K
Click to expand...


The CRB has not over ridden any weight increase or change in the adders in STL that was put forward by the STAC.
 
I'm just looking to do the best I can, there are actually two S2000 to watch for. While Rylan scored the #1 spot in the Majors, he doesn't hold the lap record for STU at MRLS. That belongs to another S2000 driver that qualified via the divisional route. Then we have Jim Rogerson in his Solstice. I hope this is the closest STU Runoffs finish ever, the class needs that to put the super/turbo-charged over dog behind.
 
Rogerson's Solstice is fast in a line, as long as it can stay together. They have the wick turned up so high on those things that they continually go through engines and turbos. If they would dial back the power a little, the cars will be MUCH more reliable. That said, I know they did turn one down about 50hp last weekend to finish the race so he could qualify for runoffs, but he still nearly burned it down by the end of a 30min regional.. That said, Tony Rivera brought out his WC-TC FRS and schooled both of us with a car that was 500lb heavy.

If someone would build an FRS/BRZ to the limit and could get the weight down, it would definitely be a contender for both STL and STU. (4 seats- it's a touring car!) Or keep the weight in and throw an STI engine in the thing and you'd have some real power to go with the handling..
 
I too looked at STL long and hard. I decided that I should not build a car for STL not necessarily because of Miata, but the miata did influence a lot of it. I bought a engine, high end simulation software and did as much homework as I could. I knew the bogey car and times (RWD mazda product or K20 powered Honda).

After many many hours of simulation I found that even with nearly infinite money I could not build my small RWD (non Mazda) car to compete against the top level bogey cars. I found that the big role is my choice of low displacement. From a power to weight ratio it was right on or even exceeded, however the larger displacement cars had torque. Something the rule set does not directly address.

I mentioned that I believe this class is turning into a displacement class and basically you take a chassis and throw the biggest motor you can. The results seemed to support this fact with the exception of the 1.8L miatas. They were the exception to my belief and was thrown back against me.

They addressed some of the 2.0L cars and added more RWD weight, due to the success of the mazda products. This only hampered the other RWD cars more, putting me farther behind. The percent difference between RWD and RWD DWB is less than the adder I got on the engine I requested due to it’s unknown.

I still believe the weight/displacement factor is off.. There is a full built 1.6L down here in the South east run by ISC. I would consider that a well built car by a team that knows miatas.

Simulations showed that I would be running times only marginally quicker than ITS times with my 1.6L car, no torque, engine adder due to JDM, and the fear of RWD cars that are mainly focused at Mazda have affected my car. I ran a few races this year, but unless things change, which I assume they will a non Mazda STL car is not in my future. I did look at FDRX7 prices was shocked what just a rolling chassis cost!:o
 
JS154 said:
Top contenders in STU this year look to be a S2000 and a Z3. Both 2 seat sports cars. If a certain driver in a certain Lotus shows up that's a guaranteed win, why bother playing.

I believe that number of seats is a very valid starting point, as they are lower, with smaller frontal area, better weight balance, better handling than pretty much any 4 seat car. engine location is another huge handling advantage Mid engine for example.

How many Toyotas, Nissans, BMWs, Aduis, in other words, anything other than a Honda or Mazda, are running in STL?
Click to expand...

Stay away from seats - it's NOT the factor that is the potential problem, really. STL doesn't have the forced induction problem. I think that the S2000 and Z3 are great additions to STU because they are normally aspirated and they can win or lose on their merits as opposed to underestimating power output by a ton on some turbo of SC'd car.

Toyota's aren't know for their power potential, a Nissan could be fun but there would be a development curve for a SR20-powered 240SX (FWD cars have sucky suspensions), BMW's are typically too large cc-wise to consider, and I am not sure what Audi package you would run. Honda's and Mazda's are probably the top 2 cars in amateur motorsports by a ton, because they are cheap and fun.
 
the SR-240SX is a well known quantity, turbo restrictors and all. (and non-turbo version in STL). There's a few that ran well in Australian Improved Production class. Until they take the BecauseJDM handcuffs off it, it's not going to get built. I was **ALMOST** there until they stuck the -2mm restrictor on it and I figured out how much cheaper it is to run a rotary in Prod and go faster.

GT3 supposedly has the SR16 allowed as well, so there's another option depending on how light you think you can get the chassis.
 
October Prelim Minutes: http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/assets/October2014 Prelim Minutes.pdf

And...go*!

STL
1. #14472 (Kirk Knestis) Consider Differences Between Sports Cars and Touring Cars in STL

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" includes 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 and suggested performance equalizers. Please send your feedback through the SCCA letter system at crbscca.com.

* You can post here, but it just don't count unless you submit it to the CRB via crbscca.com...
 
jdrago1 said:
The CRB has not over ridden any weight increase or change in the adders in STL that was put forward by the STAC.
Click to expand...

I'm curious, Greg, what - given the above - the process will be moving forward. Since the CRB has solicited input on the issue (if not actually on my proposal), does that mean that has the STAC had its say on the issue? Or will the STAC consider the input and make a specific recommendation re: one or more "performance equalizers" to the CRB...?

K
 
Knestis said:
I'm curious, Greg, what - given the above - the process will be moving forward. Since the CRB has solicited input on the issue (if not actually on my proposal), does that mean that has the STAC had its say on the issue? Or will the STAC consider the input and make a specific recommendation re: one or more "performance equalizers" to the CRB...?
Click to expand...
Standard procedure: the STAC will discuss the issue and make recommendations to the CRB. The CRB will discuss the recommendations and decide what to do. In the end, the CRB is free to over-ride and/or complement any recommendations from the STAC - or ignore them entirely. We are just an advisory committee, the CRB is the legislative body.

It was the STAC that requested to publish the WDYT for membership input prior to making any recommendations. - GA
 
Greg Amy said:
Standard procedure: the STAC will discuss the issue and make recommendations to the CRB. The CRB will discuss the recommendations and decide what to do. In the end, the CRB is free to over-ride and/or complement any recommendations from the STAC - or ignore them entirely. We are just an advisory committee, the CRB is the legislative body. ...
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

My complaint with the CRB when i was on the ITAC was that they were not legislating. Simply not making decisions by using a "pocket veto" or doing what some of us on the ITAC started calling the "perma-table" on recommendations. Worse, at least one individual was compounding that by communicating through back channels to members that delays in responding to THEIR - the members' - requests were the fault of the ad hoc not doing its job. We were - making recommendations so the board could decide.

My tolerance for that kind of Secret Car Club of America stuff is at an absolute zero point as a result. My trust and confidence in their practices continues to be low, particularly in any instance where a member's personal interests might constitute a conflict.

Sorry - one more procedural question: We used to have an assigned liaison from the CRB who served as a conduit to the ITAC. Is that still the practice and if so, who serves in that role for the STAC?

K
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top