What is a "touring car?"

Knestis said:
Asking about a first principle of a class is certainly not "picking nits." I think maybe you don't know what that term means.

K
Click to expand...

Andy Bettencourt said:
Sure it was. It's a power to weight class based on engine volume. That door is wide open for any chassis newer than the designated year in the rules. The tweaks toward equity in a National class are always ongoing but let's not pretend the Miata somehow snuck in the back door to this party. The invitee list has been clear since inception and there has been no change since the original GCR version that has magically allowed 'sports cars'.
Click to expand...

This. Remember that whole disclaimer about 'competitiveness not guaranteed' ?? Well now people are whining Because Miata and you're trying to make the other chassis more competitive.. The door's been open to 'any car after 1985' since the inception of both STU and STL, so trying to decide now that you didn't want 'sports cars' to be included is picking nits to me..

Yeah.. let's kick the running back off the football team because he's too fast and none of the kids on defense can catch him! Then trophies for all!!
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
...let's not pretend the Miata somehow snuck in the back door to this party.
Click to expand...
Concur, it was always invited to the party. However, in our ongoing - and decisively not yet resolved - quest to enable parity between FWD and RWD cars, we've consistently increased the RWD adder from (I think?) 2%, to 3.5%, to today's 5.5%. And, of course, IMO we're not there yet (I think it needs to be 7.5% minimum).

However, it is only recently that we're finally realizing that one reason we're not there yet is not necessarily FWD vs. RWD; in fact, it's becoming more apparent that there's additional characteristics beyond RWD that make them a better package. It is because of this recent realization that we're now discussing implementation of an additional characteristic, one that does a better job of taking into account "better than the sum of its parts". The Miata is just one clear, obvious, and numerically advantageous illustration of that concept. Other examples include the Honda S2000, Acura NSX, etc.

In other words: "sports cars".

So the questions at hand are...do "sports cars" actually exist, do they have a performance advantage over "non sports cars", and if so how - or if - should they be appropriately classified?

GA
 
Last edited:
I stand corrected re: inclusion of 2-seaters in the initial design of STL. I may be confusing the explanations I've heard, between that and the allowance for rotaries. That's a bad thing, too, I think - but it's a different conversation. It would still be interesting to see what Keane et al. ENVISIONED when they penned the first rule set, though. I'd love to ask him. Was it an oversight, allowed, or intended?

K
 
Last edited:
I ask this because I truly don't know.

What evidence is there that Miatas dominant STL (other than easy crossover and a few top SM guys not surprisingly run up front in STL)?

What data supports the %age weight adder for rear wheel drive STL cars?
 
- We put data acq boxes in many front-running cars during the Majors season and at the Runoffs;
- Experienced observations;
- Race results.

Majors classifications are held to a different standard than Improved Touring; while we may start with hard numbers and a general formula, it's a guideline; we are not beholden to it. The CRB's goal is to ensure reasonably equitable competition among a wide breadth of participants within any Majors class. If something sticks out, it gets whacked; if something is seriously being prepared and driven and it sucks, it gets a break.

Read my sig. And think about the above paragraph next time you want to go National/Majors racing with Improved Touring.

Now read my sig again.

GA
 
and in response to tGA's post I would like to resubmit my belief that overachieving chassis in ST be speclined with weight modifiers, just as over achieving, perceived overachieving, alternate prep, and non USDM motors not made by VW are given modifiers to or wholly unique base weights. THAT WAY the "miata" can be "dealt with" while not sticking a similar penalty on a 86 fiero, which is a far lesser platform that HAPPENS to share drive wheels and general suspension design designators with the mazda.
 
Greg Amy said:
- We put data acq boxes in many front-running cars during the Majors season and at the Runoffs;
- Experienced observations;
- Race results.

Majors classifications are held to a different standard than Improved Touring; while we may start with hard numbers and a general formula, it's a guideline; we are not beholden to it. The CRB's goal is to ensure reasonably equitable competition among a wide breadth of participants within any Majors class. If something sticks out, it gets whacked; if something is seriously being prepared and driven and it sucks, it gets a break.

Read my sig. And think about the above paragraph next time you want to go National/Majors racing with Improved Touring.

Now read my sig again.

GA
Click to expand...

Damn -- I feel for you, and I mean that. I know you tried to setup STL as purely objective based on displacement to avoid some of the subjectivity in the IT process, and it looks like there is actually MORE subjectivity now in STL.

I still think it is a good class, and a key to our future. If you are going to be putting weight on RWD cars and such, glad you are using actual data to do it rather than what we did with LapSim.

But I think Chip and Andy are right. I think the Miata may be poisoning the well for all RWD cars, which is a shame.

Anyway, I'll continue to watch the class closely and see where it goes. I have some interest in it, and yes, I'm one of those guys you'd have to worry about buliding a FrankenNSX.
 
FWIW, I think ST in general and STL in particular are the most objective class in SCCA. IT has gain numbers, classing, tq and other adders ... STL at least just has displacement, valve count, drive wheels, and strut or no. STU adds some other variables but still, pretty damned objective. Really, that's the whole problem being discussed here with the Miata.

Benevolent dictator, ala prod, is super subjective. Which works great, except when it doesn't. it's a lot easier to cause bad feelings towards the club in a subjective system, its a lot harder to offer something for everyone in an objective one. No easy answers.
 
Last edited:
JeffYoung said:
Damn -- I feel for you, and I mean that. I know you tried to setup STL as purely objective...
Click to expand...

Yeah, well, everyone's vision of Utopia eventually meets Reality...ours just happened sooner (welcome to Majors/National racing). On the other hand, its attraction was quite evident -- it pulled me right in immediately -- so I'm not that surprised. We/I resisted spec lines and tables for a bit, but once that cherry was popped it was apparent that's the direction we're heading. For now, we'll continue to adjust based on general characteristics and use those tables to address the highs and lows; I abhor the idea of having to spec-line everything and deal with letters and consistent argumentation about comp adjustments so I'll continue to resist it as long as it makes sense.

To that end...put in your 2c on the "sports car" proposal.

And read my sig again.

GA
 
Matt93SE said:
I think we would all agree that a Miata is a "sporty econobox" while an Elise, NSX, and S2000 are more pure 'sports car'...

But where do you draw the line? And does that apply for STU and STO/GT2 as well?

IMO, the Miata belongs in STL no matter what label you try to put on it. It's a Japanese econobox 4-banger that just happens to have a small body and 2 seats.. and a damn good suspension.
Click to expand...

Disagree, completely.

The STI and EVO support your argument, high performance derivatives of the crappy lancer and impreza econoboxes.

The Miata is a pure sports car, primarily designed for superior handling with small size and low weight/height.
 
Last edited:
I am wondering if RWD is the proper criteria.....

or should it be F/R weight distribution? 50/50 is base case and 60/40 gets a 5% reduction.

Is it the driving location or the benefit of distribution that contributes the most to the sum of the parts?
 
it's a LOT of things. RWD is a characteristic, not an inherent behavior or capability. ditto FWD. that some platforms have more of the good and others less while sharing drive wheels and some other adjectives is the issue that's hard to address without naming names.
 
for Ron:
2.0L STL weights
RWD w/ SLA: 2849
RWD w/ F Struts: 2795
RWD w/ SLA and non USDM 2% penalty (i.e. BMW S14B20): 2905
RWD w/ F Strut and non USDM 2% penalty: 2850

FWD w/ SLA:2700
FWD w/ F Struts: 2633
FWD w/ SLA and non USDM 2% penalty: 2754
FWD w/ F Strut and non USDM 2% penalty: 2685

:shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top