What is a "touring car?"

[Greg Amy]

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...?

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

[Knestis]

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. ...

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

[Greg Amy]

We are not experiencing what you describe. The STAC's recommendations are reviewed at subsequent CRB meetings and dispatched by next Fastrack. Some items may come back to us for clarification, some are over-ridden, but the majority go through as recommended. Very rarely an item will have a genesis from within the CRB without STAC input, but that is rare.

Speaking only for myself, I don't always agree with what the CRB decides, but for the most part it has been above board and mostly transparent.

Peter Keane is the CRB's liaison for the STAC. Jim Drago occasionally joins our concalls as well.

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

We are not experiencing what you describe. The STAC's recommendations are reviewed at subsequent CRB meetings and dispatched by next Fastrack. Some items may come back to us for clarification, some are over-ridden, but the majority go through as recommended. Very rarely an item will have a genesis from within the CRB without STAC input, but that is rare.

Speaking only for myself, I don't always agree with what the CRB decides, but for the most part it has been above board and mostly transparent.

Peter Keane is the CRB's liaison for the STAC. Jim Drago occasionally joins our concalls as well.

GA

And this is how the ITAC/CRB relationship worked for well over 90% of my tenure. We had a hiccup in there for some reason but I think it is fine now.

[Z3_GoCar]

So if I do better than the 328 sedan would that be because I'm a 2-seat sports car, or because I have the same head/intake manifold/throttle body and he's saddled with an extra 330lbs for the extra 300cc of displacement? In IT that difference is only worth an extra 140lbs and that's because my rear suspension has semi-trailing arms and it's got a modern multi-link.

[Knestis]

And this is how the ITAC/CRB relationship worked for well over 90% of my tenure. We had a hiccup in there for some reason but I think it is fine now.

One of the changes to the system that Dick P proposed post-ITAC blowup, was that the communication channel between the ad hoc and the CRB should not be controlled by individuals with a vested personal interest - or even perceived interest - in the outcomes of recommendations coming from the committee to the board. I agreed that it was bad practice, convinced that it contributed to the problems then. I haven't changed my opinion...

...but I'll try to be hopeful that it won't be a problem in this instance.

K

[JeffYoung]

ITAC/CRB relationship is great. They've bought into the Process and basically that is what we do. We know we have clean up to do on ITB and ITR and possibly fix the power to weight multiplier problem in both (ITB is difficult, ITR the bogey car was set too light so that everything else is too heavy).

In any event, this was an interesting thread I don't think STL succeeds without sports cars. I also think that the difference between "sports car" and "touring car" is both overstated and understated.

It's understated in that as we have learned in IT, aero/frontal area/car height DOES MATTER -- quite a lot -- over 100ish mph. No SCCA category I'm aware of accurately accounts for this, or probably even could accurately account for it. So, here, the difference is understated and I'm not sure correctable via Kirk's proposal.

It's also overstated. Take a look at the CD/frontal area on a Miata. Or an NSX. I bet the overall aero is not much better than most modern sedans. And why isn't a GSR a "sports car?" Slippery, two doors, etc.

You've got to dig deeper I think. I think Andy is on to something that RWD + double wishbones is causing most of your problem. And even then, I still don't see the STL Miata dominance that others do. I've driven Tyler's car at Roebling and seen his dyno sheet. Good S cars will beat his car (no knock on it, it's well done). I've talked at length to Mike at ISC about 1.6 and 1.8 Miatas and he thinks (a) they will be ridiculousy expensive to make power in STL and still not competitive.

So it is interesting to me. The non-Miata guys claim the Miata is an overdog, and the Miata guys say it isn't. From the outside looking in, I don't see the data to support the overdog assertion but maybe I'm missing something.

And i probably am. Torque. Miatas never have, and RX7s no longer do, dominate ITS in the SEDiv. The one GSR down here is very competitive. Cars with less capable suspensions are equally if not more competitive, primarily (in my view) due to torque. If you build an ITS Miata, you are taking a huge chance on competitiveness.

So maybe look at why that is, in that power/weight range, the case and see if you can find something that will help you sort things out in STL.

We, the SCCA, need that class to succeed.

[Chip42]

I agree with Jeff Re: ITAC/CRB. Things have gone really well over the last year or 2, and other than a a couple of pretty well publicized issues, well for the total amount of time I've been involved.

re: touring cars - Jeff, I think you might be missing the point, but I agree the need for ST to succeed is huge. of course a low roof, small frontal area car is going to have better aero than a modern sedan, that's crazy talk. Even a shockingly good 0.26Cd of a new Mazda6 or Ford Fusion (Ok, 0.27) equates to more actual drag because drag ≈ Af*Cd, and Af sedan >> Af miata (or integra or whatever car you want to consider pre ~2005) and Cd sedan < Cd miata. the frontal area is just SO MUCH BIGGER that the overall drag works out to be about the same at best, usually advantage: miata (or other small sporty car). Throw in the compromises for trunk space, build cost, live human bodies (i.e. those not in the trunk), and a generally higher starting weight and you can see where kirk is coming from. plus there's that whole perception issue. I think in order for STL to be meaningful it SHOULD NOT have sportscars in it. no elise, no NSX, no S2000, no miata. I care less about STU because engine size and hairdryer allowances get the big sedans a torque number they can do something with, but I think the equalization there needs to be understood and addressed before we have an all small car with forced induction class.

don't conflate IT issues with ST, guys. the Z3 and 328 are different in IT NOT because of suspension, but because of factory rated hp and REALLY CRAPY intake. NOTHING in IT that has been run in the past 5+ years is different because of aero. if a school bus and a miata shared a driveline, they would be classed the same in IT. ST is NOT IT, despite sharing SOME prep similarities.

[tyler raatz]

And even then, I still don't see the STL Miata dominance that others do. I've driven Tyler's car at Roebling and seen his dyno sheet. Good S cars will beat his car (no knock on it, it's well done). I've talked at length to Mike at ISC about 1.6 and 1.8 Miatas and he thinks (a) they will be ridiculousy expensive to make power in STL and still not competitive.

Jeff, to be fair, I need to be clear on 1 thing. The car you drove at the time had a 99SM engine sans restrictor with a few bolt on parts. It made weak ITS power at best, the aero bits slower it down to less than ITS speeds. The current version of the car has about 40hp more and is significantly faster, however, the current weight of the car is way too high to be competitive and it is much less fun to drive. Thus the reason I run it in STU on the few occasions it comes out of the garage.