What is a "touring car?"

[Andy Bettencourt]

I guess my point is that you run the risk of alienating 'over half the people who actually built cars'. It's just as easy to eliminate the TC's. If there was 25 TC's and 5 SC's I'd say go for it but I think your 'issue' outweighs the 'ideal'.

Split them by class and run them in the same group.

- SC's will always have cars and they can reap the benefit of double-dip $$$
- TC's can grow without the fear of 'I left STL because Miata'
- The CRB can watch the relative performance of the two classes
- You can actually see what class is a good idea and eliminate/add as it's proven out
- You can expand the chassis years to really have fun without fear of hurting a layout

[Greg Amy]

Split them by class...

The BoD will not support new classes. See "Concorde Agreement" where there are distinct actions toward a significant reduction in the number of classes.

Don't waste effort talking about a new class; it's a non-starter and thus not a viable solution.

GA

[Knestis]

I guess my point is that you run the risk of alienating 'over half the people who actually built cars'. It's just as easy to eliminate the TC's. If there was 25 TC's and 5 SC's I'd say go for it but I think your 'issue' outweighs the 'ideal'.

Split them by class and run them in the same group.

- SC's will always have cars and they can reap the benefit of double-dip $$$
- TC's can grow without the fear of 'I left STL because Miata'
- The CRB can watch the relative performance of the two classes
- You can actually see what class is a good idea and eliminate/add as it's proven out
- You can expand the chassis years to really have fun without fear of hurting a layout

Of course new builds are going to skew toward sports cars. Anyone making a considered decision will go that way based on the built in advantages. The option of doing that encourages it and discourages building touring car. It's going to become a sports/gt class. Why would it NOT?

...and how many viable chassis will that route include? Is that the basis of a vital class? Does anyone care?

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Well if I loved TC's and I felt the weight advantages we 'correct' then I would have no reason not to build one.

[Knestis]

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

[Andy Bettencourt]

Well the class is still very new. Changes have come every year so far in an effort to achieve parity have they not?

[dickita15]

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

well now that is the real conversation is it not. in order to be inclusive and not drive away real touring car should there be an adder for cars that are not sedans?

[Flyinglizard]

Take out 4% for any real TC until the full builds run pretty even.

[Z3_GoCar]

But in the end what Sports/GT type cars are being a problem in STL? I'd contend it's not a Z3, S2000, or even a NSX, if there's only one or two Sports/Gt cars being an issue then why throw all the Sports/Gt cars out with the bath water? So to speak in mixed metaphor.

[Andy Bettencourt]

well now that is the real conversation is it not. in order to be inclusive and not drive away real touring car should there be an adder for cars that are not sedans?

There is.

RWD with strut front add 3.5% to their baseline weight
RWD all other add 5.5% to their baseline weight
FWD strut -2.5% from their baseline weight

[Knestis]

There is.

RWD with strut front add 3.5% to their baseline weight
RWD all other add 5.5% to their baseline weight
FWD strut -2.5% from their baseline weight

Your contention is that the ONLY factor that matters, among the difference between this...

Honda_Civic_Si.jpg

...and this...

1991-acura-nsx-53_600x0w.jpg

...is the pair of wheels that are doing the driving...?

K

[jdrago1]

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

The CRB has not over ridden any weight increase or change in the adders in STL that was put forward by the STAC.

[Knestis]

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 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

[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