What is a "touring car?"

[jdrago1]

- We put data acq boxes in many front-running cars during the Majors season and at the Runoffs;
- Experienced observations;
- Race results.

GA

This is my opinion as a Miata driver in STL, not a CRB member.

1)data boxes...
Have you seen this data? How do you distinguish cornering advantage from "because miata" versus "better Driver"?

2)Experienced Observations.. Often very biased.. Especially when coming from those who race in the class, even with the best intentions, it is human nature. In the past, 2011 and 2012 my observations were directly responsible in adding weight to my miata as I felt it was the right thing to do. This year, I mentioned to you and others on STAC that I felt the plate was a bit too small on the civic, to my knowledge,nothing was done with that info? What I have seen in 2013 is two similar quality FWD Honda drivers run similar cornering speeds to mine, similar lap times to mine and some good races. I have seen Integras with significant straight line speed advantage but seconds off the pace in terms of lap time. Still confused why it is OK for FWD Civics to run "miata" STL times and no one complains, but when the same times are run by 'miatas", most say "because Miata.

3)Race results..
If the best driver is a properly classed car wins every race? Is there a problem? If a car at a slight disadvantage is driven
by a pro wins every race, do we handicap the car? Or we put a wanker in a car that everyone else would win in, but he
doesnt, do we speed that car up? Race results are rewards weights, nothing more.

IMO it has gotten to the point where many feel that all good results are 95% "because miata", which is just ridiculous. I have a spare SM, prepared identical to mine. Greg and Kirk are welcome to come and race it in SM no charge at any race I attend, just let me know a few weeks out and I will have the car set up and scaled to your weight and liking. We can do a test day, a race weekend, whatever you like. The ARRC may be a good weekend? That will tell you where you really are in terms of pace. With all due respect, the over/under will be 3 seconds from pole. You guys are simply putting way too much on car and I am willing to prove my point. When you are seconds off the pace, it is more than 'frontal area", "Sports car' and "double wish bone'.

Huffmaster is one of the best drivers in the SCCA. His RX8 WAS NOT at an advantage IMO. It was driven exceptionally well and the car was very well sorted. The RX8 was the best prepped car in the Runoffs the last two years and the best driven this year, period. I have not once complained about that car. I did not win because I did not put enough time and effort into my car, it had nothing to do with the RX8 being an over dog. Gilsinger could have also won last year had he entered in an equally prepared civic. They showed up with a SS car that they basically de cammed.

Jim

[Greg Amy]

Have you seen this data? How do you distinguish cornering advantage from "because miata" versus "better Driver"?

Of course I have; haven't you? And I can distinguish that easily, because I know what I'm doing with data.

Experienced Observations.. Often very biased.

Of course it is, by definition. But then again, so is racing against a guy one(?) time and deciding he needs a bigger hole to breathe through.

This year, I mentioned to you and others on STAC that I felt the plate was a bit too small on the civic, to my knowledge,nothing was done with that info?

I'm sure you recall that the restrictor plates on the 2L engines after the 2013 Runoffs came directly from the CRB, not the STAC. The STAC does not have the information that the CRB has/had when it did that. If the CRB believes that situation has changed, then by all means it should be addressed.

If the best driver is a properly classed car wins every race? Is there a problem?

Of course not. But that's the crux of this discussion. Is the "best" driver actually winning races? How are you determining that? Are all cars "properly" classed? What's the basis for that position? What's the objective, unbiased, subjective definition of "best"? And of "proper"?

You could very well be right. In hindsight, were I to invest into building another car for this class it's not very likely that I'd spend money on anything different than what you did.

But in the end, if not "data acq, experienced observations, and race results" then what should the CRB use to consider competition adjustments? Should it consider competition adjustments at all? What does it use now for the basis of comp adjustments in other categories?

GA

[Knestis]

Color me intrigued about the idea of racing a competitive Spec Miata but luckily I'm old enough and smart enough to understand that there's exactly zero chance that I'm going to find all three of those seconds in one weekend, in a car that's so different from what I've raced almost exclusively since I last had any serious seat time in a rear-drive car (an SSA Mazda, by the way) in 1987.

I'll check my calendar though.

That mental masturbation out of the way, I would HOPE that everyone notices that at no point did I ever invoke relatively competitiveness between me in a particular Civic (or anyone/anything else) and "sports cars." Never. My argument is strictly about the physics of the two broad chassis options, and I've frankly not heard anyone make any substantive case that my principles are flawed...

Now, I did point out a few observations from the NJMP Majors weekend this spring. First, that I was still leaving at least a second on the table, relative to what my experience tells me I should be doing. Second, Farbman only went as fast as he needed to in order to win; which was 2 seconds off the pace he accidentally set in P1. In race 1, I did a 34, he did a 33. In race 2, I reeled him in, caught him, then he drove away from me. I did a 33, he did a faster 33. That is NOT about how fast the car or the driver really is; that's about managing the competition by sandbagging, which is only possible with a car that's substantially better than the competition.

I didn't just fall off of the sports car turnip truck. I KNOW that's how the National/Major (and especially "pro") programs work. I know that you know all of that but I just want to make sure it's in the record, because frankly, I think that's the game you're playing. I don't have any confidence that you can actually take your STL driver hat off when your making CRB decisions, and - if it's possible - I believe even less that you are operating in good faith with the STAC (a la the restrictor example that Greg shared). That's based on my firsthand experience watching you operate when I was on the ITAC. You're too hooked into the game to stop playing it. If nothing else, you might solemnly believe that you're' "doing what's right for the class" but from the outside looking in, it simply looks hinky.

But equally, I know that vehicle dynamics says that a car with the qualities of a Miata is going to be faster than a car with the qualities of a Civic, given the same power, level of preparation, and driver skill. NO QUESTION. Tell me I'm wrong if you dare, but do *not* play the results comparison game and tell me that I'm whining because I'm getting beat by any particular EXAMPLES of car/driver combinations. I'm not. Get over that. Further, arguing that's what I'm doing, without addressing my actual proposition, is disingenuous and only reinforces to me that you aren't willing - or able - to look objectively at the technical aspects of the issue at hand.

I also know that it's a fool's errand, trying to fix that problem with competition adjustments when someone moving the levers of the process - and more importantly, controlling the flow of information to the CRB - has an interest in, and the ability to manage, the outcome.

K

[adamjabaay]

I must comment that I'm really enjoying this thread, overall. I feel this class is headed In a positive direction, from the outside looking in. I can't wait to be in.


thoughts about wide variety of weight cars running all on the same tire? Do the 2700 lbs cars start having managment issues with tires 3/4 into race?

[dhrmx5]

Reply to Kurt: If you look at results around the country it will show that FP/STL/T3 are generally right on each other as far as lap times.

In looking at times from that NJMP weekend I see that Farbman managed a .31 which mirrored the T3/FP times so I would conclude he was on the mark.

You, on the other hand did a .33 with a car that you admitted was 200 lbs overweight in your first time driving it. If you got rid of the 200 lbs and found that second you felt you left on the table I would guess .31s aren't out of the question for your civic (although that chassis is too heavy for a 1.6 engine to make weight)

Sounds like parity to me. The real question is why neither of you are going as fast as the ITS track record?

[dhrmx5]

As far as insinuating that Drago or members of the ST rules adhoc are advocating for their cars as they adjust rules, nothing could be further from the truth.

With the exception of Greg's pathological hatred for all things rotary (I am assuming his high school nemesis was conceived in one), the committee looks at all sides of the argument before voting their interests.

[Knestis]

As far as insinuating that Drago or members of the ST rules adhoc are advocating for their cars as they adjust rules, nothing could be further from the truth.

With the exception of Greg's pathological hatred for all things rotary (I am assuming his high school nemesis was conceived in one), the committee looks at all sides of the argument before voting their interests.

I like your idealism but my direct experiences show otherwise.

K

PS - what's your name?

[dhrmx5]

Dave Mead

T3= showroom stock based, DOT tires
FP= major car mods, slicks
STL= major mods, DOT tires

Different strokes for different folks. I currently own cars that run in all 3 classes.

I am well aware of some of the shenanigains pulled on the committees but haven't seen it in the ST committee.

What I haven't seen is any prepped to the limits FWD cars show up at an STL race. Until I see that, I will resist any changes to the status quo

[Greg Amy]

PS - what's your name?

Dave Mead, currently a member of the STAC and my personal stalker.

GA

[Knestis]

Reply to Kurt: If you look at results around the country it will show that FP/STL/T3 are generally right on each other as far as lap times.

In looking at times from that NJMP weekend I see that Farbman managed a .31 which mirrored the T3/FP times so I would conclude he was on the mark.

You, on the other hand did a .33 with a car that you admitted was 200 lbs overweight in your first time driving it. If you got rid of the 200 lbs and found that second you felt you left on the table I would guess .31s aren't out of the question for your civic (although that chassis is too heavy for a 1.6 engine to make weight)

Sounds like parity to me. The real question is why neither of you are going as fast as the ITS track record?

All of which is you explaining that you didn't read - or don't understand - my proposal.

If we write the rules for a class based on observed (perceived) "parity" based on two cars at one track on one weekend, without controlling variables that are SUPPOSED to differ between a "good" racer and a "less good racer," then it's an amateur-hour, tail-chasing exercise.

K

EDIT - And I'm curious, if we also have "parity" between STL, FP, and T3 in this gold-standard comparison, why the heck do we have three separate classes? They're all running the same times on the track, right...?

[jdrago1]

I didn't just fall off of the sports car turnip truck. I KNOW that's how the National/Major (and especially "pro") programs work. I know that you know all of that but I just want to make sure it's in the record, because frankly, I think that's the game you're playing. I don't have any confidence that you can actually take your STL driver hat off when your making CRB decisions, and - if it's possible - I believe even less that you are operating in good faith with the STAC (a la the restrictor example that Greg shared). That's based on my firsthand experience watching you operate when I was on the ITAC. You're too hooked into the game to stop playing it. If nothing else, you might solemnly believe that you're' "doing what's right for the class" but from the outside looking in, it simply looks hinky.


K

Lets be completely frank.. You don't know me at all.. Nor do I know you at all. I couldn't even point you out in a crowd of three people. I think it is fair to say that what you "think" you know about me you don't like and I can say the same. I never had any iron in the fire with the ITAC deal, I was new on the CRB and was genuinely trying to find a happy medium between the two committees as a non IT involved CRB member. I think we can agree that there was a lot of tension at the time between the two boards and not a very good position to be put in. I did not know IT at all at the time, was not and is still is not my thing. It was almost five years ago now? Maybe it is time to let the past go and start living in the present? I think most are tired of hearing about it already. I am willing to bury the hatchet if you are.

As far as any game I am playing...
I must not be too good at it. It is VERY clear that I was DIRECTLY responsible for the weight put on the Miata. If you search this forum, I wrote up a detailed write up after the first Runoffs that recommended adding weight to my car as it was the right thing to do for the class. Two years in a row I suggested my car get weight. How often does that happen? I was directly responsible for taking my car from 2485? to 2635. Since being on the SMAC and now CRB, NO CAR I HAVE EVER DRIVEN HAS BEEN HELPED, ONLY SLOWED DOWN BY weight or speeding up the other cars. For two years I said my car had an advantage and I had not brought properly prepared car to compete. My opinion now is that the cars are very close. I am not playing any game. I have been clear to all that ask, STL is NOT my main focus even though it is a far better chance to win. The "game" I am playing , so we are clear. I run take off SM tires whenever possible so I can save my stickers for the Runoffs. But never race a tire more than three sessions old. I race every race to win. I run as fast as I possibly can every lap.

[Knestis]

Lets be completely frank...

I can be frank.

At one critical juncture during the ITAC mess, we had sent up something like 15 recommendations for weight adjustments for make/model examples that were judged to be out of whack. Some of them, by the time we reached the highest point of "tension," had been in the CRB's hands literally for MONTHS without any action. Members were very frustrated, many complaining loudly about it on this board.

One member - again, a regular poster here at the time - emailed you to complain/ask about what was probably the most egregious example of the "black hole" or "perma-tabled" recommendations your board's docket. You replied, telling him in some detail how messed up the ITAC was, and how we weren't "doing our job..."

...except you didn't notice that he'd cc'd me on the original message when you hit "Reply to All." I got to see you trashing the ad hoc to a member, and kindly offering your personal help as a CRB member to fix the problem for him. I called you on your duplicitous, Secret Car Club of America, back-room BS in a reply email; that the ad hoc was doing its job (recommending) and that the CRB was the SOURCE of this member's problem, NOT doing theirs (deciding).

I heard nothing back from you; no acknowledgement that maybe what you did was a problem. You didn't do what you COULD have done - make up or down decisions on all of those stagnant recommendations - to address the member's concern. That was instrumental to my outing the CRB for stonewalling the process in this forum, the resulting gag order from the CRB (okay, Andy, it was a gag REQUEST ), and my subsequent resignation from the committee.

SO, frankly, while I do not KNOW you, you have given me fair reason to say that I do not TRUST you. You've earned that.

Not being on the inside anymore, I can't see the day-to-day workings of the relationship between the STAC and the CRB, but when I see an example like Greg mentioned above - fast-tracking a proposal through the board under the guise of it being a recommendation from the ad hoc - my opinions are reinforced. I know based on my decades of experience in the Club, that if one example gets out, there are lots more that don't.

When I see that two individuals with a vested competitive AND commercial interests in the outcomes of rules decisions - yourself and Mr Keane - control all messaging from from the STAC back to the board's deliberation, I know how you can shade the conversation. (That was, in my estimation, a key cause of the problems we had during that meltdown, although it was not you personally playing the role then.) I thought that process was going to change. It's a problem that it hasn't, if nothing else because it's lazy, sloppy policy making.

I know that CRB members are deferential to their respective category "experts," so your position can easily steer the body's decision. When you deny here that a tall box with a high center of gravity will, all other things being equal, be slower than a short box with a low CoG with the same power, I know you're using criteria other than physics or some other objective measure to make determinations about how you direct those conversations.

Heck, the board couldn't even represent my proposal accurately when it was put to the membership in the the October prelims, turning it into a request to "Consider Differences Between Sports Cars and Touring Cars in STL" and making it sound like I proposed "adding more weight to all rear-
wheel drive cars." That's completely not accurate but you know that if you control the message, you control the process. YOU CAN'T HELP YOURSELVES.

So, yeah - I'm still a little pissed off, I'm an ideologue, and I value transparency and character - or at least the appearance of character - above the tradition and culture of these rule-making bodies. If you and the board want my trust, get the two guys benefiting from STL rules out of their position as sole conduit of information beyond what's captured in the web-based system. Recuse yourselves from board decisions that benefit you. Be transparent. Don't engineer any more end runs around the ad hoc.

Kirk (who figures he's probably un-invited on that ARRC seat deal now )

[jdrago1]

I know that CRB members are deferential to their respective category "experts," so your position can easily steer the body's decision. When you deny here that a tall box with a high center of gravity will, all other things being equal, be slower than a short box with a low CoG with the same power, I know you're using criteria other than physics or some other objective measure to make determinations about how you direct those conversations.


So, yeah - I'm still a little pissed off, I'm an ideologue, and I value transparency and character - or at least the appearance of character - above the tradition and culture of these rule-making bodies. If you and the board want my trust, get the two guys benefiting from STL rules out of their position as sole conduit of information beyond what's captured in the web-based system. Recuse yourselves from board decisions that benefit you. Be transparent. Don't engineer any more end runs around the ad hoc.

Kirk (who figures he's probably un-invited on that ARRC seat deal now )

So I guess that is a no? You can't let this go. Do you have any long lasting hostility with your first grade teacher you would like to bring up while we are at it? Maybe the kid who stole your milk money growing up?

I am not going to discuss this again other than to say what wont be popular here. I did not think you in particular or the ITAC as a whole was doing a very good job at the time. I don't deny saying that. We will always have a difference of opinions there. This is nothing new.

The rest ITAC drama, I read blah, blah blah, blah blah blah.. I have heard all of this from you before, responded several times before. To my knowledge, no email you ever sent me went unanswered. You have a pretentious way about your emails and posts that keeps sucking me in, so I doubt I could have not replied even if I really wanted to.


I am going to move forward with STL now.. If you want to continue here with 5 year old ITAC stuff, unfortunately you will be discussing without me.

1)I have read here several times that no one on STAC has any issues with things going through the CRB? yet you keep beating that drum. I am not even a liaison on that call. I think I have sat in on post runoffs calls to share my opinions and maybe 2 other calls in three years?

2)I think for the 3rd or forth time I am saying in 3 or 4 different ways... A miata, a sportscar, a car with a frontal are x is always going to be faster than econobox with all other things being equal..

But again for the second or third time... all other things ARE NOT EQUAL NOW.. In fact very few are equal.
A proper built econobox is at a HP and straight line advantage and weighs less. I agree the debate is open for how much faster it should be, why and how to get there.


As for ARRC deal... Still stands for both of you. If lucky, we may have a broken brake line or stuck throttle cable at just the right time

[Knestis]

So business as usual.

At least we can count on you to be what you are. I guess I can kind of respect that.

K

PS - Our Ops Manager IM'd me today to ask if the "ARRC" note I have in my calendar was firm. I asked him not to schedule anything, as it was still tentative.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I did not think you in particular or the ITAC as a whole was doing a very good job at the time. I don't deny saying that. We will always have a difference of opinions there. This is nothing new.

So this one I take personally. I'll disagree with you here in saying that I think that the ITAC was doing an EXCELLENT job at the time because we spent hours upon hours attempting to codify the Ops manual. To an outsider looking in it may have looked like a ton of mental masturbation but every possible path needs to be driven down on before you can put something in writing as a guiding principle. I honestly think we had to slop around in the mud for a while to get that heavy lifting done and to some on the CRB it looked like a waste of time because it wasn't part of the culture of the other competition-adjustment based classes. In order to be able to follow the Ops manual as well as is being done now, the Ops manual has to be a good document.

Also, the fundamental principles of the Ops-manual type classing, was for some reason never explained or ingrained into the CRB by our ITAC liaisons. When I got on that CRB call, well over half of the group had never heard of 'the Process'...that to me was a GIANT fail. How could the core of how we classed cars, with the knowledge of at least two key CRB members for YEARS, suddenly be a negative and a unknown quantity? No idea.

I have no hard feelings about that time. Mostly because I still like most everyone involved and believe that most everyone has the best for the SCCA at heart. Reasonable people can, will and do, disagree.

[jdrago1]

But equally, I know that vehicle dynamics says that a car with the qualities of a Miata is going to be faster than a car with the qualities of a Civic, given the same power, level of preparation, and driver skill. NO QUESTION. Tell me I'm wrong if you dare, but do *not* play the results comparison game and tell me that I'm whining because I'm getting beat by any particular EXAMPLES of car/driver combinations. I'm not. Get over that. Further, arguing that's what I'm doing, without addressing my actual proposition, is disingenuous and only reinforces to me that you aren't willing - or able - to look objectively at the technical aspects of the issue at hand.

I also know that it's a fool's errand, trying to fix that problem with competition adjustments when someone moving the levers of the process - and more importantly, controlling the flow of information to the CRB - has an interest in, and the ability to manage, the outcome.

K

I think I agreed with you some where along the road on this already? Also in two posts up I commented that results are nothing more than rewards weights IMO.. So I think we are in violent agreement here..

Where we disagree or maybe you didn't lay this option out above.. We ARE NOT in a place where "Miata is going to be faster than a car with the qualities of a Civic, given the same power, level of preparation, and driver skill."

It is my opinion..

"most" of the moderately prepped Hondas make more HP and weigh less than the miata in STL. I think we can agree that it is FACT that an equally built Honda 1.8 engine will make substantially more HP than a 1.8 Miata engine. So IMO, the debate is how much more power does the FWD integra/Honda need to make to be "competitive" with all else being equal. It is my opinion that none of those things are close to "equal" in the small comparison sample we have in STL. This is where personal agendas, different opinions and drama come in.