What is a "touring car?"

[JS154]

ST* has always been a warts & all class. The way I see this discussion, it's now to the point of plastic surgery in attempt to remove the warts.. Are you SURE this what you want?

ST warts and all? Don't you mean IT?

[Greg Amy]

ST warts and all? Don't you mean IT?

No, he's referring to the inference of the intent of the Super Touring philosophy being one of adjustments based on generalized characteristics and letting the chips fall where they may. In other words, "pick your car and its associated warts."

Maybe that's still possible; maybe we can avoid specific line-item classifications. However all the regular Table A adjustments is evidence to the contrary; that box is already wide open. The committee will continue to fight for that concept, but it may mean adding an extra characteristic adjustment (or two. Or three.)

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

No matter what the original intent was (warts and all), it was born as a 'National' class and will always be one. Therefor it will be subject to competition adjustments. If not just by the nature of the CRB wanting to try and maintain what they think is competitive balance, but maybe also by 'molding' the shape of the class to fit the original 'vision'.

This is a common fear when the discussion of taking IT National comes up. Even though the 'W&A' theory is part of the culture (while still having mechanisms in there to fix problems within the Process), if it were to become a popular National class, people would lobby for CA's and the CRB would feel that pressure to accommodate the squeaky wheels. I personally think that when you state the intent of a class upfront, people have limited recourse when then don't like the results....kind of like complaining about noisy planes when you move into a house near the airport.

[dickita15]

But Andy it should not have to be that way. a class should be able to have a philosophy and culture that makes it stand apart from other classes. the problem seems to be IMHO that the committees and the CRB sit and read dozens of letters each month asking for a change to make it more fair. it is very difficult to constantly say yes we understand what you are asking for would make it more fair but it goes against the culture and purpose of the class. maybe you bought the wrong car.

[Andy Bettencourt]

But Andy it should not have to be that way. a class should be able to have a philosophy and culture that makes it stand apart from other classes. the problem seems to be IMHO that the committees and the CRB sit and read dozens of letters each month asking for a change to make it more fair. it is very difficult to constantly say yes we understand what you are asking for would make it more fair but it goes against the culture and purpose of the class. maybe you bought the wrong car.

Hey, you know me, I am all about IT going National and having it NOT get messed with. I think it is reasonable to let the ITAC and CRB continue doing what they are doing without any threat of traditional CA's...but I have my doubts that the CRB could leave it alone.

[Matt93SE]

ST warts and all? Don't you mean IT?

Nope... June 2014 GCR: (emphasis mine)

9.1.4.A. Purpose and Philosophy
The intent of the Super Touring category is to allow competition of
production-based vehicles, at a higher level of preparation, using DOTapproved
tires. Vehicles used in this category must be identifiable with
the vehicles offered for sale to the public and available through the
manufacturer’s distribution channels in the US. No chassis or engines
older than 1985 will be eligible, except that model runs that began
before 1985 are eligible (e.g., if a model was produced in 1983-1988,
the 1983 and 1984 cars are eligible). The SCCA does not guarantee the
competitiveness of any car.

Super Touring Under (STU) vehicles are mid-level multi-purpose
performance cars of 3.2 liters and under...
...Spec lines are not required for STU
eligibility; unless otherwise specified, any vehicle meeting the model year
and engine displacement limits is eligible for this class.

It seems that too many people are forgetting the competitiveness guarantee.

Maybe the formula needs to be adjusted slightly, (how about RWD McStrut cars have a smaller weight penalty than RWD double-wishbone? ) but I'm certainly not in favor of a Prod/GT-level spec where this car gets brakes and that car gets bigger restrictor.

Give everyone the same prep rules and let the cards fall where they may. I chose my car knowing it's NOT a Miata or a Solstice, and I'm gonna race it anyway, heavy iron engine, McStruts and all.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Nobody is forgetting. The issue is that you are reading that as gospel. Just because you aren't going to guarantee competitiveness, doesn't preclude you from trying.

All National classes try.

I don't think you will see line-item adjustments in STx but you will certainly see engine-specific adjustments and platform adjustments. Not a total CA scenario but certainly not CA-free.

[Z3_GoCar]

Nobody is forgetting. The issue is that you are reading that as gospel. Just because you aren't going to guarantee competitiveness, doesn't preclude you from trying.

All National classes try.

I don't think you will see line-item adjustments in STx but you will certainly see engine-specific adjustments and platform adjustments. Not a total CA scenario but certainly not CA-free.

Aka: The rules are what they are, until they're not.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Or: It's an SCCA National class...they WILL make Comp Adjustments.

And that is OK...unless the mission statement says otherwise.

[Knestis]

Submitted for consideration by the CRB:

Change 9.1.4.B.1. to read as follows (changes indicated by underline):

"1985 and newer cars with SAE passenger volume greater than 60 cubic feet (per the standards defined by SAE J1100 as adopted by the manufacturer), built specifically under these ST rules."

The proposed passenger volume requirement would clarify as a first principle of the category that Super Touring cars be passenger vehicles typically designed to safely seat four adults (i.e., to the exclusion of light trucks, sports, and Grand Touring [GT] cars). Note that this proposal should not be interpreted as affecting
9.1.4.B.3., the allowance that alternate categories/classes of cars may compete in their own specification.

Respectfully submitted,
Kirk Knestis
103210

[Andy Bettencourt]

Where is the database or the gold standard resource on researching passenger volume?

Where did you come up with 60 cu/ft?

Are you stating a problem in your request and an associated solution or just a simple contraction of eligible cars? You don't really state the goal your request aims at. (We know it but will the CRB?)