What is a "touring car?"

[Andy Bettencourt]

Cowardly is a stupid term to use Greg. What in the world would I be afraid of in writing a letter? It's an internet BB, we debate. At this time I feel that it's the responsibility of the people who race in the class to weigh in officially. I am not at that point yet where I feel the CRB needs to hear from a non-driver on this topic mostly because the concept has been debated here extensively and we have given those who do race - or may, some information to chew on in order to write a letter.

And it's disingenuous to insinuate that an 'idea' that you heard, that you might think has merit, could not be brought up as part of the monthly STAC calls, by you - or any other board member who reads this BB as part of the committee debate and problem resolution. Just because it's not submitted via the SCCA site doesn't mean the thought process isn't out there. My concept isn't an actionable item anyway, it's a potential piece of someone else's idea who may see merit in next-wave comp-adjustments or even a redefining of the class as we know it now.

Right now, I don't see a problem with the class that needs immediate action.

[Andy Bettencourt]

WRT the 'what do you think', I also need to be more educated on what the SCCA has done in the past. STL has the same 'issue' as other classes. I bet EP and FP also have the same 'issue'. Getting some success stories from the Prod ranks on how they have attempted to balance Miata's, Preludes, 240Z's, Integra's, 2002's, S2000's, RX8's, Caterham's, 914's, 944's etc.

Seems like the concepts may already live inside the CRB.

[JS154]

WRT the 'what do you think', I also need to be more educated on what the SCCA has done in the past. STL has the same 'issue' as other classes. I bet EP and FP also have the same 'issue'. Getting some success stories from the Prod ranks on how they have attempted to balance Miata's, Preludes, 240Z's, Integra's, 2002's, S2000's, RX8's, Caterham's, 914's, 944's etc.

Seems like the concepts may already live inside the CRB.

Prod allows relocation of suspension pickup points, increased compression, head porting and non factory gearboxes. I other words, STU, but with lower power and different bodywork allowances.

Do sedans or "sports cars" win more frequently in the prod classes? Hmm...

[Chip42]

Eric, the BMW 2.0L is saddled with a 2% weight penalty because Americans wouldn't buy it so BMW didn't sell it here. That k20 in an s2000 or nsx would be a lot closer to a bmw in weight, too.

And read up on prod. The VAST majority of cars allowed in both P and ST are prep 2, with stock pickup points and the same head prep, and usually 11 or 12:1 cr and 0.400ish cam. So... Not that different.

[JeffYoung]

Is this the appropriate time to disclose I've actually considered and starting pricing stuff for a mid 1990s Lotus Esprit with the European DM 2.0 motor for STL?

Take that, FWD shitboxes!

[Greg Amy]

Is this the appropriate time to disclose I've actually considered and starting pricing stuff for a mid 1990s Lotus Esprit with the European DM 2.0 motor for STL?

LOL! What in the hell is a European DM 2.0 motor...?

I think that would be fun.

[JeffYoung]

They made a 2.0 (the regular four pot was 2.2) for tax purposes for sale in Italy and then sold a bunch of the leftovers in the UK in the mid 90s. EDM = European Domestic Market, such as it is...lol....

You can get an Esprit "shell" for $10kish, less than the FrankenNSX. The motor bits are more expensive though. Probably a $60-75k build.

Letter coming this weekend! Woohoo!

[Matt93SE]

Is this the appropriate time to disclose I've actually considered and starting pricing stuff for a mid 1990s Lotus Esprit with the European DM 2.0 motor for STL?

Take that, FWD shitboxes!

But it'll have to breathe through a straw!!

[Greg Amy]

And it's disingenuous to insinuate that an 'idea' that you heard, that you might think has merit, could not be brought up as part of the monthly STAC calls, by you - or any other board member who reads this BB as part of the committee debate and problem resolution. Just because it's not submitted via the SCCA site doesn't mean the thought process isn't out there.

Wait, whut? Dude, is has been brought up, and it has been discussed by the STAC, and we have discussed various options. All we're doing with this process is asking for other thoughts to ensure that the small committee that is talking about this issue hasn't missed any opportunities or ideas before we make a recommendation. That's what this process is for.

We don't need a vote. I don't give a flying doggy-doo about vote numbers or "influencing" positions. I care about ideas, opportunities, and ensuring that we make the right decisions for the good of the category as a whole. We could get 27 brazillion "we hate this idea" votes and if it's actually the right thing to do, then we're still going to recommend it. In the end, we'll make decisions based on what we see as the good of the category despite opinion numbers that may deviate from that position. That's our minimum responsibility. And we're using the "what do you think" option as a way to ensure we have all reasonable information.

If you don't have any new information to add, well then "thanks for your input".

As for your 'influencing'..."The lady doth protest too much, methinks" (the vernacular interpretation).

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

So what the F are you asking me to write a letter for if you have 'brought it up, discussed in committee and bantered various options'? It's not a new concept that you need to hear via official communication because you are not 'missing' my idea.

Why are you asking me to write in? I don't get it. I am restating the concept to those 'regular' IT.com readers who may be interested in what I think is the 'real' problem they are trying to 'fix'.

And PS: You don't have to keep telling me your responsibilities. I know them. I have lived them. I have been on more National SCCA committees than I care to admit.

[Flyinglizard]

I have noted prior that IMHo the lateral performance is limited by the dynamic front tire loading.Less weight on that tire, the faster the cornering speed. Well guess what? the more rear weight the better the car balance. As a designer gets some parameters for a sports car, the first is a good balance. 50/50 is the target many times. 40/60 is super car, 70/30 is econobox.
The good weight balnce also seems to come with good aero kinda as a side benefit. At the same time, the FWD cars have all of the opposite values, IE lots of nose weight , tall greenhouse, poor chassis, less than the sum of it's parts.
What it appears is that among the cars listed and raced in ST. the better cars have 50% or more rear weight. These same cars have a better aero package, some what as a result of the weight placement.
That is one reason why the sum of it's parts(Miata) are better than expected. It has great balance and good aero, great drivers/ great factory support/ doesnt break/ and is pretty cheap to keep.

You could " easily" come up with a multiplier based upon rear weight percent. IE 60% rear weight car gets a base weight times 107% or something like that. At the other extreme is the 70/30 FWD car that would have to get weight times 95% or something like that.
The only outlier that I see fast may be the Honda CRX that has a smalll nose and lots of front weight.