What is a "touring car?"

[Knestis]

There are multiple "problems" here so try to focus on the one I'm arguing for a moment: ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, a 2-seat sports/GT car has inherent advantages, thanks to Newtonian physics, over a "touring car" (seats for four adults). This is the "better than the sum of the parts" issue personified in Club Racing by the Miata ('cause there's a huge sample to work from) but operationalized by car designers ANY TIME the priority is performance over utility.

I take it a little personally to be told that "my issue is BS" since I *THINK* I have a clue. Our showing at NJMP at least suggests that we're in the ballpark with the Si - beating, as Andy suggests we should, all of the double-dippers and getting within a fraction of Farbman's new lap record. However, qualitatively, having followed him around there, I KNOW that's a soft record. I KNOW that as we develop the car, it will go faster. I KNOW that I'm not a complete wanker, but I equally KNOW that I'm not as fast as the really good guys/gals out there.

I KNOW all of that but I also KNOW that a lower Cd, frontal area, COG, and MMOI are going to beat up on higher values.

The point at which we confound that physical reality with rotary engines, rear wheel drive, and National Champion-caliber drivers, we go completely SCCA-screwy.

I'm also more than a little bothered when we start talking about revenues, particularly when the quest for entries becomes a driver of short-term policy decisions that often result in longer-term unintended consequences that the Club has a TERRIBLE time undoing. The "we'll let in [whatever] to make up the numbers" trap is going to be an increasing problem - particularly in light of the fact that most of those are double- or triple-dippers rather than new members. If we just care about participation and the dollars people bring, why don't we just have Group 1 be "Everyone," Group 2 be "Everyone's Second Entry," Group 3 be the tiny handful of small formula cars we keep subsidizing with options for multi-dipping, Group 4 be "Everyone's Third Entry Including Friends and Relatives," and so forth...

Make the classes make sense. Have a limited number of them. Have a cohesive program. Stop catering to handfuls of whiners. Build a program.

K

[callard]

How about charging more for the second entry? Let the double-dippers rethink cheap track time and focus on which wooden trophy is meaningful.

[Andy Bettencourt]

How about charging more for the second entry? Let the double-dippers rethink cheap track time and focus on which wooden trophy is meaningful.

Because that is the total opposite of what a Club should do for it's members.

[Knestis]

I do think we're generally in agreement on most of that, Andy. I will fix this for you though:

The Miata has been a mixed blessing for the SCCA. It draws drivers, revenue and competition from other classes.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

I do think we're generally in agreement on most of that, Andy. I will fix this for you though:





K

There are plenty of guys who start their SCCA 'career' in SM. Let's also not underestimate the impact 'keeping' a driver who would have normally have left SCCA by staying in a Miata in whatever class.

Back on topic: If we need STL to be sedans (or some interior volume class) then so be it. Make sure you give the 'sports cars' a place to play with that same ruleset because that is where the entries will pile up.

[Andy Bettencourt]

There are multiple "problems" here so try to focus on the one I'm arguing for a moment: ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, a 2-seat sports/GT car has inherent advantages, thanks to Newtonian physics, over a "touring car" (seats for four adults). This is the "better than the sum of the parts" issue personified in Club Racing by the Miata ('cause there's a huge sample to work from) but operationalized by car designers ANY TIME the priority is performance over utility.

I take it a little personally to be told that "my issue is BS" since I *THINK* I have a clue. Our showing at NJMP at least suggests that we're in the ballpark with the Si - beating, as Andy suggests we should, all of the double-dippers and getting within a fraction of Farbman's new lap record. However, qualitatively, having followed him around there, I KNOW that's a soft record. I KNOW that as we develop the car, it will go faster. I KNOW that I'm not a complete wanker, but I equally KNOW that I'm not as fast as the really good guys/gals out there.

I KNOW all of that but I also KNOW that a lower Cd, frontal area, COG, and MMOI are going to beat up on higher values.

The point at which we confound that physical reality with rotary engines, rear wheel drive, and National Champion-caliber drivers, we go completely SCCA-screwy.

I'm also more than a little bothered when we start talking about revenues, particularly when the quest for entries becomes a driver of short-term policy decisions that often result in longer-term unintended consequences that the Club has a TERRIBLE time undoing. The "we'll let in [whatever] to make up the numbers" trap is going to be an increasing problem - particularly in light of the fact that most of those are double- or triple-dippers rather than new members. If we just care about participation and the dollars people bring, why don't we just have Group 1 be "Everyone," Group 2 be "Everyone's Second Entry," Group 3 be the tiny handful of small formula cars we keep subsidizing with options for multi-dipping, Group 4 be "Everyone's Third Entry Including Friends and Relatives," and so forth...

Make the classes make sense. Have a limited number of them. Have a cohesive program. Stop catering to handfuls of whiners. Build a program.

K

Kirk,

I think you and I are more on the same page than you think. To you, it's not the 'Miata problem' where you are upset at a horde of Otter just for the sake of being pissy. You are the subset of drivers that do need to be heard for one simple reason only - you think STL is a touring car class and it should allow touring cars only. No problem. You are fast and can see the light at the end of teh tunnel in terms of speed and development - and maybe a track record.

My point is that without the 'cars people like to race', there is almost no class. 4 cars at the Major? Then we revert to Greg's point. Were there only 4 cars there because of Drago and his Miata or was it because of the 15 SM's that were double-dipping on some weird principle issue? If it was a Miata issue at all. If it was, lets decipher between the BS reason and the legit reason. That's all I am saying. I see you on the 'legit' side - even though I may disagree.

I think you will have trouble weeding out the cars you don't want so that strut FWDers are the class of the field. I am sure there are choices that can provide 4 seats and 4 corners of DW's (RX-8).

Let's handle it with CA's like in other National classes. No?

One of the issues I see is that the Miata is so good, so cheap and so popular it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the top 3 SM drivers in my area all jumped into my old ITA car right now, I don't think any of my track records would stand for more that the time it took to run their 2nd lap. Point being if Miata can run in 'x' class, you can bet a but-load or talented drivers with development bucks will eventually try it. (See EP, FP, STL, ITA, etc)

The Miata has been an absolute miracle for the SCCA. It draws drivers, revenue and competition.

The real problem here is the CRB and their desire to allow 'field fillers' into new classes to boost numbers and profits. If we wanted STL to be a FWD piston-based class, then they should have locked it down from the beginning and let it sink or swim on it's own. It takes balls to do that and you have to believe 100% in your class concept. Personally I think it would fail. Would anyone build anything other than a Honda if it was just FWD? Isn't that just Honda Challenge? Would the CRB make CA's to entice other platforms to be competitive with their strut-based chassis? Then if they are, do we have the same problem we 'have' now? (Now I'm just playing things out hypothetically)