What is a "touring car?"

[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.

[Knestis]

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.

We're nowhere near "the end." The S2000 (for example) is only a non-issue at this point because nobody has done one yet. Hamstring the fast Miatas while leaving other cars with the same advantages alone - a typical reactive competition adjustment approach - and the problem moves somewhere else. Why have a car as different in fundamental design as the NSX (not my example; remember Mr Drago came up with the idea of building one) even in the wings?

How about we put FIA GT3 cars in STU and equalize each individually with weight as it becomes a "problem?"

K

[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

[Andy Bettencourt]

No, certainly not. I was pointing out to DP that there is some balancing going on.

The problem is that there are RWD 'sedans' and FWD 'sports cars' by almost any definition. Interior volume is a slippery slope. Amount of seats is a slippery slope. If you had to write down the parameters right now, I am sure I could find cars that don't work on both sides of the fence (meaning 'I did mean to exclude that and it's not' and 'I didn't mean to exclude that and it is')

[Greg Amy]

If you had to write down the parameters right now, I am sure I could find cars that don't work on both sides of the fence (meaning 'I did mean to exclude that and it's not' and 'I didn't mean to exclude that and it is')

So what's your recommendation? "Nothing" means the retarded kids go find someplace else to play instead of in YAMC. - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

No. I am asking for a better solution than 'ban the sports cars' in a power-to-weight class.

More weight% difference?
Wheel width allowances?

I don't know but I'm not going to do the homework here. Throw out some real suggestions and lets slice 'em and dice 'em.

There is actually more at play here than just chassis. Isn't there some concern that the K20 can make more power than intended? So you throw one of those into a Civic and it can run with a Miata so now we have to limit both. Throw one of those into an S2000 and you have a double-edged sword.

I still think the class is to young to make a drastic change. Keep tweaking.

[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

[Knestis]

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. ...

Absolutely.

My complaint with the CRB when i was on the ITAC was that they were not legislating. Simply not making decisions by using a "pocket veto" or doing what some of us on the ITAC started calling the "perma-table" on recommendations. Worse, at least one individual was compounding that by communicating through back channels to members that delays in responding to THEIR - the members' - requests were the fault of the ad hoc not doing its job. We were - making recommendations so the board could decide.

My tolerance for that kind of Secret Car Club of America stuff is at an absolute zero point as a result. My trust and confidence in their practices continues to be low, particularly in any instance where a member's personal interests might constitute a conflict.

Sorry - one more procedural question: We used to have an assigned liaison from the CRB who served as a conduit to the ITAC. Is that still the practice and if so, who serves in that role for the STAC?

K

[Greg Amy]

We are not experiencing what you describe. The STAC's recommendations are reviewed at subsequent CRB meetings and dispatched by next Fastrack. Some items may come back to us for clarification, some are over-ridden, but the majority go through as recommended. Very rarely an item will have a genesis from within the CRB without STAC input, but that is rare.

Speaking only for myself, I don't always agree with what the CRB decides, but for the most part it has been above board and mostly transparent.

Peter Keane is the CRB's liaison for the STAC. Jim Drago occasionally joins our concalls as well.

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

We are not experiencing what you describe. The STAC's recommendations are reviewed at subsequent CRB meetings and dispatched by next Fastrack. Some items may come back to us for clarification, some are over-ridden, but the majority go through as recommended. Very rarely an item will have a genesis from within the CRB without STAC input, but that is rare.

Speaking only for myself, I don't always agree with what the CRB decides, but for the most part it has been above board and mostly transparent.

Peter Keane is the CRB's liaison for the STAC. Jim Drago occasionally joins our concalls as well.

GA

And this is how the ITAC/CRB relationship worked for well over 90% of my tenure. We had a hiccup in there for some reason but I think it is fine now.