What is a "touring car?"

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
 
Greg Amy said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
So if I do better than the 328 sedan would that be because I'm a 2-seat sports car, or because I have the same head/intake manifold/throttle body and he's saddled with an extra 330lbs for the extra 300cc of displacement? In IT that difference is only worth an extra 140lbs and that's because my rear suspension has semi-trailing arms and it's got a modern multi-link.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
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.
Click to expand...

One of the changes to the system that Dick P proposed post-ITAC blowup, was that the communication channel between the ad hoc and the CRB should not be controlled by individuals with a vested personal interest - or even perceived interest - in the outcomes of recommendations coming from the committee to the board. I agreed that it was bad practice, convinced that it contributed to the problems then. I haven't changed my opinion...

...but I'll try to be hopeful that it won't be a problem in this instance.

K
 
ITAC/CRB relationship is great. They've bought into the Process and basically that is what we do. We know we have clean up to do on ITB and ITR and possibly fix the power to weight multiplier problem in both (ITB is difficult, ITR the bogey car was set too light so that everything else is too heavy).

In any event, this was an interesting thread I don't think STL succeeds without sports cars. I also think that the difference between "sports car" and "touring car" is both overstated and understated.

It's understated in that as we have learned in IT, aero/frontal area/car height DOES MATTER -- quite a lot -- over 100ish mph. No SCCA category I'm aware of accurately accounts for this, or probably even could accurately account for it. So, here, the difference is understated and I'm not sure correctable via Kirk's proposal.

It's also overstated. Take a look at the CD/frontal area on a Miata. Or an NSX. I bet the overall aero is not much better than most modern sedans. And why isn't a GSR a "sports car?" Slippery, two doors, etc.

You've got to dig deeper I think. I think Andy is on to something that RWD + double wishbones is causing most of your problem. And even then, I still don't see the STL Miata dominance that others do. I've driven Tyler's car at Roebling and seen his dyno sheet. Good S cars will beat his car (no knock on it, it's well done). I've talked at length to Mike at ISC about 1.6 and 1.8 Miatas and he thinks (a) they will be ridiculousy expensive to make power in STL and still not competitive.

So it is interesting to me. The non-Miata guys claim the Miata is an overdog, and the Miata guys say it isn't. From the outside looking in, I don't see the data to support the overdog assertion but maybe I'm missing something.

And i probably am. Torque. Miatas never have, and RX7s no longer do, dominate ITS in the SEDiv. The one GSR down here is very competitive. Cars with less capable suspensions are equally if not more competitive, primarily (in my view) due to torque. If you build an ITS Miata, you are taking a huge chance on competitiveness.

So maybe look at why that is, in that power/weight range, the case and see if you can find something that will help you sort things out in STL.

We, the SCCA, need that class to succeed.
 
I agree with Jeff Re: ITAC/CRB. Things have gone really well over the last year or 2, and other than a a couple of pretty well publicized issues, well for the total amount of time I've been involved.

re: touring cars - Jeff, I think you might be missing the point, but I agree the need for ST to succeed is huge. of course a low roof, small frontal area car is going to have better aero than a modern sedan, that's crazy talk. Even a shockingly good 0.26Cd of a new Mazda6 or Ford Fusion (Ok, 0.27) equates to more actual drag because drag ≈ Af*Cd, and Af sedan >> Af miata (or integra or whatever car you want to consider pre ~2005) and Cd sedan < Cd miata. the frontal area is just SO MUCH BIGGER that the overall drag works out to be about the same at best, usually advantage: miata (or other small sporty car). Throw in the compromises for trunk space, build cost, live human bodies (i.e. those not in the trunk), and a generally higher starting weight and you can see where kirk is coming from. plus there's that whole perception issue. I think in order for STL to be meaningful it SHOULD NOT have sportscars in it. no elise, no NSX, no S2000, no miata. I care less about STU because engine size and hairdryer allowances get the big sedans a torque number they can do something with, but I think the equalization there needs to be understood and addressed before we have an all small car with forced induction class.

don't conflate IT issues with ST, guys. the Z3 and 328 are different in IT NOT because of suspension, but because of factory rated hp and REALLY CRAPY intake. NOTHING in IT that has been run in the past 5+ years is different because of aero. if a school bus and a miata shared a driveline, they would be classed the same in IT. ST is NOT IT, despite sharing SOME prep similarities.
 
I think we would all agree that a Miata is a "sporty econobox" while an Elise, NSX, and S2000 are more pure 'sports car'...

But where do you draw the line? And does that apply for STU and STO/GT2 as well?

IMO, the Miata belongs in STL no matter what label you try to put on it. It's a Japanese econobox 4-banger that just happens to have a small body and 2 seats.. and a damn good suspension.
 
The miata is FAR from an econobox - it IS a sportscare in all of the ways that matter. I'd agree that from the list given, the miata has the most "econobox" of motors, but in the sub 2L arena, most engines ARE econobox motors. one of the biggest issues IMHO with the fundemental principles of the class' displacement/weight formula. I like production's answer to that equation better. it allows for flaws to be equalized even under a limitted prep philosohpy.
 
I stand corrected.. I guess a 1.6l engine with 100whp and 0-60 in >8sec is a sports car now.. sure coulda fooled me. Fook my old Maxima with 200whp and 6.5s 0-60 must be a supercar!! :shrug:
 
I have just been reading along so no real input here since I am not a contributing member or supporter to the whole ST idea.

Now that the miata is being considered as a sports car I guess people can stop calling the SCCA the Mazda car club of America and we can go back and call it the Sports Car Club of America again!

Stephen
 
Last edited:
Matt93SE said:
I stand corrected.. I guess a 1.6l engine with 100whp and 0-60 in >8sec is a sports car now.. sure coulda fooled me. Fook my old Maxima with 200whp and 6.5s 0-60 must be a supercar!! :shrug:
Click to expand...

you have to contextualize the comments. think Austin-Healy, MGA, Elan, etc... THOSE are quintessential sportscars and what the miata was emulating, albeit an evolved version. Like them, the miata isn't about OMG face ripping acceleration, it's about balance. in that, it has a SUPERB chassis and a good enough motor. the miata is also a very unique car in the current automotive landscape, being one of very few and by far the most successful low hp sportscar. the HP gains in stock cars over the last few decades, and specifically the era from ~2000 to 2010 have been insane. old supercars (lambo miura, pick a ferrari) are slower than modern family sedans by 0-60 and 1/4 mile measurements. engine tech came on strong in the wake of better computer modelling. conversely, most chassis engineering has devolved into beams and struts liek it was in the original rabbit to make them cheaper and easier to build and to make more room for our fat asses and copious amounts of crap we seem to carry about.

We're talking about a 2.0L and under 4cyl class in STL - i.e. an econobox class, and a 3.2L and under class in STU - sedans, touring cars, etc... The definition of sportscar being put forward is that it is one with substantially better handling, balance, and smaller frontal area / better aero than the bulk of the sedans, econoboxes, and "touring cars" that otherwise fit in STL and U, ostensibly those cars for which the class was created. this offers such "sportscars" an advantage. lets list cars that even approach the miata in terms of chassis and "sportscar" characteristics built since 1985. miatas, S2000, Z3/Z4, MR2 SW20 and spyder (the AW11 is a corolla in reverse and much better remembered than it is to experience today), supra, RX7/8, 30/5/70Z, 200/240SX, corvette, elise, exige, boxter, cayman.... you can see the list elevates out of the STL range QUICKLY and out of the STU range nearly as fast. "sportscars" today pretty much are "super cars" of yesterday.

Your maxima with the stock V6 doesn't meet the requirements of STL and might not even fit in STU, depending on year (anything after the VG30 is out). The fact that modern cars are by and large SERIOUSLY overpowered for most SCCA classes is a whole 'nother discussion.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for the clear and concise description. However, this IS the Sports Car Club of America, right? This isn't the Boxy Family Sedan Club of America, and IMO this goes back to the warts and all. you can cut up classifications until there's a different class for every car on the planet, and you'll STILL find someone that will argue that it shouldn't be there. again, IMO, but you guys are picking nits that just don't need to be picked. If you didn't want Miatas in STL, then you shouldn't have allowed them from day one.

Arguing theory of "what's a touring car?" three years into the game really doesn't make sense to me. stop bitching on the interweb and go make your Civic faster!!

(FYI, the Maxima thing was a joke.. It would be legal for STU at 3300lbs, but the car itself is so ungodly tall and has a horrible suspension for performance, so it simply wouldn't ever stand a chance of being competitive.)
 
I wonder if any of the founders of the SCCA, who had to contend with a decade plus controversy over the definition of a sports car, are reading this and screaming at their wives.
 
JeffYoung said:
And even then, I still don't see the STL Miata dominance that others do. I've driven Tyler's car at Roebling and seen his dyno sheet. Good S cars will beat his car (no knock on it, it's well done). I've talked at length to Mike at ISC about 1.6 and 1.8 Miatas and he thinks (a) they will be ridiculousy expensive to make power in STL and still not competitive.
Click to expand...

Jeff, to be fair, I need to be clear on 1 thing. The car you drove at the time had a 99SM engine sans restrictor with a few bolt on parts. It made weak ITS power at best, the aero bits slower it down to less than ITS speeds. The current version of the car has about 40hp more and is significantly faster, however, the current weight of the car is way too high to be competitive and it is much less fun to drive. Thus the reason I run it in STU on the few occasions it comes out of the garage.
 
Matt93SE said:
... (FYI, the Maxima thing was a joke.. It would be legal for STU at 3300lbs, but the car itself is so ungodly tall and has a horrible suspension for performance, so it simply wouldn't ever stand a chance of being competitive.)
Click to expand...

Waitaminute. You think "ungodly tall" is some kind of a design disadvantage on the race track? And that suspension design was a compromise from ultimate performance to maximize passengers and luggage space, and minimize production cost...? REALLY?

We can revisit how the Miata (et al.) found its way into STL if you want but it wasn't by design.

Asking about a first principle of a class is certainly not "picking nits." I think maybe you don't know what that term means.

K
 
Knestis said:
We can revisit how the Miata (et al.) found its way into STL if you want but it wasn't by design.



K
Click to expand...

Sure it was. It's a power to weight class based on engine volume. That door is wide open for any chassis newer than the designated year in the rules. The tweaks toward equity in a National class are always ongoing but let's not pretend the Miata somehow snuck in the back door to this party. The invitee list has been clear since inception and there has been no change since the original GCR version that has magically allowed 'sports cars'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top