What is a "touring car?"

Dave Mead

T3= showroom stock based, DOT tires
FP= major car mods, slicks
STL= major mods, DOT tires

Different strokes for different folks. I currently own cars that run in all 3 classes.

I am well aware of some of the shenanigains pulled on the committees but haven't seen it in the ST committee.

What I haven't seen is any prepped to the limits FWD cars show up at an STL race. Until I see that, I will resist any changes to the status quo
 
Again, sportcars have more rear weight.

I watched some STL vid of Sebring. Might have been GA in Teggy or honda maybe chasing a Miata. The Honda had more power but was very slow entry - exit speeds. IE at T 4-5 the Honda touched the brake while I know that a Miata just flicks left. Same @ T1, Miata, just lifts and turns left @ 99MPH/4th gear, and the Honda maybe even down geared.
Had they swapped cars and got rid of the Honda push, the Honda would maybe be faster.

On another note, ask Drago how much 50#slows his car!! .6-.8 per lap at Ssebring in a Miata.
 
Knestis said:
I didn't just fall off of the sports car turnip truck. I KNOW that's how the National/Major (and especially "pro") programs work. I know that you know all of that but I just want to make sure it's in the record, because frankly, I think that's the game you're playing. I don't have any confidence that you can actually take your STL driver hat off when your making CRB decisions, and - if it's possible - I believe even less that you are operating in good faith with the STAC (a la the restrictor example that Greg shared). That's based on my firsthand experience watching you operate when I was on the ITAC. You're too hooked into the game to stop playing it. If nothing else, you might solemnly believe that you're' "doing what's right for the class" but from the outside looking in, it simply looks hinky.


K
Click to expand...

Lets be completely frank.. You don't know me at all.. Nor do I know you at all. I couldn't even point you out in a crowd of three people. I think it is fair to say that what you "think" you know about me you don't like and I can say the same. I never had any iron in the fire with the ITAC deal, I was new on the CRB and was genuinely trying to find a happy medium between the two committees as a non IT involved CRB member. I think we can agree that there was a lot of tension at the time between the two boards and not a very good position to be put in. I did not know IT at all at the time, was not and is still is not my thing. It was almost five years ago now? Maybe it is time to let the past go and start living in the present? I think most are tired of hearing about it already. I am willing to bury the hatchet if you are.

As far as any game I am playing...
I must not be too good at it. It is VERY clear that I was DIRECTLY responsible for the weight put on the Miata. If you search this forum, I wrote up a detailed write up after the first Runoffs that recommended adding weight to my car as it was the right thing to do for the class. Two years in a row I suggested my car get weight. How often does that happen? I was directly responsible for taking my car from 2485? to 2635. Since being on the SMAC and now CRB, NO CAR I HAVE EVER DRIVEN HAS BEEN HELPED, ONLY SLOWED DOWN BY weight or speeding up the other cars. For two years I said my car had an advantage and I had not brought properly prepared car to compete. My opinion now is that the cars are very close. I am not playing any game. I have been clear to all that ask, STL is NOT my main focus even though it is a far better chance to win. The "game" I am playing , so we are clear. I run take off SM tires whenever possible so I can save my stickers for the Runoffs. But never race a tire more than three sessions old. I race every race to win. I run as fast as I possibly can every lap.
 
Last edited:
Knestis said:
But equally, I know that vehicle dynamics says that a car with the qualities of a Miata is going to be faster than a car with the qualities of a Civic, given the same power, level of preparation, and driver skill. NO QUESTION. Tell me I'm wrong if you dare, but do *not* play the results comparison game and tell me that I'm whining because I'm getting beat by any particular EXAMPLES of car/driver combinations. I'm not. Get over that. Further, arguing that's what I'm doing, without addressing my actual proposition, is disingenuous and only reinforces to me that you aren't willing - or able - to look objectively at the technical aspects of the issue at hand.

I also know that it's a fool's errand, trying to fix that problem with competition adjustments when someone moving the levers of the process - and more importantly, controlling the flow of information to the CRB - has an interest in, and the ability to manage, the outcome.

K
Click to expand...

I think I agreed with you some where along the road on this already? Also in two posts up I commented that results are nothing more than rewards weights IMO.. So I think we are in violent agreement here..

Where we disagree or maybe you didn't lay this option out above.. We ARE NOT in a place where "Miata is going to be faster than a car with the qualities of a Civic, given the same power, level of preparation, and driver skill."

It is my opinion..

"most" of the moderately prepped Hondas make more HP and weigh less than the miata in STL. I think we can agree that it is FACT that an equally built Honda 1.8 engine will make substantially more HP than a 1.8 Miata engine. So IMO, the debate is how much more power does the FWD integra/Honda need to make to be "competitive" with all else being equal. It is my opinion that none of those things are close to "equal" in the small comparison sample we have in STL. This is where personal agendas, different opinions and drama come in.
 
Ron Earp said:
Does it have to be explicitly classed? 2L or under, RWD, calculate weight. If it fits then it's legit.

How long did they make Delorans and what sort of whack job Renault 2L box of fail could I find to stuff in that?
Click to expand...

Yeah, the 2.0 European motor would have to be approved since it wasn't USDM.

You can't use any Renault motor in the DeLorean. Only an engine swap by the CHASSIS manufacturer is allowed. Thus, the Exige/Elise (if they were legal) are tuck with the 1.8 Toyota motor or any Lotus motor. Not any Toyota motor and Lotus motor.
 
dhrmx5 said:
Good luck with your weird builds. The NSX starts off at 3500 lbs. Think you can find 850 lbs of fat on an aluminum bodied car to trim? Only then can you start adding a cage and 200lbs driver and hope to make weight with a 2.0 engine at close to 2900 lbs. The Lotus? bring a LOT of money for your engine program. Be nice if you chipped in to the worker fund to help defray the cost of the oil absorbent they will be needing.

Super Touring wasn't created out of nothing. It started with the B and D Prod ruleset that was for old WC cars but they never showed up. As ST exists now it isn't about 4 doors or dumpy looking grocery getters. The STL benchmark has always been the Miata 1.8 and the 1.8 GSR. The Mazdas have shown up. Where are the well prepped FWD?

ST is supposed to be interesting. Those oddball builds are welcome to show up. Just don't complain when they aren't competitive.
Click to expand...

Yo dude! We gots the 'sperience wit odd balls.

Champeenship winning ITS TR8 right here boss. Ron started with a Jensen Wheely, then shocked the world with a winning ITS 3.8 Mustang.

Plus, we know Lotus motors -- better'in than youse! Have actually owned Esprits and shit, plus da Wheeley!

On top of that I'm on the ITAC so I know all about the no-whiny rule and enforce it as often as I can. Even on myself!
 
jdrago1 said:
Lets be completely frank...
Click to expand...

I can be frank.

At one critical juncture during the ITAC mess, we had sent up something like 15 recommendations for weight adjustments for make/model examples that were judged to be out of whack. Some of them, by the time we reached the highest point of "tension," had been in the CRB's hands literally for MONTHS without any action. Members were very frustrated, many complaining loudly about it on this board.

One member - again, a regular poster here at the time - emailed you to complain/ask about what was probably the most egregious example of the "black hole" or "perma-tabled" recommendations your board's docket. You replied, telling him in some detail how messed up the ITAC was, and how we weren't "doing our job..."

...except you didn't notice that he'd cc'd me on the original message when you hit "Reply to All." I got to see you trashing the ad hoc to a member, and kindly offering your personal help as a CRB member to fix the problem for him. I called you on your duplicitous, Secret Car Club of America, back-room BS in a reply email; that the ad hoc was doing its job (recommending) and that the CRB was the SOURCE of this member's problem, NOT doing theirs (deciding).

I heard nothing back from you; no acknowledgement that maybe what you did was a problem. You didn't do what you COULD have done - make up or down decisions on all of those stagnant recommendations - to address the member's concern. That was instrumental to my outing the CRB for stonewalling the process in this forum, the resulting gag order from the CRB (okay, Andy, it was a gag REQUEST :) ), and my subsequent resignation from the committee.

SO, frankly, while I do not KNOW you, you have given me fair reason to say that I do not TRUST you. You've earned that.

Not being on the inside anymore, I can't see the day-to-day workings of the relationship between the STAC and the CRB, but when I see an example like Greg mentioned above - fast-tracking a proposal through the board under the guise of it being a recommendation from the ad hoc - my opinions are reinforced. I know based on my decades of experience in the Club, that if one example gets out, there are lots more that don't.

When I see that two individuals with a vested competitive AND commercial interests in the outcomes of rules decisions - yourself and Mr Keane - control all messaging from from the STAC back to the board's deliberation, I know how you can shade the conversation. (That was, in my estimation, a key cause of the problems we had during that meltdown, although it was not you personally playing the role then.) I thought that process was going to change. It's a problem that it hasn't, if nothing else because it's lazy, sloppy policy making.

I know that CRB members are deferential to their respective category "experts," so your position can easily steer the body's decision. When you deny here that a tall box with a high center of gravity will, all other things being equal, be slower than a short box with a low CoG with the same power, I know you're using criteria other than physics or some other objective measure to make determinations about how you direct those conversations.

Heck, the board couldn't even represent my proposal accurately when it was put to the membership in the the October prelims, turning it into a request to "Consider Differences Between Sports Cars and Touring Cars in STL" and making it sound like I proposed "adding more weight to all rear-
wheel drive cars." That's completely not accurate but you know that if you control the message, you control the process. YOU CAN'T HELP YOURSELVES.

So, yeah - I'm still a little pissed off, I'm an ideologue, and I value transparency and character - or at least the appearance of character - above the tradition and culture of these rule-making bodies. If you and the board want my trust, get the two guys benefiting from STL rules out of their position as sole conduit of information beyond what's captured in the web-based system. Recuse yourselves from board decisions that benefit you. Be transparent. Don't engineer any more end runs around the ad hoc.

Kirk (who figures he's probably un-invited on that ARRC seat deal now :p )
 
Knestis said:
I know that CRB members are deferential to their respective category "experts," so your position can easily steer the body's decision. When you deny here that a tall box with a high center of gravity will, all other things being equal, be slower than a short box with a low CoG with the same power, I know you're using criteria other than physics or some other objective measure to make determinations about how you direct those conversations.


So, yeah - I'm still a little pissed off, I'm an ideologue, and I value transparency and character - or at least the appearance of character - above the tradition and culture of these rule-making bodies. If you and the board want my trust, get the two guys benefiting from STL rules out of their position as sole conduit of information beyond what's captured in the web-based system. Recuse yourselves from board decisions that benefit you. Be transparent. Don't engineer any more end runs around the ad hoc.

Kirk (who figures he's probably un-invited on that ARRC seat deal now :p )
Click to expand...



So I guess that is a no? You can't let this go:). Do you have any long lasting hostility with your first grade teacher you would like to bring up while we are at it? Maybe the kid who stole your milk money growing up?

I am not going to discuss this again other than to say what wont be popular here. I did not think you in particular or the ITAC as a whole was doing a very good job at the time. I don't deny saying that. We will always have a difference of opinions there. This is nothing new.

The rest ITAC drama, I read blah, blah blah, blah blah blah.. I have heard all of this from you before, responded several times before. To my knowledge, no email you ever sent me went unanswered. You have a pretentious way about your emails and posts that keeps sucking me in, so I doubt I could have not replied even if I really wanted to.


I am going to move forward with STL now.. If you want to continue here with 5 year old ITAC stuff, unfortunately you will be discussing without me.

1)I have read here several times that no one on STAC has any issues with things going through the CRB? yet you keep beating that drum. I am not even a liaison on that call. I think I have sat in on post runoffs calls to share my opinions and maybe 2 other calls in three years?

2)I think for the 3rd or forth time I am saying in 3 or 4 different ways... A miata, a sportscar, a car with a frontal are x is always going to be faster than econobox with all other things being equal..

But again for the second or third time... all other things ARE NOT EQUAL NOW.. In fact very few are equal.
A proper built econobox is at a HP and straight line advantage and weighs less. I agree the debate is open for how much faster it should be, why and how to get there.


As for ARRC deal... Still stands for both of you. If lucky, we may have a broken brake line or stuck throttle cable at just the right time:)
 
So business as usual.

At least we can count on you to be what you are. I guess I can kind of respect that.

K

PS - Our Ops Manager IM'd me today to ask if the "ARRC" note I have in my calendar was firm. I asked him not to schedule anything, as it was still tentative.
 
jdrago1 said:
I did not think you in particular or the ITAC as a whole was doing a very good job at the time. I don't deny saying that. We will always have a difference of opinions there. This is nothing new.
Click to expand...

So this one I take personally. I'll disagree with you here in saying that I think that the ITAC was doing an EXCELLENT job at the time because we spent hours upon hours attempting to codify the Ops manual. To an outsider looking in it may have looked like a ton of mental masturbation but every possible path needs to be driven down on before you can put something in writing as a guiding principle. I honestly think we had to slop around in the mud for a while to get that heavy lifting done and to some on the CRB it looked like a waste of time because it wasn't part of the culture of the other competition-adjustment based classes. In order to be able to follow the Ops manual as well as is being done now, the Ops manual has to be a good document.

Also, the fundamental principles of the Ops-manual type classing, was for some reason never explained or ingrained into the CRB by our ITAC liaisons. When I got on that CRB call, well over half of the group had never heard of 'the Process'...that to me was a GIANT fail. How could the core of how we classed cars, with the knowledge of at least two key CRB members for YEARS, suddenly be a negative and a unknown quantity? No idea.

I have no hard feelings about that time. Mostly because I still like most everyone involved and believe that most everyone has the best for the SCCA at heart. Reasonable people can, will and do, disagree.
 
I too agree with Andy.

I think it is entirely unfair to say the ITAC wasn't doing a good job during that time period. We routinely spent 4-5 hours on the calls, talking into the wee hours of the night, to come up with the (at the time) ONLY objective, repeatable and written down system for classing cars in the SCCA. That was a sea change of epic proporitions.

There were miscommunications between the CRB and the ITAC, but I tihnk everyone -- Bob Dowie, Andy, everyone -- was trying hard to do the right thing. THe problem was that we were really doing something revolutionary, and the basis for it (stock horsepower) was causing the CRB a lot of heartburn (as it should).

But not doing a good job? No, that is simply wrong.

The ITAC has, or at least had, one of the toughtest jobs in the SCCA. We have the most popular multi marque class that actually is multi marque, and we had to come up with an objective process to set car weights that covered something like 300 chassis stretching from 1968 until 2008.
 
Drago said something I also posted some time ago--the RX8 doesn't seem an overdog, the Runoffs winning car was simply very well prepared and driven. My T4 RX8 has run times similar to decent STL cars like Walke's RX7, but is seconds behind top STL builds. Walke's car and an ITS Miata running STL were quite a bit faster than the RX8 down the Road America straights, I made up time in the corners (more tire). Admittedly my T4 RX8 is a bit heavier and less prepared than an STL version, but the straight line speeds will not be much different. If I took out the weight to run STL I would then reduce the tire so overall the car would not be much faster; under the current rules I would also have to run the plate which slows the car even more making it uncompetitive. The plate seems like an over-reaction to the Runoffs; do any of you on the CRB/STAC have an opinion on chances of removing the plate?
 
JeffYoung said:
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!
Click to expand...

EXACT same reason the BMW S14B20 exists, for the Italian and Portugal markets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top