What is a "touring car?"

A Touring car has 4 real seats. The 2 seat 4 seat performance difference is mostly the sum of windshield angle and vertical CG ratio to track.
The CRX/Civic perform about 100# apart as do the VW Scirocco/Rabbit. Both cars are about 6in lower than the sedan version and turn better as a result.
For the ST cars there are no direct comparison RWD cars. (Lotus 7 and Lotus Cortina? ) Maybe the Miata and Ford escort GT?
The Miata are very well driven,and can out perform their expectations due to the best drivers trail braking to the apex. Not many FWD cars can do that.
The miata can sustain very high lateral grip values that taller cars cant due to overheated outer (front) tires. The notes about WGI with breaking parts and high G loads is common in the T5, T6 and toe turns- the banking adds a lot of loading that the Miata loves. 1.5-1.6 is common there. The feel of the Miata is very solid, while the sedan is more like HS I'm gunna punch that outer tire wall evry lap.
I dont see why the class exist either.
 
We all know Miata's are a fantastic car where the sum of its parts create a supurb racing platform. Isn't it going to be true that ANY multi-marquee class racing the miata will win all things being equal? :shrug:

Isn't the only way to handle this situation, regardless of class, to dis-advantage the miata in some means? (weight, restrictors, etc?)

I don't see STL being any different that ITA, etc...
 
Jeremy Billiel said:
We all know Miata's are a fantastic car where the sum of its parts create a supurb racing platform. Isn't it going to be true that ANY multi-marquee class racing the miata will win all things being equal? :shrug:

Isn't the only way to handle this situation, regardless of class, to dis-advantage the miata in some means? (weight, restrictors, etc?)

I don't see STL being any different that ITA, etc...
Click to expand...

Already happening, no? 5.5% more weight than a FWD car with double wishbones and 8% more weight than a FWD car with struts.

2731lbs for the 13B powered Miata
2635lbs for a BP powered 1.8 Miata
2430 for a 1.8L double wishbone FWDer
2370 for a 1.8 strut FWDer

All on the same 225 width tire.

The question is simple, are these weight differences sufficient given what we are seeing in the results? What do you think Jeremy?
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
Already happening, no? 5.5% more weight than a FWD car with double wishbones and 8% more weight than a FWD car with struts.

2731lbs for the 13B powered Miata
2635lbs for a BP powered 1.8 Miata
2430 for a 1.8L double wishbone FWDer
2370 for a 1.8 strut FWDer

All on the same 225 width tire.

The question is simple, are these weight differences sufficient given what we are seeing in the results? What do you think Jeremy?
Click to expand...

I personally don't think 5.5% is enough difference between a FWD and RWD car with double wishbones.

I think we need a Miata multiplier! If Miata, then add an additional 3% to the calculation (or something....) Edit 1: I am just making up numbers and have ZERO data - Just throwing something against the wall

Edit 2: And I say that being out of racing for 4+ years and no longer having a dog in this fight or honestly caring.... I simply think that the car is a fantastic package and not sure how to equalize apprpriately...

Edit 3: 5.5% may be fine for double wishbone cars that are RWD and not a miata. Its the specific car (miata) that seems to be what breaks all the logic.
 
Last edited:
Jeremy Billiel said:
I personally don't think 5.5% is enough difference between a FWD and RWD car with double wishbones.

I think we need a Miata multiplier! If Miata, then add an additional 3% to the calculation (or something....) Edit 1: I am just making up numbers and have ZERO data - Just throwing something against the wall

Edit 2: And I say that being out of racing for 4+ years and no longer having a dog in this fight or honestly caring.... I simply think that the car is a fantastic package and not sure how to equalize apprpriately...

Edit 3: 5.5% may be fine for double wishbone cars that are RWD and not a miata. Its the specific car (miata) that seems to be what breaks all the logic.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of cars that can handle as well as a Miata given the same weight. 3rd gen RX-7, Porsche 968 (and not DW's at 4 corners either).

I think 200-300lbs difference is a lot given the same size wheel/tire. The 13B car is almost 400lbs more than a strut FWDer. That's a bunch. Given the WGI results between the Miata and the Civic, I'd say it's dang close if not there for now.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
Given the WGI results between the Miata and the Civic, I'd say it's dang close if not there for now.
Click to expand...
Even if we were to assume that's true - and it's absolutely not, simply because you were not there and all you have is a results sheet which doesn't tell the whole story - what about everybody else in the class...? Is the class to be limited solely to the best example of RWD sports car available versus the best example of FWD strut car available to use today*?

Given the evidence at hand, I suggest you've just offered excellent supporting anecdotal evidence for slowing down a couple of front-running cars.

GA

*As the Miata is to small 2-seater sports cars, the FG Civic is to FWD strut cars. When Honda decided to ditch the wishbone suspension for the Civic, they didn't just throw some crappy struts on the car as they did with the RSX; they really did that car right. The suspension geometry is as good as it gets for struts, to the point where many pro teams did not even bother moving pickup point and relocating ball joints as allowed by the rules; it just wasn't needed.

A lot of people think that car does well because of the very good ~200hp K20Z3 (which has to de-cam and run a restrictor for STL); that's certainly part of the equation. But that chassis is a super package all on its own. Bob Beede actively moved from a 1.8LGSR engine in a '99 DWB Civic in 2012, to a lightly-modded SSB FG Civic Si in 2013 and thought it was the better package.

The ongoing "Miata Penalty" will continue to vex all RWD cars. In the same vein, it's quite possible that FWD strut cars may eventually suffer the "Civic penalty" (unless we choose to slow down those specific examples instead...)

Regardless, the CRB will continue to adjust vehicles as needed to ensure reasonable parity within the Majors program. And since the class is based on general mechanical characteristics of the vehicles versus line-item classifications the CRB will, no doubt, continue to create and adjust these characteristics as needed to ensure that direction.
 
It bothers me when we leap to "because Miata," particularly since that's not my argument here - it's just a case that illustrates my concern. There are separate variables involved:

** 2-seat vs. 4-seat (touring car) chassis layout - influencing frontal area, height (so windshield angle; thanks Lizard!), CG height, MMI, etc.

** Strut vs. DWB suspension architecture

** FWD vs. RWD

I personally don't think that we can accommodate everything that's included in the first with an adder, and (as admitted) have a theoretical/conceptual issue with a "touring car" class including sports cars. It might be, though, that an additional penalty for sports/GT cars would be appropriate, on top of penalties for suspension design and drive layout.

The net for the Miata stacks up but that's probably appropriate as its inherent advantages do, too.

K
 
Greg Amy said:
Even if we were to assume that's true - and it's absolutely not, simply because you were not there and all you have is a results sheet which doesn't tell the whole story - what about everybody else in the class...? Is the class to be limited solely to the best example of RWD sports car available versus the best example of FWD strut car available to use today*?

Given the evidence at hand, I suggest you've just offered excellent supporting anecdotal evidence for slowing down a couple of front-running cars.

GA
Click to expand...

Ugh. Just split them up now. FWD/RWD. This way you have a class with the numbers already there and you can have a class without fillers and Miata and RWD and everyone will be happy.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
Seriously, just split them up and you won't have to worry about RWD cars anymore. It's a win/win.
Click to expand...
No, if we went that direction then it would be a direct prohibition of the car in the category...but you're right, we should all be thankful for the bounty that Spec Miata bringeth...hallelujah PRAISE the Spec Miata lord!

:lol: ;)

GA, who doesn't fall for the sarcasm...but is truly delightfully entertained by it...and prays to the goddess each night for true forgiveness for his soul...
 
Are we talking about the same thing? I'm not talking about field-filling, slower-than-real-STL SM's, I'm talking about the fear of Miata's. Solve the issue by breaking up STL into FWD and RWD. This allows the original concept to vet itself on one side while the other side provides a place to play for the other 80% of the entries.

It makes comp adjustments easier. It lets Miata eat their young on that side of the fence while the STAC concentrates on balancing the FWDers and facilitation the original idea.

Truly a win/win.
 
Last edited:
Let's pretend for a second that Miatas don't exist. The reality is that it has no real impact on Kirk's initial post.

The question was whether a class whose name includes the word "touring" should be limited to "touring" cars, and if so, what are they and how are they defined. It seems to me the question is mostly aimed at STL, which I think removes the issues of the original intent being to give ex-World Challenge cars a place to play which I believe was originally part of the STU rules. If I recall correctly, the STL rules came about after that.

So let's look just at STL and pretend Miatas don't exist. Kirk is suggesting that STL cars should be "touring" cars and suggests an interior volume method for defining that. I personally like the idea of a class specifically for small engined "touring" cars. I like the idea of a field made up of "daily drivers" that include cars that almost everyone can identify with. The FWD vs RWD is really not Kirk's argument. I think the rules currently do a pretty good job of addressing that, just as they do with strut vs. DWB. I actually like the variety since each car will make it's speed in a different way.

Just thought I'd try to drag this discussion back a little closer to the original post.

Carry on.

Rory
 
2731lbs for the 13B powered Miata-- heavy but the streetdriven swaps that run the track days with me pull as hard as my turbo jett, 200hp or so it seems.
2635lbs for a BP powered 1.8 Miata-- Thats a lot of weight
2430 for a 1.8L double wishbone FWDer- needs another 50# over the FWDstrut car based on Roll center height and camber gain
2370 for a 1.8 strut FWDer- needs 70# off cuz it has all of the wrong items. Box on struts. try 2250 until it wins.

IMHO you need to run the data for Hp to weight/ and lateral power. No way that any FWD box is going to match lateral with the Miata- within 200#, maybe 300#
 
Flyinglizard said:
2731lbs for the 13B powered Miata-- heavy but the streetdriven swaps that run the track days with me pull as hard as my turbo jett, 200hp or so it seems.
2635lbs for a BP powered 1.8 Miata-- Thats a lot of weight
2430 for a 1.8L double wishbone FWDer- needs another 50# over the FWDstrut car based on Roll center height and camber gain
2370 for a 1.8 strut FWDer- needs 70# off cuz it has all of the wrong items. Box on struts. try 2250 until it wins.

IMHO you need to run the data for Hp to weight/ and lateral power. No way that any FWD box is going to match lateral with the Miata- within 200#, maybe 300#
Click to expand...

I am willing to bet the street driven rotards are street-ported, significantly improving power.
The BP may seem heavy but at the claimed power outputs I would say they are dang close.
The DW/strut debate is about to heat up. Greg is calling out the newer Civic's struts as very advanced and they are categorized with some really crappy stuff. What to do there? Line item exception on how good we think the suspension design is or go to a 'warts and all' philosophy? Tough to do that in the big-leagues of National racing in the SCCA where trying to balance everything on the head of a pin is the norm.

Maybe DW, Advanced non DW, and strut. Cars with complex multi-links may fit the middle category. Spitballin.
 
I'd wager that getting specific on cars with known outlier setups is a good idea. They specline specific engines, no reason they would not specline specific chassis, too. So generic strut car gets generic weight, F code civics get this adder (probably as a %), rx8 chassis gets this, and so on. The current recipe of generic weights based on displacement and architecture is cool because you can run anything and not have to bug the rulesmakers to get it approved first. Adding a but wait, there's more... Section handles the outliers cleanly.

Agree with Kirk's assertion about touring vs sports cars not being on equal footing, and I think blurring the old sedan and roadsters lines was a shame given that ramification. Dealing with it by driving out "proper sportscars" Is not likely to happen, so regulations are the best way to rebalance things.
 
There either needs to be car/chassis spec lines for everyone or for no one... Singling out specific makes/models like the Miata/F-Civics is ridiculous. All that will happen is the cars get lead trophies/restrictors to the point of no longer being competitive, then someone will find the next fastest thing. After a year of winning, that car will magically get its own spec line. And so on and so forth.

Having the new Civics weigh more than a VW of the same displacement because Honda actually took the time to engineer a decent strut-based front suspension for the car? What is the deciding factor here? Camber-curve? What qualifies the Honda F-series struts as too-good?

I thought the whole point of finally having a weight/displacement class was to let the cream rise to the top?
 
Greg Amy said:
So you're advocating crippling a 4-cyl sports car's advantages in a field of large-displacement touring cars via targeted spec-line power reductions? Note Kirk's premise of "all else being equal"; can you think of any other ~200hp car that would be competitive in STU?

..
Click to expand...

No. The point was the Lotus is an outlier - mid engine supercharged sports car (what about that says touring car to anyone? ) - no other Lotii engines or chassis to mix-n-match - the Lotus is easy to regulate competitiveness via pulley size. The rest of the 2-seater sports cars - not so much.
 
Jeremy Billiel said:
I think we need a Miata multiplier! If Miata, then add an additional 3% to the calculation (or something....) Edit 1: I am just making up numbers and have ZERO data - Just throwing something against the wall


Edit 3: 5.5% may be fine for double wishbone cars that are RWD and not a miata. Its the specific car (miata) that seems to be what breaks all the logic.
Click to expand...


Earthbreaking, ground shattering logic at work here, how come we've never heard that suggestion before [/SARCASM]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top