What is a "touring car?"

JamesL said:
I thought the whole point of finally having a weight/displacement class was to let the cream rise to the top?
Click to expand...

well, if it's done well, the added weight just equalizes and does not sink the car. if "the cream rises to the top" is your thinking, then yeah - you WILL have a very limitte dnumber of entries that are viable. you know why? because most car companies exist to make money, and they do that by making platforms they can sell cheaply (or relatively so) to everymen that fit 4 fat people, a dog, and a shitload of luggage or groceries and get good economy and tolerable ride and handling. on occasion they take a page from the muscle car era and drop in a motor and some dampers that make us touring car wierdos all excited, but it's still a massively compromised chassis. then every now and then you get an MRS, a Miata, an FRS, or a Civic Si. short lists mean small numbers and the attraction to this type of racing is diversity. if a VW doens't stand a chance (and be honest, it doesn't - outside of a VW motor in a Porsche) then why would anyone build one? what, then, is VW's incentive to help out the club, the club racers, the class, the market of good touring cars, etc...?
 
Mike and I run the Golf vs the Miata all of the time. The Golf weighs about 2250 RTR and the Miata around 2350. The issue is trying to compare huge variances of dynamic front tire loading.
The Golf with welded diff has about 64% or more front weight ,or 1400 # on the outer front tire @ max lateral load. ( I mention welded diff because that makes the most lateral grip for a FWD car. Not sure why but it does.)
The Miata has about 49% , or around 1200# or under. Put these cars on the same tire and the Miata exits the turns near 4mph faster about everywhere.
We even trade tires. The Golf overheats the fronts sooner, (even with lots of rear axle steer, that adds weight to the rear).
The Golf needs about 10% more power to #, and around 400# less than the Miata. To be close at 80mph. As speeds go up the Miata gets faster. To try and balance these types of cars is a night mare.
The Miata with Chumper 180TW tires and the Golf with SRF slicks is pretty close and the cornering speeds are very close. FWIW the Miata Sebring T1 entry speed on R6 is about 98mph and 180TW is 91mph. The apex speeds are 82 and 70 respt.
 
JamesL said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is National racing in every class. Spec lines are dynamic based on results.
 
Chip42 said:
well, if it's done well, the added weight just equalizes and does not sink the car. if "the cream rises to the top" is your thinking, then yeah - you WILL have a very limitte dnumber of entries that are viable. you know why? because most car companies exist to make money, and they do that by making platforms they can sell cheaply (or relatively so) to everymen that fit 4 fat people, a dog, and a shitload of luggage or groceries and get good economy and tolerable ride and handling. on occasion they take a page from the muscle car era and drop in a motor and some dampers that make us touring car wierdos all excited, but it's still a massively compromised chassis. then every now and then you get an MRS, a Miata, an FRS, or a Civic Si. short lists mean small numbers and the attraction to this type of racing is diversity. if a VW doens't stand a chance (and be honest, it doesn't - outside of a VW motor in a Porsche) then why would anyone build one? what, then, is VW's incentive to help out the club, the club racers, the class, the market of good touring cars, etc...?
Click to expand...

Oh I understand what you're saying.... but what I don't understand then, is why market the STx classes as weight/displacement in the first place? When the classes were first proposed, the idea seemed to be that the powers-that-be were making an effort to equalize the motors, by weight, restrictors, valves/cylinder, etc.... But that there was no guarantee of competitiveness for your combination of chassis/motor. Meaning specific cars would not be singled out due to their strengths and/or shortcomings.

And that seemed to be what attracted a lot of people in the first place. Basically, that there was a published formula for establishing the weight/etc of a given chassis/motor package. And that, as a competitor, you knew exactly what that formula was prior to building your car. Everybody gets the same playbook and you get to choose which knife you want to come to the fight with.
 
JamesL said:
And that seemed to be what attracted a lot of people in the first place. Basically, that there was a published formula for establishing the weight/etc of a given chassis/motor package. And that, as a competitor, you knew exactly what that formula was prior to building your car. Everybody gets the same playbook and you get to choose which knife you want to come to the fight with.
Click to expand...

I always looked at the attraction as being an OEM-agnostic weight, a place to run (more) open engines than IT and SM (the major feeder classes) without going prod or GT crazy on the car itself, and the optionto finally swap out that [insert POS engine designation here] your favorite or chosen chassis came with for the awesome one that came in some unobtanium foreign market ride or was misused in some big roll-happy sedan. from the start, OEM head and intake design meant displacement to weight with universally limitted prep specs were going to creat winners and loosers. the same argument can be (and just has been) made for chassis. There are attmepts wiothin the current rules to try and generically bin RWD/FWD, strut/multilink, valve count, etc... with different weight percentages, so it's not being "ignored". The trouble is that when a particularly good 3V or bad 4V head, a very good strut FWD, etc.. show up and poop in the punch bowl. because of the very general weight assignments they unbalance the class. Currently there's no way to deal with these issues on the chassis side. particularly over/under achieving engines can at least get a specline within precedent (restrictors, weight changes, stock cam specs, etc...)
 
Last edited:
ST* has always been a warts & all class. The way I see this discussion, it's now to the point of plastic surgery in attempt to remove the warts.. Are you SURE this what you want?
 
I'm just calling what I see and agreeing that the rules as-is will limit viability to a small number of platforms as far as potential winners (very good chassis / engine combo available). significant outlier engines are already "being dealt with" via restrictors, so surgery in some form has already begun. where the line should be drawn, if indeed it should, in terms of overachieving chassis, engines, etc... is entirely up tot he STAC and CRB, and I believe that they will do (or not do) what they percieve to be the best interests of the class. 100% people pleased isn't an ioption, so should not be an objective.

FWIW, I think the mazda BP engine is NOT on the list of awesome motors - just really well known ones. sometimes that's even better then well designed from the start.
 
Matt93SE said:
ST* has always been a warts & all class. The way I see this discussion, it's now to the point of plastic surgery in attempt to remove the warts.. Are you SURE this what you want?
Click to expand...

No, it's not. But given the history of the organization, and given the category's recent responses to competition results, it's not a very realistic expectation. Despite Chris' (and my) desire to fight it.

This is serius bizns.

GA
 
JS154 said:
ST warts and all? Don't you mean IT?
Click to expand...

No, he's referring to the inference of the intent of the Super Touring philosophy being one of adjustments based on generalized characteristics and letting the chips fall where they may. In other words, "pick your car and its associated warts."

Maybe that's still possible; maybe we can avoid specific line-item classifications. However all the regular Table A adjustments is evidence to the contrary; that box is already wide open. The committee will continue to fight for that concept, but it may mean adding an extra characteristic adjustment (or two. Or three.)

GA
 
No matter what the original intent was (warts and all), it was born as a 'National' class and will always be one. Therefor it will be subject to competition adjustments. If not just by the nature of the CRB wanting to try and maintain what they think is competitive balance, but maybe also by 'molding' the shape of the class to fit the original 'vision'.

This is a common fear when the discussion of taking IT National comes up. Even though the 'W&A' theory is part of the culture (while still having mechanisms in there to fix problems within the Process), if it were to become a popular National class, people would lobby for CA's and the CRB would feel that pressure to accommodate the squeaky wheels. I personally think that when you state the intent of a class upfront, people have limited recourse when then don't like the results....kind of like complaining about noisy planes when you move into a house near the airport.
 
But Andy it should not have to be that way. a class should be able to have a philosophy and culture that makes it stand apart from other classes. the problem seems to be IMHO that the committees and the CRB sit and read dozens of letters each month asking for a change to make it more fair. it is very difficult to constantly say yes we understand what you are asking for would make it more fair but it goes against the culture and purpose of the class. maybe you bought the wrong car.
 
dickita15 said:
But Andy it should not have to be that way. a class should be able to have a philosophy and culture that makes it stand apart from other classes. the problem seems to be IMHO that the committees and the CRB sit and read dozens of letters each month asking for a change to make it more fair. it is very difficult to constantly say yes we understand what you are asking for would make it more fair but it goes against the culture and purpose of the class. maybe you bought the wrong car.
Click to expand...

Hey, you know me, I am all about IT going National and having it NOT get messed with. I think it is reasonable to let the ITAC and CRB continue doing what they are doing without any threat of traditional CA's...but I have my doubts that the CRB could leave it alone.
 
JS154 said:
ST warts and all? Don't you mean IT?
Click to expand...

Nope... June 2014 GCR: (emphasis mine)
GCR said:
9.1.4.A. Purpose and Philosophy
The intent of the Super Touring category is to allow competition of
production-based vehicles, at a higher level of preparation, using DOTapproved
tires. Vehicles used in this category must be identifiable with
the vehicles offered for sale to the public and available through the
manufacturer’s distribution channels in the US. No chassis or engines
older than 1985 will be eligible, except that model runs that began
before 1985 are eligible (e.g., if a model was produced in 1983-1988,
the 1983 and 1984 cars are eligible). The SCCA does not guarantee the
competitiveness of any car.

Super Touring Under (STU) vehicles are mid-level multi-purpose
performance cars of 3.2 liters and under...
...Spec lines are not required for STU
eligibility; unless otherwise specified, any vehicle meeting the model year
and engine displacement limits is eligible for this class.
Click to expand...

It seems that too many people are forgetting the competitiveness guarantee.

Maybe the formula needs to be adjusted slightly, (how about RWD McStrut cars have a smaller weight penalty than RWD double-wishbone? ;) ) but I'm certainly not in favor of a Prod/GT-level spec where this car gets brakes and that car gets bigger restrictor.

Give everyone the same prep rules and let the cards fall where they may. I chose my car knowing it's NOT a Miata or a Solstice, and I'm gonna race it anyway, heavy iron engine, McStruts and all.
 
Nobody is forgetting. The issue is that you are reading that as gospel. Just because you aren't going to guarantee competitiveness, doesn't preclude you from trying.

All National classes try.

I don't think you will see line-item adjustments in STx but you will certainly see engine-specific adjustments and platform adjustments. Not a total CA scenario but certainly not CA-free.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
Nobody is forgetting. The issue is that you are reading that as gospel. Just because you aren't going to guarantee competitiveness, doesn't preclude you from trying.

All National classes try.

I don't think you will see line-item adjustments in STx but you will certainly see engine-specific adjustments and platform adjustments. Not a total CA scenario but certainly not CA-free.
Click to expand...

Aka: The rules are what they are, until they're not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top