What is a "touring car?"

Submitted for consideration by the CRB:

Change 9.1.4.B.1. to read as follows (changes indicated by underline):

"1985 and newer cars with SAE passenger volume greater than 60 cubic feet (per the standards defined by SAE J1100 as adopted by the manufacturer), built specifically under these ST rules."

The proposed passenger volume requirement would clarify as a first principle of the category that Super Touring cars be passenger vehicles typically designed to safely seat four adults (i.e., to the exclusion of light trucks, sports, and Grand Touring [GT] cars). Note that this proposal should not be interpreted as affecting
9.1.4.B.3., the allowance that alternate categories/classes of cars may compete in their own specification.

Respectfully submitted,
Kirk Knestis
103210
 
Where is the database or the gold standard resource on researching passenger volume?

Where did you come up with 60 cu/ft?

Are you stating a problem in your request and an associated solution or just a simple contraction of eligible cars? You don't really state the goal your request aims at. (We know it but will the CRB?)
 
60 cf is unequivocally less than is required for a four seat car, not so close to currently eligible models that its likely to arbitrarily exclude new options. Passenger volume is an sae standard dimension published by the manufacturers. We don't have "gold standard data" for any of the other info we need for rules making. Why apply that expectation now?
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
Where is the database or the gold standard resource on researching passenger volume?

Where did you come up with 60 cu/ft?
Click to expand...

I'm going to bet that a Miata has 59 cu ft of interior volume.. ;)

Manufacturers typically publish this information with their list of new car specs. you can find interior volumes on just about any car review site- edmunds, motor trend, car mfr brochure or website, etc. As there is a standard test method to calculate this number, I would rely on any of those sites to provide usable data (Mfr's owner or service manual data first).

As a side note, the standard measurements for interior volumes to classify cars include trunk volume. Reference: http://books.google.com/books?id=F3Q7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA339#v=onepage&q&f=false
 
Knestis said:
60 cf is unequivocally less than is required for a four seat car, not so close to currently eligible models that its likely to arbitrarily exclude new options. Passenger volume is an sae standard dimension published by the manufacturers. We don't have "gold standard data" for any of the other info we need for rules making. Why apply that expectation now?
Click to expand...

What I mean is where do you find specs for interior volume? I tried today for about 10 min to find the spec for a Porsche 944.
 
Matt93SE said:
I'm going to bet that a Miata has 59 cu ft of interior volume.. ;)
Click to expand...

I'd argue, rather successfully I might add:rolleyes:, that the passenger volume of a car without a roof is essentially infinite. With Special Me specifically called out as being included in both STL and STU along with all IT cars... this will probably go in the not recommended list. :cavallo:
 
Last edited:
Knestis said:
No. I specified PASSENGER VOLUME. It means a particular measurement, per SAE standard cited.

K
Click to expand...

The EPA standard is widely published with car specs. Is the SAE standard measurement as widely published and as easy to find?

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, just asking a question. It seemed a lot easier to find interior volume published than passenger volume.
 
I haven't been on here in a long time. This is a very interesting read. I find myself in an awkward position of agreeing with Kirk here. :) When I think touring car.. my opinion is even tighter than what was originally allowed in TC. I feel all small sub 2 liter cars with four doors, not even coupes. But that is just my opinion. Unfortunately, if we use the 'touring car" definition as what was allowed in touring car for STL., we simply don't have a class. What do we have 3-4 converted IT cars on a good day? I never looked at a Miata or an RX8 as a "touring car" While I agree with Kirk's interpretation, I can't see this getting any traction as it would for all intents and purpose kill the class. I would have never entered STL if it was a true touring car class as it would have been a much bigger step. The way STL was ssetup, it almost dared me not to come out and play. Whether we agree or disagree, allowing the SM guys to double dip in STL is what grew the class so large and so quickly. If we kill the SM double dippers, we have to think what it will do to the class and events on a whole. I am sure the regions appreciate the extra 15-25 entrees.
I have never really understood the resentment of the Sm double dippers in IT and certainly not in STL. If you have an IT or STL car and are racing with SM double dippers, you more than likely have other more pressing issues as they should not be close to you. The ones that should be closest are the front runners and despite popular opinion, these guys RARELY run into anyone. The positive of the double dippers.. there is always enough cars to get contingency and many of these guys transform their cars to STL miatas. Bruce Anderson and the drillmaster Flat Out Miata both started as SM cars.

As far as the miata goes.. I tend to agree a lot with what Andy said and I was at Watkins Glen. Brian Shanfield is a very good driver, (as good as the best SM guys I race with routinely IMO) former NASA champion. His car is good, but not fully developed either, just swapped cams to meet the rule. We have raced VERY close all year. I don't think either of us have been stickering up each race. Brians car falls off after 1/2 the race or so. But in the first half of every race, we are as even as you can possibly make a miata and a FWD car. At Watkins, if I was not in his draft we were dead even up the esses. I had to make sure I was in his draft to be able to make any ground. Previously I thought the club hit the car a little too hard on the restrictor plate. After watkins I feel the honda easily makes back that 4-5 hp and probably a little more. That is a luxury no Miata driver will ever have in STL, You need to build the car to the edge( or over) reliability to get close on power to the Hondas. I would love an option of a Mazda engine that I could run stock and win with. It doesn't exist.

I don't see this getting very far, because it would hurt the club financially. But it is a good topic and I can appreciate it. As far as my program. I am thinking seriously of turning one of my third gen Rx7's into a STKL car with an MZR engine or doing an NSX with 2.0l in it. I think I have another 1.5 years left in me in SM and would like a place to fall into. it would be nice to race a REALLY nice car like one of the two above. If not, I have an 06 MX5 that we will build for next year. Who knows.. maybe an insight with a 2.0l Honda engine for Daytona :)
Jim
 
Not that I disagree with your statements about the request having traction - and I also agree re: definition of a touring car, thoguh I'd allow coupes and the like so long as the car was generally larger, but note that Kirk's request specifically DOES NOT affect double dipper SM or IT cars, so they are free to play, but the SMs would not be able to "tranisition" to ST like many of the IT cars could.
 
And that was purposeful. The conversation here kept getting derailed with discussions about double-dippers, which has nothing to do with my proposition. I do *not* love the idea of making classes - or rationalizing their continuance - based on the idea that they give someone a place to add another entry. If that were the point, we wouldn't have classes. But that's a different letter to the CRB.

Mr Drago makes my point pretty eloquently, I think. By invoking MZR-powered RX7 III, swapped NSXs, etc., he reinforces that anyone who's serious about being competitive under the current regime absolutely MUST build their plan around a Frankenstein GT or sports car - because even a short think about vehicle dynamics makes it clear that they will have a substantial advantage. Enough, in fact, to warrant building something that never existed in nature. Is that a sound basis for a healthy class? Someone who does want to race a sub-2 liter sedan in mildly modified form on radial tires is NOT going to choose STL knowing that they'll be fighting a losing battle based on fundamental chassis attributes.

I have zero doubt that this isn't what the designers of STL had pictured when the class was conceptualized. We should get it back on track now, before the class is irretrievably busted.

K
 
STL just needs to evaluate what it wants to be. Again, STO and STU never had a 'touring car' requirement. They were places for WC cars to go from the 2 different classes...so STL is an extension of that via engine size. Why should the interior volume apply here and not to STO?
 
Matt93SE said:
The EPA standard is widely published with car specs. Is the SAE standard measurement as widely published and as easy to find?

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, just asking a question. It seemed a lot easier to find interior volume published than passenger volume.
Click to expand...

Based on the information I could find, SAE provides a measuring standard under J1100, which has been updated periodically. 1984 version, for example, here. It defines how to determine "passenger," "cargo," and total "interior" volumes (the latter being the sum of the other two). EPA requires reporting of dimensions to the SAE spec, standardized to one particular year's standards. They don't - again, based on what I found - vary much, year to year, but manufacturers may quote their "official" spec based on whatever standard they choose. The "cargo" volume spec varies (obviously) for hatchbacks vs. cars with trunks, but the passenger number should rely on similar first principles within a year's spec.

The difference between a 2-seater and a 4-seater is, irrespective of the specifics of any given spec, something in the nature of 1.5-2.0x. It's not like there should be any hair-splitting required to make the distinction. Heck - a simpler proxy (number of seats for adults, roof height, whatever) can be the standard for our purposes. Or the STAC can make a list.

K
 
STO was WC GT, not TC. GT fits the type of car Kirk is describing as "not a touring car". STU was TC and if there were a few non touring cars there, too (I cannot think of any, and I was a huge fan of the series back in the days of Speedvision/channel - I remember BMWs, mazda6, proteges, focii, audi A4s, etc...) then just remember that in pro racing the balance was maintained actively and changes made between races were commonplace in that effort and if it allowed a manufacturer to come and play... we do not have that ability with the way the ST rules are written, so another way to weigh down or exclude "inherently better" cars is being discussed / requested. these are not very numerous chassis, it wouldn't be hard to identify them and specline adjust them via weight% change as needed, and such a method makes tools available to deal with things like "advanced" struts that I know Andy so keen on pointing out, without drawing arbitrary lines that affect all strut cars from a given manufacturer (or whatever descriptor) because of key examples they share a badge with. singling out a known chassis is a way to balance it with the more traditional chasis of the same arrangement than is any attempt to further categorize that chassis with the few similalrly higher performing ones.
 
STU had the "touring car" requirement by intention of the class being for retired WC Touring Class cars..
I'm not sure what requirements World Challenge originally had for them to be in the class, but the point of the class's origin being specifically called "touring car" means the intent was there. ;)

Frankly, I don't care one way or the other. STU is at the bottom end of the participation list right now, and there are lots of eyes looking at it. The Prod guys want us to go away so we'll quit mucking up their EP/FP races. The GT boys don't want to play with us either because we don't have slicks.. But give it another year or two at the current participation levels and many people that purpose-built cars for the class will be hoping they can fit into GT/Prod. There's no longer the 2.5 requirement, but we're averaging 1.9x cars per race.. You think they're going to give us a slot at Ruboffs with that kind of participation?
not trying to be pessimistic, just looking at the hazy side of my crystal ball....
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
STL just needs to evaluate what it wants to be. Again, STO and STU never had a 'touring car' requirement. They were places for WC cars to go from the 2 different classes...so STL is an extension of that via engine size. Why should the interior volume apply here and not to STO?
Click to expand...

Where do the WCGT cars that were targeted by the STO rules fit in the current STU/STL scheme? I think the answer is "nowhere." There were never any GT or sports cars in WCT, until we got to the most recent silly crossover-please-bring-something-to-race-with-us rules. There was no need to have a "touring cars only" rule in WCT, because the class simply didn't accommodate anything else. Unless I'm confused - which is possible - STU was for ex-WCT cars so, de facto, "touring cars." STL is a second derivative of the STO/STU false start. Leaning heavily on that as history seems like a distant stretch.

K

EDIT - Whoops. Slow to that party. What they said.
 
Last edited:
Right, but the class is 'Super Touring'. A place for WC cars to go if they wanted to retire. Super Touring 'Over' and Super Touring 'Under'. DISPLACEMENT.

In neither category was there in the beginning, or ever has been a rule on having to be a 'Touring' car. No interior volume, no door count. Even in todays WC 'Touring' car A-spec division you see cars like FR-S, MX5 and Civics.

Touring does not mean what you want it to mean in the SCCA.

So to recap, Super Touring is just a name, not a philosophy of what a car should look like. STO and STU from their inception have never been linked to a body style. In fact, STO has had specific cars eligible - most sports cars...and STU (while including WC-TC which did have many sedans and some coupes) had NO spec lines and was a displacement class with no chassis limits.

I submit that STL is simply a slice right out of STU that ALSO gives cars is under 2000cc's a place to play based on DISPLACEMENT, not chassis design.

There was never an intent in ANY of these classes to limit to a 'traditional' T-car.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top