What is a "touring car?"

Core car yes, but never to exclude everything but 'touring cars'. TC's are 4 doors.

Edit: I'm not trying to be argumentative here Dr. K. I'm just trying to point out that Super 'Touring' O has sports cars and Super 'Touring' U is a displacement-based class with no limitations.

No place in the infancy of Super Touring (STO and STU) was the requirement to be a traditional touring-car written. STL is a subset of these classes and unless specifically exclusionary and incongruent to the parent classes, it would seem that it's a displacement class too.
 
Last edited:
I admire the hell out of mazda for taking the initiative in creating an amazingly good, low cost RWD sportscar platform that to date has remained uncoppied to any real level of success by any other manufacturer, and to continue to make it in the face of declining sales. They built a car everyone thought would fail in the US market, proved them wrong, and hit the formula so precisely that no one who has tried has managed to get anywhere close to their level of success.

but it's not a touring car. it would be nice to have a touring car class, because there are so many good options, many pro series that could feed it, and I believe there's interest in it. if STL/U is too far gone, we should make a new one and consolidate the redundancy in the current mix of classes. the old days had sedan and production, and while entropy from those days certinaly led to the mess we are in now re: over abundance of classes, the groundwork laid then seems more appropriate to the realities on the ground today for reasons I do not think the folks at the time appreciated - namely those that Kirk elaborated on. ITB and C cannot be the last place small-discplacement, comnpromise-laiden boxes (AKA "touring cars" among other things) can race around in relative partiy without a miata or suchlike more purposefully built machine messing up the formula.
 
Last edited:
Chip - I really believe that a class for just 'Touring cars' is a total non-starter. Who the heck wants to race these econo-boxes? How is B-spec working out?

People want to race what they like. Other than Hondas which can have decent front suspensions, great engines and have a following, what on earth is there to draw people in any kind of numbers? What is the real potential market here? I submit nothing but a bottom-feeder entry-wise.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
Chip - I really believe that a class for just 'Touring cars' is a total non-starter. Who the heck wants to race these econo-boxes? How is B-spec working out?
Click to expand...
So Super Touring Light is nothing more than another place for Mazda Miatas and Mazda RX-7s to play?

Nice.

GA, bottom-feeder for over three decades....sure wish I'd had someone back then to show me The Real Way To Nirvana...
 
not econoboxes - "boxes". ITB is the only "touring" style class without miatas in the engine size range we are discussing, thus it's mention. evrything faste rthan that is full of sports cars. when I say "touring car" I'm thinking everything from civic and protege to GS350, IS300, and 5series BMWs. obviously not all of those fit the STL mold but...

there is NOT a class for THAT that does not also include miatas and a few other "not touring cars". Andy, I think you are hung up on the definition of what a touring car is and confusing it with econoboxes. everyone knows there's a limitted and shrinking market for sub 110hp hatchbacks to race. one look at B Spec and ITB/C entries will tell you that. but the inherent compromises to handling in order to accomodate passenger and luggage volume that a touring car has make it a lesser car to a sportscar which compromises luggage and passenger volume for handling. OBVIOUSLY a sportscar will be better than a touring car, everything else being equal as defined by the broad-strokes of classiifcation used in Super Touring (drive wheels, generic suspsension design family, engine displacement). in fact, that's the point of Kirks first post - that touring cars can't compete in super touring becasue not touring cars are in super touring, and it'd be really cool if there were a place for touring cars.

I'm done now. this is just a stupid discussion that will go nowhere because the club is terrified to make a stand and actually draw lines that make the various categories substantially different. ST and IT and GT and Prod are all cuttin ginto each other's numbers because they are all different shades of the same color. it can be fixed, but that will take serious courgae on the part of the PTB as it WILL piss people off in the short term.
 
Last edited:
Greg Amy said:
So Super Touring Light is nothing more than another place for Mazda Miatas and Mazda RX-7s to play?

Nice.

GA, bottom-feeder for over three decades....sure wish I'd had someone back then to show me The Real Way To Nirvana...
Click to expand...

Exclude Miatas if that makes you feel better I don't really care. The point is simply that a 'touring car only' class IMHO can't drive the numbers.

And I will be quick to point out that I have only known you to run 2 cars, an NX2000 and an Integra GSR coupe. Both non 'touring cars'.

If we want real TC's then it's a dead class. If we want an interior volume-based class then I have serious doubts because by design you are eliminating many chassis people gravitate to. Maybe I'm wrong and there is a ton of people who are chomping at the bit to build or convert their TC's for STL.
 
Chip42 said:
not econoboxes - "boxes". ITB is the only "touring" style class without miatas in the engine size range we are discussing, thus it's mention. evrything faste rthan that is full of sports cars. when I say "touring car" I'm thinking everything from civic and protege to GS350, IS300, and 5series BMWs. obviously not all of those fit the STL mold but...
Click to expand...

So are you just talking STL here because more than half your examples aren't even examples. If you want to include STU then I'll buy into your philosophy at the conceptual level.

there is NOT a class for THAT that does not also include miatas and a few other "not touring cars". Andy, I think you are hung up on the definition of what a touring car is and confusing it with econoboxes. everyone knows there's a limitted and shrinking market for sub 110hp hatchbacks to race. one look at B Spec and ITB/C entries will tell you that. but the inherent compromises to handling in order to accomodate passenger and luggage volume that a touring car has make it a lesser car to a sportscar which compromises luggage and passenger volume for handling. OBVIOUSLY a sportscar will be better than a touring car, everything else being equal as defined by the broad-strokes of classiifcation used in Super Touring (drive wheels, generic suspsension design family, engine displacement). in fact, that's the point of Kirks first post - that touring cars can't compete in super touring becasue not touring cars are in super touring, and it'd be really cool if there were a place for touring cars.
Click to expand...

I'm not getting hung up on that at all, in fact I feel like you are. By saying that I mean that the 'Touring' in the nomenclature of these classes MEANS NOTHING...NOTHING. STO and STU as I have said never relied exclusively on what Kirk or anyone here 'wants' a TC to look and smell like. Hence the same philosophy for STL.

And I have said it all along, if you want onlt TC type stuff, then cut the weeds immediate and see what grows...I submit not much. And the guy who was THERE says the Civic is fast...on a stock motor with class-legal cams. Broken? Doubtful...unless as some have said both the Miata AND the 2L Honda are broken.

I'm done now. this is just a stupid discussion that will go nowhere because the club is terrified to make a stand and actually draw lines that make the various categories substantially different. ST and IT and GT and Prod are all cuttin ginto each other's numbers because they are all different shades of the same color. it can be fixed, but that will take serious courgae on the part of the PTB as it WILL piss people off in the short term.
Click to expand...

I think if you 'fix' it, you won't have anything 'more' than you did at the beginning.

I will close my part with this as we are all getting frustrated: If you want STL to be something, make it that...and that is what Kirk has proposed. I just don't want others cheer-leading from the sidelines yelling 'ya, it's a touring car class anyway!'...because it's not, never has been and the parent classes never were either.

If STL can grow with 60+ cu/feet of interior volume as the minimum, awesome! Just say what you want to be, believe in it, and sink or swim. That's all I ask.
 
Last edited:
Andy Bettencourt said:
And I will be quick to point out that I have only known you to run 2 cars, an NX2000 and an Integra GSR coupe. Both non 'touring cars'.
Click to expand...
Uuuuuumm...wut? Both exceed Kirk's 60cu-ft interior volume standard for definition of "touring car".

What, exactly, are you defining "Touring Car" as? Anything rectangular 3-box design that's shaped like a Datsun 510...?

Keep in mind that, as I'm inferring it, Kirk is simply saying that, by their design, "touring cars" cannot compete fairly against GT or sports cars. He is proposing a characteristic of the former in order to easily define - and as needed, account for - that inequity.

Chip42 said:
I'm done now. this is just a stupid discussion that will go nowhere because the club is terrified to make a stand and actually draw lines that make the various categories substantially different...
Click to expand...
You're gonna loooove the "Concorde Agreement"...
 
Last edited:
Greg Amy said:
Uuuuuumm...wut? Both exceed Kirk's 60cu-ft interior volume standard for definition of "touring car".

What, exactly, are you defining "Touring Car" as? Anything rectangular 3-box design that's shaped like a Datsun 510...?

Keep in mind that, as I'm inferring it, Kirk is simply saying that, by their design, "touring cars" cannot compete fairly against GT or sports cars. He is proposing a characteristic of the former in order to easily define - and as needed, account for - that inequity.


You're gonna loooove the "Concorde Agreement"...
Click to expand...

And I want a definition that doesn't provide any holes. If the NX2000 is 60+ then a 924/944 must be. 2nd gen RX-7 had a 2+2 option.
 
Man, you are all over the place...if one were to accept that a "touring car" were at a significant disadvantage due to its design, and if one were to assume that a "touring car" were defined as having an interior volume of 60 cu-ft (which would cause a large, higher body with tighter suspension packaging and exhibiting the inferior performance characteristics), and if your specific examples above meet that definition...

...then why in the hell are you arguing with everyone about this?
 
You're not arguing Andy but you're using web board Argument #12 - the "it's got to be this extreme or that extreme and can't possibly be in between" gambit. There's a world between "touring car means nothing" and "touring cars MUST have four doors."

Your position is that STL will be a vibrant, healthy class when made up of only three chassis options - Miatae, rx7s, and NSXs - each with its optimum swap....?

K
 
Chip42 said:
not econoboxes - "boxes".
I'm done now. this is just a stupid discussion that will go nowhere because the club is terrified to make a stand and actually draw lines that make the various categories substantially different. ST and IT and GT and Prod are all cuttin ginto each other's numbers because they are all different shades of the same color. it can be fixed, but that will take serious courgae on the part of the PTB as it WILL piss people off in the short term.
Click to expand...



There is more than drawing a line in the sand,courage, black helicopters and PTB. This 'fix' kills the class. Whether you agree or disagree, the class has numbers now.. if "fixed", STL will be dropped as a non performer as quickly as it could be done within the clubs rules. That is not a sound decision by the PTB in any way. The club has members who are willing to pay entry fees in this class as it is now. The PTB that have the responsibility to do what is "best " for the club. Losing that many entries and killing one of the best performing classes does not fit within that responsibility even if it does have a few warts on it.

If it makes us feel "feel" better, we can rename the classes CFO, CFU and CFL and leave the class and eligible cars alone. We could always start a new regional touring car only class? Who really thinks that has any chance wjhatsoever of going anywhere?
 
You lose the entries only if IT/SM "in their class spec" crossovers are excluded and I did not propose that. You going to argue your case by misrepresenting my position to those "ptb" folks...?

Kirk (who is probably delusional if he thinks Mr Drago won't just drown this sack of kittens before anyone has a chance to think about adopting them or not)
 
Greg Amy said:
Man, you are all over the place...if one were to accept that a "touring car" were at a significant disadvantage due to its design, and if one were to assume that a "touring car" were defined as having an interior volume of 60 cu-ft (which would cause a large, higher body with tighter suspension packaging and exhibiting the inferior performance characteristics), and if your specific examples above meet that definition...

...then why in the hell are you arguing with everyone about this?
Click to expand...

Ugh... What I am saying is that if all you want a 'touring car' to be a non-sports car and all you qualify is a 60+ interior volume, then I am submitting that you are missing the boat based on the examples that I gave.

Define what you REALLY want the class to be. If you don't want sports-car based stuff because nothing else has a chance in hell (already proven wrong), then MAKE IT SO. Don't use some silly 60+ number that some 'sports cars' can already hit (924/944/FC RX7/RX8 assuming similar size to the NX that you say hits)
 
Knestis said:
rs."

Your position is that STL will be a vibrant, healthy class when made up of only three chassis options - Miatae, rx7s, and NSXs - each with its optimum swap....?

K
Click to expand...

My position is, "Be careful what you eliminate from eligibility because from what has been built and raced so far, there ain't much left'.

Now if the class comes alive because 'sports cars are gone, I will admit I was wrong. I just don't see a big market for other stuff. Heck, I'd like to actually see the envelope EXPANDED to stuff older than the current rule. I would love an 510 or 240Z with a SR20 in it.
 
Knestis said:
You lose the entries only if IT/SM "in their class spec" crossovers are excluded and I did not propose that. You going to argue your case by misrepresenting my position to those "ptb" folks...?

Kirk (who is probably delusional if he thinks Mr Drago won't just drown this sack of kittens before anyone has a chance to think about adopting them or not)
Click to expand...

So it's ok to allow all the field fillers to pay the bills and keep a class afloat when the core premise is flawed? Ok. At what point is the class a good class? You would never know. 3 'real' cars show up and 20 fillers. Not a recipe for success IMHO. Sounds like a trophy for everyone on the back of other drivers.

The whole concept is flawed IMHO because we have a well driven and UNDER-PREPARED (stock motor with legal cams) Civic running with the best Miata in the country (quote from a guy who was there).
 
Knestis said:
You lose the entries only if IT/SM "in their class spec" crossovers are excluded and I did not propose that. You going to argue your case by misrepresenting my position to those "ptb" folks...?

Kirk (who is probably delusional if he thinks Mr Drago won't just drown this sack of kittens before anyone has a chance to think about adopting them or not)
Click to expand...

So you want to sustain the class with uncompetitive IT and SM cars and take their entry fees, but cut out other competitive cars that look like those that are subsidizing your new class? Does anyone else see that as a little hypocritical?

I DOUBT VERY SERIOUSLY your letter makes it out of the committee level ( so do you, BTW) and that does not involve me at all. Just in case it does, I will make my position clear. I would not support your letter.

I simply do not agree with your vision in regards to the direction of this class, nothing personal. This class was not started as a touring car only class and many have spent racing dollars building Miatas, MX5's and other cars that will be excluded in your idea of what STL should be. Just not something I agree with or willing to do. We have unlimited abilities to adjust these cars in STL if need be and I would prefer to exhaust those methods before excluding eligible cars from the class. I have personally been instrumental in putting weight on the Miata at least twice in STL, my data and dyno sheets are public knowledge. You are welcome to either as is anyone else. If the Miata needs further penalties, I would be the first to support them, you can confirm that with Greg.
 
I'm on record here and elsewhere that I think building classes that count on crossover entries is bad policy. I just want to keep the issues clear and separate.

So how much weight, Andy, is required to put an Integra on par with an NSX if both have the same 1.8 engine? You HONESTLY think that parity can be achieved there; that anyone will really give it that quantity of lead?

k
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
The whole concept is flawed IMHO because we have a well driven and UNDER-PREPARED (stock motor with legal cams) Civic running with the best Miata in the country (quote from a guy who was there).
Click to expand...

The lightest possible chassis type at 2.0L vs the heaviest with 1.8. And, as noted, that fwd strut car is outlier good in terms of handling, thus 2 pages of discussion about making spec line weight modifiers for known oddball chassis rather than trying to accomodate them in general rules. This situation was created in an effort to neutralize the Miata, but I submit that no other 1.8L car would be in that hunt, nor would most (any?) other cars with larger engines. And the same quote said the car fell off pace after half race as it's tires over heated. Its still fwd...

Kirk's original point was that sports cars aren't touring cars. We agree that this is true and that nothing will be done about it. So recognize the outcome of the problem and support change to bring parity to the class when outlier chassis are identified.
 
Last edited:
....and to your field filler question Andy, a bunch of SMs and IT cars areNOT going to dissuade someone from building a four seat 2.0 car for STL. Knowing that sports cars are always going to have an advantage certainly will.

Kirk (who needs to talk with Brandon before he goes hog wild with a bigger engine for the civic)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top