Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
I have no idea the answer to that question. Way above my pay grade. If the problem you are trying to solve by kicking out the sports-cars is that equity can't be achieved at any weight, then no problem.
What is a "touring car?"
- Thread starter Knestis
- Start date
I have no idea the answer to that question. Way above my pay grade. If the problem you are trying to solve by kicking out the sports-cars is that equity can't be achieved at any weight, then no problem.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
My point is SO WHAT? How many times do I have to point out that the words in the name of this category never meant to describe the kinds of cars that were exclusively allowed?
And my point here is that the sky is not falling yet. What data is being cited to show that there is a problem? I see NONE. An under-prepared Civic with a top driver is running dead nuts on a uber-prepared Miata with an equally capable driver. Grumblings are that BOTH cars may need to come back to the pack...but that's hardly a 'sports car' issue.
Yes, sportscars are better than non-sportscars...hence the significant weight differences at the current moment. If the premise from Kirk's post and the general feeling is that equity can never be achieved, then shit-can what you want to and start from scratch (basically Kirk's idea) but make sure it outlaws what you want it to in the first cut to be fair to membership...because any change now porks some people hard.
benspeed
New member
For what its worth I highly doubt that many drivers really zero in on the chassis being defined by the name of the class. I think most drivers pick cars three ways, what they have in the driveway already and tune on, what they think will win or what they think is cool and fun. Touring, sports or GT - i bet many folks would have tough time defining these chassis (lol - like a bunch of folks on this thread bahaha!)
Narrowing a class to fit a chassis definition is a loser business model.
Narrowing a class to fit a chassis definition is a loser business model.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
But this is a National class so the 'formula' can change by changing the rules every year. If you are saying that weight alone can't compensate, no matter the quantity, ok.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Unless that chassis definition is cheap, abundant and popular.
Flyinglizard
New member
"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?"
Dynamic loading on the outer front tire must be pretty close to even; For road racing. frontal area,glass angles. .
Better off just adding weight until both drivers cant pass each other.After rolling both on the dyno.
IMHo take weight out of the shoebox cars and add a tiny bit to the Miata until the Miata guys bitch.
How many real cars are really out there? I cant think of any dedicated STL cars here in CFR. Enlighten me.
Just plain kicking out the 2 seaters is dumb. Who wants to race a shoe box? BMW will rule this playground.
Dynamic loading on the outer front tire must be pretty close to even; For road racing. frontal area,glass angles. .
Better off just adding weight until both drivers cant pass each other.After rolling both on the dyno.
IMHo take weight out of the shoebox cars and add a tiny bit to the Miata until the Miata guys bitch.
How many real cars are really out there? I cant think of any dedicated STL cars here in CFR. Enlighten me.
Just plain kicking out the 2 seaters is dumb. Who wants to race a shoe box? BMW will rule this playground.
I'll jump in here with some opinion as a competitor, not as a STAC member...
It was once remarked to me, by someone within the SCCA, that they envisioned the concept of Super Touring Light as a place for the (PC version) "mentally handicapped" kids to play: the FWD street ricer crowd. Within the SCCA there is a distinct void for that type of car, little econoboxes that uses street tires, has wings and body cladding, lowered, fancy paint and vinyl (very much along the lines of my Modified Touring 2 concept, circa 2004). I agreed with that initial mindset, as that's the type of cars I like to drive, and short of a slot somewhere in Improved Touring was no other place to play. With that mindset, I became an enthusiastic supporter of STL's inclusion in the National racing program and jumped on board as a competitor to support it, later volunteering to be on the Super Touring Advisory Committee, with an intent to support that idea(l).
Since then, in my opinion, we've gone off those rails. We -- the committee as a whole, I can't speak for the individuals -- did not recognize the capability of the Mazda RX-8 when we allowed it into the class (though I was a vociferous opponent of allowing that engine into the class from the start). I was indifferent to the inclusion of the IT-spec RX-7s into the class, but I've been opposed to having the engines on separate spec lines so they could be installed into other chassis (it is, explicitly by the class philosophy, a 2L piston-engine class). And, recognizing that there are distinct differences between the dynamics of the two designs, I've been a long-time proponent, from the very beginning, of a 7.5% minimum RWD adder (recall my discussion from some time ago, comparing the S2000 and Integra chassis, each equipped with the same engine, same driver, same track).
Our lack of foresight, coupled to a lack of understanding the scope of imagination of the breadth of competitors we have in this organization (see "Greg's How to Write a Rule") has resulted, in my opinion, as a class headed far away from that original concept, whether you agree with that original concept or not. It is clear, given recent STL's history, that only the most ardent fanatic of "mentally-handicapped" cars would, with clear objective thought, pick one of those cars to win an STL championship. Said differently, if someone were to stand back and objectively choose a car to win STL competitively, it would be a sports/GT car into which they'd stuff the most-powerful family engine.
Regardless of what our present-company Miata fans will tell you, even the best FWD chassis does not have a long-term chance against a good RWD sports/GT car, everything else being equal. No offense to these guys, but I don't think either of them has ever raced one (I'd love to swap rides one weekend...) The CRB has attempted to equalize this via the RWD adder, but this ends up penalizing cars that are RWD but are not a sports/GT car (e.g., not a Miata or Honda S2000). I'm getting the impression that CRB is not willing to pursue this line of adjustment much further, if at all. That's where Kirk's proposal is coming in.
As for all the double-dippers, they've been both a blessing and a curse. Adding in other categories/classes to STU and STL has clearly allowed the classes to survive and the fast-track to thrive (and to bring STL to #3 in national participation). But at the same time they've been a curse by making the classes appear to be nothing more than another place for these cars to play...no, let's be honest: another place for Spec Miatas to play. And, maybe that's correct in reality. But is no one building Nissan Sentras (for example) for STL "because of Miatae", or are Miatae dominating numbers because no one's building a Nissan Sentras? Who would want to build a Nissan Sentra only to be dropped into a field of Miatae? It's a fine question to ask 'what would happen if Miatas were banned from STL?' Well, what would happen? Would other non-Miatae suddenly see a void (that many in present company are implying is there, but is obscured within a forest of Miatae) and jump into the fray?
So what would happen if we cut Miatae entirely (ignoring the fact that it's highly unlikely that the Club would do that)...? Our present-company Miatae drivers are implying the class would die off completely, but that assumes that the class was initially created with a vision of it succeeding only by allowing in SMs...is that the case? Was it envisioned as nothing more than another place for SM to play? Or was there an original vision where we'd bring out a lot of diverse vehicles?
If the latter, what killed that that vision?
All this talk of the value of extra entries is, frankly, absurd, and borderline insulting. We do not - should not - create entire categories for our National/Majors racing program for the purpose of attracting double-dippers; that's putting the cart before the horse. The only reason we should be creating additional classes is to satisfy a demand for a level of prep that is not being serviced by the existing infrastructure. I thought that's what we were doing with Super Touring...was I wrong? And this isn't an "anti-Miata" thing, Jim; while I sincerely appreciate how the Miata double-dippers effectively built STL (and STU before that) the last thing this org needs is a fake class with its primary goal as another place for Spec Miatas to play. We have plenty of other categories (Prod, for example) that would embrace those numbers, we don't need an extra category just for that.
The fact that other cars may fit within that new class should be purely coincidental. As does Kirk, I believe a class should stand or fall on its own merits; if STL cannot stand without double-dipping Miatae then I strongly believe it should either be folded into another category or cut entirely. Extra entries from Spec Miatas (or other categories) must be nothing more than icing on the cake, not the cake itself.
So where do we go from here for Super Touring? That's not so clear. The long-term plan will depend on what the organization decides to do with the proposed "Concorde Agreement". It's quite possible that many of our categories will look decisively different than they do now. Short-term, while I am not rejecting Kirk's position outright (I've yet to hear all the sides of the story, or hear what my fellow committee members have to say about it) it's unlikely that the CRB will support a wholesale change to the category as he proposes. Instead, we're likely to see continuing ongoing "general character adjustments" (for lack of a better term) in STL with the attempt to try and equalize these different characteristics; things like RWD adder changes, maybe even adding add'l adders referencing characteristics such as interior volume. And it's quite possible that we'll start adding outlier cars to Allowances/Requirements tables to start hobbling specific models as needed. But that's all up for discussion.
As Andy said, "This is National Racing" and no one, least of all the CRB, wants to see any particular make/model/engine clearly dominating the class.
GA, encouraging people to read my signature...
It was once remarked to me, by someone within the SCCA, that they envisioned the concept of Super Touring Light as a place for the (PC version) "mentally handicapped" kids to play: the FWD street ricer crowd. Within the SCCA there is a distinct void for that type of car, little econoboxes that uses street tires, has wings and body cladding, lowered, fancy paint and vinyl (very much along the lines of my Modified Touring 2 concept, circa 2004). I agreed with that initial mindset, as that's the type of cars I like to drive, and short of a slot somewhere in Improved Touring was no other place to play. With that mindset, I became an enthusiastic supporter of STL's inclusion in the National racing program and jumped on board as a competitor to support it, later volunteering to be on the Super Touring Advisory Committee, with an intent to support that idea(l).
Since then, in my opinion, we've gone off those rails. We -- the committee as a whole, I can't speak for the individuals -- did not recognize the capability of the Mazda RX-8 when we allowed it into the class (though I was a vociferous opponent of allowing that engine into the class from the start). I was indifferent to the inclusion of the IT-spec RX-7s into the class, but I've been opposed to having the engines on separate spec lines so they could be installed into other chassis (it is, explicitly by the class philosophy, a 2L piston-engine class). And, recognizing that there are distinct differences between the dynamics of the two designs, I've been a long-time proponent, from the very beginning, of a 7.5% minimum RWD adder (recall my discussion from some time ago, comparing the S2000 and Integra chassis, each equipped with the same engine, same driver, same track).
Our lack of foresight, coupled to a lack of understanding the scope of imagination of the breadth of competitors we have in this organization (see "Greg's How to Write a Rule") has resulted, in my opinion, as a class headed far away from that original concept, whether you agree with that original concept or not. It is clear, given recent STL's history, that only the most ardent fanatic of "mentally-handicapped" cars would, with clear objective thought, pick one of those cars to win an STL championship. Said differently, if someone were to stand back and objectively choose a car to win STL competitively, it would be a sports/GT car into which they'd stuff the most-powerful family engine.
Regardless of what our present-company Miata fans will tell you, even the best FWD chassis does not have a long-term chance against a good RWD sports/GT car, everything else being equal. No offense to these guys, but I don't think either of them has ever raced one (I'd love to swap rides one weekend...) The CRB has attempted to equalize this via the RWD adder, but this ends up penalizing cars that are RWD but are not a sports/GT car (e.g., not a Miata or Honda S2000). I'm getting the impression that CRB is not willing to pursue this line of adjustment much further, if at all. That's where Kirk's proposal is coming in.
As for all the double-dippers, they've been both a blessing and a curse. Adding in other categories/classes to STU and STL has clearly allowed the classes to survive and the fast-track to thrive (and to bring STL to #3 in national participation). But at the same time they've been a curse by making the classes appear to be nothing more than another place for these cars to play...no, let's be honest: another place for Spec Miatas to play. And, maybe that's correct in reality. But is no one building Nissan Sentras (for example) for STL "because of Miatae", or are Miatae dominating numbers because no one's building a Nissan Sentras? Who would want to build a Nissan Sentra only to be dropped into a field of Miatae? It's a fine question to ask 'what would happen if Miatas were banned from STL?' Well, what would happen? Would other non-Miatae suddenly see a void (that many in present company are implying is there, but is obscured within a forest of Miatae) and jump into the fray?
So what would happen if we cut Miatae entirely (ignoring the fact that it's highly unlikely that the Club would do that)...? Our present-company Miatae drivers are implying the class would die off completely, but that assumes that the class was initially created with a vision of it succeeding only by allowing in SMs...is that the case? Was it envisioned as nothing more than another place for SM to play? Or was there an original vision where we'd bring out a lot of diverse vehicles?
If the latter, what killed that that vision?
All this talk of the value of extra entries is, frankly, absurd, and borderline insulting. We do not - should not - create entire categories for our National/Majors racing program for the purpose of attracting double-dippers; that's putting the cart before the horse. The only reason we should be creating additional classes is to satisfy a demand for a level of prep that is not being serviced by the existing infrastructure. I thought that's what we were doing with Super Touring...was I wrong? And this isn't an "anti-Miata" thing, Jim; while I sincerely appreciate how the Miata double-dippers effectively built STL (and STU before that) the last thing this org needs is a fake class with its primary goal as another place for Spec Miatas to play. We have plenty of other categories (Prod, for example) that would embrace those numbers, we don't need an extra category just for that.
The fact that other cars may fit within that new class should be purely coincidental. As does Kirk, I believe a class should stand or fall on its own merits; if STL cannot stand without double-dipping Miatae then I strongly believe it should either be folded into another category or cut entirely. Extra entries from Spec Miatas (or other categories) must be nothing more than icing on the cake, not the cake itself.
So where do we go from here for Super Touring? That's not so clear. The long-term plan will depend on what the organization decides to do with the proposed "Concorde Agreement". It's quite possible that many of our categories will look decisively different than they do now. Short-term, while I am not rejecting Kirk's position outright (I've yet to hear all the sides of the story, or hear what my fellow committee members have to say about it) it's unlikely that the CRB will support a wholesale change to the category as he proposes. Instead, we're likely to see continuing ongoing "general character adjustments" (for lack of a better term) in STL with the attempt to try and equalize these different characteristics; things like RWD adder changes, maybe even adding add'l adders referencing characteristics such as interior volume. And it's quite possible that we'll start adding outlier cars to Allowances/Requirements tables to start hobbling specific models as needed. But that's all up for discussion.
As Andy said, "This is National Racing" and no one, least of all the CRB, wants to see any particular make/model/engine clearly dominating the class.
GA, encouraging people to read my signature...
Last edited:
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Very well written.
My only comment is that I really hope that 'people with Sentras' aren't so short sighted that they are staying away because of Miata DD's. Maybe the sheer quantity of cars on grid is intimidating to some drivers who might want to take a shot at STL but to not join a class that interests them because of a group of cars that is slower than they should be is not the kind of driver that will sustain the long-term health of any class.
STL has had 2-3 years to cook. If you take out SM's you are left with the core STL class. What numbers are being drawn? Maybe the real answer here is that nobody is building real STL cars because of a couple purpose-built Miata and the perception that nothing else can ever compete - and it's stunted the growth of the class. If this is a viable concept, then maybe future growth can be seen without 'sports cars'.
What would be a total bummer (and part of this proposed 'solution') is to send some of these members 'investments' down the toilet.
My only comment is that I really hope that 'people with Sentras' aren't so short sighted that they are staying away because of Miata DD's. Maybe the sheer quantity of cars on grid is intimidating to some drivers who might want to take a shot at STL but to not join a class that interests them because of a group of cars that is slower than they should be is not the kind of driver that will sustain the long-term health of any class.
STL has had 2-3 years to cook. If you take out SM's you are left with the core STL class. What numbers are being drawn? Maybe the real answer here is that nobody is building real STL cars because of a couple purpose-built Miata and the perception that nothing else can ever compete - and it's stunted the growth of the class. If this is a viable concept, then maybe future growth can be seen without 'sports cars'.
What would be a total bummer (and part of this proposed 'solution') is to send some of these members 'investments' down the toilet.
I agree with Andy very good post ... A few comments..
First, whenever you would like to swap cars or drive mine, you are welcome to do so. I may need a crow bar to get in yours.
I agree that the double dippers should be the icing. I dont believe the class was founded at all in any as a second class for Spec miatas to double dip. But there is no doubt that it has become one. I agree that the class SHOULD stand on it's own merits, but it cant. Why? I dont know that answer, but way fewer cars got on board than many of us projected. The question/ problem is this.. Regardless of how we got here, this is where we are now. The class ( while we can all agree by artificial means) is successful and #3 performer right now. I dont think any of the PTB (CRB or BOD) would want to do anything to risk doing serious damage or reducing the numbers in the class.
In a perfect world, I love Kirks idea. A real touring car class with 20 plus cars per weekend would really interest me as a competitor and I would certainly build one. ( looking at Spec E46) I just dont believe at this point and time it seems like we can support such a class? So where do we go? Keep what we have and try treating some of the warts or just put a bullet in there heads because the warts will never be completely gone?
First, whenever you would like to swap cars or drive mine, you are welcome to do so. I may need a crow bar to get in yours.
I agree that the double dippers should be the icing. I dont believe the class was founded at all in any as a second class for Spec miatas to double dip. But there is no doubt that it has become one. I agree that the class SHOULD stand on it's own merits, but it cant. Why? I dont know that answer, but way fewer cars got on board than many of us projected. The question/ problem is this.. Regardless of how we got here, this is where we are now. The class ( while we can all agree by artificial means) is successful and #3 performer right now. I dont think any of the PTB (CRB or BOD) would want to do anything to risk doing serious damage or reducing the numbers in the class.
In a perfect world, I love Kirks idea. A real touring car class with 20 plus cars per weekend would really interest me as a competitor and I would certainly build one. ( looking at Spec E46) I just dont believe at this point and time it seems like we can support such a class? So where do we go? Keep what we have and try treating some of the warts or just put a bullet in there heads because the warts will never be completely gone?
You keep doing it Andy, mixing the issues. It's NOT the DD SMs that will keep drivers - heck, ME - from investing in trying to make the civic competitive. It's the vehicle dynamics reality of doing so against sports and GT cars with inherent advantages that will allow entrants of those cars to "control the gap" - both on the track and where competition adjustments happen.
Farbman made a strategic error by going two seconds faster in practice than his eventual race lap record at NJMP this spring. He went back to the hymnal in the race and only went as fast as he needed to. Watch how hard he doesn't have to work to catch Greg in his glen video.
The fundamental differences in chassis layouts, in the moving-target world of nationals, makes it a fool's errand to build anything other than one of the very short list of swapped sports cars for STL.
K
Farbman made a strategic error by going two seconds faster in practice than his eventual race lap record at NJMP this spring. He went back to the hymnal in the race and only went as fast as he needed to. Watch how hard he doesn't have to work to catch Greg in his glen video.
The fundamental differences in chassis layouts, in the moving-target world of nationals, makes it a fool's errand to build anything other than one of the very short list of swapped sports cars for STL.
K
Where to go from here? I see this situation/problem as two-fold: perception and reality.
First, perception. To Andy's question, if I were a new STL candidate with a Nissan Sentra (or even a Honda Integra) and interested in the prep level offered by STL, I would most certainly pause before entering into the existing STL field.
Whether deserved or not, Spec Miatas have a reputation of being aggressive drivers, and many people do not like racing with them.
Exacerbating that is the fact that the level of prep, and the level of driving skill, of Majors-quality Spec Miata has gotten so good that the difference between the "real" STL cars and front-end Spec Miatas are not really that massively different. I have been shocked at how relatively competitive the pointy-end Spec Miatas are with my 60-more-hp Integra...it doesn't help that an STL-compliant Spec Miata is now ~250# lighter than the comparable STL-spec Miata, and is not - and will not be - subject to any of the RWD adder changes going forward...and SMs continue to get faster.
Bottom line, the performance potential between SM and STL is too small. That potential difference needs to be large enough to attract mid-pack "true" STL entries while creating disincentives for mid-pack Spec Miatas. It is not. So you have a guy in a Nissan Sentra who's interested in STL, but realizes that unless he's got a 100% build car and drives the damn thing 100%, he's going to be mired in a large field of aggressive Majors-quality Spec Miatas. That's not going to be fun.
What could we do to resolve this? Well, it's unrealistic to try and slow down the Spec Miatas when they're competing in STL: it's impractical to add weight or a restrictor to them, or for that matter change any of their equipment. That leaves us with two choices: remove the explicit SM allowance (which I suggest should be a long term goal), forcing them to prepare to the same standards as everyone else; or we find a way to make STL as a whole faster. Neither of these is an attractive short-term solution, the former for its effects on participation numbers and the latter for increased costs for everyone else, just to address a "too fast" included category.
So we kinda stuck ourselves in a tight situation between a rock and a hard place with no reasonable, practical answers, a situation that is only going to get worse as time goes along. We're in a self-perpetuating circle: SM'rs are getting faster and participating in STL in greater numbers and causing a perception problem for those interested in STL, but we can't remove the SM'rs because they're the bulk of the class.
Simply put, while Spec Miata was the lift that the class needed to become a Majors class (ironically) Spec Miata may also be the cause of its ultimate death...
Then there's reality. If we ignore the above issue of perception, and we take the Spec Miatas out of our consideration for equitably classifying "real" STL cars, we're back to the whole idea of how to make econoboxes - ricer cars - competitive against sports/GT cars. We've been trying to do this via the RWD adder/crowbar, but that has been ineffective. We started with 2.5% (I believe?), went to 3.5%, now we're at 5.5% all with the goal of trying to, basically, make FWD cars competitive with the Miata (and with the limited exception of one FWD outliers that happens to have a buttload of power/torque, there are no FWD cars competitive with the Miata). Problem is, the Miata is so gawd-awful-dammed good that added weight doesn't really seem to be working as a deterrent, and it's killing it for other RWD cars.
Kirk's position is that we're attacking the wrong characteristic; he's basically saying that it's not just the RWD piece of it that hurts, it's the overall characteristics of a sports car that hurts, things like overall size, windshield, frontal area, weight placement and balance, suspension design.
So while I seriously doubt we're going to de-classify sports cars in STL, I do see the opportunity for having some type of adder to accommodate those sports/GT car characteristics, and adjusting the RWD adder appropriately. We've got two letters in our STAC queue for this discussion, and it's something we'll give serious consideration to for 2015 (we're pretty much "done" with changes for 2014).
We haven't heard a lot about this, but next year's big fracas is going to be engines; we're going to America's Dyno in 2015 for the Runoffs. I predict this time next year we won't care too much about things like sports cars and RWD adders... But if we get the chassis right this year and the engines right next year, then it'll all come home to one big Kumbaya session at Mid-Ohio in 2016...
We'll see how things go.
GA
First, perception. To Andy's question, if I were a new STL candidate with a Nissan Sentra (or even a Honda Integra) and interested in the prep level offered by STL, I would most certainly pause before entering into the existing STL field.
Whether deserved or not, Spec Miatas have a reputation of being aggressive drivers, and many people do not like racing with them.
Exacerbating that is the fact that the level of prep, and the level of driving skill, of Majors-quality Spec Miata has gotten so good that the difference between the "real" STL cars and front-end Spec Miatas are not really that massively different. I have been shocked at how relatively competitive the pointy-end Spec Miatas are with my 60-more-hp Integra...it doesn't help that an STL-compliant Spec Miata is now ~250# lighter than the comparable STL-spec Miata, and is not - and will not be - subject to any of the RWD adder changes going forward...and SMs continue to get faster.
Bottom line, the performance potential between SM and STL is too small. That potential difference needs to be large enough to attract mid-pack "true" STL entries while creating disincentives for mid-pack Spec Miatas. It is not. So you have a guy in a Nissan Sentra who's interested in STL, but realizes that unless he's got a 100% build car and drives the damn thing 100%, he's going to be mired in a large field of aggressive Majors-quality Spec Miatas. That's not going to be fun.
What could we do to resolve this? Well, it's unrealistic to try and slow down the Spec Miatas when they're competing in STL: it's impractical to add weight or a restrictor to them, or for that matter change any of their equipment. That leaves us with two choices: remove the explicit SM allowance (which I suggest should be a long term goal), forcing them to prepare to the same standards as everyone else; or we find a way to make STL as a whole faster. Neither of these is an attractive short-term solution, the former for its effects on participation numbers and the latter for increased costs for everyone else, just to address a "too fast" included category.
So we kinda stuck ourselves in a tight situation between a rock and a hard place with no reasonable, practical answers, a situation that is only going to get worse as time goes along. We're in a self-perpetuating circle: SM'rs are getting faster and participating in STL in greater numbers and causing a perception problem for those interested in STL, but we can't remove the SM'rs because they're the bulk of the class.
Simply put, while Spec Miata was the lift that the class needed to become a Majors class (ironically) Spec Miata may also be the cause of its ultimate death...
Then there's reality. If we ignore the above issue of perception, and we take the Spec Miatas out of our consideration for equitably classifying "real" STL cars, we're back to the whole idea of how to make econoboxes - ricer cars - competitive against sports/GT cars. We've been trying to do this via the RWD adder/crowbar, but that has been ineffective. We started with 2.5% (I believe?), went to 3.5%, now we're at 5.5% all with the goal of trying to, basically, make FWD cars competitive with the Miata (and with the limited exception of one FWD outliers that happens to have a buttload of power/torque, there are no FWD cars competitive with the Miata). Problem is, the Miata is so gawd-awful-dammed good that added weight doesn't really seem to be working as a deterrent, and it's killing it for other RWD cars.
Kirk's position is that we're attacking the wrong characteristic; he's basically saying that it's not just the RWD piece of it that hurts, it's the overall characteristics of a sports car that hurts, things like overall size, windshield, frontal area, weight placement and balance, suspension design.
So while I seriously doubt we're going to de-classify sports cars in STL, I do see the opportunity for having some type of adder to accommodate those sports/GT car characteristics, and adjusting the RWD adder appropriately. We've got two letters in our STAC queue for this discussion, and it's something we'll give serious consideration to for 2015 (we're pretty much "done" with changes for 2014).
We haven't heard a lot about this, but next year's big fracas is going to be engines; we're going to America's Dyno in 2015 for the Runoffs. I predict this time next year we won't care too much about things like sports cars and RWD adders... But if we get the chassis right this year and the engines right next year, then it'll all come home to one big Kumbaya session at Mid-Ohio in 2016...
We'll see how things go.
GA
Last edited:
...and I'm SHOCKED to hear from Greg that the framers of the original STL rules didn't envision the NSX being the answer. Ask Keane, who pretty much wrote around the Integra as the bogey, what the "T" meant. Maybe I'm off base but if I'm NOT, does it argue FOR my proposal as powerfully as Andy thinks the world challenge roots idea argues AGAINST it...?
k
k
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Kirk, I'm not mixing the issues, I am just addressing all the issues people bring up. See Greg's post above as prove it's an 'issue'.
I think I have had the solution all along. FWD weight, RWD +x%, RWD with DW's +X%.
Maybe that looks like FWD +0%, RWD +3%, RWD with DW +6%.
I think I have had the solution all along. FWD weight, RWD +x%, RWD with DW's +X%.
Maybe that looks like FWD +0%, RWD +3%, RWD with DW +6%.
Andy, we're already doing that.
To clarify: currently it's FWD +0%, RWD with front struts +3.5%, RWD with DWB +5.5%.
IMO, your add'l 0.5% - basically, +50 pounds - will offer nothing significant over what we're doing now...if we're to rely solely on RWD adders to accomodate differences between econoboxes and sports/GT cars then it will need to be significantly larger, will affect *all* RWD cars based on drive layout and suspension design only, and does not address the characteristic in question. - GA
To clarify: currently it's FWD +0%, RWD with front struts +3.5%, RWD with DWB +5.5%.
IMO, your add'l 0.5% - basically, +50 pounds - will offer nothing significant over what we're doing now...if we're to rely solely on RWD adders to accomodate differences between econoboxes and sports/GT cars then it will need to be significantly larger, will affect *all* RWD cars based on drive layout and suspension design only, and does not address the characteristic in question. - GA
Last edited:
There's simply a fundamental mismatch between the two basic layouts. This manifested itself as the "Miata is better than the sum of its parts" situation back in the ITAC days.
Edit - two 1.8 rear drive cars with wishbone suspensions will NOT be equal if one is a Spyder and the other is a 3-box grocery getter.
K
Edit - two 1.8 rear drive cars with wishbone suspensions will NOT be equal if one is a Spyder and the other is a 3-box grocery getter.
K
Last edited:
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Then you need an exclusive class Kirk. Not one class in the SCCA has a mechanism to deal with your issue other than weight and/or power adders/subtractors.
Your problem after you create it is finding enough people who want to race a 3-box grocery getter where you can spend $10K on a motor (which could actually be a problem now).
Your problem after you create it is finding enough people who want to race a 3-box grocery getter where you can spend $10K on a motor (which could actually be a problem now).
Last edited:
Late to the party, but put in my nickle's worth. About 1 1/2 years ago, I decided I wanted to be a Major player and qualify to go to the Runoffs. Seriously thought about building an STL CRX, also thought about running in H Prod 1st Gen CRX...we have clean, straight rust free chassis for each of those choices. Figured it would cost nearly the same for either, planned on 25-30K. I don't expect to win the Runoffs, but I really don't want to be "that guy" 25 seconds off the pace trundling around at the back of the field. Then I looked at what was going on in STL and realized that there wasn't any FWD going to be competitive against the rotary powered Miatae. We're about $17,000 into a H Prod build, waiting on a quote from King Motorsports on the motor. Will I win? Nope! But it will be because of my skill or lack thereof, and not because of the car. STL lost us.
I also think its worth noting that the type of tuner the class was expected to attract is largely not already within the scca fold, and we both didn't do a good Job as an organization to attract them, and filled the class with "wrong looking" cars (miatas) that detract from the appeal of a hot hatch class to hot hatch people.
In cfr there's a company that's very big in the import drag scene called IPG Parts. They joined scca with an ITA Integra, got an EP CIVIC si, and most recently are building an fd civic si. They also support the local crowd with parts and a racer or two with services. There's also an ex ita EG civic si with a B16 run by Richie Gonzalez in this Area. These 2 cars, the integras like tGA and PK, and a few others are, to me, the target. They are out there. Give the class time, but make it so the target cars have a chance. Not sure how to do that. Other than huge amounts of weight.
In cfr there's a company that's very big in the import drag scene called IPG Parts. They joined scca with an ITA Integra, got an EP CIVIC si, and most recently are building an fd civic si. They also support the local crowd with parts and a racer or two with services. There's also an ex ita EG civic si with a B16 run by Richie Gonzalez in this Area. These 2 cars, the integras like tGA and PK, and a few others are, to me, the target. They are out there. Give the class time, but make it so the target cars have a chance. Not sure how to do that. Other than huge amounts of weight.