What is a "touring car?"

Matt93SE said:
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....
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be so pessimistic about STU's future. Sure the majors participation isn't as high as it had been in the past, but we're already at 11 STU cars signed up and I'm sure there's at least a half dozen that'll come from the local regions through the divisional route. We've been ahead of AS, GT1, T3, and T4. In fact this may be the largest the STU field to date.

As for roles, I see STU as more of the current GTS and less of the TC of old. Maybe that's the solution to the STL dilemma, banish the DD Miatas to STU, and remove the rotary's to only the chassis that they came with, which can be regulated back to parity.
 
I can think of a half dozen cars in process for STL , all fwd...

it just looks like a fun place to play. My crx might not dominate anyone nationally, but it will be fun and budget friendly, and mike taylors gsr b18 EG should run well too, albeit a focus on enduro stuff
 
Z3_GoCar said:
I wouldn't be so pessimistic about STU's future. Sure the majors participation isn't as high as it had been in the past, but we're already at 11 STU cars signed up and I'm sure there's at least a half dozen that'll come from the local regions through the divisional route. We've been ahead of AS, GT1, T3, and T4. In fact this may be the largest the STU field to date.

As for roles, I see STU as more of the current GTS and less of the TC of old. Maybe that's the solution to the STL dilemma, banish the DD Miatas to STU, and remove the rotary's to only the chassis that they came with, which can be regulated back to parity.
Click to expand...

I'm not using Runoffs entries as the measuring stick- there's too many variables over who makes it each year, and IMO isn't a true look at the health of the class. Take a look at overall class participation nationwide- we're in the bottom few classes. Any idea how the 'regional' race entries stack up?
Also there's a bit of weirdness in the participation numbers.. there are only 22 "participants" listed for the Mid-states majors races, yet if you look at the point standings, there's 39 finishers. maybe those include out of conferences races... ???

Also keep in mind that runoffs registration has only been open a few days. I know of 3 people from around here that are planning to go that aren't on the list- if they don't sell the cars first. Runoffs registrations 4 days into things shouldn't be a go-by for much of anything.

Chip42 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Racing a 240SX here.. Can't tell you how many times I get the "What's the drift car doing Club Racing?" jokes. (especially when it rains and the no-electronics-nannies RWD car starts getting more tail happy than usual)..
most of the world running them didn't want to touch the class because the SR20DET wasn't legal. With its homologation, they chokes down the inlet restrictor -2mm less than any of the other turbo cars.. Since I don't have the budget to do a full-on engine build and "prove" it can't make the power before asking, I'm not even going to waste my time to spend money I don't have and still get out-powered by a Solstice for another year....

so yeah.. I feel your pain when you talk about pissing off the 'tuners'.....
 
Last edited:
My 968 would run at 3300 pounds in STU. Already have 150 pounds bolted to the floor to make 3055 for ITR... 'nuff said....:-(
 
Matt93SE said:
Racing a 240SX here.. Can't tell you how many times I get the "What's the drift car doing Club Racing?" jokes. (especially when it rains and the no-electronics-nannies RWD car starts getting more tail happy than usual)..
most of the world running them didn't want to touch the class because the SR20DET wasn't legal. With its homologation, they chokes down the inlet restrictor -2mm less than any of the other turbo cars.. Since I don't have the budget to do a full-on engine build and "prove" it can't make the power before asking, I'm not even going to waste my time to spend money I don't have and still get out-powered by a Solstice for another year....

so yeah.. I feel your pain when you talk about pissing off the 'tuners'.....
Click to expand...

I was speaking specifically about STL - but I agree that the way we have treated JDM/EDM motors with additionally restricitve TIRs and additional weight penalties just because they are not USDM is part of why specifically STL hasn't caught on with the hot hatch crowd. SR20VE's, 20V 4AGE's (now allowed at +2.5% weight), etc... are all popular swaps that allow existing cars better options for the class AND often have a certain "cool" factor that likely outweighs their ACTUAL performance capabilities under the allowed mods of STL (but... perception = reality, in this case at the CRB level). the SR20DET and RB25/26DET/TT's are EXACTLY the type of motors that could bring more J-Tin to STU. Excluding them or allowing them but cuttting their nuts off (wether it did or did not, again, perception is reality) isn't helping the cause AND perpetuates the "SCCA is not a place for me" mindset of a bunch of the people we could have reached with this class.

best chance for STL and to some degree STU is to get it out from under SCCA, which I hate to say as I'm a lifelong SCCA guy, but I'm pretty sure it's true.
 
Chip42 said:
....best chance for STL and to some degree STU is to get it out from under SCCA, which I hate to say as I'm a lifelong SCCA guy, but I'm pretty sure it's true.
Click to expand...

I'm going by the number of racers who will be at the runoffs because there are a number that qualified outside the Majors path. As for what would happen if STU were to go the way of STO. I could either continue to race with Cal-Club or for me GTSx is a well subscribed option.
 
... Your letter has been reviewed by the Super Touring Committee and sent to the Club Racing Board.
Click to expand...
...where it will be quashed by individuals with a vested interest in the outcome of the decision.

K

 
No, that's not the solution. The solution is to work with what you have created. People have real money into cars based on rules that have been presented for more than enough time to fix any wayward intent.

The rotards aren't the perceived issue. The 'non touring cars' are. Split the classes and see what happens if you have to.

'We never wanted RWD'
'We never wanted rotories'

Well we included them. People built cars. People are running the class in huge numbers.

JS154 said:
Send in a letter.

www.crbscca.com
Click to expand...
 
Nope, it's now unofficially - and inevitably - "Yet Another Miata Class".

Us retarded kids will just go find another sandbox to play in. - GA
 
Greg Amy said:
Nope, it's now unofficially - and inevitably - "Yet Another Miata Class".

Us retarded kids will just go find another sandbox to play in. - GA
Click to expand...

QFT

I've gone from being one of the biggest proponents of IT in the nation; to being an IT leper; to being massively excited about ST; to the sorry realization that unless I want to build some whack-job swapped NSX or some shit, I'm destined to be a field filler in that class.

I don't think I'm an idiot about the racing biz, I feel like three decades plus of commitment to the Club probably SHOULD matter, but I find myself now taking substantive steps to go run NASA. Not that my dollars are as important as those of, say, a CRB member who's built a car to take advantage of a loophole that the STAC couldn't quite keep closed or anything...

But the academic in me will ask this, Andy: How many PURPOSE-BUILT-TO-THE RULES "sports car" or "GT" STL cars are actively running in the ENTIRE United States...? More than the three I can think of?

K
 
Knestis said:
QFT

I've gone from being one of the biggest proponents of IT in the nation; to being an IT leper; to being massively excited about ST; to the sorry realization that unless I want to build some whack-job swapped NSX or some shit, I'm destined to be a field filler in that class.

I don't think I'm an idiot about the racing biz, I feel like three decades plus of commitment to the Club probably SHOULD matter, but I find myself now taking substantive steps to go run NASA.
Click to expand...

Ditto.

I left ITA to go to ITS....because Miata.

I left ITS to go to STL...because Miata (and RX-7).

I'm now looking to leave STL and go to Somewhere I'm Not Yet Prepared to Declare (though vintage beckons long-term)...because Miata (and rotary engine).

They're excellent little cars. We, car guys, are all better for them. But when the answer I get is "so, why don't you build a Miata?" then, well, that tells me no one is listening to the question.

:shrug:

GA
 
JS154 said:
Send in a letter.

www.crbscca.com
Click to expand...

Actually, it occurs to me that since my letter has been sent up to the CRB for consideration, there must have been some action on the STAC's part. My big complaint - the reason I quit the ITAC - was that the CRB was sitting on recommendations from that ad hoc, or in some cases individual CRB members were actively misrepresenting or twisting those recommendations to others. Letters to the Board might in this case actually be a good idea for anyone who cares about this issue.

K
 
Greg Amy said:
Ditto.

I left ITA to go to ITS....because Miata.

I left ITS to go to STL...because Miata (and RX-7).

I'm now looking to leave STL and go to Somewhere I'm Not Yet Prepared to Declare (though vintage beckons long-term)...because Miata (and rotary engine).

They're excellent little cars. We, car guys, are all better for them. But when the answer I get is "so, why don't you build a Miata?" then, well, that tells me no one is listening to the question.

:shrug:

GA
Click to expand...

So work on the rules such that "other than a Miata" is actually competitive?
 
Matt93SE said:
So work on the rules such that "other than a Miata" is actually competitive?
Click to expand...

...he says to the guy on the inside who can theoretically influence "the rules."

Big hint, guys - when someone on an ad hoc committee decides it's not worth tilting at a windmill, that particular windmill has won.

K
 
Let's not form a lynch mob...it's not a conversation about any specific person(s), it's about concepts and culture. We're still having that conversation. - GA
 
If the concept is "Make the Mazdas win ALL teh classeses!!!11!!" then it sounds like they're doing a bang-up job... but it sounds like that can't even be agreed upon..
 
the concept isn't "make the miatas win" nor "make the mazdas win". the issue is that everythign has been distilled to a power/weight and prep level NOT a classification based on other sorts of factors like "sedan" or "roadster" or "touring car" and as such, the light, small, low power miata fits nicely pretty much everywhere and (at the current level of development knowledge) is beter than pretty much everything else under the general criteria. Given the criteria are all pretty much just general (objective) and not car specific, becasue we wanted that (the process, power to weight, etc...) we wind up with a set of rules that miatas excel within.

the fact that mazda in general is very supportive of racers and the miata in particular is so increadibly well developed just makes the problem "worse" in that it encourages participation in more classes (more winners getting contingencies) and significantly flattens the learnign curve so that winning comes quickly.

Large pool of cars, relatively easy to come to grips with a new class, massive development already done, manufacturer support, great package overall - keeping the miatas away from a class looks like more of a loosing proposition than keeping the rules such that they (and simillar cars) are excluded. on paper, anyway. And when miatas are allowed in, the numbers in the class tend to swell, at first. The longer term effects are harder to measure, but among them are the droves of people who have packed it up and called it quits in a world where their investment or interest in a class got overshadowed by the miata juggernaut.

The one category that the miata seems like a perfect fit for is prod (you know, cuz its a roadster and stuff) and it's NOT the class killer there that it is everywhere else. it IS a very good, strong car in FP and decent in EP, but not a class killer. Interestingly, in prod, cars are balanced subjectively based on their individual performance merits...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top