2005 Touring/GT Proposed Rule changes for Vehicle Eligibility

[S Nicol]

To all competitors of TGTC
Making the rules for everyone is a tough job. CASC has come up with a proposal for the changes for 2005. They have agreed to hold a meeting to firm up these rules at a later date.

I am hoping to gather feedback and concerns from competitors that have run in 2004 and/or are planning at running in 2005.
You can respond by using the forum or if you would like to remain nameless then just send me a private message or send me an email to: racr2207@hotmail.com
You can get in touch with me (24/7) by my pager(toll free): 1-866-671-2609


Everything between quotation are the changes for vehicle eligibility.

Vehicle eligibility

3.1
Touring
Normal aspirated- max 6 cylinders, max 2.8L, "as delivered by the manufacturer"
Forced induction- max 4 cylinders, max 2.2L, "as delivered by the manufacturer"
Or as otherwise stated in Vehicle classification list (see 6.2)

Grand Touring
As stated in Vehicle classification list(see 6.2)
"Touring class cars without minimum weight restrictions as per the weight calculator and or have modified forced induction.
Touring class car with engine swap exceeding two model years from the original"

"Super Touring
Grand Touring class cars without minimum weight restrictions as per the weight calculator and or have modified forced induction
Grand Touring class car with engine swap exceeding two model years from the original."

3.3 Tires
All classes use Toyo RA-1 with no limit to shaving or grooving.

Touring
"All 13,14,15,16 inch tires sizes in addition to 205/40R17, 235/45R17 and 235/40R17
Max rim width is 8 inches"

Grand Touring and Super Touring
"Tire and rims sizes are free (must use Toyo RA-1)"

There are other change related to Backup cars, Team championship and re-classification for vehicle weight.

If we don’t feed back our concerns now, then the rules will be binding and won't be able to complain.

Please also feel free to tell me your other concern with the rules or series also.

I would like to feed everything back and ensure that the competitors are being heard.
Please pass the word around.

Scott Nicol
racr2207@hotmail.com
Pager: 1-866-671-2609

[23Racer]

Scott, I don't know where these rules are posted but I am glad you got a copy to let us see where the championship rules are going. The rule changes look like an attempt to rein in the "Frankenstein" Touring class cars that have been developed over the last 2 years. These cars are capable of running GT class times and removing the minimum weight will allow them to go much quicker again. In 2004 some races had 24+ Touring cars (out of 28) with a 15 second spread in times with a strong overlap into the GT class. It looks like the rules makers are trying to keep Touring more "pure" with weights and original engine / chassis rules, GT to encompass the more modified cars, as well as the higher horsepower cars and SuperGT as all out ground pounders, run what you brung.

It is incredibly difficult to control all performance aspects of engine swaps and in most performance based race series car classifications they base it on engine/ chassis combinations as delivered by the manufacturer. The update / backdate clause of 2 years will allow most cars to maximize their performance within option lists. The cars that will be most effected are car / chassis combinations that never existed in the first place like Rabbit chassis with VR6's or 88 Honda's with GSR motors.

The complete opening up of rules for a Super GT class again will allow back in the cars that couldn't or wouldn't have been able to meet the rules for GT in 2004. The GT class will feature a group of cars all capable of running similar times and should be very exciting for the competitors. It might be very interesting to go back to 2004 results, apply these rules and see where the results would end up as to finishing position in class.

Looks fine to me, however I am unaffected so I am not seeing it from the affected persons view.

[Nabs]

So, does this mean my car will be in Super Touring? :confused:

[rmicroys]

Okay... I'd like to understand how this 2yr engine rule works?

I have a 86 Jetta. Jettas from 86-92 are pretty much identical (90-92 has the 'deep bumper look' - which my car already has) but the 1.8 8V is a horrible engine - I am running a 2.0l 8V from a 93+ Jetta. The difference in power between the two stock powerplants is a whopping 10hp. . now depending on how that rule is written/interpreted - that could allow anybody with a 85-92 Jetta to run engines found in any Jetta from 83-95? Or would that rule restrict me to running any engine only available from 84-88? If that's the case, then better evaluation of us slow-ass-cars is needed. If some rule like that is going to penalize somebody doing 1m42s laps and put them in to GT then there has to be some serious re-evalaution - or at least special case by case considerations made.

What is the goal here? Of the three classes, what sort of expectation on laptimes are there for the new classes? Obviously as we see and all agree to, the current breed of Touring classes cars are GT-A cars. People in GT-C cars just get to tour around (litterally) at the back of the field providing nice moving chicanes and drafting assists up the back straight for the front Touring runners. GT-C/GT-D cars have no incentive to participate given the class structure. On any given Sunday at Mosport I don't even have a chance to fit in the top 10. Back when we had the 1 hour OCC GT-2/GT-3 classes, other teams and my team could podium.

[Dave]

Is the engine swap rule restricted to engine/chassis combos available only in Canada or will a worldwide perspective be used? This is important since many cars have engines available in Europe and Asia that were never offered here.

[Lude]

Dave,

During the meeting I think Gunther did mention car/engine combination available in North America. I just hope we don't have a situation were we end up with so many revisions to the rules that it's April before they are firmed up. What I’d like to see is a firm set of rules in place before the snow flies.

[Dave]

Thanks Lude.

Even if a North American market limitation is placed on a rule like this, there still needs to be a very clear definition of what 'chassis' means.

For example:
Are 92-95 Civics and 94-01 Integras the same chassis? (the basic tub is the same, all drivetrain and suspension parts are interchangeable, and the suspension location points and geometry are basically identical).

Are 92-95 Honda DelSol's the same chassis as a 92-95 Civics? They are identical other than a few body panels and from the same generation. In fact the DelSol is actually called the Civic DelSol in many markets including North America. If the DelSol is recognized as a Civic (which is should be IMO), then this opens up other engine possibilities (B16a) for this generation of Civic.

I'm sure there are chassis similarities from other manufacturers like VW, BMW, etc., that may open up loopholes unless the term 'chassis' is very specifically defined for the purposes of the rulebook.

Anyway, seems to me the real problem has very little to do with "Frankstein" or engine swapped cars, since the weight calculator forces cars like Civics with Integra engines to run Integra base weight. Rather, I think the real problem is the open nature of engine modifications even at the Touring level. The top three Touring cars this year were all running originally equipped engines that were heavily modified. The proposed rule changes do nothing to move the fastest Touring cars to GT. For that to happen (if in fact that is the goal), a different approach (perhaps one based on power-to-weight ratio like the SE-R Cup uses or the requirement to use OE engine internals like the Honda Challenge series uses) would be required.

Edit: to add a bit more clarity to my viewpoint, as an outsider looking in I find it discouraging to see Touring class with an unlimited engine modification policy, which has the tendency to turn the championship into an expensive exercise in race engine building (and re-building). This may be fine for a Pro series like Speed World Challenge, but for a amateur regional series it surely has the effect of discouraging potential entrants who don't want to spend the cubic dollars required to be competitive. I understand that enforcing engine modification limitations is challenging, but from my perspective it would be a challenge worth considering if larger and more competitive fields are desired.

[slucas]

TGT, as I see it, is a high performance class requiring lots of modifications to engine & chassis if you want to win. You first need to pick the right platform , (sorry Rob but you can't win with your car) then you need to spend time & money race preparing it.
If TGT is too rich for you then GT ABCD is the group for you. GTABCD is a run-what-you-brung class.

[Dave]

TGT, as I see it, is a high performance class requiring lots of modifications to engine & chassis if you want to win

That's fine if that's actually how the majority of racers and potential racers feel. But it doesn't seem to agree with the findings of the Taskforce which state:

"Issue #6 – Too little return for the investment. The growing concern among racers is that there is too little return on their investment. This will be hard to change without significant sponsors to pay out prize money or to help subsidize some of the costs (ie entry fees/awards)."

I think the Taskforce is onto something very important here. For me it's not a matter of not being able to afford to build a hand grenade of a motor and run at the front if that's what I've got my heart set on doing. What I have a problem with is justifying the expense of doing so given the potential for return (or lack thereof). I'd love to run in a non-bracket racing sedan series, but not if it means throwing all rational thought out the window and building an uber expensive engine just so that I can have bragging rights at the end of the season. It just doesn't add up IMO.

What I think perhaps the Taskforce has overlooked with respect to their recommendations under item #6 is the possibility of controlling costs via a more restrictive rulebook (the most obvious of which are internal engine modifications). Just because TGTC is the 'premier' race series doesn't mean it has to have a completely unrestricted rulebook and high costs to be competitive. Heck, Speed World Challenge Touring cars have restrictions on what engine modifications they can make and I don't think anyone here would argue they're not real race car. So why would a amateur regional series like the TGTC have unrestricted engine mods when the vast majority of potential entrants do not have Speed World Challenge budgets? There's a gap here that I think needs to be recognized and addressed somehow, though I do not pretend to have an answer how to do so.

Anyway, that's just my opinion and maybe I've spent too much time doing Solo 1 to understand the rationale of race costs and budgets.

[rmicroys]

Originally posted by slucas
TGT, as I see it, is a high performance class requiring lots of modifications to engine & chassis if you want to win. You first need to pick the right platform , (sorry Rob but you can't win with your car) then you need to spend time & money race preparing it.
If TGT is too rich for you then GT ABCD is the group for you. GTABCD is a run-what-you-brung class.

This is exactly the kind of attitude that gets people like me not interested in coming out. Go read the suggestions from the Task Force and then reread your statement here. On one hand we want to grow our groups and encourage people to come out and compete - and with statements like that, considering that this is AMATURE CLUB RACING - it alienates half of the GT-ABCD classes right off the bat.

I hold a BIG grudge to the rules as they are now - prior to the CGTCC slump we had three series - CGTCC for the REALLY big boys, and OCC for the BIG boys and the little guys and then the Sprints for everybody on top of that! One could get dizzy with the number of tintop sessions in a weekend! There was a plethora of track time and competitive series for all to compete in. OCC was an excellent series and a lot of GT-3 drivers enjoyed participating and being competitive in both GT-3 and GT-C/D.

The problem with TGT is that it aleinates the GT-CD drivers, and they don't show up and race. Driving a 1m42s car in TGT is f'n boring after two laps you're pretty much out there picking yer arse with no competition mainly because people aren't interested. So the goal should be to make the series competitive for all our region's competitors, not just those who have elitist expectations.

I'm sick and tired of people telling that I should spend more money. I spend enough already! This winter Sherissa and I are probably going to sink 5k-7k$ alone in to new safety equipment - and not one penny of that is likely going to make me any faster (2 new suits, new seat with head protection, new harness, hans device x2, probably a fire system, etc). If I have another person tell me that I should sink more money in to racing, then CASC-OR may just lose another competitor altogether.

Such closed mindedness really makes me mad.

[slucas]

Right off the get go ,Dave, if you want to go road racing you're gonna have to loose that "rational thought" process you have spent your whole life developing. That kind of mind set will frighten all the kids away and it won't help you get on the track.

I agree with you on the rule book but the problem with "restrictive" rules is our ability to enforce them.
Do we have the tech. know-how and systems to do a fair engine teardown? When was the last time anyone was involved in a protest about "cheater" engine parts?
Perhaps a compromise is allowing any internal mods but the engine must remain dead stock in appearance ,right down to the sparkplugs and the induction/exhaust systems.

As an aside;what would constitute enough return on
investment?

If I spent $10000 a year to race and got a sponsorship of $10000, do I race "for free" or do I spend my new found wealth to improve my place on the grid? What would the sponsor want?

Having been in this spot once I allready know my answer.

[Dave]

LOL...yeah, I know rational thought and racing don't necessarily go hand in hand, but there's gotta be a middle ground somewhere.

No doubt enforcing engine restriction rules can be difficult, though I'm not sure it's as tough as some might think. It's being done in many amateur level SCCA and NASA road race series throughout the U.S., so why not here? I have to believe that there's more than enough collective engine building experience within CASC to develop enforcable engine rules. We've got all kinds of engine modification rules at the Solo 1 level and they seem to be working just fine. Despite the potential to cheat, there very little concern about it nor much if any evidence of it happening, though admittedly Solo 1 is a grassrootsy enough series that the motivation to cheat is likely lower (though competition at any level does strange things to some people's brains).

I'm not sure what a reasonable return on investment would be. That's something that has to be determined by each racer him/herself I suppose. Personally, a reasonable return would involve competing in a competitive but appropriately controlled and limited (in terms of cost and level of allowable modifications) sedan series that recognizes the amateur and regionally limited nature of it (and thus the amateur and regionally limited budgets 80-90% of the field is likely to have). It doesn't make sense to me (there I go with the whole rational thought thing again!) to cater to a wealthy minority when what the region seems to want and need is a more accessible series where the majority stand a reasonable chance at running with the lead dogs.

[Nabs]

All i know is that i hate arguing about rules and that's why you'll probably find me at select solo-1 events or maybe some GTABCD races next year if this is enforced.

I don't really understand why they would restrict engine swaps in Touring. I thought the whole rationale behind the task force was to increase competitors. By limiting engine swaps in Touring, aren't you effectively telling all those new racers to go away? We all know that the new generation of racers are into swaps & bang for the buck. We really need to conectrate on getting those riceboys and drag racers into roadracing. That's where the action is now and i bet, if given the chance, they would prefer this form of racing!!

[slucas]

Rob, I'm just saying what the rules tell me this series is.
Some like it ,some don't. I think I know where you stand.
I don't think it's sustainable but I hope I'm wrong.

[metric1]

i don't think there can be anything called return on invewstment at this level. secondly, the engine swap deal has nothing to do with the work done by the taskforce . thirdly, with this rule direction the top 7 or 8 touring cars get moved directly to GT.
unless unrestricted engine mods are allowed, then we might as well all run honda's, because there is nothing in the VW lineup, engine or chassis wise that will compete. perhaps another option will be to tweek the weights, leave engines as they are now and limit all wheel sizes to run a 205 only tire. this has two results: tire cost is limited and the more powerful cars will be slower. it will make tire management essential. also never mind arguments that some cars didn't come with 205's from the factory--they also didn't come with roll cages, engine mods and racing suspensions.
200lbs made a difference to my car this year, thornley's acura still ran 1.35's with the extra 200, but had the bigger tires. going to 225 from 205 will drop ONE SECOND per lap at mosport. quebec runs one tire size and so does world challenge. leaving open the option to run 15,16 or 17 inch wheels means no extra costs.

[hojo]

everyone should have to run the exact same spec tire size, no 205 or 225 just one size. that should be series spec, not what was on the car from the manufacturer.

[ScotcH]

Originally posted by hojo
everyone should have to run the exact same spec tire size, no 205 or 225 just one size. that should be series spec, not what was on the car from the manufacturer.

Ummm .. the tie size difference from a 2002 M3 and a 1989 Civic is quite dramatic. You can't even run anything smaller than 17" on the M3. What about Z06 vs firefly wheels? The same tire size across the board is simply not reasonable.

[rmicroys]

Originally posted by ScotcH
Ummm .. the tie size difference from a 2002 M3 and a 1989 Civic is quite dramatic. You can't even run anything smaller than 17" on the M3. What about Z06 vs firefly wheels? The same tire size across the board is simply not reasonable.
For the Touring class? Sure it is. M3s and Z06s would be in GT regardless. We're only talking about restricting tire size in the Touring class.

[S Nicol]

Hey Lude
The snow has already been flying up here in the great white north, prior to the meeting. I guess this would mean that we are running 2004 rules.

After some discussion and comparing the rules between 2004 and 2005. Some interesting things were found.

Touring
The comment regarding "as delivered by the manufacturer" was in both 2004 and 2005 rules. It just happened to be identified in BOLD in the 2005 rules and would appear to be have been a change in rules.
Therefore, basically the way I see it, the rules for Touring have not changed. So all the cars that ran last year in their configuration can run again next year the same way. Just as long as the engine isn't more that 2 year newer than the car date.

Grand Touring
No Minimum weight
A Touring car with engine swap exceeding 2 year the original.
A vehicle listed in "Touring" with Forced induction(that would usually not have it)
A vehicle listed in "Touring" that is Tube frame(purpose built race car)
But what if you had both???
A "Touring" car that was purpose built and forced induction??

Super Touring (should be called Super Grand Touring)
all other cars not listed as GT with great performance.
No Minimum weight
A Grand Touring car with engine swap exceeding 2 year the original.
A vehicle listed in "Grand Touring" with Forced induction(that would usually not have it)
A vehicle listed in "Grand Touring" that is Tube frame(purpose built race car)

Restricting the tire size for "Touring" would be a good way to keep the budget down during the race season and keep the playing feild more even. But....How many guys want to fork out money for new wheels? I suppose it may be possible if there were some wheel supplier/shop on board that would allow financing.

I have yet to understand the " exceeding 2 year from original"
and why it was proposed.

Scott

[MARC W]

Perhaps the Touring class should become a 2.0 litre and under class leveled out by engine size and a minimum weight.

1.8 turbo/supercharged cars with a minimum of 1900 lbs.
2.0 and 1.8 16 valve motor cars with a minimum of 1825lbs
2.0, 1.8 8 valve and 1.6 16 valve motor cars with a minimum of 1750lbs
and the rest of the small displacement motored cars coming in at a minimum of 1700lbs.
Or something close to this.

Allow engine swaps within the same manufacturer, Keep the original driveline the same.

GT class could be
2.0 turbo up to 3.0 NA cars at 2000lbs.

SGT open motor class at a minimum of 2300lbs.

Just an idea.

Are'nt most of the touring cars 2.0 litre and under right now?

[apexhead]

It all comes down to restricting tire size availability.
In Quebec only these sizes of the Spec Hankook tires are available:

205/50/15
205/45/16
205/40/17
225/50/16
225/45/17

I preferably would like to see everyone run on 205's, but some vehicules would just burn them up in a few laps...BMW's mostly.
But by knowing that they (Bimmers) will have a tire advantage you can play with the minimum required weight per vehicle rules.

Our weight rules have been proven in other series and we continue to tweek them every year, making the field closer with each new season. This year the Touring class was won by 1 point....this speaks volume about how close things were.

I'll check with the FAQ to see if I can post the new weights for 2005 and I'll put them up to give you an idea...they take under consideration most chassis/engine combinations.

So you can build your "super-stroker 2 liter Honda motor" get ready to had some weight though...probably not worth it!!!

[rmicroys]

Touring 2.0l and under only? Then that would be a field of 1.8l Hondas and Acuras, pretty much leaving ANYTHING that BMW, Nissan, and VW make either uncompetitive or in GT (BMW) I suppose Ken could always come back with his Laguna for a 2.0l and under class ;)

With regards to minimum weight... if you want come by and take a look at my Jetta sometime. It weighs 2000lbs. If you can find a way to keep my car safe, solid and up to the task of getting pushed around like it did this year by other people, and get the weight down to 1750 lbs then I wouldn't have much of a ride left.

Ian can vouch for me, there isn't much left to take out of my car... okay. Maybe I'm wrong. I could probably lose the bumper rebar if I wanted, run with a single layer frp hood, trunk and doors - but that's just asking for trouble and injury in the event of a crash. Though there certainly is not 250lbs worth of weight reduction existing on the car.

In touring the Integras and Civics are supposed to be 1.8 and 1.6s. The Preludes are 2.2s, the BMWs are either 2.8s or 2.5s... Half the VWs are 2.8s... so if you kick out the VWs, BMWs, and such, then you'll be left with the Hondas , and a couple of VWs, and all the Nissan Sentra XEs. I'm not sure what's in the Tiburon, but it's gotta be bigger than a 2.0l if it has a V6. Any Nissan Spec-V is going to have a 2.5l engine. If one is doing engines by displacement - then we'll all need to be in Hondas by next spring to have any chance of running competitively in Touring.

I think the weight calculator was pretty effective in determining minimum weights. Not that I could get down to my allowed 1875lbs.

[ScotcH]

Originally posted by apexhead

I preferably would like to see everyone run on 205's, but some vehicules would just burn them up in a few laps...BMW's mostly.
But by knowing that they (Bimmers) will have a tire advantage you can play with the minimum required weight per vehicle rules.


Do the bimmers really have an advantage in tires? Remember that an e36 weighs 3000lbs stock, so it will heat those tires up a lot more than an 1800lb CRX or Golf. It's not unreasonable to have more rubber on a heavier car. Maybe some sort of tire size to car weight ratio?

[ScotcH]

Originally posted by rmicroys
For the Touring class? Sure it is. M3s and Z06s would be in GT regardless. We're only talking about restricting tire size in the Touring class.

Ahhh ... ok.

[rmicroys]

Originally posted by ScotcH
Do the bimmers really have an advantage in tires? Remember that an e36 weighs 3000lbs stock, so it will heat those tires up a lot more than an 1800lb CRX or Golf.

Ya. they can. Now find me an 1800lb race prepped Golf and you can get in to the winners circle with a nice 16V engine. In ITB in the SCCA, minimum weight of a GTI 16V is 2230 lbs...

[Bubblecar]

Rules discussions like this are great - and make "good thought" for "future series".

Organizers always face a problem - they are trying to tweak the rules - not rewrite the entire series and they are trying to do it by inconveniencing as few people as possible. But invariably - someone's car gets the raw end of the deal.

I think they are doing a good job - sure I'd do it different - and I have several complaints - but hey I'm not giving up my evenings and weekends as a volunteer - they are !

The biggest mistake that any series can make is to introduce widespread and wholesale changes to rules and classifications on a continual basis. Let the series be what it was designed to be and run for 3 or 4 years - then you can consider scrapping it and coming up with a new (fairer ??) classification system.

Many drivers have configured their cars, bought their rims, even decided on which vehicle to compete with - based upon the current / existing rule set. I get scared when suddenly someone starts suggesting - let's eliminate engine mods - that virtually ever car in the paddock have been built to. Or let's cut the displacement down to 2 litres.

I'm sorry - I may have a lot of money - but not nearly enough to scrap my car every year and rebuild to the new flavour of the day rule set. (or for that matter to throw out my entire investment in Rims and Tires every time someone new want's to enter the series)

Solo1 will recall how many participants and cars were lost a few years ago because of a poorly thought out classification system - that ended up lasting a short period of time. Today - most have more confidence that the rules will stay the same for the forseeable future and are therefore willing to invest in a car.)

And finally - as to the "My cars too slow" "I can't compete" "I can't afford it" etc. etc. etc. Go look at the Touring class final results for this year - How was in second place? (check there laps times) Who was in fourth place and what kind of budget did they have?

Look way down the list - big money - big budget - Nick Majors, John Dichand Jr., etc. etc.

Sure Thornley had a great year - but last year in 2003 - Ian Madden won - wthout a supercar (sorry Ian). Hey forget your 1:42 car - look at Perry Iannuzzi's results - running 1:47's last year and 1:44's this year - he's finished 9th overall and last year 5th !

Check out the average laptimes of the regular top ten finishers - you may be surprised (and then quit all the whining) :D

(Hey no insult meant to anyone - let's not take this all too seriously)

[rmicroys]

Originally posted by Bubblecar
Sure Thornley had a great year - but last year in 2003 - Ian Madden won - wthout a supercar (sorry Ian). Hey forget your 1:42 car - look at Perry Iannuzzi's results - running 1:47's last year and 1:44's this year - he's finished 9th overall and last year 5th !

Not to knock on Perry's top 10 finish at the end of the year, but he is the last scoring competitor who attended all the races and to top it off, the top 10 in Touring, only 3, count 'em, three, scored points all 12 events.

Now of the 47 entrants that attended in one form or another, that means only 8.5% of the competitors attended all the events. That's pretty pissy attendance for our primiere series to me. So I think we have a rather poor attendance to events as drivers. Could I, with my Jetta land in the top ten had I come out to all 12 events? Sure there's the likely possibility that my car would have lasted all 12 events - it's not like it's a high strung platform. I maybe even could have beaten Perry too.

I think it changes the view by pointing these thing out that at times the grids for TGT were minimal. I finished 4th in a race at SMP! There is no way my car should finish 4th given the rules... why is that? Because my 2000lb 127whp car is actually pretty good at SMP - nope... I'm still average with a 1m19 laptime... but the rest of the fast guys crashed out or didn't show up (more the latter)

To top it off, my co-driver just about got third in GT-C for the year by only attending three of the nine championship events. If it hadn't been for a breakout - he would have been third. Attend 33% of the races and win third? That's pretty dodgy class attendance to me.

[Bubblecar]

Originally posted by rmicroys
<snip> I finished 4th in a race at SMP! There is no way my car should finish 4th given the rules... why is that? Because my 2000lb 127whp car is actually pretty good at SMP - nope... I'm still average with a 1m19 laptime... but the rest of the fast guys crashed out or didn't show up (more the latter)

Interesting note here - races at Shannonville are routinely won by cars running mid 1:17's - no matter which fast cars finish or not.

To top it off, my co-driver just about got third in GT-C for the year by only attending three of the nine championship events. If it hadn't been for a breakout - he would have been third. Attend 33% of the races and win third? That's pretty dodgy class attendance to me.

Bang - on. And if you look at the A-B-C-D winners for the past couple of years (including overall title) there wasn't much to fight over. The problem is NOT with Touring Class rules - it much bigger. We have a problem of decreased participation and have to find ways to involve more people. Bring on the task force!

And maybe those method to increase participation (like fewer events) will make it even easier for one car to dominate. So what do we do - create a series with very few events - limited financial investment - all cars having a chance at both each event and the season overall?

I can't see how we will grow by making rules to encourage ten drivers - while eliminating ten others.

[Bubblecar]

And while I'm at it . . .

(obviously a slow day in the world of data recovery)

Am I missing something? What is there in the rule changes that will move the top two - or five or eight touring cars into GT?

[Dave]

Nope, I don't think you're missing anything, Nick. Nothing in the rule changes will move the top 3 cars to GT. They're all running originally equipped engines (though admittedly fairly heavily modified ones).

And I agree with you whole-heartedly that the recommendations of the Task Force go a long way to addressing many of the challenges that face RR in Ontario.

This doesn't mean, however, that there's nothing wrong with the TGT rulebook IMO. As you well know, if we weren't willing to make changes to the Solo 1 rulebook that series could have been in serious jeopardy -- not because of a lack of interest but because of a perception (rightly or wrongly) that too few cars had a fair and fighting chance to be competitive. Rules makers from any/every series have to be willing to adapt and change as the needs/wants of their customers change. Continuity is important, and I think the TGT series has a great foundation to build from, but there is always room for improvement and I know that in the case of Solo 1 a lot of the improvements came from suggestions made by our competitor base (and yes, even from potential competitors who never actually came out but still made the time to examine the rulebook closely and share their thoughts on it).

From my perspective, and I think I'm fairly representative of the younger breed of potential racers who have a strong interest in Touring car style racing as well as the whole sport compact scene, the TGTC is by far the most appealing series to come along in Ontario in a long time. So kudos for that, and let me also say I think there's a lot that's right about the series -- the 'rewards' weight idea is excellent and easily adjusted to keep fields reasonably competitive; the division between Touring, GT, and SGT cars seems quite logical and follows other successful examples and can also be easily tweeked; having a spec tire is fantastic and is easily tweeked (ie. limiting tire size choices, as la SWC) as a way of further equalizing the field; John and Perry have done an outstanding job recruiting sponsors. I could go on and on.

So I'm not suggesting wholesale changes to what is an excellent foundation for a very successful TGT series. All I'm asking for is further examination of specific issues that I've already harped about. Greater transparency of what is motivating the suggested changes might also be helpful.

I know that in the case of Solo 1 we've gone out of our way to explain every rule change so that our competitors understand our perspective. This has led to a lot o fruitful exchanges, including some that have corrected oversights or backwards thinking on our (the rulebook committee) part. There's got to be an exchange of ideas if you want competitors to take on a sense of ownership and belonging to the series. This to me has been one of the great successes of the current Solo 1 rulebook process. I'm not saying the TGT rules markers aren't doing the same, because I don't know one way or the other, but perhaps there are lessons to be learned from the lengthy and at times ugly 4 year transformation Solo 1's rulebook has gone through (and continues to go through).

[hojo]

sounds like you need everyone to get under one roof and make a strong unified series -- with a unilateral rule set--that can be generally agreed upon which can allow virtually anyone to participate

wishful thinking... i know, i know

talk is good, talk is good

sounds like there's a lack of depth in either series.

i dont mind racing for 9th or 10th just as long as I got someone next to me to race with!!!

[MARC W]

Originally posted by rmicroys

In touring the Integras and Civics are supposed to be 1.8 and 1.6s. The Preludes are 2.2s, the BMWs are either 2.8s or 2.5s... Half the VWs are 2.8s... so if you kick out the VWs, BMWs, and such, then you'll be left with the Hondas , and a couple of VWs, and all the Nissan Sentra XEs. I'm not sure what's in the Tiburon, but it's gotta be bigger than a 2.0l if it has a V6. Any Nissan Spec-V is going to have a 2.5l engine. If one is doing engines by displacement - then we'll all need to be in Hondas by next spring to have any chance of running competitively in Touring.



Fine then make the touring class a maximum of 2.2 litres and up the weights a bit. This will leave out the VR6's and some BMW's there has to be a cut off at some point. And this will still leave the Civics, Rabbits, Integras, Del sols, Swifts, Jettas etc. etc.
I do'nt recall seeing any spec V's.

Would it not be more interesting to see these cars be able to compete with each other than trying to keep up with the VR6's and E30's?
Is'nt there only about 6 cars that are over 2.2 litres in touring? Out of the 35+ that entered this year.

[Bubblecar]

Yes there is a Spec-V - mine. And there will likely be at least one more next year.

[scirocco53]

I have not run the last two seasons, but I have some thoughts as to what would make cars a little more competitive.

From year one, many of the competitors felt that for the most part the Touring, GT, and SGT classes were OK, and with some modifications could become better. There were different camps complaing about the weights that were assigned to each car.

The answer to the 1st year was to create Versions A through F calculator. It made the racing in Touring a little closer. With a little more tweaking of the rules, the series is sure to offer even more closer lap times between different competitors.

Now if the rules were to incorporate a maximum tire size, that would make the racing even more closer.

I also am in favour of having a max width tire of 205. As was previously stated, that would not allow a more powerful heavier car to keep gaining an advantage every lap.

Why not put it to a vote?

[Bubblecar]

Originally posted by MARC W
Fine then make the touring class a maximum of 2.2 litres and up the weights a bit. This will leave out the VR6's and some BMW's there has to be a cut off at some point. And this will still leave the Civics, Rabbits, Integras, Del sols, Swifts, Jettas etc. etc.
Who would have the slightest chance against the Type R's or the Preludes? Without the VR6's. E36's, Spec-V's, etc - might as well make it a one make series (if you want to be competitive)?

Where's the cut-off point? - Currently the rules say it's 2.8 but none of the cars over 2.2 have been dominant / some not even competitive. Why would you want to exclude them?

The Type R's and Prelude are regularly running 1:35's. The next closest after your suggested 2.2 limit would be 1:40's. Doesn't sound like much fun to me.

Isn't there only about 6 cars that are over 2.2 litres in touring? Out of the 35+ that entered this year.

So you have just cut almost 20 % of the field - and made it no more competive for the cars running 1:40's. How many new entrants would you expect?

Last comment (joke) - Sounds like you have money invested in Honda shares on the stock market? (:D )

Hmmm - It's late. I'm going home now and promise not to offend anyone for the rest of the day!

[rmicroys]

I don't know what can be done. Most of the obvious suggestions end up being to much work for our meager scruitineering and series staff. (restrictor plates, engine specs, etc) Many showroom stock series have very restrictive rules...

Go read the grand am cup rules...

http://www.grandamerican.com/ARCHIVE/competition/2004%20Rolex%20Series%20Rules/04%20GA%20CUP%204-28-04.pdf

it SPECIFIES what tires you can use. one size, that's it, that's all. you drive car X, this is the tire you're allowed to use (varies from car to car) Allowable Mods are listed etc... engine configs, headers yes/no, blah blah blah. Of course, you do that, people will cheat... I'm sure Karl has stories..

[metric1]

with some tweeking of the weight calculator and a look at lap times from last year, the next best way to bunch up the field is a maximum width tire rule. up to 17" this year on 205's and maybe the next year one size for all. it will give you a year to plan for new wheels. a 16v golf on 225s will not have a chance against and e36 bmw on 235/17's, no matter what kind of grenade i build. it will stand to limit power advantage, especially at mosport.
if everyone else can impose and survive on one tire then so can we.

[apexhead]

Here are the TENTATIVE vehicle weight charts for the 2005 Quebec Touring Car Championship presented by Hankook



Year Models Minimum weight
ACURA
1994-2001 Acura Integra 1600cc 2400 SOHC less 100 lbs
1994-2001 Acura Integra 2000cc 2550 SOHC less 100 lbs
1994-2001 Acura Integra 2200cc 2600 SOHC less 100 lbs
1997-2001 Acura Integra Type R 1800cc 2550
2002-present Acura RS-X & Type S 2550
2003-present Acura TSX 2700

AUDI
1996-2001 Audi A4 V6 12V FWD 2400 Quattro add 50 lbs
1996-2001 Audi A4 V6 30V 2600
Quattro add 50 lbs
BMW
1992 BMW M3 E30 2450
1992-present BMW 318i E36 & E46 2450
AWD add 50lbs
1992-present BMW 320i E36 & E46 2550
AWD add 50 lbs
1992-present BMW 323i E36 & E46 2650
AWD add 50 lbs
1992-present BMW 325i E36 & E46 2750
AWD add 50 lbs
1992-present BMW 328i E36 & E46 2800
AWD add 50 lbs
Cadillac
1997-2000 Cadillac Catera 2680
Chevrolet
1995-present Chevrolet Cavalier DOHC 2.4L 2450
Dodge
1994-1999 Dodge Neon Sport, ACR, RT 2250 DOHC
2000-present Dodge Neon 2250 DOHC
1995-present Dodge Stratus 2450
FORD
1996-2000 Ford Contour SVT 2400
2000-present Ford Focus ZX-3, sedan V-6 2450
1993-1997 Ford Probe 2450
2002-prÈsent Ford Focus SVT 2250
1993-1997 Ford Probe GT V6 2400

Honda
1994-2002 Honda Accord 2450 SOHC less 100lbs
1994-2002 Honda Accord 2200cc 2600
SOHC less 100lb
1994-2002 Honda Accord V6 2600
2003-present Honda Accord 2.4L 4 cyl 2350
1992-present Honda Civic 1600 cc 2150
SOHC less 100lbs
1992-present Honda Civic 1700 cc 2350
SOHC less 100lbs
1992-present Honda Civic 1800 cc 2450
SOHC less 100lbs
1992-present Honda Civic 2000 cc 2550 SOHC less 100lbs
1992-present Honda Civic 2200 cc 2575 SOHC less 100lbs
1992-present Honda Civic 2400 cc 2600 SOHC less 100lbs
1994-2001 Honda Prelude (incl. SH) 2400 SOHC less 100lbs
1994-2001 Honda Prelude (SRV) 2300 cc 2500 SOHC less 100lbs
Hyundai
1993-2001 Hyundai Accent GT 2200
1993-2001 Hyundai Accent GT 2480
Engine 2002-present Tiburon V6 1995-2001 Hyundai Elentra 2200
1997-prÈsent Hyundai Tiburon 2200
1997-prÈsent Hyundai Tiburon V6 2480
Engine 2002-present Tiburon V6
Infiniti
1999-present Infiniti G20/G20t 2350
Lexus
2001-present Lexus IS300 2600

Mazda
1993-2001 Mazda 626 4 cyl. 2300
1993-2001 Mazda 626 V6 2400
1995-present Mazda ProtegÈ, 5 2250
2003-present Mazda 6 2400
1997-present Mazda Miata 2300
Mercedes
2002-present Mercedes C230 2.3 2400
1996-present Mercedes C240 2.6L & 2.8L 2500
1996-present Mercedes C260 2.6L & 2.8L 2500
Mercury
1999-2002 Mercury Cougar V6 2400

Mitsubishi
1995-1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse 16V non-turbo 2300
Nissan
1995-2000 Nissan 200SX SE-R 2300
2002-present Nissan Sentra SE-R Spec V 2380
1993-2001 Nissan Altima SE, GXE, GLX 2250
1993-1998 Nissan 240SX 2500
PONTIAC
1995-present Pontiac Sunfire DOHC 2.4L 2450
Saturn
1991-present Saturn SC2 1.9L DOHC 2200
Subaru
1998-present Subaru Impreza RS 2400
AWD add 50 lbs
Toyota
1994-present Toyota Celica, Solara, Echo 1.6 2200
2000-present Toyota Celica, Solara, Echo 1.8 2250
2000-present Toyota Celica, Solara, Echo 2.0 2350
Volvo
1993-present Volvo 850/S70/V70 2300
2000-present Volvo S40/V40 2350
Volkswagen
1999-present VW Beetle 8V 2150
1999-present VW Beetle VR6 12V 2400
1992-present VW Golf/Jetta 16V 2000 2250
1992-present VW Golf/Jetta VR6 12V 2400
1992-1996 VW Corrado 16V 2000 2250
1992-1996 VW Corrado VR6 12V 2400

[Dave]

apexhead, are those the minimum weights from the FAQ (Quebec) Touring car series? It would make sense (as the Task Force suggested) to syncronize these two series since there's got to be quite a bit of potential for interprovincial competition. The FAQ series has a lot going for it, from TV coverage on RDS (french TSN) to big time events on their calendar like the Montreal Molson Indy and ALMS weekend at Trois Riviere.

[apexhead]

I've been implicated as a driver for the last 4 years and will probably join the technical inspection team next year. The series really has gone through a HUGE turnover. Mostly due to a great sponsor in Hankook tires and the implication of people like Dominic St-Jean of the FAQ/www.autocourse.ca. I tried to clean up the weight chart but it did not turn out so well...sorry.
2 years ago the series had to basically re-analyse what was good for it long term. The biggest problem was that most fans did not want to see "older" models run. So the FAQ gave us a 2 year warning to wrap our minds around building new cars for 2005.
So what we have now is a series that is very, very attractive to race fans because of the quality of the rides and obviously the show is better because of the weight restrictions.
I believe both race directors are exchanging ideas. We can only hope and wait...interprovincial championship mmmm....if I could only fit that Formula Atlantic engine in the Echo Cup.:rolleyes:

[Steven Scala]

I agree that gearing at least one of our region's series toward strong fan appeal would bring positive side effects for the region's supporting series'. Having a grid that includes cars running in a higher-profile (interterritorial) series, Grand Am, SPEED GT, or otherwise, also helps. In other words, you can't have too many magazine cover cars.

Unfortunately, the Task Force's recommendations painted the whole region with a thick 'recreational amateur' brush in its final recommendations which, while suiting most of our racers by number, has implications which are mutually exclusive with some of the same group's other recommendations regarding sponsor participation.

That said, Quebec's ten-year limit on car models would leave our guys with a much smaller field having large performance disparities. By my somewhat inaccurate estimation:

02 Joel REISER Porsche 993 RSR
03 Porsche 993 GT2 Evo
7 Clifton DALEY Volkswagen Golf VR6
14 Terry DIFRANCESCO Toyota MR2 Turbo
19 Ron GRAY Chevrolet Camaro
20 Anton GESHELIN Chevrolet Corvette GTS
22 Malcolm STRACHAN Chevrolet Corvette
26 Antonio BUSO Eagle Talon Tsi AWD
28 John SHERK Honda Civic SiR
35 Michael THORNLEYAcura Integra R
38 Gunter SCHMIDT Volkswagen Beetle GT1
39 Robert CALISI Chevrolet Corvette
41 Scott NICOL Honda Civic
47 Wayne HOSAKI Honda Prelude Si
50 Jody TRUDEAU Nissan Sentra XE
51 Bruce VALIQUETTE Honda Civic
54 Alan JONES Toyota Supra Turbo
57 Jim MIDDLETON Honda Prelude Si
58 Vito SCAVONE Porsche 968
61 Gord VIPOND Chevrolet Camaro
77 Bruno BUSO Eagle Talon Tsi AWD
78 Robert RACKI Chevrolet Camaro
79 Touring Nabeel MALIK Honda Civic Si
80 Jeff LORRIMAN Hyundai Tiburon V6
81 Bruno BUSO Dodge Viper GTS-R
85 Ralph ZIMMERMAN Chevrolet Camaro
88 Bob MUNRO BMW M3
89 Leroy MICALLEF Chevrolet Camaro SS
101 Matt CORNFORD Acura Integra GSR
115 Nick MAJORS Nissan Sentra SE-R
118 John DIPCHAND Ford Cougar
122 Perry IANNUZZI
125 Nigel KRIKORIANHonda Prelude Si
133 Nelson CHAN Acura Integra Type-R
135 Hagen HOHN BMW E36 325i
152 Nicholas KRIKORIAN Honda Prelude Si
155 Tom CALUSIC Honda S2000
184 Bruce GREGORY Porsche GT3 Cup
210 Paul TAYLOR Nissan Sentra XE
212 Jeff HOLMES Nissan Sentra XE
222 Nissan Sentra XE
223 Nissan Sentra XE
250 Covell BROWN BMW 325is
252 Allan LEWIS BMW E36
298 Bob/Sandra GAY/GAY BMW E36

Keeping in mind that the odds of having great racing go up with bigger grids, I'd be intrigued to find out which survey sample FAQ used in order to determine that fans didn't want to see older model cars. Judging by half the grids at well-attended import drag events, I'd think otherwise.

Perhaps the logic involves the more fickle TV viewer, but our prospects for television are another, much more complicated topic altogether, aren't they?


SS

[rpr]

If you impose a ten year limit, I will stop building my car now...I was planning on doing RR in the next couple of years, but not if this rule takes effect.

Just one man's opinion...

[Dave]

I think FAQ has a 12 year limit (based on the last year the model was available), but Steven's point is a good one. My car would become obsolete by '07, which would suck (though swapping everything over into an Integra or newer Civic that's good til 2013 wouldn't be the end of the world).

[rpr]

A 15 year limit wouldn't help me either... :) Maybe I should be looking at V70+ :)

[apexhead]

Dave, you are correct. The touring class must 12 year old from the end of the model year. So a 92-95 civic will be good for another 3 seasons.
the Task Force's recommendations painted the whole region with a thick 'recreational amateur' brush in its final recommendations
If you ask me, it will be extremely difficult to find a large sponsor willing to invest in a 'recreational amateur' series. The "problem" starts there. I wonder if anyone as asked Aaron Povoledo what he thought of the Quebec series and if he thought anything we did could help your series out. I mean, FAQ did not invent anything new, we didn't reinvent the wheel, we simply utilised a rulebook that worked; from the NASA series and slightly modified it to our reality. Why start over all the time when there are ressources available elsewhere?

As far as the older models go...there are two GT series for over 12 year old cars. GTU for anything under 2.8l N/A and everything else goes into GTO. Strachan drove in GTO at Tremblant...I think he liked it? Malcolm?

[Dave]

Which NASA series did FAQ base their Touring car rulebook on?

[apexhead]

Here you go...

http://www.ustcc.com/RULEBOOK.html

[Shark]

Gunther and John have a tough job to try to make everyone happy. Probably an impossible job. I think the rules have been changed to try to make it a little more fair for all competitors. " The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." as Spock once said...
I agree with the changes.

[jr racing]

Why don't we rename the series Honda VW challenge? 205 spec tire? Ha Ha Ha.

[abrracing]

This is just one sophmore's opinion on a big problem with our region racing series either touring or sprints. The organizers/officals should not be able to compete for points in the series. It is difficult to maintain an open mind even for the best of us when our interests are at stake as well. I believe that they should be allowed to drive in whatever series they desire, however not for champoinship points. I have been in the situation of being a solo director (non casc) and course designer it was a challenege not to build autocross courses that suited my car, but was better for others. After that year we decided organizers and officals could run but not compete for points, and it made a better series for all involved.
________
WEB SHOWS (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

[jr racing]

How about we take the driver's weight into consideration for the base weights?

[malcolm]

apexhead, yes, I had a great time racing in GTO in Tremblant, despite the organizational chaos there.... ;)

Now, I highly doubt that I will be running in the Ontario TGTC series, but I'll voice an innocent opinion anyway on some of the points:

205 tire size for touring - excellent idea! if someone builds a huge motor, putting out 320 bhp, they'll never be able to put it down. they won't be any faster than the 240 bhp motor'd car.

age limit of cars - depends on where the series is going. If you want sponsors for the series, they are going to want to see newer cars. 1986 Camaros and 1977 Civics just won't cut it. I talked with Dominic, and he and I agreed that older cars belong in GTABCD or GTO/GTU. They can still run, it's just that if you want to be a part of the big show, you need to step up to the plate with better equipment. In our case, perhaps allow this rule to be relaxed for a year or two, and phase it in, IF we want the series to grow into something bigger. If we just want it as another regional series (basically GTABCD with rules and spec tires), then I say just leave it open...

adopting the rules from quebec - again, if you want the series to grow, I suggest adopting these rules for the most part. of the racing I saw in quebec, it was close, the cars looked great, and it really looked like a mini speed world challenge. It looks like a series that can get a lot of attention and get some real sponsorship.

forgetting GT and focussing on Touring - this is my own idea... If you are going after sponsorship, you need to have attractive, newer looking cars at the front. Some of the ex-Player's Camaros look great, but sponsors wouldn't be keen on seeing cars that are older than some of the drivers.... Also, with these rules, you're not going to get a lot of GT cars out anyway. I would just focus on the Touring races, unless you think you could get a GT class with enough newer cars to have a decent grid (like the FAQ is doing now). *Sponsorship-wise,* I think having an Integra or a VW Golf win the race overall is much better than having some mid-eighties BMW or Camaro win. However, if we're still just planning to keep this as a regional series, and not grow into anything more (no tv, no mainstream press, etc, etc), then just stay as is, and make it as accessible as possible.

If you impose a ten year limit, I will stop building my car now...I was planning on doing RR in the next couple of years, but not if this rule takes effect.

you should still build your car, and run it in Sprints. The racing can still be just as close, and you'll have just as much fun. If the break-out time is 1:43, then build your car so it CAN'T go any faster than a 1:44... then you'll never have to sandbag. That's what we did with the RX7, and I had a great year in 2001. Never sand-bagged once. The TGTC series is a great series, but it's not the ONLY series we have, and it's not the end of the world if you race elsewhere.

[karlt]

An earlier post inquired as to cheating in Grand Am. I'm sure it's done. But I'm also pretty certain a bunch of it gets caught, if not all ofit. That's the big difference between regional racing -- which is policed by volunteers -- and pro racing, which has a staff paid to make sure the cars conform to the rules. Once you've seen a car ripped apart in post-race tech, you're really thinking if you should or should not install those slightly illegal engine internals.

Tech for those not regularly finishing in the top five is pretty basic; a check of the standard safety equipment. But it's a different story for top-place finishers. This year saw different components of the top cars checked on a race-by-race basis. At Homestead, differentials were checked by removing them from the cars in question, and comparing it to another car of the same make. I have seen some GS cars with their engines out in post-race tech this year, having their cams checked, etc. Pro racing is a serious business and they have the scruitineering staff to back up the rules.

I think it unreasonable to expect our hard-working CASC volunteers to do the same. Also, how would you like it if after a race you were told to drop the oil pan so the scrutineers can make sure your oil intake is stock? On our BMW, that's a two hour job each way, and it happened this year in Grand Am.

The answer is to do what's already been done with the TGTC rules: engine mods are free. If you can't police it, what's the point in having the rule?

Malcolm's made a great point about dropping GT. However, it's interesting: in Grand Am the larger class is GS (which equates roughly to our GT), while ST (which is like Touring) is usually smaller. For regionals this is reversed. If we could get more high-power cars out, it would benefit the show and GT would be worth keeping. But if it seems that guys running GT-class cars are going elsewhere to compete (ie: PCA or Grand Am Cup), then the show is actually better by excluding them. Who wants to watch one or two guys lap the field when the real action is four places back?

Which of course brings me to Touring itself. Capping tire size is a good idea, although I would caution a 205 size. Some of the car that could run (and I use my BMW Z3 Coupe as an example) will be limited by the rim size we can run to clear our brakes. I'm pretty sure the Z3 can fit a 205/17 on 7" rims, but over the coming years it's going to become a problem. In GAC our tires are 225, and to me that seems like a logical place to go for the series max.

As for those two guys lapping the field... it's happening in Touring, isn't it? The rewards weight solution is the logical answer, and it will give some parity. But I don't think it's fair for guys who are running 1:42s at Mosport to try and claw the rules back to where they are competitive. If the times to run are 1:43s, then we'll need to modify our cars to get there.

Finally, it appears the folks in Quebec -- who almost always get better support and competition in their grassroots motorsport -- have developed a series where ex-SPEED WC cars can compete with cars like those of our front-running Touring cars. Beginning to get some parity between the series, even if we don't officiall merge them just yet, would be worth doing, and might hint at the beginning of a semi-national Canadian series.

And that goes back to the guys turning 1:42s. You'll not be competitive with ex-SPEED cars. If you're after sponsorship for the series, and serious sponsorship for individuals, we'll need a series that can truly be considered "WC Light". And you're not going to get that turning 1:42s. But you'll be darned competitive in GTC.

As always, just my $0.02.

Karl T

[GR8 Ride]

Time to add my 1.5 cents into the mix as well. To Ray's point, the needs of the many do indeed outweigh the needs of the few. There is only ONE ruleset in which the CASC can keep everybody happy, and that is to create 45 different classes, and each person gets to win their own class each weekend. Otherwise, somebody will always be upset that someone else spent more money, or has a better car, etc, etc.

Racing is a sport, and like most other sports, it's meant to be fun, and it's meant to be exciting, but it's not always meant to be fair. Those who have more money, can afford to build a faster car, and there isn't a damn thing any of us can do about it.

As to having three series, and the return of the OCC (in addition to TGTC and GT-ABCD), then by all means, somebody step up to the plate and volunteer the time and energy to create, promote, and manage a series. You can even write your own ruleset (been there, done that). It's a wonderful idea, but the only way it's going to happen is if you go out and do it yourself; nobody else is going to start a new series for you. It's not as easy to promote, manage and run a series as one might think, and I'm not inclined to put the energy into doing that again.

Do I think that regional racing is perfect, and can be completely absent from improvement? No, not in the least bit. But given the costs, the fact that it's an all volunteer team, and the fact that we have a relatively small population to draw from, given the huge landmass we're spread across, it's pretty good.

I'm not saying that it's a waste of time to look at improvements; that's not the point at all. But we've had this debate over the TGTC ruleset for the past two years, and we're not necessarily solving anything. Nick is absolutely correct in that we need to develop stability in the TGTC ruleset. Make minor tweaks each year to balance some of the performance, but wholesale changes will do far more damage to recruiting new racers than attempting to make those with uncompetitive cars suddenly competitive.

As I said last year; at some point in time, the onus is upon the owner / driver of the car to choose a platform that is capable of being successful. It does no one any good if I show up in a 1977 Buick Park Avenue with a 6.6L motor under the hood, and then bitch about my car turning 2:15s at Mosport. Imagine the outrage if I subsequently demand that the rules be changed to ensure my car is competitive?

For the record, I also believe that a proposed 10 or 12 year chassis rule is counter-productive to inducing new racers to join. It's an expensive hobby, and to suddenly require that we maintain vehicles within a recent timeframe is approaching the requirements of semi-pro (if not pro) racing, and leaves the average amateur far in the dust. There are a lot of good, competitive racecars that would be eliminated with such a rule, and you would suddenly see TGTC shrunk to a shadow of it's current self. To be honest, I think the 2 year engine rule isn't too far off the same path. If someone has the money to build that fast of a car within the existing rules, then let them.

What does it matter if Thornley has the money to build a 1:35 car, year after year? It's not like he's winning any money, or significant sponsorship by doing so. It's his money to spend, and he's obviously having fun doing it, so let him. Besides, the ruleset in 2004 took it's toll on the overall GT championship anyway, as a car / driver who was clearly not competitive on a lap by lap basis with either Mike or Allen won the title. Reward weight had it's intended effect, which wasn't necessarily to slow cars down, but to extol a lifespan penalty under the strain of added weight. Those drivers would push harder than they ever did before, and this caused failures of various sorts. This factor made the run for the championship more intense.

All of us need to decide what is more important to us; winning a single race, or winning an annual championship. Bob won the GT championship not by having the fastest car (Mike was generally 4 seconds a lap quicker), but by having the most dedication. It was desire and determination that won it for Bob, not money. Ray had a shot at the title as well, and certainly hasn't spent anywhere near the money that most people have.

The fastest car generally costs more money to build. But the winningest car is often powered more by pure desire, than pure dollars.


Pat

[malcolm]

As to having three series, and the return of the OCC (in addition to TGTC and GT-ABCD),

um... "OCC" is the new name for the GTABCD series, which is kinda silly if you ask me, as it just confuses people.

Also, car eligibility for TGTC does NOT equate to car eligibilty for the region! People can still get into regional racing with a cheap, older car with GTABCD, and then after a few years, save up some money and buy/build a newer car to run in the "bigger" series.

A lot of the discussion/debate going on here hinges on where the series is going. Big series, sponsorship, media coverage: newer cars, higher quality preparation of cars, etc... Regional series, minimal sponsorship, minimal mainstream media: allow anyone to race. Now where do we want the series to go? I think we have enough touring cars to cover a series alone, with newer cars. Obviously we couldn't come down hard this year and outlaw older cars... it would need to happen over a few years. As it has been said before, sprints should be the entry-level series, and TGTC should be something to look up to and aim towards. It should still be a regional series, but a step up from sprints.

but that's just my outside view :rolleyes:

[rmicroys]

Originally posted by karlt
As for those two guys lapping the field... it's happening in Touring, isn't it? The rewards weight solution is the logical answer, and it will give some parity. But I don't think it's fair for guys who are running 1:42s at Mosport to try and claw the rules back to where they are competitive. If the times to run are 1:43s, then we'll need to modify our cars to get there.

I'm not advocating 'clawing' the rules back to make all cars have to do 1m42s. I'm merely commenting on the fact that the rules exclude us. Unfortunately one cannot have a series that is entirely inclusive for all racers in the region - that is for sure. But that's why Grand Am has two series too. You can't race a DP in GA Cup... alas I digress, we used to have three series that accommodated everybody with at least 2 places to play - if not three - now we have two. Who got the short end? The guys on BOTH ends - now the fast guys don't come out and play (except rarely in GT-A) and the slow guys only have one place to truely play (GT-C/D) If one is concerned with turnout and accessibility - which we should be as a region, then there is some more thinking to be done.

Originally posted by malcolm
Also, car eligibility for TGTC does NOT equate to car eligibilty for the region! People can still get into regional racing with a cheap, older car with GTABCD, and then after a few years, save up some money and buy/build a newer car to run in the "bigger" series.

Pardon me? Now, I fail to see how the TGTC is NOT regional racing?

Does it operate outside the confines of CASC-OR? Does it visit tracks outside of Ontario? Is it not pretty much entirely filled with cars from CASC-OR members? Is it not entirely controlled and operated by CASC-OR? The TGT is a Regional series - it's not pro, it's not even semi-pro if there was such a terminology in regional racing. Anybody with a Regional Novice license can race it it - IT IS REGIONAL CLUB RACING.

If the goal for the TGTC is to allow people to get sponsorship for their regional racing careers - then I would seriously reconsider what the goals of the series are. I think primary goal of CASC-OR and ORO is to make Regional Road racing as accessible as possible, generate big grids and competitive racing.

[scirocco53]

I have always been in favour of a 205 tire size rule. I understand peoples complaints that their car did not come with that tire size. So I have a suggestion:

Why not add the tire size as an option on the Weight Calculator? If there is a weigh premium given to bigger brakes, then one should be given for bigger tires. Takes away the advantage of heavy car with more power

Also, I think that front/rear wheel drive should also be a factor in the weight calculator. There is no other series that does not recognise the advantage between front and rear drive cars. For example in BTCC there was a 75lb weight added for rear drive.

[drpepper]

On the subject of rims and tires, how about limiting the tire size to 10mm over factory width of the largest tire supplied for a car within the class, and make the rim size free? e.g. (I'm making up numbers now btw) Say a 1.6l Miata has 195s from the factory, it can run 10mm wider than a 1.8l Miata that came with 205s stock, so 215 max. A BMW 325 that has 215s from the factory can run 10 mm wider than a 328 that has 225s, so 235 max; but not 10 mm wider than an M3 with 245s because it is GT, not a touring car. I figure this way, there is some limitation, and the heavier cars get the bigger tires. Also, there is an easy answer to the question: I have a dinky car with a monster engine, what tires can I run... The answer is the biggest tires your tub came with in the touring rules.

All of that being said, I think I don't really understand the point of limitting tire size. If the two main points are to equalize the field, and keep costs way down, I would think changing the minimum car weights and rewards weight would be the single least expensive way to do accomplish both. For me, a new set of tires and rims to match cost more than an engine and tranny swap. i.e. not particularly economical. As long as the weights aren't low enough to demand carbon fiber everything, it seems like the cheapest and most effective way to me. I understand that tires change all of the dynamics of a car so thats why they are a good place to start, but weight does just the same - I figure gravity is cheaper than rubber.

Either way, when will the rule book be finalized? Now that the Canadian dollar is doing so well in the states, its the perfect time to get some go fast parts from down south at a good value. I'd especially like to know if I should keep looking for 17x8 rims, or if the tire sizes are actually going to be limited and I can just use the 17x7s I have sitting in the basement, or get a much cheaper set of 17x7.5s.

[Steve Moore]

As a spectator of the TGT from the past two years, I found the fields to be a great mix of cars and the racing was exciting to watch. As a new competitor for the 2005 TGT, I am drawn to the series for the same reasons. I bought my car based on most bang for the buck, safety and the opportunity to run both Sprints & TGT.

I agree that tires & weight are the easiest way to keep the fields competitive. I also agree if you limit cars eligibility by age you will discourage members from building new cars to run in the series. I am told my swift runs around a 1:42 at Mosport, so I look forward to dicing with the rest of the 1:42 pack:)

[scirocco53]

Originally posted by drpepper
All of that being said, I think I don't really understand the point of limitting tire size. If the two main points are to equalize the field, and keep costs way down, I would think changing the minimum car weights and rewards weight would be the single least expensive way to do accomplish both.

The reason that limiting tire size works is that if you have a 2250lb 2.0L car with a 205 tire running against an identical car with a 225 or a 235 tire, more tire will always win out in the end.

So you have to find a way of equalising the two cars. Add weight to the car with a bigger tire via the weight calculator.

I think that I have settled on adding a tire factor to the weight calculator as the better way to implement equality between different cars with different engines.

[GR8 Ride]

I agree with the idea of adding in tire sizes to the weight calculator; that does allow someone to run a bigger tire size, should their vehicle require it, yet also be forced to pay the penalty for doing so.

I also think that reward weight should not be limited to 200 lbs; make the limit 300 lbs (or even 400, but we get into safety issues there). However, I'd also then recommend allowing the weight to come off more quickly than in 2004 (this is highly dependent upon field size, so I'm just speculating as to what it might be this coming year).

I made a suggestion to John earlier in the year about possibly breaking down TGTC into 4 classes, looking like this:

Touring 2: Cars under 2.0L (so, 2.0L DOESN'T qualify, but 1999 cc's does). Wheels restricted to 15 inch, factory brake components (except pads, obviously). Tires would be RA1s, engine mods are free, except for no forced air, even factory. Minimum weight of 2000 lbs (guessing here, as I don't have a 2.0L engine'd car).

Touring 1: Cars from 2.0L to 3.0L (again, 2999 cc qualifies, 3000 cc doesn't). 16 inch maximum wheel size, factory brake components, pads excepted. Minium weight of 2500 lbs. Forced air is allowed, but multiplies displacement by 1.5.

Grand Touring 2: Cars from 3.0L to 4.0L. 17 inch maximum wheel size, brakes otherwise free. Maximum tire size of 255/40/17 RA1.
Minimum weight of 3000 lbs. Forced air again is allowed, but would multiple displacement by 1.5.

Grand Touring 1: Cars above 4.0L. No restrictions on tire size, and no minimum weight. Forced air is allowed.

Obviously, it's anything but a perfect idea, but just some things I threw out there for commentary. The weight calculator would still apply in each class, so you couldn't have someone with a 2.9L motor running the lightest weight in the T1 class.

Also, each competitor is allowed to compete in the classes above, but not below. So if you wanted to run 17 inch wheels, you could run in GT2, with the minimum weight determined by the weight calculator for that class (so it would be possible to run an ultra-lightweight car with small displacement in GT2, for example).

I have but one other suggestion when it comes to leveling the playing field. Series Administrator discretion. If, at the discretion of the Administrator (who CANNOT be a competitor for this rule to work), they would have the power to move people from one class to another, based upon performance. This is unfortunately a subjective process, and not an objective one, but it does serve the purpose of 'leveling the playing field', so to speak.

I'm not saying it's valid, nor am I saying this is something we should do. I'm merely pointing out that it's one of the few ways to balance the playing field between those with tons of money, and those without. The other, of course, is to have a claiming series, which just wouldn't bode well for regional racing! :D


Pat

[rmicroys]

Originally posted by GR8 Ride
I made a suggestion to John earlier in the year about possibly breaking down TGTC into 4 classes, looking like this:

Touring 2: Cars under 2.0L (so, 2.0L DOESN'T qualify, but 1999 cc's does). Wheels restricted to 15 inch, factory brake components (except pads, obviously). Tires would be RA1s, engine mods are free, except for no forced air, even factory. Minimum weight of 2000 lbs (guessing here, as I don't have a 2.0L engine'd car).

Touring 1: Cars from 2.0L to 3.0L (again, 2999 cc qualifies, 3000 cc doesn't). 16 inch maximum wheel size, factory brake components, pads excepted. Minium weight of 2500 lbs. Forced air is allowed, but multiplies displacement by 1.5.
Hmmm... Okay under 2000cc well, there is no 2.0l engine that actually is 2000cc, they're all 198x cc generally.

I think there isn't much that can be done to make any Touring 2 class based on displacement anything but a Honda only class if one wants to be competitive. I think it's more a pick and choose for the classes. Ie, if you want to run an Integra Type-R or anything with a un-restricted 'R motor you are in T1. If you want to suck through a resitrictor plate - then I would say, go ahead run in T2.

Look at the Grand Am rules from a couple years back, same sort of thing, 4 classes. GS I, GSII, STI STII... Type-Rs could be either in STI or STII ... it just changed your setup and if one wanted to be in the slower class, they needed to run a restrictor.

[scirocco53]

Another thing that I would really like to see added is the actual numibers that each competitor used to come up with the cars weight. This way the competitors could police the cheating. If the only people that know the weight calculation for each car, there is nothing anyone from running a different combination than was stated at the begining of the season. It gives the ability for knowledgeable VW guys to police other VW guys and the same goes for Honda's and BMW's

What is the reason that the weights for each car and how they arrived to that weight not be posted for the public to see. How easy is it for anyone to spot a 10" brake VS an 11". And If the car is supposed to carry a certain amount of rewards weight, then why can't everyone see what that is?

Checking all the competitors after every session is also a bit of a waste. If you check the weights of the top 3 finishers in class, and the top 3 people in the chapionship, more thorough examinations could take place.

What is the point of having a weight calcilator, and never checking the bore/stroke of the motors?

[GR8 Ride]

Originally posted by rmicroys
Hmmm... Okay under 2000cc well, there is no 2.0l engine that actually is 2000cc, they're all 198x cc generally.

I think there isn't much that can be done to make any Touring 2 class based on displacement anything but a Honda only class if one wants to be competitive. I think it's more a pick and choose for the classes. Ie, if you want to run an Integra Type-R or anything with a un-restricted 'R motor you are in T1. If you want to suck through a resitrictor plate - then I would say, go ahead run in T2.

Look at the Grand Am rules from a couple years back, same sort of thing, 4 classes. GS I, GSII, STI STII... Type-Rs could be either in STI or STII ... it just changed your setup and if one wanted to be in the slower class, they needed to run a restrictor.

I agree that very rarely is an engine exactly 2000 cc's, but the point was to ensure that there was a viable cut-off point. Also, since the motor can be legally modified, than bore / stroke could equal (or exceed) 1999 cc's on what was originally a 1960cc motor. It's impossible to prevent someone from tearing down and building a hot motor, and policing that environment is even more difficult. If we want to run spec motors, then run a spec series.

I think you bring up a good idea though, in which the figures that people use to come up with their weights should be published. Checking bore / stroke is effectively impossible with an all volunteer crew, and running restrictor plates, checking fuel etc is both too costly and too time-consuming to be easily done in regionals.

I think the three best ideas to come out of this entire session so far are 1) Add tire size into the weight calculator, rather than merely restricting tire size, and 2) make everyone publish the numbers that they are using to determine their race weight. Also, it's worthwhile to publish the reward weight that each car should be carrying, as in Speed WC.


Pat

[scirocco53]

I wonder if there is a way that there could be a "referandum" that could be held via E-mail by the drivers in the series and see what rules the drivers would like to see implemented.

Make any rule proposal pass by the drivers first, like a feeler. The organisers of the series can get a clearer picture as to what would #1 bring out bigger fields, and #2 subdue the b!tch!ng of individuals who feel that the rules do not account for their car.
I think that if proposed rule tweeks were to be circulated by the drivers soon enough, a rules package could be stabalised sooner rather than later.

[John Powell]

If I remember correctly, the BTCC cars have stickers on them showing the rewards weight they're carrying - maybe we should do this? Also, I think that adding tire size to the weight calculator is something that should be considered. As for the 10 year cut-off rule being an asset in attracting sponsors, my thoughts are:

- the only ones that it might affect are car manufacturers wishing to showcase current production cars,
- older cars don't appear to be a problem with attracting sponsors in drag racing and most classes of circle track racing,
- NASCAR attracts both sponsors and vehicle manfacturers' involvement, and their cars bear only a passing resemblance to current production cars as they have a purpose-built tube-frame chassis, body shape determined in a wind tunnel, and don't even drive from the same end as the production cars they're supposed to represent, and
- most sponsors are interested in marketing an image, and as long as the car (and driver) ties in with their marketing strategy, the car and team look presentable and are available for publicity purposes, and the team has a reasonably good results record (in that order), then they'll be happy.

As someone has already mentioned, the T/GT series is not a professional series, and many potential entrants would be shut out if they're forced to go to the expense of changing to a newer car. As for us poorer cousins being able to run in GT Sprints if we can't afford a newer car, well there are some of us who are just not enamoured of bracket racing. If we were we'd be drag racing, and at a much lower cost than road racing. :rolleyes:

[scirocco53]

As far as the engine swap thing puting a Touring car directly into GT class goes:

I honestly have no idea as to how anyone feels that there is an advantage in installing a newer motor into an old chasis being an advantage.

Take an Acura RSX Type S motor (2.0L 16V VTEC) and install it into an 86 Civic DX, and have that Civic run against the RSX. If both cars have to weigh the same (according to the weight calculator) then where does the 86 Civic have an advantage?

Take a motor out of 92 VW Golf (2.0L 16V) and install it in a 84 Rabbit. Where does the Rabbit have the advantage? Certainly it's not in aero, and definetly not in suspension geometry.

Take a newer BMW E36, E46 motor and install it in an E30 body, and tell me where there is an advantage.

Take a 5.OL mustang motor and install it in a Suzuki Swift. Make the Suzuki weigh the same as the Mustang, and tell me where that Suzuki would benefit.

As long as there is a weight calculator, there really is no reason that rule should be implmented.

[Shark]

It goes against what " Touring " is supposed to be about.
Highly modified or significantly changed Touring Car = GT Car.

[scirocco53]

Well, now we are getting into symantics.

BTCC Stands for British TOURING Car Challenge

Who cares what we call it. SGT, GT, T or GT1,2,3, or Fast, Faster, Fastest class.

Just because a guy goes out and "highly modifies" a Suzuki Swift does not make his car fit in the GT class

Unless the organisers have decided to make the Touring class for ex OCC GT3 entrants, the current cars in Touring are totally fine.

[Lude]

Latest weather report says chance of snow Thursday and we have yet to see a firm set of rules. All this discussion is all well and good but unless we get a firm set of rules soon it may turn many people off running next year. People need time to prep their cars to fit into the rules. If I had to run a civic with a type R engine in GT I’d like to know sooner than latter so that I could make my car as light as possible to compete, since base weight would no longer apply.

All these ideas on new rules sounds good until you start to consider enforcement, think of the basic engine size rule from last year. I don’t remember anyone checking that. Add more rules and you’ll get more allegations of cheating with no one doing anything about it. The idea of checking the top finishers is a good idea; I’d like to see just the top 4 finishers checked and the top 3 in the championship. The bottom line is this is regional not a pro event with large payouts. People will commit as much time and money on their cars as they see fit. The unfortunate fact is regardless of how much you try to level to playing field those that commit the most will end up at the front of the pack. The key is in Touring we’ve had great door-to-door racing throughout the field that will most likely not change. The problem was in the GT field, they looked like they were out just lapping, that is the field that needs the most help, if a 1800LB Civic with a type R engine helps out that field I’m all for it.

[rmicroys]

Yes... what he said.

And 'Touring' is a relative word. If we were to go by SCCA Improved Touring terminology - I don't think there is a single car in Ontario Region that meets 'Improved Touring' rules. Then if we go and look at what a BTCC or DTM car is, they're hardly recognizable. Oh and the DTM was rated as the best Touring Series in the world last year...

http://www.dtm.de/newsausgabe.en.php?id=2331
The result:
1st DTM
2nd V8 Supercar Championship
3rd European Touring Car Championship
4th Argentinean TC2000 Championship
5th Brazilian Stock Car Championship
British Touring Car Championship
7th Swedish Touring Car Championship
Danish Touring Car Championship

Everything is relative - but again I must remind people. Those are PRO touring series. We are a CLUB Touring Series. Not even National. We just have to make a format that can accommodate as MANY of our regional racers as possible, regardless of the other issues. Accommodate more of the racers, and they'll come, we'll have bigger grids and more fun.

[slucas]

What does everyone want this series to become?
Is it to stay a club or regional "fun" series , or is it going to develop into a more upmarket thing.
Before you risk painting yourselves into a corner with the rules it seems like a debate over the direction of the series is in order.

I have allways assumed it to be an upmarket series, akin to the Quebec program, that would be seperate from regional racing and not just another "class" for regional guys to run in.
Seeing how well the FAQ touring series is doing I think we should spend our time adopting their rule book.

[malcolm]

Pardon me? Now, I fail to see how the TGTC is NOT regional racing?

Does it operate outside the confines of CASC-OR? Does it visit tracks outside of Ontario? Is it not pretty much entirely filled with cars from CASC-OR members? Is it not entirely controlled and operated by CASC-OR? The TGT is a Regional series - it's not pro, it's not even semi-pro if there was such a terminology in regional racing. Anybody with a Regional Novice license can race it it - IT IS REGIONAL CLUB RACING.

rob, relax. you misunderstood what I was saying.

TGTC is not the ONLY series you can go into. YES, it is a regional series, but it's NOT the only regional series. Had you read the rest of my post, you would have seen that I mentioned someone could enter into GTABCD, and THEN move up to TGTC. Also, it's not like that step would be a huge one. It's a matter of selling your car, and buying another one, or building a slightly newer, more competitive car.

Therefore, if you put more limits on what cars can enter TGTC, then that does not DIRECTLY reflect on the amount of cars that can enter a region.

Had you read my other posts, you would have also seen that all my suggestions hinge on where the series plans to go. You seem to be 100% certain that TGTC is regional sprints on Toyos with a few rules.

[Bubblecar]

Originally posted by slucas
<snip> . . .
Seeing how well the FAQ touring series is doing I think we should spend our time adopting their rule book.

There seems to be a widespread belief that the Quebec series is doing so much better than us ????

Now - I think Quebec is doing a great job and I even unsuccessfully tried to make it to one of their races this year - and hope to run a couple of their events next year, but . . .

Less than a year ago - this board was filled with compliments about our TGT being the greatest thing ever - with congratulations all around. Sure, grids may have been smaller this year (so was the World Speed Challenge Cup touring field by the way) - but fundamentally we had another successful season.

As for the Quebec series - they have two fantastic pluses that we lack. First is the TV coverage and second was their participation in The Molson Indy Montreal.

Hey - we were in 3 pro weekends this year! Short of the Molson Indy - that's all we had in the Toronto area. And with tight racer bugets - I can't say that many would have travelled to another province to participate in other Pro weekends. (Anyone - if signed up early- could have gone to the Montreal Indy).

As I understand - their main sponsor picked up the hefty tab for inclusion in the Indy - but did not subsidize tire costs anywhere near as much as Toyo did for us. I guess if we paid list (or a smaller discount) for tires there may be more money for a "big" event - but higher tire costs are going to hurt alot of teams.

Also - I don't think the Quebec series is any more competitive for the mid and back of the pack than we are. Likely you saw more different individual Touring winners in Ontario than you saw in Quebec.

And I think their televsion coverage is the result of a very unique set of circumstances and grants.

So yes - let's work with them - get a common rules set and build a bigger playground - but don't for a second think that what we have here is second rate !

[slucas]

I hope I didn't sound like I was knocking our series.
My suggestian to work on adopting FAQ rules was because they are simply getting better media coverage than we are and therefore are less likely to want to change their plan. If the decision is made by Ontario racers to take our series upmarket it just seems an easier route to go.
We have a great series here in Ont, and there is a lot of interest in it from new and old competitors, but it may become a little stale if it remains just a second regional GT class.
Perhaps I'm wrong in thinking this series wants to step it up a notch. In the Task Force report alot of racers only want 6 race weekends, not the 13 we had in 2004. That means not racing at the "big" weekends which is where sponsors want to be. Without the big weekends we will stay regional.
OTOH with 2 or 3 "big" events in PQ and 3 in Ont you have the makings of a sponsorable series.Title sponsors, race sponsors and entrant sponsors all pretty much want the same thing;exposure, and the big weekends are a major part of a sponsors decision to get involved.

[Bubblecar]

Originally posted by slucas
OTOH with 2 or 3 "big" events in PQ and 3 in Ont you have the makings of a sponsorable series.Title sponsors, race sponsors and entrant sponsors all pretty much want the same thing;exposure, and the big weekends are a major part of a sponsors decision to get involved.

Now there's a great thought - and the seed for a Canadian Pro Series!

[Dave]

That is a great thought! I think a lot of folks could start to justify the expense of building faster cars if it meant participating in a series like this. I know it would motivate me.

[GR8 Ride]

Originally posted by malcolm
TGTC is not the ONLY series you can go into. YES, it is a regional series, but it's NOT the only regional series. Had you read the rest of my post, you would have seen that I mentioned someone could enter into GTABCD, and THEN move up to TGTC. Also, it's not like that step would be a huge one. It's a matter of selling your car, and buying another one, or building a slightly newer, more competitive car.

Therefore, if you put more limits on what cars can enter TGTC, then that does not DIRECTLY reflect on the amount of cars that can enter a region.

Easy for you to say, when you're not the one self-funding your car. Try selling an existing race car, and then subsequently building a new one to meet the ever changing ruleset of the region. Some of us are self-funded, have little to no interest (or time) to chase sponsorship deals to constantly build new racecars, but still want to participate in our so called "Premiere" series.

I agree that we, as a group, need to decide / determine where it is that we want to TGTC series to go. But we also need to keep in mind what it is that the TGTC can actually accomplish.

Regional racing is a bit of a tough slug at the moment, with the insurance companies frowning upon the sport, making it more difficult to recruit new participants (in theory it should be easier, but if anything, it appears to be creating more of an underground culture, rather than an upfront one). We also need to face the fact that despite the great facilities we have in our backyard (Mosport, SMP, Calabogie soon to be etc), we're not in an environment that supports regular semi-pro or pro racing. Mosport only had 3 pro weekends last year; what makes you think they can really support 9 or 10? To make it a premiere, semi-pro type of series, we need sponsorship, and enough cars to get the sponsors to take interest. It's a chicken and egg scenario; how many regional drivers are willing to put up the money, time, and committment to get a semi-pro series started, and THEN put up the time and energy to help the CASC chase sponsors for it.

Also, big sponsors are likely to be reluctant to come on board without some clear understanding of what's in it for them. Speed WC is televised; difficult to get anyone to come out to Mosport or SMP to televise regional weekends.

I think we need to focus on the real issue, which Nigel / Nicholas presented earlier. Rule stability is a big point here, and is one of the factors which prevents people from coming out. The rules need to be published early, and locked down early, so that people can build / modify their cars to meet the ruleset with plenty of time.

We also need to take baby steps in growing TGTC going forward. A few synchronized events with FAQ is a good place to start, with views toward rule equalization between the two series as a longer term goal. The 10 year chassis rule is a harsh one for regional folk to meet though, as buying old chassis' is one of the key ways to keep costs low.

I realize all of us have dreams or fantasies about becoming a pro racecar driver, but the likelihood of that happening based upon regionals in Ontario is slim, if not entirely non-existant.

I would rather have a successful, REGIONAL Touring car series that caters to it's members than a semi-pro Touring car series that is exclusionary to most of the people who run regionally. Yes, the Sprints exist as racing for some of the regional people, but many of us like to run both.


Pat

[malcolm]

Easy for you to say, when you're not the one self-funding your car.

whoa there. don't think for one second that I take my involvement in motorsports for granted. yes, I have had a lot of opportunities come my way, but I've worked for it too. my father and I work together on sponsorship, media relations (as little as they are now), and the maintenence of the car, and I know and appreciate all the sacrifices my family makes for me to persue a career in motorsport. I don't just arrive and drive.

Also, I am not saying sell a Civic and buy a Corvette or Porsche. I am talking more along the lines of selling a '91 Civic, and buying a '95 Civic. Also, a lot of cars have the same model extending a few years, so you don't need to "constantly" build new cars.

Some of us are self-funded, have little to no interest (or time) to chase sponsorship deals to constantly build new racecars, but still want to participate in our so called "Premiere" series.

If you want to be in a premiere series, then you need to make sacrifices. If you don't want to make sacrifices, then don't think about trying to get into a premiere series. If there are enough cars to support a premiere series, then tough luck for those not willing to go sponsorship hunting, or who don't have thick wallets, or that aren't willing to sacrifice anything. If there AREN'T enough cars to support a series like this, then the series should remain a club series ONLY.

So, again we come back to what do we want the series to be? People always call the TGTC a premiere series, but want it to be a club-level series at the same time. Sorry, but it's one or the other; there's no such thing as a "premiere" club championship.

[slucas]

I just can't see any reason to have two almost identical sedan series running on regional weekends. There needs to be something unique to one, not just taking the same car adding weight and changing tyres.
Merging rule books with the FAQ would take maybe 2 years and each step would need to be well planned and executed by all sides. This gives entrants the chance to see down the road where they are going and what will be required to compete.No surprizes.
I happen to agree with you Pat on the subject of sponsors, I have neither the time or talent to get and (especially) keep a sponsor, but lots of guys do ,or think they do, and they may want an avenue to try.
There are a number of guys that came out of regional racing and have done well in the"big leagues".They got a big lift from series like the Honda/B.F.Goodrich/Michelin, Players GM , Rothmans Porsche & Export "A" F2000. They got lots of racing ,but most of all they found out what was required in the business world if you needed money to do it. There are lots of examples of mediocre drivers climbing the ladder because they were better at raising money than a truely talented driver. There are also opportunities for team owners to move up,(yes boys & girls, it's not just drivers,
there are tech. people that want to compete) they need the same avenue.
The arguement that this series would be exclusionary doesn't ring true with me.It's allready exclusionary, big deal.

How's this for a plan;

We keep the GTABCD the way it is
(open to all, run what you brung) maybe change the breakout times (when was that last done?)
We bring back the OCC 1 hour races (with a pit stop)

We take the TCGT upmarket and see if it can be developed into a promotable series for the more committed.

[Bubblecar]

Originally posted by slucas
How's this for a plan;

We keep the GTABCD the way it is
(open to all, run what you brung) maybe change the breakout times (when was that last done?)
We bring back the OCC 1 hour races (with a pit stop)

We take the TCGT upmarket and see if it can be developed into a promotable series for the more committed.
Better - yet. Keep things as they are - but currently the GTABCD get three seperate races every weekend. Make one of them into the "Feature" - a one hour (with pit stop) race as the last GTABCD race on Sunday.

(EDIT - I guess that's about the same as you said - unless as I originally thought - you were suggesting to actually resurrect the 1 hour OCC as a seperate series / event.)

[slucas]

Keep the GTabcd as is, and instead of the TCGT we would have the OCC 1hr race series with the old rules. The TCGT guys would have a 5 or 6 race series at the big events only and if they wanted more track time they could run GTabcd on regional weekends. ...down the road etc.

[autocourse.ca]

Very good topic and very interesting to read!!

The Quebec Touring Car Championship took 6 years to build. First step was to bring a spec tire in 1999. Then we bring an age limit (12 years) and rules for body modification (no fender flairs) in 2002 for the 2003 season. It was not that easy!

Yes I'm ready to work with you guys on a same rule book. But there's two problems between us. First the tires (Toyo vs Hankook) then the age limit. The Quebec 2005 bilingual rules book would be avaible in december and I will send a copy to Steve at CASC-ON.

An idea of the 2005 FAQ Touring Hankook Championship Calendar

May TBA
May 28-29 Sanair
June 24-25-26 St-Félicien (Night Race Saturday) (No entry fees)
June 24-25-26 St-Félicien (No entry fees)
July 16-17 Grand-Prix de St-Jean (Airport Race)
August 5-6-7 Trois-Rivieres Grand-Prix
August 26-27 Molson Indy Montreal
September TBA
September 24-25 Mont-Tremblant Fall Classic

Here my FAQ office phone number if you have any questions 514.252.3052 x 3501

I hope to see my guys race with you next year and you with us

[karlt]

"Some of us are self-funded..."

With very few exceptions, I would venture to say that we are ALL self-funded. FWIW, this does not appear to much different in pro racing series like Grand Am Cup and SWC ;-)

"A few synchronized events with FAQ is a good place to start, with views toward rule equalization between the two series as a longer term goal."

As a few have said before, this would be the beginning of a true National road racing series. If we had a plan for 2005, I would not be surprised if ASN/FIA sanctioned it.

"...all of us have dreams or fantasies about becoming a pro racecar driver, but the likelihood of that happening based upon regionals in Ontario is slim, if not entirely non-existant."

If you are expecting someone to come in and fund your dreams, then yeah, the likihood is pretty darned low. However, it is not that big of a jump to go from regionals to Pro. We have a bunch of really good drivers in Ontario regionals right now. For what a few of them spend regionally, they could do a handful of races in a pro series.

"If you want to be in a premiere series, then you need to make sacrifices...

Malcolm is right, of course. Like any sport, car racing is all about sacrifices. I can think of a few drivers who have the talent to make a good living pro racing who instead run regionals because they don't want to quit their job and/or get divorced. I think it's a really good idea that we have two series in regional racing; bracket racing at the entry level, and TGTC for the semi-pros. That seems pretty simple and yet fair; your expectation in each series is easily set.

"I just can't see any reason to have two almost identical sedan series running on regional weekends."

Gee, that seems like a fresh bit of logic, doesn't it? Absolutely, looking to the future, unification across Canada with a mini-SWC series run primarily in Quebec and Ontario, with TV coverage at our premier races, would return Canadian racers to the limelight. Yep, we'll need a series that will allow the guys running older cars (and some at slower speeds) to compete, and an evolution of the GT-Sprints is perfect. Whether that's bracket racing or not is another discussion, IMHO, but it has nothing to do with a series that's run in Ontario, Quebec and elsewhere in Canada to raise the level of competition. It will cost more money, but it would be worth it.

NASCAR has just put together a serious deal with CASCAR. Right now, there is renewed interest in racing in Canada, and this is the main reason. Sponsorship dollars will likely be more forthcoming, as an offshoot of the CASCAR deal, and as road racers we should be aiming -- if not in 2005 -- to capitalize on in in 2006.

As ever, just my $0.02.

Karl T

[karlt]

Make one of them into the "Feature" - a one hour (with pit stop)

I don't understand why regional races and other series like PCA require a pit stop for races over 40 minutes. It's not like the car needs fuel. It is so you can have two drivers so the cost can be split?

Pro racers regularly run 2+hour stints. The racing would be more interesting if everyone was trying to run 1 hr on one set of tires, don't you think?

Karl T

[rmicroys]

Originally posted by karlt
Make one of them into the "Feature" - a one hour (with pit stop)

I don't understand why regional races and other series like PCA require a pit stop for races over 40 minutes. It's not like the car needs fuel. It is so you can have two drivers so the cost can be split?

Yes, the older 1hr races had the 1 minute mandatory pit stops to allow for driver changes to encourage more people to come out.

[GR8 Ride]

Karl,

While I don't disagree with you that we are primarily self-funded, there are also varying degrees of funds available to each of us as racecar drivers. And while I agree that many 'pro' racecar drivers are self-funded as well, we're talking an order of magnitude in terms of disposable income available. The fact remains that many of us racing regionally, are doing so with budgets that *might* approach 5 figures annually, and a big race year might cost upwards of $25,000. Your own situation notwithstanding, the proposal to take TGTC to the next level, takes several of us out of contention right up front. I earn a pretty good living, but I try to keep my racing budget to a reasonable amount, as I have the desire to the rest of my life in financial order as well.

I agree that the jump from Regionals to Pro isn't that big of a step, PROVIDED that you have the funds to do so. Getting a paid ticket is one thing, providing the funds for your own pro ticket is another altogether. If I had the money, I'd be running Speed WC myself; I don't, but I really enjoy the TGTC, and the competition that has come out of it.

Let's face a few facts here. Big sponsorship only comes with media coverage. Media coverage comes when you have an attractive enough event to justify the media spending the money to televise it (if they don't make any money, the media isn't going to broadcast anything). How many CASCAR races are shown on Canadian (or even Speed Channel) during the season? I know of only one that's on regularly, and that's the Mosport event, and it's taped to boot. This, which is supposedly a more 'tv friendly' series than road racing.

In order for the media to come out, there needs to be a solid enough draw to justify it, which means high profile teams, cars, and drivers. While we have some solid people regionally, nobody really qualifies as 'high profile', and unless someone is willing to put up the money to get the series started, we're at a standstill.

Once sponsorship and media coverage come into play (assuming we could get well setup with both), then costs per team / driver go UP, not down. The cost of running your GAC is probably higher than that of your 944. Unless I'm sadly mistaken (and I'd love to be....), GAC isn't letting you run for free. :D

My point to Malcolm being this: If he wants to be a 'pro racecar driver' so badly, then I'd suggest looking at the route you've taken is a more likely path to success, than trying to make TGTC into a semi-pro, well sponsored series. Like I said, we'd all like to do it, and while I'm too old and too fat to qualify, Malcolm at least has a shot. I think the shot is more likely to be successful by running south of the border, than trying to make our series into semi-pro racing.

There are plenty of successful Canadians racing in various U.S. series, and even some of our regional drivers have participated (yourself, Jody, Michael et al).

I do support the idea of possibly creating a super-regional series with the FAQ (national would be tough, given the lack of tracks in Western Canada, and the distance involved). If the goal is to create that, then I'll be a staunch supporter. Especially if we could create a class which accomodates chassis more than 10 years out of date.....constantly updating chassis' is an expensive burden for us poor regional guys to swallow.

I agree that running any type of 'premiere' series is going to be a sacrifice, but I'm afraid you'll find precious few people regionally will make the sacrifice to run a regional event if you make them constantly change chassis', or if their costs suddenly grow exponentially. I'm prepared to make sacrifices to race, but prudence does come into play. If everyone thinks I'm silly because I refuse to spend $50,000 every 5 years to build a new chassis, well, so be it.



Pat

[malcolm]

then I'd suggest looking at the route you've taken is a more likely path to success, than trying to make TGTC into a semi-pro


I'll comment more on this later, but I am not looking to compete in TGTC. I am merely trying to give my opinion on where I think the series should go to benefit the most, and I just can't see it having much of a benefit when it is virtually identical to sprints.

[John Powell]

I haven't put my thoughts together enough to get into this discussion yet, but I will. In the meantime I want to call your attention to another matter. There's been a lot of action here, but I'd like to remind folks that there's another important thread that's being sadly neglected right now, and needs your input. I'm talking about the one Cindy started on the Road Racing Task Force report and recommendations. This is an important report for racers, and although there was a meeting tonight on the recommendations, Cindy would still like to have your comments on them. So go over to that thread, download and read the report, and provide your comments, as whether you run T/GT or not, this report is important to you. And no, I'm not a member of the committee, but after all the work they've done I feel they they deserve our input.

OK, back to the T/GT fisticuffs. ;)

[rmicroys]

Soo... now that the horse is dead. Any idea when the 2005 rules are going to be released?

[John Powell]

It ain't dead yet, Rob. Now that I've finished my comments on the Task Force recommendations, I'm going to gather my thoughts on this topic - and you just know that I'm going to have something to say. :D

[Nabs]

I thought we were going to have the rules for october this year?:confused:

[scirocco53]

Guys, not to toot the CASC horn, but in all reality the job that Gunter, John, Steve and all have been doing is about as good as it gets.

These guys all have full time jobs, and families that they need to tend to. It is unrealistic to think that any rules are going to be finalized by the end of October. On top of dealing with other CASC related issues, they are constantly bombarded with many different ideas about schedules, clasifications, rules, sponsorships, entry fees, and the list goes on and on. And no matter what they do, some people are still left wanting.

If anyone here would like to take the bull by the horns, and volunteer their time to help them out, I am sure that they would be all ears. Until then, things are going to remain as is.

Would I like a rules package for TGT series to have been out last month - yes. But I am a realist, and am happy with the current setup.

[rmicroys]

Originally posted by John Powell
It ain't dead yet, Rob.

Ya... it is - some of us don't realize it and just like kicking it a little longer while it's still warm. Honestly, right now, unless the series has greater aspirations, there isn't much to do to the series. The series provides a good ground for a fair range of competitors, unfortunately not everybody in the region can be accommodated with a series that they are competitive in - both types of teams like Malcolm who aren't willing to spend money on wheels/tires to play in the series nor the slower cars who aren't willing to spend the money to go faster.

I'm sure that Gunter and co. will do their best and with what is best for the series and the greater good. Unfortunately not everybody can be satisfied - it just can't be accomodated with only 2 series.

That's why we now have the TGT, Puresports, OCC, etc. Those who don't have their own playground will make it - as the Puresports guys have. Once their numbers grow, they may be able to support their own track time with enough competitors. Kudos to them for getting on the ball.

Well... enough digressions. Time to sit back and enjoy xmas and wait for some rules...