This is topic Runoffs results parity discussion in forum Spec Miata Rules & Competition at Spec Miata Community.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://forum.specmiata.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/topic/46/103.html

Posted by Casey Z (Member # 3575) on :
 
Per Alan's suggestion (I think it is a good one) let's use this thread for parity discussion.

My post that got everyone fired up from the other thread...

Ok so here is the parity break down based on car counts, qual results, and some quick Excel work.

Total Entry Percentages

1.6 - 22%
1.8 - 19%
99 - 59%
01 - 0%

Top 10

1.6 - 20%
1.8 - 10%
99 - 70%
01 - 0%

Top Half of the Field

1.6 - 10%
1.8 - 6%
99 - 84%
01 - 0%

Bottom Half of the Field

1.6 - 33%
1.8 - 33%
99 - 33%
01 - 0%

Food for thought...
 
Posted by d mathias (Member # 343) on :
 
In the interest of true parity I'll ask my wife Debra to do a rain dance for RA Saturday morning. (she's part Cherokee) [Wink]
 
Posted by Tvance13 (Member # 15537) on :
 
Moved from other thread

Well one of the 10 lucky guys in the country who built a 01 VVT car has to pipe in...ZERO cars entered. Doesn't that really say it all about the need to give this car some help. At the top level of this sport where cars are being offered for 30K or more money is clearly not the issue.

Top builders build the best car they can for their drivers. Clearly the VVT car is not a candidate to run in the front or one of the cars that RE, East Street, Rebello, etc have built would be at the show.

I'm not trying to make this the car to have. I just want it to be a car that doesn't SUCK to have. It needs the 45 RP at a minimum. And if all of a sudden it is actually able to compete the board can adjust accordingly.

And I'm not talking about my personal car. I am talking about the VVT in general. The first reaction to this is always “we need to judge a top prepped car”. There in lies the rub. At the moment this car is not a candidate to be prepped for competition at the top level. The fact that NO ONE is racing one solidifies that argument. How will we ever judge a "Fully Prepped or Top Built Car" if no front runner is willing to race it.

[ 09-24-2009, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: Tvance13 ]
 
Posted by Gibscreen (Member # 2390) on :
 
How about some actual car counts along with percentages?
 
Posted by Keith in WA (Member # 16099) on :
 
I'm not an expert on the other cars (or my own for that matter) buy my perception of RA from a few days there is that it favors torque and aerodynamics.

I'm thinking mostly about the short uphills between T5-T6 and after T14 plus the all the long straights. Then again I didn't drive it in a Miata so I may be way off base.
 
Posted by Casey Z (Member # 3575) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gibscreen:
How about some actual car counts along with percentages?

See the link to the entry list in the other thread. That and the qualifying results are what I based the above on.
 
Posted by David Luney (Member # 812) on :
 
FYI OPM has a 2002 that they have campaigned quite succesfully for the past two years as Tom's personal race car and as a rental. It has done pretty well against the 99 cars.

PS Don't the 01-05 cars already have a 43mm RP or is that a typo in the GCR?
 
Posted by Danny Steyn (Member # 7356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by David Luney:
FYI OPM has a 2002 that they have campaigned quite succesfully for the past two years as Tom's personal race car and as a rental. It has done pretty well against the 99 cars.

PS Don't the 01-05 cars already have a 43mm RP or is that a typo in the GCR?

There is nothing SLOW about Tom's '01. In a straight line, and in coming out of corners, it DESTROYS my '99. The traqmate Velocity vs. Time trace speaks volumes. Tom and RE has this model year figured out for sure!!!

I know some have tried and given up, but maybe they quit too soon!!!!
 
Posted by mdavis (Member # 3121) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tvance13:
Moved from other thread

Well one of the 10 lucky guys in the country who built a 01 VVT car has to pipe in...ZERO cars entered. Doesn't that really say it all about the need to give this car some help. At the top level of this sport where cars are being offered for 30K or more money is clearly not the issue.

Top builders build the best car they can for their drivers. Clearly the VVT car is not a candidate to run in the front or one of the cars that RE, East Street, Rebello, etc have built would be at the show.

I'm not trying to make this the car to have. I just want it to be a car that doesn't SUCK to have. It needs the 41 RP at a minimum. And if all of a sudden it is actually able to compete the board can adjust accordingly.

And I'm not talking about my personal car. I am talking about the VVT in general. The first reaction to this is always “we need to judge a top prepped car”. There in lies the rub. At the moment this car is not a candidate to be prepped for competition at the top level. The fact that NO ONE is racing one solidifies that argument. How will we ever judge a "Fully Prepped or Top Built Car" if no front runner is willing to race it.

I'd generally agree with the sentiment above. 1990 was 20 years ago guys. At some point we're going to start running out of parts for the early cars and look like folks running all those Spitfires. Bob Stretch built a VVT car a few years ago and gave up on it because it wasn't competitive. Why not give those cars a break on RP size so we can start to get some newer cars in the class?
 
Posted by Tvance13 (Member # 15537) on :
 
Type-o. You are correct, they have a 43, I meant 45.

Danny - I have heard stories about these cars being competitive, but based on my racing experience I know guys that will spend BIG money for the last couple of tenths. I may be way off base, but if there was even the slightest possibility I could bring a gun to a knife fight I would. The motor builders have been all very forthright with me. There are some limitations with this car that just make it less desirable. I am just trying to overcome those limitations. Given the number out there, it seems to be an uphill battle.
 
Posted by Vick (Member # 13121) on :
 
I have a really silly question, and keep in mind I run a 1.6l car because it was what looked like an attractive buy pricewise at the time.

Any difference between the 1999 and the 2000?

Just one of those idk questions that I have probably asked countless times on this site.
 
Posted by JimEli (Member # 1428) on :
 
Notwithstanding the model year imbalance of the entries, all of this talk is premature. At least wait for the race results.
 
Posted by Willie the Tard (Member # 2319) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdavis:
1990 was 20 years ago guys. At some point we're going to start running out of parts for the early cars and look like folks running all those Spitfires.

1.6 136,788
NA 1.8 77,000
99-00 55,882
01-05 ?? but I bet it is a small number

and this is just total production -- it says nothing about the M/T A/T mix which should have been more M/Ts (A/T added mid 91 I think) in the early cars.

The 1.6 will always have the numbers -- there is no shortage of cars or parts!!!
 
Posted by Danny Steyn (Member # 7356) on :
 
Hey guys

please do not jump off the deep end on this - lets face it - Road America does favor the '99, no question. Please see Keith Verges report in the original thread Runoffs News. Heres a guy with both and he thinks that they are close.

Dont take one isolated point and extrapolate off the chart - this can be done both ways.

I am heading to the SIC at Roebling in October. This track definitely favors the 1.6 and we are taking both the 1.6 and my '99 to test both.

just saying!
 
Posted by Tvance13 (Member # 15537) on :
 
Matt - My man! You are the first and only taker and for that I owe you a cold beer. C'mon, where are the other 9 guys who are saddled with a VVT. Bueller? Anyone?
 
Posted by EBudman (Member # 1982) on :
 
If Tom has an '02 that's running good at OPM, maybe the other nine VVT guys should be beating down his door. I'm not about to start endorsing any rules changes for 10 guys.... it just ain't gonna happen.

We're a LONG way from comparing 1.6s to spitfires, MGs, FV or FF engines. Like Willie said, the numbers still make the 1.6 the cheapest & most plentiful for parts & donors. Get back with us when you have data from 50 VVT cars & I'll at least pretend to care. [twocents]

Eric
 
Posted by Tvance13 (Member # 15537) on :
 
Eric - If the 02 car that OPM built had any advantage over a 99 whatsoever someone would be racing it. You want data, call any reputable motor builder and ask them what you should build, a 99 or an 01. Like I said, the entry list speaks for itself.
 
Posted by Chris Fulton (Member # 16413) on :
 
If no changes are made to help the other years of cars(ie: more weight for the 99, like NASA), I'm getting a 99. I know I am not the fastest driver, but at the tracks I drive, Daytona, Sebring, Roebling Rd. PBIR, the 99 is THE car to have.
 
Posted by PedalFaster (Member # 13244) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Vick:
Any difference between the 1999 and the 2000?

Nothing substantive -- there are just a lot more '99s out there than there are '00s because '99 was the first year of the NB and a long one at that (production started in '98).
 
Posted by cnj (Member # 13716) on :
 
Always interesting to watch the ping pong debate on this issue.

I am with Danny on this - lets be careful to not jump off the deep end. The NASA champion was in a 91 and it looks as though a 99 driver has a good chance of being the SCCA champ (a first at the Runnoffs) unless Keith Verges has a good day in his 90. If parity is not exact, its pretty close. Some tracks seem to favor the 99 and others the 90 - but both only slightly. For my part if I had both versions (equally well set up) I would probably run different cars for different tracks.

This year in Texas National standings only 4 of the top ten cars were 99's. The championship leader was in a 99 and the next two in 90/1's. The racing was on 3 different tracks with one of those tracks (TWS) appearing to slightly favor the 99 and another (MSR Houston) slightly favoring non 99's. The difference was minor. Good drivers in well prepared cars finished at or near the top regardless of what year they drove. And to some extent everyone complained that the cars they were NOT driving were faster.

I personally doubt that any change will be made for 2010.

Of course my 99 needs some help....

Craig J
 
Posted by Casey Z (Member # 3575) on :
 
I think Craig sums it up nicely. The cars are very close, it is just depends on the track. I really didn't want to start a poo storm with my post, just thought the numbers were interesting. I think the statistics for RA are pretty clear.

The real issue for us is that unlike most series the season is an all or nothing deal based on the last race of the year. In pro series you get points at all the tracks and they add up. Some tracks favor your car and some tracks don't. That is ok as it is a cumulative deal. With NASA or SCCA if the last track favors your car then you are in the cat bird seat. That is just the way it is.

I don't have the magic bullet for this one and to be honest I don't think there is one. HPT favored the 1.8, RA favors the 99, hopefully track number next will favor the 1.6. That said, I think talking about parity is not a bad thing. We just need to realize there is no magic formula to make it work out.

One other thing, the 01+ cars do need help. They can't compete with a well prepped 99 and they have to run the same configuration. If the car is going to be eligible to race it needs to be made competitive. It needs a larger plate. I was involved in a very top flight 01 development program and can tell you there is no way to legally make them work as is. Just my experience and my take. Carry on... [Wink]
 
Posted by Sean Yepez (Member # 2842) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Casey Z:
I think Craig sums it up nicely. The cars are very close, it is just depends on the track. I really didn't want to start a poo storm with my post, just thought the numbers were interesting. I think the statistics for RA are pretty clear.

The real issue for us is that unlike most series the season is an all or nothing deal based on the last race of the year. In pro series you get points at all the tracks and they add up. Some tracks favor your car and some tracks don't. That is ok as it is a cumulative deal. With NASA or SCCA if the last track favors your car then you are in the cat bird seat. That is just the way it is.

I don't have the magic bullet for this one and to be honest I don't think there is one. HPT favored the 1.8, RA favors the 99, hopefully track number next will favor the 1.6. That said, I think talking about parity is not a bad thing. We just need to realize there is no magic formula to make it work out.

One other thing, the 01+ cars do need help. They can't compete with a well prepped 99 and they have to run the same configuration. If the car is going to be eligible to race it needs to be made competitive. It needs a larger plate. I was involved in a very top flight 01 development program and can tell you there is no way to legally make them work as is. Just my experience and my take. Carry on... [Wink]

Based on your results, the car that needs the most help (that is there) is the 1.8. With the 45-millimeter plate and a 100-pound weight disadvantage compared to the 1.6, it could use a 4.3. However, since that change is arguably pretty difficult to enact over the entire fleet of 1.8 cars, I propose taking 35 pounds off of the 1.8. (That is an easy adjustment.)

The 2001 may need a bigger plate, but it's impossible to know that without having a top-prepared 2001 there driven by a top driver.
 
Posted by Blake Clements (Member # 1377) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sean Yepez:
I propose taking 35 pounds off of the 1.8.

I propose we leave them the same as now after 2 dominant years. Change we can believe in! [Wink]
 
Posted by Blake Clements (Member # 1377) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sean Yepez:


The 2001 may need a bigger plate, but it's impossible to know that without having a top-prepared 2001 there driven by a top driver.

How does anyone know that a top builder hasn't built an 01? Its obvious OPM has one. Others have built too.

I heard Bobby Carter's was real fast too?
 
Posted by Sean Yepez (Member # 2842) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blake Clements:
quote:
Originally posted by Sean Yepez:


The 2001 may need a bigger plate, but it's impossible to know that without having a top-prepared 2001 there driven by a top driver.

How does anyone know that a top builder hasn't built an 01? Its obvious OPM has one. Others have built too.

I heard Bobby Carter's was real fast too?

I really have no idea. I haven't seen a competitive one run. It could very well be at a disadvantage (though I have no reason to think so), but someone needs to prove it. Mr. Vance has been asking for a bigger plate for the 2001 for a long time now, but until someone builds the SMAC a top 2001 or someone takes the time to put one together (and has a top driver try to win a race in it), it's really hard to say. I hear what Tyler's dad is saying (that no one at the Runoffs is campaigning one), but just because one isn't there, it doesn't mean they can't be fast.

Bobby said something about not being able to get his 2001 to where it needed to be, but I don't know how far he went in his motor development program with Rebello. I have a feeling there was more left on the table. It did okay at Laguna, but he said he was down on power. I think he got 7th (but qualified poorly).
 
Posted by Blake Clements (Member # 1377) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sean Yepez:
quote:
Originally posted by Blake Clements:
quote:
Originally posted by Sean Yepez:


The 2001 may need a bigger plate, but it's impossible to know that without having a top-prepared 2001 there driven by a top driver.

How does anyone know that a top builder hasn't built an 01? Its obvious OPM has one. Others have built too.

I heard Bobby Carter's was real fast too?

I really have no idea. I haven't seen a competitive one run. It could very well be at a disadvantage (though I have no reason to think so), but someone needs to prove it. Mr. Vance has been asking for a bigger plate for the 2001 for a long time now, but until someone builds the SMAC a top 2001 or someone takes the time to put one together (and has a top driver try to win a race in it), it's really hard to say.

Bobby complained about not being able to get it to where it needs to be, but I don't know how far he went in his motor development program with Rebello. I have a feeling there was more left on the table.

I'm pretty sure Tom Fowler is on the SMAC. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Tvance13 (Member # 15537) on :
 
Casey - I appreciate you acknowledging what many have admitted off line. Like you said, it is eligible to race and whether there are 5 or 500 out there should not be a factor in keeping the cars competitive.
 
Posted by Sean Yepez (Member # 2842) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blake Clements:
quote:
Originally posted by Sean Yepez:
quote:
Originally posted by Blake Clements:
quote:
Originally posted by Sean Yepez:


The 2001 may need a bigger plate, but it's impossible to know that without having a top-prepared 2001 there driven by a top driver.

How does anyone know that a top builder hasn't built an 01? Its obvious OPM has one. Others have built too.

I heard Bobby Carter's was real fast too?

I really have no idea. I haven't seen a competitive one run. It could very well be at a disadvantage (though I have no reason to think so), but someone needs to prove it. Mr. Vance has been asking for a bigger plate for the 2001 for a long time now, but until someone builds the SMAC a top 2001 or someone takes the time to put one together (and has a top driver try to win a race in it), it's really hard to say.

Bobby complained about not being able to get it to where it needs to be, but I don't know how far he went in his motor development program with Rebello. I have a feeling there was more left on the table.

I'm pretty sure Tom Fowler is on the SMAC. [Big Grin]
Someone should run it at RA or the AARC. Why don't you rent it? [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Sean Yepez (Member # 2842) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blake Clements:
quote:
Originally posted by Sean Yepez:
I propose taking 35 pounds off of the 1.8.

I propose we leave them the same as now after 2 dominant years. Change we can believe in! [Wink]
Last year, didn't Gorriaran run the fastest race lap in a '99 before the 1.8 was given the smaller plate? [Wink]
 
Posted by Blake Clements (Member # 1377) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sean Yepez:
quote:
Originally posted by Blake Clements:
quote:
Originally posted by Sean Yepez:
quote:
Originally posted by Blake Clements:
quote:
Originally posted by Sean Yepez:


The 2001 may need a bigger plate, but it's impossible to know that without having a top-prepared 2001 there driven by a top driver.

How does anyone know that a top builder hasn't built an 01? Its obvious OPM has one. Others have built too.

I heard Bobby Carter's was real fast too?

I really have no idea. I haven't seen a competitive one run. It could very well be at a disadvantage (though I have no reason to think so), but someone needs to prove it. Mr. Vance has been asking for a bigger plate for the 2001 for a long time now, but until someone builds the SMAC a top 2001 or someone takes the time to put one together (and has a top driver try to win a race in it), it's really hard to say.

Bobby complained about not being able to get it to where it needs to be, but I don't know how far he went in his motor development program with Rebello. I have a feeling there was more left on the table.

I'm pretty sure Tom Fowler is on the SMAC. [Big Grin]
Someone should run it at RA or the AARC. Why don't you rent it? [Big Grin]
Why would I rent that car, when I own the "best" car? [Eek!] [Big Grin]
 
Posted by mdavis (Member # 3121) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sean Yepez:
quote:
Originally posted by Blake Clements:
quote:
Originally posted by Sean Yepez:


The 2001 may need a bigger plate, but it's impossible to know that without having a top-prepared 2001 there driven by a top driver.

How does anyone know that a top builder hasn't built an 01? Its obvious OPM has one. Others have built too.

I heard Bobby Carter's was real fast too?

I really have no idea. I haven't seen a competitive one run. It could very well be at a disadvantage (though I have no reason to think so), but someone needs to prove it. Mr. Vance has been asking for a bigger plate for the 2001 for a long time now, but until someone builds the SMAC a top 2001 or someone takes the time to put one together (and has a top driver try to win a race in it), it's really hard to say. I hear what Tyler's dad is saying (that no one at the Runoffs is campaigning one, but just because one isn't there, it doesn't mean they can't be fast.

Bobby said something about not being able to get his 2001 to where it needed to be, but I don't know how far he went in his motor development program with Rebello. I have a feeling there was more left on the table. It did okay at Laguna, but he said he was down on power. I think he got 7th (but qualified poorly).

My point was made above. Bob Stretch has moved on from SM but built a no expense spared 2001 and could not compete. Top notch driver, top notch build. Casey seems to know a thing or two about the 2001+ cars as well. Is everyone so scared that the car they have is going to be obsolete that we won't allow a different RP for the 2001+? How about someone put one on a dyno and make some real RP suggestions? Absent of that- I know how folks hate objective data- I'm going to propose a 48mm plate.
Oh... about objective data for William- there were over 80,000 Miata produced from 2001-2005.

Flame Away [flamed]
 
Posted by Blake Clements (Member # 1377) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdavis:
quote:
Originally posted by Sean Yepez:
quote:
Originally posted by Blake Clements:
quote:
Originally posted by Sean Yepez:


The 2001 may need a bigger plate, but it's impossible to know that without having a top-prepared 2001 there driven by a top driver.

How does anyone know that a top builder hasn't built an 01? Its obvious OPM has one. Others have built too.

I heard Bobby Carter's was real fast too?

I really have no idea. I haven't seen a competitive one run. It could very well be at a disadvantage (though I have no reason to think so), but someone needs to prove it. Mr. Vance has been asking for a bigger plate for the 2001 for a long time now, but until someone builds the SMAC a top 2001 or someone takes the time to put one together (and has a top driver try to win a race in it), it's really hard to say. I hear what Tyler's dad is saying (that no one at the Runoffs is campaigning one, but just because one isn't there, it doesn't mean they can't be fast.

Bobby said something about not being able to get his 2001 to where it needed to be, but I don't know how far he went in his motor development program with Rebello. I have a feeling there was more left on the table. It did okay at Laguna, but he said he was down on power. I think he got 7th (but qualified poorly).

My point was made above. Bob Stretch has moved on from SM but built a no expense spared 2001 and could not compete. Top notch driver, top notch build. Casey seems to know a thing or two about the 2001+ cars as well. Is everyone so scared that the car they have is going to be obsolete that we won't allow a different RP for the 2001+? How about someone put one on a dyno and make some real RP suggestions? Absent of that- I know how folks hate objective data- I'm going to propose a 48mm plate.
Oh... about objective data for William- there were over 80,000 Miata produced from 2001-2005.

Flame Away [flamed]

I knew I should have bought that 02 car for sale in Oklahoma! LOL!
 
Posted by B Wilson (Member # 606) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Danny Steyn:
Hey guys

please do not jump off the deep end on this - lets face it - Road America does favor the '99, no question. Please see Keith Verges report in the original thread Runoffs News. Heres a guy with both and he thinks that they are close.

Dont take one isolated point and extrapolate off the chart - this can be done both ways.

I am heading to the SIC at Roebling in October. This track definitely favors the 1.6 and we are taking both the 1.6 and my '99 to test both.

just saying!

I haven't seen anyone jump off the deep end in this thread. My general perception at this point is the CRB failed to make the correct adjustment to tempt a single front runner to try the 1.6 or 1.8 at the big race. Too bad.

Again, last year everyone seemed sure that the 1.6 would be the car to have at RA with the rules change. I can certainly go dig up those threads. Why does it now seem to be a foregone conclusion that the 99 is the car to have at RA?

BTW here is the quote from Keith
quote:
Originally posted by kverges:

The 1.6 I am driving is as good as I can make it, but it does not have the grunt to pull out of a draft and overtake any of the 1999 cars I have been around on the run from T14 to Start/Finish. Maybe someone else's 1.6 does, but I doubt it.

That said, parity here is like tring to make apples taste like oranges. I actually think parity is about as good as it can be - the 1.6 and later cars are just plain different and this track I think plays to the strengths of the 1999 cars in a way that to slow them much more would cripple them in shorter, more technical tracks.


I thought the 99 was supposed to be better at shorter tracks and worse at tracks with long straights due to restrictor. What am I missing? something change?

-bw
 
Posted by Waterboy (Member # 7106) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Casey Z:
One other thing, the 01+ cars do need help. They can't compete with a well prepped 99 and they have to run the same configuration. If the car is going to be eligible to race it needs to be made competitive. It needs a larger plate. I was involved in a very top flight 01 development program and can tell you there is no way to legally make them work as is. Just my experience and my take. Carry on... [Wink]

Not sure that is the case. Once more people start building them they will figure them out. People aren't building now why? I don't know but I would guess to some degree it is because there are many more 99 and 00 donors out there and those donors are probably cheaper than an 01+ donor. Why spend the extra money. Are there differences, i am sure there are.

Like Danny said above, Fowler has an 01 and it is FAST. I raced against him at VIR earlier this year and that car was very competitive. All years were very close, a 99 won-Todd, a 1.6 finished 2nd and 3rd, a 99 finished 4th (me), and a 1.8 finished 5th. Fowler would have finished 2nd or 3rd in his 01 but went off with a couple laps to go.
 
Posted by Cajun Miata Man (Member # 1374) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdavis:
quote:
Originally posted by Sean Yepez:
quote:
Originally posted by Blake Clements:
quote:
Originally posted by Sean Yepez:


The 2001 may need a bigger plate, but it's impossible to know that without having a top-prepared 2001 there driven by a top driver.

How does anyone know that a top builder hasn't built an 01? Its obvious OPM has one. Others have built too.

I heard Bobby Carter's was real fast too?

I really have no idea. I haven't seen a competitive one run. It could very well be at a disadvantage (though I have no reason to think so), but someone needs to prove it. Mr. Vance has been asking for a bigger plate for the 2001 for a long time now, but until someone builds the SMAC a top 2001 or someone takes the time to put one together (and has a top driver try to win a race in it), it's really hard to say. I hear what Tyler's dad is saying (that no one at the Runoffs is campaigning one, but just because one isn't there, it doesn't mean they can't be fast.

Bobby said something about not being able to get his 2001 to where it needed to be, but I don't know how far he went in his motor development program with Rebello. I have a feeling there was more left on the table. It did okay at Laguna, but he said he was down on power. I think he got 7th (but qualified poorly).

My point was made above. Bob Stretch has moved on from SM but built a no expense spared 2001 and could not compete. Top notch driver, top notch build. Casey seems to know a thing or two about the 2001+ cars as well. Is everyone so scared that the car they have is going to be obsolete that we won't allow a different RP for the 2001+? How about someone put one on a dyno and make some real RP suggestions? Absent of that- I know how folks hate objective data- I'm going to propose a 48mm plate.
Oh... about objective data for William- there were over 80,000 Miata produced from 2001-2005.

Flame Away [flamed]

Bob's attempt at the 01 was BEFORE the adjustment to a larger RP. Bob built my 99 and a 1.6 for me so I was lucky enough to be a "friend" of Bob's. With the smaller RP, Bob indicated he would come up a few HP short of his 99, but better torque. I have seen dyno data of the effect of a 2 MM RP change. That gets the 01 up to roughly within 0.5 to 1.5 HP of his 99. How close is enough with more torque? Maybe we should give the SMAC/CRB some credit that they had similar dyno data they used to establish the present plate size.
 
Posted by Tvance13 (Member # 15537) on :
 
All you 99 owners seem to be experts on the 01 and you all "know somebody" or "have raced against" a fast 01. I paid 5k for my 01 donor. Is that very far off a 99. It was a clean 100K car. If there aren't any of these cars out there what are you all so worried about?

And lets get it straight - Nearly EVERY major shop I have spoken with has built a 01 and they all drawn the same conclusion, the car is NOT competitive even with the 43mm plate. Let me ask this... Where is the East Street 01? It has undoubtedly been "fully prepped". Do you think Jim just decided to leave his faster car home this weekend to go easy on the field [Wink]

Let's put it in perspective - If you owned a race shop and could build a car that was faster than any other in the class wouldn't you do it. It would mean more builds, more engine tuning, more MONEY!

In karting I was paying 3k a pop for the "hot" 80cc motor for my kid. Why, because it was fast. The principal is the same here, the shop that builds the fastest car reaps the benefit and gets the CASH!
 
Posted by Blake Clements (Member # 1377) on :
 
And you built an 01 because?

Sell it and buy another car if its that bad....
 
Posted by Waterboy (Member # 7106) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tvance13:

Let's put it in perspective - If you owned a race shop and could build a car that was faster than any other in the class wouldn't you do it. It would mean more builds, more engine tuning, more MONEY!

In karting I was paying 3k a pop for the "hot" 80cc motor for my kid. Why, because it was fast. The principal is the same here, the shop that builds the fastest car reaps the benefit and gets the CASH!

Oh so this discussion is not about parity, it is that the 01 should be the fastest and it is not, it is only equal, so we need to help it. Ok I get it now. The 01 needs help. [Smile]
 
Posted by Tvance13 (Member # 15537) on :
 
Blake - Would you buy an 01? Be honest.

Given the current rules the car is worth a fraction of what I have invested. Why start over? When the 1.8 was kicking everyones ass you all worked to slow it down. I am doing what any of you would do if you had a 01. I am trying to make it competitive.
 
Posted by Sean Yepez (Member # 2842) on :
 
I'm curious. What kind of motor package do you have in your car? Have you had it worked over by ART, RE, Sunbelt, Rebello, Rossini, or East Street?
 
Posted by PedalFaster (Member # 13244) on :
 
Let's back up to first principles here. What's the benefit of making the '01 - '05 cars faster? As far as I can tell, it's (1) satisfying some people's concept of fairness and (2) helping the very small number of people currently trying to be competitive in cars of that generation.

Now, what's the risk? The risk is that any error that accidentally made the '01 - '05 cars faster than the other years would make it hugely more expensive to be competitive, not primarily because of the cost delta between an '01 donor and an earlier one, but rather because everyone who currently owns a non '01 - '05 car would have to pony up for one, and sell their now-uncompetitive earlier car at a loss.

One could reasonably argue that the SMAC and CRB could make very careful, incremental changes until the cars are in perfect balance, and this year's restrictor plate change suggests that that's exactly what they're doing. There's still danger here, though; even if they get it right in aggregate, as this year's Runoffs appear to be demonstrating, the '01 - '05's different torque characteristics could still make it dominant on key tracks (like where the ARRC or the Runoffs are held).

Seems to me that the worst case outcome of speeding up the '01 - '05 cars, even if somewhat unlikely, far outweighs the benefit in this case, and thus that we should leave well enough alone.
 
Posted by Tvance13 (Member # 15537) on :
 
Tim - Please, that is not the point by a LONG SHOT. The point is making the car competitive. When one of the top drivers in my region sold his 01 to build a 99 I knew the writing was on the wall.

Sean - Really makes no difference what I have done to my car. The point is that if the car was competitive, even close to a 99 there would be someone racing it at the runoffs. Jim Drago of East Street has worked on this car and I will ask the question again. DId he decide to leave his faster car home this weekend?

I can throw as much money as I want at this and it will not be as fast as a 99. Period. I have been told that by three different shops, two of which you have listed above.
 
Posted by Waterboy (Member # 7106) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tvance13:

The point is that if the car was competitive, even close to a 99 there would be someone racing it at the runoffs.

Why? If they already have a 99 or 00 why would they spend the money to build an 01 just to be "competitive". Seems to me the only reason they would is if there was not question it would be the faster car, not an equal car. I think some have proven that they can be just a fast. That does not mean it makes any sense to build them.
 
Posted by Sean Yepez (Member # 2842) on :
 
Was it this year that they told you that? In my opinion, it does make a difference what you have done to your car. If you have a donor or crate motor, you will obviously be down on power to most of the people in this region who have a full build by ART or Sunbelt.

Nobody is even running a '99 (let alone an '01) in Northern California besides Dion Johnson who bought Blake's car. If you are interested, I could drive the car back to back with a competitive 1.6 and a competitive 1.8 so we can see how far off your car is.
 
Posted by J.D. (Member # 15) on :
 
Not everything has been done to an '01 relative to the '99 IMO. Not enough drivers out there willing to shell out the $40k... yet (including Drago lol). So, it is slower right now. It needs a tad bit but not much more than allowing locking down the cam. The added compression with a set cam would make up for the weaker fuel curve IMO.

As for Drago not taking that car, he also did not take the other '99s sitting there or the '95. The one he took rolls the best (fish scale), drives the best and he likes it etc.... Sticking the best motor in it was just part of the equation. Even the Drago '99s, his own cars, are not equal to each other yet built the same [Big Grin]

I'm feeling the force draw at me....... I suspect my post count is due a burst....
 
Posted by Bobby C (Member # 13959) on :
 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by J.D.:
[QB] Not everything has been done to an '01 relative to the '99 IMO. Not enough drivers out there willing to shell out the $40k... yet (including Drago lol). So, it is slower right now. It needs a tad bit but not much more than allowing locking down the cam. The added compression with a set cam would make up for the weaker fuel curve IMO.


The 2001 car is potential. I built one had both a RE motor and a Rebello. Motors were good. I rushed Bob @ RE for mine, so we left some on the table. Car was good at Buttonwillow National qual 3rd in its first race behind Drennan and Hall...NO slouches..Built the next motor with Dave and car was ok...better with the fuel..
I don't have a car anymore...moved on to 1/4 midgets with my 5 year old, but the 2001 does need some help. Drago and I bounced thoughts off of each other as he built one after mine. It needs a bigger RP or something to help fuel curve as JD said...Just needs development and it will be good...makes great torque above 120!!!!

Any questions just call...

Bobby
 
Posted by Jfornachon (Member # 11068) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tvance13:
I can throw as much money as I want at this and it will not be as fast as a 99.

I am not an expert on tuning or setup. So consider the source.

I have been reading this forum for the last 3 years. There has been a lot of talk about parity. I rember reading how people have spent a lot of money to prove what and what is not woking.

I sugest that you spend some more money on the dyno and at the track trying different setups while your son drives the car. I would also sugest that while you are trying the different setups get and save your data. Then when you can get teh car up to speed you can then sugest some changes that may work.

Have a great day,
Jared
 
Posted by Steve D. (Member # 2351) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tvance13:
I can throw as much money as I want at this and it will not be as fast as a 99.

You bought the car first and started to learn of its perceived handicaps second? Why can't you just chalk this one up to "lesson learned" and quit bitching?

If you are sticking with the '01, ship it to OPM and get it as good as possible.

Your incessant whining on the forums will do NOTHING to achieve the parity you seek.

Back under my rock...
 
Posted by disquek (Member # 1576) on :
 
Here's the slightly funny part ... he's right.

When you let a car into the class, you make an implied promise that it will be competitive (able to win under equal prep levels).

The really funny part is that anybody with a brain would realize that including cars after the 1.6l car is this classes second biggest problem. It would be just as much fun with only the 1.6l car and there would be none of this parity BS.

Who can guess the #1 problem? I bet the tow truck driver at Road America knows.

But hey, this drama sure is fun to watch.

-Kyle
 
Posted by Tvance13 (Member # 15537) on :
 
Wow - I am now enlightened. Thanks for that clarity Steve. OPM - Who knew? I am loading the car on a flat bed as we speak. Problem solved.
 
Posted by guest driver (Member # 6109) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by disquek:
Here's the slightly funny part ... he's right.

When you let a car into the class, you make an implied promise that it will be competitive (able to win under equal prep levels).

The really funny part is that anybody with a brain would realize that including cars after the 1.6l car is this classes second biggest problem. It would be just as much fun with only the 1.6l car and there would be none of this parity BS.

Who can guess the #1 problem? I bet the tow truck driver at Road America knows.

But hey, this drama sure is fun to watch.

-Kyle

WOW , two reverse jedi mind trick meanings & agendas in one post [scratchchin] not bad ...
yes, he is right, in theory, "abstract" theory that is ... in the 'real' world, it don't work that way ... one must spend the time and money to develop their new, somewhat rare package ... or pay someone else to do it.
More important / relevant question is what your end goal is ; be competetive in Regionals, Nationals or RunOffs levels ...
if you know how to set up your car and can drive it, the first two levels are already there for the '01, the final level ...
lets see what 2010 brings.
 
Posted by Jason Holland (Member # 837) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PedalFaster:
Let's back up to first principles here. What's the benefit of making the '01 - '05 cars faster? As far as I can tell, it's (1) satisfying some people's concept of fairness and (2) helping the very small number of people currently trying to be competitive in cars of that generation.

Now, what's the risk? The risk is that any error that accidentally made the '01 - '05 cars faster than the other years would make it hugely more expensive to be competitive, not primarily because of the cost delta between an '01 donor and an earlier one, but rather because everyone who currently owns a non '01 - '05 car would have to pony up for one, and sell their now-uncompetitive earlier car at a loss.

One could reasonably argue that the SMAC and CRB could make very careful, incremental changes until the cars are in perfect balance, and this year's restrictor plate change suggests that that's exactly what they're doing. There's still danger here, though; even if they get it right in aggregate, as this year's Runoffs appear to be demonstrating, the '01 - '05's different torque characteristics could still make it dominant on key tracks (like where the ARRC or the Runoffs are held).

Seems to me that the worst case outcome of speeding up the '01 - '05 cars, even if somewhat unlikely, far outweighs the benefit in this case, and thus that we should leave well enough alone.

werd.
 
Posted by fixrim (Member # 704) on :
 
I can weigh in here.... No, I would not build another 01... Yeah it was close, but close in SM isn't enough.

And I don't race in the series any longer, but I would if they went to a simple crate motor program. Funny to see the threads of everyone fighting the same issues we have faced in SM nearly since its inception and certainly since it went national. I can't figure out what the fuss is about, because it is so simple to solve. You race at a national? Then you need a motor, sealed by mazda, to compete. No more "motor wars".

I now race a car that is a total riot to drive, has 500hp, goes 160mph, and costs about the same as a SM, and about the same to run it. That being said I miss racing with all you guys!
 
Posted by Gibscreen (Member # 2390) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fixrim:

I now race a car that is a total riot to drive, has 500hp, goes 160mph, and costs about the same as a SM, and about the same to run it. That being said I miss racing with all you guys!

Do tell.
 
Posted by fixrim (Member # 704) on :
 
It's a GTA car. I think the site is GTAChallenge dotcom.. we race at the ARRC this year... I wish we had more drivers, but they are fun todrive, and BTW, I have 2 so anyone want a rental???
 
Posted by EBudman (Member # 1982) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tvance13:
Wow - I am now enlightened. Thanks for that clarity Steve. OPM - Who knew? I am loading the car on a flat bed as we speak. Problem solved.

If I thought you were serious, I'd thank you, but I can sense your sarcasm.

I've got a $400 junkyard engine, should I be bitching about needing help because I've chosen to run it? Writing my letter to the CRB now, asking for turbocharging on non-pro powerplants... [Confused] I'll guarantee that there are more than 10 of us out there, so I'm sure the SMAC will hear our cries of despair...

Seriously, drive the damn thing or get rid of it. If you're upside down on your investment, welcome to the fu$#ing club.... that's racing!!

Eric
 
Posted by D.B. Cutler (Member # 1617) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EBudman:

Seriously, drive the damn thing or get rid of it. If you're upside down on your investment, welcome to the fu$#ing club.... that's racing!!

Eric[/QB]

[rolling on floor laughin] Awesome.
 
Posted by D.B. Cutler (Member # 1617) on :
 
I think the '94 - '96 cars need some help. They went a little too far on the changes they made for this season for those cars.

I've got a '91 and if they drop the weight anymore there's no way I will ever be able to get to the min.

Also, they should add 100 lbs to the '99s and maybe make them breathe through a soda straw.
 
Posted by fishguyaz (Member # 3927) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blake Clements:
And you built an 01 because?

Sell it and buy another car if its that bad....

as someone who left the class and is now returning to the class, what is said above is the real truth here.

as a buyer of a car, i have done my research and decided to buy a 99 car with a pro motor.
I also have looked at the 1.6 with a pro motor.
those are the only things i feel i would be happy with.

I also think there is something to be said about the phrase
"the enemy of good is better"

you guys( now myself included) have a darned good thing going. its a big class in most areas of the country.
i think if you keep fixing this class, it will become broken.
stability in rules is a good thing.
if the 01+ cars are not competitive, then.........dont race one, its not like there are not lots of the other year miatas to build.

rule #1 before getting into a race class is to research the rules, and the group, and make an educated decision on what you buy.

you will never have %100 parity unless all cars are the same generation, and all come from the same builder.

just enjoy what you already have, it is good enough to have many people buying into the class, like me.
Josh
 
Posted by AllardK3 (Member # 6130) on :
 
Josh,

Welcome back!

I heard a rumor that you are buying a certain blue car....

Will you be out at PIR this weekend with the porch?

Mike

Looking forward to runnign with ou again.
 
Posted by Drago (Member # 1406) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cajun Miata Man:
quote:
Originally posted by mdavis:
quote:
Originally posted by Sean Yepez:
quote:
Originally posted by Blake Clements:
quote:
Originally posted by Sean Yepez:


The 2001 may need a bigger plate, but it's impossible to know that without having a top-prepared 2001 there driven by a top driver.

How does anyone know that a top builder hasn't built an 01? Its obvious OPM has one. Others have built too.

I heard Bobby Carter's was real fast too?

I really have no idea. I haven't seen a competitive one run. It could very well be at a disadvantage (though I have no reason to think so), but someone needs to prove it. Mr. Vance has been asking for a bigger plate for the 2001 for a long time now, but until someone builds the SMAC a top 2001 or someone takes the time to put one together (and has a top driver try to win a race in it), it's really hard to say. I hear what Tyler's dad is saying (that no one at the Runoffs is campaigning one, but just because one isn't there, it doesn't mean they can't be fast.

Bobby said something about not being able to get his 2001 to where it needed to be, but I don't know how far he went in his motor development program with Rebello. I have a feeling there was more left on the table. It did okay at Laguna, but he said he was down on power. I think he got 7th (but qualified poorly).

My point was made above. Bob Stretch has moved on from SM but built a no expense spared 2001 and could not compete. Top notch driver, top notch build. Casey seems to know a thing or two about the 2001+ cars as well. Is everyone so scared that the car they have is going to be obsolete that we won't allow a different RP for the 2001+? How about someone put one on a dyno and make some real RP suggestions? Absent of that- I know how folks hate objective data- I'm going to propose a 48mm plate.
Oh... about objective data for William- there were over 80,000 Miata produced from 2001-2005.

Flame Away [flamed]

Bob's attempt at the 01 was BEFORE the adjustment to a larger RP. Bob built my 99 and a 1.6 for me so I was lucky enough to be a "friend" of Bob's. With the smaller RP, Bob indicated he would come up a few HP short of his 99, but better torque. I have seen dyno data of the effect of a 2 MM RP change. That gets the 01 up to roughly within 0.5 to 1.5 HP of his 99. How close is enough with more torque? Maybe we should give the SMAC/CRB some credit that they had similar dyno data they used to establish the present plate size.
James is exactly right. I did spend the money and build one of these cars, suggested that plate change I believe it needed. I never finished the car as I felt it would be hypocritical of me to run a car that I just approved a larger plate. With the 43 mm plate, a 01/05 car can get to within 2 hp of the best 99's and with more torque. Thats as close as I feel they should be at this time. It is not in the best interest of the class to make the most expensive car the "car to have" So if you have a 01/05 car, realize now that it will most likely never be the car to have, but it is certainly competitive now.
 
Posted by George Munson (Member # 6376) on :
 
Tvance13

I can't speak for the 2001 model but I have had dealings with OPM on another problem car earlier in my build. I drove 9 hours to let Tom work on my car after some local shops had said this was as good as it gets. Tom showed me 5 more HP's and car that is as good as anyones. Its worth a try in my humble opinion.

George Munson
 
Posted by EBudman (Member # 1982) on :
 
And there we have it. I knew I liked Drago for a reason.... who knew it was the voice of reason!?
 
Posted by D.B. Cutler (Member # 1617) on :
 
So with the results from the Runoffs, are their going to be new adjustments to the various models ? It certainly seems that RA requires a 99 in order to be competitive so I think it's reasonable to assume that 99s are what the fast guys are going to continue to bring there. I'm just wondering what the current thinking out there is as of today.

Now if you excuse me, I have to get the exhaust system off my 1.6L so that I can have it ceramic coated and wrapped. [Wink]
 
Posted by J.D. (Member # 15) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fixrim:
I can weigh in here.... No, I would not build another 01... Yeah it was close, but close in SM isn't enough.

And I don't race in the series any longer, but I would if they went to a simple crate motor program. Funny to see the threads of everyone fighting the same issues we have faced in SM nearly since its inception and certainly since it went national. I can't figure out what the fuss is about, because it is so simple to solve. You race at a national? Then you need a motor, sealed by mazda, to compete. No more "motor wars".

I now race a car that is a total riot to drive, has 500hp, goes 160mph, and costs about the same as a SM, and about the same to run it. That being said I miss racing with all you guys!

Miss seeing you out there too!
 
Posted by J.D. (Member # 15) on :
 
Clearly the '99 is faster. I liked the 5 car race we saw yesterday but what it suggest is not what SM means to me.

At this point I think weight is the way. No need to completely re-tune and/or retool RPs.

The '99 needs 100 pounds.

The '01-'05 needs 50 pounds.

The '94-'95 needs 25 less pounds
(and/or I still think it should be forced to run the 4.3 gear at some point)

Then lets get through another Runoffs and see....

I also support sealed motors for all of SM so long as Mazda or Enterprises does the program. I made this known quietly some time ago. Until we get the motors the same for everyone we will never know how much weight to add or subtract for parity. Personally, I'm not able to keep up with all the builders, tricks, tech legal dos / donts, it has gone a bit far.

Moreover, until we have sealed motors we will always have to race "that" guy in our divisions who is clearly pushing the rules in a tech-less atmosphere....

I hate it for those making a living on SM but hope they remember that its class first, vendors second........

It will be an interesting winter, my sabbatical is over....
 
Posted by Sean Yepez (Member # 2842) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by J.D.:
Clearly the '99 is faster. I liked the 5 car race we saw yesterday but what it suggest is not what SM means to me.

At this point I think weight is the way. No need to completely re-tune and/or retool RPs.

The '99 needs 100 pounds.

The '01-'05 needs 50 pounds.

The '94-'95 needs 25 less pounds
(and/or I still think it should be forced to run the 4.3 gear at some point)

Then lets get through another Runoffs and see....

I also support sealed motors for all of SM so long as Mazda or Enterprises does the program. I made this known quietly some time ago. Until we get the motors the same for everyone we will never know how much weight to add or subtract for parity. Personally, I'm not able to keep up with all the builders, tricks, tech legal dos / donts, it has gone a bit far.

Moreover, until we have sealed motors we will always have to race "that" guy in our divisions who is clearly pushing the rules in a tech-less atmosphere....

I hate it for those making a living on SM but hope they remember that its class first, vendors second........

It will be an interesting winter, my sabbatical is over....

Great points, Jim. It is no coincidence that many guys who ran in 1.8's last year decided to stay home in 2009 (mostly at the National level but some at the Regional level as well).

I think you are spot on with your assessment of which car needs help and which needs to be slowed down. The only thing I would be concerned about is the '99 carrying another 100 pounds since that might equate to almost 300 pounds of ballast for some. Is it safe for a Miata to carry that much lead? Maybe a smaller plate would be better in addition to a more moderate weight increase (or further weight reduction for the other cars, i.e. 2275/2350/2475).
 
Posted by Sean Allen (Member # 3800) on :
 
Wasn't there some discussion for a three year rule freeze that started the beginning of this season? I thought I remember Drago saying something about that...
 
Posted by pat slattery (Member # 1254) on :
 
Maybe we need to handicap more by track.
 
Posted by pat slattery (Member # 1254) on :
 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sean Allen:
[QB] Wasn't there some discussion for a three year rule freeze that started the beginning of this season? I thought I remember Drago saying something about that...

I will bet they would like a three year freeze [Roll Eyes]

Pat
 
Posted by B Wilson (Member # 606) on :
 
.
 
Posted by cnj (Member # 13716) on :
 
Jim, are you just stirring the pot (a common activity on this site for many) or are you seriously suggesting that 99's should add 100 pounds (ie.run at 2550), thus 265 lbs more than a 1.6?

If you or anyone else is serious about this then I have a few questions for you:

1. Can you please show a normalized national set of results data that indicates that this is what is needed?

2. Can you present data proving your point which was developed via side by side comparisons of the cars (same driver, same day and averaged across a range of tracks which are suspected to favor one car against another)?

3. Please explain why 100lbs? In other words how much exactly will this slow the cars down on average, how does this work out in race conditions? Please also cover the issue of driving a much heavier car in rain conditions.

4. Have you done any work to prove that this change would not increase operating costs on tire, brake pad and other items? If it does make the 99 more expensive to operate, do you care?

5. Why do you think that the NASA race was won by a 1.6 against 99's? Andy is a good driver (I am used to seeing him in front of me), but is he that good that parity would have suggested an additional 100lbs on 99's in the Miller race?

I'm all for parity, but for goodness sakes please prove the point factually or don't start up a crazy debate that could cost a lot of us money. Under these suggestions I would have to carry 200lbs in my car. Not only to I have serious questions about how to do this safely, but more importantly the added weight results in a crappy car to drive rather than the fun, responsive car I built.

If the complete data does in fact show that more parity is required, then make some suggestions to speed up the 1.6 rather than screwing up the 99 to meet the goal.

Craig J
 
Posted by Sean Yepez (Member # 2842) on :
 
I know Jim will respond with much greater expertise (and objectivity considering he has access to all the models). Regardless, if you look to see what cars have been winning all year, you will see that the '99 has won the overwhelming majority of major races (such as the Runoffs, Sprints, Road Atlanta National, etc.).

Additionally, I do not believe the results of the NASA Championships should be relevant to SCCA parity discussions. It was a great race, but I think it has a different dynamic than the SCCA Runoffs. There were also significantly fewer '99 cars entered at Miller. Finally, they missed a rather significant tech issue in 2008. I must say that I trust SCCA results a bit more at this point.

I understand where you are coming from with regards to a competition minimum weight of 2550. The cars should be safe, responsive, and fun, and a weight increase of this magnitude would certainly diminish these characteristics. However, it is very difficult to speed up the 1.6 because it does not have a plate and many drivers cannot make weight even as the rules are written. Unless the '99 takes on a smaller plate, it does seem like a weight increase is needed (and more than just a cursory one). Remember, all sandbagging ends at the Runoffs. Once the chips fell, the top 7 spots were taken by '99 cars with the fast lap from the 1.6 over a full second back and the fast lap from the 1.8 over two seconds back. It is possible and even perhaps probable that both cars could have had better showings if they were "driven better" or if they were "better builds." However, it is difficult for me to overlook the fact that all the fast 1.8 cars and drivers disappeared this year as a mere coincidence.

Therefore, we are left with the idea that a '99 is practically required to win the Runoffs. To me, that is very discouraging and, as Jim Daniels stated, in significant conflict with what SM should be especially considering the '99 is one of the most expensive cars to build. Jim's right. The 1.6 should stay the same because it is as fast as it can be without making the majority of the class pay for upgrades and/or reducing the minimum weight even further. The 1.8 needs a little bit of help and the '99 needs to give a little bit back. [twocents]

Hey, look on the bright side! With regards to operating costs, a smaller plate could theoretically decrease your fuel bill. [Wink]

[ 09-28-2009, 12:51 AM: Message edited by: Sean Yepez ]
 
Posted by Mike Tesch (Member # 2991) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by J.D.:

The '94-'95 needs 25 less pounds
(and/or I still think it should be forced to run the 4.3 gear at some point)


I think this point is dead on. Rear gear ratio is a variable that shouldn't be... they should all be the same. At some tracks the 4.10 is an advantage, others it's a dis-advantage.

Yea it might cost the 94-97 drivers a few dollars, but it needs to be done.

Just my $.02 worth, and probably not worth that.
 
Posted by cnj (Member # 13716) on :
 
Sean, thank you for your interest in reducing my fuel bill. Always good to know someone is looking out for me .

I simply ask that the data used to support any changes be balanced, objective and complete. I don't buy that one race at one track defines viable test data. Informs it yes, but not defines it.

To a couple of your points.

I sure hope that people have not been sandbagging all through the SW Div season. I didn't (although its an interesting excuse for me to use) and I don't think that Aaron McSpadden and James York (both in 99's and strong drivers with extremely well prepared cars) were sandbagging when they got beaten by 90's. In a field with multiple 99's the SW Div had 90's in 2nd, 3rd and 5th positions at the end of the year points tally. Both Verges and Rushing were in the thick of every race in their 90's and certainly not 1 second off the pace at any track.

Not including the NASA championship in the data set sounds pretty selective to me.

Is the 99 the car to run at RA? The data exclusively from that track and that race certainly seems to support that supposition. My concern would be any proposal to use this single and limited data set in a decision that affects hundreds of racers racing at dozens of tracks around the country.


So what do I propose? Well I think that the leadership at both SCCA and NASA are fully engaged in this issue of parity and probably will not make a radical change, if any. To the extent that they do, I would hope it includes actual testing data and largely ignores political pressure from people (includng me) on this site.

In the event complete data indicates the 99 needs to be slowed (or the 90/94 sped up) then I would happily go to a smaller restrictor on the 99 - and even might accept more weight if that was also proven effective. I doubt either will.

What are the performance goal posts? We should NOT have rules that:

a. Allow a lighter car to go deeper into the braking zone, move faster through tight sections of the track and then initially accelerate faster out of the corner.

b. Allow a car with more torque/power to catch up to lighter cars on longer straights, and pass them for no other reason than the motor.

c. Have differences in how the cars deal with tire behavior in the middle and end of the race.

Personally I would support sealed, identical motors across the board (ie 1800's in all cars) which would obviate all this parity debate. Of course this (along with several other suggestions for parity) were suggested by others, notably Jason Saini and they were shot down. Instead we have perceptions of COTY and people swapping cars and installing $7K motors.

Craig J
 
Posted by Andy Bettencourt (Member # 906) on :
 
Bottom line? For SM, Road America may just be a horrible track for the Runoff's. Making parity decisions based on a power track will hurt regional racing across the country.
 
Posted by J.D. (Member # 15) on :
 
Craig, I listed my opinion, it does stir the pot, it is how I feel. Not sure what you are insinuating about "this site", I rarely post anymore? The nature of forums is to bitch and well, discuss, have fun, vent. Would not be a very popular site if we all acted civil and did not have some man drama.

Forget anything I'm saying and just ask the top 4 guys why they race a '99. Maybe just to spend more or the cool headlights? I'm not sure what proof you want but I hope you find it.

That is all im going to say on the subject, I sent my CRB letter, one member one vote. To say more would require that I divulge knowledge that could possible hurt my own future racing ventures. I'm done leaking out my prep, hope you understand.

I would like to add one thing. If the 1.6 is not a front running car at the Runoffs every year, SM will die. New people to racing, looking at SM, are budget minded. To keep them coming the low cost car must be competitive. From where im sitting now, a $40k '99 that you dyno tune with 5 different $5k motors and twice as many heads (not included in the $40k) is not the class those new folks will be looking at.

My "class first" philosophy has been satisfied, I will rest easy at night. Now back to JD the racer......

In the good old days we brought one of each car to see what the fastest one was...... I sure wish we were back to those low cost days (pot stir yes).... IMO (no H)
 
Posted by cnj (Member # 13716) on :
 
Jim, thanks for responding. I was not intending to insinuate anything about your posting or the site. If my post read that way to you then I apologize. My point was that parity decisions should not be unduly influenced by politics (ie. how many forum posts support one way or the other).

As to you expressing just one persons opinion, I think you undersell yourself substantially. Your opinions influence many in this crowd.

To be clear, I am not against changing any of the cars if the complete data indicates it is needed. My preference is to not screw up the fun of any in the class. In my opinion 100lbs would make my car far less rewarding to drive and I doubt will bring parity in the areas I mention in my second post.

Well this is the most I have posted on any subject in 3 years of reading this site - so I will step aside on the subject for a while.

Craig J
 
Posted by Gatoratty (Member # 15983) on :
 
RA is a three year contract. We will have to see what happens next year.
 
Posted by David Dewhurst (Member # 759) on :
 
***Bottom line? For SM, Road America may just be a horrible track for the Runoff's. Making parity decisions based on a power track will hurt regional racing across the country.***

Andy, that ^ is a very closed minded SCCA traditionalist statement. How about we think outside the SCCA box. As I have stated & as Slattery stated, how about a different parity maker for Road America & other similar tracks. At Road America when a car leaves T14 there is a 100 foot vertical rise over approx 840 foot run. The run from T14 to the first brake marker KILLS the 1.6...................... The MMP track is flat as hell, hence the 1.6's did very well towards the 99's. They also don't have many 99's on the left coast. The fiken track is FLAT........................... From my observations the 1.6 is in good shape at many other venues. They maybe didn't win their share but they sure as hell didn't get abused like they do at Road America. Slattery was the best placing 1.6 at the Runoffs while being 30 seconds rearward. 30 seconds is damn neer a mile back which means Slattery was approx in the Kink when the checkered flag fell.

My CRB letter is next........... Here it comes Bud Light guy. [help] If Steve would get his 1.6 preped to the n'th degree I'll get Loshak to do several tests at Road America. Bud Light guy, is the driver good enough for you? [laughing] My only request will be for thinking outside the box to have parity at Road America.
 
Posted by Gatoratty (Member # 15983) on :
 
I would hate to see changes made due to thirty-eight cars running at a single track. Parity is an issue that affects the entire class from regionals to nationals. Don't screw with the class just to equalize cars at the runoffs...most of us are regional or divisional racers and are not running for a national Championship or the June Sprints. Let's have some stability in the rules.
 
Posted by David Dewhurst (Member # 759) on :
 
***My only request will be for thinking outside the box to have parity at Road America.**&

Paul, if you don't race at Road America it isn't an issue. [nope] Why should the 99's force the 1.6's to stay home from Road America for either a Regional, a National or for the Runoffs? Combined there are 5 to 7 Regional/Nationals there per year plus the Runoffs for the next two years & maybe more years.

Maybe you should talk some of those fast 1.6's from the left coast to come & play at Road America like they did at MMP. [duck] If no one has posted the probable results for the FAST 1.6's they will.
 
Posted by B Wilson (Member # 606) on :
 
A lot of the fastest 1.6 guys on the left coast were the victims of the economy. Travel to the runoffs, 2 weeks off with no idea how our cars will fair against the Mid/East coast 99s pretty much seals the deal. The super fast 94 guys have moved on to other things and HooverSpeed moved to the East coast.

Currently building a new 1.6 with all the best stuff. My car was totalled in June. We'll see what we can do next year. Sponsorship might help [Smile]

JD Said it all. Too bad it came to this.

-b
 
Posted by tony senese (Member # 3677) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EBudman:

I've got a $400 junkyard engine, should I be bitching about needing help because I've chosen to run it? Writing my letter to the CRB now, asking for turbocharging on non-pro powerplants... [Confused] I'll guarantee that there are more than 10 of us out there, so I'm sure the SMAC will hear our cries of despair...

Seriously, drive the damn thing or get rid of it. If you're upside down on your investment, welcome to the fu$#ing club.... that's racing!!

Eric

Damn it, Damn it, Damn it! my junkyard motor cost $500!!!!
 
Posted by J.D. (Member # 15) on :
 
One coil wire comes off a car that was waiting for the last lap to drive by and you guys actually think the 1.6 is fast, sad.

I don't own any car but could easily be bias given my friendships. But, that aint how it works for me. I call it like I see it, class first. The easy route is to just build the fastest and exploit the rules, still lots of holes I see. That is what I will do come spring (well, come the first weekend that the rules are locked in for the Runoffs). A search back will show that from time to time I interject, from the first SMAC to now. It wont last long but everyone will know I tried, that is my only goal. At some point, I will have no problem using the rules we have to race the best car (prep and protests).

As of right now, I would not take a 1.6, that I built, to any track where a top driver was in even a shelf built '99. Or where an average driver was in a custom tuned, hand selected component, car. Some of you may be able to get the 1.6 to race better than I, power to you. Speaking for myself, a 1.6 is a knife at a gun fight, everywhere, if they are all Runoffs tech legal with top drivers.

I will choose the gun personally. But the new kid and his family cant and wont. That is my concern. I get hundreds of emails a year, telling them they cant be competitive unless they buy xyz... just sucks and is NOT what SM is about.

I'm not suggesting that a $500 motor be the norm. History lesson aside, im the first person to run a pro motor in the class, im the guy that got many started in the class, im the guy that buys 5 motors to find the best, im the single person that pushed for the '99 to be classed, long before many of you were racing and im the first person to build a '99 2 years before I got the car approved. Some of this is a bit patronizing to me, I kind of understand the class, a little. To quote the 4th founder, that no one acknowledges.... "Jim was fired as SMAC Chairman before the current SMAC was racing in SM". I only quote that as I suspect we have some new folks with '99s wondering what the hell I know.... It aint much, but may qualify me to call this scenario.

The notion of making the 1.6 faster is ridicules. The class was formed on that car and each car added was done so for car count not to make the 1.6 obsolete. The builders of the new cars to the class are the folks who should spend the money to conform, not the core cars (ratio alone settles that to me).

I'm sorry you had to build a '99 to beat your local 1.6 guy or another '99, it should not be that way. But, nothing in the rules says the class has to protect your '99 anymore than the scores of 1.6s that need help. That help need not be at their expense, they are bystanders to the '99 and its rule package, not the other way around.

No, I dont think 300 pounds is unsafe personally or to much. But, a 35mm plate would be ok too.... Cost wise, cheaper to add weight due to tuning, head design etc...

Folks who can make a difference know what needs to be done. The eyes should be on them as it is in every class with a overdog situation. What SCCA does to slow down the SSC Accura is similar to what they need to do to the '99. In fact, it is an easier decision in SM as it was not just one overdog to single out. Watch other classes, look to see what the CRB does to the fast cars, insist the CRB do something similar to the '99 in our class. The time for waiting and speculating is over, the overdog is clear now, INSIST!

There is always the mass protest method, it works too I guess....

SoH time.......
 
Posted by tburas (Member # 993) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by J.D.:


I would like to add one thing. If the 1.6 is not a front running car at the Runoffs every year, SM will die.
(no H)

A wise man told me 1.6 drivers are asking for the wrong thing, How do we speed up the 1.6. WRONG QUESTION... The correct question, "How do we slow down the 99" Answer "Purchase a new $20 dollar RP...
 
Posted by Chris70 (Member # 2184) on :
 
The way I see it take the 35 lbs from the 94/97 and give it to the 99. Just take a look at the asking prices for the different years and you will see that the initial cost of a donor does NOT justify the current prices of the 99s as the sm kit prices and the labor to build a new car is just about the same. What does justify 99 prices in the 30s ?
 
Posted by mat pombo (Member # 1527) on :
 
My opinion is give the 94-97 35lbs off. Give the 1.6L cars the old aluminum clutch and a 3 lb lighter spec flywheel (find one to spec) and we are in business. I have a top '99 and a top 1.6L car. You all see which one I drove. Make the above changes and I will be torn.


To me. If I have a 1.6L car, a $1500 investment to make my car competitive is much cheaper than building a new model. Also, you may ask why do we need to spend money to do it? Why not give the '99 a smaller restrictor? Because if you look at the hp/weight numbers the '99 and 1.6L cars are close. The issue is the torque. Give the 1.6L cars the clutch/flywheel and you will affect torque without giving it a hp advantage.

Lastly, we could spec a new cam for the 1.6L car. But this is a bit farther from the sealed engine initiative.

My 2 cents. Leave the '99 alone and give the other cars help. If you add 100lbs, we will be having the same discussion next year regarding the '99 instead of the 1.6L.

Mat
 
Posted by Danny Steyn (Member # 7356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tburas:
quote:
Originally posted by J.D.:


I would like to add one thing. If the 1.6 is not a front running car at the Runoffs every year, SM will die.
(no H)

A wise man told me 1.6 drivers are asking for the wrong thing, How do we speed up the 1.6. WRONG QUESTION... The correct question, "How do we slow down the 99" Answer "Purchase a new $20 dollar RP...
Todd - if we are to slow down the '99, I think this is the way. Not agreeing to this of course [Smile]

Adding weight will only compound the problem that the 99 has already - tires going off faster than on the lighter 1.6's. Lots of data on Mylaps that shows this.

Personally if weight is added, I just might be the guy that starts a search for a good 1.6 or considers building a new one.

Todd any interest in selling that UNDERDOG of yours? If so call or PM me - I saw what it did to us OVERDOGS at Daytona!!!!
 
Posted by mat pombo (Member # 1527) on :
 
Even better, we could all be required to dyno our cars after each session and add weight to get parity (i.e normalize the wt/hp and wt/torque with ballast). It would keep the rediculous $$$ people spend on development to get more hp, because they will just have to carry more weight. I think the sprints and runoffs are where this should occur. Add the ARRC, regional championships, etc. should you like.
 
Posted by J.D. (Member # 15) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mat pombo:
My opinion is give the 94-97 35lbs off. Give the 1.6L cars the old aluminum clutch and a 3 lb lighter spec flywheel (find one to spec) and we are in business. I have a top '99 and a top 1.6L car. You all see which one I drove. Make the above changes and I will be torn.


To me. If I have a 1.6L car, a $1500 investment to make my car competitive is much cheaper than building a new model. Also, you may ask why do we need to spend money to do it? Why not give the '99 a smaller restrictor? Because if you look at the hp/weight numbers the '99 and 1.6L cars are close. The issue is the torque. Give the 1.6L cars the clutch/flywheel and you will affect torque without giving it a hp advantage.

Lastly, we could spec a new cam for the 1.6L car. But this is a bit farther from the sealed engine initiative.

My 2 cents. Leave the '99 alone and give the other cars help. If you add 100lbs, we will be having the same discussion next year regarding the '99 instead of the 1.6L.

Mat

I forgot about the clutch, my memory is the one I have has always been a paper weight. [Wink] Good points Doc, would work too.

I've not seen a '99 I helped setup run the tires off as of yet.... Take a peak at the top '99s on Mylaps, look where their fastest race lap is [Smile]

BTW, I dont much care if my times fall off if I win by 10 seconds [Razz]
 
Posted by Drago (Member # 1406) on :
 
CRB hat on...
We have data from the following cars and we will analyze it from start to finish.

99's
Gorrarian
Drago
Vanvurst

1.8's
Beaver and Gerber

1.6's
Verges and Slattery

I think we have a good sample of what these cars are making and feel it is fair to say that all of the data box samples are cars I would say are top notch or very close.

It is imperative for the 1.6 to be competitive for the health of SM. If the data shows that the early 1.8 and or the 1.6 can not compete. Changes will be made. I have been the biggest proponent of rules stability, but over stability, it is important that all versions of the cars can truly win.

Also look for much stricter and very defined do's and don't's with Cylinder heads and valve jobs over the next few months. The FSM is not near specific enough and the cars need to be reigned back in closer to stock and/or a very specific and enforceable rules set on heads needs to be established. I am working on something as I type and we will have a better and completely enforceable rule with go/no go tools etc as they have in some of the other classes. This will take some of the advantage pro motor builders have over the local machine shops etc.
Thanks again
Jim
 
Posted by pat slattery (Member # 1254) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by J.D.:
One coil wire comes off a car that was waiting for the last lap to drive by and you guys actually think the 1.6 is fast, sad.

I don't own any car but could easily be bias given my friendships. But, that aint how it works for me. I call it like I see it, class first. The easy route is to just build the fastest and exploit the rules, still lots of holes I see. That is what I will do come spring (well, come the first weekend that the rules are locked in for the Runoffs). A search back will show that from time to time I interject, from the first SMAC to now. It wont last long but everyone will know I tried, that is my only goal. At some point, I will have no problem using the rules we have to race the best car (prep and protests).

As of right now, I would not take a 1.6, that I built, to any track where a top driver was in even a shelf built '99. Or where an average driver was in a custom tuned, hand selected component, car. Some of you may be able to get the 1.6 to race better than I, power to you. Speaking for myself, a 1.6 is a knife at a gun fight, everywhere, if they are all Runoffs tech legal with top drivers.

I will choose the gun personally. But the new kid and his family cant and wont. That is my concern. I get hundreds of emails a year, telling them they cant be competitive unless they buy xyz... just sucks and is NOT what SM is about.

I'm not suggesting that a $500 motor be the norm. History lesson aside, im the first person to run a pro motor in the class, im the guy that got many started in the class, im the guy that buys 5 motors to find the best, im the single person that pushed for the '99 to be classed, long before many of you were racing and im the first person to build a '99 2 years before I got the car approved. Some of this is a bit patronizing to me, I kind of understand the class, a little. To quote the 4th founder, that no one acknowledges.... "Jim was fired as SMAC Chairman before the current SMAC was racing in SM". I only quote that as I suspect we have some new folks with '99s wondering what the hell I know.... It aint much, but may qualify me to call this scenario.

The notion of making the 1.6 faster is ridicules. The class was formed on that car and each car added was done so for car count not to make the 1.6 obsolete. The builders of the new cars to the class are the folks who should spend the money to conform, not the core cars (ratio alone settles that to me).

I'm sorry you had to build a '99 to beat your local 1.6 guy or another '99, it should not be that way. But, nothing in the rules says the class has to protect your '99 anymore than the scores of 1.6s that need help. That help need not be at their expense, they are bystanders to the '99 and its rule package, not the other way around.

No, I dont think 300 pounds is unsafe personally or to much. But, a 35mm plate would be ok too.... Cost wise, cheaper to add weight due to tuning, head design etc...

Folks who can make a difference know what needs to be done. The eyes should be on them as it is in every class with a overdog situation. What SCCA does to slow down the SSC Accura is similar to what they need to do to the '99. In fact, it is an easier decision in SM as it was not just one overdog to single out. Watch other classes, look to see what the CRB does to the fast cars, insist the CRB do something similar to the '99 in our class. The time for waiting and speculating is over, the overdog is clear now, INSIST!

There is always the mass protest method, it works too I guess....

SoH time.......

AMEN!!!!

Pat Slattery
1.6 owner
 
Posted by pat slattery (Member # 1254) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Drago:
CRB hat on...
We have data from the following cars and we will analyze it from start to finish.

99's
Gorrarian
Drago
Vanvurst

1.8's
Beaver and Gerber

1.6's
Verges and Slattery

I think we have a good sample of what these cars are making and feel it is fair to say that all of the data box samples are cars I would say are top notch or very close.

It is imperative for the 1.6 to be competitive for the health of SM. If the data shows that the early 1.8 and or the 1.6 can not compete. Changes will be made. I have been the biggest proponent of rules stability, but over stability, it is important that all versions of the cars can truly win.

Also look for much stricter and very defined do's and don't's with Cylinder heads and valve jobs over the next few months. The FSM is not near specific enough and the cars need to be reigned back in closer to stock and/or a very specific and enforceable rules set on heads needs to be established. I am working on something as I type and we will have a better and completely enforceable rule with go/no go tools etc as they have in some of the other classes. This will take some of the advantage pro motor builders have over the local machine shops etc.
Thanks again
Jim

Jim, it would be great if they would share the data to the Spec Miata Community.


Pat
 
Posted by J.D. (Member # 15) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gatoratty:
I would hate to see changes made due to thirty-eight cars running at a single track. Parity is an issue that affects the entire class from regionals to nationals. Don't screw with the class just to equalize cars at the runoffs...most of us are regional or divisional racers and are not running for a national Championship or the June Sprints. Let's have some stability in the rules.

Less of many evils....

I think you leave out a very important component. This element is SCCA and NASA wide, not just SM. Regional and Divisional championships are decided by points, not a single win. Thus, any rule package designed for parity at a single track should be damn close in any points based series.

The main focus needs to be "coin toss" parity at the NASA and SCCA single race championships. The rest will settle itself out via the points systems they are governed under.

I understand that teams have different goals. Some folks use their SM to do track days, some to autocross. But, as a national class, the goal and focus is on that national level and the rules need to be addressed from that perspective.

Thanks for the note Mr. Drago!
 
Posted by Cajun Miata Man (Member # 1374) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mat pombo:
Give the 1.6L cars the old aluminum clutch and a 3 lb lighter spec flywheel (find one to spec) and we are in business.

Why not give the '99 a smaller restrictor? Because if you look at the hp/weight numbers the '99 and 1.6L cars are close. The issue is the torque. Give the 1.6L cars the clutch/flywheel and you will affect torque without giving it a hp advantage.

Mat

I like this proposal verses carrying a bunch more weight on my 99. RA does favor the 99 cars due to the elevation changes I can't deny it.

Verges talked to me after the race and spelled it out, "The 1.6L just can't race a 99 at RA. The early car can't drive trough the car in front at the apex, and the result from having it's speed checked, is that the 99 in front and any behind just line up and use the torque to motor past." Kieth qualified 5th, the top 1.6L car and finished 14th with Slattery being the top 1.6L in 8th in the race.

Keith successfully ran his 1.6L winning a race and finishing 3rd in our division. Obviously, our tracks our pretty flat in TX so hills don't play a part. At some tracks his car was better than the competition and others worse.

I think making adjustments to modify the effective torque of the 1.6L is better than throwing weight on the 99 which translate into so much more than just slowing the acceleration down.

That's my 2 cents for what it is worth.
 
Posted by Drago (Member # 1406) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pat slattery:
quote:
Originally posted by Drago:
CRB hat on...
We have data from the following cars and we will analyze it from start to finish.

99's
Gorrarian
Drago
Vanvurst

1.8's
Beaver and Gerber

1.6's
Verges and Slattery

I think we have a good sample of what these cars are making and feel it is fair to say that all of the data box samples are cars I would say are top notch or very close.

It is imperative for the 1.6 to be competitive for the health of SM. If the data shows that the early 1.8 and or the 1.6 can not compete. Changes will be made. I have been the biggest proponent of rules stability, but over stability, it is important that all versions of the cars can truly win.

Also look for much stricter and very defined do's and don't's with Cylinder heads and valve jobs over the next few months. The FSM is not near specific enough and the cars need to be reigned back in closer to stock and/or a very specific and enforceable rules set on heads needs to be established. I am working on something as I type and we will have a better and completely enforceable rule with go/no go tools etc as they have in some of the other classes. This will take some of the advantage pro motor builders have over the local machine shops etc.
Thanks again
Jim

Jim, it would be great if they would share the data to the Spec Miata Community.


Pat

Pat
The SCCA will not share any competitors data. However, we will give you the data we collected from your car. If you chose to share it, you may. So you need to read between the lines here. I will share mine as I have nothing to hide ( otherthan a few lifts in the kink when I couldn't see behind Todd. [Confused] So start working on the others on the list. Regardless of what others do, anyone, and I mean anyone who asks can have mine.

Jim
 
Posted by 38BFAST (Member # 3720) on :
 
Data was collected using what system? Traqmate?
 
Posted by J.D. (Member # 15) on :
 
Just for fun.....

Peak at the rules from C2K I did with Motorola Cup, 10 years ago. The '99 I used in that series is the basis for where the '99 started in SM (Turned into Tim Evans' SSB then SM car).

We did not class the older car, no way to be competitive with the bolt on limitations of the day. Notice the rule change, took some heavy politics to get those cams, intake etc... included (lol, some things never change)

http://www.motorolacup.com/index1.html
 
Posted by Andy Rushing (Member # 2467) on :
 
There are problems with trying to use the lighter flywheel to cure the problem the 1.6 is having at RA... The speed the cars are at when they hit The Hill at RA is probably too high for the lighter flywheel to make a measurable enough difference--the cars just aren't changing in speed enough at that point for it to make a difference. Also, for those three spots on the track where the cars get into 5th gear (where I'm sure the 1.6 starts to get killed as well), the lighter flywheel will not help enough.
 
Posted by B Wilson (Member # 606) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Andy Rushing:
There are problems with trying to use the lighter flywheel to cure the problem the 1.6 is having at RA... The speed the cars are at when they hit The Hill at RA is probably too high for the lighter flywheel to make a measurable enough difference--the cars just aren't changing in speed enough at that point for it to make a difference. Also, for those three spots on the track where the cars get into 5th gear (where I'm sure the 1.6 starts to get killed as well), the lighter flywheel will not help enough.

Wouldn't Cams be much easier to spec, build, install, and enforce? I was against it last year, but perhaps it should be explored as an option.

-b
 
Posted by fastbrewer (Member # 4191) on :
 
Are there now enough '99s to justify a basis for an SM2 type class that can run without the restrictor and less min. weight? It would be a faster class with the same great handling car we all know and love!

Compete against the 01-05's and possibly handicap the 05+ MX5's to have the next evolution in a Spec Mazda Club Racing class

I know that's the last thing we need in Club Racing is another class but it would greatly simplify the 1.6 vs. '99 debate!
It would also be (in my opinion) less difficult to balance the 1.6-1.8


And one last thing, Thanks JD for sharing more history on the evolution of this class. It is very enlightening to read and study for those like me who are only into it in my 3rd year!

-Jon
 
Posted by Roger Caddell (Member # 687) on :
 
Jim,

I am willing to donate some time to help with the data analysis if you feel it can help.

quote:
Originally posted by Drago:
CRB hat on...
We have data from the following cars and we will analyze it from start to finish.

99's
Gorrarian
Drago
Vanvurst

1.8's
Beaver and Gerber

1.6's
Verges and Slattery

I think we have a good sample of what these cars are making and feel it is fair to say that all of the data box samples are cars I would say are top notch or very close.

It is imperative for the 1.6 to be competitive for the health of SM. If the data shows that the early 1.8 and or the 1.6 can not compete. Changes will be made. I have been the biggest proponent of rules stability, but over stability, it is important that all versions of the cars can truly win.

Also look for much stricter and very defined do's and don't's with Cylinder heads and valve jobs over the next few months. The FSM is not near specific enough and the cars need to be reigned back in closer to stock and/or a very specific and enforceable rules set on heads needs to be established. I am working on something as I type and we will have a better and completely enforceable rule with go/no go tools etc as they have in some of the other classes. This will take some of the advantage pro motor builders have over the local machine shops etc.
Thanks again
Jim


 
Posted by Greg Garneau (Member # 1704) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fastbrewer:
Are there now enough '99s to justify a basis for an SM2 type class that can run without the restrictor and less min. weight? It would be a faster class with the same great handling car we all know and love!

Compete against the 01-05's and possibly handicap the 05+ MX5's to have the next evolution in a Spec Mazda Club Racing class

I know that's the last thing we need in Club Racing is another class but it would greatly simplify the 1.6 vs. '99 debate!
It would also be (in my opinion) less difficult to balance the 1.6-1.8


And one last thing, Thanks JD for sharing more history on the evolution of this class. It is very enlightening to read and study for those like me who are only into it in my 3rd year!

-Jon

That's what I have thinking all along... Take the SSM class and make all the 1.6's conform to those rules. Have SM2 for all the 1.8 cars and adjust them accordingly.
 
Posted by fastbrewer (Member # 4191) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Garneau:
That's what I have thinking all along... Take the SSM class and make all the 1.6's conform to those rules. Have SM2 for all the 1.8 cars and adjust them accordingly. [/QB]

For the record my suggestion was to leave the 1.6's the way they are WRT current rules and weights. Not as restrictive as SSM. Maybe adjust the 94-97 1.8's a bit for weight but also leave them alone, or maybe allow the 94-97 the 4.3 rear end as well.

SM2 would be for all 99+ cars

-Jon
 
Posted by Casey Z (Member # 3575) on :
 
Good discussion going on here. It is productive and reasoned, I had to check and see what website I was on! [rolling on floor laughin]

I promised to keep my mouth shut about parity till after the runoff's so now I can weigh in. I think everyone realizes something has to be done, the question is what. The first step is to get the CRB/SMAC to analyze the data that was gathered. But not just the data, the data will need to be analyzed in concert with the video of the race to try to determine when a car was in the draft, etc as that has a huge effect. Once that is done we will know if we are off by .01% or 10%. Then you can start looking for solutions.

Having spent a lot of time analyzing this in the past based on some pretty good data sets I can tell you that just throwing weight/RP at the cars will not get us where we need to be. The root cause has always been torque, and weight/RP are not effective ways to address the torque disparity.

There are several approaches to solving the problem, cams, flywheel, clutch, etc. Before we can pick the right one we need the results of the data from RA.

BTW, I think splitting the class is the last option I would consider. [twocents]
 
Posted by Sean Allen (Member # 3800) on :
 
If the class is split, I'm finding another class to race in.
 
Posted by d mathias (Member # 343) on :
 
Whatever is done the primary goal should be to reduce cost and encourage new participants.

When I read about 'motor development programs', owning multiple generations for various track/conditions, 'all-out' builds, it bears little resemblance to the class I joined 8 years ago, and I doubt that SM is now the class that the originators envisioned. You know, low cost, entry level, rewards driver ability?
 
Posted by Qik Nip (Member # 1474) on :
 
I'm struck that we're discussing a complicated set of variables without always considering the effect they have on one another. For example Miller is flat and the 1.6's did well there. RA has lots of elevation changes and the 99's were the car dejure there.
My take away is that we are going to see tracks where different chassis / engine combinations are advantageous. Add to that the fact that there was a push a few years back by the top guns to build 99's and we now have a lot of that vintage SM's being wheeled by hot shoes who have gone to school on the set up and engines for two plus years.
The result is anything but surprising.
Rick
 
Posted by David Dewhurst (Member # 759) on :
 
As we are blue skying a future do we know how many of each car are out there? Economy & the presumed results at the 09 Runoffs on the hills of Road America may well have contributed to the number of 1.6 & 94/97 cars at the Runoffs.

1.6's ?

94/97's ?

99/01's ?

92/05's ?
 
Posted by Jamie Tucker (Member # 14391) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sean Allen:
If the class is split, I'm finding another class to race in.

Me too!!!! Splitting the class is not an option. On the flat tracks down here in Florida all of the cars are very, very close. The last race the top 4 cars walked away from the field (all national cars); there was 1 1.6, 1 94, and 2 99s.
 
Posted by J.D. (Member # 15) on :
 
Many folks said they would quit if the '99 was included. Its posted at this site. Many did, SM still got bigger and few people remember who quit (I remember, I wish they were back with us).

I think it would be great for Roger to help analyze the data. Maybe he can attend a tire test and hang out on my lawn chair as well?

I Love MEAT......
 
Posted by B Wilson (Member # 606) on :
 
How did the different years Place Jamie? i.e. who was pushing air, and who was benefiting?

-bw
 
Posted by Greg Bush (Member # 618) on :
 
Every change made so far has made a different car the one to have. That means to me we are pretty close.

It will never be even for everyone, everywhere, all the time.

I have 2 ideas:
1) Change the rules every year (with a clear advantage to one car) so every car gets a turn at the top of the heap, and you only have to wait a few years for your time to come around. The people who spend too much money will continue to do so by having a rotating fleet of cars.

2) Keep the rules the same for 3 years at a time so people can flock to the preferred setup, and stay there for a few years without worry and expense.
 
Posted by Antonio Garza (Member # 594) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Casey Z:
Good discussion going on here. It is productive and reasoned, I had to check and see what website I was on!

We can't have you being confused about which site you're on Casey...so that you can keep it straight, here is my proposal.

1.6's get KERS and adjustable front spoiler.

99's get 80lbs off, a 45mm restrictor and a hardtop Gurney strip.

94-97 keeps the same restrictor, except with open ECU and a push-to pass button.
 
Posted by D.B. Cutler (Member # 1617) on :
 
As a '91 1.6L owner with a gently used RE pro motor in it as well as a completely rebuilt tranny and a torsen rear end, I'm not in favor of splitting the class and making the 1.6L cars conform to SSM rules. The last thing that the SCCA needs is another class.

Over the last few years I've spent a ton of money trying to improve my equipment so that I can at least know that the reason that I'm getting beat is me and not my car. About two years ago I said; "That's it, enough is enough" and I stopped spending money on equipment and started to concentrate on my driving more. Guess what, my times lap times still went down. However, my car is now considered "competitive for regional only" as far as I can tell.

I don't think I'm alone in this economy in my thinking. Whatever we do to improve parity we need to keep the owners who have already invested money in there cars in mind. A new $20 RP for the '99s and more weight is a cheap answer for parity. Plus, the early 1.8L guys will be happy to remove a few pounds.

I'm not sure about what to do with the different ring and pinions in the 1.8L cars. Put it to a vote ? Make it an option for a few years ? Not sure. I don't know if I like the idea of forcing 1.8L guys to spend a bunch of money on R&P gears.

As far as bringing in the MX-5. Sure why not. As long as they have to run at 4500 lbs, I'm all for it. [thumbsup]

PS: And don't lower the weight of the 1.6L cars. I can't get there now even while eating the freaken' tree bark that my wife is forcing me to eat for breakfast. [banghead]
 
Posted by Casey Z (Member # 3575) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Antonio Garza:
quote:
Originally posted by Casey Z:
Good discussion going on here. It is productive and reasoned, I had to check and see what website I was on!

We can't have you being confused about which site you're on Casey...so that you can keep it straight, here is my proposal.

1.6's get KERS and adjustable front spoiler.

99's get 80lbs off, a 45mm restrictor and a hardtop Gurney strip.

94-97 keeps the same restrictor, except with open ECU and a push-to pass button.

That won't work for me. I am a member of the SM Teams Association (SMTA) and we have a gentleman's agreement not to use KERs this year. I hear Drago is working on one though... [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Antonio Garza (Member # 594) on :
 
Even better idea...allow the older cars higher compression, let the MX5's in at stock compression and limited prep. 1.6's get 14:1, sequential transmissions, and you get to cut the windshields off; 94-97 only get 11:1, 99 stock.

Antonio--tongue firmly in cheek (sort of)
 
Posted by larryw (Member # 3641) on :
 
Great discussion as I'm feeling a little fed up with the class.

The costs seem to be escalating. My 1.8--even with a a decent motor--is a dog. I'd very quickly concede I can't wheel the thing but the speeds at which I've been passed by 99s has been disheartening.

What's wrong with sealed crate engines? Compliance, in the regionals I run, is nonexistant. I'm not suggesting we do engine teardowns. Who wants to put their motors back together?

Why not have a trackside dyno? I know that the numbers are only relative, but this seems like a good way to ensure parity. THen we could balance with weight adjustments. I'd rather increase the compliance fee to get a portable unit there. Let's see who's making what. Who cares how much valve lift someone has, what we want to know is output. There must be something I'm not thinking of.

And while I'm on the box, please, please don't talk of splitting the class. Diluting the fields will kill SM. ANyone ever been karting? I did and there was a new class every two years, that slowly thinned what had once been popular. I was at the Glen a couple of weeks ago and they run SSM. I could not figure out the logic behind that class. The guys there said that they had a stock intake and more restrictive exhaust. Is that enough of a cost saving to justify its existence? The guys there said that there's a gentleman's agreement not to use pro motors. I'm sure that works...

SSM seemed to me as a flawed way to keep the class cheap and close. Sealed engines and a trackside dyno could get us there, imo.

Please tell me how I'm wrong.
 
Posted by Chris Griswold (Member # 15161) on :
 
RA is my home track, 65 miles away. I considered running SCCA this year so I did not have to drive 1500 miles to MMP. Then I remembered I have a 1990 that never did well against the 1.8's at RA. Enough said, NASA it is.

The 1.6's at MMP did do fairly well, but the west coast is full of them, (25 od 40 cars at MMP) My run up to forth came from mainly good braking. My 1.6 is a crate engine that I had Stewart deck the heads and do the legal valve job, nothing fancy. I definitly did not have the strongest 1.6 as I had a run on Grant Westmoreland on the main straight, pulled my bumper to the front of his door, then he drove away from me and I barely held his draft after I tucked back in (quite embarrasing actually).

I had the 3rd fastest lap, probably with a draft, but sheesh, there is a difference in 1.6 power. Maybe my car would have benefitted from a high altitude tune on the dyno at MMP.

This parity thing is very difficult and I don't envy Drago and the board trying to keep the 99's the fastest, oops, I mean the class even. You will never please half the people. DO NOT lower the weight of the 1.6 again. I have to run on fumes to get to 2295. That sucks having to run that low all the time.
 
Posted by Greg Garneau (Member # 1704) on :
 
Uhhhh, splitting the class isn't really a new idea... both NASA and SCCA have the sealed-spec class. Out here on the left coast, our SSM fields have been getting pretty sizable. So, in my opinion, it would not be starting something new as so much as forcing the 1.6 guys to form to the sealed rules that are already in place, and then let the 1.8's run light and fast! [Wink]
 
Posted by GW (Member # 2207) on :
 
splitting the class would be an absolutely terrible idea !!!
 
Posted by Jason Holland (Member # 837) on :
 
People forget that NASA did this three years ago. Problem is, no one ran in SM2. [Frown]
 
Posted by 38BFAST (Member # 3720) on :
 
RA is a motor / torque track. Everyone knows this. It only has 12 or so turns and it's 4 miles long. Not much of a drivers track. Then add all the uphills. If you change the rules for parity around RA it will mess up just about every other track. JMHO
 
Posted by B Wilson (Member # 606) on :
 
I think most folks now understand that RA is different and why, but from what I've heard, the CRB would likely make a balanced choice with data taken from other tracks/races. That being said, the big show should count for something as it does a big part for defining our class and sets a certain amount of expectation for new competitors coming into the class and building cars.

-bw
 
Posted by Sean Yepez (Member # 2842) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by D.B. Cutler:
I don't think I'm alone in this economy in my thinking. Whatever we do to improve parity we need to keep the owners who have already invested money in there cars in mind. A new $20 RP for the '99s and more weight is a cheap answer for parity. Plus, the early 1.8L guys will be happy to remove a few pounds.

I'm not sure about what to do with the different ring and pinions in the 1.8L cars. Put it to a vote ? Make it an option for a few years ? Not sure. I don't know if I like the idea of forcing 1.8L guys to spend a bunch of money on R&P gears.

Great post. I would do the 4.3 change. However, it is more costly than making adjustments using weight and plates.

quote:
Originally posted by 38BFAST:
RA is a motor / torque track. Everyone knows this. It only has 12 or so turns and it's 4 miles long. Not much of a drivers track. Then add all the uphills. If you change the rules for parity around RA it will mess up just about every other track. JMHO

I think Road America should be a main consideration in car parity since many who run the National circuit do so in order to get to the Runoffs. I agree that other tracks need to be considered as well, but a car of any year should be able to win the Runoffs.

Didn't you just buy a '99 this weekend? [Wink]
 
Posted by Jamie Tucker (Member # 14391) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by B Wilson:
How did the different years Place Jamie? i.e. who was pushing air, and who was benefiting?

-bw

In the first race,
1st-1.6L (1990)
2nd- 1.8 (1994)
3rd 99
4th 99
Second race
1st 94
2nd 99
3rd 99
4th 1990
We all ran within a 2 tenths of each other all weekend and it made no difference who was in front. They were very close on a flat track. Also I have a fast 1.6 that I have raced for a while as well and both the 99 and 1.6 seem to be very equal. Of course RA is not flat but any change that would be made to help in the hills is going to give an unfair advantage in the flat.
 
Posted by Jamie Tucker (Member # 14391) on :
 
How about the runoffs being at a flat track like Sebring? I'm just saying.
 
Posted by Waterboy (Member # 7106) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 38BFAST:
If you change the rules for parity around RA it will mess up just about every other track. JMHO

Couldn't agree more. Just at Jamie Tucker states about the tracks in his area we have proven in the DC region that any car year can win at our home track. They are as equal as it gets. Changing the rules for one track seems crazy. 38 cars attended the runoffs, one race. How many cars run each and every weekend at regional and national races across the country and we are going to change the rules because of that one track and one race.
 
Posted by d mathias (Member # 343) on :
 
You really can't compare regional and national results. Anyone know how many 1.6 L cars have won a national this year?
 
Posted by Cajun Miata Man (Member # 1374) on :
 
Can't speak for any other division, but here is the breakdown from the SOWDIV:

Top Ten in points:
1.6; four
1.8; one
99; five

Wins;
99; five
1.6; three
1.8; zero

As a side note, out of those 1.6 cars that scored wins, they only entered 5 out of the 8 nationals.
 
Posted by Waterboy (Member # 7106) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by d mathias:
You really can't compare regional and national results. Anyone know how many 1.6 L cars have won a national this year?

Not sure why you can't. There are lots of regional racers out there that are more than capable of running and doing well at national races but just choose not to.

We did have a national at Summit this year but only 5 entered. I know at least 3 were 99's and I am not sure about the other 2. Only 3 finished on the lead lap and they were all 99's but it has nothing to do with the 1.6 not being competitive. The 1.6's that do run at the track generally set the fastest laps and quite often win and they are as fast or faster than any of the 99's that were at the national.
 
Posted by Todd Lamb (Member # 6141) on :
 
Put it in perspective - how many SM's in total actively run at tracks across the country? Are we going to make adjustments based on just the 38 that go to Runoffs?

I think the argument could be made that if you aren't willing to spend the money for the 99, you probably can't afford to win the Runoffs anyway, at least while they are at a power track like Road America.
 
Posted by kingturbo (Member # 17135) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Todd Lamb:
Are we going to make adjustments based on just the 38 that go to Runoffs?

I am sure adjustment were made with only 29 in 2008.
 
Posted by Casey Z (Member # 3575) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Todd Lamb:
Put it in perspective - how many SM's in total actively run at tracks across the country? Are we going to make adjustments based on just the 38 that go to Runoffs?

Adjustments have been made every year since the class went national based on the runoff's results. Why should this year be any different?

quote:

I think the argument could be made that if you aren't willing to spend the money for the 99, you probably can't afford to win the Runoffs anyway, at least while they are at a power track like Road America.

And what are we supposed to do with our 1.6 or 1.8 we have sitting in the garage for the next two years while we are running our new 99's we build? For that matter what do we do with our 99 that is obsolete when the runoff's move in a couple of years and the 99 is no longer the CTH? What if the runoff's stay at RA for the next 10 years? The logic in your statement escapes me.
 
Posted by B Wilson (Member # 606) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Todd Lamb:
Put it in perspective - how many SM's in total actively run at tracks across the country? Are we going to make adjustments based on just the 38 that go to Runoffs?

I think the argument could be made that if you aren't willing to spend the money for the 99, you probably can't afford to win the Runoffs anyway, at least while they are at a power track like Road America.

But one could argue that would be against the class philosophy, as well as the philosophy of most racing series, both pro and ameteur :0) The goal is usually equity among homologated cars.

-b
 
Posted by B Wilson (Member # 606) on :
 
The more I think about it, cams might to be the only answer to this problem. There is already a spec that can just be changed. Yes, I know... philosphy of the class [Smile]

-b
 
Posted by D.B. Cutler (Member # 1617) on :
 
What ? It's perfect logic if you have a top notch 99.
 
Posted by Sean Allen (Member # 3800) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Antonio Garza:
quote:
Originally posted by Casey Z:
Good discussion going on here. It is productive and reasoned, I had to check and see what website I was on!

We can't have you being confused about which site you're on Casey...so that you can keep it straight, here is my proposal.

1.6's get KERS and adjustable front spoiler.

99's get 80lbs off, a 45mm restrictor and a hardtop Gurney strip.

94-97 keeps the same restrictor, except with open ECU and a push-to pass button.

I like that idea, but do we have to make our on KERS, or can we buy from Mclaren, Ferrari, BMW? What if we have a KERS failure during the race?
 
Posted by d mathias (Member # 343) on :
 
OK then, why has attendance continued to decline at national events and the Runoffs? I know "it's the economy stupid", but I bet other forces are at work?

And is this a problem?

Personally I think everything's fine, and we should do nothing.
 
Posted by D.B. Cutler (Member # 1617) on :
 
Bruce,

I'd be ok with new cams for the 1.6L. I wouldn't buy them right now, but when my next rebuild comes around I would.
 
Posted by Greg Bush (Member # 618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Bush:

It will never be even for everyone, everywhere, all the time.

Because the base cars are different, they will never be even at all tracks. There will always be one that is better at a given track.

That said, do we aim for equality at the track for the national championship, or shoot down the middle for the average joe and leave an overdog at the runoffs?

Or do some of you really think we can make all the cars even at all the tracks?
 
Posted by B Wilson (Member # 606) on :
 
While it's highly unlikely that the CRB would consider changing cams within the spirit of the class, does ANYONE have ANY strong objections to the idea?

-b
 
Posted by Greg Bush (Member # 618) on :
 
Are we aiming for equality at Road America, or everywhere?

If its RA, then what do we do in 2 more years if it moves again? Take out the cams, or add something else?
 
Posted by pat slattery (Member # 1254) on :
 
Adjustments in the past were usually based on the results from the Runoffs, why would it not be any different this year.


Pat
 
Posted by Casey Z (Member # 3575) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by B Wilson:
While it's highly unlikely that the CRB would consider changing cams within the spirit of the class, does ANYONE have ANY strong objections to the idea?

I would argue that the CRB accepted the idea that cams could be changed within the "spirit" of the class when they published a cam spec. It basically acknowledges that cams are being changed. Think about it...
 
Posted by B Wilson (Member # 606) on :
 
Greg, Cams fixes the track dujour problem by equalizing the torque issue. Of course this would necessitate starting over on weights and RPs, so it's not all as easy as it sounds.

-b
 
Posted by Blake Clements (Member # 1377) on :
 
I think it was JD many moons ago that said build all 3, and slowly but surely, I'm starting to believe in that policy.

I think the 1.6 needs help and needs the light clutch or light flywheel back, just like when the cars were dominant in the 2006 Runoffs.

As for the Sean Yepez campaign, I don't buy into any of that. Give the cars the 4.3 and thats IT and lets see how they do.
 
Posted by Blake Clements (Member # 1377) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Casey Z:
quote:
Originally posted by B Wilson:
While it's highly unlikely that the CRB would consider changing cams within the spirit of the class, does ANYONE have ANY strong objections to the idea?

I would argue that the CRB accepted the idea that cams could be changed within the "spirit" of the class when they published a cam spec. It basically acknowledges that cams are being changed. Think about it...
Casey, you're exactly right. The ship has sailed on cams when the cam spec came out.

Off-topic - but if you think we have it bad, you should see the T1 guys talking about parity.
 
Posted by Casey Z (Member # 3575) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blake Clements:
Give the cars the 4.3 and thats IT and lets see how they do.

This is going to sound counter intuitive but if you do the math, adding the 4.3 to a 1.8 will make things worse not better. You basically turn the 1.8 into a 99. Again, it is all about torque...
 
Posted by Greg Bush (Member # 618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by B Wilson:
Greg, Cams fixes the track dujour problem by equalizing the torque issue. Of course this would necessitate starting over on weights and RPs, so it's not all as easy as it sounds.

-b

Start over? I'm pretty sure you won't get many takers on that one.....

Most will admit the cars are close now, but not perfect.

I'm still not sure we are all after the same goal.

Is it:
A) Parity at the runoffs ????

or

B) Parity everywhere (or as close as is possible with one set of rules)????
 
Posted by SM-SCCA (Member # 905) on :
 
Let us not forget about the other tracks that have similar characteristics to Road America like Road Atlanta (turn 1, turn 5 and the turn 10a/b complex), Laguna and Infineon. I am sure there are others.
 
Posted by Todd Lamb (Member # 6141) on :
 
My point is that you aren't going to achieve parity across the board for the majority of SM racers if you look at Road America results. This is the first time the Runoffs have been at Road America, and the first time the 99 has dominated the Runoffs. Past adjustments were to make the cars equal for Runoffs, but Topeka was more of an equal track for the 1.6/1.8/99.

Adjust the 1.6 to be equal at Road America, and you're going to end up with the 1.6 being the overdog at a lot of tracks.
 
Posted by racerfink (Member # 1886) on :
 
Make the '99's run a 3 1/2" exhaust to take away the torque advantage??? [Wink]
 
Posted by Greg Bush (Member # 618) on :
 
There are a few tracks similar to RA, but way more that are different.

My point is what are we after.

Parity every weekend for the thousands of racers at regional and national levels, track differences aside?

Or parity for one race, THE championship?
 
Posted by Todd Lamb (Member # 6141) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Casey Z:
quote:

I think the argument could be made that if you aren't willing to spend the money for the 99, you probably can't afford to win the Runoffs anyway, at least while they are at a power track like Road America.

And what are we supposed to do with our 1.6 or 1.8 we have sitting in the garage for the next two years while we are running our new 99's we build? For that matter what do we do with our 99 that is obsolete when the runoff's move in a couple of years and the 99 is no longer the CTH? What if the runoff's stay at RA for the next 10 years? The logic in your statement escapes me.[/QB]
Not sure who "we" is, since you weren't one of the few at Runoffs (you were with the majority of the class on the sidelines - which is part of my point).

The logic is pretty simple if you are open to it. There were 38ish cars at Runoffs. Are we going to adjust so that the 1.6 can be competitive at that one race and be an overdog everywhere else, or just come to the realization that the car of the year is the 99 at Runoffs and know that the cost of running up front at Runoffs is what it is (i.e. high)?
 
Posted by Sean Yepez (Member # 2842) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Casey Z:
quote:
Originally posted by Todd Lamb:
Put it in perspective - how many SM's in total actively run at tracks across the country? Are we going to make adjustments based on just the 38 that go to Runoffs?

Adjustments have been made every year since the class went national based on the runoff's results. Why should this year be any different?

quote:

I think the argument could be made that if you aren't willing to spend the money for the 99, you probably can't afford to win the Runoffs anyway, at least while they are at a power track like Road America.

And what are we supposed to do with our 1.6 or 1.8 we have sitting in the garage for the next two years while we are running our new 99's we build? For that matter what do we do with our 99 that is obsolete when the runoff's move in a couple of years and the 99 is no longer the CTH? What if the runoff's stay at RA for the next 10 years? The logic in your statement escapes me.

I agree. It's ridiculous that 1.8 and 1.6 owners would have to leave their cars in the garage for next two years until the Runoffs potentially moves to another track. Every model should be able to win at the Runoffs. The fact that the top 7 cars were 1999's or 2000's is ridiculous. By the numbers, it is the worst Runoffs for parity since SM went National.
 
Posted by Casey Z (Member # 3575) on :
 
Todd,

Obviously I meant owners of other year cars which this year happen to be non 99's. One could make the argument that last year "we" were possibly 1.6's and 99's since the track changed and HPT seemed to favor another car.

I understand your point and your point of view. I just disagree that the class should just decide to give up and succumb to the COTY/CTH philosophy. There are ways to make the cars more equal at all tracks, it is just going to take more creativity than the weight/RP formula that has been used to this point.
 
Posted by pat slattery (Member # 1254) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Todd Lamb:


Adjust the 1.6 to be equal at Road America, and you're going to end up with the 1.6 being the overdog at a lot of tracks.

I see nothing wrong with that. We have that situation now on the other side of the coin [thumbsup]

PAT
 
Posted by trimless1 (Member # 2624) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by racerfink:
Make the '99's run a 3 1/2" exhaust to take away the torque advantage??? [Wink]

LOL, that's great. A 3 1/2" exhaust with a fart can exhaust [Smile]
 
Posted by B Wilson (Member # 606) on :
 
Great, sounds like cams is the answer then. Somelthing for everyone, parity at all tracks/races. Flywheel whon't do it for all tracks. This just follows with the addition of the 99 shock hats (never thought that would happen as well) to better equalize the handling.

-b
 
Posted by Casey Z (Member # 3575) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by B Wilson:
Great, sounds like cams is the answer then. Somelthing for everyone, parity at all tracks/races.

If only it were that easy. Let's see what the data that people share (if they share) tells us before we declare victory... [Wink]
 
Posted by Greg Bush (Member # 618) on :
 
Lets get parity close for all racers at all tracks (we may be there or real close now) and have the Runoffs hopefulls (all 38, or less than 5% of active SMs) be prepared to adjust parity the week of the Runoffs.

Base the adjustments on tests made by a pro driver the week of the race in top flight cars brought by hopefull competitors. Dyno the cars to make sure they are within the range of expected HP, then turn the pro loose to see how fast the cars are. Play with weights and restrictors until the cars are equal with the same driver.

Then hand out new minimum weights and RP sizes at the start of qualifying.

This could all happen in place of the first day of qualifying, leaving the class 3 days to get a time.

The other 95% of us can continue to watch from the sidelines, and not have to change our cars.
 
Posted by B Wilson (Member # 606) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Casey Z:
quote:
Originally posted by B Wilson:
Great, sounds like cams is the answer then. Somelthing for everyone, parity at all tracks/races.

If only it were that easy. Let's see what the data that people share (if they share) tells us before we declare victory... [Wink]
Lots to do Casey. Just trying to fit it all in one day. [Smile]

-bw
 
Posted by Keith in WA (Member # 16099) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Bush:
Lets get parity close for all racers at all tracks (we may be there or real close now) and have the Runoffs hopefulls (all 38, or less than 5% of active SMs) be prepared to adjust parity the week of the Runoffs.

Base the adjustments on tests made by a pro driver the week of the race in top flight cars brought by hopefull competitors. Dyno the cars to make sure they are within the range of expected HP, then turn the pro loose to see how fast the cars are. Play with weights and restrictors until the cars are equal with the same driver.

Then hand out new minimum weights and RP sizes at the start of qualifying.

This could all happen in place of the first day of qualifying, leaving the class 3 days to get a time.

The other 95% of us can continue to watch from the sidelines, and not have to change our cars.

I was thinking about that since it's done in Formula Barber but the competitors don't own the cars there or do any of the tuning. How do you account for a competitor bringing a somewhat shoddy car? Make everyone meet the lowest common denominator? What if someone sandbags their pairity test setup in some way to stack the odds and then changes back to their fast setup when it matters?
 
Posted by J.D. (Member # 15) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Bush:
There are a few tracks similar to RA, but way more that are different.

My point is what are we after.

Parity every weekend for the thousands of racers at regional and national levels, track differences aside?

Or parity for one race, THE championship?

It obviously must be at the one track. The points systems of divisional racing lets the rest sort itself out. This is a national class now, each entrant and driver needs to have a chance to win at the big show. That need not require owning three cars.

There are plenty of regional series and each region can control those rules. So, parity on a regional level can be dealt with on a regional level. Not sure what the issue here is?

However, if you want to run nationals, the ball game is different. Those points and spots to the big show need to be achieved in cars that are equal at the big show. It is that simple. Of course some cars are going to do better here and there, same for every class. But that is the best it can be in a not so perfect world when one race does indeed decide a national champion.

I find it funny that we are more worried about a perception....... if the 1.6 is faster it will win everywhere and the '99 will only then be equal at the Runoffs.... rather then the obvious. I said it many times, tech shed legal events and Billy Bob Bad Ass 1.6 is winning everything out here is daylight and dark, ponder it.... [Razz]

I sure did not see the '99 bunch rolling off any 1.6s this year cause it was better, at any track? Or did I miss that?

Come on guys!!!!

I contend that when we have parity, you will see guys showing up with 2-3 cars because they are not sure, that would be a good sign.....

Right now, the guys that can afford 3 cars have one, guess which one it is........ [Wink]

(but they do have 3 heads..... [duck] )

(disclaimer: not much of anything but you can email Drago with your concerns)
 
Posted by J.D. (Member # 15) on :
 
Mr. Thornton, what does a 1.6 gain with cam gears only and same cams, anything?
 
Posted by Jamie Tucker (Member # 14391) on :
 
I think the cars are so close now that any rule change will only cause the pendulum to swing in a different direction; which does not fix the problem. Would it not just be easier to just add more weight to the 99's while the runoffs are at RA or at tracks with elevation changes? It seems that at flat tracks the cars are pretty even so I think all is fine here in Florida or other flat places. If (a big if) something needs to be done to give EQUALLY prepared 1.6L cars a shot to win at the runoffs or other tracks with hills than it seems logical to make the change for that race or those tracks only and leave the rest alone. If the runoffs would have been at a track without hills we would still be having this discussion because the top 10 would have still had a bunch of 99's even though all of the cars would have had a chance to win.
 
Posted by pat slattery (Member # 1254) on :
 
I think the 99 still has a smaller advantage at flat tracks, just not as dramatic at a track like Road America. To leave the 99 as is would be a mistake. 1.6 and even the 1.8 need some help.

If you check, I believe you will see that a majority of the Divisional National Champs were driving a 99 also.

Pat
 
Posted by Sean Yepez (Member # 2842) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by J.D.:
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Bush:
There are a few tracks similar to RA, but way more that are different.

My point is what are we after.

Parity every weekend for the thousands of racers at regional and national levels, track differences aside?

Or parity for one race, THE championship?

It obviously must be at the one track. The points systems of divisional racing lets the rest sort itself out. This is a national class now, each entrant and driver needs to have a chance to win at the big show. That need not require owning three cars.

There are plenty of regional series and each region can control those rules. So, parity on a regional level can be dealt with on a regional level. Not sure what the issue here is?

However, if you want to run nationals, the ball game is different. Those points and spots to the big show need to be achieved in cars that are equal at the big show. It is that simple. Of course some cars are going to do better here and there, same for every class. But that is the best it can be in a not so perfect world when one race does indeed decide a national champion.

I find it funny that we are more worried about a perception....... if the 1.6 is faster it will win everywhere and the '99 will only then be equal at the Runoffs.... rather then the obvious. I said it many times, tech shed legal events and Billy Bob Bad Ass 1.6 is winning everything out here is daylight and dark, ponder it.... [Razz]

I sure did not see the '99 bunch rolling off any 1.6s this year cause it was better, at any track? Or did I miss that?

Come on guys!!!!

I contend that when we have parity, you will see guys showing up with 2-3 cars because they are not sure, that would be a good sign.....

Right now, the guys that can afford 3 cars have one, guess which one it is........ [Wink]

(but they do have 3 heads..... [duck] )

(disclaimer: not much of anything but you can email Drago with your concerns)

Absolutely right. Relegating 1.6 and 1.8's to be "Regional-only" cars would be inappropriate. It should not be necessary to have a '99 to win at RA. I also think your comment about the "Billy Bob" 1.6 winning at Regionals is accurate as well. Equalization should only consider Runoffs-quality cars both in legality and in level of preparation.

quote:
Originally posted by pat slattery:
I think the 99 still has a smaller advantage at flat tracks, just not as dramatic at a track like Road America. To leave the 99 as is would be a mistake. 1.6 and even the 1.8 need some help.

Pat

[thumbsup]
 
Posted by Keith in WA (Member # 16099) on :
 
Flat vs. hilly isn't the only issue. I'm thinking of one local track with some serious elevation change but some very twisty bits too that can ballance the equation. There aren't a lot of '99s here so it's hard to say how they fare in terms of pairity but it's no RA by comparison.
 
Posted by Jamie Tucker (Member # 14391) on :
 
Does anybody know realistically who at the runoffs had a chance to win the race in a 1.6? The reason I ask is because when you look at the top 5 cars they were all driven by people that would be up front at any track in any car (just my opinion). Yes Drago and others drive 99s but that does not mean they should be penalized because they run well. No offense to Drago, Lamb, or Van vusrt but I think they would all be over weight in a 1.6 and therefore would be at a disadvantage. That is one reason why they did not show up with a 1.6. The lap times don't even seem to be all that different between the cars so what are we talking about. There were plenty of 99's that did not win the race either!
 
Posted by David Dewhurst (Member # 759) on :
 
***The lap times don't even seem to be all that different between the cars so what are we talking about.***

8th was the best placing 1.6 30 seconds behind the lead car or approx 1 mile behind the lead car. Someplace between the Kink & Canada corner when the checker fell.

14th was the second place 1.6 further back yet.

From my observations at Road America a 99 can run down a 16. any time. [yep] A 1.6 at Road America can not run down a 99. [nope]

The SCCA has data box info from the Sprnts & from the Runoffs. Let the data speak.
 
Posted by Jamie Tucker (Member # 14391) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by David Dewhurst:
***The lap times don't even seem to be all that different between the cars so what are we talking about.***

8th was the best placing 1.6 30 seconds behind the lead car or approx 1 mile behind the lead car. Someplace between the Kink & Canada corner when the checker fell.

14th was the second place 1.6 further back yet.

From my observations at Road America a 99 can run down a 16. any time. [yep] A 1.6 at Road America can not run down a 99. [nope]

The SCCA has data box info from the Sprnts & from the Runoffs. Let the data speak.

So are you saying that the cars are not equal or the drivers? There were also 99's that far back! The lap times are what matter not the drivers ability to race the car. I'm not saying that the drivers of the 1.6s are bad drivers by any means but if you look through the field you will see good drivers in 99s with a proven front running track record that did not do that well either. How do you explain that?
 
Posted by JimEli (Member # 1428) on :
 
FWIW, the following analysis is based upon the 2009 Runoffs results.

Fastest lap time by model:
99: 164.487
90-93: 165.715 (+1.228)
94-97: 167.111 (+2.624)

Average fastest lap time top 3 of each model:
99: 164.564
90-93: 166.229 (+1.666)
94-97: 167.554 (+2.990)

Average fastest lap of all cars:
99: 166.959
90-93: 167.886 (+0.926)
94-97: 169.307 (+2.347)

Average best lap of entire field:
167.464


For comparison purposes 2008 Runoffs:
Average fastest lap time top 3 of each model:
99: 113.792
94-97: 114.216 (+0.424)
90-93: 115.142 (+1.350)
 
Posted by Todd Lamb (Member # 6141) on :
 
Seems to me like everyone should be jumping on the 1.8 bandwagon with Sean...I see the new overdog if we consider RA lap times to be the deciding factor. [Big Grin]

Or maybe the 01+ is the new dark horse - they weren't even in the show.
 
Posted by Dennis Brown (Member # 3002) on :
 
Since I think my car still has electrical issues I did not weigh in, but I will now.

The RP change for 94 made a dramatic difference in top end. The car is not the same as a 96-97 even though we can run the same pistons, they have different ecu's and should not be compared to each other.

My personal experience is that I compared data to Drago with the new RP at the last national at Road America and the car was down about 3-5 mph at the end of the straights. On the dyno the torque numbers and horsepower numbers were 122/117 on break in. I also noticed the same thing at Road Atlanta in August.

I do believe that the cars as close as we are going to get. These are all different cars that we are trying to equalize and it will not happen. I do believe the best drivers with the best setup are running up front and winning races.

Dennis
 
Posted by B(Kuch) Kucera 45 (Member # 2249) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Tucker:
Does anybody know realistically who at the runoffs had a chance to win the race in a 1.6? The reason I ask is because when you look at the top 5 cars they were all driven by people that would be up front at any track in any car (just my opinion). Yes Drago and others drive 99s but that does not mean they should be penalized because they run well. No offense to Drago, Lamb, or Van vusrt but I think they would all be over weight in a 1.6 and therefore would be at a disadvantage. That is one reason why they did not show up with a 1.6. The lap times don't even seem to be all that different between the cars so what are we talking about. There were plenty of 99's that did not win the race either!

Not trying to start a fight,but why did driver's show up with both models and decide to run the 99 over the 1.6? [scratchchin]
 
Posted by tburas (Member # 993) on :
 
As a 1.6 owner, parity between the cars is always going to be problem...
I have a really good 1.6 car, but I will never race Road Atlanta, Road America, and a hand full of other tracks again. Simple reason...Torque

I am glad I do not make the call on what to change but something needs to happen...

Jamie
Didn't you just build a 99?
 
Posted by Mike C (Member # 717) on :
 
Verges switched from 99 to a 1.6 and did very well
 
Posted by Waterboy (Member # 7106) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by J.D.:
[QUOTE] Of course some cars are going to do better here and there, same for every class. But that is the best it can be in a not so perfect world when one race does indeed decide a national champion.


There you have it! Some cars are just going to be better at some tracks than others.
 
Posted by Waterboy (Member # 7106) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by David Dewhurst:

8th was the best placing 1.6 30 seconds behind the lead car or approx 1 mile behind the lead car. Someplace between the Kink & Canada corner when the checker fell.


This means nothing. Lap times is what needs to be looked at and even that is subjective. Were they in a draft or not. The 5th place car, a 99, was several seconds back as well. I believe there was a spin on the 1st lap that separated the cars and created the gap.
 
Posted by David Dewhurst (Member # 759) on :
 
Tim, understood. [yep] There are many variables within every lap. The first 4 slowly left 5th behind during the second half of the race to the point of 16 seconds back. Results are results, no trophy at the green flag. [Wink]
 
Posted by Dennis Brown (Member # 3002) on :
 
I want to clarify my post above. This year the 94 was given a smaller restrictor because in my opinion no one could police the computers. The result seems to drop hp/tq on the dyno which put it in line with the other years which makes sense. What I am seeing at the track is at fast courses with long straights that require 5th gear that the top end is down 3-5 mph from last year. I have more hp/tq than last year with less top end.

My issue is that these cars were never desiged to have restrictors and I do not believe that anyone has a real grasp on the impact other than on a dyno.

I do not want anyone to think that I am comparing Drago's 99 in the previous post. I thank him for allowing me to see his data as I was completely frustrated by the times. I would not have posted anything about the top end without my own follow up data from Road Atlanta.

My car is now a fast regional car which is disappointing.

Dennis
 
Posted by Jamie Tucker (Member # 14391) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tburas:
As a 1.6 owner, parity between the cars is always going to be problem...
I have a really good 1.6 car, but I will never race Road Atlanta, Road America, and a hand full of other tracks again. Simple reason...Torque

I am glad I do not make the call on what to change but something needs to happen...

Jamie
Didn't you just build a 99?

Todd,
I did build a 99 so that I would have a shot at tracks with elevation changes. I also have the luxury of having both a fast 1.6 and 99. As you have said the 1.6 needs some help getting up the hills; which I fully agree. I also believe that on flat tracks they are very close and any change for one track might affect the others. What do you think? Your 1.6 runs real well at flat tracks right?
 
Posted by pat slattery (Member # 1254) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Tucker:
quote:
Originally posted by tburas:
As a 1.6 owner, parity between the cars is always going to be problem...
I have a really good 1.6 car, but I will never race Road Atlanta, Road America, and a hand full of other tracks again. Simple reason...Torque

I am glad I do not make the call on what to change but something needs to happen...

Jamie

No wonder you sounded like yor were sticking up for the 99 [Eek!]

Pat
Didn't you just build a 99?

Todd,
I did build a 99 so that I would have a shot at tracks with elevation changes. I also have the luxury of having both a fast 1.6 and 99. As you have said the 1.6 needs some help getting up the hills; which I fully agree. I also believe that on flat tracks they are very close and any change for one track might affect the others. What do you think? Your 1.6 runs real well at flat tracks right?


 
Posted by bcmazda (Member # 2005) on :
 
As a disclaimer we run two phenomenal cars (3 drivers) a 99 and a 93 1.6, pro-built by Flatout up here in the Northeast.

From first hand experience the 1.6 just isn't going to be a match for the 99 on a track like RA. For example, my brother Craig, who is a far better racer than I am, consistently finishes in the top ten at NHMS (not an apt comparison, but bear with me here) but when we switched cars and he drove the 99 he was able to lead the last NARRC race there from start to finish, average lap times almost 1.5 seconds quicker than in the 1.6. That being said he was able to put our 1.6 on pole at Watkins. Simlarly, it looked like the car to have at NJMP (Lighting) this year were all late models...

REGIONALLY it appears that the cars are pretty darn close in the hands of capable drivers (I don't count myself in this group haha).

With regards to the Run-Offs. I don't think you can deny that the 99's had a clear advantage at RA. Different cars different tracks, right?, that's fine. But I think Drago hit the nail on the head when he said that the level of PREPARATION is extremely high for this event. Sure the guys who had the option chose to run the 99s, because obviously there was an advantage, so why wouldn't they? But had the 1.6's been the CTH at RA I would imagine their equally prepped 1.6's would have been off the trailers pretty quick. Point being, if your going to allow someone to bring 3 cars to the track and allow them time to figure out which is fastest (i.e. one day of testing. Three days of qualifying), then idea of parity at the run-offs is kind of silly. A guy with one car regardless of model, doesn't have much of a chance of winning compared to a guy who has all three!

Maybe limiting the testing time or saying you can only run one car all weekend might help? Probably not realistic solutions, but as long as we allow the option for that advantage someone will always capitalize on it. And thats not a bad thing neccesarily thats just racing, and what the class rules "allow".

Perils of the one race championship, is that the CTH for the track of choice becomes the car you need to be the champion! It would seem that this problem is pretty specific to the run-offs, and even more specific to RA... So when the runoffs location changes maybe the CTH will too... I say we hold the run-offs at NJMP and then we can have this whole conversation in reverse next year! (maybe?)

Just my two cents. Looking forward to see all you NER folk at the track next year!

Ryan
 
Posted by Adroitracer (Member # 5979) on :
 
Ryan,
Great points, but you forgot to mention that there were some very well prepped 99's at the Runoffs both driven by excellent drivers and they were no where near the pointy end of the stick. [duck] I would have been right there with them if I had been there.

I don't want people to start thinking the the drivers up front at the Runoffs are only there because they have a 99. I'm pretty sure if you put those top finishing drivers in a "comparably" prepped 1.6 or 1.8 they would be very close to their finishing positions with their 99's. Maybe not quite as far ahead of everyone else, but very fast none-the-less. They choose the 99 because at that track it performs just a smidge better for them. General driving skill and experience at that particular track still leaves a lot on the table for SM drivers.

I also think you will find true what Ryan is saying that different model years have particular tracks that they perform well at. It is going to be impossible to eliminate that factor that tracks are different, and our cars are different no matter how hard we try to equalize them.

In general I'm just worried that a race involving 38 cars/drivers is going to have a major impact on the hundreds of regional and national racers that maybe don't give a darn about the Runoffs or will never race at RA.

I agree with JD that the 1.6L needs to be the heart and soul of the class, and that SM was supposed to be an affordable class. That does not necessarily mean that the 1.6L needs to be the dominant car at RA. We need to look at the large picture of how many regional and national races each car type is attending an event and finishing. I wonder what everyone would say if the 1.6L had more wins or better average finishing position than the 99's. Would we then say the 99 is inferior?

I also agree with JD that a sealed motor program would bring a lot of the parity back to ground zero. It was the first person that spent as much on a motor as their competitor spent on their entire car that started taking this class in the bigger $$$ direction. We all want to compete with a chance to win, so naturally more people get on the pro-motor bandwagon and thus the snowball effect where everyone else is simply trying to catch up. I don't think that we will see sealed motors happen, but it is always nice to dream.

Can't we all just get along. [group hug]
 
Posted by B Wilson (Member # 606) on :
 
Boy the arguments are getting longer and longer.

The 1.6 and 1.8 should have a chance to win the runoffs (Could be at RA for the next 15 years.) or the class will suffer.

Car prep is car prep, and if someone had the slightest inkling that a 1.6 could have been an advantage someone would have definitely pulled the trigger.


-bw
 
Posted by SM-SCCA (Member # 905) on :
 
At this point it really comes down to every participant in the SM community having complete confidence in the SM founding fathers, SMAC, SCCA and NASA to review the data gathered from Road America and other tracks for the 99’s, 1.6’s and 1.8’s and make the necessary decisions to equalize the cars to the best of their abilities. I have confidence that the representatives from each of these groups do not have any hidden agenda’s and only have the best interest of everyone participating in this class in mind as they make these difficult decisions.
 
Posted by Sean Yepez (Member # 2842) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by B Wilson:
Boy the arguments are getting longer and longer.

The 1.6 and 1.8 should have a chance to win the runoffs (Could be at RA for the next 15 years.) or the class will suffer.

Car prep is car prep, and if someone had the slightest inkling that a 1.6 could have been an advantage someone would have definitely pulled the trigger.


-bw

Absolutely. Those racers buying multiple motors for their 1999's would undoubtedly be preparing 1.6's if that car offered an advantage at RA. Also, there's no excuse for not bringing a 1.8. There are a ton of top-level 1.8 cars out there from last year. None of them showed up this year. I don't think this is a coincidence. If anybody suspected the 1.8 were competitive, I'm sure we would have seen more entries than we did and at least one or two running in the top 15. I've sent my letter to the CRB!
 
Posted by Tvance13 (Member # 15537) on :
 
Sean - Isn't this essentially the same argument I was making for the 01...No one raced it because they knew it would not be competitive. How can that theory apply here, yet be ignored for the 01? Oh wait, it's because we have all that "data" to rely on to make an "informed" decision. I'm sure no one tested the 01 at that track...Good luck in your quest!

I have moved on. I can always run the 01 in PTE. I will wait for the rules to be published for 2010 and build a second car. Hell, with 2 cars I can actually get back out there and race WITH my kid.
 
Posted by Sean Yepez (Member # 2842) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tvance13:
Sean - Isn't this essentially the same argument I was making for the 01...No one raced it because they knew it would not be competitive. How can that theory apply here, yet be ignored for the 01? Oh wait, it's because we have all that "data" to rely on to make an "informed" decision. I'm sure no one tested the 01 at that track...Good luck in your quest!

I have moved on. I can always run the 01 in PTE. I will wait for the rules to be published for 2010 and build a second car. Hell, with 2 cars I can actually get back out there and race WITH my kid.

It is similar, but there are two key differences. First, it isn't a big deal that no 2001 cars showed up because they represent less than 1-2% of SM's built. There are plenty of top-prepared 1.8 and 1.6 cars out there which were not brought to the Runoffs. Second, it is not in the best interest of the class for the 2001 to offer a competitive advantage. As Jim Drago said, it is the newest and most expensive car to build. If anything, the earlier cars that were originally classed in SM should be favored. After all, the NB was allowed into the class in order to give old SSB cars a place to race. They weren't included so that people could build overdogs out of them.
 
Posted by J.D. (Member # 15) on :
 
Race
Tear down
Results
Adjust for parity

You cannot do the last part less the first three occurring. I'm sorry that no 1.6 has made the list above, that is my concern.
 
Posted by DerekFSU (Member # 4162) on :
 
As a Jim Daniels trained driver of a Drago 99 with a top Sunbelt motor, I think the 99 needs some help. I can't catch the frontrunners, something ain't right. And no, I'm not going on a diet.

I still have Blake's old 1.6 and Dewey's old 1.8 so just pick one to make an overdog so I can get up front. What's it like up there?
 
Posted by CP (Member # 10464) on :
 
Slightly off-topic, but I vote for sealed motors. Costs are getting out of hand in this, a series that was developed to be "cheap entry-level racing." My bone stock crate motor (@15K miles) in my 99 can't keep up with the "pro motors" in my region, be it a pro 1.6, pro 1.8 or a pro 99. If I can scrape together $8000+ for a professionally built motor then I can run with the top dogs, but that defeats the purpose of the class.
 
Posted by Unsafe (Member # 1626) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis Brown:
Since I think my car still has electrical issues I did not weigh in, but I will now.

The RP change for 94 made a dramatic difference in top end. The car is not the same as a 96-97 even though we can run the same pistons, they have different ecu's and should not be compared to each other.

My personal experience is that I compared data to Drago with the new RP at the last national at Road America and the car was down about 3-5 mph at the end of the straights. On the dyno the torque numbers and horsepower numbers were 122/117 on break in. I also noticed the same thing at Road Atlanta in August.

I do believe that the cars as close as we are going to get. These are all different cars that we are trying to equalize and it will not happen. I do believe the best drivers with the best setup are running up front and winning races.

Dennis

+1 for Dennis' post....only raced once this year with my 1.8 at a track that we are very familiar with. No complaints on torque, but the restrictor plate took away 4th gear...the car just stopped pulling on the upshift. Not really a problem on a track with a normal front straight, as it did let the 1.6 cars that weren't getting off the corner catch up. But at Road America....forget about it....the straights are just too long. I will submit, that there are pro sanctioning bodies that have no trouble making competition adjustments by track. Just a suggestion for RA...post the rules early so its fair for everyone.
 
Posted by Jamie Tucker (Member # 14391) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SM-SCCA:
At this point it really comes down to every participant in the SM community having complete confidence in the SM founding fathers, SMAC, SCCA and NASA to review the data gathered from Road America and other tracks for the 99’s, 1.6’s and 1.8’s and make the necessary decisions to equalize the cars to the best of their abilities. I have confidence that the representatives from each of these groups do not have any hidden agenda’s and only have the best interest of everyone participating in this class in mind as they make these difficult decisions.

Well said!! If a change is needed than I am sure it will be done with fairness in mind. We certainly have a lot of good people working hard to make sure everybody has a shot to win. Thanks to all of you.
JT
 
Posted by mr von charbonneau (Member # 16925) on :
 
please hay jamie i will race you to the beer cooler with anyting your 1.6 against my big wheel
 
Posted by mr von charbonneau (Member # 16925) on :
 
sorry this question about parity to many variables

wake up people its hard to win period.

2 horses to 10 horses the moons have to come together.

let us race try spec racer one time that will show you how hard it is.
 
Posted by misterwaterfallin (Member # 15609) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by CP:
Slightly off-topic, but I vote for sealed motors. Costs are getting out of hand in this, a series that was developed to be "cheap entry-level racing." My bone stock crate motor (@15K miles) in my 99 can't keep up with the "pro motors" in my region, be it a pro 1.6, pro 1.8 or a pro 99. If I can scrape together $8000+ for a professionally built motor then I can run with the top dogs, but that defeats the purpose of the class.

that would be nice but unfortunately i dont think its going to happen. as some one who is looking to step up his motor program next year, I would surely vote for this option if it gets added to the list
 
Posted by mr von charbonneau (Member # 16925) on :
 
who gets the motor deal I will bid on that won

free six pack to all me peeps who buy a motor from me
i will seal it with a kiss

not going to happen.
 
Posted by Danny Steyn (Member # 7356) on :
 
And as Mr Carbonuckle will testify, in SRF, where the engines are coming sealed directly from the engine supplier, in theory it should create a VERY equal playing field.

But, as in all forms of racing, there are those with deeper pockets, and the those that have depper pockets will buy many sealed engines during the year, spend time on the dyno, determine which of the "identical engines" is MORE EQUAL than the other, keep that one and sell the others.

If you think that sealed engines will keep down the costs to get to the front, I think you havent been around motor racing for too long. In my experience this happens at the pointy end of the field in any competitive sport...

Just my $0.02
 
Posted by d mathias (Member # 343) on :
 
Has anyone asked the Genie what to do?
 
Posted by Casey Z (Member # 3575) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Danny Steyn:
And as Mr Carbonuckle will testify, in SRF, where the engines are coming sealed directly from the engine supplier, in theory it should create a VERY equal playing field.

But, as in all forms of racing, there are those with deeper pockets, and the those that have depper pockets will buy many sealed engines during the year, spend time on the dyno, determine which of the "identical engines" is MORE EQUAL than the other, keep that one and sell the others.

If you think that sealed engines will keep down the costs to get to the front, I think you havent been around motor racing for too long. In my experience this happens at the pointy end of the field in any competitive sport...

Just my $0.02

Danny,

While your basic premise is true, your conclusion is not. The status quo has the top guys developing their own heads and going through several pro motors a year at a cost of 5-7K per motor plus flow bench time, etc. Pombo stated publicly that he was on motor number three this year at the Runoffs and that is probably about average for the pointy end. I know of other programs that have taken it even further.

I do agree that if we had a sealed program people would still buy several motors and pick the cherry one to run. The difference is in a sealed program even the guy that only buys one a year could afford to buy 2-3 sealed motors and pick the best one to run at the same cost. Plus, if you get the power variance down to say 1-2% the guy that only buys one will still be closer to the best power available at a fraction of the cost.

While I agree that the guys that want to spend the most will always have the best gear, the question is how big a gap does that create? A sealed program will close that gap and decrease costs. That isn't an assumption on my part, it is a fact. Plus it gets rid of the continued problems in tech when they have to look at heads that everyone knows have been massaged (mine included) and have to try to decide how massaged is ok. That isn't in line with the FSM and it isn't in line with the philosophy of the class.

The only people that loose with a sealed program are the motor builders.
 
Posted by Cajun Miata Man (Member # 1374) on :
 
Casey,

Well it doesn't really matter who is right or wrong. The sealed motor ship saled long ago. That won't happen.

It might bring the costs down for some, but would raise it for the majority who runs junkyard and/or homemade equipment. A sealed motor won't be the price of a Mazda crate. I wouldn't even trust a Mazda crate anyway.

How much are those dinosaur SRF engines?
 
Posted by Casey Z (Member # 3575) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cajun Miata Man:
Casey,

Well it doesn't really matter who is right or wrong. The sealed motor ship saled long ago. That won't happen.

It might bring the costs down for some, but would raise it for the majority who runs junkyard and/or homemade equipment. A sealed motor won't be the price of a Mazda crate. I wouldn't even trust a Mazda crate anyway.

How much are those dinosaur SRF engines?

I really don't think that the ship has sailed. I think we all need to be looking at the future of the class three to five years from now and make decisions that will support the health of the class in the long term.

If we could get Mazda to seal crate motors as is, no dyno no nothing, just add seals I would think it might add maybe 10% to the cost of a crate? You would still be sub 3K for a motor. Make it a requirement for Nationals starting in 2011 or 2012 and leave regional racers alone. That is where you find the junkyard motors (and the biggest cheater motors too) so they would not be effected.

That type of requirement would not be onerous to national racers and it would go a long way to stopping the spiraling development costs. I would encourage everyone to go walk around the paddock and ask the SRF guys how they feel about their sealed program. I think you might be surprised at their response.

BTW, I hear you on not trusting a Mazda crate. But the main reason you and I both feel that way is you know the level of prep and detail on the motor you have in your car. If everyone was in the same boat I wouldn't be nearly as concerned...
 
Posted by Drago (Member # 1406) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by d mathias:
Has anyone asked the Genie what to do?

I am sending all the SMAC members magic 8 balls for our next call [flamed]
 
Posted by JimEli (Member # 1428) on :
 
In regards to the SRF sealed engine program, at the Runoffs, SRF has virtually the same time spread through 20th place as SM has (maybe slightly worse).
 
Posted by Colin MacLean (Member # 1411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Danny Steyn:
But, as in all forms of racing, there are those with deeper pockets, and the those that have depper pockets will buy many sealed engines during the year, spend time on the dyno, determine which of the "identical engines" is MORE EQUAL than the other, keep that one and sell the others

Danny, the argument here is that with the sealed motor program in SRF the disparity between best and worst engine would be around 2hp? So worst case I spend 5K and get 110hp, someone else spends 20K and gets 112hp (then sells the rest). Whereas in SM I buy a crate I get 115hp, someone with a serious motor program ends up with 125hp. That's a BIG difference. Driving can make up 2hp it cannot make up 10.
 
Posted by Drago (Member # 1406) on :
 
I believe it is a 3 hp window? Look at coast down numbers on the SRF dyno data for the real story, that shows the prep more than anything else
Jim
 
Posted by Cajun Miata Man (Member # 1374) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Casey Z:
quote:
Originally posted by Cajun Miata Man:
Casey,

Well it doesn't really matter who is right or wrong. The sealed motor ship saled long ago. That won't happen.

It might bring the costs down for some, but would raise it for the majority who runs junkyard and/or homemade equipment. A sealed motor won't be the price of a Mazda crate. I wouldn't even trust a Mazda crate anyway.

How much are those dinosaur SRF engines?

I really don't think that the ship has sailed. I think we all need to be looking at the future of the class three to five years from now and make decisions that will support the health of the class in the long term.

If we could get Mazda to seal crate motors as is, no dyno no nothing, just add seals I would think it might add maybe 10% to the cost of a crate? You would still be sub 3K for a motor. Make it a requirement for Nationals starting in 2011 or 2012 and leave regional racers alone. That is where you find the junkyard motors (and the biggest cheater motors too) so they would not be effected.

That type of requirement would not be onerous to national racers and it would go a long way to stopping the spiraling development costs. I would encourage everyone to go walk around the paddock and ask the SRF guys how they feel about their sealed program. I think you might be surprised at their response.

BTW, I hear you on not trusting a Mazda crate. But the main reason you and I both feel that way is you know the level of prep and detail on the motor you have in your car. If everyone was in the same boat I wouldn't be nearly as concerned...

Casey,

I don't think you can lock out regional racers from the requirement. At least not in SOWDIV, maybe elsewhere. If folks having non-sealed motors could only run regionals... you talk about killing the car counts. That would do it. The majority of the SM races and racers run nationals in SOWDIV. Heck if you want to split the class lets just do SM and SM2 (99+), that is what you just proposed but by another twist.

I appreciate Mazda and their outstanding support for us. But have you seen the power and quality variability of Mazda crate motors? I have. Windows of ~6 hp and grenades that destruct on race 1. If the seal program was just that, no dyno or internal checks, I believe my engine costs would increase due to these issues.

I would be ok with a sealed motor program, just contract out a builder for a fixed cost with some power and quality criteria. It would be quite a bit more than a crate, but a much better engine.

I think the SRF engines from SCCA Enterprises are dyno'd and not just crate Ford powerplants.
 
Posted by D.B. Cutler (Member # 1617) on :
 
I don't like the idea of a sealed motor program as I've already spent the money to get a good pro motor. Going to a sealed program now is like telling a guy like me who've already invested in the class, "screw you we're going this way". If we wanted a sealed program, we should have done this a few years ago. Again, whatever we do we should keep in mind the people who've already supported it for years now.
 
Posted by Waterboy (Member # 7106) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by D.B. Cutler:
I don't like the idea of a sealed motor program as I've already spent the money to get a good pro motor. Going to a sealed program now is like telling a guy like me who've already invested in the class, "screw you we're going this way". If we wanted a sealed program, we should have done this a few years ago. Again, whatever we do we should keep in mind the people who've already supported it for years now.

I agree with this 100%. Problem is, unless the program started when the class started then someone is always going to be screwed. Question is what is worse-continuing in the direction we are heading and drawing the line and heading down a different path.

I don't know what the right answer is, just saying.
 
Posted by B Wilson (Member # 606) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Drago:
I believe it is a 3 hp window? Look at coast down numbers on the SRF dyno data for the real story, that shows the prep more than anything else
Jim

I have seen 5 hp on the dyno (not enterprises). I would jump to SRF where they have a well defined program if SM went sealed. You need one dyno and one or 2 dyno operators for a real sealed program.

-bw
 
Posted by Greg Bush (Member # 618) on :
 
If you start a sealed motor program, then it would split the class.

Enough people don't want it or have already spent good money on an engine, so they would start a splinter class.

It would not be up to the rest of the class, it would just happen.
 
Posted by pat slattery (Member # 1254) on :
 
90-98 SM1

99 and up SM2

Pat
 
Posted by Casey Z (Member # 3575) on :
 
I think if we look at parity as a long term issue a sealed motor program makes a lot of sense. I understand the, I already spent money a pro motor argument. I have too. However the fact of the matter is those motors won't stay "good" forever. Maybe a season or two at most. Therefore you will be buying a new one or freshing the one you have in the next 24 months anyway. Therefore, if you start a sealed program 12 to 24 months out that argument is moot from my perspective.

Also, as far as splitting the class, I think we already have. SSM looks to be growing and it is growing by people leaving SM. What we really need to decide is do we want to be more spec, i.e. SSM/SRF or do we want to allow continued development and end up more like T1/ITA? Right now we are kind of in a no man's land in the middle.
 
Posted by Cajun Miata Man (Member # 1374) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pat slattery:
90-98 SM1

99 and up SM2

Pat

Pat,

I'd vote for that in a heartbeat. Sure simplify a bunch of issues.
 
Posted by Motor City Hamilton (Member # 13046) on :
 
I'm not familiar with how the SRF sealed motor program works, so pardon any ignorance. Would a sealed motor program really work? The guy with the most money can still buy multiple motors to sort through and pick the best, right? Instead of $7k per pro motor, he'll just invest that $7k (or $14 or $21 or $28 depending on how many he's buying now)on two sealed motors to find the one that is 5 hp higher.

I did this when I was racing remote controlled cars on a national level. In stock classes where one electric motor was mandated, I would buy a full box of 100 and dyno them all. 15% of them would be a bit better. Those 15 went into my pit box for me and my team. The other 85 were sold to other racers or given away to kids just starting out. I also ran brand new wheel bearings and brand new tires every weekend. A little better is all I needed. A couple of tenths a lap over 40 laps is a nice big lead.

At any level of racing there are three basic variables; money, driver ability and car prep. There is always someone who can afford to buy an advantage. And they will buy better car prep, new tires every run, pro motors or multiple motors, five transmissions to find the smoothest etc.

In my life around racing I have seen only two ways to have true parody. First is make a class that is arrive and drive. Skip Barber offers a nice program for that if you want true parody. Second is don't keep score. As soon as you apply lap times to racing and $15 used bowling tophies to the mix, people will look for an advantage. It is the nature of racing.

I'm liking this class now having raced it for two years on a regional level. I like it better than where I came from IT. The best you can do is keep the cars as close as you can like the CBR has done.

I know that when the nation guys show up for regionals that I'll be a second a lap off them because I don't have the money or time to get my car up to the full spec. And that's fine with me because when I beat one of them with lesser of a car I feel pretty good.
 
Posted by Antonio Garza (Member # 594) on :
 
Motor City, I will take one of your free sealed motors that doesn't pass muster. I'll PM you my address. [Smile]
 
Posted by springfielddyno (Member # 1606) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Drago:
quote:
Originally posted by d mathias:
Has anyone asked the Genie what to do?

I am sending all the SMAC members magic 8 balls for our next call [flamed]
All the 8 balls showed up at my address... I kept the best one (it's easily a 8.2) and sent the rest to the other members... Now all I got to worry about is that newer 8.4 you kept...
 
Posted by wheel (Member # 3072) on :
 
You guys talking about magic 8 balls gave me a flashback to the late 60's.
 
Posted by Jamie Tucker (Member # 14391) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr von charbonneau:
please hay jamie i will race you to the beer cooler with anyting your 1.6 against my big wheel

I know my limitations and getting between you and the beer cooler is more than I can handle.
 
Posted by Jamie Tucker (Member # 14391) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pat slattery:
90-98 SM1

99 and up SM2

Pat

How can I race SM1 and 2 at the same time?
 
Posted by Mark de Regt (Member # 3908) on :
 
Most of the people who race where I race (Oregon Region SCCA, when my car's working) drive 1.6's, so I don't have any expert opinion on what help the 1.6 needs to stay competitive.

But I do want to chime in about the various "ideas" I read from time to time that splitting the class into two (well, two more) classes, the 1.6 making up one class, and all the rest making up the other. This seems to me to be a lousy idea, since it will further splinter the class, the last thing it needs.

If the 1.6 needs help (and all I read from those not fighting a sectarian battle suggests that it does), I would like it to be both as inexpensive as possible, and as simple to tech as possible.

I note one thing, from the point of view of one who has been racing for three years, all in this class. When I started, the pro motors were still exclusively in the front runners' cars; the rest of us were content to be mid-pack on more plebian motors. Since then, the pro motors have largely taken over the mid-pack, at least in Oregon.

So why not admit that the cost of admission has increased, and allow lighter clutches? I'm sure that, with the inevitable demand there would be for them now, the price of a significantly lighter clutch, which would still be reasonably strong and not too hard on the TOB/drive train, would not be horribly high, and it would really help solve the problem.

I am not too enthusiastic about shaving flywheels; perhaps it's the lawyer in me, but that seems like a recipe for at least one disaster, and I suspect that some combination of lighter clutch and different cams could solve the problem more safely.

--Mark
 
Posted by pat slattery (Member # 1254) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Tucker:
quote:
Originally posted by pat slattery:
90-98 SM1

99 and up SM2

Pat

How can I race SM1 and 2 at the same time?
You could run them seperate or together and score them as two seperate classes.

Thats in reality is what we had at Road America.

Pat
 
Posted by TSouth (Member # 1635) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Motor City Hamilton:
true parody.

Some think this is what we have now, but want parity [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Tom Sager (Member # 10576) on :
 
Sealed motors is an interesting idea, but we'd have to seal more than just the motors. I can also tell you with 100% certainty that there have been SRF racers that have been able unseal and reseal their motors and that effort included picking through the dumpster outside of the SCCA shop where the motors are sealed for extra seal parts. That was years ago.

If we ask 100 people how to create parity in SM we'll get 100 different answers. My $.02 would be to make the cars more the same which would include more power and weight for the 1.6 and also the larger front bar for the 1.6. 1.8's would get a 4.30 rear and a slight weight adjustment. Maybe a restictor plate change also. The '99's would not be changed much except for weight (reduce). Right now, while the cars are well matched on some tracks, the differences in weight, power and chassis are too large IMO to get parity at both short and long tracks. Anyone know what a 10:1 compression ratio would do for a 1.6? It's a cheap and easy change.
 
Posted by Tom Sager (Member # 10576) on :
 
Another way to reduce the parity debate would be to move the Runoffs back to Mid-Ohio.
 
Posted by Blake Clements (Member # 1377) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cajun Miata Man:
quote:
Originally posted by pat slattery:
90-98 SM1

99 and up SM2

Pat

Pat,

I'd vote for that in a heartbeat. Sure simplify a bunch of issues.

But make sure SM1 and SM2 run in different Run Groups, because I'm sure some people (me) will want to run both.
 
Posted by Greg Garneau (Member # 1704) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Casey Z:

Also, as far as splitting the class, I think we already have. SSM looks to be growing and it is growing by people leaving SM. What we really need to decide is do we want to be more spec, i.e. SSM/SRF or do we want to allow continued development and end up more like T1/ITA? Right now we are kind of in a no man's land in the middle.

Same thing I mentioned twice in one of the other Runoff's threads...
It makes the most sense. Most importantly (especially to all the people crying about splitting the class), it IS already in place. There is a sealed class in both NASA and SCCA, we just need it to go National and we need to phase/force the 1.6 guys to go that direction. It would be easier & cheaper on the "budget" racers, and it would force the BIG $ guys (like myself [Big Grin] ) to run the 1.8/SM2/99-up class where the cars could run unrestricted and actually be kinda fun. [Roll Eyes]
OBTW, just for the record, we currently run a zillion dollar 1.6
 
Posted by d mathias (Member # 343) on :
 
quote:
Another way to reduce the parity debate would be to move the Runoffs back to Mid-Ohio.
+1
 
Posted by Jamie Tucker (Member # 14391) on :
 
Nothing would kill SM like splitting the class. That vast majority do not want it and in my opinion it simply is not needed. I think everybody feels that the 1.6 needs a little help at tracks with hills so fixing that issue should be on the agenda but these cars are a lot closer than people not running in the front want to admit. A simple 20 lbs (or whatever is needed) increase on 99s at tracks like Road America and Road Atlanta would help bring the cars in line at those tracks. At flat tracks just leave the rules the way they are.
 
Posted by larryw (Member # 3641) on :
 
I agree with Casey,
Add $300 to $500 to the cost of a sealed crate motor to get the horsepower tolerance down to 3 hp and I'm all for the sealed engine program. It works for MX-5 cup, so I'm wondering why it wouldn't for us?

Parity is what will keep this class strong, imo.

Larry
 
Posted by misterwaterfallin (Member # 15609) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by larryw:
I agree with Casey,
Add $300 to $500 to the cost of a sealed crate motor to get the horsepower tolerance down to 3 hp and I'm all for the sealed engine program. It works for MX-5 cup, so I'm wondering why it wouldn't for us?

Parity is what will keep this class strong, imo.

Larry

I think if we could make these available this winter, and mandate them 2011, it would work. possibly offer a split class at the runoffs, 1 with the current rules, and one with the new sealed motor. That would give everyone almost 2 seasons to get on board

and for those who would say they dont like the cost, because they already bought a pro motor. You're going to have to have that at minimum serviced to stay competitive, and if it was in the ballpark of a crate it wouldn't cost a whole lot more than a freshen.

then we still have the discussion of different model years
 
Posted by Andrew Peacock (Member # 800) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by larryw:
I agree with Casey,
Add $300 to $500 to the cost of a sealed crate motor to get the horsepower tolerance down to 3 hp and I'm all for the sealed engine program. It works for MX-5 cup, so I'm wondering why it wouldn't for us?

Parity is what will keep this class strong, imo.

Larry

That works for MX-5 Cup because you are talking about only 3 years of current production coming off the same molds, tooling, and assembly lines.

Compare to SM, with 19 years of 1.6L suppliers, tooling, and design variations alone before adding the 94-97 motors, 99-00 motors, and 01-05 motors.

The better answer are REAL engine rules with REAL enforcement procedures (as opposed to the tired old "thou shalt not improve performance" SS rule, and comparing service manuals to ONE part bought on ONE day out of a 19 year run).

Ironically, your friendly local engine builder is the SOLUTION to parity ... but we need a very defined "recipe" that everyone can build to, and that everyone can MEASURE to, and that recipe needs to be aimed at reusing as many existing blocks and heads as possible.
 
Posted by B Wilson (Member # 606) on :
 
Sounds good, forget sealed! spec a 1.8 motor with ALL specs published, whatever year ECU, and let's get this done for 2011. We have really good tools for enforcing specs now with plenty of boroscopes and whistlers nationwide to enforce even at a regional level. A way better "how spec is done" can come out of this!

-b
 
Posted by D.B. Cutler (Member # 1617) on :
 
Wow ! I suggestd this years ago and got beat up on this forum for even suggesting it. I guess I'm just ahead of my time...
 
Posted by cnj (Member # 13716) on :
 
I agree with Bruce. Place the same motor in all the cars by 2001 - set very clear rules - and normalize the weights.

Craig J
 
Posted by Willie the Tard (Member # 2319) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cnj:
I agree with Bruce. Place the same motor in all the cars by 2001 - set very clear rules - and normalize the weights.

Craig J

sounds good -- if it's 1.6 [Smile]
 
Posted by cnj (Member # 13716) on :
 
Tard,

I don't actually care if it is a 1.6 or 1.8. Pragmatically it would seem that a later motor would make sense so that we are not trying to keep 20 year old engines going.

Its all semantical, we will all complain about this for years but we will never get the class to accept that ultimately the only way to ensure year model parity is to make the cars virtually identical. We have people complain about having to place $100 right side nets so getting them on board with a $3-4K purchase is impossible. For the record though, I would happily write the check if it ensured parity.

Craig J
 
Posted by B Wilson (Member # 606) on :
 
This can be done with junkyard, crate, or pro motors. If some can't afford to at least buy a junkyard motor then their days in racing are numbered anyway.

-bw
 
Posted by Casey Z (Member # 3575) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cnj:

Its all semantical, we will all complain about this for years but we will never get the class to accept that ultimately the only way to ensure year model parity is to make the cars virtually identical. We have people complain about having to place $100 right side nets so getting them on board with a $3-4K purchase is impossible. For the record though, I would happily write the check if it ensured parity.

Wisdom beyond your years.. [Wink]