Spec Miata Community   
search | help | calendar | games | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello Spec Miata Community » SpecMiata.com » Spec Miata Garage » NASA and/or SCCA Spec change (Page 3)

 - Email this page to someone! | Subscribe To Topic
Page 3 of 4 1  2  3  4  next » 
 
Author Topic: NASA and/or SCCA Spec change
Karl Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
2001 ARRC Winner


Region: SW
Car #: 50
Year : 1600
Posts: 1926
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Karl   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Pat,

Before you have us all convinced that the 1600 handles better than the 99, tell us what happens in high speed bumpy sweepers. Can I?

The 1600 bounces and wanders while the 99 does not (on apron inside NASCAR 1 and 2 TMS).

To follow up what you said, I know that issue is not resolved with 10 mm more rear track. We've done that with spacers.

With 99 front subframe ?????????
With stiffer front clip and subframe ?

Why hasn't anyone put an early subframe and rack on a 99. It's easy right? See if it's the subframe/rack or the front clip.

Drago Verified Driver Made Donation to Website Series Champ
MegaModerator

Region: mid south
Car #: 2
Year : 1999
Posts: 4275
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Drago   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Karl:
JDr You are obviously frustrated but as the guy that everyone likes why are you being openly critical of some here. Think about that, please. I know you love this class, but maybe...just maybe...you are in too tight.

What about that call to the BOD? Possible?

Karl
Not sure who I am in too tight with? I dont feel that I was overly critical with anyone, if I was I certainly apologize, not my intention. What are we talking about, send PM if you like. As far as liking me? Have you been reading these threads? [flamed] Anyone not happy with changes blames me 100%.

As for your posts, I havent responded because for whatever reason, we are on opposite sides of any position 99% of the time. That in itself is strange as you would think by chance we would agree about 50% of the time. Your position on this matter to me is similiar to you saying the sky isnt blue? Not in the allowing or not allowing, I have no problem with that at all. everyone is entitled to there position, it was no slam dunk for me either. But that doesnt change teh facts. I would go line by line, but just assume all you posted in this thread, I disagree with or feel is purposely misleading. Sorry. [nope]

I did not make a call to anyone including BOD. As I have told you by phone many times on phone calls. I am not SM czar?? We have a process, no one person in the process is above the process, including me, especiallly me. It went through SMAC, it went through CRB and member input.

Is it right for the class? That is not make call to make alone, collectively,SMAC and CRB decided this was the direction we wanted to go.

My personal opinions are documented all over the place on the site, no sense rehashing.

And dont call me JDr [Big Grin]

--------------------
Jim Drago
East Street Auto Salvage
jdrago1@aol.com
2006-2007 Mid-West Division
07,09 June Sprints Champion

EAST STREET RACING

Tom Sager Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: Chicago
Car #: 94
Posts: 176
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Tom Sager     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Drago:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl:
JDr You are obviously frustrated but as the guy that everyone likes why are you being openly critical of some here. Think about that, please. I know you love this class, but maybe...just maybe...you are in too tight.

What about that call to the BOD? Possible?

Karl
Not sure who I am in too tight with? I dont feel that I was overly critical with anyone, if I was I certainly apologize, not my intention. What are we talking about, send PM if you like. As far as liking me? Have you been reading these threads? [flamed] Anyone not happy with changes blames me 100%.

As for your posts, I havent responded because for whatever reason, we are on opposite sides of any position 99% of the time. That in itself is strange as you would think by chance we would agree about 50% of the time. Your position on this matter to me is similiar to you saying the sky isnt blue? Not in the allowing or not allowing, I have no problem with that at all. everyone is entitled to there position, it was no slam dunk for me either. But that doesnt change teh facts. I would go line by line, but just assume all you posted in this thread, I disagree with or feel is purposely misleading. Sorry. [nope]

I did not make a call to anyone including BOD. As I have told you by phone many times on phone calls. I am not SM czar?? We have a process, no one person in the process is above the process, including me, especiallly me. It went through SMAC, it went through CRB and member input.

Is it right for the class? That is not make call to make alone, collectively,SMAC and CRB decided this was the direction we wanted to go.

My personal opinions are documented all over the place on the site, no sense rehashing.

And dont call me JDr [Big Grin]

Making rule changes in this class is like an act of Congress without a party system. There will be about 500 differing opinons of different combinations on what to do or not to do. Whatever is approved, if it improves competitive balance and preserves the longer-term competitiveness of the cars and class at relatively low cost, then it's a positive in my book. Yes, there are biases in place (not pointing the finger at anyone specific) and there are views from many different perspectives, but the intent is good most everywhere you look. When the new rules are published they'll probably piss off at least half the people. That'll get vented here with lots of intensity, but when the green flag drops on 2011, we'll be reminded how lucky we are to be able to participate in this activity, in this class, at great racetracks surrounded by a bunch of great people and with the support of a manufacturer that really gives a damn.

Willie the Tard Verified Driver
Member

Region: NASA Texas
Car #: 8
Year : 92
Posts: 697
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Willie the Tard   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by John the Impaler:
quote:
Originally posted by taylorf:
In 2010 the 1.6 in SOWDIV won 2 races out of 10. All others were by 99's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy

To wit - "The self-fulfilling prophecy is, in the beginning, a false definition of the situation evoking a new behaviour which makes the original false conception come 'true'. This specious validity of the self-fulfilling prophecy perpetuates a reign of error. For the prophet will cite the actual course of events as proof that he was right from the very beginning."

A fast guy thinks there is an advantage to the 99, has some success. Other fast guys think the same thing, hence more 99's. Soon, only the spuds are left in 1.6's.

Are the 1.6's really slower, or is it just that all the fast guys happen to be driving 99's ?

Beware of statistics.

We have fast guys that own both but NEVER use the 1.6 anymore and still claim that both are equal

--------------------
William Keeling a.k.a. Willie the Tard

guest driver
Member

Region: 011
Car #: 47
Year : 94
Posts: 488
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for guest driver     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Alex Bolanos:
quote:
Originally posted by pat slattery:
I guess my question is, does everyone think that the 1.6 needs help with handling compared to the 99 cars?

I don't think so, the 1.6 handles much better than the 99 in the current trim that both are racing at, so why does the 1.6 need some espensive, labor intensive retrofit for. I know some say optional, but, I think you either need to make it mandatory or not at all, and my vote would be NOT.

Pat

The 1.6 needs zero help in the handling department (from my experience), the 99 suspension upgrade should have been presented as an optional update to broaden the sources of spare parts.
Exactly!!
So why is everybody still discussing this SCCA proposed rule change?? Will not make an iota of difference to the lap times of the vast majority of 1.6 racers, maybe a tenth for a few. Only matters in context with NASA's response ...
- The following is said with absolute respect for all those involved ;

The only thing that really matters is the "nicely packaged" concession for the '99 ers who were having a "hard time" developing more power, outside of the written rule set.
The "hard time" really meant hanging their butts out on the clothes line for 'anyone' to come and whack it ("politics-agendas-lying-cheatin-general BS") at any given 2011 National or for sure at next years RunOffs (there was tech this year BTW, only it came via the most painful source possible, the racers themselves).
And this is being presented as a fairness jesture, all in the name of helping out the few '99 ers who were not playing the game, so they too can now go faster, legally and for cheap.

What you will now get for next year is the Runoffs Qual times as a 'baseline performance' for all '99's, from high 42's to high 43's at Rd Am, LEGALLY. What LEGAL 1.6 is going to turn those lap times??
Or at Sebring, in 79 days??, whose going to 'drive' a 2:36 at Sebring in a legal 1.6 ??
That's your new LEGAL baseline.
But wait, there's more!
What you will also get from the top '99 ers is the same "tweaked" but tech shed legal ECU's, now hard at work looking for the next 2 hp that it will take to win. Bet the farm they will find it, inside of 90 days. Also bet ya YOU will not find it, until the next rule change when it doesn't matter anymore (when they already found something new and improved).
Where's that leave the 1.6's ??
up the proverbial creek ... yeah, the splitting of the classes is all NASA's fault.
Plain English for all to read and consider.
that's all i got ...
[flamed]

Willie the Tard Verified Driver
Member

Region: NASA Texas
Car #: 8
Year : 92
Posts: 697
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Willie the Tard   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

guest driver +1 -- very well said

--------------------
William Keeling a.k.a. Willie the Tard

taylorf Verified Driver
Member

Region: Houston
Car #: 51
Year : 1994
Posts: 411
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for taylorf     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

guest driver - Well Said.

--------------------
Taylor Ferranti

Motor City Hamilton
Member

Region: Great Lakes/Detroit
Car #: 51
Year : 1994 Miata
Posts: 401
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Motor City Hamilton     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

One question that I haven't seen asked anywhere yet. Is the subframe upgrade already a cheat that is quietly showing up on many pre 99 cars anyway? So at regional events when I see cars with easily more than -3 degrees of front camber, can I assume that these are already under their cars?

Drago Verified Driver Made Donation to Website Series Champ
MegaModerator

Region: mid south
Car #: 2
Year : 1999
Posts: 4275
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Drago   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Motor City Hamilton:
One question that I haven't seen asked anywhere yet. Is the subframe upgrade already a cheat that is quietly showing up on many pre 99 cars anyway? So at regional events when I see cars with easily more than -3 degrees of front camber, can I assume that these are already under their cars?

Yes, for years. Most camoflauge by running old racks instead of running 99 up.

--------------------
Jim Drago
East Street Auto Salvage
jdrago1@aol.com
2006-2007 Mid-West Division
07,09 June Sprints Champion

EAST STREET RACING

Willie the Tard Verified Driver
Member

Region: NASA Texas
Car #: 8
Year : 92
Posts: 697
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Willie the Tard   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Motor City Hamilton:
One question that I haven't seen asked anywhere yet. Is the subframe upgrade already a cheat that is quietly showing up on many pre 99 cars anyway? So at regional events when I see cars with easily more than -3 degrees of front camber, can I assume that these are already under their cars?

no, we just use Sammy subframes [Smile] no need to change the rack

--------------------
William Keeling a.k.a. Willie the Tard

Teamfour Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: WDCR
Car #: 04
Year : 1993
Posts: 519
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Teamfour   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Just to clarify my NB suspension upgrade: I have no doubt that the upgrade will NOT get me further up in the field. I have much to learn until something like that will help me.

I discovered that my '93 was still running a manual (not depowered power) steering rack. So I was going to replace this. I also needed new lower ball joints and bushings. When I looked at the cost to upgrade it was a no brainer to go ahead and try the NB setup.

If the NB upgrade is thought to have a minimal advantage for a regular driver, why not make it legal (optional) to expand the parts availability?

--------------------
Lee Tilton
1993 Meowta #04
Brimtek Motorsports/ Team Four Racing
Team Four Racing

Drago Verified Driver Made Donation to Website Series Champ
MegaModerator

Region: mid south
Car #: 2
Year : 1999
Posts: 4275
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Drago   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Lee,
I actually prefer manual? I have like fifty 99 up racks on the shelf and buy new expensive manual 99 up rack from Mazda. [Frown]
Jim

--------------------
Jim Drago
East Street Auto Salvage
jdrago1@aol.com
2006-2007 Mid-West Division
07,09 June Sprints Champion

EAST STREET RACING

Teamfour Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: WDCR
Car #: 04
Year : 1993
Posts: 519
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Teamfour   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

JDr, isn't a 99 manual rack still a quicker ratio than the '93 manual? My '93 felt like I was driving a land yacht.

BTW, sorry I missed you at Summit last weeek. I really wanted to meet you.

--------------------
Lee Tilton
1993 Meowta #04
Brimtek Motorsports/ Team Four Racing
Team Four Racing

pat slattery Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Veteran Member

Region: cincy
Car #: 79
Year : 92
Posts: 1495
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for pat slattery     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by guest driver:
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Bolanos:
quote:
Originally posted by pat slattery:
I guess my question is, does everyone think that the 1.6 needs help with handling compared to the 99 cars?

I don't think so, the 1.6 handles much better than the 99 in the current trim that both are racing at, so why does the 1.6 need some espensive, labor intensive retrofit for. I know some say optional, but, I think you either need to make it mandatory or not at all, and my vote would be NOT.

Pat

The 1.6 needs zero help in the handling department (from my experience), the 99 suspension upgrade should have been presented as an optional update to broaden the sources of spare parts.
Exactly!!
So why is everybody still discussing this SCCA proposed rule change?? Will not make an iota of difference to the lap times of the vast majority of 1.6 racers, maybe a tenth for a few. Only matters in context with NASA's response ...
- The following is said with absolute respect for all those involved ;

The only thing that really matters is the "nicely packaged" concession for the '99 ers who were having a "hard time" developing more power, outside of the written rule set.
The "hard time" really meant hanging their butts out on the clothes line for 'anyone' to come and whack it ("politics-agendas-lying-cheatin-general BS") at any given 2011 National or for sure at next years RunOffs (there was tech this year BTW, only it came via the most painful source possible, the racers themselves).
And this is being presented as a fairness jesture, all in the name of helping out the few '99 ers who were not playing the game, so they too can now go faster, legally and for cheap.

What you will now get for next year is the Runoffs Qual times as a 'baseline performance' for all '99's, from high 42's to high 43's at Rd Am, LEGALLY. What LEGAL 1.6 is going to turn those lap times??
Or at Sebring, in 79 days??, whose going to 'drive' a 2:36 at Sebring in a legal 1.6 ??
That's your new LEGAL baseline.
But wait, there's more!
What you will also get from the top '99 ers is the same "tweaked" but tech shed legal ECU's, now hard at work looking for the next 2 hp that it will take to win. Bet the farm they will find it, inside of 90 days. Also bet ya YOU will not find it, until the next rule change when it doesn't matter anymore (when they already found something new and improved).
Where's that leave the 1.6's ??
up the proverbial creek ... yeah, the splitting of the classes is all NASA's fault.
Plain English for all to read and consider.
that's all i got ...
[flamed]

Guest, I have been assured that will not happen [Wink]

Pat

--------------------
keeping the faith for the 1.6

Arrow Karts

TSouth Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: Cincinnati
Year : 90
Posts: 180
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for TSouth     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Alex Bolanos:
quote:
Originally posted by taylorf:
quote:
Originally posted by John the Impaler:
quote:
Originally posted by taylorf:
In 2010 the 1.6 in SOWDIV won 2 races out of 10. All others were by 99's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy

To wit - "The self-fulfilling prophecy is, in the beginning, a false definition of the situation evoking a new behaviour which makes the original false conception come 'true'. This specious validity of the self-fulfilling prophecy perpetuates a reign of error. For the prophet will cite the actual course of events as proof that he was right from the very beginning."

A fast guy thinks there is an advantage to the 99, has some success. Other fast guys think the same thing, hence more 99's. Soon, only the spuds are left in 1.6's.

Are the 1.6's really slower, or is it just that all the fast guys happen to be driving 99's ?

Beware of statistics.

Why did all those non-spuds change over to a 99 from their 1.6's?

Sincerely,
Spud #51 in a 1.6

This has been covered extensively in other threads.
So 1.6 owners should be asking for things to make their 1.6's less finicky racecars. The things that cause issues in making good consistent power are the ECU (timing gets pulled, etc.) and the AFM (affected by cornering, changes in ambient temp., etc.) correct?. So maybe a new chip and AFM mods/elimination can do the trick?

Jason Holland Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Mediocrity rules!

Region: SouthEast
Car #: 28
Year : 95
Posts: 3756
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Jason Holland   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Here's my not so well thought out opinion on this....

NASA should be careful here and make sure (if they want to make a big split) that it's one that benefits the majority of their racers. Those are the only people they need to be worried about. The problem lies in the fact that many of those racers are also SCCA guys.

So there's always been a line to be walked here.

As a little insight, while I was NASA director, I thought it important to keep as close to scca as possible as long as it was minor stuff and it made sense. That just was good business sense.

But there were times that SCCA needed a little prodding, like the shock hat issue (NASA was occasionally the wagger).

The current situation? I dunno. I don't envy NASA or John's decision making here. It's a tough one. I for one haven't done the research, nor talked to enough people in the know to have an informed opinion. But the bottom line is this:

1. I feel the 1.6 is in need of help
2. I don't feel the majority of the class needs to change (expensively) to match the minority.
3. Splitting off with different rules is a risky maneuver but it COULD pay dividends. It could also be a really bad move.
4. Generally speaking, matching rulesets are a good thing all other things being equal (which they prolly aren't)
5. I'm glad I'm not doing this anymore.

That wishy washy enough for you?


Of yeah, one last thing... if there was one conclusion that I finally came to, with all the work with rules etc, it was this:

There will NEVER be perfect parity. Ever. Not with this many different cars. I think that it's ultimately unproductive to try to make them equal. I always thought a split was a better option. That is why I started SSM in NASA. I thought (and still think) that that's where 1.6 cars should race in both scca and nasa. The nb and up cars can continue to have their parity wars in sm. It would at least be a little easier to equalize them.

I hope John continues where I left off with SSM. I think that is the best solution.


Back to my hole....

--------------------
Jason Holland
Semi-interested civilian

Gatoratty Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: Central Florida
Car #: 3
Year : 1992
Posts: 1304
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Gatoratty     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Remember......this is Similar Miata.....not Spec Miata!

--------------------
Paul McLester

Connie 62 Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: WDC
Car #: 11
Year : 91
Posts: 314
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Connie 62     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Jason Holland:
one last thing... if there was one conclusion that I finally came to, with all the work with rules etc, it was this:

There will NEVER be perfect parity. Ever. Not with this many different cars. I think that it's ultimately unproductive to try to make them equal. I always thought a split was a better option. That is why I started SSM in NASA. I thought (and still think) that that's where 1.6 cars should race in both scca and nasa. The nb and up cars can continue to have their parity wars in sm. It would at least be a little easier to equalize them.


NASA differs from SCCA in that NASA has SSM throughout all their regions. I would suggest that NASA following SCCA in the massive changes for 2011 is a mistake. Let the frustrated NASA 1.6L cars migrate to SSM and eventually you would have a natural split of the 1.8L into SM and the 1.6L into SSM. (You could even open up or eliminate restrictor plates in the 1.8L to motivate 1.6L cars to defect to SSM) When evolution has essentially completed the split, re-write the rules to make it official.

The SCCA bureaucracy will debate this for years. Take advantage of the agility of NASA to get way ahead in this game.

IMHO this is really a win-win resolution. The 1.8L gets to go faster and the rest get to race cheaper. Believe me, there is just as much fun and excitement in SSM, at a fraction of the price.

--------------------
Jim Thill
#11 SSM
#3 ITA
Thrillz Racing

Cliffy Chains
Member

Region: Central FL
Car #: 17
Year : 1991
Posts: 275
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Cliffy Chains   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Nasa / SCCA ? in the end we all just want to have some good competition with a fairly large field.

I REALLY hate debating parity in the class, it for sure will never end. Here goes anyway.

T-Bag in his 1.6 is hands down one of the best drivers I have raced against or seen in a 1.6 since starting with SCCA, BUT ask him , for a 1.6 to get the win against alot of the country's top drivers here in the SE is harder than some of the Grand Am or World Challenge Victories he has had.

I have personally driven alot of "other" 1.6 cars locally, and the problem is rarely power, it is almost always car prep and Data analysis. Most any of the top 1.6's, are recording AF, Tach, HP, Torque, Temps, braking, accel......the list goes on and on...We look at it and makes any adjustments needed, these are the things needed to stay close to the pointy end. Give us (1.6 drivers) any more HP or TQ it will most likely be game over....There are quite a few 1.6's in the country that are prepped right and driven hard, usually you have seen them at the pointy end of the field and can run with any 99 at "almost" any track.

Personally I think the 1.6 is more fun to drive if you like driving past the edge ( most of us do). I will say of my own personal "down on power" 1.6, if I dont make podium, it was not the cars fault, it was the dumb ass behind the wheel that did it.

Now that all being said, I am at Sebring Short right now (a well known 1.6 track for sure) I am getting in my 99' and Kick the $h!t out of some 1.6's, SOLEY based on the sheer horsepower of Apollo 17.

--------------------
BDR Motorsports, Autotechnik
Cliff Blanchard
Down on power 1.6
Sluggish overweight 99'

Blake Clements Verified Driver Series Champ
MegaModerator

Region: SW - Houston
Car #: 6
Year : 99, 96
Posts: 2262
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Blake Clements   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Karl:

You can still call the BOD and ask them to pull the suspension upgrades from the rules.

2450/2275 = 1.077

2400/2275 = 1.055

Which brings the handling closer for less money?

Huh? I can not compute what you are getting at here?

--------------------
Blake Clements

PhillipsRacePrep/SP Induction Systems/East Street Racing/MiataCage.com/Carbotech/WBR Graphics

www.blakeclements.com

D.B. Cutler Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Huge Member

Region: Detroit
Car #: 5
Year : 1991
Posts: 1029
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for D.B. Cutler     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Does anyone know when the decision is going to be made and announced as whether or not the NA cars are going to go to the 99 subframe/suspension parts?

I'm getting tired of tripping over all of these 99 parts in my garage... [rolling on floor laughin]

Dave Gomberg
Member

Region: WDC
Posts: 57
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Dave Gomberg     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by D.B. Cutler:
Does anyone know when the decision is going to be made and announced as whether or not the NA cars are going to go to the 99 subframe/suspension parts?

I'm getting tired of tripping over all of these 99 parts in my garage... [rolling on floor laughin]

The Board of Directors is meeting today and all club racing rules changes will be considered. I expect that they will not make it into the November Fastrack (due out Wednesday of next week). So, it is likely that official notice will not appear for another month.

Dave

B Wilson Verified Driver Series Champ
Gold Member

Region: Oregon
Car #: 68
Year : 91
Posts: 2359
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for B Wilson   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

That is funny. I know a handfull of folks who've already bought the parts and they generally aren't contenders for a win. Also funny that I'm pretty sure the guys who are contenders in my region haven't bought theirs yet. It's not a big deal for most of the folks I've talked with.

SSM (sealed) doesn't seem to be going too well in some regions. It will only work well if the same company builds, dynos, seals, and confiscates engines. If you're going to split the class, do it along the lines of NA/NB+.

-b

--------------------
Bruce Wilson
2010 Oregon Region Champ
2010 Monte Shelton Driver of the Year
2010 25 Hours of Thunderhill E3 and Under 2 liter Overall Champion
Oregon Region SM Class Advisor

guest driver
Member

Region: 011
Car #: 47
Year : 94
Posts: 488
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for guest driver     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

^^^
Tough situation, no easy answers.
i've been harping about the '99's with their new found legitimization, legally setting the base to allow for creatively achieving the next leg up on HP (new '99 benchmark of 130/118), but i know it must be allowed.
There is no simple solution as others have said.
Fully agree "parity" is very difficult to achieve and maintain but it doesn't help when 'the' car to have is allowed to keep their ill gotten gains, (remember the 1.6 fresh brewed cams of '02 - '06? - the 1.6 clutch package?, could go on but they were all 'be goned').
Big picture ? The SCCA BOD should approve the new rules submitted as there is no way to properly enforce the '99 specific rule set "by SCCA tech". Only by the racers themselves and that leads to an even bigger dilemma of inside wheeling and dealing of i'll allow yours if you allow mine ... not good for the majority of the racers.
1) Approve all as submitted. 2) Recognize and accept the reality of the disparity 3) adjust accordingly to create parity and maintain participation by over half of the class.
SCCA powers that be ;
It is vital to quickly implement step 3 as there is a 'competitor' drafting you, who will make an outside move and may take a whole line of cars with him.
Question is; does SCCA lead, block or follow??
Please advise results of BOD meeting as soon as possible. Thank you for your hard work and dedication.

Karl Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
2001 ARRC Winner


Region: SW
Car #: 50
Year : 1600
Posts: 1926
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Karl   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Sorry Blake, two issues here for me and I mixed them together.

1600s are better in tight stuff I believe due to the 7% weight difference. Moving the NB's weight down 2%, or better yet 4% will help that and costs little (yes, we would need to small up the RP as well, so a small cost for the new RP)

NAs can't high speed bumpy corner as well as NBs. I don't believe that is only a bump steer issue that will be solved by the suspension upgrade so I find the suspension upgrade a money eating MUST HAVE by the front runners and something else the NA (specifically 1600) owners not racing due to cash flow will have to overcome before they get back out there.

guest driver
Member

Region: 011
Car #: 47
Year : 94
Posts: 488
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for guest driver     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

re my item # 3 above ("adjust accordingly");
- the '99 needs help in handling - braking - tires going away deep into a session??
deduct 50 lbs from '99
- the 1.6 needs "go" help ??
add 39 mm RP on '99

SCCA; for less than $50 out of pocket for each of the 80? +/- '99 racers out there, you just may have kept that "entire line of cars" ... inside your own paddock.
[scratchchin]

John A - 5X Racing Verified Driver
www.5xracing.com

Region: NASA FL / CFR SCCA
Car #: 25
Year : 1991
Posts: 374
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for John A - 5X Racing   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Danny Steyn:
Hi John

First of all I consider you a good friend on the track and a tremendous asset for SM. BUT I am surprised at your comments above.

I do not have a dog in this hunt in terms of a NASA vs. SCCA argument. I currently race SCCA but the minute NASA draws the majority of the top drivers to its class I will be there.

BUT I do have a dog in this hunt in terms of the future of SM.

I believe that ALL decisions made by both organizations should be made with one goal in mind, ensuring that this class continues to be popular and competitive. If they succeed at this, then the numbers and entry fees and business revenues will follow. If they do not, the numbers will diminish and the associated revenues will fall.

The numbers decline has as much to do with the current economy as anything else. My personal business income has declined by more than 50% in the past year and I am competing in 50% fewer events than before. Personally I believe that the powers at be in SCCA in SM are doing the best they can to ensure a future for this class.

I also personally believe that any splitting of the class into SM/SM2 etc will have a long term consequence, and I believe too that NASA taking a different path from SCCA will also be detrimental to the future of the class. (Just my own opinions)

As to your IRL vs. CART argument, I think you have taken the wrong tack. SM existed in SCCA and NASA saw money attached to it and immediately incorporated it into its events to boost car counts. So it adopted the SCCA spec as a sensible immediate adoption path with no expense to the driver. Now it plans to take a divergent path that will ensure that anyone who wants to do both will have to spend money. I see that as a simple division of the class, with long term consequences.

As to the controversy and BS. It has always existed. And it always will. This is racing after all. Show me one class where this does not exist. No claims of unfairness, no claims of politics, no claims of preferential treatment. I have yet to see it.

This forum provides a superb way for people with agendas (on both sides) to motivate their cause and much of the BS only resides here. Many posters appear to have well rounded interests, but others seem to have but one agenda and post ad nausea to forward their case.

For most that do not frequent the forum, the BS is nonexistent. They show up at the track, they race, they leave with smiles on their faces. For those that have aspirations of standing atop the podium, they typically try and educate themselves about all the aspects of this class, end up on this forum and get caught up in the BS. It is a very addictive place as you can see. Way more intelligent persons than I warned me and I didnt listen.

Ultimately all attempts to contain costs in a motor racing class will fail. Simply put, everyone will always look for ways to increase their advantage. In fact the more tight the spec becomes, the more expensive it becomes to game the spec.

What is happening is that a simple grass roots class is maturing. This cycle is typical for all classes and all activities and enterprises. With the maturity comes a general longing for the way things were. This is not real, nor is it achievable. Doesn't mean you shouldn't strive to attain it, but so much of what has been posted in this thread and many others is purely a nostalgic look at years gone by, when a wonderful new class in its infancy appeared to defy the odds and promised a dream of inexpensive grass roots racing for the end of time. It was, and is, a dream.

I admire and respect your motives and effort, as do I those on the CRB and SMAC. But as you can attest this is not a simple issue.

I personally urge all to find a common patch for the future of the class. Separation will ultimately damage this class. Mark my words.

PM sent Danny. Wanted to reply but I also don't want to throw anymore sticks onto this inferno!

--------------------
John Adamczyk

Owner: 5X Racing Online Race Shop
Driver: Team 5X Racing #25 Spec Miata
NASA FL Race Director
Race Engineering Powered 1.6

Danny Steyn Verified Driver
Member

Region: SE
Car #: 39
Year : 1999
Posts: 835
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Danny Steyn   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by guest driver:


1) Approve all as submitted.
2) Recognize and accept the reality of the disparity
3) adjust accordingly to create parity and maintain participation by over half of the class.
SCCA powers that be ;
It is vital to quickly implement step 3 as there is a 'competitor' drafting you, who will make an outside move and may take a whole line of cars with him.

Carlos
you are 100% on the money. The situation is simple

When a new class gets formed there is total naivite and ignorance. The longer it stays around, the more time people have to learn how to game the situation, witness the 1.6 cams and flywheels. But they were easy to police so they are gone.

And racers will ALWAYS game the rules, so it is critical to have ENFORCEABLE rules

Now we have some history with the 99, and all 99 drivers have come to realize that the car is tremendously hampered by the over-rich situation between 6000 - 7000 rpm.

So their first solution was to crimp the fuel pressure regulator, and then the ECU got cracked. Neither of these is legal, but they are both impossible to tech.

By NOW allowing open timing and open FP regulator as is propsed, the cheated advantage falls away.

And now in my opinion, as you state, you apply #3. If required, quickly apply Weight and RP changes to slow down the 99 to achieve parity.

But there is no point in doing that until you have eliminated the undetectable FP and ECU cheats.

As to the 1.6 optional suspension upgrades, I beleive they are not required but are sensible for those wanting to replace them if they choose. I do not see it changing the 1.6's in any significant way.

--------------------
Danny
http://www.dannysteyn.com
http://www.adeptstudios.com
OPM Autosports | Traqmate | Rossini Racing Engines
2010 June Sprints Champ, 2010 ARRC SMX Champ
2009 SARRC Champ, 2009 SEDiv ECR Champ, 2009 FES Champ
2008 SEDiv ECR Champ

guest driver
Member

Region: 011
Car #: 47
Year : 94
Posts: 488
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for guest driver     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Danny Steyn:
quote:
Originally posted by guest driver:


1) Approve all as submitted.
2) Recognize and accept the reality of the disparity
3) adjust accordingly to create parity and maintain participation by over half of the class.
SCCA powers that be ;
It is vital to quickly implement step 3 as there is a 'competitor' drafting you, who will make an outside move and may take a whole line of cars with him.

Carlos
you are 100% on the money. The situation is simple

When a new class gets formed there is total naivite and ignorance. The longer it stays around, the more time people have to learn how to game the situation, witness the 1.6 cams and flywheels. But they were easy to police so they are gone.

And racers will ALWAYS game the rules, so it is critical to have ENFORCEABLE rules

Now we have some history with the 99, and all 99 drivers have come to realize that the car is tremendously hampered by the over-rich situation between 6000 - 7000 rpm.

So their first solution was to crimp the fuel pressure regulator, and then the ECU got cracked. Neither of these is legal, but they are both impossible to tech.

By NOW allowing open timing and open FP regulator as is propsed, the cheated advantage falls away.

And now in my opinion, as you state, you apply #3. If required, quickly apply Weight and RP changes to slow down the 99 to achieve parity.

But there is no point in doing that until you have eliminated the undetectable FP and ECU cheats.

As to the 1.6 optional suspension upgrades, I beleive they are not required but are sensible for those wanting to replace them if they choose. I do not see it changing the 1.6's in any significant way.

Danny;
and you sir, are 99% on the money ...
[Smile]

all the above you state except delete "if required" and insert "immediately" (as in effective 1-1-11).

from Topeka's perspective; gives the 1.6 a fighting chance and preempts a draft pass by NASA. Every SCCA Region will benefit, do the math, almost $1.5 million just in possibly lost entry fees is on the line.
[scratchchin]

l8tbreakr
Member

Region: NER
Car #: 17
Year : 90
Posts: 69
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for l8tbreakr     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

+1

--------------------
-----------
AJ Goldsmith
Westborough, MA

B Wilson Verified Driver Series Champ
Gold Member

Region: Oregon
Car #: 68
Year : 91
Posts: 2359
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for B Wilson   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

1++

-b

--------------------
Bruce Wilson
2010 Oregon Region Champ
2010 Monte Shelton Driver of the Year
2010 25 Hours of Thunderhill E3 and Under 2 liter Overall Champion
Oregon Region SM Class Advisor

guest driver
Member

Region: 011
Car #: 47
Year : 94
Posts: 488
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for guest driver     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by l8tbreakr:
+1

no,
+ $1.5 million ...
for each SCCA region across the land it's " all about the Benjamins"
[Big Grin]
sorry late braker,
couldn't resist, but thanks, others are saying "please do not feed the troll"
[fight]

edit to add: also thanks to the superfast 1.6 guy from the great NW territories ...

JIM DANIELS Verified Driver Made Donation to Website Series Champ
Site Founder

Region: Mid-South
Car #: 76
Year : "You Pick"
Posts: 4422
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for JIM DANIELS   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

If this was Formula Ford the 1.6 would be running CFF. Our path appears to be similar to that class, new cars rule.

That said, perhaps we need to be talking about MX5s in SM and not SM5 to continue the new car wins trend while not splitting up SM?

'90-'97 regional only
'99-'09 national

No new class, just an accepted new car wins methodology within SM.

Of course they will all be perfect on paper.

--------------------
Jim Daniels

MAZDARACERS.COM

l8tbreakr
Member

Region: NER
Car #: 17
Year : 90
Posts: 69
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for l8tbreakr     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Jim, what's your thinking on making the NA regional only, and not able to run as a National sub-class. SMA, SMB, etc.

There are other classes like Production that run older cars very competitively, and owners can maintain their cars/investments and still be able to compete Nationally. A guy named Thrash comes to mind, seems he had some success in a car which was even older than 1990. That same model was given larger 40mm chokes this year to help keep it competitive with newer cars.

--------------------
-----------
AJ Goldsmith
Westborough, MA

Karl Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
2001 ARRC Winner


Region: SW
Car #: 50
Year : 1600
Posts: 1926
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Karl   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

JD (few) wrote:
"No new class, just an accepted new car wins methodology within SM."

Wow! Has the first paragraph in the SM rules also changed? This class brought folks to the SCCA because it was inexpensive. How many 1600 owners are no longer SCCA members.

Spock could tell you something about the needs of the many.

Willie the Tard Verified Driver
Member

Region: NASA Texas
Car #: 8
Year : 92
Posts: 697
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Willie the Tard   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by TSouth:
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Bolanos:
quote:
Originally posted by taylorf:
quote:
Originally posted by John the Impaler:
quote:
Originally posted by taylorf:
In 2010 the 1.6 in SOWDIV won 2 races out of 10. All others were by 99's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy

To wit - "The self-fulfilling prophecy is, in the beginning, a false definition of the situation evoking a new behaviour which makes the original false conception come 'true'. This specious validity of the self-fulfilling prophecy perpetuates a reign of error. For the prophet will cite the actual course of events as proof that he was right from the very beginning."

A fast guy thinks there is an advantage to the 99, has some success. Other fast guys think the same thing, hence more 99's. Soon, only the spuds are left in 1.6's.

Are the 1.6's really slower, or is it just that all the fast guys happen to be driving 99's ?

Beware of statistics.

Why did all those non-spuds change over to a 99 from their 1.6's?

Sincerely,
Spud #51 in a 1.6

This has been covered extensively in other threads.
So 1.6 owners should be asking for things to make their 1.6's less finicky racecars. The things that cause issues in making good consistent power are the ECU (timing gets pulled, etc.) and the AFM (affected by cornering, changes in ambient temp., etc.) correct?. So maybe a new chip and AFM mods/elimination can do the trick?
maybe a megasquirt and MAP sensor and wide open intake before TB [Smile] that would be sweet

--------------------
William Keeling a.k.a. Willie the Tard

Muda Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
ComingToAMirrorNearYou

Region: WDC
Car #: #23
Year : 1991
Posts: 642
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Muda     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Karl:
Spock could tell you something about the needs of the many.

LOL, that's so true Karl. Still can't figure out why we are trying to make the majority of the cars faster in a class whose great success is primarily based on the ability to run inexpensively. Grand Am and others just make the fast guys slower. How did we go 180* on this strategy?

After driving a '99 and my '90 on two consecutive days last week I say slow down the '99 or split the class.

--------------------
Muda Motorsports
"We're all here 'cause we're not all there."

jj15ball
Member

Region: SE
Car #: 15
Year : 90
Posts: 70
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for jj15ball     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

I'm with Willie. Get rid of the trap door AFM and its issues. They gave the 99' everything they needed to maximize their air/fuel curve and the NA's are stuck with a clockspring.

--------------------
Jason Ball

pat slattery Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Veteran Member

Region: cincy
Car #: 79
Year : 92
Posts: 1495
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for pat slattery     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Most of our reps in SCCA say the 1.6 don't need no stinkin help [Frown] Just the 99

And no JD, I don't want to run regional only in our 1.6. If you can pull off the 1.6 only, a national class, and the others running National, I am onboard. [Smile]

Pat

--------------------
keeping the faith for the 1.6

Arrow Karts

Gatoratty Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: Central Florida
Car #: 3
Year : 1992
Posts: 1304
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Gatoratty     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

If you want the 1.6 to get more torque....now is when you need to write to the CRB with your request. Also state what you want and how the proposal will increase hp or torque. Now is the time to request a competition adjustment for the 1.6. Assuming that the 99's are allowed to adjust fuel pressure and use the slotted sensor for timing....they will have have been given a performance advantage over the 1.6. The only proper response from the CRB should be to allow a competition adjustment in response.

--------------------
Paul McLester

guest driver
Member

Region: 011
Car #: 47
Year : 94
Posts: 488
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for guest driver     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

no need for anyone with a 1.6 to spend a dime in response to the '99 concession, only comp adjustment needed is on the '99's;
add 39 mm plate
deduct 50 lbs

KG
Member

Region: dmvr
Year : 1990 and 1995
Posts: 112
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for KG   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

I'm still puzzled why there is no talk about the 94-97 in this discussion.

John Mueller Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Okay, not the slowest anymore...

Region: SoCal
Car #: 13
Year : 1992
Posts: 847
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for John Mueller   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by KG:
I'm still puzzled why there is no talk about the 94-97 in this discussion.

Be assured NASA is looking there too... Details on everything will be out soon'ish. Sorry for the silence, just want to get it as right as we can.

--------------------
Thanks,
John Mueller
NASA SM National Director
http://www.Weekend-Racer.com
#13 "Tiger Miata" - 2009 SoCal SSM Champion

Funracer Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Posts: 62
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Funracer     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by KG:
I'm still puzzled why there is no talk about the 94-97 in this discussion.

My statement exactly about 100 posts back. We
must be perfect because no one seems to care if we speed up or slow down. [scratchchin]

Regards

Danny Steyn Verified Driver
Member

Region: SE
Car #: 39
Year : 1999
Posts: 835
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Danny Steyn   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Jason and Muda
this is NOT about making the 99 faster - this is about removing unenforceable rules that are being cheated. Once the cheating is removed, and all the 99's are on the same level, then you can, as Carlos says, QUICKLY enforce a RP and/or weight change mid season or several times a season as is required.

But until you have removed the unenforceable ruleset there is no point to this.

--------------------
Danny
http://www.dannysteyn.com
http://www.adeptstudios.com
OPM Autosports | Traqmate | Rossini Racing Engines
2010 June Sprints Champ, 2010 ARRC SMX Champ
2009 SARRC Champ, 2009 SEDiv ECR Champ, 2009 FES Champ
2008 SEDiv ECR Champ

Willie the Tard Verified Driver
Member

Region: NASA Texas
Car #: 8
Year : 92
Posts: 697
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Willie the Tard   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by pat slattery:
Most of our reps in SCCA say the 1.6 don't need no stinkin help [Frown] Just the 99

And no JD, I don't want to run regional only in our 1.6. If you can pull off the 1.6 only, a national class, and the others running National, I am onboard. [Smile]

Pat

+1

--------------------
William Keeling a.k.a. Willie the Tard

Mike Bell Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Mentally Retired

Region: NASA TX
Car #: 16
Year : 1990
Posts: 135
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Mike Bell   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Sure could use some more 1.6's in SSM here in Texas!

--------------------
Mike Bell
http://www.bns-racing.com/sm.jpg

'Strongbad'
Member

Region: Atlanta
Car #: 28
Year : 1992
Posts: 14
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for 'Strongbad'     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

I am with JD on this one.

Regional class only 1.6 (maybe even stock air box and mazda comp exhaust?).No parity issues just a fun starting point for budget minded racers.

National class all cars (with whatever bizarre mix of go fast goodies for the older cars to keep pace)and just for good measure remove the RP and weights from the 99's. This class would be for the serious racers who enjoy the stress and development aspect of racing.

Keeps everybody happy, right?
Joseph Strong

Vick Verified Driver
Do they sell spec training wheels?

Region: NYR
Car #: 12
Year : 1991
Posts: 620
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Vick     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Muda:

After driving a '99 and my '90 on two consecutive days last week I say slow down the '99 or split the class.

Muda, was the '99 you drove faster everywhere on the track at the Glen, did it handle better...etc?

I know you've put a lot of time and work into your '90 lately.....do you think the level of prep of your car is the same as the '99 you rented (which I'm pretty sure is very well prepped)?

I'm just curious as I've only ever driven my not that well prepped '91. I'd be curious to hear what you have to say about the difference between the two cars.

--------------------
http://www.volko.com

Connie 62 Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: WDC
Car #: 11
Year : 91
Posts: 314
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Connie 62     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

This thread seems to prove the point...just an endless "dog chasing his tail", in this case in a hopeless pursuit of parity.

Production? Older cars? Maybe we should be approaching the vintage guys with a promise of parity.

Evolve or perish. This is a parallel to legacy airlines vs. upstart carriers. Those who are agile and innovative will survive. NASA seems to have the edge in that respect.

Since I obviously have no solution with regard to parity, I guess my solution is to modernize the National class by a split.

--------------------
Jim Thill
#11 SSM
#3 ITA
Thrillz Racing

 
Page 3 of 4 1  2  3  4  next » 
 

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic | Subscribe To Topic
Hop To: