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

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello Spec Miata Community » National Auto Sport Association » NASA Discussion » NASA 2011 Rules (are published) (Page 1)

 - Email this page to someone! | Subscribe To Topic
Page 1 of 3 1  2  3  next » 
 
Author Topic: NASA 2011 Rules (are published)
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

http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules/spec_miata_rules.pdf Changes in the PDF are in RED

None of these changes would prohibit a SCCA configured vehicle from competing with NASA. NASA wanted to get the 99 cars closer to the actual weight of the 90-98 cars to make it perform the same under braking and corner exit.

Here are the major changes:

12.1: Restrictor plate and minimum weights (NASA e performed dyno tests to derive these numbers)

* 90-93: 2285lbs (no change)
* 94-97: 45mm (no change) @ 2340lbs (-35lbs)
* 99-00: 37mm (-4mm) @ 2390lbs (-60lbs)
* 01-05: 41mm (-2mm) @ 2390lbs (-60lbs)

13.2: NASA allowing both the 4.1 and the 99+ upgrade 4.3 but the 4.3 is mandated for the Nationals. It has not been determined yet if the 4.3 will be mandated for 2012.

14.1: NASA has mandated the 24mm front bar on the 94-97 for Nationals

15: Steering rack - NASA is allowing shimming between the rack & subframe.


Fire away [flamed]

[ 12-26-2010, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: John Mueller ]

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

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

Using only rp and weight is not expensive enough.

Seriously, nice work - look forward to how the nasa season goes. Maybe SSM could mirror NASA's rules and facilitate crossover of the early cars.

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

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

Area @ 41mm = 1320 square mm

Area @ 37mm = 1075 square mm

Good thing for open fuel pressure.

cnj
Member

Region: SW Division
Car #: 32
Year : 1999
Posts: 194
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for cnj     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Tom Sager:
Area @ 41mm = 1320 square mm

Area @ 37mm = 1075 square mm

Good thing for open fuel pressure.

An interesting observation Tom. I am quite supportive of the idea that the cars need to be more matched in weight if we want closer (ie.more equal) racing behavior. This of course requires closer matching in power/torque as well. A friend dyno tested a 99 with a 41mm versus a 39mm plate and found a 4hp/3fp drop - which makes me wonder what the power drop will be with the 37mm. No doubt we will know soon. A 6-8hp drop on the 99 will (arguably) closely match it to the 90 or drop below but it will still have a quite large weight disadvantage. There are of course other nuances to the engine performance through the rev range that Tom aludes to.

It will be an interesting season filled with debate and possibly even a little data.

Craig J

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

Was this actually tested or was it a spreadsheet exercise?

[Smile]

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

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

www.blakeclements.com

dunk
Member

Year : 1999
Posts: 50
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for dunk     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Are there any guides out there for adding a fuel pressure regulator to a 99? Are we allowed to convert the fuel system to the older return style system to accommodate the regulator?

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

I am interested in seeing how this pans out. Right now we have no idea how the equalization will pan out in the real world, in short and long races, at flat and hilly courses etc. This will take time to play out as the various experiences are accumulated and analyzed

HOWEVER for me it just cancelled my interest in doing the 2011 NASA Nationals at Mid Ohio - something that I had planned to do. So its immediate affect is to reduce the grid number at at least 5 races by 1

Before you jump to conclusions, it has nothing to do with the equalization (still to be determined), its just that we built our car to make weight at 2450 with me in it at 220lbs. We added additional roll cage bracing and safety equipment based on the 2450lb target

Even taking out all the video equipment, cool box etc. at most I will be able to take out around 30lbs, so my car will not be competitive at 2420.

Also severely curtails the market I can sell my car to, as unless I get a NASA driver under 180 lbs interested in my car, it will only have a market in SCCA.

Just food for thought - fire away

--------------------
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

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 Danny Steyn:
I am interested in seeing how this pans out. Right now we have no idea how the equalization will pan out in the real world, in short and long races, at flat and hilly courses etc. This will take time to play out as the various experiences are accumulated and analyzed

HOWEVER for me it just cancelled my interest in doing the 2011 NASA Nationals at Mid Ohio - something that I had planned to do. So its immediate affect is to reduce the grid number at at least 5 races by 1

Before you jump to conclusions, it has nothing to do with the equalization (still to be determined), its just that we built our car to make weight at 2450 with me in it at 220lbs. We added additional roll cage bracing and safety equipment based on the 2450lb target

Even taking out all the video equipment, cool box etc. at most I will be able to take out around 30lbs, so my car will not be competitive at 2420.

Also severely curtails the market I can sell my car to, as unless I get a NASA driver under 180 lbs interested in my car, it will only have a market in SCCA.

Just food for thought - fire away

I would say the changes look like investment protection for the older cars. I think the move to equalize power and weight among the various cars is a good one and was probably at least discussed within the SCCA circle. SCCA preferred a different approach. NASA runs fewer races at the big long tracks and Mid-Ohio is a completely different animal from Road America. A lighter '99 with less power might still be very competitive there as you spend a lot less time above 90MPH and a lot more time with your hands being busy on the steering wheel.

Qik Nip Verified Driver Made Donation to Website Series Champ
Loose Member '09 & '10 Great Lakes Regional Points Champion

Region: Cincinnati Great Lakes
Car #: 60
Year : 1990
Posts: 1487
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Qik Nip     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Danny Steyn:

Also severely curtails the market I can sell my car to, as unless I get a NASA driver under 180 lbs interested in my car, it will only have a market in SCCA.

Danny:
I weigh 165. I'll give you five grand for that 99 when you're done with it. [Wink]
Rick

--------------------
Fortune Cookie Racing SM 60
Directions for use: Race, Rumple, Repair ... Repeat!

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

John the pdf document has 24mm front bar for Nationals (94-97) but you state 27mm here.

Congrats to NASA. A simple common sense approach to the class. No way well you every see that from the other sanctioning body.


Kurtis

kwebb
Member

Region: WOR
Car #: 96
Year : 2001
Posts: 18
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for kwebb   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

I almost never comment on this forum, but I am concidering racing only SCCA this year as it makes no sense to me to race in a car that was just handicaped! If NASA wants equal I am all for that but take 8 hp from a 1999 or 3hp from a 2001, it doesnt matter what you do with the weight, it will never be competitive! Thank GOD I went and got my SCCA licence!!!!!!!! IMHO NASA's testing must be a rubber ducky floating in a tub at someones house. If they were actualy interested in testing they would have done this at several tracks over that last season not in secret over that last month! What a JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--------------------
Kyle Webb
#96 SM

David Dewhurst
Veteran Member

Posts: 574
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for David Dewhurst     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Point 1:

What's wrong with bending a bit for the majority of the class? [Big Grin]

Point 2:

Maybe the 2-5 hp advanrage for the 90/97 will make up for the major bump steer/suspension issue that some attempted to parity sell to the BoD. [Razz]

Point 3:

Such is life on the other side of the fence. [yep]

Oh crap, these rules are for NASA.

But the poor ol SCCA 94/97 lost 35 pounds.

--------------------
Have Fun [Wink]

David Dewhurst
CenDiv
Milwaukee Region
Spec Miata #14

d mathias Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: OVR
Car #: 88
Year : 1991
Posts: 2401
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for d mathias     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Also severely curtails the market I can sell my car to, as unless I get a NASA driver under 180 lbs interested in my car, it will only have a market in SCCA.
As a 1.6 owner who has watched the 90-93 values plummet over the last couple years it is very curious to read of a 99 owner complaining about "market value".

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

All good points...

NASAs thinking was if the 99 is getting new legal power the older cars were instantly disadvantaged. They (NASA) charged me with getting tests done and presenting the data so decisions could be made.

Testing confirmed NASAs hypothesis: The 99s with open timing (OT) & adjustable fuel pressure (AFP) had an advantage (not just the cheated-up ECU cars anymore). The gain is large enough to warrant this RP.

Now, NASA is not above making adjustments when more information and data is available. Discuss like crazy, but get out there and race to prove NASA wrong (or right)! September is over a half year away, we'll know by May.

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

Rob Burgoon Verified Driver
Member

Posts: 443
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Rob Burgoon     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by kwebb:
it makes no sense to me to race in a car that was just handicaped!

 -

--------------------
It really makes my week when nobody crashes into me.

kwebb
Member

Region: WOR
Car #: 96
Year : 2001
Posts: 18
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for kwebb   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Don't worry Rob, My 2001 will be real close plus advantage MO is my home! But my 2001 is for sale! Not crying at all there are two clubs and I think everyone will race with whichever one they think gives them the best shot! If you have a 99 you will either build a second car or you will race SCCA. Maybe that will be proved to be a good thing it is just my opinion that it isn't a good thing! Time will tell!

I don't have a dog in the fight with respect to who is calling the shots in either club, my point is and was, this testing should have been documented and transparent for all to seeand at multiple tracks across the country!!!!!

Maybe the 1.6 drivers will be happy and the 99 drivers will be unhappy and maybe that is role reversal. I have an 01 and it gets treated like a red headed step child by everyone, I havent been on here crying about it, I built it to the best I could which is probably to top 2001 in the entire country! Now if I could just get some driving lessons!!!!!!!!!! lol

Todd Lamb are you out there? Can you help me with my driving PRO_BONO of course!!!!!!!

--------------------
Kyle Webb
#96 SM

Tvance13
Member

Car #: 85
Year : 2001
Posts: 161
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Tvance13   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Hmmm - The NA 1.8 looked pretty strong already - In NASA trim, looks even better.

--------------------
http://TylerVanceRacing.com

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

I think these rules should be mirrowed by SCCA immediately. [Big Grin]

Pat

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

Arrow Karts

cnj
Member

Region: SW Division
Car #: 32
Year : 1999
Posts: 194
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for cnj     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Blake Clements:
Was this actually tested or was it a spreadsheet exercise?

[Smile]

Blake, was this directed at me? If so then the answer is that the numbers I quoted were actual dyno tests. Most likely there will be separate dyno tests from south of Dallas on the 37mm within two weeks. Nice to have your own CNC machines and dyno....

John, is there a possibility that NASA would publish the testing methodology and results? This would remove some of the mystery and while it may stir up debate (no more than the rules themselves) at least it would give many a head start on understanding what they are up against given a pretty significant change.

As a 99 owner I am certainly not ready to do a Chicken Little just yet based on the rule changes as all the info is not in on how much power/torque drop I will see - however my instinct is that I will end up coming in below a well prepped 90 on power and still be 105 lbs heavier. To reiterate, I am all for a lighter car and I am willing to give up power and torque using a RP if that proves to actually work (some smart people do not think it will). My only agenda is to have the capacity for a sharp knife in a knife fight. We'll see if these rules allow that. If so I'll race NASA more, if not I won't.

Craig J

cam Verified Driver
Cheap member

Region: southwest
Car #: 14
Year : 90
Posts: 739
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for cam   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Thank you John and the NASA crew. The 99+ will still have more torque but at least the NA cars can think they have a fighting chance. I hope to do more NASA events in 2011. I still support the NA cars using the NB style front K member and control arms.

--------------------
"The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
~Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
~Thomas Jefferson

Gibscreen Verified Driver Series Champ
Member

Region: NASA-SoCal
Car #: 23
Year : 1995
Posts: 912
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Gibscreen   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by kwebb:
If NASA wants equal I am all for that but take 8 hp from a 1999 or 3hp from a 2001, it doesnt matter what you do with the weight, it will never be competitive!

This is a joke, right? What about a weight of 2000? 1500? Still not competitive?

--------------------
Rob Gibson
RJ Racing
2010 NASA Nationals TTE Champion
2008/2009 WERC Champion
2007 NASA SoCal SM Champion
rjracing.net
Weekend-Racer.com

38BFAST Verified Driver
Member

Region: Waterford Hills
Car #: 38
Year : 96
Posts: 348
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for 38BFAST     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by John Mueller:
http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules/spec_miata_rules.pdf Changes in the PDF are in RED

None of these changes would prohibit a SCCA configured vehicle from competing with NASA. NASA wanted to get the 99 cars closer to the actual weight of the 90-98 cars to make it perform the same under braking and corner exit.

Here are the major changes:

12.1: Restrictor plate and minimum weights (NASA e performed dyno tests to derive these numbers)

* 90-93: 2285lbs (no change)
* 94-97: 45mm (no change) @ 2340lbs (-35lbs)
* 99-00: 37mm (-4mm) @ 2390lbs (-60lbs)
* 01-05: 41mm (-2mm) @ 2390lbs (-60lbs)

13.2: NASA allowing both the 4.1 and the 99+ upgrade 4.3 but the 4.3 is mandated for the Nationals. It has not been determined yet if the 4.3 will be mandated for 2012.

14.1: NASA has mandated the 27mm front bar on the 94-97 for Nationals

15: Steering rack - NASA is allowing shimming between the rack & subframe.


Fire away [flamed]

[rolling on floor laughin]

Well at least the 94-97 gang is going to have fun.

--------------------
Ralph Provitz
#38
2008 WHRRI SM Champion
2008 WHRRI Top 10 Overall
V2 Motorsports, Race support, Data Dude

Dwayne Hoover Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Veteran Member

Posts: 3138
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Dwayne Hoover     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by pat slattery:
I think these rules should be mirrowed by SCCA immediately. [Big Grin]

Pat

Remember what the 1.8s did to you there in 2008? With one weekend of practice and setup? With 4.1s, fat front bars, and more weight? This is the one track in GLDiv where that 4.3 actually helps that car.

The check is Tony's if he wants it ...

I hope they leave it this way and don't cave to the 99 Owners Union ... I want to see this play out and see if my Predict-O-Meter still works [Wink]

--------------------
Visit the Midland City Arts Festival!

George Munson Verified Driver
Member

Region: 83
Car #: 127
Year : 90
Posts: 284
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for George Munson     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

John,

My question is why are the weights not more equal being that you ajusted the horsepower via restrictor plate as per the dyno. Seems to me you created a no 99 and up class. Just asking so I can understand.

Dwayne Hoover Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Veteran Member

Posts: 3138
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Dwayne Hoover     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by John Mueller:

Testing confirmed NASAs hypothesis: The 99s with open timing (OT) & adjustable fuel pressure (AFP) had an advantage (not just the cheated-up ECU cars anymore). The gain is large enough to warrant this RP.

NASA's hypothesis appears to ignore that timing gains and bin-matching fuel pressure regulators were always "legal" and have been part of the 99s on-track performance for years. I can only assume the testing wasn't performed on one of the top 99s that were at the Runoffs.

NASA may honestly think they are making a warranted adjustment - but based on the physics, the prep/Tech realities, and my knowledge of the track, I think history will prove otherwise.

On the other hand, if entries are healthy at the NASA Champs, perhaps nothing else matters - it will be interesting to see how many of the NA faithful make the trip, what the prep level of their cars is, whether any of the class celebrities play the COTY game, and whether the event is viewed similar in "prestige" as the Runoffs.

--------------------
Visit the Midland City Arts Festival!

Z-ville Racing Club Verified Driver
Member

Region: Indy Region
Car #: 28
Year : 1990/2000
Posts: 32
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Z-ville Racing Club     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

There just seems to be something wrong when you have a car built (99+), then the rules keep changing trying to slow it down. Maybe 1.8's should move to pte so they can remove the plate and let them breath. Would you want to run a marathon breathing through a snorkle?
Rules seem to be a bit more stable too.

DionJ Verified Driver
Member

Region: SF
Car #: 68
Year : 91
Posts: 186
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for DionJ     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Thanks for the work John, probably a good move for NASA, at least out west. That said, I'm glad I got my PTE car built 'cause I won't make weight in my 99.

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

quote:
Originally posted by Danny Steyn:

its just that we built our car to make weight at 2450 with me in it at 220lbs. We added additional roll cage bracing and safety equipment based on the 2450lb target

Even taking out all the video equipment, cool box etc. at most I will be able to take out around 30lbs, so my car will not be competitive at 2420.

Also severely curtails the market I can sell my car to, as unless I get a NASA driver under 180 lbs interested in my car, it will only have a market in SCCA.

Just food for thought - fire away

All the same things we've been hearing from 1.6 owners for years... Being around since the very early years and seeing the weights change time and again, this is no surprise to me. Regardless, this line of reasoning has never affected the rules making process and it shouldn't going forward.

-bw

--------------------
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

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

My sentiments also Bruce. 1.6 owners have been saying that for a long time to deaf ears to the SCCA.

One of the two Org. have missed the boat in parity, I say it is SCCA, but we shall see, It will be interesting to see how the 99 fares with the new ruleset for 2011. Unfortunately it probably won't be the 1.6's turn to be the over dog, but, the 1.8. But, there are lots less of those than the 99, which will probably make the people that build the cars happy!

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

Arrow Karts

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

quote:
Originally posted by George Munson:
Seems to me you created a no 99 and up class. Just asking so I can understand.

Looks that way to me. And because of that I am seriously thinking of running NASA in 2011 instead of SCCA.

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

cpdenis
Good Life Member

Region: 11
Car #: 09
Year : 99
Posts: 143
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for cpdenis     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Mueller:

"NASAs thinking was if the 99 is getting new legal power the older cars were instantly disadvantaged. They (NASA) charged me with getting tests done and presenting the data so decisions could be made.

Testing confirmed NASAs hypothesis: The 99s with open timing (OT) & adjustable fuel pressure (AFP) had an advantage (not just the cheated-up ECU cars anymore). The gain is large enough to warrant this RP."

So if this hypothesis is correct, I will add the timing wheel, the fuel pressure regulator to my 120k original motor, replace the rp with the 37mm, remove 60 lbs and I'll run the same times.
Is this assumption correct?

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 cpdenis:
So if this hypothesis is correct, I will add the timing wheel, the fuel pressure regulator to my 120k original motor, replace the rp with the 37mm, remove 60 lbs and I'll run the same times.
Is this assumption correct?

G R E A T question - time will tell

--------------------
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

Frank Todaro
Member

Region: Ohio Valley Region
Car #: 35
Year : 1999
Posts: 170
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Frank Todaro     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

I wonder when and where we can get the new RP so we can start doing our own testing.

Anyone with a 2001 and up car need a RP?

I am going to have to go on diet, I am not sure I can make this new weight.

--------------------
Frank
Member: No Pain Racing

suck fumes Verified Driver
Veteran Member

Region: Lonestar
Car #: 75
Year : 3rd in the nation
Posts: 522
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for suck fumes     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Yah i need to know where to get this new restrictor plate as well... I called Dave at Nasa tx's headquarters in Dallas but even he didn't know where to get them. He said maybe Mazda would have them???

--------------------
THAT JUST HAPPENED!!! -RickyBobby-

Dave Stevens
Member

Region: So Cal
Year : 90
Posts: 74
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Dave Stevens   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

It's like deja vu all over again... [Wink]

Maybe at the new place Mike can get us on of those popcorn eating emoticons for threads like this. [fight]

Dave

--------------------
The 2011 Money Furnace
http://racing.roaddog.com/

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 Tvance13:
Hmmm - The NA 1.8 looked pretty strong already - In NASA trim, looks even better.

+1, but time will tell - I shed no tears for the NBs

NASA I'm back

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

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 cpdenis:
So if this hypothesis is correct, I will add the timing wheel, the fuel pressure regulator to my 120k original motor, replace the rp with the 37mm, remove 60 lbs and I'll run the same times. Is this assumption correct?

Errr, close... You should race competitively with the NA cars. That's the intent.

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

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 Frank Todaro:
I wonder when and where we can get the new RP so we can start doing our own testing.

Anyone with a 2001 and up car need a RP?

I am going to have to go on diet, I am not sure I can make this new weight.

I should be firming-up RP info soon & will post everywhere. But I do know Mazdaspeed will not be selling them (been out of that business for awhile now). Give me a few days please... :-)

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

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

Just to clarify..

14.1: NASA has mandated the 24mm front bar on the 94-97 for Nationals.

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

David Dewhurst
Veteran Member

Posts: 574
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for David Dewhurst     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Any machine shop with a vertical mill & a adjustable boring tool can bore the hole for a RP. [thumbsup]

--------------------
Have Fun [Wink]

David Dewhurst
CenDiv
Milwaukee Region
Spec Miata #14

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 David Dewhurst:
Any machine shop with a vertical mill & a adjustable boring tool can bore the hole for a RP. [thumbsup]

Dave is right but I'd only use it for dyno testing... I'd recommend a serialized "NASA" or "SCCA Enterprises" RP to ensure compliance.

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

JMorris
Member

Posts: 69
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for JMorris     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by John Mueller:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cpdenis:
So if this hypothesis is correct, I will add the timing wheel, the fuel pressure regulator to my 120k original motor, replace the rp with the 37mm, remove 60 lbs and I'll run the same times. Is this assumption correct?

Errr, close... You should race competitively with the NA cars. That's the intent. [/QUOTE

Should = No way.
It looks like NASA has decided that they want quantity ( more entries coming from disgruntled 1.6 owners) not quality. They have intentionally castrated the 99/00 cars in order to gain entries of the NA cars. NASA has always been a second rate organization and championship. This change all but insures that will continue as most of the best drivers in SM are in 99/00 cars, most of which wont bother attending a championship they can't win.

The testing done was done to bring a mid pack 99 cars in slower than a mid pack 1.6 car. The problem is, only the mid pack and beyond 99/00 cars gained anything from timing and FP. The front running 99/00 cars will lose 8-10 hp and 60 lbs. That is a net loss of 5-8 hp to all the NA cars. With all version cars winning in NASA and SCCA last year, there is no rational explanation to hit the 99/00 cars so hard less wanting entries of NA cars at the expense of 99/00 cars.
While John Mueller seems to be doing his best for the class and NASA, it seems strange NASA would leave such decisions in his very inexperienced hands. I think the "intent' all along was to gain 1.6 entries by killing the 99/00 cars, not to make the cars 'equal'. They have accomplished half their goal, now lets see if they get the entries they hoped for. [crackup] [Frown]
J~

fishguyaz
Member

Region: AZ/SoPac
Car #: 92
Year : 99
Posts: 131
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for fishguyaz     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by John Mueller:
All good points...

NASAs thinking was if the 99 is getting new legal power the older cars were instantly disadvantaged. They (NASA) charged me with getting tests done and presenting the data so decisions could be made.

Testing confirmed NASAs hypothesis: The 99s with open timing (OT) & adjustable fuel pressure (AFP) had an advantage (not just the cheated-up ECU cars anymore). The gain is large enough to warrant this RP.

Now, NASA is not above making adjustments when more information and data is available. Discuss like crazy, but get out there and race to prove NASA wrong (or right)! September is over a half year away, we'll know by May.

John,
I assume that these tests were done on a dyno correct?
if so, how about posting the dyno sheets from the tests?
thanks

--------------------
Josh Pitt
AZ Region

Leah Epting Verified Driver
Member

Region: Washington DC
Car #: 07
Year : 1991
Posts: 41
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Leah Epting     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

*cough* SSM rules? Pretty please? [help]

amolaver Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: NASA MA
Car #: 50
Year : '96
Posts: 318
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for amolaver   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

how about posting the objective data that proves the 99+ had this big advantage? because i seem to be holding in my hand an analysis done by a professional data acq guy that says the cars are essentially equal with the old rules. can't upload it, but Caddell did an objective analysis from the '99 runoffs, and i quote:

quote:
I also think that if a well prepped 1.6 with a top driver entered this event with the same rules package, it could run up front and win the race. With their acceleration and inherant advantage of less weight and the same tire they should do well.
i'm not unbiased - i've got a '99 in progress. that said, i am not happy this bombshell gets dropped with no input from the community or regional directors, and the damn plates aren't even available to test with. wtf is that?

seriously - where is the objective data showing the big advantage the 99s have. seems to me that when top flight drivers showed up in 1.6's, they did pretty damn well. same drivers in '99s, yep, also well.

SHOW US THE DATA

--------------------
ahm - http://www.awesom-oracing.com
2009 NASA MA SM Champion

d mathias Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: OVR
Car #: 88
Year : 1991
Posts: 2401
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for d mathias     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
NASA has always been a second rate organization and championship.
Simply not true. In the GreatLakes, at least, my perception is that competition in NASA is just as tough, if not tougher than the SCCA. In terms of entries it's no contest - NASA wins.

Time will tell.

htron435 Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: NASA GLD
Car #: 113
Year : 1990
Posts: 45
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for htron435   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by d mathias:
quote:
NASA has always been a second rate organization and championship.
Simply not true. In the GreatLakes, at least, my perception is that competition in NASA is just as tough, if not tougher than the SCCA. In terms of entries it's no contest - NASA wins.

Time will tell.

And that comes from an SCCA driver.

--------------------
Jay
Car Dealer
ATC/Motiv Trailer Dealer
http://www.jaynorthauto.com

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

I have driven both, I believe the SCCA is much tougher competition, except when all the SCCA drivers show up in SE anyway? But the SE is this toughest division in the country right now IMO.

In the few NASA champs I have done,( Mid Ohio only) the top spots seemed dominated by SCCA crossovers? Out west I really can't comment as I have no idea who races where. I planned on racing NASA this year, but unless I find time to build another 96/97 car, I don't think I will be racing any NASA this year.
Jim

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

EAST STREET RACING

fishguyaz
Member

Region: AZ/SoPac
Car #: 92
Year : 99
Posts: 131
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for fishguyaz     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

when i raced my spec 944 nasa and scca had a slightly different rules set for their cars.
it wasnt a long list, but it was enough that it made me, the car owner/driver need to decide on which club i would focus my efforts with and set the car up for to be competitive.
it made crossover between the clubs much less common than it would have been otherwise. it was a way that the "powers that be" drew a line in the sand and people made their choice on a club.

all of the drivers in the class lost because of needing to make a choice, and entries were divided between the clubs.
having seen this already, i think it is important that NASA and SCCA work together in the best interest of the racers to have a common rule set for all the SM cars; but i can see that they wont.
I dont really like the idea of needed to change my car around for different clubs. if i do this, it wont be on a regular basis.

I want to see the dyno sheets posted from the testing nasa did; i am sure that there are dyno sheets from that testing that should be readily available.
I ask, because rather than me spending the time and money to travel out of state(nasa in AZ has one SM car running with them) to do the testing, i want to know in advance, how my motor now compares to the unchanged 1.6 before i spend my ~$1500 for the out of state event(test of the new rules).
I race formula cars, so i understand how weight plays into the equation, and how important that part can be.
IMO, it does all of the racers a big disservice to not have consistant rules sets for the cars between clubs, whatever those rules are.
I own a 99 (now for SCCA I guess), and do have the resources to buy an additional 1.6 for NASA if i decided to go that route. I just dont really think i want to invest in this approach. i have already thought about taking a bite of that shit sandwich before when i contemplated buying a second 944 so i had one car for each set of rules for NASA and SCCA.

post up those dynos from the testing please

--------------------
Josh Pitt
AZ Region

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

I am an SCCA racer BUT I certainly believe that NASA is more customer focused than SCCA, and I have had great experiences with NASA, especially at VIR - simply outstanding the way they treat you.

However in South Florida the fields are small, and the competition is almost non-existent. I know that John A is working hard to improve that situation.

IMHO I do not think that calling NASA a second rate organization is accurate or helpful to anyone.

IMO the jury does not YET have the facts at hand to make ANY decisions on how the new NASA rule set will work. The races need to be run, the results analyzed, the drivers feedback considered, and the BS and personal agendas sifted through and set aside.

Since NASA is a for profit corporation, as such, the only win/fail criteria will be field counts/revenues, GP and NP.

If the SM field counts go up (NA and NB cars) then they have fully succeeded. If the field counts go up (only NA) then they might have partly succeeded, in terms of revenues BUT not in terms of parity. And if the car counts go down then they have failed.

Only then will we know if NASA has gone in the right direction or in the wrong direction. Its a bold move for sure and we are all watching to see how it works out.

John M has his hands full and he deserves the chance to try out their new formula. There has been a growing voice of disgruntled 1.6 owners in the SM ranks for some time, and to ignore them is to ignore a quantifiable customer revenue stream, something that no sensible business person would ever do.

On the other hand if it turns out that he has alientated any of his other SM customers (1.8, '99, '01), then I am sure they will change course quickly (mid seasone if needed).

Personally I believe the '94-97 car will be the COTY as the rules are written.

Time will tell - roll on the first NASA race of 2011!

--------------------
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

 
Page 1 of 3 1  2  3  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: