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 2)

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

Bring back SM2! [Wink]

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

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

www.blakeclements.com

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

quote:
Originally posted by fishguyaz:
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

bingo!

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

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:
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!

Right on Danny.

Boycotting has led to nothing but more frustration for all of us. If the top 1.6 owners keep boycotting the runoffs and the 99 owners boycott the 2011 National championships, we will continue to have bad data for parity of the best of the best. The runoffs/championships data would be the optimal way to make adjustments for the top prepped cars, and we seem to be getting less and less of it each year.

-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

Jim Blaisdell
Member

Region: 83
Car #: 65
Year : 1994
Posts: 54
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Jim Blaisdell     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
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!

Thank you Danny for understanding things like a business person would and should. I wish more people would think and act in a more professional manner, other than what is unfortunatly many times posted on this board. I can certainly understand people's passions but....business is business and NASA is simply trying it's best to succeed.

--------------------
Jim Blaisdell
NASA FL Spec Miata Series Director
5XRacing Team Driver

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

quote:
Originally posted by Blake Clements:
Bring back SM2! [Wink]

ditto!

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

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

I was still hoping to get an answer to my question to why if the HP is the same via restrictor plate why aren't the overall car weights the same or closer? I'm just wanting to understand the reasoning those weights were chosen. I know its a "Thank Less" job and I like the forward thinking right or wrong.

tburas Verified Driver Series Champ
SM

Region: 003
Car #: 56
Year : 1990
Posts: 401
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for tburas   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Question

What year car has won the big show over the last few years in NASA? Miller Run Offs?

--------------------
[URL=http://www.toddburas.com]
//East Street Auto//Traqmate//SafeRacer//

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 fishguyaz:
quote:
Originally posted by John Mueller:

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

The arrangement with the car owners we tested specifically said that the data would not be published. Also, I don't own the data, NASA does so it would be their call not mine.

You wanna do dyno testing and post for everyone to see? IM me and we'll set something up.

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

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 tburas:
Question

What year car has won the big show over the last few years in NASA? Miller Run Offs?

The 1.6 won the last two years. But in fairness, Sammy won in a 94/97 this year and was DQ for shocks, and had Lamb not broke the year before, he would have given Andy a a run until the end, who knows who would have won that one, Andy looked pretty strong.
Thanks
Jim

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

EAST STREET RACING

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

Regarding the change to the ‘99’s and 01’s

Jim – while I am supportive of your approach, and in most cases I am a firm believer in “begging for forgiveness, rather than asking for permission”, I am a bit surprised at the lack of prior information and lack of user input regarding NASA’s change in rule set.

NOTE - I am not complaining about the parity or equalization as I do not have any data to go on yet.

HOWEVER, as I stated earlier in this thread, there is no way I can get 60lbs out of my car – IMPOSSIBLE. So no matter what I do, I CAN NEVER get to the parity point of the class as spec’d by NASA in its new rule set. The whole point of choosing a ’99 when I got in this sport was it was a car I could make weight in (225lbs in drivers suit with helmet – yeah I know I am overweight)

SO my question is – was there ever a discussion of say – taking 30lbs off and moving the restrictor to 39mm? Or some other combination? Enquiring minds like mine want to know.

So, in terms of this new NASA rule set achieving parity, the weight aspect will ensure that I (and I am sure many others) will only be able to race in SCCA, and I doubt that this was the intention….. unless of course it was to intentionally skew the bias to the 1.6 and thereby capture the initial cross-over numbers, who I am sure will realize soon enough that nothing has changed…..the fast guys will still be taking home all the ashtrays.

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

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

Maybe NASA just wants some diversity. The first SCCA winter national has 44 entries 32 of which are 99-02. But of course any year car can win in SCCA.

Kurtis
1990 SM
1995 SM

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

WOW with so many cars maybe now they can split the two groups so everyone is happy, not just half. It's the only way to settle the issue so both 1.6 and 1.8 can feel they are competitive.

Z-MAN Verified Driver
Member

Region: Mid-South
Car #: 54
Year : 1990
Posts: 711
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Z-MAN     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Danny - Come on? You can't make weight? Really???

I belive that you could make the weight, there are things that you could take out If Drago can get close you can make weight.

MZ

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

Z-Man - Nope - cant be done - cannot get 60 lbs out. 15 possibly - 20 max. I run with my car with zero ballast plates at my weight of 225. with exactly 1 gallon we are typicall 2450 - 2455, depending on the scales

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

BrianW
Member

Region: SW
Car #: 59
Year : 1999
Posts: 28
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for BrianW     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Danny Steyn:
Z-Man - Nope - cant be done - cannot get 60 lbs out. 15 possibly - 20 max. I run with my car with zero ballast plates at my weight of 225. with exactly 1 gallon we are typicall 2450 - 2455, depending on the scales

I have a 99 and weight 230 with gear, I am 6'5". I need 55ish pounds to make weight (2450). I have a Miatacage cage with fire suppression and a hand held extinguisher. I have got to think there is something else that can be removed so you can make weight.

Brian Ghidinelli Verified Driver
Moonwalker

Region: SFR
Car #: 12
Year : 99
Posts: 267
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Brian Ghidinelli   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

If you follow the money (and the car counts), this move makes perfect sense. However, just like SSM, SM2 and every other SM* class, these rules won't change who wins. It will still be top shelf cars fielded by top shelf drivers. The people who are doing the bulk of the complaining are still going to finish off the podium. Sure, maybe it will be a 1.6 that wins Nationals (uhhh.. again?) but "parity", which is really the intersection between prep and talent, won't change. This class is developed and that's why it provides such tough competition and why we race it.

I like that they're trying to do it with plate and weight but I suspect it's going to take a few shots to get it right...

--------------------
MotorsportReg.com / Haag Performance / Team SafeRacer
2010 San Francisco Region SMT Champion

davew Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Veteran Member

Region: chicago
Car #: 72 and ?
Year : 90 and 90
Posts: 1051
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for davew   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Danny could make weight if he really wanted to. But it would require cutting out bars, removing data/cool suit/drink bottle etc.

When OPM built Dannys car, they built it to be 2450. They need no ballast because they engineered the car with additional bars and additional stuff to bring the car to minimum weight with zero ballast.

If you know Danny, there is no way he will give up his driver comforts nor his data/video system. I am sure everybody has seen pix of the car. No way in heck is he going to allow a sawz-all to start hacking up the roll cage.

When sanctioning bodies make big changes it always costs money. Some people can not afford the extra cash (like the SMAC letters showed regarding suspension upgrades) and others simply choose not to compete. Mr Steyn has choosen not to compete in NASA. I feel that is NASA's loss, not Danny's.

Dave

editted for spelling to keep Drago happi

--------------------
Advanced Autosports, The Midwests leader in Spec Miata Service, Parts and Rentals
608-313-1230
Authorised Spec Miata service center
www.advanced-autosports.com

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 htron435:
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.
As another Great lakes Division SCCA racer I have to agree with Denny.

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

Z-MAN Verified Driver
Member

Region: Mid-South
Car #: 54
Year : 1990
Posts: 711
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Z-MAN     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Danny Steyn:
Z-Man - Nope - cant be done - cannot get 60 lbs out. 15 possibly - 20 max. I run with my car with zero ballast plates at my weight of 225. with exactly 1 gallon we are typicall 2450 - 2455, depending on the scales

Sorry, but don't you mean It can't be done without reworking your car? Because there are guys that weight over 100 pounds more then you that can make weight in a 99...

I think you now know how the guys that run NA cars feel. After building a really nice car with options that you don't really need but that fit within the rules - like a cage that has extra or heavy tubing. Then a rules change comes along that means your car will need some rework or modifications.

I've seen guys at early season races with a recip saw cutting out the extra bars in their cage because of rules changes just like these and suddenly they cant make weight...

I bet you find a way if you really want to run in NASA. If not I have a 1.6 I'll sell you [Big Grin]

The whole reason my 1.6 is sitting in my garage is that I can't weight - bought the car and ran it for a couple seasons then the 99s came along and they started to drop the weight on the NA and now I'm around 75 maybe a 100 pounds over weight (not all the car I've put on some weight too)... Sound familiar??? [yep]

MZ

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

With Mid-Ohio practically in my backyard I'm a "whatever group is running there" driver. (9 seasons in SCCA, 8 in NASA).

quote:
there is no way he will give up his driver comforts nor his data/video system.
I thought that, but I wasn't going to say it. [duck]

Shoot, I see a couple extra lbs on the helmet alone! (joking) [Big Grin]

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 Brian Ghidinelli:
If you follow the money (and the car counts), this move makes perfect sense. However, just like SSM, SM2 and every other SM* class, these rules won't change who wins. It will still be top shelf cars fielded by top shelf drivers. The people who are doing the bulk of the complaining are still going to finish off the podium. Sure, maybe it will be a 1.6 that wins Nationals (uhhh.. again?) but "parity", which is really the intersection between prep and talent, won't change. This class is developed and that's why it provides such tough competition and why we race it.

I like that they're trying to do it with plate and weight but I suspect it's going to take a few shots to get it right...

Spot on bro !! I'm not taking full credit, because I didn't make the rules, (I just did the legwork) but thanks... It may take a few trys, but I expect to be as close as we can with this strategy well be BEFORE Nationals.

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

It's not scientific but I'll create a poll to get an idea about the weight issue in a few days (I'm on vacation with spotty PC access).

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

darmstrong Verified Driver
Member

Region: sediv
Car #: 66
Year : 1992
Posts: 87
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for darmstrong     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

After looking over the Sebring winter national entry list/car yr., I believe that we do not need SM2. We need SM and SM99+. Those with time and money to burn will not dedicate their resources to the 1.6, no matter their driving abilities, as evidenced by the number of 1.6 cars registered, and the number of 99+ new builds vs 1.6 new builds. Ask around the major builders and see what they are building these days. Also seems like all the home builds are not the 1.6 as well.

If I had the resources, that's the way I would go. At least NASA is giving the 1.6 a chance. We don't want to be faster, just competitive.

Dave
#66

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

quote:
Originally posted by John Mueller:
It's not scientific but I'll create a poll to get an idea about the weight issue in a few days (I'm on vacation with spotty PC access).

John, if NASA is serious about making it fair and inclusive you should take dyno results from the top prepaired cars in each model the 1.6 the early 1.8 and the 99-00 1.8 as well as the 2001up 1.8. not run of the mill cars, as anyone who want to win is doing serious car prep. It is MHO all the cars should have the same power to wieght ratio just as in PT class. That is fair! I have never heard of a 2001 winning any major races yet it recieved a handycap. Also on the posting of dyno results that you did to get the numbers you currently have, that should be no problem it will still be anonymous unless you reaveal who the car owner is. there is no need to name the car owners but some of us would like to know how this worked, if NASA really stands behind these new numbers it should then forthrightly publish these test results! Again these are just my opinions and I aprove of this message! NASA is to good of an organization IMO to hide these results unless there is something to hide?

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

Brian Ghidinelli Verified Driver
Moonwalker

Region: SFR
Car #: 12
Year : 99
Posts: 267
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Brian Ghidinelli   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by John Mueller:
It may take a few trys, but I expect to be as close as we can with this strategy well be BEFORE Nationals.

So, to cross over a '99 will require:

* Swap RP
* Pull ballast
* Adjust fuel pressure

Per-weekend. Plus extra dyno time to find the right FP settings. It will also require a corner weight but let's assume front-runners are already doing that for each race. Plus, be prepared for what sounds like one or more adjustments throughout the 2011 season that may either help or hinder being competitive?


quote:
Originally posted by kwebb:
[QUOTE]It is MHO all the cars should have the same power to wieght ratio just as in PT class. That is fair!

Cue the numbers from another thread. Taking a stab based upon guesses above as to what 37mm might do (-7hp/-5#):

Horsepower:
99s: 2390#/120hp = 19.91#/hp
1.8s: 2340#/125hp = 18.72#/hp
1.6s: 2285#/123hp = 18.58#/hp
~ 6.7% spread benefiting the 1.6

Torque:
99s: 2390#/114ft-lbs = 20.96#/ft-lb
1.8s: 2340#/114ft-lbs = 20.53#/ft-lb
1.6s: 2285#/108ft-lbs = 21.16#/ft-lb
~ 0.95% spread from 1.6 benefiting the 99
~ 3.0% spread overall benefiting the 1.8

The 99 would carry the most weight, have the lowest power-to-weight ratio by a significant margin and be almost even on torque with the 1.6. That 94-97 is the new 99! It'll be interesting to see the dyno data as the spreadsheet exercise doesn't support this as being in the best interest of the racing.

(A 1.6 at 105# is ~5.6% in favor of the 1.8)

dunk
Member

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

I'm also confused by this move. Without seeing the data, at face value, it looks like an awfully big handicap for the 99+ cars to overcome. On big long tracks like VIR, the advantage to the earlier cars will be even more significant.

I suppose time will tell, but it's difficult to get enough quality data at regional events to make quality decisions when it comes to parity. I just hope we don't spend all of 2011 chasing our tails trying to fix something that wasn't that broken.

-Duncan

dunk
Member

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

quote:
Originally posted by darmstrong:
Ask around the major builders and see what they are building these days. Also seems like all the home builds are not the 1.6 as well.

I know when I built my car the math just didn't work for the 1.6 car. By the time you added up all the extra parts required (intake,diff, etc...) plus allowing for replacement of more stock components due to greater age, the NB car ended up being around the same price.

I know there's currently more 1.6 cars in the class than 99's, but in order to sustain SM as a class we have to keep at least one eye on the future, and concentrate on attracting new entries. A class of 20 year old cars, that becomes a class of 25 year old cars, etc...,.. will eventually die out.


-Duncan

Joe Benton Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: WDCR
Car #: 37
Year : 1999
Posts: 121
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Joe Benton     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Doesn't changing the size of the plate provide an incentive to rework the ecu in addition to adjusting fuel pressure and timing?

--------------------
Joe Benton
King Rat Motorsports
PBC Automotive

Sean Yepez Verified Driver
Team Keeblerspeed

Region: SF
Car #: 94
Year : 94
Posts: 671
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Sean Yepez     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Brian Ghidinelli:
quote:
Originally posted by John Mueller:
It may take a few trys, but I expect to be as close as we can with this strategy well be BEFORE Nationals.

So, to cross over a '99 will require:

* Swap RP
* Pull ballast
* Adjust fuel pressure

Per-weekend. Plus extra dyno time to find the right FP settings. It will also require a corner weight but let's assume front-runners are already doing that for each race. Plus, be prepared for what sounds like one or more adjustments throughout the 2011 season that may either help or hinder being competitive?


quote:
Originally posted by kwebb:
[QUOTE]It is MHO all the cars should have the same power to wieght ratio just as in PT class. That is fair!

Cue the numbers from another thread. Taking a stab based upon guesses above as to what 37mm might do (-7hp/-5#):

Horsepower:
99s: 2390#/120hp = 19.91#/hp
1.8s: 2340#/125hp = 18.72#/hp
1.6s: 2285#/123hp = 18.58#/hp
~ 6.7% spread benefiting the 1.6

Torque:
99s: 2390#/114ft-lbs = 20.96#/ft-lb
1.8s: 2340#/114ft-lbs = 20.53#/ft-lb
1.6s: 2285#/108ft-lbs = 21.16#/ft-lb
~ 0.95% spread from 1.6 benefiting the 99
~ 3.0% spread overall benefiting the 1.8

The 99 would carry the most weight, have the lowest power-to-weight ratio by a significant margin and be almost even on torque with the 1.6. That 94-97 is the new 99! It'll be interesting to see the dyno data as the spreadsheet exercise doesn't support this as being in the best interest of the racing.

(A 1.6 at 105# is ~5.6% in favor of the 1.8)

Intersting points. However, I haven't seen enough data from a top-shelf '99 tuned for a 37mm plate to know that 7hp is the right number. Also, it isn't quite as simple as dividing weight by peak power numbers since the shape of the torque curves are different on restrictor plate cars. The 1.6 makes a lot of peak horsepower but the torque at lower parts of the RPM range is not as strong as 1.8's. Equalizing cars is pretty tough. [Smile]

Danny, I don't think that the rules of the entire SM class should be dictated by your decision to optimize where 2,450 pounds would be distributed on your particular car. If you prep to the level where you strategically position weight in your cage, it is only logical that you would plan for the case that SCCA or NASA make competition adjustments to the cars.

--------------------
2008 San Francisco Region SMT Champion

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

7 HP is low IMO..,pretty sure it is going to be 8 +... testing Thursday so I will know for sure
Jim

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

EAST STREET RACING

MPR22
Member

Region: Southwest
Car #: 22
Year : 92'
Posts: 296
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for MPR22     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Drago:
7 HP is low IMO..,pretty sure it is going to be 8 +... testing Thursday so I will know for sure
Jim

Mr. Drago,

I believe if you test and post your results it would be a good baseline for other 99' owners. As I understand it your engines tend to be relatively consitent on HP and torque. I am very interested in seeing the a/f ratios with the 37mm plate.

--------------------
Michael Ross

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 will post results from my car heading to Sebring next week. So numbers will be what they are. Whoever wants a dynojet file of all runs is welcome so they can see no hanky panky [Smile]

I have to fab a plate up tomorrow
Jim

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

EAST STREET RACING

Cajun Miata Man Verified Driver
Overdog Driver

Region: Houston; SWDIV
Car #: 15
Year : 99
Posts: 680
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Cajun Miata Man     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by dunk:
quote:
Originally posted by darmstrong:
Ask around the major builders and see what they are building these days. Also seems like all the home builds are not the 1.6 as well.

I know when I built my car the math just didn't work for the 1.6 car. By the time you added up all the extra parts required (intake,diff, etc...) plus allowing for replacement of more stock components due to greater age, the NB car ended up being around the same price.

I know there's currently more 1.6 cars in the class than 99's, but in order to sustain SM as a class we have to keep at least one eye on the future, and concentrate on attracting new entries. A class of 20 year old cars, that becomes a class of 25 year old cars, etc...,.. will eventually die out.


-Duncan

I was going to say the same thing but you beat me to it. Vintage cars that turn out to be just as expensive to build as a 99 (and more so to maintain). Why would anyone build a 1.6L now is the question. Only if they become clear cut overdogs in my opinion.

--------------------
James York


sponsored by:
Stan's Auto Center, Lafayette LA
powered by:
East Street Racing, Memphis TN
set up guru:
Gilfus Racing, Austin TX

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

You guys are funny saying a 93 is any more vintage than a 99. It's an 11 year old car for crying out loud... I just built a 1.6 last year because I had spares for a 1.6. The only reason for some of us not to build a 1.6 would be the thought that they will always be an underdog [Big Grin] Yes that is happening too!

-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

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

Bruce,
99 is half as old [Smile]

We keep hearing that the 1.6 is the majority? Is it really? It certainly is not when you count cars actually racing and entries.

Maybe NASA and their rules changes will bring some of the"majority" out of the garages, but only time will tell. I think more of these cars are sitting out due to an economic down turn than because of any parity debate. Just my pinion. When you are 3 seconds off the fastest 1.6 car, do you really worry about a 99 thats beating you? I dont understand that way of thinking?
Jim

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

EAST STREET RACING

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 Drago:
Bruce,
99 is half as old [Smile]

We keep hearing that the 1.6 is the majority? Is it really? It certainly is not when you count cars actually racing and entries.

Maybe NASA and their rules changes will bring some of the"majority" out of the garages, but only time will tell. I think more of these cars are sitting out due to an economic down turn than because of any parity debate. Just my pinion. When you are 3 seconds off the fastest 1.6 car, do you really worry about a 99 thats beating you? I dont understand that way of thinking?
Jim

Still the vast majority out West per car count. The 99 is an East coast thing really. I'm not saying the 1.6s are an underdog, I just said that is the perception of some. Once again, I don't think anybody really knows. All we've seen out West is the top 99 and the top 1.6 trade wins. However I do think the 1.6 driver has a bit more talent... Sorry Brian G, but Ken's won a LOT of races dating back to the Pro cup days.

-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

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 Brian Ghidinelli:
quote:
Originally posted by John Mueller:
It may take a few trys, but I expect to be as close as we can with this strategy well be BEFORE Nationals.

So, to cross over a '99 will require:

* Swap RP
* Pull ballast
* Adjust fuel pressure

Per-weekend. Plus extra dyno time to find the right FP settings. It will also require a corner weight but let's assume front-runners are already doing that for each race. Plus, be prepared for what sounds like one or more adjustments throughout the 2011 season that may either help or hinder being competitive?


quote:
Originally posted by kwebb:
[QUOTE]It is MHO all the cars should have the same power to wieght ratio just as in PT class. That is fair!

Cue the numbers from another thread. Taking a stab based upon guesses above as to what 37mm might do (-7hp/-5#):

Horsepower:
99s: 2390#/120hp = 19.91#/hp
1.8s: 2340#/125hp = 18.72#/hp
1.6s: 2285#/123hp = 18.58#/hp
~ 6.7% spread benefiting the 1.6

Torque:
99s: 2390#/114ft-lbs = 20.96#/ft-lb
1.8s: 2340#/114ft-lbs = 20.53#/ft-lb
1.6s: 2285#/108ft-lbs = 21.16#/ft-lb
~ 0.95% spread from 1.6 benefiting the 99
~ 3.0% spread overall benefiting the 1.8

The 99 would carry the most weight, have the lowest power-to-weight ratio by a significant margin and be almost even on torque with the 1.6. That 94-97 is the new 99! It'll be interesting to see the dyno data as the spreadsheet exercise doesn't support this as being in the best interest of the racing.

(A 1.6 at 105# is ~5.6% in favor of the 1.8)

I certainly understand the point you are trying to drive home but I don't agree with your numbers. A 1.8 with 45MM isn't going to make 125 IMO. 123's at best in dynojet terms and a good repeatable number for that car (not just a single best pull) is probably 123 or slightly less. 125 is possible at 47mm from what I have seen but tough to achieve pull after pull.

As for the 123HP 1.6's, where are they? People talk about them on these boards but when was the last time a 1.6 owner currently running confirmed that number and how repeatable is that? I don't have experience with a 1.6 but 123 seems a bit of a stretch and how many NASA 1.6 competitors are running cars making that power on a consistent basis?

The '99 numbers are speculation at this point and need to be confirmed by a handful of people first and the overall curves need to be compared.

Don't also forget that the '99 has better front suspension and weight distribution (which should still be the case at the lower weight) and I'd wager the NASA folks took this into consideration when making their rules.

I'm not saying that I think the rules are perfect, but there is more to the story than just one man's peak torque and horsepower numbers.

Brian Ghidinelli Verified Driver
Moonwalker

Region: SFR
Car #: 12
Year : 99
Posts: 267
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Brian Ghidinelli   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by B Wilson:
However I do think the 1.6 driver has a bit more talent... Sorry Brian G, but Ken's won a LOT of races dating back to the Pro cup days.

Not sure what winning races "back in the day" has to do with parity between a 1.6 and a 99? Ken and I trading wins would, in my opinion, stress the fact that the cars are close under the SCCA rules. We had wins at all of our tracks by all of the years in 2010 IIRC. If you handicapped the 99 by ~7hp as under the NASA proposal, it would be no contest.

If, instead, you think Ken won because he's a good driver and I won because I have a 99... then I look forward to the Double in March. [Big Grin]

--------------------
MotorsportReg.com / Haag Performance / Team SafeRacer
2010 San Francisco Region SMT Champion

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

Damn, you 99 owners sound like the whiny bitches that you have been calling us 1.6 folk – welcome to our world. Not a single race and y’all know how it will turn out. I have not seen a single race won on a dyno. Even if NASA is wrong it will be much simpler to make weight and plate adjustments than the path proposed by the SCCA. I do not remember the SCCA publishing data or criteria from the great tire test. I fully expect more adjustments of weight and plates in the future. If NASA finds closer results with this method of adjustments the SCCA would be wise to adopted it. Keeping my SCCA membership and watching in ‘11. Great job NASA – I have renewed my membership for the first time since ‘08.

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

quote:
Originally posted by Willie the Tard:
Damn, you 99 owners sound like the whiny bitches that you have been calling us 1.6 folk – welcome to our world. Not a single race and y’all know how it will turn out. I have not seen a single race won on a dyno. Even if NASA is wrong it will be much simpler to make weight and plate adjustments than the path proposed by the SCCA. I do not remember the SCCA publishing data or criteria from the great tire test. I fully expect more adjustments of weight and plates in the future. If NASA finds closer results with this method of adjustments the SCCA would be wise to adopted it. Keeping my SCCA membership and watching in ‘11. Great job NASA...

Amen brother.

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

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 Brian Ghidinelli:
quote:
Originally posted by B Wilson:
However I do think the 1.6 driver has a bit more talent... Sorry Brian G, but Ken's won a LOT of races dating back to the Pro cup days.

Not sure what winning races "back in the day" has to do with parity between a 1.6 and a 99? Ken and I trading wins would, in my opinion, stress the fact that the cars are close under the SCCA rules. We had wins at all of our tracks by all of the years in 2010 IIRC. If you handicapped the 99 by ~7hp as under the NASA proposal, it would be no contest.

If, instead, you think Ken won because he's a good driver and I won because I have a 99... then I look forward to the Double in March. [Big Grin]

And the smack begins [rockband] You coming up for the nationals in Portland and Seattle this year?

-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

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

Where is this double in march?

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

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

www.blakeclements.com

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

Thunderhill. Not sure if we're coming yet, maybe we'll just run NASA [Big Grin]

-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

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

If it's NASA, I'll bring my overdog 96 [Smile]

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

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

www.blakeclements.com

Mike Tesch Made Donation to Website
Member

Posts: 65
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Mike Tesch   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Oh crap... I just ran out of popcorn salt. [rolling on floor laughin] [rolling on floor laughin] [rolling on floor laughin]

--------------------
"I've got 5 kids... here there are hundreds"

Mike Tesch
Go Time Racing LLC

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

So 1.6's move to NASA, 99+ go with SCCA. Law of unintended consequences strikes again!

MPR22
Member

Region: Southwest
Car #: 22
Year : 92'
Posts: 296
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for MPR22     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Z-ville Racing Club:
So 1.6's move to NASA, 99+ go with SCCA. Law of unintended consequences strikes again!

Its even better than that,
The car builders get to mass produce overdog 1.8 N/A's as the car to have for the next 18 months, until someone moves the cheese again. We conspiricy theorists can't even blame, Wheeler, Drago, Et al because they had nothing to do with NASA changes.

--------------------
Michael Ross

David Dewhurst
Veteran Member

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

quote:
Originally posted by MPR22:
quote:
Originally posted by Z-ville Racing Club:
So 1.6's move to NASA, 99+ go with SCCA. Law of unintended consequences strikes again!

Its even better than that,
The car builders get to mass produce overdog 1.8 N/A's as the car to have for the next 18 months, until someone moves the cheese again. We conspiricy theorists can't even blame, Wheeler, Drago, Et al because they had nothing to do with NASA changes.

[rolling on floor laughin]

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

David Dewhurst
CenDiv
Milwaukee Region
Spec Miata #14

davew Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Veteran Member

Region: chicago
Car #: 72 and ?
Year : 90 and 90
Posts: 1051
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for davew   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by MPR22:
We conspiricy theorists can't even blame, Wheeler, Drago, Et al because they had nothing to do with NASA changes. [/QB]

Why do Jim and I get blamed for everything and Fowler, Meathead, Sam and Dave get away scott free

--------------------
Advanced Autosports, The Midwests leader in Spec Miata Service, Parts and Rentals
608-313-1230
Authorised Spec Miata service center
www.advanced-autosports.com

MPR22
Member

Region: Southwest
Car #: 22
Year : 92'
Posts: 296
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for MPR22     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by davew:
quote:
Originally posted by MPR22:
We conspiricy theorists can't even blame, Wheeler, Drago, Et al because they had nothing to do with NASA changes.

Why do Jim and I get blamed for everything and Fowler, Meathead, Sam and Dave get away scott free [/QB]
Dave,
I was too lazy to name the others and used Et al to abreviate. But I don't blame you for being paranoid. LOL

--------------------
Michael Ross

 
Page 2 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: