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 3)

 - Email this page to someone! | Subscribe To Topic
Page 3 of 3 1  2  3 
 
Author Topic: NASA 2011 Rules (are published)
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 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]
You should both be flattered by all of the attention.

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

Seems like a pretty smart business move. Economy is hard and many owners would like to get a few more competitive seasons from our 'vintage' 20 yr old cars. Those people with early cars, limited racing budgets, and equal access to NASA and Scca may bring more of their car counts and dollars to NASA. Good for us, competition is good.

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

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 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 – I have renewed my membership for the first time since ‘08.

Willie, I would never suggest you are a whiny bitch. [Smile]

Be honest now though, you can barely contain your glee at this rule change so any suggestion that you think that this is anything other than a slow down of the 99's is misdirection. If I genuinely have you wrong on this I'll buy lunch.

Of course dyno's on their own don't win races, but a reading of the posts in this thread suggest that most suspect that the 99 just got slowed down. Some (you, Dave Dewhurst, Pat Slattery) are clearly pleased about the change and this is presumably (given this groups well known opinions) based on the belief that the 99's will be slower.

Posts on this forum don't make anything fact and we will see what happens during the season. However I will probably watch 2011 NASA races from the sidelines as I am not willing to burn cash trying to figure out the car set up (suspension and motor) between series on back to back races particuarly when I suspect I will be slower in NASA. I wish both organizations had been able to come to agreement as I have enjoyed racing with both groups.

Craig J

David Dewhurst
Veteran Member

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

Craig, my only bitch about parity is at Road America. There have been a few top dogs that have brought their 1.6's to RA untill the Runoffs then they bring their best car for best finish. Not the 1.6. [Wink] Plenty of people on this site admit that the 1.6 needs handling to get the job finished, some say it needs power, others say not required. Somethings missing, therefore it appears NASA (a business with flex rules) is stepping to the front & saying up front that they'll change things if they went over the edge. On the other hand the SCCA (please notice I didn't say Drago & Wheeler) is so frozen in place they don't want to ruffle any feathers. If in fact the SCCA knows the 1.6 is missing something (& I believe thay do) I see nothing wrong with tweeking the RP. Similar to what is accomplished in SCCA production within a class, cars which are full prep cars & limited prep cars.

Yup, I know this isn't the production site but it also isn't a spec site either. [Big Grin]

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

David Dewhurst
CenDiv
Milwaukee Region
Spec Miata #14

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

The SCCA, myself and the SMAC DO NOT believe there is anything missing on the 1.6, please don't imply we do. If SMAC/CRB felt any car in top prep needed help, we would make an adjustment immediately. If you chose to disagree with our position, you certainly have the right to voice your opinion, and you often do. [Big Grin]

SCCA DOES NOT AND WILL NOT ADJUST CARS FOR ANY ONE TRACK! By overwhelmingly majority, member feedback was not in favor of adjusting cars for one track, even Road America.

Some of you chose to ignore the fact that the suspension upgrade was NOT A COMPETITION ADJUSTMENT AND MORE THAN HALF OF THE NA DRIVERS WANTED IT APPROVED, THEY STILL DO.

The intent was to put all the cars on the same suspension in a spec class. We didnt expect all to have to go out and change immediately, but if suffered crash damage etc, they could change at basically no cost. Long term planning was eventually to allow 1.8 engines in the 1.6 as well. Then get all the cars on almost the identical weights. The goal was basically SRF type of parity in 15 years of SM cars. This was long term plan, 3-5+ years. That is hold, or dead as step one died a miserable death.


SCCA is a club, NASA is a business. We are driven by member input, NASA is driven by entries and profit.

I have never been, nor will I ever be afraid to ruffle any feathers, if the SMAC wanted to change weights or plates, we could implement the changes in 45 days time or sooner if needed. The SMAC andd CRB feel we have the cars balanced very closely, evidenced by the fact that all cars have won national races this year. Wholesale changes at this point could drastically upset the balance we have now. We use data, on track performance, a wealth of experience and literally thousands of dyno runs of all the versions cars aid in balancing the cars. With no disprespect to NASA, We have probably 150-200 times the SM experience in the SMAC than all of NASA combined. SMAC/CRB feel our rules are very close, they will never be perfect, especially at every track. I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that the SCCA rules package is far closer than the NASA package.


NASA as a made changes in hopes to increase their entries. NASA changes basically are betting the number of 1.6 entries they gain from handicapping the NB cars will offset the loss of NB entries. Perhaps capitalize on disgruntled 1.6 owners in the SCCA. A smart move on their part if it works.

Personally, I doubt there as very many 1.6 cars sitting around and not racing solely because of parity situation as people claim. ARRC tried SM2 to appease the same eople, how many came out that weren't already racing? 6? 10?

SCCA is a club, The opinion of the SMAC is not swayed by pressure of disgruntled owners etc. The SMAC/CRB makes changes based on facts and data, not emotion. It is the belief of SMAC/CRB and SCCA in general that if we balance the cars as close as possible, the competition and quality of events will gain entries and grow the class and grow the club. We don't believe in handicapping or giving he majority a slight advantage to gain entries. I think our method is the right one. The goal of SMAC/CRB is to make the racing as fair and fun as possible. We obviously prefer our method and feel it is working, evidenced by the largest field ever in the history of the Runoffs this year, in a down economy to boot. Overall entries were way up in 2010 as well.
I like NASA, I have raced NASA, planned on racing NASA this year until I saw the current changes. I still may attend in 96/97 car. But it seems almost a certainity from reading the thread that there is a good chance of unstability this years rules in NASA. I would hate to build a 96 car, only to have the rug pulled from under it's feet like they did to the 99/00 cars. I think it is clear the intent was to give the 1.6 cars a slight advantage, these rules do not accomplish that IMO. If you are in a 94/97 car, you should be concerned about what might happen when the cars show their potential. I havent seen anyone look at the rules who doesnt believe that the 94/97 is the car to own in NASA.
At the end of the day, I like the SCCA product, I like the SCCA way of doing things better. NASA has copied our rules and comp adjustments for years, the NASA champs in the past were better for it. The parity at all NASA champs has been very good with SCCA weights and rules. Time will tell how the parity works with their own weights and plates. I do feel the best drivers race in the SCCA and will continue to do so as we offer the best show and the closest competition.


Jim

[ 12-30-2010, 11:11 PM: Message edited by: Drago ]

--------------------
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 Drago:
Long term planning was eventually to allow 1.8 engines in the 1.6 as well. This was long term plan, 3-5+ years. That is on hold, or dead as step one died a miserable death.

Jim

WOW! RIP!!!!

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

pat.ross
Member

Region: SOW
Car #: 70
Year : 1991
Posts: 21
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for pat.ross     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

I think that one thing has been missed in all of this. One of the advantages of the '99 was that larger drivers could make the weight. I weigh 240# and my son weighs 230#. It was difficult for him to make weight in our 1.6 NA and with the new NASA rules, reducing the restrictor plate size and reducing weight, it will be almost equally as difficult to make weight in our NB.

Personnaly I would like to have seen NASA and SCCA make the competition adjustment by allowing the NA to make more power and add a little weight depending upon the HP/TQ increase obtained. I believe that this type of adjustment would lead to greater parity. For the 160# driver it would mean adding more weight, but for the 240# driver it would mean that he could more easily make weight and not be handicaped by being having to drive a NA that outweighs his competitors just because he happens to be a larger individual. Lets face it, right now in the NAs a smaller driver has the distinct advantage. Is that parity?

As for the arguement that increasing the horsepower or torque of the NA by allowing modified (yet specified) camshafts would cost too much money for the NA owners, I disagree. Lets face it, racing is not cheap when it costs $400-500 a weekend just for tires. Allowing this type of enhancement of the resale value of the 1.6 NA far more than the cost of the engine modification

JMHO

Pat

David Dewhurst
Veteran Member

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

Touchy subject but lets talk about it anyway. Hey, I weigh over 200 pounds. [Frown]

It would appear the 1990/1993 car was classed using a 180ish pound driver & he/she can make weight.

What weight SCCA or NASA driver was used when classing the 1994 plus Miata cars in Spec Miata at the get-go?

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

David Dewhurst
CenDiv
Milwaukee Region
Spec Miata #14

Mike C Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
MegaModerator

Region: WDCR - 042
Car #: 75
Year : 93 & 95 & 99
Posts: 3727
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Mike C   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

We had added ALL of the NASA Mid-Atlantic dates to the MEATHEAD Racing calendar for 2011. We are now rethinking our intent to attend. It will be too cost prohibitive to reset all of our cars for the two series. Our goal was to attend the NASA National Championship Race, now we are in a wait and see mode.

In the past the SMAC has invited the NASA SM leadership onto our conference call that we have monthly. John attended once two months ago. Previously the SMAC worked closely with NASA on rules consistency between both organizations as neither NASA or SCCA can lay claim to SM, we started it, the drivers. We own it. If you feel there needs to be rules consistency you need to talk to your sanctioning body. NASA's latest decision was NEVER discussed, leaked or floated over to the SCCA/SMAC folks for comment.

Good luck! It's not going to work. We were so close to one set of rules for our cars for all sanctioning bodies, not sure where this comes from. I was at the NASA National and it was ALL 1.6's. There were fast 99's there, they just had nothing for the 1.6's. Sammy got away when everyone started racing for second place, his lap times were no better just more consistent as he had no competition up front, they all just let him get away.

No chance in the world you equalize this class on a dyno with a spread sheet.

Real world testing tells me that there is without a doubt an overdog in the NASA rules package now. These kinds of rules are begging for the teams with access to all of the cars to come steal a championship.

--------------------
Mike Collins
MEATHEAD Racing
http://www.SHEETZ.com
The MEATHEAD Racing 2010 Calendar is up!!!!
www.MEATHEADRacing.com
SMAC Member
WDCR-SCCA SM Drivers Rep.
ALL OPINIONS ON RULES OR SPECIFICATIONS ARE JUST THAT, MY OPINIONS!

Brett Gabriel Verified Driver
Junior Member

Region: Texas Region
Car #: 04
Year : 99
Posts: 6
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Brett Gabriel     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Swap the setup every other weekend for NASA? I doubt it. I figure I put in the "slow me down" plate, pull ballast and get great mid pack video.

--------------------
Brett Gabriel
Silver '99 #04

Mike C Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
MegaModerator

Region: WDCR - 042
Car #: 75
Year : 93 & 95 & 99
Posts: 3727
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Mike C   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Brett Gabriel:
Swap the setup every other weekend for NASA? I doubt it. I figure I put in the "slow me down" plate, pull ballast and get great mid pack video.

And thats why you are happy with mid-pack.

--------------------
Mike Collins
MEATHEAD Racing
http://www.SHEETZ.com
The MEATHEAD Racing 2010 Calendar is up!!!!
www.MEATHEADRacing.com
SMAC Member
WDCR-SCCA SM Drivers Rep.
ALL OPINIONS ON RULES OR SPECIFICATIONS ARE JUST THAT, MY OPINIONS!

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 Mike C:
quote:
Originally posted by Brett Gabriel:
Swap the setup every other weekend for NASA? I doubt it. I figure I put in the "slow me down" plate, pull ballast and get great mid pack video.

And thats why you are happy with mid-pack.
The ship sailed 4 years ago where you could set your car up once every three months and be a contender. And with NASA openly admitting the rules are likely to be changed, it will just cost us more money to be the test mule.

Someone is going to get the last laugh on these new rules changes and it's not going to be NASA or their spreadsheet.

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

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

www.blakeclements.com

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 Mike C:
quote:
Originally posted by Brett Gabriel:
Swap the setup every other weekend for NASA? I doubt it. I figure I put in the "slow me down" plate, pull ballast and get great mid pack video.

And thats why you are happy with mid-pack.
Mike, You missed the sarcasm in Bretts post. In his last three races he crossed the line in first (twice passing me when I was on pole). I would be thrilled if he was happy with mid pack! [Smile]

Craig J

Mike C Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
MegaModerator

Region: WDCR - 042
Car #: 75
Year : 93 & 95 & 99
Posts: 3727
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Mike C   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

[Wink] [thumbsup]

--------------------
Mike Collins
MEATHEAD Racing
http://www.SHEETZ.com
The MEATHEAD Racing 2010 Calendar is up!!!!
www.MEATHEADRacing.com
SMAC Member
WDCR-SCCA SM Drivers Rep.
ALL OPINIONS ON RULES OR SPECIFICATIONS ARE JUST THAT, MY OPINIONS!

mjnova
Junior Member

Posts: 4
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for mjnova     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

What is the problem with showing the dyno results? I can't come up with a good reason why they could not be shown. Will there be a bunch of people on both sides arguing that are right or wrong--yes.. But it at least shows why NASA came up with the changes they did. As far as someone not wanting there numbers shown--fine label them as 99,1.8,1.6. NASA wants the group to beleive in what they are doing is fair---yet refuses to show the methods that they used to do it..?

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 mjnova:
What is the problem with showing the dyno results? I can't come up with a good reason why they could not be shown.

NASA wants the group to believe in what they are doing is fair---yet refuses to show the methods that they used to do it..?

The owners of the cars NASA tested did not want the data shared publicly and NASA agreed to their terms in order to get the testing done. I honestly didn't feel it was going to be such a big deal, my bad. I'll go back and ask but I know the 1.8 NA owner wont change his mind.

As for the method I will write something up and post here today...

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

dunk
Member

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

quote:
If you feel there needs to be rules consistency you need to talk to your sanctioning body. NASA's latest decision was NEVER discussed, leaked or floated over to the SCCA/SMAC folks for comment.
I think this is what I found the most discouraging. Parity between the 2 sanctioning bodies is definately in the best interest of the class. If NASA did make this bold a move without any discussion with the SCCA, business or no business, I find that disappointing. Maybe I'm naive.

I'm also concerned about the fact that the restrictor plates are not available for purchase. I'm active duty military and have very little time for testing. Without knowing when the plates will be available, it's impossible to even schedule the dyno time.

The first event of the season is drawing near.

Duncan

dp35 Verified Driver
Member

Region: SFR
Car #: 51
Year : 1990
Posts: 106
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for dp35     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by John Mueller:
The owners of the cars NASA tested did not want the data shared publicly and NASA agreed to their terms in order to get the testing done. I honestly didn't feel it was going to be such a big deal, my bad. I'll go back and ask but I know the 1.8 NA owner wont change his mind.

As for the method I will write something up and post here today...

My 1.6 SM was dyno tested by NASA at the 2010 National Championships. If it helps, you have my permission to share that data.

--------------------
2010 SCCA Regional Driver of the Year
2010 25 Hours of Thunderhill E1 Class winner, MX-5 Cup

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

quote:
Originally posted by dp35:
My 1.6 SM was dyno tested by NASA at the 2010 National Championships. If it helps, you have my permission to share that data.

Darrin:

You are a great person to ask for this perspective since you ran very strong at the 2010 NASA nationals and think you recently built a 99. Why did you move to the 99 when you had so much success in your 1.6? And with the new rules, which car will you bring this year? (assuming you still have your 1.6) Also, would be great if you posted your 1.6 dyno results. Meant to meet you in person at the 25 but that long weekend is very busy and never made it to your pits.

--------------------
"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

dp35 Verified Driver
Member

Region: SFR
Car #: 51
Year : 1990
Posts: 106
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for dp35     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by cam:
Darrin:

You are a great person to ask for this perspective since you ran very strong at the 2010 NASA nationals and think you recently built a 99. Why did you move to the 99 when you had so much success in your 1.6? And with the new rules, which car will you bring this year? (assuming you still have your 1.6) Also, would be great if you posted your 1.6 dyno results. Meant to meet you in person at the 25 but that long weekend is very busy and never made it to your pits.

There were many reasons for me switching to a '99: I felt that the value of my 1.6 would never be higher, so now's the time to sell it, which I did; I'll soon be getting a free RE engine of my choice, making this the perfect time to make the switch; my team wanted a new car build project; the SCCA rules seem to be favoring the '99 for now; the '99 is considered the overall better car by most of the people in the know that I've talked to; we might do some endurance racing in the future, and the '99 seems better equipped for that; '99's are prettier; I'd like to Race Brian in "equal" cars....

I won't be going to either national championship race this year. But if I did it would have to be in my new '99. Had I not been able to sell the old car, I would've been perfectly happy racing it again, particularly at Infineon.

--------------------
2010 SCCA Regional Driver of the Year
2010 25 Hours of Thunderhill E1 Class winner, MX-5 Cup

Ron Alan Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: SF
Year : 95
Posts: 235
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Ron Alan     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by dp35:
quote:


'99's are prettier [/QB]
[rolling on floor laughin] Now that's what you call a priority and the truth [Big Grin]

--------------------
-RA


"Happy birthday, I didn't get you a present...Oh, mom got you one? Well, that's from me then too, unless it's shitty."
9:52 AM Sep 14th, 2009 via web
http://twitter.com/shitmydadsays

 
Page 3 of 3 1  2  3 
 

   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: