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

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello Spec Miata Community » SpecMiata.com » Spec Miata » Huge changes in August Fastrack (Page 0)

 - Email this page to someone! | Subscribe To Topic
Page 1 of 6 1  2  3  4  5  6  next » 
 
Author Topic: Huge changes in August Fastrack
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 Tom Sager:
I've seen a few posts from others that state that front subframes need to be replaced after several years due to wear and tear. If this is true, won't the older NA cars (1.6 and 1.8) need a subframe replacement in the future anyway? If so, doesn't that make the option to install a '99 front subframe in the NA cars (and some other suspension pieces) a much smaller decision and expense?

Sorry Tom [Smile] , you just happened to push me over the top. I'm getting real tired of all these excuses why the 1.6 owner (I know you mentioned the 1.8) should spend his 1.6 money to catch up to the 99's (or in your case the subframes are tired) & spend the 1.6 money to fill the Spec Miata fields.

How about my 1.6 car that has brand new everything under the tub?

Front cross member $340.02

Front control arms $517.98

Front ball joints $136.46

Rear cross member $436.46

Rear control arms $188.92

Bushings, bolts, nuts & more.

Parts alone add up to $1619.84 plus

Now if WE (the 1.6 majotity) were all interested in "the opportunity to complete in a low cost" class why are you all setting on your hands. (Dave Wheeler said with the first round of suspension letters the split was 50-50.) Write a letter requesting that the 1.6 suspension upgrade to the 99/05 suspension be denied/sent to file 13. [help]

Then write a second letter requesting that the 99 plus receives a smaller restrictor. What's a plate cost, $30.00. We all do (should be doing) dyno work. [help]

Both suggested letters above nicely fit the Purpose and Intent of the Spec Miata class. [yep]

The fact that I chose to implement new stuff under my tub was my decision. When people are told by rules that they need to update their suspension that stinks just like the production dog box rule stinks. Constantly spend upgrade money. Constantly changing rules are one of the VERY LARGE pitfalls of the production class. Do WE want to follow that trend? [nope]

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

Dave, you said "The fact that I chose to implement new stuff under my tub was my decision."

And the rules still allow you to make decisions. You could leave your original stuff on the car, install new original stuff, install used updated stuff or install new updated stuff. You still get to make that decision.

And why is buying new, old style parts ok, but buying used, new style parts bad?

There will always be those that are willing and able to spend money trying to make it to the front. 1/32 tires, pro engines, freshened engines at mid season, hi dollar fuels, regular allignments, etc. No amount of legal money spent on the car will take a midpacker to the winners circle. A fast driver in a midpack car will beat a midpack driver in a fast car, EVERY TIME.

The suspension upgrade is a small tweak. You guys are getting all excited over a tenth or two of lap time. This class is so close right now that we only need little tweeks, like 2 hp worth of restrictor plate or 20 pounds of lead, or a little extra in the suspension.

The intention of the SMAC is to have the best built 1.6, compete with the best built 1.8, compete with the best built 99+. And I feel this is a little step in that direction.

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

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

Dave, Tom, Mike, Drago, and all the other members that devote your time to the health of our class.....

I dont know how you do it!!!!!!!

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

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 David Dewhurst:
you just happened to push me over the top. I'm getting real tired of all these excuses why the 1.6 owner (I know you mentioned the 1.8) should spend his 1.6 money to catch up to the 99's
Front cross member $340.02

Front control arms $517.98

Front ball joints $136.46

Rear cross member $436.46

Rear control arms $188.92

Bushings, bolts, nuts & more.

Parts alone add up to $1619.84 plus

[nope] [/QB]

That's fair, you have been driving everyone else over the edge with your posts as well. We are equally tired of reading such posts.

You say the 1.6 needs help at "Road America".Well frankly, 85% of the class doesnt even race at there! Maybe it needs help, maybe it doesn't need help at a few tracks in the country. But it certainly isn't what you claim. Most seem to agree that the cars are close, very close.

The 1.6 torque deficit is made up by the HP advantage by weight. Data reports, statements from other 1.6 drivers, nothing seems to matter to you other than wins at Road America. There is far more to that argument than just 1.6/1.8 and 99. Many believe the class is closer now than it has ever been, myself included. It is clear you are motivated by nothing more than the 1.6 in your garage. Your concerns are that of a selfish man, no more, no less.

You say the suspension makes no difference, simple solution DONT RUN it. Yes I have read your production rant. I would like the suspension on my car. The only thing you bought that you would need to replace is the front sub frame.

No idea if I speak for anyone else, but your negative attitude and constant complaining is a not helping anyone.

Is there an ignore button on this site?
J`

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 David Dewhurst:
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Sager:
I've seen a few posts from others that state that front subframes need to be replaced after several years due to wear and tear. If this is true, won't the older NA cars (1.6 and 1.8) need a subframe replacement in the future anyway? If so, doesn't that make the option to install a '99 front subframe in the NA cars (and some other suspension pieces) a much smaller decision and expense?

Sorry Tom [Smile] , you just happened to push me over the top. I'm getting real tired of all these excuses why the 1.6 owner (I know you mentioned the 1.8) should spend his 1.6 money to catch up to the 99's (or in your case the subframes are tired) & spend the 1.6 money to fill the Spec Miata fields.

How about my 1.6 car that has brand new everything under the tub?

Front cross member $340.02

Front control arms $517.98

Front ball joints $136.46

Rear cross member $436.46

Rear control arms $188.92

Bushings, bolts, nuts & more.

Parts alone add up to $1619.84 plus

Now if WE (the 1.6 majotity) were all interested in "the opportunity to complete in a low cost" class why are you all setting on your hands. (Dave Wheeler said with the first round of suspension letters the split was 50-50.) Write a letter requesting that the 1.6 suspension upgrade to the 99/05 suspension be denied/sent to file 13. [help]

Then write a second letter requesting that the 99 plus receives a smaller restrictor. What's a plate cost, $30.00. We all do (should be doing) dyno work. [help]

Both suggested letters above nicely fit the Purpose and Intent of the Spec Miata class. [yep]

The fact that I chose to implement new stuff under my tub was my decision. When people are told by rules that they need to update their suspension that stinks just like the production dog box rule stinks. Constantly spend upgrade money. Constantly changing rules are one of the VERY LARGE pitfalls of the production class. Do WE want to follow that trend? [nope]

Dave, you know I love ya, but you didn't answer my question. I wanted to know if replacing the subframe was a typical maintenance item. The rule proposed is for the "optional" use of the newer subframe and suspension parts. That doesn't cost anyone a nickel who is on a more limited budget and it sounds like the performance gain is minimal.

I'm sensative to the budget concern, but the fact is we have 3 (or 4 if you include '01+) renditions of cars to be equalized and changes over time that make the cars more similar are good in my book. Since I've been around SM ('07) the rule changes have been generally low cost and have not caused 1.6 owners in particular to spend any money. The newly proposed rules still don't require 1.6 owners (or 1.8 or '99 owners) to spend a dime, nor do they dictate a timeframe in which updates must be done.

If a new rule was proposed to give the 1.6 more torque as you have opined, would you be opposed to spending more money on that?

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:
Dave, Tom, Mike, Drago, and all the other members that devote your time to the health of our class.....

I don't know how you do it!!!!!!!

Obviously they are not quitters, and I'm very grateful for that!!! I know it's hard and sometimes some folks go overboard on their comments, but if there's one thing we all agree upon, it's the best class in amateur racing and we are all passionate about keeping it that way.

Please carry on, I'm listening intently!

-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

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 B Wilson:
quote:
Originally posted by Danny Steyn:
Dave, Tom, Mike, Drago, and all the other members that devote your time to the health of our class.....

I don't know how you do it!!!!!!!

Obviously they are not quitters, and I'm very grateful for that!!! I know it's hard and sometimes some folks go overboard on their comments, but if there's one thing we all agree upon, it's the best class in amateur racing and we are all passionate about keeping it that way.

Please carry on, I'm listening intently!

-bw

Nicely said Danny and Bruce.

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

***You guys are getting all excited over a tenth or two of lap time. This class is so close right now that we only need little tweeks, like 2 hp worth of restrictor plate or 20 pounds of lead, or a little extra in the suspension.***

Dave/SMAC, then why not do one of your metioned little economical tweeks. I would like your definition of the word close vs. what's not close. A restrictor plate is about as economical as it gets.

See the local guys at the Farm in a couple weeks.

J~, there were seven CenDiv sanction races at Road America this year plus the Runoffs. How about a different parity maker for Road America? Ya, a different parity maker would be new & different. & you have never heard me claim that parity is not ok at other tracks. Also you might want to read a little closer to the general consensus when top shoe current or past 1.6 drivers talk about Road America.

Am I remembering correctly that Drago came close to getting linched when this 1.6 suspension upgrade was thrown out on this site the first time. [Wink]

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

David Dewhurst
CenDiv
Milwaukee Region
Spec Miata #14

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

In general I hope the changes will be approved. I believe the suspension changes will make 90's a little more similar to the 99 and the weight will make them a little more competitive. The suggested changes to the 99 FPR and timing removes the raging debate about ECU's (albeit Kent has a point about the ambiguity of specifying a stock FPR which has no adjustment point). Clearly there are strong opinions by some about spending any money on their 90's however others with 90's who see this as appropriate.

I have a 99 so one would think that I would like the status quo but the reality is I would prefer to race with guys who have cars with similar handling, weight and power/torque.

On the subject of torque, there are perennial forum suggestions to slow the 99 down by adding weight and/or reducing the restrictor plate size. I would have thought by now that it was well understood that adding weight would only further increase the disparity between the handling of the cars. Reducing the restrictor plate size will certainly reduce peak power, but does less (or nothing) to compromise lower rev torque, which is the complaint that 90 drivers have about 99 cars. Hence this is not a useful path. As a 99 driver I would be very supportive of a change which drops torque and power while concurrently reducing weight. I periodically remove the weight from my car to run track days and it's a massive increase in fun factor - for which I am happy to give up some power/torque. No doubt this is fraught with challenges, but a long term goal of cars with similar or identical suspension and similar weight and power/torque is a worthy goal.

Craig J

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 David Dewhurst:
J~, there were seven CenDiv sanction races at Road America this year plus the Runoffs. How about a different parity maker for Road America? Ya, a different parity maker would be new & different. & you have never heard me claim that parity is not ok at other tracks. Also you might want to read a little closer to the general consensus when top shoe current or past 1.6 drivers talk about Road America.


Again, Who cares? You and apparently three or four other guys on this forum? If the cars are close everywhere else as many have stated, 1.6 owners as well. Road America is not really a concern for 85% of the class, sorry it just isn't that important, nor can you adjust parity at one track. Single track adjustments is stupidity! Apparently since that is your home track and you have a 1.6, the rest of the class has to change to make you happy? Why?

If national guys want to compete and win the Runoffs, great. They should build whatever car they believe holds and advantage at that particular track. It seems they have done that, most build 99's at Road America and 1.6 cars for Miller. Problem solved and it doesn't cost me any grief either way. This only applies to 10-12 guys in the entire class in the first place.

As I have asked before and you conveniently did not answer...

If Mr Weise was as fast as some of the best 99's in the country on the mid straight( his words), faster on the back straight(his words) and you want them the same on the front straight and lighter by 125 and 175 lbs, where do the 1.8's have an advantage that would enable them to compete? Or is that your point? Are you really that obtuse or just that desperate in seeking help for your particular car?

As I said before, your motives are based solely on what you have in the garage. Pathetic, yet you chastise the volunteers relentlessly.
J~

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 David Dewhurst:
Am I remembering correctly that Drago came close to getting linched when this 1.6 suspension upgrade was thrown out on this site the first time. [Wink]

Not the first or last time this will happen over the next 16 months... [Roll Eyes]
Sincerely,
Giles Corey ( not to be confused with Gayle Corley) [Wink]

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

EAST STREET RACING

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 cnj:
In general I hope the changes will be approved. I believe the suspension changes will make 90's a little more similar to the 99 and the weight will make them a little more competitive. The suggested changes to the 99 FPR and timing removes the raging debate about ECU's (albeit Kent has a point about the ambiguity of specifying a stock FPR which has no adjustment point). Clearly there are strong opinions by some about spending any money on their 90's however others with 90's who see this as appropriate.

I have a 99 so one would think that I would like the status quo but the reality is I would prefer to race with guys who have cars with similar handling, weight and power/torque.

On the subject of torque, there are perennial forum suggestions to slow the 99 down by adding weight and/or reducing the restrictor plate size. I would have thought by now that it was well understood that adding weight would only further increase the disparity between the handling of the cars. Reducing the restrictor plate size will certainly reduce peak power, but does less (or nothing) to compromise lower rev torque, which is the complaint that 90 drivers have about 99 cars. Hence this is not a useful path. As a 99 driver I would be very supportive of a change which drops torque and power while concurrently reducing weight. I periodically remove the weight from my car to run track days and it's a massive increase in fun factor - for which I am happy to give up some power/torque. No doubt this is fraught with challenges, but a long term goal of cars with similar or identical suspension and similar weight and power/torque is a worthy goal.

Craig J

This 1.6 racer couldn't agree more with your last paragraph, yet I disagree with your first 2 lines.

I see the proposed rule changes increasing the disimilarities of the 1.6 & '99, giving one or the other an unfair advantage at every track. IMO this is the opposite of what needs to be done.

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

David Dewhurst
Veteran Member

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

***Single track adjustments is stupidity!***

Progresive forward thinking by you.

***Giles Corey ***

You been saving rocks?

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

David Dewhurst
CenDiv
Milwaukee Region
Spec Miata #14

Tyler Dahl Verified Driver Series Champ
Member

Region: Utah
Car #: 70
Year : 1991
Posts: 169
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Tyler Dahl     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

I have a 1.6 and I am for the suspension upgrades, all cars with the same suspension is a good thing and it'll be closer to spec. Also think of how easy it would be to find parts if you damaged your suspension at the track. Someone would most likely have the part you need no matter what year car you have.

I'm an idiot but this makes sense to me.
Get all cars on the same suspension then allow 1.6's to put 1.8's in then you could have a spec class all the same weight and no restrictor's.

So if your going to bitch about parity and bitch about the proposed rule changes please get off the internet i'm tired of hearing you complain.

How about DDSM as a class?

--------------------
Tyler Dahl
Race Engineering
Miatacage.com
Carbotech

mat pombo Verified Driver
Member

Region: Atlanta
Car #: 01
Year : '90 & '99
Posts: 535
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for mat pombo   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

I have a top 1.6L and a '99. I am registered for the runoffs in my 1.6L. I don't care/or think we need to upgrade the suspension. My 1.6L car will currently outhandle any '99 in the country through the corners, including my own that finished on the podium at the runoffs last year.

I have said it once and I will say it again. The issue is not handling, so the suspension upgrades only cost me $$$ as a front runner so that I may be a little (a tenth or two faster) through the turns only to be slowed up more by the '99 and be left on the straights.

Torque is the big issue and to a lesser extent power. My vote is for a RP change on the '99, and if it is a 4-5 hp hit on the current '99 platform lowering the weight to adjust.

You could also play with what Brian Cates suggested with exhaust diameters, but you would need an unbiased test session and I am skeptical that would happen to get the numbers close.

A more expensive option would be to bring back the aluminum clutch for the 1.6L cars to help with torque, but that's a $1000 option.

Again, do not give me handling as I already have that advantage in my 1.6L. I NEED TORQUE.

Mat

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 David Dewhurst:
***Single track adjustments is stupidity!***

Progresive forward thinking by you.


Still no answer? Your true motives are becoming increasingly more apparent.
Seems with all your progressive( it has two s's by the way) thinking you could answer such an easy question?
J~

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 suspension changes were not offered as a competition adjustment intended to speed up the 1.6 cars. These are on 1.8 cars as well. Whether you agree or disgaree, it is the opinion of the SMAC and the CRB that the cars are closer than ever and little to no change was needed. WE DID NOT TRY TO IMPROVE ANY CAR OTHER THAN NA 1.8 car with this years changes. The NA 1.8 was the only car showing it needed a little help when looking over the data and data report. No other car demonstrated a change was needed.
The purpose of allowing the suspension change was to get the cars closer to spec. A side benefit is it allows those that wanted the ability to do away with bump steer issues a legal way to do so and change to a better suspension set up over time as pieces were damaged etc. If 1.6/1.8 drivers feel they don't want or need the changes, by all means, don't bother. But why bother those who choose to change? The production argument doesn't hold water IMO, different animals.
There are no other changes coming this year, as I said, any rules changes at this point would be effective 1/1/12
Don't shoot the messenger
Jim

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

EAST STREET RACING

Rooster Tail Verified Driver Made Donation to Website Series Champ
around

Region: SJR
Car #: 52
Year : 1995
Posts: 488
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Rooster Tail     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

No one has yet answered the obvious question: Why not make the 99's run the early subframes, uprights, and control arms? You still get everyone on the same equipment and handling. AND fewer people have to shell out the bucks to do it. It is obviously the right way to go.

Many people argued till we were blue in the face that the 99 was an overdog and shouldn't be allowed in SM. We were told that it won't be, we'll restrict it "make it breathe through a straw" was a common reply. We'll weigh it down. It was argued that it wouldn't work, it wouldn't be enough. You did it anyway. It is apparent that the CRB/SM adhoc created this problem and now is expecting the vast majority of the class (NA) to fix it with their dollars.

--------------------
-Tosh Desai
2008 NJRRS SM Champion


"Well, you know, because Thunder always comes after... Lightning!"

Jamie Tucker Series Champ

ARRC 2010 Champ

Region: CFR
Car #: 97
Year : 1990/99
Posts: 788
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Jamie Tucker     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Drago:
The suspension changes were not offered as a competition adjustment intended to speed up the 1.6 cars. These are on 1.8 cars as well. Whether you agree or disgaree, it is the opinion of the SMAC and the CRB that the cars are closer than ever and little to no change was needed. WE DID NOT TRY TO IMPROVE ANY CAR OTHER THAN NA 1.8 car with this years changes. The NA 1.8 was the only car showing it needed a little help when looking over the data and data report. No other car demonstrated a change was needed.
The purpose of allowing the suspension change was to get the cars closer to spec. A side benefit is it allows those that wanted the ability to do away with bump steer issues a legal way to do so and change to a better suspension set up over time as pieces were damaged etc. If 1.6/1.8 drivers feel they don't want or need the changes, by all means, don't bother. But why bother those who choose to change? The production argument doesn't hold water IMO, different animals.
There are no other changes coming this year, as I said, any rules changes at this point would be effective 1/1/12
Don't shoot the messenger
Jim

Drago thanks for all the effort you and the others put into making our class the best in SCCA. I do share you assessment that the cars are very close and believe that any car has a shot at winning.

--------------------
2010 ARRC Champion
2010 CFR Champion
2010 instigator of the year
2010/2011 Andrew Von C Wingman

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 Jamie Tucker:
Drago thanks for all the effort you and the others put into making our class the best in SCCA. I do share you assessment that the cars are very close and believe that any car has a shot at winning.

+1 - we're arguing over inches, not yards. Although you wouldn't know it from this site, we are a lucky class!

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

mat pombo Verified Driver
Member

Region: Atlanta
Car #: 01
Year : '90 & '99
Posts: 535
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for mat pombo   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

The SMAC and CRB members always have our interests in mind and we should all tell them thanks more often. They are volunteers and we should remember that. Thanks guys.

Kent Carter Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Future Never Has Been

Region: Houston
Car #: 91
Year : 1991
Posts: 2171
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Kent Carter   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by mat pombo:
I have a top 1.6L and a '99. I am registered for the runoffs in my 1.6L. I don't care/or think we need to upgrade the suspension. My 1.6L car will currently outhandle any '99 in the country through the corners, including my own that finished on the podium at the runoffs last year.

I have said it once and I will say it again. The issue is not handling, so the suspension upgrades only cost me $$$ as a front runner so that I may be a little (a tenth or two faster) through the turns only to be slowed up more by the '99 and be left on the straights.

Torque is the big issue and to a lesser extent power. My vote is for a RP change on the '99, and if it is a 4-5 hp hit on the current '99 platform lowering the weight to adjust.

You could also play with what Brian Cates suggested with exhaust diameters, but you would need an unbiased test session and I am skeptical that would happen to get the numbers close.

A more expensive option would be to bring back the aluminum clutch for the 1.6L cars to help with torque, but that's a $1000 option.

Again, do not give me handling as I already have that advantage in my 1.6L. I NEED TORQUE.

Mat

Careful, Mat. This kind of statement will get you PM's from certain 99 fans saying you are 'good for a laugh'.

--------------------
Do I turn my 99 Hard S into a killerfast SM or seek a donor?

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

The suspension changes as proposed would be optional. If you believe that the perceived benefit is not justified by the cost, then apply your resources to something else. As for me, Iím looking forward to the change and am thankful to the SMAC and CRB to getting the cars so close. We are slowly and painfully becoming a real Spec class which is a good thing.

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

Colin MacLean Verified Driver
Fly Fifer

Region: Atlanta
Posts: 845
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Colin MacLean     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

I can completely see why the 1.6 guys are up in arms and if I still had my SM I'd be pissed right now.

1. 1.6 can currently outhandle any other car.
2. '99+ can outdrag any other car.

So in response to this the '99 gets more legal power and the 1.6 gets "optional" handling tweaks.

WHAT?

The vast majority of this class run 1.6's, they are the core of the class. Any performance adjustments should be made to the 1.6 baseline. So slow the '99+ cars down. It's not that hard. $25 part. Why is this not happening? It makes NO sense to me.

--------------------
Colin MacLean
Flyin' MacLean Motorsports

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 Tyler Dahl:

I'm an idiot but this makes sense to me.
Get all cars on the same suspension then allow 1.6's to put 1.8's in then you could have a spec class all the same weight and no restrictor's.

The NA 1.8 and the NB 1.8 are not the same -- All NA car would need to update to the NB 1.8 to have the same weight and no plate. Or better yet let make the '01 the required motor then all but 12 guys would need to change. [Smile]

Then we would only have the NB tub stiffness to fight about. What fun would that be. [Smile]

Also I think we would have about half the number of car racing

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

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 Rooster Tail:
No one has yet answered the obvious question: Why not make the 99's run the early subframes, uprights, and control arms? You still get everyone on the same equipment and handling. AND fewer people have to shell out the bucks to do it. It is obviously the right way to go.

Many people argued till we were blue in the face that the 99 was an overdog and shouldn't be allowed in SM. We were told that it won't be, we'll restrict it "make it breathe through a straw" was a common reply. We'll weigh it down. It was argued that it wouldn't work, it wouldn't be enough. You did it anyway. It is apparent that the CRB/SM adhoc created this problem and now is expecting the vast majority of the class (NA) to fix it with their dollars.

Didnít you see Ė cars are competitive as classed, Thank you for your input. [Smile]

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

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 mat pombo:
A more expensive option would be to bring back the aluminum clutch for the 1.6L cars to help with torque, but that's a $1000 option.

Again, do not give me handling as I already have that advantage in my 1.6L. I NEED TORQUE.

Mat

I know where I am taking the 10 pounds off my car [Smile]

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

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 Colin MacLean:
I can completely see why the 1.6 guys are up in arms and if I still had my SM I'd be pissed right now.

1. 1.6 can currently outhandle any other car.
2. '99+ can outdrag any other car.

So in response to this the '99 gets more legal power and the 1.6 gets "optional" handling tweaks.

WHAT?

The vast majority of this class run 1.6's, they are the core of the class. Any performance adjustments should be made to the 1.6 baseline. So slow the '99+ cars down. It's not that hard. $25 part. Why is this not happening? It makes NO sense to me.

+1 well said

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

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 Willie the Tard:
quote:
Originally posted by mat pombo:
A more expensive option would be to bring back the aluminum clutch for the 1.6L cars to help with torque, but that's a $1000 option.

Again, do not give me handling as I already have that advantage in my 1.6L. I NEED TORQUE.

Mat

I know where I am taking the 10 pounds off my car [Smile]
I think I still have my lighweight clutch PLUS I might be able to dig up a flywheel. [Big Grin]

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


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

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 Cajun Miata Man:
quote:
Originally posted by Willie the Tard:
quote:
Originally posted by mat pombo:
A more expensive option would be to bring back the aluminum clutch for the 1.6L cars to help with torque, but that's a $1000 option.

Again, do not give me handling as I already have that advantage in my 1.6L. I NEED TORQUE.

Mat

I know where I am taking the 10 pounds off my car [Smile]
I think I still have my lighweight clutch PLUS I might be able to dig up a flywheel. [Big Grin]
Thanks but I was joking I would never cheat [Roll Eyes]

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

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

quote:
Originally posted by Willie the Tard:
quote:
Originally posted by Colin MacLean:
I can completely see why the 1.6 guys are up in arms and if I still had my SM I'd be pissed right now.

1. 1.6 can currently outhandle any other car.
2. '99+ can outdrag any other car.

So in response to this the '99 gets more legal power and the 1.6 gets "optional" handling tweaks.

WHAT?

The vast majority of this class run 1.6's, they are the core of the class. Any performance adjustments should be made to the 1.6 baseline. So slow the '99+ cars down. It's not that hard. $25 part. Why is this not happening? It makes NO sense to me.

+1 well said
+1 here too. Sure would be nice to remain IT legal too so we can continue to double dip. RP and exhaust are easier ways to tweak HP and torque vs encouraging the majority of the class to invest in a $1500 upgrade. Makes sense when the goal is equalization and not necessarily faster across the board. Same with race gas.

Kudo's to the guys on SMAC and CRB. Your time and contributions are greatly appreciated. I harbor no issues, it's a fun class but will write my letter as you have each suggested.

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

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 Willie the Tard:
quote:
Originally posted by Cajun Miata Man:
quote:
Originally posted by Willie the Tard:
quote:
Originally posted by mat pombo:
A more expensive option would be to bring back the aluminum clutch for the 1.6L cars to help with torque, but that's a $1000 option.

Again, do not give me handling as I already have that advantage in my 1.6L. I NEED TORQUE.

Mat

I know where I am taking the 10 pounds off my car [Smile]
I think I still have my lighweight clutch PLUS I might be able to dig up a flywheel. [Big Grin]
Thanks but I was joking I would never cheat [Roll Eyes]
Why not, they did and received rules in their favor. [yep]

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

David Dewhurst
CenDiv
Milwaukee Region
Spec Miata #14

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 David Dewhurst:
Why not, they did and received rules in their favor. [yep] [/QB]

I see your still running your mouth, spewing negativity... So again I ask the same simple question that you apparently have no answer to? Here it is again, just in case your forgot? [Wink]

If Mr Weise was as fast as some of the best 99's in the country on the mid straight( his words), faster on the back straight(his words) and you want them the same on the front straight and lighter by 125 and 175 lbs, where do the 1.8's have an advantage that would enable them to compete? Or is that your point? Are you really that obtuse or just that desperate in seeking help for your particular car?


Unlike Mr Dewhurst, I want the cars as close as possible, if the 1.6 needs help, give it some. But that is not what I saw in that video, at a track where everyone says the 1.6 has no chance. If I am missing something, please point it out. I am open minded enough to realize there may be other opinions out there. The cars look very close to me, about as close as possible. We are arguing about who wins a particular straight.

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 David Dewhurst:
Why not, they did and received rules in their favor. [yep]

I don't think that would work for me or what happen. It was the ECUs that got the FP and timing in. So I need someone else to cheat in a costly and undetectable way to get my stuff in.

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

Muda Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
ComingToAMirrorNearYou

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

quote:
Originally posted by Willie the Tard:
So I need someone else to cheat in a costly and undetectable way to get my stuff in.

Yes, exactly, err, well...it sure feels that way.

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

David Dewhurst
Veteran Member

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

***I am open minded enough to realize there may be other opinions out there.***

& you don't harass them if their opinion is the same as yours, correct.

I have way to much respect for the people that own 1.6's (that don't agree with Rich) to quote their Road America posts that I'm sure you have read. Some of the quotes are not for Road America.

***The cars look very close to me, about as close as possible.***

I have a lot of respect for Rich's driving but I don't hang everything on one drivers video or opinion.

***But that is not what I saw in that video,***

Riche's story is two years old.

***I want the cars as close as possible,***

Likewise, please list the 2010 1.6 SCCA national wins east of the Rocky mountains.

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

David Dewhurst
CenDiv
Milwaukee Region
Spec Miata #14

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 David Dewhurst:
you don't harass them if their opinion is the same as yours, correct.

I apologize if you feel I'm harassing anyone as it is not my intention. My opinion is clear and not harassing. My intention to get you to answer a simple question since your opinions are contrary to mine and you seem to know all the answers except to the question I have posed? Could you please answer the question specifically, less the smoke signals and Haiku!

"freeing up some torque as you put it" If we speed the 1.6 up anymore on the front straight, how do the 1.8 cars compete with this car in the video on the rest of the track?


I have a lot of respect for Rich's driving but I don't hang everything on one drivers video or opinion.

I hang a lot more on a front runner who races a 1.6 then a guy with an agenda in a forum.



Riche's story is two years old.

I believe that was last years Sprints.



Likewise, please list the 2010 1.6 SCCA national wins east of the Rocky mountains.


You obviously have a computer, you can search the division points as easy as any of us. Instead complaining all the time, why don't you compile the list yourself?
J~

Blake Thompson Verified Driver
Now The Fastest "Blake" in Spec Miata

Region: Central
Car #: 97
Year : 1991
Posts: 602
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Blake Thompson   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by davew:
Even if it does have the ugly body work.

Dave

HEY! takes one to know one. And I'd sure like to see how your "210lb" (your ass btw) driver and car is under weight. I can't get anywhere near 2285 (much less 2275) with my very stripped car (incidentally running your cage) and I'm certainly (no offense here) not heavier than you.

-The other chubby redhead

--------------------
http://btdtracing.com - YOUR Miata Parts Pimp

Keith in WA Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Pack Fodder

Region: NWR / Oregon
Car #: 88
Year : 95
Posts: 2000
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Keith in WA     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

For anyone on the waiting list for the 47mm restrictor plate from SCCA Enterprises, Mazda still has 19 left of the old stock ones as of a few minutes ago, even thought their web page says contact SCCA Enterprises, and the GCR says either is legal.

--------------------
Keith Novak
(Will work for tires)

Rich Verified Driver
Oh, that's where that is.

Region: STL
Car #: 35
Year : #795 SRF
Posts: 1209
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Rich   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by David Dewhurst:
***I am open minded enough to realize there may be other opinions out there.***

& you don't harass them if their opinion is the same as yours, correct.

I have way to much respect for the people that own 1.6's (that don't agree with Rich) to quote their Road America posts that I'm sure you have read. Some of the quotes are not for Road America.

***The cars look very close to me, about as close as possible.***

I have a lot of respect for Rich's driving but I don't hang everything on one drivers video or opinion.

***But that is not what I saw in that video,***

Riche's story is two years old.

***I want the cars as close as possible,***

Likewise, please list the 2010 1.6 SCCA national wins east of the Rocky mountains.

That was 2009. Not two years ago, one.

A 1.6 car won last Sunday's National against Drago and Coello among others at Gateway in Madison, IL. Not just East of the Rockies, East of the Mississippi too.

Facts are not your best friend here... [rolling on floor laughin]

And if you people are going to take my name in vain, at least spell it right. It's "Wiese," although according to Asselta it's "Weasel."

--------------------
Rich Wiese

Spec Wrecker Ford

Rich Verified Driver
Oh, that's where that is.

Region: STL
Car #: 35
Year : #795 SRF
Posts: 1209
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Rich   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Oh, one more thing, what everyone is forgetting is that my effort was half-assed, 3/4-assed at best, aside from putting good parts on the car. Hell, Saini showed up even more half-assed than I was in 2008 and kicked my butt. I aligned the car maybe once a year, and the only reason I checked it at the sprints at all was because the rumbles were knocking the toe out so badly. I didn't have any meaningful DAQ abilities aside from looking at sector times after the sessions on my DL1 which was plugged in to the cigarette lighter, wasn't using a track-specific setup (unless "wheels on sideways with two degrees of WTF on the right rear" is fast at road america), and didn't spend more than 3 hours on the dyno that year, let alone for that event. The effort I know goes in to Drago's cars is waaaaay beyond what I was doing, and I suspect many others were as well. My car had a very well built and strong Sunbelt in it and a driver who managed not to crash it. It wasn't anything special aside from being ugly, and the last 1% of speed was not being exploited.

Just thought I'd clear that up, in case anybody thought what they see in the video is a "no expense spared top driver/car combo" or whatever the hot phrase is for a winning combo these days. [Wink] If DDG and Gorilla decided to win in a 1.6, or other great prep/driver combos out there, I bet they could do it under the current rules, or the 2008 rules for that matter. But all things being equal, if I were deciding what to build for this budget class and donor budget wasn't much of an issue, I'd start with the newest competitive car possible.

--------------------
Rich Wiese

Spec Wrecker Ford

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

LMAO as it is more true than most would believe [Big Grin] What was that car like 1/2-5/8 in lower on the left and 53% cross before qualifying? Still remember thinking helping you was going to cost me that race. [Smile]

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

EAST STREET RACING

Rich Verified Driver
Oh, that's where that is.

Region: STL
Car #: 35
Year : #795 SRF
Posts: 1209
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Rich   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Drago:
LMAO as it is more true than most would believe [Big Grin] What was that car like 1/2-5/8 in lower on the left and 53% cross before qualifying? Still remember thinking helping you was going to cost me that race. [Smile]

Lucky for you, Rich with a proper setup is like a mule with a spinning wheel. Nobody knows how he got it and damned if he knows what to do with it. [rolling on floor laughin]

--------------------
Rich Wiese

Spec Wrecker Ford

JimEli Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: NWR
Car #: 5
Year : 1991
Posts: 252
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for JimEli   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Drago:
Just to clarify, then I will let you guys back to the regularly scheduled programming...

Parts needed to convert from Mazdaspeed "IF" you choose to.

from Tim Buck:
Front conversion
Frt Crossmember $370.00
Steering rack complete $350.00
Left and right spindle $150.00
left and right upper control arms $184.00
Total $1054.00 new

Rear conversion
two spacers $10.00


Total $1064.00 new from Mazda. I am sure I am missing some small things, but it is no where near $2400.00.

Jim

Items I have found missing from this list include the bushings & cam bolts (~$200). I'm researching the small items...

--------------------
UPR.com
Team LemonLappers

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

I haven't seen everyone account for the cost of shipping these presumably heavy parts halfway across the country. My guess is that will add a couple bills to the total.

Rick Buhl Verified Driver
Member

Region: RMDiv
Car #: 82
Year : 1992
Posts: 28
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Rick Buhl   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

I have been racing Spec Miata since 2002 (whenever my health and family life permits). I got into the class because #1 the cost was relatively low (see old GRM articles about the best race class for under $15K), and #2 because the racing was so competitive. My donor car was my daily driver I bought new in 1992, and from the first season on the track, I have been able to run competitively at the regional level. While I always aspired to race at a national event, I have always known my car would not be super competitive (nor would my driving skills), but I still felt that on a good day I could do well.

That being said, I wonder about the future of the class I got into 8 years ago, and how much longer I will be able to drag my 1.6 out of the garage and go compete against my friends and on a good day still podium at the regional level without spending a ton of money (other than the expenses of tires, gas, towing, etc).

When looking at the cost of modifications, there has been some focus on the parts list, shipping, and labor it would cost an individual racer to upgrade. It has also been stated (although no stats were provided) that 1.6's make up the majority of the class. When looking at the cost of a modification, it seems prudent to calculate not only the individual cost, but the overall cost to the class. This is easily done by multiplying the individual cost by the number of cars required to make the modification. That cost (as well as the individual cost) should be compared to the expected benefit in terms of closing the gap between the cars. The expected cost/benefit of various modifications could then be compared. This would make expensive changes to the majority of the cars (supposedly the 1.6) such as 99 suspension, 1.8L engines, etc look less appealing than things like weight and restrictor plates to the minority cars, or even more expensive modifications to the minority cars.

I would be very interested in the rough number of cars running of each type (ie 1.6, 1.8, 99+) and then seeing some comparison of the costs vs expected benefit for various proposals. In all of the posts I have read, I am still not exactly sure what upgrading to a 99+ front end is supposed to do for the 1.6l cars other than make the class more "spec" (the handling benefits seem to be disputed). I am not in favor of more spec just for the sake of more spec.

Just as a data point, as of today, there were 47 cars entered into the NASA Championships at Miller.
90-93 - 26 (55%)
94-97 - 7 (15%)
99+ - 12 (26%)
unknown - 2 (4%)

If this was representative of the overall population in SM, it would mean that 70%(+) of the cars would have to upgrade to 99+ suspension. However, I suspect that the actual population of SM's is even more weighted towards the early years. So this is a good idea why? From a class cost perspective, it would be a lot cheaper to have everyone run on the 1.6 front end (less than half the cars would have to make a change)

With the recent announcement of the SM5 class, why don't we seriously look at what it would take to make the 99+ cars competitive in that class, and then get down to solving the 1.6 vs 1.8 disparities. We would still probably field the largest classes (SM is the largest single field at NASA championships, and likely would not drop out of the top 3 without the 99's (who knows, it might even bring out a larger field).

While I appreciate all the time the SMAC and CRB put into the SM class, I sometimes wonder if the perspective of being so devoted to racing is driving the class to be developed for the top 1% as opposed to the 99% majority. Please keep SM as a great place for people to start racing and continue racing. I truly enjoy the few days I get to go racing each year and I especially enjoy the camaraderie and competitiveness of my fellow racers. The rule changes, tire wars, and tech compliance issues are the only things that harsh my gig.

--------------------
Rick Buhl
SM #82

Motor City Hamilton
Member

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

I work with data alot. Is there any way to get access to a majority of SCCA spec miata results by year? Would MyLaps be able to extract a file from their system?

If so, I would be willing to volunteer to crunch the numbers for the community.

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 Motor City Hamilton:
I work with data alot. Is there any way to get access to a majority of SCCA spec miata results by year? Would MyLaps be able to extract a file from their system?

If so, I would be willing to volunteer to crunch the numbers for the community.

If your talking spec line numbers you will find minimal to nothing. The only place that I'v ever seen the event spec line year is at the Runoffs. Made a suggestion that the spec line years be tracked for data use.

Response IIRC:

Thanks for the input, it would confuse to many people.

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

David Dewhurst
CenDiv
Milwaukee Region
Spec Miata #14

Motor City Hamilton
Member

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

Could a file from Mazda be merged with race results. Does Mazda have an accurate list of driver name and model years owned? Could this capture the majority of the class?

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 Motor City Hamilton:
Could a file from Mazda be merged with race results. Does Mazda have an accurate list of driver name and model years owned? Could this capture the majority of the class?

Not when I questioned Mazda before I made the letter request to track spec line counts to the CRB.

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

David Dewhurst
CenDiv
Milwaukee Region
Spec Miata #14

 
Page 1 of 6 1  2  3  4  5  6  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: