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 2)

 - Email this page to someone! | Subscribe To Topic
Page 2 of 6 1  2  3  4  5  6  next » 
 
Author Topic: Huge changes in August Fastrack
Dan Tiley Verified Driver Series Champ
Are you followin' me, camera guy???

Region: SEDIV
Car #: 33
Year : Whatever's Available!
Posts: 311
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Dan Tiley     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by JST #16:
I'm going to have to bolt in a 25 lb plate on Sunday, too. [Eek!]

Geez... I never realized those restrictor plates were so heavy! [Eek!]

--------------------
Dan Tiley

Sponsored by Race Engineering

Spec Miata's fastest and best supported engine program!

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

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

When I changed my 1.6L car over to a torsen from a Mazdacomp, I weighed the car before and after the change. The total increase in weight going to the torsen was 9 lbs.

I'm ok with the changes but it will take me some time to get there. I agree that it will help keep the values of the older cars in line with the newer ones.

It would be nice if Mazdaspeed would put together a kit which had everything needed to make the conversion. Hopefully at a discount. [thumbsup]

Glenn Verified Driver
Member

Region: CCR
Posts: 581
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Glenn     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

For you cost conscience out there, lighter weight = better tire wear. Ask the 99 drivers how many sets they use in a year? The addition of weight to the 95 will be interesting as some of our cars already have over #100 bolted to the floors. We shall overcome!

--------------------
Glenn
Crew chief Meathead Racing, NE Region Sales Division Race Engineering, The GOLD standard in SM engines, Occasional race slave for OPM Autosports

fastbrewer
Member

Region: Utah
Car #: 93
Year : 1996
Posts: 83
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for fastbrewer     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

What type of weights are some of you using that have to put alot in?
I've got a '96 that currently has 50#'s as 2-25# weights from a weight set. I now need to add another 25#er but I'm not confident in the mounting space.

Are some of you just forming with lead, or doing something different?

-Jon

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

A fellow SM drivers and fabricator builds the weight systems for all of the Autotecnik cars. He forms lead plates in the shape of the floor (along the self). We have one big one that weighs 70 pounds or so and than additional plates in varying weights. They are held in place with metal plates on top of the lead and 4 plates under the car using 4 very large bolts. My car has 120 pounds in it and is not going anywhere.

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

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

I think I weigh about 190. I have 2x 25# plates bolted to the floor and at 2385 I needed 4.5 gallons in the tank to come out 5+ over for a buffer. No cool shirt cooler though but I didn't lighten the crap out of the car either.

Depends on the scales though. I've found them to sometimes vary 10-20#.

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

Cliffy Chains
Member

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

quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Tucker:
A fellow SM drivers and fabricator builds the weight systems for all of the Autotecnik cars. He forms lead plates in the shape of the floor (along the self).

"Swede" does a great job, keeps the weight low, and with the speed nuts, you can add or subtract weight in minutes if running the coolshirt systems.

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

fastbrewer
Member

Region: Utah
Car #: 93
Year : 1996
Posts: 83
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for fastbrewer     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Tucker:
A fellow SM drivers and fabricator builds the weight systems for all of the Autotecnik cars. He forms lead plates in the shape of the floor (along the self). We have one big one that weighs 70 pounds or so and than additional plates in varying weights. They are held in place with metal plates on top of the lead and 4 plates under the car using 4 very large bolts. My car has 120 pounds in it and is not going anywhere.

Thanks,
Do you know what is used for a mold that large?

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 PedalFaster:
quote:
Originally posted by David Dewhurst:
I do not track the left coast or the northewest finishes. From what I read there are not the number of 99's there as there are elsewhere.

Can you explain why, if there are more '99s than 1.6s winning nationals on the East Coast, it means the '99's an overdog and has to be reined in, yet if there are more 1.6s than '99s winning nationals on the West Coast, it's bad data that should be disregarded?
Stephen, I have never said there is not parity for the 1.6 EXCEPT at Road America. I'm still waiting for one of those special 1.6's to strut their stuff at Road America during the Sprints or the Runoffs. Not ment to be offensive to 1.6 drivers.

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

David Dewhurst
CenDiv
Milwaukee Region
Spec Miata #14

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

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

So does a 91 with 99 suspension on it still need 13mm wheel spacers to get out to the max allowed track width?

Seriously, I don't know nothin' bout them there '99s.

Alex Bolanos Verified Driver Series Champ
Member

Car #: 18
Year : 1994
Posts: 202
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Alex Bolanos     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by fastbrewer:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Tucker:
A fellow SM drivers and fabricator builds the weight systems for all of the Autotecnik cars. He forms lead plates in the shape of the floor (along the self). We have one big one that weighs 70 pounds or so and than additional plates in varying weights. They are held in place with metal plates on top of the lead and 4 plates under the car using 4 very large bolts. My car has 120 pounds in it and is not going anywhere.

Thanks,
Do you know what is used for a mold that large?

He fabbed an aluminum mold, the big 75lb base plate is only about 1.5 inches thick and the rest of the 15,25,35 lb plates that go on top are between .25 and .75 inches.

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 may be biased.. But I think this is the best weight system out there and the one that goes in all my cars. It uses the passenger seat mounts to secure the base plate and four half inch grade 8 bolts to secure the weights. Base plate is 17 lbs and each 1/4 steel plate is 15 lbs. If the passenger seat can hold a 200 lb passenger, elevated off the ground, the mounts can easily hold the weights at the floor. I don't like using bolts and washers threw the sheet metal floor with heavy weights. No I don't sell this system, but if you would like to buy them, PM me.

 -

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

EAST STREET RACING

taylorf Verified Driver
Member

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

Drago is right. That is the best on the market!

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

fastbrewer
Member

Region: Utah
Car #: 93
Year : 1996
Posts: 83
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for fastbrewer     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Drago,
That does look really clean and secure. I like the fact that you can get that much weight that low and spread out, as well the top cover. Very Pro!

Something like that would be a lot easier than melting and forming lead. I could likely go to our local metal mart and have the bigger plates cut to order. Only bummer on my car is I think I removed one of the rear seat mounts to install the cage [banghead]

Thanks,
-Jon

CP Verified Driver
Member

Region: NER
Car #: 7
Year : 1999
Posts: 636
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for CP   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

The 125#+ setup in my 99 is similar to Jim's: flat plates bolted to the factory seat mounts held together with bolts the thickness of my finger. This is in addition to an icy cooler and 16# steel fire bottle. I can barely lift it out of the car when converting to STU/ITS trim several times per race weekend.

--------------------
-Cy
Supported by LTD Racing & Speed Shack - New England's Premier Auto Accessory Store
Rt1 AutoMile - Norwood, MA
http://www.speedshackonline.com

T.J. Kearney Verified Driver
Male Member

Region: Finger Lakes
Car #: 85
Year : 1992
Posts: 755
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for T.J. Kearney     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

I like Marc Cefalo's solution as well....maybe he can post a pic?

--------------------
Tom Kearney
SSM #85
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Jerret Gerber
Member

Region: Central
Car #: 9
Year : 1996
Posts: 38
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Jerret Gerber     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

David there were 2 1.6 cars that finished in the top 5 at the sprints this year. '99 1st&2nd 1.6 3rd and 4th. So they were there just didnt win. Weise had a 1.6 that finished 3rd or 4th the year before. My '95 finished 5th and was no where near the front after they all got away in the damp going dry track conditions. They pulled away on the straights and I would catch in the corners. I was very dissappointed that given the rain experience I could not catch the front runners. Not complaining just trying to catch with what we have. Maybe the runoffs will change given the fuel issue that most were running.

breathesfire Verified Driver
flirting with disaster

Region: South Jersey
Year : 91
Posts: 121
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for breathesfire     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Drago:
I may be biased.. But I think this is the best weight system out there and the one that goes in all my cars. It uses the passenger seat mounts to secure the base plate and four half inch grade 8 bolts to secure the weights. Base plate is 17 lbs and each 1/4 steel plate is 15 lbs. If the passenger seat can hold a 200 lb passenger, elevated off the ground, the mounts can easily hold the weights at the floor. I don't like using bolts and washers threw the sheet metal floor with heavy weights. No I don't sell this system, but if you would like to buy them, PM me.


Who's going to tell Mr. Drago that his ballast isn't technically legal? [duck] I would re-fit the seat mount bolts to 1/2" to be safe.

Pete Maerz

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 am aware and have been aware. That is far and away the safest method of mounting weight in a Miata.
I see a clarication to mr hedricks letter in our future.
Until then, if it bothers anyone, they should protest it. Typical of this site and the class lately [Roll Eyes]

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

EAST STREET RACING

TimBuck Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
I'll believe it when I believe it.

Region: CalClub
Car #: 44
Year : 1992
Posts: 1364
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for TimBuck   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

I'm with Mr. Drago. Remember, those seat mounts are DOT crash tested!

--------------------
Tim Buck

MAZDASPEED Motorsports Development
Mazda North American Operations
phone (800) 435-2508
fax (949) 222-2650

zoom-zoom!

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

I was going to mount mine the same way but put huge bolts through the floor instead worried about ye ole rulebook. I think the seat mounts are much better and you don't risk cross drilled brake lines.

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

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 Jerret Gerber:
David there were 2 1.6 cars that finished in the top 5 at the sprints this year. '99 1st&2nd 1.6 3rd and 4th. So they were there just didnt win. Weise had a 1.6 that finished 3rd or 4th the year before. My '95 finished 5th and was no where near the front after they all got away in the damp going dry track conditions. They pulled away on the straights and I would catch in the corners. I was very dissappointed that given the rain experience I could not catch the front runners. Not complaining just trying to catch with what we have. Maybe the runoffs will change given the fuel issue that most were running.

Jerret, please read the following top 10 from the 2010 June Sprints below. IIRC the only 1.6 is Jeffrey Labounty in 7th place. [Wink] BUT, we don't require the spec line year on the results sheet because it makes it to confusing per the SMAC/CRB.

Some drink the Kool Aid while watching the video while some look at video for what the video shows. I see a well driven 1.6 by Rich [yep] that without the hand show/bumping from T14 to T1 the 99's leave him, up the hill from T5 to T6 the 99's leave him & without the full course yellow the 1.6 is a long ways back. Now on the other hand the 99 can & did pass the 1.6 as they pleased. I also understand racing is racing & the finish position is all that's remembered. [thumbsup] No offense Rich, I view the video as I view the video........

Danny Steyn
Craig Berry
Sammy Valafar
Jerret Gerber
Tom Sager
Andrew Von Charbonneau
Jeffrey Labounty
Derek Whitis
Voytek Burdzy
Shawn Young

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

David Dewhurst
CenDiv
Milwaukee Region
Spec Miata #14

fastbrewer
Member

Region: Utah
Car #: 93
Year : 1996
Posts: 83
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for fastbrewer     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by TimBuck:
I'm with Mr. Drago. Remember, those seat mounts are DOT crash tested!

Nice Point.

Tim, do you have any 47mm plates available?

-Jon

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:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jerret Gerber:
[qb] Some drink the Kool Aid while watching the video while some look at video for what the video shows. I see a well driven 1.6 by Rich [yep] that without the hand show/bumping from T14 to T1 the 99's leave him, up the hill from T5 to T6 the 99's leave him & without the full course yellow the 1.6 is a long ways back. Now on the other hand the 99 can & did pass the 1.6 as they pleased.

People see what they want to see, or more importantly what supports their case or car? Mr D. is looking through 1.6 clouded glasses.

What I see is similar to what Rich posted. I noticed the silver /green 1.6 (Tim Weaver?) gapping Rich up the hill at 14. How do you explain that? My opinion is the draft far outweighs 1.6 vs 1.8 debate. When Rich was gapped by 99's, they were locked together drafting as Rich pointed out. The 1.6 that gapped him was also in the draft. Seems like the 1.6 car had clear advantage down the back straight as also pointed out by Rich? The middle straight seemed relatively even. If we concede the front straight to the 99's. How do you equalize the cars any better? If you add TQ and/or power to the 1.6 car it wins on all straights, it is lighter and brakes better and is now on same suspension? Where does the 94/05 car have a chance? Or do we even care?

Why is Rich posting this?
A) Telling the truth and trying to give impartial information about the cars
B) Secretly ordered a 99 to go with his SRF
C) Trying to put his car at an even further disadvantage as he enjoys the additional challenge

B and C seem unlikely.
J~

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

I run 175# in my 99... I knocked out the rear seat mounts and had a metal shop cut steel plate to fit the space up to the front seat mount starting with a 1" base plate. I have a number of 1/8" thick plates that let me tune the weight.

I also had them cut two ~20"x4"x1/4" backup plates that I run on either side of the frame rail and use 4 x 5/8" Grade 8 hardware to bolt together.

If you need a lot of weight, I'd suggest going local because otherwise the shipping is more than the weights.

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

Cliffy Chains
Member

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

quote:
Originally posted by JMorris:
Who do you equalize the cars any better? If you add TQ and/or power to the 1.6 car it wins on all straights, it is lighter and brakes better and is now on same suspension? Where does the 94/05 car have a chance? Or do we even care?

I'm not wanting to start a huge debate here, but the 1.6 can no way shape or form compare with the braking power of a 99' car. The 94-97 cars have equality now with the plate and the handling of a 1.6 car, and the torue of a stock 99 car.

Just thought I would throw that in and stir the pot some, I didn't have anything else to do right now... [Big Grin]

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

TimBuck Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
I'll believe it when I believe it.

Region: CalClub
Car #: 44
Year : 1992
Posts: 1364
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for TimBuck   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by fastbrewer:
quote:
Originally posted by TimBuck:
I'm with Mr. Drago. Remember, those seat mounts are DOT crash tested!

Nice Point.

Tim, do you have any 47mm plates available?

-Jon

There are a few in stock.

--------------------
Tim Buck

MAZDASPEED Motorsports Development
Mazda North American Operations
phone (800) 435-2508
fax (949) 222-2650

zoom-zoom!

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 Cliffy Chains:
quote:
Originally posted by JMorris:
Who do you equalize the cars any better? If you add TQ and/or power to the 1.6 car it wins on all straights, it is lighter and brakes better and is now on same suspension? Where does the 94/05 car have a chance? Or do we even care?

I'm not wanting to start a huge debate here, but the 1.6 can no way shape or form compare with the braking power of a 99' car. The 94-97 cars have equality now with the plate and the handling of a 1.6 car, and the torque of a stock 99 car.

Just thought I would throw that in and stir the pot some, I didn't have anything else to do right now... [Big Grin]

How do you answer this question? Not trying to debate either. You can't concede all three straights to one car, added to the debate, the 1.6 is the lightest.

quote:
Originally posted by JMorris:
Seems like the 1.6 car had clear advantage down the back straight as also pointed out by Rich? The middle straight seemed relatively even. If we concede the front straight to the 99's. How do you equalize the cars any better?[/QB]

Seems like we have three people very vocally stirring the pot and screaming the sky is falling and volunteers with ulterior motives. [nope] I appreciate the work of the volunteers and would not want their job.
J~

Gatoratty Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

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

The only reason this change was made is because Drago has a secret stash of 99 suspension parts and wants to corner the market for 99 suspension parts! [rolling on floor laughin] I will just have to keep pedaling my 1.6 and having fun!

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

Jerret Gerber
Member

Region: Central
Car #: 9
Year : 1996
Posts: 38
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Jerret Gerber     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

I'm not saying the 1.6 car is faster. Slattery was very fast all weekend be it that he had a ported head by engine build failure(I am assuming that was the call from what i heard), but his car was fast at last years sprints and runoffs. It is a 1.6. What does Valafar have, I thought he also was 1.6. Anyway just as JMorris said we cant give too much more. Really have to do something about the 99 somehow. One straight doesnt justify major changes. I get beat up the front straight as well. I just need to stay ahead and not let them over take. At the double nat at RA Sandlins car was faster up the front but i was faster in the other parts. His car just got wider as the race progressed. I made some mistakes after the kink and could not overtake in 14. Oh well got beat by a better driver. Not arguing but we need to protest more if we want things changed. I want to win also.

Sphinx Verified Driver
M. Yusuf Mohamed

Posts: 450
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Sphinx     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

I've missed this season so far and haven't been keeping up with the rule changes. But what's the story behind allowing '99 suspension parts on the early cars. Why is this a good or bad idea (other than cost creep)?

--------------------
Sphinx Racing
Atlanta Region
http://www.sphinxracing.com
http://www.layersdesserts.com
Support our racing efforts by shopping at your favorite online merchants at SphinxRacing.com!

Cliffy Chains
Member

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

quote:
Originally posted by Sphinx:
I've missed this season so far and haven't been keeping up with the rule changes. But what's the story behind allowing '99 suspension parts on the early cars. Why is this a good or bad idea (other than cost creep)?

The idea here is that the additional width increase will help handling of the 90-97 cars even more.

As to the above conceding a straight to a 99' I will always be the first to say my 1.6 is down on power, but even down as it is , if the 99 is on POG. I don't seem to have much of an issue staying with their straight line speed.

The "grunt" of the 99' from the apex on is very impressive, where as the 1.6 must stay above 5K rpms to not break the momentum it seems.

It seems that the board has got us to the point that we are the closest we have been since the start. Yet alot of people are still debating straights and corners, and wins and losses. I think we will always debate if the sky is blue or not, but for now lets see how they fare this year at the runoffs, I think alot of people are going to be suprised after this years parity at the big one.

Answer this to all why is Big D building a 97 car for himself, and Jeffy Boy building a brand new 1.6 for himself, Bob @ RE has one of the fastest cars and a great driver with Gaines this year, and RRP has Hair Flip as their poster boy in a 99'. So what does all this mean?????

I'll tell you,,,, it means I am still down on power ,I can't drive for $hit, my cars too light, I weigh too much, someone is cheating, I think I can go faster and use less brakes, and I need to drink more beer before getting back on these forums. [fight]

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

David Dewhurst
Veteran Member

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

J~, I watched the Rich video again. Rich did a fine job driving, he received great T14 to T1 bumps, there was a great FCY that got Rich back to Sandlin & specifically with his hide & seek momentum crunch got him away from Rennolds (side ways two spots, two different times) & Sandlin. The wt/gr 1.6 really didn't get away from Rich. From my perspective the sky is not falling. The 1.6 needs a tweak of torque for Road America............. [yep]

Jarret, just a tweek of torque for the 1.6 at Road America. [yep] I didn't see the SM Sprints race this year (F car next race & tire readyness was required) BUT it was not dry & that becomes advantage Slattery [thumbsup] , tech issue or no tech issue.

--------------------
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:
The 1.6 needs a tweak of torque for Road America............. [yep]


How do you do that with out giving the 1.6 a clear advantage on all three straights? Or is that the intention? [Sleep] Sure would like an answer to the question, you seem to have the answer already in your pocket?
J~

DickCDawg Verified Driver
Member

Region: East Tennessee
Car #: 39
Year : 1992
Posts: 29
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for DickCDawg     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

This afternoon I asked the BOD, the CRB, and SMAC members to reconsider the proposed rule for suspension upgrade on 90-97's, and to investigate an alternate rule allowing steering rack shimming to reduce bumpsteer. If you do not want the more costly upgrade change, please let the decision making volunteers know your concerns. A copy of my request is below, and here's the contact info -

Board of Directors: bod@scca.com
CRB: http://www.crbscca.com
SMAC: dwmracing@hotmail.com;mcananey@yahoo.com;mike@meatheadracing.com;shenry@springfielddyno.com;TOM@OPMAUTOSPORTS.COM

Gentlemen:

As a midpack regional SM racer who attends 3 - 5 race weekends in a good year and 1 - 2 more recently, I ask that you reconsider approval of proposed Spec Miata changes #1774 (99+ suspension for 90-97) and #2089 (99+ track width on 90-97). For limited budget folks like me, the GCR Purpose & Intent for SM is vital to my ability to participate, and these proposed changes contradict the stated intent - "Class is intended to provide the membership with the opportunity to COMPETE in LOW COST cars with limited modifications..."

MazComp pricing as of 7/22 for 99-05 control arms, crossmembers, and bushings is nearly $2400 with sales tax and shipping. I realize that used parts may be found at a lower cost but that also involves possibility of bent parts and more time/effort to locate; estimates I'm hearing still require investment of >$1200 on used parts before adding labor for the update. I realize this proposed change does not REQUIRE the update, but it will definitely increase the perception of competitive disadvantage if a car is not updated. From a CRB member I've been in touch with, the reason for this change is to correct bumpsteer on the early models and "to get all cars "spec, same gear, same suspension". I have heard no evidence that this upgrade provides a significant performance improvement for 90-97 SM's, and I believe that the vast majority of early model SM drivers would benefit far more from $1200 to $2400 of seat time. If bumpsteer is an important issue, the same CRB member I heard from says he is not opposed to considering a steering rack shim solution to the problem, even though he does not think it provides a complete fix.

Therefore, I respectfully request the BOD postpone a vote on approving changes #1774 and #2089 until the SMAC and CRB investigate and report on allowing 90-97 models to use a specific, well defined steering rack shimming procedure to reduce bumpsteer, instead of an expensive suspension upgrade.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Dick Hancock
#39SM, SeDiv North

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

I second this idea, as an alternative to swapping out a complete front clip. fine for those who have the skill and or money to do so, but I cannot afford it. Shimming the rack is within my skill level and budget. Just add this as another , more financially feasible option.
Thanks,

Dave
#66 Sm

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

It's not just bump steer, it's track width too. I believe that track width (lowering center of gravity) will be worth far more than bump steer. I bet most of us couldn't feel a bit of difference in bump steer or even tell where it is really affecting the car.

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

My letter (and opinion):

Gentleman,

I am fully against the rule change to upgrade 90-97 cars to the 99+ suspension, although it will be a performance gain for my year of car, a 1994. A wider track and eliminating the minimal affects of bump steer might make my car handle better. My issue isn't with the performance gain. My issue is with the added expense and massive mechanical work that is required for this change. I am hearing dollar estimates of $1,500 to $2,400. Add this to the recent gear rule change for the 94-95 of another $1,000 to $1,500 and I'm out of money. There are still more regional racers in SM than there are national, yet the class seems to be so focused on building rules by comparing 15 to 20 national cars at one or two tracks. As a regional racer, I do not build a new car every season. I do not strip the car down and rebuild every year either. I race eight weekends a year and fix what is broken.

I know that my letter will be completely washed over with the comment that, "suspension isn'ta mandatory change." True, but we regional racers do save up to do upgrades.A pro head was next for me. This just puts me further behind having a fully prepped car. I also think it will deter peoplefrom building 94-97s because so many parts from the donor car will no longer be optimal. Plus it will reduce resale of cars not converted.

Also, noone is talking about how much mechanical effort is involved in this suspension change. My challenges are time and money. This is a major overhaul that will take the average joe a few weekends to complete, then re-align, scale, test, etc. In my opinion, this is just bad for the class.

I am not is support of rule changes that cost one quarter to one third the value of a car. This just doesn't feel like a lower budget class anymore. I am starting to lose track of the rules creep in the class. Every year I have to buy something new to stay either legal or to attempt to keep up with optimization.

Thank you.
Keith Hamilton

planet-miata.com
Member

Region: NEPA
Car #: #00
Year : 20th century
Posts: 193
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for planet-miata.com   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by T.J. Kearney:
I like Marc Cefalo's solution as well....maybe he can post a pic?

Hi tom, here's the latest version of our weight mount.

 -

 -

we also use the factory seat rail provisions for reasons stated above. The mount is easy to remove and we can add or subtract weight as many times as the rules allow. [Big Grin]

three 1/2 inch grade 8 bolts hold the weights in place along with one 1 inch threaded collar which is pinned as a backup.

--------------------
#1 Supplier of New and Used Miata parts
http://WWW.PLANET-MIATA.COM

Marc Cefalo

#00 1996 ITA
#00 ???? SM

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:
I may be biased.. But I think this is the best weight system out there and the one that goes in all my cars. It uses the passenger seat mounts to secure the base plate and four half inch grade 8 bolts to secure the weights. Base plate is 17 lbs and each 1/4 steel plate is 15 lbs. If the passenger seat can hold a 200 lb passenger, elevated off the ground, the mounts can easily hold the weights at the floor. I don't like using bolts and washers threw the sheet metal floor with heavy weights. No I don't sell this system, but if you would like to buy them, PM me.

 -

That is a very nice setup as well! Very clean..

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

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

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

Guys,

Add it up for just changing the front parts but not the rear. That will be cheaper. Get the rear by adding wheel spacers to get you to the new track width.

Nigel Stu Verified Driver
Member

Region: Detroit
Car #: 66
Year : 1992
Posts: 105
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Nigel Stu   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Cliffy Chains:
but for now lets see how they fare this year at the runoffs, I think alot of people are going to be suprised after this years parity at the big one.


Cliff - I like the humor in your post. But this part has me a bit baffled... 37 cars entered so far for the big showdown. 2 1.6L cars so far. 5 1.8 NAs. Odds are against us. How well can parity show (or not-show) with the small sample size?

If David beats Goliath (I'm not saying the 1.6 is the little under-dog, just that participation numbers of the 99's are gigantic in comparison), what happens? Can we prove that the 1.6's don't need the costly suspension? (I'd much rather spend money elsewhere - $2400 is a heck of a lot of Spotted Cow!). Will the 1.6's get hit with something else? (can we make a Spec Miata version of the hustle that involves moving weight to/from the car?)

If Goliath prevails, can data acquisition and observation show that the 1.6 is lacking going up the hills and thus unable to capitalize in 1/3 and 7/8, but can out-handle in the turn, thus proving the costly suspension change is not necessary and all we really need is to free up some torque and maybe add some cost-effective help for bumpsteer? Or find a way to reduce the torque on the 1.8L?

How does this apply to other tracks? How does this apply to the entire class (not just the Run-offs)?


I want to win. And I want my beer.

--------------------
Ben Schaut
Schaut Speed Motorsports
GLDiv / WHRRI
#66 Blue/White/Black

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

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

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

EAST STREET RACING

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

Do the front brakes need to be updated?

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

breathesfire Verified Driver
flirting with disaster

Region: South Jersey
Year : 91
Posts: 121
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for breathesfire     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

Hi Jim,
The proposed rule states: "In 9.1.8.C.4.c, add: 90-97 cars are permitted to use the 99-05 suspension components including steering rack, front and rear control arms, front and rear uprights, and front and rear sub-frames.

The small things you're missing are rear control arms, rear sub-frame, and rear uprights. Are these items not dimensionally different from the 90-97 versions?

A quick point for those pushing for a cheaper solution to solve the bump steer issue. A while back Jim Drago mentioned that much higher caster values are obtainable with the NB suspension. I think this could prove a much more desirable feature than the bump steer improvement.

By the way, why hasn't anyone suggested that the NB cars be required to retrofit 90-97 suspensions?? After all, the 94-97 folks had to change the ring the pinion. As a consolation, the 1.6 owners can spring for the big brakes.

One last question for the experts: what's the baseline timing for 99-05 cars? Has anyone tested the approximate hp increase via timing adjustment for NB cars?

Pete Maerz

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

All I know is I have about $35,000 in my 99 with all the bells and whistles. I could build a very competitive 1.6 using the new rules for about $18,000. Same suspension, lighter car, and a lot more horsepower than we had in the 1.6s 2 years ago; seems like a no brainer. Now I know why Jeff is building a new 1.6! But lets be frank here. If you are not willing to spend that kind of money you will have a hard time running up front. Fast cars require money! OPM, Autotechniks, BSI, Meathead, Flat-out, and others can only do so much. Top notch cars require a lot of maintenance and know how and they are not doing it for free. They can all build fast cars but none of them can do it for peanuts.
However, I do think the new rules will help the guys on a tighter budget my allowing them to maintain the value of the 1.6s and become more competitive for very little money (in racing terms).

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

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 breathesfire:
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

Hi Jim,
The proposed rule states: "In 9.1.8.C.4.c, add: 90-97 cars are permitted to use the 99-05 suspension components including steering rack, front and rear control arms, front and rear uprights, and front and rear sub-frames.

The small things you're missing are rear control arms, rear sub-frame, and rear uprights. Are these items not dimensionally different from the 90-97 versions?

A quick point for those pushing for a cheaper solution to solve the bump steer issue. A while back Jim Drago mentioned that much higher caster values are obtainable with the NB suspension. I think this could prove a much more desirable feature than the bump steer improvement.

By the way, why hasn't anyone suggested that the NB cars be required to retrofit 90-97 suspensions?? After all, the 94-97 folks had to change the ring the pinion. As a consolation, the 1.6 owners can spring for the big brakes.

One last question for the experts: what's the baseline timing for 99-05 cars? Has anyone tested the approximate hp increase via timing adjustment for NB cars?

Pete Maerz

The timing and fuel pressure adjustments on a 99 are about 3 horsepower; which is the same as you get with a 99 ECU. It is also the same power that you get from a modified MAF meter on a 1.6 (which is easily protestable) or a ECU on a 1.8.

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

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 breathesfire:
Hi Jim,
The proposed rule states: "In 9.1.8.C.4.c, add: 90-97 cars are permitted to use the 99-05 suspension components including steering rack, front and rear control arms, front and rear uprights, and front and rear sub-frames.

The small things you're missing are rear control arms, rear sub-frame, and rear uprights. Are these items not dimensionally different from the 90-97 versions?
[/QB]

Nope, not missed at all. All the parts are dimensionally the same except rear uprights. You can run a spacers cheaper and easier than replacing uprights. But the rule allows you to do so in the event you have crash damage and decide to put a 99 upright on.
As far as arms, they are all dimensionally the same. The rules allows you to legally run what you have available. That includes a 1.6 arm on a 99 if that is all you have available. None of the upper or lower control arms are dimensionally different.The only difference is sway bar link mounting tabs and the ball joint taper is different on the uppers, thats all.

No mention of 1.6 cars changing the brakes, the existing calipers and rotors bolt on without issue.

Jamies HP assessment was spot on.

Jim

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

EAST STREET RACING

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

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

You guys bring up a good point about the bigger brakes. When I watched last year's Runoffs, I saw 94-97 cars and 99s out brake and even pass 1.6L cars in the corners a few times. [scratchchin]

Based on this, my assessment is that the 1.6L cars should be allowed to run the larger brakes to make things fair and increase parity. [soapbox]

I think the 1.6L owners should write the BoD and CRB asking for the bigger brakes:

Board of Directors: bod@scca.com
CRB: http://www.crbscca.com

[Razz]

Jerret Gerber
Member

Region: Central
Car #: 9
Year : 1996
Posts: 38
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Jerret Gerber     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

I agree with you David. They do need more torque, just like the 94-97's needed the gear. Helped me greatly. Now i need the HP and better driving skills. I think the bigger restrictor will help and the weight shouldn't be that much of a factor to me anyways. See you at the races.

 
Page 2 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: