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 3)

 - Email this page to someone! | Subscribe To Topic
Page 3 of 6 1  2  3  4  5  6  next » 
 
Author Topic: Huge changes in August Fastrack
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

First let me say that I respect the work Jim is doing on our behalf by volunteering his time to sit on the CRB and take the grief he gets from so many people for doing what he believes is in the best interest of the class.

Several of the BOD are probably not going to approve the rules as proposed. They believe that the majority of the class is tired of continually changing the Spec in Spec Miata. They also are not happy with the CRB making changes to the rules as competition adjustments as a way to avoid the approval of the BOD. For those of you who are not aware of how the rule making process works......all changes to the GCR require posting in Fastrack, then member input, and then BOD approval....unless the changes are deemed to be competition adjustments within the class.

I wouldn't rush to buy the suspension parts or the fp regulator yet.

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

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 D.B. Cutler:
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]

Sounds good to me if any 1.6 driver wants to run the extra unsprung weight. I am all for it.

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


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

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 Jamie Tucker:
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!

I can hardly wait for the Fastrack Errors & Ommissions when a 1.6 for 1/2 the cost of a 99 whips up the number 1 podium spot on a 99 at Road America. Please note I said Road America. [yep] The Errors & Ommissions boys will get busy in a HURRY to correct that ERROR. [group hug]

I'll say it again, thanks for the volunteer effort by the SMAC/CRB.

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

David Dewhurst
CenDiv
Milwaukee Region
Spec Miata #14

Chris Haldeman
Member

Region: texas
Car #: 71,72
Year : 1990,1999
Posts: 166
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Chris Haldeman     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

i just want to know what it was in Jamie's 99 that cost him 17,000 more than the 90-93 he could build?we have already been told it cost more,and takes more work to have a competitive 1.6 car so this makes no sense????also if somebody could pm me as to where the new rules add power over the previous head rules i would love to know.take this as a serious request for info as i have a 1.6 car now and am constructing a 99 and need all the help i can get

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

Lively thread here.

The change to the '99 suspension is a good one IMO. I understand the cost issue being raised. The change if approved is another move to make the cars more alike and eliminates one of the larger differences that still exists. On paper it should bring the cars closer together and a 175 pound weight difference between '99 and 1.6 is a meaningful difference particulary if the suspension helps the older cars. well driven 1.6 cars should have a real cornering advantage.

If people object to this change, then they will certainly object to further changes that make the cars more "spec". Adding horspower and torque to the 1.6 won't be free and will also mean adding weight to those cars as the power evens out.

Every competition adjustment is met with some objection. To me this change meets the standard of common sense and being reasonable (particularly if it's an optional change) and any adjustments that meet those standards should be implemented.

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 Cajun Miata Man:
quote:
Originally posted by D.B. Cutler:
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]

Sounds good to me if any 1.6 driver wants to run the extra unsprung weight. I am all for it.
+1... in fact, if the rules allowed the 99 cars to run the 1.6L brakes, they'd be in my car for sure!

If you're not getting any brake fade, and you can get all four wheels to the point of lockup (if you stomp on it) even late in a race, bigger brakes won't gain you anything except weight... the worst kind of weight (unsprung & rotating). Granted, bigger brakes do look cooler, as do plastic headlights.

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

Sponsored by Race Engineering

Spec Miata's fastest and best supported engine program!

Dwayne Hoover Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Veteran Member

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

quote:
Originally posted by Dan Tiley:

If you're not getting any brake fade, and you can get all four wheels to the point of lockup (if you stomp on it) even late in a race, bigger brakes won't gain you anything except weight...

Oh no you didn't ... you should know better!!! [shame] [Wink]

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

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

Greetings to all and to all a healthy debate!

I want to be crystal clear that I personally do not agree with the proposed rule changes for suspensions in Spec Miata.

I have always tried to be very neutral in the debate over what year car is better. I own a 1996 for the last three years which has seen itís life go from a SSM to SM and now ITA. Some years itís been the car to have and others not so great.

In terms of pricing for parts needed to upgrade if the rule is passed:

Approx $500-600.
Front subframe, steering rack ,tie rods, upper front control arms and front uprights.

You could also buy the rear subframe, control arms and uprights but with using a small wheel spacer, its not needed.

What I worry the most about our class is the long term viability of it AND SCCA. What I mean is that we all know we are in the best sedan based class for amateur road racing????? Right?

Well, with that long term vision, comes a huge responsibility to do the right thing for the most racers and keep entry numbers up. The more entries the better it is for everyone especially the regions hosting the events. We want them to make money. If they donít make money, the entry fees get increased, dates are dropped from schedules and our class gets combined with others which we all know can be a BAD thing.

The 1.6 still and will for some time, make up the majority of the class. Itís these racers whom I worry about the most. We need them. We want them to race. We do not want them to defect to another class or leave entirely.

Many of us also ďdouble dipĒ. Enter the same car in SM and ITA or ITS for example. Regions LOVE that. More money for them.

Why not an ďITĒ based upgrade for the 1.6 cars that would be SM legal?

Right now the suspension changes are not IT legal and people who once double dipped are now stuck racing only one class.

For example a Header, programmable ecu, poly offset control arm bushings, alternate final drive or an open exhaust rule would help the 1.6 cars.

Now I know you could go on and on about not caring for IT but the economic health of SCCA as a whole depends greatly on double dipping. Itís to the point where regions in the N.E. have discounts for double dipping entry fees. Finally they are seeing the light and running the regions like a business to make money while pleasing racers as their customers!

I know the SMAC and CRB are trying their best to make the early cars become more consistent (fast)at the end of the race with these changes. What I hope for is the continued growth and success of the class as a whole because we did the right thing for the most racers.

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

Marc Cefalo

#00 1996 ITA
#00 ???? SM

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

Marc, I agree 100%. But I thought in the NE we were planning to leave the IT guys alone and take over STU? [Wink]

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

Blake Clements Verified Driver Series Champ
MegaModerator

Region: SW - Houston
Car #: 6
Year : 99, 96
Posts: 2262
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Blake Clements   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

A Pombo in a 1.6 at the Runoffs? There is your measuring stick folks! Go Mat Go!

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

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

www.blakeclements.com

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 fact that the suspension change will stop 1.6 cars from being able to run ITA will add to the reasons why this will not pass the BOD vote.

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

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

Alright Cefalo - stop making sense.

quote:
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.

How many reps are you up to on that?

I think while they're at it the CRB should approve the 1.8 motor for 90-93 cars, along with the 99+ tub. True parity. [Big Grin]

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 techchris:
i just want to know what it was in Jamie's 99 that cost him 17,000 more than the 90-93 he could build?we have already been told it cost more,and takes more work to have a competitive 1.6 car so this makes no sense????also if somebody could pm me as to where the new rules add power over the previous head rules i would love to know.take this as a serious request for info as i have a 1.6 car now and am constructing a 99 and need all the help i can get

It wont cost you $35000 to build a fast 99. That is what I have in my car with almost everything you can put in it; much of it is not required to be in the car (Traqmate, cool-shirt, camera, FIA seat, fire system, etc). Sorry it was a little confusing how I wrote it. The difference just for the cars would be around $7000 for similar equipped cars. However the point was that a $9000 1.6 is going to have a hard time running in the front just as an inexpensive 99 will. FYI, the 99 engines cost me more, as does the donor, and some of the components that are Spec Miata specific.

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

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 Blake Clements:
A Pombo in a 1.6 at the Runoffs? There is your measuring stick folks! Go Mat Go!

That would be fantastic, BUT Matt has already addressed that issue from last years view point with the Runoffs at Road America. If a Pombo 1.6 did the Runoffs at Road America that would put the harpoon to this issue, one way or the other. [Smile]

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

David Dewhurst
CenDiv
Milwaukee Region
Spec Miata #14

Greg Bush Verified Driver
Thread Killer

Region: NW/OR
Car #: 04
Year : 90
Posts: 1765
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Greg Bush     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Gatoratty:
Several of the BOD are probably not going to approve the rules as proposed. They believe that the majority of the class is tired of continually changing the Spec in Spec Miata. They also are not happy with the CRB making changes to the rules as competition adjustments as a way to avoid the approval of the BOD.


I wouldn't rush to buy the suspension parts or the fp regulator yet.

I hope this is true.

The rule changes are tiresome, and I think incorrect.

1.6s used to be 2275 but were moved to 2300 when a majority of the gentleman races who make up this class couldn't make weight. And there were no '99s and few if any 1.8s then either.

The 1.6 should never have gone below 2300, it hurt the parity for 50% of the drivers I know at least.

While these rules might help parity for the top 2% of the class, it hurts it for most of the rest. People will refuse to make the changes (not knowing when more are coming), and can't make weight, so they suffer.

The integrity of the rules and the class have been damaged beyond all respect for many of us. Even if these rules don't go through. I think many feel the same way, and are now looking at cheating because the golden seal has been shattered by the events of the last 2 or 3 years.

I was all about integrity and gentlemans agreements until now. I plan to build a cheater motor on the cheap (no one techs regionals) and adjust for my 25 pound penalty (I built me and my car around 2300#) and old school suspension with my right foot.

What do you think I can get out of 10.5:1 and a megasquirt?

Pat Newton Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Enduro addict

Region: Northwest, Oregon
Car #: 79
Year : 90
Posts: 3336
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Pat Newton   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Greg Bush:
What do you think I can get out of 10.5:1 and a megasquirt?

Just go all the way Greg, everybody's doin' it! [yep]

 -

--------------------
Crew Chief, 3D Racing #64, aka Team Scrappy 2.0
3rd place E2, 2009 25 Hours of Thunderhill

Crew Chief, EGR/Miller Motorsports #64, aka Team Scrappy
E2 Champions, 2008 25 Hours of Thunderhill

Mike Colangelo Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: NWR
Car #: 37
Posts: 391
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Mike Colangelo     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Pat Newton:
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Bush:
What do you think I can get out of 10.5:1 and a megasquirt?

Just go all the way Greg, everybody's doin' it! [yep]

 -

I don't know, Pat. That radiator cap doesn't look legal. [duck]

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

quote:
Originally posted by Gatoratty:
Several of the BOD are probably not going to approve the rules as proposed. They believe that the majority of the class is tired of continually changing the Spec in Spec Miata. They also are not happy with the CRB making changes to the rules as competition adjustments as a way to avoid the approval of the BOD. For those of you who are not aware of how the rule making process works......all changes to the GCR require posting in Fastrack, then member input, and then BOD approval....unless the changes are deemed to be competition adjustments within the class.

I wouldn't rush to buy the suspension parts or the fp regulator yet.

Dude ! What are you saying !! I just ran out and bought my suspension parts.

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

quote:
Originally posted by d mathias:
I think while they're at it the CRB should approve the 1.8 motor for 90-93 cars, along with the 99+ tub. True parity. [Big Grin]

That's not a bad idea. It should be legal to turn a 90-93 car into a 1.8L as long as the car then follows the 1.8L car rules.

Greg Bush Verified Driver
Thread Killer

Region: NW/OR
Car #: 04
Year : 90
Posts: 1765
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Greg Bush     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Pat Newton:
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Bush:
What do you think I can get out of 10.5:1 and a megasquirt?

Just go all the way Greg, everybody's doin' it! [yep]

 -

I know for a fact that would pass tech at a Conference race, and I already race there more than SCCA.

Good idea, except its like $40k more than a pro motor....

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 Greg Bush:
quote:
Originally posted by Pat Newton:
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Bush:
What do you think I can get out of 10.5:1 and a megasquirt?

Just go all the way Greg, everybody's doin' it! [yep]

 -

I know for a fact that would pass tech at a Conference race, and I already race there more than SCCA.

Good idea, except its like $40k more than a pro motor....

And it's down 3 horsepower to Drago!

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

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

The IT-legal upgrades to bring a little more parity for the 1.6 cars makes a ton of common sense to me. Opening FP is not a big deal to me and probably a good idea, but replacing the 1.6 front suspension would probably create more disparity within the class, probably forcing at least some cars out of SM.

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

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

hypothetical question here, let's see where we stand, nevermind what car you have, or want. With the current rule changes and the FP and Timing open possibly in the future.

Here is the question:

Which top level car has the advantage:

A 90-93 1.6 @ 123hp
B 94-97 1.8 @ 125hp
C 99-00 1.8 @ 128hp
D You can win in any of the above!!
E Don't matter which car, the cheater will win..

You don't know what track, you don't know how long the race will be (less than 45 mins of course), you don't know the track temp or out side temps.

Anyone care to answer, and post their reason why?? [boggled]

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

Bellwilliam Verified Driver
Member

Posts: 26
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Bellwilliam     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

so if I dropped my 94 at your shop, give you a check for $1,064.00, I can pick it up next week with all parts installed, corner weighted and aligned ? or tell us how much you would charge total including tax and labor, so I understand what the cost is.

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

So far, not a peep about how screwed up the fuel pressure regulator rule is:

quote:
9.1.8.C.1.l.1: The fuel pump and fuel pressure regulator must be Mazda OEM parts and unaltered, but the regulator may be adjusted freely.

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

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:

Which top level car has the advantage:

A 90-93 1.6 @ 123hp/107
B 94-97 1.8 @ 125hp/116
C 99-00 1.8 @ 128hp/117
Anyone care to answer, and post their reason why?? [boggled] [/QB]

Those numbers seem like top of the line numbers next year with changes I presume? I think that is as close as you can predict on numbers.


Using car weight/HP+TQ gives a fairly accurate method of accounting. (Lower is better)

9.89 1.6
9.95 1.8
10.0 99/00

With suspension, I take the 94/97 it is in between the two, will be very good on almost all tracks, probably not the best or worse anywhere. I don't make weight in a 1.6 and they require more work.
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 Cliffy Chains:
hypothetical question here, let's see where we stand, nevermind what car you have, or want. With the current rule changes and the FP and Timing open possibly in the future.

Here is the question:

Which top level car has the advantage:

A 90-93 1.6 @ 123hp
B 94-97 1.8 @ 125hp
C 99-00 1.8 @ 128hp
D You can win in any of the above!!
E Don't matter which car, the cheater will win..

You don't know what track, you don't know how long the race will be (less than 45 mins of course), you don't know the track temp or out side temps.

Anyone care to answer, and post their reason why?? [boggled]

First, show me a 123HP 1.6. How many of those are out there?

Your comparison doesn't take into account other differences in the cars. The weight distribution of the cars is different. '99's weigh the most but are the best balanced of the 3 from the numbers I've seen. I'm not a chassis engineer but there has to be a difference there and for now the 1st gen cars have the older suspension. More horsepower and torque means more acceleration even if the power to weight ratios are the same due to the aerodynamic impact.

With all this said, on most tracks I believe the cars will be quite comparable with next year's rules. Some tracks will bring out the benefits of more power or less weight than others. '94 - '97 with 47mm will need more than a 50 pound difference from the '99 to be on par IMO.

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 Tom Sager:
quote:
Originally posted by Cliffy Chains:
hypothetical question here, let's see where we stand, nevermind what car you have, or want. With the current rule changes and the FP and Timing open possibly in the future.

Here is the question:

Which top level car has the advantage:

A 90-93 1.6 @ 123hp
B 94-97 1.8 @ 125hp
C 99-00 1.8 @ 128hp
D You can win in any of the above!!
E Don't matter which car, the cheater will win..

You don't know what track, you don't know how long the race will be (less than 45 mins of course), you don't know the track temp or out side temps.

Anyone care to answer, and post their reason why?? [boggled]

First, show me a 123HP 1.6. How many of those are out there?

Your comparison doesn't take into account other differences in the cars. The weight distribution of the cars is different. '99's weigh the most but are the best balanced of the 3 from the numbers I've seen. I'm not a chassis engineer but there has to be a difference there and for now the 1st gen cars have the older suspension. More horsepower and torque means more acceleration even if the power to weight ratios are the same due to the aerodynamic impact.

With all this said, on most tracks I believe the cars will be quite comparable with next year's rules. Some tracks will bring out the benefits of more power or less weight than others. '94 - '97 with 47mm will need more than a 50 pound difference from the '99 to be on par IMO.

Tom almost every pro engine out there is now capable of 123HP in a 1.6 (legally) if they are tuned correctly. They are not few and far between and I personally know of one right now that makes more than 125. That car will be going to the runoffs and be subjected to a real tech inspection (it will pass). Those numbers are with a Comp diff and not a 99 rearend on a dynojet. I personally hope all of the rules come to pass as I think it will make the cars even closer. The car that benefits the most from the rules are the 1.8s. The larger plate will more than offset the 25lb increase and should make those cars a little more competitive at the top end which I think they needed. The gear changed helped and the plate change should do the rest. The 99s will gain nothing as most of the front running cars have already gained their 3 horsepower through similar means. The 1.6s get better handling and a little less weight to pull up the hills. Sounds good to me!

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

suck fumes Verified Driver
Veteran Member

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

Why doesnt SCCA use the dyno at the runoffs like NASA does and say that there is a "cap" on power for each yr model (make it lower than what is possible) and then a lot of the "tweaking" will not be of importance anymore. Anyone over the cap will be DQ'd. simple solution.

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

G. Davis Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: WDC
Car #: 03
Year : 1991
Posts: 346
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for G. Davis     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by suck fumes:
Why doesnt SCCA use the dyno at the runoffs like NASA does and say that there is a "cap" on power for each yr model (make it lower than what is possible) and then a lot of the "tweaking" will not be of importance anymore. Anyone over the cap will be DQ'd. simple solution.

Boy, if only it were that easy...

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

Glenn Davis

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

quote:
Originally posted by Bellwilliam:
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

so if I dropped my 94 at your shop, give you a check for $1,064.00, I can pick it up next week with all parts installed, corner weighted and aligned ? or tell us how much you would charge total including tax and labor, so I understand what the cost is.
+1

Brockodile
Member

Region: Southeast
Car #: 6
Year : 2002
Posts: 33
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Brockodile     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Cliffy Chains:
hypothetical question here, let's see where we stand, nevermind what car you have, or want. With the current rule changes and the FP and Timing open possibly in the future.

Here is the question:

Which top level car has the advantage:

A 90-93 1.6 @ 123hp
B 94-97 1.8 @ 125hp
C 99-00 1.8 @ 128hp
D You can win in any of the above!!
E Don't matter which car, the cheater will win..

You don't know what track, you don't know how long the race will be (less than 45 mins of course), you don't know the track temp or out side temps.

Anyone care to answer, and post their reason why?? [boggled]

Okay, Cliffie, I'll bite. True to your reputation for subtle inscrutability, you have posed a trick question. Assuming they all are driven by top drivers, any of these cars can win against the others, depending on the very factors you stipulate we don't know; namely, the identity of the track, race length, and temps. Without this critical information, we can't say A,B, or C, but we can't say D either, because at certain tracks, under certain conditions, either the 1.6 or the 99 becomes a serious underdog. As for cheaters, they will skew the results but would have to be really good cheaters to overcome the inherent characteristics of these cars in every situation. So it's not E, either. Under the stipulations, the correct answer would be F: none of the above.

The relative strengths and weaknesses of these cars have been thoroughly discussed and sorted on other threads. I can't personally speak for the 94 1.8, but have driven a well-prepared 1.6 and a well-prepared 99 (both OPM rentals). The only thing I would add to that discussion is that the peak HP and TQ numbers do not tell the whole story. As a life-long dirt biker, I am accutely aware of the "power band" and how it affects usable power and performance. In dirt bike terms, the 1.6 is "pipey" or "peaky", while the 99 has "grunt"; i.e., low-end torque. Net result: the 99 has more usable power, which translates to less shifting and less danger of "falling off the cam". This is a big deal on hilly tracks and those with turns in the "tweener" range: easily 3rd gear in a 99, but 2nd in a 1.6 unless entry speed is perfect. On the other hand, on flat, fast, flowing tracks which allow the 1.6 to stay in the "sweet spot", it can take full advantage of its much lower weight and better aero to smoke the 99.

Good thing you have two cars: a 1.6 and a 99. If you run the SIC (Roebling is the ultimate fast, flat, flowing track in SEDiv), based on what we saw at the July 4 race, I'll bet you'll be in the 1.6. Personally, I would drive the 1.6 at the SIC... if I could get anywhere near the minimum weight, but that's another discussion. Bottom line; IMO, these cars are just fundamentally different, so achieving parity through weight and restrictor manipulation will succeed up to a point, but, ironically, after that point, it actually exagerates track- and condition-specific disparities. In other words, parity is ultimately track-specific. Tailor parity rules to Road America and you've made a mess at Miller or Roebling, and vice-versa.

We may already have passed that point. In a cost-conscious class, wouldn't it be ironic if, to consistently run at the front at all tracks it became necessary to own two cars... or to toss them both and go with the combo of in-between weight and 1.8 engine in the 94? I'll stop here, because I don't want to get into the class-splitting debate right now.

--------------------
Skip Brock
OPM Rental, RE Engine

Seems like everywhere I go,
The more I see,
The less I know.

"Say Hey", by Michael Franti

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

[/qb][/QUOTE]Tom almost every pro engine out there is now capable of 123HP in a 1.6 (legally) if they are tuned correctly. They are not few and far between and I personally know of one right now that makes more than 125. That car will be going to the runoffs and be subjected to a real tech inspection (it will pass). Those numbers are with a Comp diff and not a 99 rearend on a dynojet. I personally hope all of the rules come to pass as I think it will make the cars even closer. The car that benefits the most from the rules are the 1.8s. The larger plate will more than offset the 25lb increase and should make those cars a little more competitive at the top end which I think they needed. The gear changed helped and the plate change should do the rest. The 99s will gain nothing as most of the front running cars have already gained their 3 horsepower through similar means. The 1.6s get better handling and a little less weight to pull up the hills. Sounds good to me! [/QB][/QUOTE]


That is good news to 1.6 owners if you're right.

The weights and plates now (with '94 - '97 at 2400lbs and 47mm) aren't as linear (using your HP numbers) as they need to be. '94 - '97 needs to be at about 2360 IMO. As someone who spent more than 3 hours on track at RA this past Monday in a '95 trying all this stuff, I can tell you that the car is not faster in terms of lap times at 2400 and 47mm, and the smaller bar at the greater weight also does not help. I think it's a toss-up on the sway bar.

If all the new and proposed rules are implemented and the '94 - '97 gets a weight of around 2360, then I think we've got the best ruleset to date. When people building new cars really struggle with the decision of which car to build, then we'll know we're in a good spot. I don't think we're there quite yet.

PedalFaster Verified Driver
Member

Region: Northwest
Car #: 86
Year : 1995
Posts: 372
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for PedalFaster     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Tucker:
almost every pro engine out there is now capable of 123HP in a 1.6 (legally) if they are tuned correctly. They are not few and far between and I personally know of one right now that makes more than 125.

Just out of curiosity, are those POG numbers or $30 / gallon gas numbers? I've seen a number of name brand 1.6s put out 123 hp on POG on a Dynojet; I've never seen 125 hp out of a 1.6, but I'm sure it's possible from a freak engine or with $30 / gallon gas.

quote:
Originally posted by suck fumes:
Why doesnt SCCA use the dyno at the runoffs like NASA does and say that there is a "cap" on power for each yr model (make it lower than what is possible) and then a lot of the "tweaking" will not be of importance anymore. Anyone over the cap will be DQ'd. simple solution.

Simple, but not repeatable, and thus really dangerous in my opinion. Different dynos read differently. The same dyno on back-to-back runs can read differently. Atmospheric conditions can change, causing power output to vary. The net result of all of the above is that a car that tests legal one hour could test illegal another hour, with no changes -- not a good thing.

--------------------
Stephen Hui - '95 SM #86, Northwest / Oregon Region SCCA

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

Callin BS on a legal 1.6 makin over 125! Bring it to my shop and I'll find it. I don't care to know the name of who, but even 123 is not the norm. I've been in this class 10 years now and 125 is a number we had a hard time getting with the old old cam rule that is way more aggressive than anything today. We also ran rimmed and coated tranny's and diff's back then as they were "ARRC" legal. Anyone who shows up in a 1.6L with over 125 at the runoffs will not go home with where they finish I promise!

Blake, Drago.... anyone wanna say something here! Ask Blake about his car the first year at the runoffs in '06 and I'll bet he will tell you he was not over 125hp. The current rules are even way more restrictive than then with OEM rings, aluminum clutch, etc. that have lowered hp 3-4 hp since even '06.

All you guys that wanna run what you want all year is fine, but I'm with Gorriaran, Drago, OPM, Danny when I say DONT BRING it to the RUNOFFS or you will get protested.

Over 125 in a 1.6 should win by a straightaway so it will be obvious. 123 in a 1.6L car should win also. 121-122 in a 1.6 will be competitive, and 119-121 is the norm.

David Dewhurst
Veteran Member

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

[thumbsup] Skip & Matt.

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

David Dewhurst
CenDiv
Milwaukee Region
Spec Miata #14

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

Mat your a good guy but in this case you are wrong! Sorry! Things have changed and if I remember there was a time when your cars made more power than any ones on the grid. Where you cheating? No! As a matter of fact, you are the one that said that the bolts-ons are how you get that last bit of extra power; correct? I don't have a dog in the fight as I have a 99 but I can tell you that my 1.6 would get around 119 (on my dyno) and with a lot of trial and error (and money) I was able to get to 123. And yes if you had any of these cars at your shop you would figure it out in 10 minutes; but that won't happen. I think most drivers, including myself are sick of giving away what we have learned only to have to race against those same people. Many people would have said 119 was BS a few years ago and now as you said "that is the norm" There is nothing illegal to find (unlike the use of a venturi in certain 99s).

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



[ 07-25-2010, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: Jamie Tucker ]

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

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

Jamie,

Not gonna get into a debate with you on this one, but to imply that you know something I don't is fine as long as you truly believe it. I've had 126-127 in a 1.6 before and it was legal then, but would never pass now. Times have changed and the 1.6 has lost power, that's a fact.

I'll give you your 123 as that may be just a 1 or 2hp dyno difference, but anything over 125 is not possible and I WILL guarantee it. Either that person is not running their dyno on the correct calibration to inflate their results or they are flat out lying to drum stuff up. OR they are NOT legal.

Figuring out what I'm hearing has nothing to do with it as I'm sure that anything you are thinking of now we thought of in the 11 years we have been building 1.6L cars. 125+ in a 1.6L CANNOT be done LEGALLY in today's climate. Those numbers were possible in 2006, not today and any smoke and guns you try to pull may work on the newbies and inexperienced on this site, but not on the veterans of this class who have lived through all the changes and truly know what can and can't be done. Every year we hear inflated numbers going to the runoffs and this is probably no different, but I want the new guys that use this site to know that 1.6L cars are good cars if they make 119-122 as that is the norm. I would hesitate to buy a 125+hp car as I can promise you it is NOT LEGAL.

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'm not implying that we know everything as the day you think that you get left behind. So, I can live with a hp or two that we haven't found. But, I cannot believe anyone who tells me they have "found" more than 3-4hp in any year car that we run.

I'm sure any national front runner/team is in that same boat. If I were to tell Drago or you that I have 132-133 in my '99 what would be your response?

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

Jamie,

That was not addressed at you or your Fla. folk. It was addressed at anyone coming to the runoffs. Have you been yet? Have you experienced it? Have you seen the tech at the runoffs? It is something that everyone planning on attending the runoffs needs to be aware of. If you (not you specifically Jamie) have not attended there are a lot of cars that get dinged in tech over the week and it makes our class look bad. I feel for everyone that bought cars thinking they were legal only to find out at the runoffs that their shocks aren't. Beleive me it happens, and to people that are honest and good hearted folks.

My warning was not to you Jamie (or the people from Fla. whom I love racing with and am good friends with by the way) but anyone planning on attending because good honest people have been DQ'd there.

Mat

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

Matt I understand what you are saying and I may have taken your post the wrong way (thats why I erased it). All I know is that I found ways to get 3 or 4HP which brought me to 122/123. Maybe what I found was the same things you were doing all along; I don't know. I know you worked hard at getting power (legally) as has many of us have done since. I still feel 125 (not +) is possible from a legal engine.

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

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

All is good. You know I'm one of the Fla gang's biggest proponents. I look forward to seeing all of you at runoffs as the week certainly wouldn't be as entertaining without all of you. I'll talk to you soon.

EBudman Verified Driver
Idle Member

Region: Detroit
Car #: #71
Year : 1990
Posts: 656
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for EBudman     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Honestly, my give-a-damn dwindles with every published Fastrack... My old dog has been sitting on the porch so long that it's looking like I'd be better off having him put down.

I don't know if it's the class going National, compliance fees, the economy, proposed rules, inclusion of the 99s or being told not to bring my car back until it was prettier. But the lure to get back in the Miata just isn't there lately. Unless someone wants to run it at Sebring with me in a Chumpcar race.... that sounds like fun. Shame on me if I'd prefer to race for fun & have my ass handed to me by god's gift to SM.

Eric

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

Fun is definitely what it is all about! But many want to know what they are up against and what they can do to get closer to the front. So please don't shoot the messenger. I am not trying to stir the pot; although that is how it looks. I truly want all SM drivers to get faster!

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

EBudman Verified Driver
Idle Member

Region: Detroit
Car #: #71
Year : 1990
Posts: 656
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for EBudman     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Tucker:
Fun is definitely what it is all about! But many want to know what they are up against and what they can do to get closer to the front. So please don't shoot the messenger. I am not trying to stir the pot; although that is how it looks. I truly want all SM drivers to get faster!

Depending on what exactly you're refering to, I think therein lies my problem.

If you're refering to all SM drivers improving their race skills & lap times, that would be fine....

But, if you're refering to everyone getting their cars faster.... WHY? Why, in a spec class, is the spec & the target always changing? Why, in a spec class, are guys running anything other than POG? When I hear about all the things people are doing nowdays which I have always considered outside of the spirit of the class, I'm tempted to call it what it is.... Improved Touring Miata

Spec Miata for me was a run-what-ya-brung class....my own little Utopia. The guys at the front weren't cheating, they knew how to make their cars handle & drove near perfect races. We had cars that were modified within the rules that were printed & few were looking for loopholes to make their cars faster. I could run with them on a few tracks with a $400 junkyard engine. With a National Championship, those days are long gone. But making the class faster is not the answer, parity without a huge price tag is.

Eric

Mike Colangelo Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: NWR
Car #: 37
Posts: 391
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Mike Colangelo     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by EBudman:
Shame on me if I'd prefer to race for fun & have my ass handed to me by god's gift to SM.

Relax, Jesus has moved on to Camaros:
http://gm.gearboxmagazine.com/2010/05/jesus-villarreals-autoxing-1998-chevy-camaro/

[Big Grin]

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 EBudman:
When I hear about all the things people are doing nowdays which I have always considered outside of the spirit of the class, I'm tempted to call it what it is.... Improved Touring Miata

Spec Miata for me was a run-what-ya-brung class....my own little Utopia. The guys at the front weren't cheating, they knew how to make their cars handle & drove near perfect races. We had cars that were modified within the rules that were printed & few were looking for loopholes to make their cars faster.

Eric

Really? I remember it a bit differently -- Intake wars, Exhaust of the week, half radiators, shortened shocks! Nothing's really changed except the players. The 99 did complicate the parity issue and that's why these changes have been suggested.

I'm going on the record to say I'm against the suspension upgrade for many of the reasons Marc C previously stated. It's just not a good deal for the majority of 1.6 owners. Sometimes Parity will just have to take a back seat for the greater good of the class.

-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

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

The overall idea is to make the spec class more spec. If we are eventually all on the same suspension that removes one of the major issues with parity. [group hug]

If you don't want to upgrade, then don't upgrade ! No one is going to come over to your pit and demand that you install newer parts. [Smash]

All kidding aside, the next step would be to figure out a way to get us all on the same engine. If we could, OVER TIME, get the cars to be very similar, then we could get to an actual spec class.

Personally, I'd welcome the day when we could end all of the infighting between the actual Miatas (ie: glorious 1.6Ls like mine) and the posers and ugly almond eyes which came after them. [Wink]

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

Bruce - I think you are onto something in your post. There were a lot of very high horsepower cars that are now going slower as the various aspects of the class are being spec'd more thoroughly, and are therefore easier to police.

Its funny how we all hear from our friends about what they used to be doing way back when, but now they cannot. As Matt says above - when they were getting 126HP from a 1.6 it was within the rules, but as the rules have tightened up, so the gray areas are being removed.

Personally I would like to thank the members of the SMAC who I believe have the GENUINE interests of the class at heart and are moving in the right direction.

To some of the posters on this forum who imply that the SMAC's buysiness interests are moving the class in a direction that ensures that they get revenue out of the changes, and that is their motivation (at the expense of the future of the class), I personally think you are WAY WRONG on this.

I have come to know the players involved, and while none of them are rich by any means, and certainly none of them are getting rich from this class, I do have respect for their intentions and business acumen.

I do not see any of them moving in a direction that will hurt the classs. This is the future of their business interests, and therefore the overall health of the class, the happiness of their drivers (through the driving experience, through the fun times under the tent, through the parity of cars) is their PRIME Motivation. If you are in any business, other than Wall Street, a long term vision is what drives your motivation.

I believe that as the cars get spec'd more thorougly, the gray areas will be reduced (never eliminated) and the parity will improve.

As some have said, some model years will dominate specific tracks. Thats not going to change. There is NO PARITY IN TRACKS.

Torque will own hills, weight will own corners. Some tracks have more or less of these.

To believe we can get parity at every track, whilE having such VAST DIFFERENCES IN TRACKS is tHE TRIUMPH OF HOPE OVER REALITY.

Flame suit on!!!!

--------------------
Danny
http://www.dannysteyn.com
http://www.adeptstudios.com
OPM Autosports | Traqmate | Rossini Racing Engines
2010 June Sprints Champ, 2010 ARRC SMX Champ
2009 SARRC Champ, 2009 SEDiv ECR Champ, 2009 FES Champ
2008 SEDiv ECR Champ

 
Page 3 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: