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 4)

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

Danny,
Many of the front running drivers are no longer campaigning a 1.6 so a lot of the development has slowed considerably; which in-turn hurts that car. That was my point! Although the rules have gotten tighter our cars have gotten faster. Some of that is our car prep and increased driving skills but does that account for all of it? Personally, I dont think so. The development of all the cars has increased over the years and the rate at which each car is developed changes according to what drivers are in that car. There are drivers that believe that the 99 has now hit a wall and further development will be slow in coming and that the real advantage lies in the untapped assets of a 1.6; which is why you will see a couple extra 1.6s at the runoffs. I hope that one of those 1.6s is competitive and does not have a problem passing tech. Then we would have a good yard stick as to measure parity. I do agree with you that true parity at every track will be very difficult if not impossible.

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

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

Mat - the answer to your question is 124 hp. Bobby T clutch.

Are you really driving a 1.6 at RA?

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

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

www.blakeclements.com

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 EBudman:
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

On principle I would agree with everything you said but the reality is something different. If we could guarantee all of the SM drivers were using POG, crate motors, no ECUs, or a host of others tricks to make the cars go faster I think almost everyone would be happy and SM would be a better class. I say almost everybody because there are always a few in racing that want an advantage, which in turn starts a mini arms race and leads us to what racing usually is; a sport that becomes very expensive. We are not going to slow down the front pack by slowing those in the rear; which is why I try to help them. Hopefully development will slow to a point were true parity can be achieved. I think we are getting there. Matt and others think a 1.6 is limited to 120 +/- a couple and I think that 125 is the number. Not a huge difference but there is a difference. The 99 development has already slowed as has the 1.8s.

[ 07-25-2010, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: Jamie Tucker ]

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

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

I personally agree with all who say we have a really close parity as it is right now. The board has done a great job in achieving this in my opinion, thus the reason for the post above that I think Brock seen right thru.

In a semi-Flat track, or very technical corner layout track, the winner will usually be the driver with the best race craft and expierence. We couldn't ask for more.

I think we will see some of the 122-123 1.6's at RA this year, I hope Mattt is in one as well. Matt has a great point though, we overlook shocks, Hard top seals, even tape on the radiator.

With these new changes though, I really want to see what the 94-97 cars do now with the plate back, I hope we see Sammy back to RA in a 1.8 with the new plate, If a 99' car wins the runoffs this year, I want to beleive it was the driver and not the car that won, you might see more 99's at the runoffs than 90-97 cars, but I don't think it will be a gimme at all for the 99 cars.

Lets give all the changes a try before condeming them. [twocents]

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

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

Has anyone written the CRB/BOD about the fuel pressure regulator rule yet? It's contradictory and ambiguous... how will it be implemented?

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

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

Kent,

I'd like to hear more before I write a letter. Why would it be different than 1.6 AFM adjustment. I see that as similar as it was not something that was easily detectable and everyone (except me [Smile] ) was already doing it. Ss long as an associated competition ajustment is made to other years. I would assume the mid-year adjustments we just saw are assuming that folks are NOT cheating timing and FP??? [Smile]

-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

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

Bruce,

I just can't figure out how to interpret "The fuel pump and fuel pressure regulator must be Mazda
OEM parts and unaltered, but the regulator may be adjusted freely."

Are there OEM Mazda FPR's that are adjustable? If not, how does one interpret this rule?

I think I know why the PTB@SCCA have made this rule unusable: they didn't take the time to figure out how to make the external adjustable regulator plumbing in the NB cars safe. The result is that there is no legal way to adjust the fuel pressure, but it doesn't matter if you have a pressure out of 'spec'. We have just made 'tech shed legal' the standard.

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

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 Kent Carter:

I think I know why the PTB@SCCA have made this rule unusable: they didn't take the time to figure out how to make the external adjustable regulator plumbing in the NB cars safe.

You mean compared to the SCCA-mandated fuel port with non-fuel-rated Schrader valve that could atomize fuel all over the engine bay, that many people plumb in with 8 psi fuel line and worm clamps in place of the 60+ psi EFI-rated line the car came with?

As compared to the NB regulator, which is resident in the tank far from any source of heat or ignition?

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

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

Double post, double bandwidth, double dumb. [Wink]

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

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

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

quote:
Originally posted by Dwayne Hoover:
quote:
Originally posted by Kent Carter:

I think I know why the PTB@SCCA have made this rule unusable: they didn't take the time to figure out how to make the external adjustable regulator plumbing in the NB cars safe.

You mean compared to the SCCA-mandated fuel port with non-fuel-rated Schrader valve that could atomize fuel all over the engine bay, that many people plumb in with 8 psi fuel line and worm clamps in place of the 60+ psi EFI-rated line the car came with?

As compared to the NB regulator, which is resident in the tank far from any source of heat or ignition?

bingo! [thumbsup]

By noooo means was I suggesting it would be hard to do, just takes a bit of care to understand the fuel routing of the NB to place the regulator outside of the tank. It can be done safely and pretty easily, if not as easily as on an NA.

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

iambhooper
Member

Region: NCR
Car #: NA
SMIM: NA
Posts: 125
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for iambhooper     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

I totally disagree with the whole "concept" of "requiring" all the 1.6 driver's to upgrade teir suspension's in order to be "competitive"... $600, $1500, $2400, $50,000,000 it doesn't matter, it's just not right.

This isn't SRF where all the chassis are the same, this is SM and there are basically 2 chassis, with different setups. If you want to make the playing field level, it's cheaper to add weight to the 99/05's than to change the suspension of the NA's. Eliminate cheater ECU's by requiring a "sealed" unit from either Mazdaspeed or Enterprises, make it affordable by offering a $25/50 swap. The GCR should read POG from a POP at the POGS on the POFW... octane rating not to exceed X as provided from a POOC... period! $30/gallon is frickin cheating!

If that doesn't work, and they want to go forth with the suspension rule, then the question is "what does NASA want from us?" Should we all jump ship?

--------------------
hoop
'91 Spec Miata
'90 NA Beater/Track Day car
'06 RSX Type S

davew Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Veteran Member

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

I have written this 3 times. Deleted it 3 times. This is my last attempt.

As current chairman of the SMAC and a member since 2007, I have seen and heard all the arguements.

I built my first Spec Miata in March 2001, and have built 80+ since then. Currently I own 3 1.6. 1 1.8 and 1 99. I have driven all models this year.

The following is my opinion.

1.6: Needs a little help. The most fun to drive of the 3 vintages because it is light. Also the hardest to drive consistently due to less power and a less forgiving suspension design.

I weigh 210, run a cool suit and still need ballast. My cars are light because I remove everything I legally can, not because I skimp on roll cage. I personally would like to increase engine performance, But I don't know how to do it and have it not cause an "arms Race".

The SMAC has considered cams, too easy to install a cheater version of the spec cam and definately not within the class philosophy. Availability would probably be an issue. And cost would be +/- $1000 for parts and labor. No used cams are available.

The SMAC considered flywheels. Again cost would be $600-700. Availability would be an issue since no manufacturer makes a flywheel in the weight we discussed. This would be a custom part and sales would drop to nothing after the first batch.

We briefly talked about an optional gear ratio, but that would create a variable that currently does not exist. Pricing and availability are another issue.

An increase in compression ratio is an option, but would be in the $700-800 range if you do not do a valve job at the same time.

A header or open exhaust would create the biggest arms race. Cost and ease of installation would not be bad, but you would definately see some bending of the rules.

So the SMAC went with the suspension upgrade. As others have said, the change in rear suspension is appearance only and a 5mm increase in track width. Use spacers.

The front requires a subframe, steering rack, 2 upper control arms and 2 knuckles. These parts are readily available from Mazda or from several used parts vendors who support this sight. This is not a change that will bring a 10th place driver to the podium. What it will do is allow a well prepped/well driven 1.6 that can qualify well, but drops back during a race to remain competitive over a race distance. I doubt it will make the car qualify any better. It will make the car easier to drive over a race. Easier to drive = mre consistant lap times = better finishes.

As a shop owner, I will only recomend this to my drivers who will be able to tell the difference. I do not recomend a pro built engine to the guy who finishes in the back every race. I will not recomend the suspension upgrades to him either.

The 1.8 cars are the forgotten step child. They handle like a 1.6 but have a little more power. I think the softer front bar, combined with the suspension upgrade will make this car a lot more popular with the "fast/rich guy". Even if it does have the ugly body work. I personally think the increase in power from the RP change is good. I was against the additional weight.

The 99 needs no help. But I do not want to slow it down anymore. We can debate whether allowing the 99 into SM was a good idea or not. But that door is wide open, with no way to shut it. The car already is over weight and over restricted. We need to improve the early cars and try to leave the 99-00 alone.

The 01-05 may need some help. There are only about a dozen cars in the country, so the development has been slow. I think we need further info before helping this car.

I have an idea floating around in my head. It is not a complete idea yet, but here goes:

Create a new class, I hate the idea of new classes, but hear me out. List it in the GCR but REGIONAL RACES ONLY. Call it CSM (Classic Spec Miata) Make it 90-97 only, limit most of the newer, costlier, unwanted upgrades (Fat Cats, exhaust, suspensions etc). This would be similar to CFF for out dated Formula Fords.This would give they guys who do not ever want to spend money, but still want to race,a place to go. My plan would have CSM cars still be eligable for National races if wanted. But their competitiveness would not be considered. If you want to run up front at a National, you need a SM.

It is just a thought. A way to let the under preped cars compete against each other without stopping the "tinkerers" from tinkering.

Just the thoughts of one driver.

Dave

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

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 davew:

the change in rear suspension is appearance only and a 5mm increase in track width. Use spacers.


So the current rule for front/rear spacers all having to be the same thickness will be revised along with the suspension changes? Probably should be.

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

quote:
Just the thought of one driver
. . . who sits on the advisory committee and whose business builds/services SMs.


quote:
Honestly, my give-a-damn dwindles with every published Fastrack...
+1, I don't think this class could migrate further from the original intent if it tried.

David Dewhurst
Veteran Member

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

Dave, thanks. I find value in SMAC discussed lnformation when a little more info is forwarded. [thumbsup]

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

David Dewhurst
CenDiv
Milwaukee Region
Spec Miata #14

Scott Zetterstrom Verified Driver
Member

Region: WDCR
Car #: 13
Year : 1990
Posts: 178
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Scott Zetterstrom     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Create a new class, I hate the idea of new classes, but hear me out. List it in the GCR but REGIONAL RACES ONLY. Call it CSM (Classic Spec Miata) Make it 90-97 only, limit most of the newer, costlier, unwanted upgrades (Fat Cats, exhaust, suspensions etc). This would be similar to CFF for out dated Formula Fords.This would give they guys who do not ever want to spend money, but still want to race,a place to go. My plan would have CSM cars still be eligable for National races if wanted. But their competitiveness would not be considered. If you want to run up front at a National, you need a SM.
Sounds like another version of SSM.... [duck]

--------------------
#13 SSM
ME Solutions LLC
Windsor Customs Racing
PBC Automotive

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

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

Good changes, pretty much what I would have done.

The suspension update will make the outcomes of weight adjustments on the cars a lot more predictable across spec lines. Right now you have a car that behaves better in certain bumpy corners even at over 150 heavier than other cars in the class. That goes away now.

If you can't make weight in a 1.6 there are other options. Like not building a porker. My '93 needed 50lbs of lead with my 180lb frame and a torsen to make 2285 with anything close to an empty tank. Fasteners are free. [Wink]

My sparco fit with sparco side mounts, by the way.

Good jorb smac.

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

Spec Wrecker Ford

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

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

quote:
Originally posted by davew:
...

The front requires a subframe, steering rack, 2 upper control arms and 2 knuckles. These parts are readily available from Mazda or from several used parts vendors who support this sight.

Dave, this will confirm the suspicions of some of the more conspiracy-minded folks.

I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. In response, I will say what I have always said about SM:
"Nothing should be done to make the cars faster. Going faster just makes it more expensive, not more fun. If you want to tinker and go faster, there is Production. Don't the door to SM hit you on the 'finisher' on the way out.

The only modifications that should be considered beyond the basic suspension kit are those that increase reliability in a cost-effective way and those that increase safety. Performance matching should always be done by slowing the faster car, never by modifying the slower car to make it faster."

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

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

Has anyone installed the updated suspension on an older car and confirmed the results?

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

Zauskycop Verified Driver
Member

Region: Chicago
Car #: 45
Year : 1991
Posts: 115
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Zauskycop     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Motor City Hamilton:
quote:
Originally posted by davew:

the change in rear suspension is appearance only and a 5mm increase in track width. Use spacers.


So the current rule for front/rear spacers all having to be the same thickness will be revised along with the suspension changes? Probably should be.
The current rule is each AXLE shall have the same thickness spacer, so they can be different front to rear...

--------------------
Tracy Ramsey
Team Blenderblaster

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 d mathias:
quote:
Just the thought of one driver
. . . who sits on the advisory committee and whose business builds/services SMs.


quote:
Honestly, my give-a-damn dwindles with every published Fastrack...
+1, I don't think this class could migrate further from the original intent if it tried.

You might not agree with Dave but the comment about him being "in the business" is a cheap shot in my book. All of the guys on the boards and committees volunteer their time to the cause and deserve a bit more respect. I can't see any change we've made in the rules over the past few years that looks more for the benefit of service providers than it does for the parity of the class.

George Munson Verified Driver
Member

Region: 83
Car #: 127
Year : 90
Posts: 284
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for George Munson     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Dave you know I love you and products to death but I hate the idea of splitting the class. I have been a 1.6 driver for the last 3 years and could not agree more with how much work has gone into making these cars equal. They are close now. Work on a tic more torque for the 1.6 and I'd be over the top. That being said the board has done and outstanding job with the task at hand.

On the comments about what the board members do and how they make their living. Those people would do themselves's a huge service by spending the time to really understand how much effort goes into those decisions. Talk to those members. Those board members have nothing but the success of the class on their minds, not their pocketbooks.

Keep up the great work,
George "Air Munson" [thumbsup]

davew Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Veteran Member

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

Kent wrote:
"Performance matching should always be done by slowing the faster car, never by modifying the slower car to make it faster."

Than why does the SMAC get consistent requests to make the 1.6 faster. These requests usually include a request for a performance enhancer such as header, flywheel etc.

Kent; yes it is my version of SSM

Jim; yes it has been done. More times than you are willing to admit. I am sure you have raced against them.

Re; SMAC Members. 4 of 5 SMAC members own prep shops. Drago is a CRB member and is not an official member of the SMAC. What that gives you, the competitors, is 4 guys who know the class intimately. We work on all the different versions of SM. Our opinions are not skewed by which model of car we own. We own them all! We see trends before you do. We test things that an individdual can not. Our lively hood is based on lots of competitors in SM. Installing a few subframes is not going to make a difference to any of us. Thanks to all of you, we are all have plenty of Spec Miatas to work on.

This wil PO a lot of you out there, but.....

There seem to be 2 camps out there:

1- Win at all costs. Money is not going to keep me from building the best cars.

2- I can not/will not spend enough money to compete with those that can/will. Therefore I should stop them from spending their money.

My last comment on this topic.

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

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

Dave,

I guess I'm in the minority.

I have the money, so it isn't really an issue for me. I can out-spend most of the guys around me. Hell, I can go race Formula E. But is that REALLY what makes this fun? Is this really how I want to spend my money?

The truth is... if MX5Cup became an National SCCA class, with sealed motors and so on.... I'd be there in a heartbeat. Am I alone?

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

Mitch Reading Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: Philadelphia
Car #: 65
Year : 1991
Posts: 884
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Mitch Reading     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Well said Dave.

--------------------
http://www.mitchum.ms

IPRESS Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Moderator

Region: MidDiv / SOWDIV
Car #: #39
Year : 99 LS1 Miata
Posts: 1756
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for IPRESS     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by JimEli:
Has anyone installed the updated suspension on an older car and confirmed the results?

Been done for years. When they pulled subframes at the ROs it was for NBs being on the NA cars.... not the other way around.
I know that doing this stuff that has come up in the last couple of years is somewhat painful, but it seems the folks suggesting this path are trying to draw the class closer to being SPEC. SM on a national level is not what it was ten years ago. It is much more involved.

--------------------
Mac Spikes
IPRESS Racing
MER
East Street Auto
SAFERACER
Hoosier
Carbotech
MotorSport Ranch
Cresson, Texas
"To hell with you Gen. Sheridan...I 'll take Texas!"

LOREN WALLACE IS MY HERO!

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

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

quote:
Originally posted by IPRESS:
quote:
Originally posted by JimEli:
Has anyone installed the updated suspension on an older car and confirmed the results?

Been done for years. When they pulled subframes at the ROs it was for NBs being on the NA cars.... not the other way around.
I know that doing this stuff that has come up in the last couple of years is somewhat painful, but it seems the folks suggesting this path are trying to draw the class closer to being SPEC. SM on a national level is not what it was ten years ago. It is much more involved.

I saw Subframe Sammy's subframe at the SCCA tech meeting. It wasn't a 99, it was an optimized NA subframe. The welding gave it away.

I've only driven a 99 once in a race and it wasn't well set up. It handled like a pig. Do I really want my NA to handle like an NB?? Isn't 'handling' one of the advantages that the NA has over the NB?

Torque is what makes the 99 hard to beat.

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

d mathias Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: OVR
Car #: 88
Year : 1991
Posts: 2401
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for d mathias     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

I was not suggesting that Mr. Wheeler or anyone else on the SMAC is using their influence for personal gain, and I apologize if that's how it was taken. My point is that Dave is not "just one driver" in that his opinions can effect change.

It's important to note someone who owns a shop, and employs a staff, and has the means to "own them all" has a very different perspective than someone who is on a limited budget and does all of their own work in a home garage.

Keep chasing away the little guys, you'll have prod-sized fields in no time.

Wreckerboy Verified Driver
Member

Region: WDC
Car #: SSM 53 "Lola"
Year : 1990
Posts: 464
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Wreckerboy     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Scott Zetterstrom:
Sounds like another version of SSM.... [duck]

Doesn't it? Nice to know WDCR is ahead of the curve for as long as it lasts. However, if these changes get approved for SSM it's the nail in the coffin for me and this class. I could not disagree more strongly with this proposal.

ITA is calling louder and louder. With the VIN rule building my '90 tub into a '94 1.8 to get trounced by Rowdy is getting easier.

--------------------
Rob Myles
Hero To The Momentum Impaired

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

Is there no way to tune down the torque of the 99? Is really big or really tiny exhaust tubing an option?

I wasn't aware that the front suspension change would make the cars illegal for ITA. I think that's a deal breaker because it will hurt entry counts for the regions.

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

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

A depowered steering rack is already illegal for ITA IIRC. Most regions allow SM cars to run ITA in full SM trim per the supps.

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

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 davew:


Jim; yes it has been done. More times than you are willing to admit. I am sure you have raced against them.


Jim, please don't take this as an everyone is doing it comment. I'm pretty sure this has been checked by our tech team before. I may be wrong, but I seriously doubt if any of the front runners in the NW have used a 99 subframe.

-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

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 davew:

There seem to be 2 camps out there:

1- Win at all costs. Money is not going to keep me from building the best cars.

2- I can not/will not spend enough money to compete with those that can/will. Therefore I should stop them from spending their money.


Not sure there's just two groups out there. I have always been willing to spend as much as needed to win, and I was okay with the suspension upgrade at first.

I'm also aware that there is a lot of folks out there that are on very tight budgets and deserve to have fun in SM, and the health of this class depends mostly on them. The suspension upgrade is not the optimal fix for the current torque problem so bang for the buck is pretty low.

Even folks who run midpack are affected by this change if one or two of their friends decide to get an upgrade. Same logic behind the bumpstops and shock hats. Now everyone needs them. Let's not disregard those who make up the numbers in this 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

Randy Thieme
Member

Region: Oregon
Car #: 51
Year : 1993
Posts: 322
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Randy Thieme     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Brian Ghidinelli:
I wasn't aware that the front suspension change would make the cars illegal for ITA. I think that's a deal breaker because it will hurt entry counts for the regions.

The rules change also mentioned something about a new Super Touring Light (STL) class which SM's would be elegible for. Maybe a replacement or addition to ITA. As Keith mentioned, in our area that don't raise much fuss about something like a depowered rack even though it's not allowed, presumably because they don't see it as a real advantage. The proposed suspension rule changes might be seen differently though.

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

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

quote:
Originally posted by Randy Thieme:
quote:
Originally posted by Brian Ghidinelli:
I wasn't aware that the front suspension change would make the cars illegal for ITA. I think that's a deal breaker because it will hurt entry counts for the regions.

The rules change also mentioned something about a new Super Touring Light (STL) class which SM's would be elegible for. Maybe a replacement or addition to ITA. As Keith mentioned, in our area that don't raise much fuss about something like a depowered rack even though it's not allowed, presumably because they don't see it as a real advantage. The proposed suspension rule changes might be seen differently though.
They shouldn't see it as being much of an advantage. Until I see back to back numbers from a 'blinded' driver (no, I'm not you talking about Willie) I'm not buying it will be a big change. My 1.6 hangs with the top 99's in the corners just fine, just gets killed in the first 100 yards out of the turn before I run them down on the long straight. I have them in braking, turning and top speed, but can't launch off the turns as well.

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

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 B Wilson:

I'm also aware that there is a lot of folks out there that are on very tight budgets and deserve to have fun in SM, and the health of this class depends mostly on them. The suspension upgrade is not the optimal fix for the current torque problem so bang for the buck is pretty low.

Even folks who run midpack are affected by this change if one or two of their friends decide to get an upgrade. Same logic behind the bumpstops and shock hats. Now everyone needs them. Let's not disregard those who make up the numbers in this class.

I have nothing to add to the above, but I agree strongly, so quoted for truth.

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

Muda Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
ComingToAMirrorNearYou

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

quote:
Originally posted by Kent Carter:
I have them in braking, turning and top speed, but can't launch off the turns as well.

Especially when accompanied by a late brake check, which seem to be appearing with much greater frequency this season. [shame]

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

Brian Cates
Member

Region: Washington, DC
Posts: 231
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Brian Cates   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Really not that hard to equalize the cars for all tracks. That means as close as possible in weight and torque curve.

For the short term, just make all the 1.8's use a larger diamater exhaust, it will reduce torque at lower RPM's.

Then you play with restrictor size to kill HP at the upper RPM.

Then you can reduce the weight on par with a 1.6 so it won't matter what track you run.

The majority of the class are 1.6 cars and they won't have to spend a dime now. It will only cost the 94 and up cars the price of a larger diameter exhaust pipe.

Set a future date, say 3 years, that all cars can run the same 1.8 engine. Have a 2 year grace period for the leftover 1.6 guys that don't want to upgrade to a 1.8. They would be allowed to upgrade cams, light flywheel and raise compression or they can run SSM.

Keep the 1.6 mods in line with ITA as much as possible.

dp35 Verified Driver
Member

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

quote:
Originally posted by Brian Cates:
Really not that hard to equalize the cars for all tracks. That means as close as possible in weight and torque curve.

For the short term, just make all the 1.8's use a larger diamater exhaust, it will reduce torque at lower RPM's.

Then you play with restrictor size to kill HP at the upper RPM.

Then you can reduce the weight on par with a 1.6 so it won't matter what track you run.

The majority of the class are 1.6 cars and they won't have to spend a dime now. It will only cost the 94 and up cars the price of a larger diameter exhaust pipe.

If this info is accurate, it sounds perfect. It would be nice if all the cars could end up at more similar weights and power/torque numbers.

quote:
Originally posted by Brian Cates:

Set a future date, say 3 years, that all cars can run the same 1.8 engine. Have a 2 year grace period for the leftover 1.6 guys that don't want to upgrade to a 1.8.

Having just 1 engine would solve 99% of the problems. But why not do the opposite - allow 1.6's in all the cars, with incentive penalties for 1.8's? I realize this won't happen, but - aren't 1.6 engines cheaper and more available? And aren't there more 1.6 SM's than all the 1.8's combined? Seems more logical to change fewer cars, especially if you agree that the all 1.8 rule would mothball tons of existing 1.6 cars.

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

dp35 Verified Driver
Member

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

quote:
Originally posted by davew:
Create a new class, I hate the idea of new classes, but hear me out...

Sincere thanks Dave for the enlightenment. I agree with the above part about hating new classes, and disagree with what came next. The whole concept of creating a new class to solve the problem is flawed IMO, and would hurt everyone. There's already too many sub-classes in SM if you ask me.

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

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 1.6 is the majority car and people keep wanting to make it like the other cars. I don't want to have to put a 1.8 motor in my car or keep making changes to make it a 1.8 or a 99. Those of us who race 1.6 cars happen to like them just as they are! Except that we have to constantly listen to ideas to make them some other car. This was never intended to be a spec class. SM was supposed to be a step up from Showroom stock, yet not as expensive as a production class. We started out as an inexpensive class for someone to start racing and have fun. That doesn't mean it was ever intended to be cheap to run at the front, but there seems to be a push to make all of the cars spec racer fords i.e. one model car.

The biggest problem we have in our class is the amount of wrecks and aggressive driving that is causing a lot of racers to stay away from SM of any flavor. In the last four months we have had cars rolled, flipped, airborne, destroyed and drivers taken to the hospital or out for the season. Everyone needs to step back and take a deep breath and consider what is really in the best interest for those of us currently racing and more importantly for the people we want to attract in the future. The guys on the SMAC and Jim on the CRB are really trying to do what is right for all of us. While we all may not agree with the proposals no one should insinuate that they are volunteering their time and making rule changes just to line their pockets. If you think you can do the job better..then submit your resume to the CRB.

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

Brian Ghidinelli Verified Driver
Moonwalker

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

quote:
Originally posted by dp35:
Having just 1 engine would solve 99% of the problems. But why not do the opposite - allow 1.6's in all the cars, with incentive penalties for 1.8's?

If the 99 was given a 1.6l motor, no plate and same weight, would it be a fair fight?

It doesn't fit the intent of the class any better than 1.6 cars upgrading to 1.8s, it would only impact fewer cars (which may be ok).

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

Neil O Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: DC
Posts: 68
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Neil O   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

While these discussions are necessary they also shape the perception of our class. I wonder how many lurkers read these threads and decide SM is not the place they should spend their time and money.

The competition at the national level in SM is no joke, big budgets and lots of talent. This speaks to how competitive this class is. It's also the reason for these great discussions on parity and what is best for the class. But, man sometimes we do a poor job of marketing our class on this forum.....

For most of us regional guys the sky is not falling and ITA is not calling. The racing is great and the cars are closer then ever. I've been in too many great races this year at various tracks to support this perception that you should park your car if it's not a 99. I've even been in a couple nationals. Regardless of what happens this year at the run offs at Road America there will still be lots of great racing for most of us in this class.

Btw, this is coming from a former DC region SSM driver. I built a 96 because I'm cheap and the donor was 3K less than a 99 donor and I didn't want to spend money at the dyno fooling with a 1.6. I switched to SM because I wanted to check out other tracks that the DC region doesn't travel to.

--------------------
SM #06
http://www.columbiatile.com

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

This has been an entertaining, enlightening and all around good discussion/topic. I'm tossing my pennies in the bucket.

[soapbox]

I like rule changes / additions that can increase parity by limiting the potential gap between regional mid-packer (majority) and pointy-end national guys (the squeaky wheels):
-at minimal cost or no cost to the majority of the racers (additional cost or initial build cost)
-at similar costs for all model years
-and keeps our wonderfully large fields with potential to double dip intact (nothing illegal per IT or STU/L rules)


Recent changes/proposed changes that seem to fit this thinking:
-Adjustable FP regulator
-Adjustable timing for 99+
-Increased rear track width (via spacers for budget guys or the more costly option if desired)
-The weight changes (hint for 1.6 guys with concerns - switch to Guinness and sit further from the cooler/fridge!)
-RP changes
-Exhaust diameter / Spec headers (heck, most of us have replaced the stock exhaust manifold at least once...)
-bump-steer spacers/correction
-Track spec fuel where reasonable (Big events, maybe give regions an incentive to do so for normal races).

Things that don't fit:
-The front suspension/subframe swap
-chassis engine swaps (1.8 into 90-93, or 1.6 a 99+)
-Adding another class (considering that regions already have the ability and many already do run a SM subsidiary class)
-trying to adjust parity based on RA June Sprints and RA Runoffs


My letterS will be sent once I get myself back to the US.

OK, back to the popcorn and beer. Please carry on.

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

Niklas Falk
Member

Region: Sweden
Car #: 92
Year : 99
Posts: 32
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Niklas Falk   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Neil O:
While these discussions are necessary they also shape the perception of our class. I wonder how many lurkers read these threads and decide SM is not the place they should spend their time and money.

As a "lurker", racing in something similar to IT, this thread is actually pretty good PR (if these are the only small details under discussion for parity, you are not far from perfect), if you want to attract racers from other classes.
There have been other threads (the ECU etc) that have been much worse marketing material. [Smile]

If you are looking for marketing material for someone wondering about racing in general, this whole forum does a pretty good job of scaring people off with too much focus on details (and why should it be any different? [Smile] ).
"Visit races and talk to racers" is the best advise anyway (regardless of continent).

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 Neil O:
While these discussions are necessary they also shape the perception of our class. I wonder how many lurkers read these threads and decide SM is not the place they should spend their time and money.

The competition at the national level in SM is no joke, big budgets and lots of talent. This speaks to how competitive this class is. It's also the reason for these great discussions on parity and what is best for the class. But, man sometimes we do a poor job of marketing our class on this forum.....

For most of us regional guys the sky is not falling and ITA is not calling. The racing is great and the cars are closer then ever. I've been in too many great races this year at various tracks to support this perception that you should park your car if it's not a 99. I've even been in a couple nationals. Regardless of what happens this year at the run offs at Road America there will still be lots of great racing for most of us in this class.


Agreed, in the case of the suspension changes we're talking tenths of a second per lap here. Why doesn't anyone complain that there is data logging allowed per the rules? A traqmate and some beer is worth a few SECONDS typically...

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 wanted to mention that while pleanty of things are being thrown out etc. NONE of them are an option until 2012 season less weight or restrictor plate changes. We have a rules season, with that comes a deadline( which has passed) for rules changes that pass for each season. The ONLY proposed rules for 2011 are the ones in thhe fastrak.
Weight amd plate changes are on the spec line and can be addressed during the year.
This is your class, not mine, not the SMAC's. If you have an opinion positive or negative, you should send a letter supporting it or a letter stating you dont support the changes. That is how the club works.

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

EAST STREET RACING

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 still don't understand the violent aversion to allowing either version NA tub to run either in full 1.6 or 1.8 trim. Totally fits the intent of the class if you ask me. An NA tub is an NA tub. I don't know how different the subframe braces are but the change to 97 bracing is already allowed.

I suppose from a 1.6 owners perspective it's an extensive and expensive performance mod. From a 1.8 owners perspective it's just an economical way to replace a tub on a badly bent car.

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

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

The big question for me is whether NASA will again follow suit, or aim to distinguish themselves by bucking this trend. If they went in an opposite direction from the SCCA they could essentially 'draw a line' and give a venue to those who don't want constant development. Just pondering.

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

From April Fast Track...

Spec Miata
1. #656 (Charles mathes) Suspension allowance for 90-97 cars; ECU issues; allow 1.8L engine
Input on allowing 90-97 cars to upgrade to 99-05 suspension components was unofficially requested several months ago
and many letters were received. The letters where overwhelmingly against this change.

 
Page 4 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: