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

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello Spec Miata Community » SpecMiata.com » Spec Miata » BOD decisions on 2011 rules changes (Page 3)

 - Email this page to someone! | Subscribe To Topic
Page 3 of 4 1  2  3  4  next » 
 
Author Topic: BOD decisions on 2011 rules changes
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 JIM DANIELS:
It did, I was there with it several weeks ago for a two day test. New owners were to race it this past weekend. Put it in the wall at turn 4, write off. They are shipping it back now to retub. [Frown]

Ken Dobson will soon be there in a '99, you will find out the difference.

Ahhh suck! Lots of cars in the gravel but I don't recall seeing a car in the wall at T4? Maybe it happened in a group other than SM?

We ran 46.1s and a 1.6 (a 1.6!!!! [Eek!] ) driven by Darin Polsley cracked a 45.9. Without 10:1 and gas we'll never see track records again but not too shabby. I'll be on the lookout for Ken!

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

JIM DANIELS Verified Driver Made Donation to Website Series Champ
Site Founder

Region: Mid-South
Car #: 76
Year : "You Pick"
Posts: 4422
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for JIM DANIELS   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Brian Ghidinelli:
quote:
Originally posted by JIM DANIELS:
It did, I was there with it several weeks ago for a two day test. New owners were to race it this past weekend. Put it in the wall at turn 4, write off. They are shipping it back now to retub. [Frown]

Ken Dobson will soon be there in a '99, you will find out the difference.

Ahhh suck! Lots of cars in the gravel but I don't recall seeing a car in the wall at T4? Maybe it happened in a group other than SM?

We ran 46.1s and a 1.6 (a 1.6!!!! [Eek!] ) driven by Darin Polsley cracked a 45.9. Without 10:1 and gas we'll never see track records again but not too shabby. I'll be on the lookout for Ken!

Car was lost in the track day session last week, they had to rent for this week. My "tad faster" would have been competitive then, I got a 44.7 40 pounds over weight. Wonder if the plate was on? [Wink]

--------------------
Jim Daniels

MAZDARACERS.COM

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 JIM DANIELS:
Car was lost in the track day session last week, they had to rent for this week. My "tad faster" would have been competitive then, I got a 44.7 40 pounds over weight. Wonder if the plate was on? [Wink]

Or what kind of tires you were running! [Big Grin]


quote:
Originally posted by JIM DANIELS:
G load acclimation: Run the car with a high grip tire (new slicks well worth the cost for the gain), 50+ laps. This will teach your butt what the G feels like less the side wall movement and rolling the street tire does. When you swap back, work up to the same feel in the turns, you will see a near instant MPH gain at the apexes.


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

JIM DANIELS Verified Driver Made Donation to Website Series Champ
Site Founder

Region: Mid-South
Car #: 76
Year : "You Pick"
Posts: 4422
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for JIM DANIELS   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by JIM DANIELS:
quote:
Originally posted by Brian Ghidinelli:
quote:
Originally posted by JIM DANIELS:
It did, I was there with it several weeks ago for a two day test. New owners were to race it this past weekend. Put it in the wall at turn 4, write off. They are shipping it back now to retub. [Frown]

Ken Dobson will soon be there in a '99, you will find out the difference.

Ahhh suck! Lots of cars in the gravel but I don't recall seeing a car in the wall at T4? Maybe it happened in a group other than SM?

We ran 46.1s and a 1.6 (a 1.6!!!! [Eek!] ) driven by Darin Polsley cracked a 45.9. Without 10:1 and gas we'll never see track records again but not too shabby. I'll be on the lookout for Ken!

Car was lost in the track day session last week, they had to rent for this week. My "tad faster" would have been competitive then, I got a 44.7 40 pounds over weight. Wonder if the plate was on? [Wink]
 -

They had my "special" shave on them too.....

--------------------
Jim Daniels

MAZDARACERS.COM

Cliffy Chains
Member

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

I don't know if the special shave helped a whole lot on this car ?

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

Z-MAN Verified Driver
Member

Region: Mid-South
Car #: 54
Year : 1990
Posts: 711
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Z-MAN     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Ken SM-94:
quote:
That's where the "OPTIONAL" part came in.

You don't want to update, then don't.

Many of us wanted the choice to spend OUR OWN money to upgrade. Our own individual choice.

It's kind of like saying you don't want a spiffy enclosed trailer with A/C, so nobody should have a spiffy enclosed trailer with A/C. Well guess what? I bought a spiffy trailer with A/C with my own money, you STILL don't have to get one. Interesting concept, this freedom of choice thing, huh?

Defect to where? Regional only? No thanks!!



Thanks for puting the "optional" in caps because I didn't really understand it before.

I love the brilliant minds that tell the 1.6 guys that they don't have to be competitive if they don't want to. Thanks for that!

Can't wait to hear what you have to say when the only option left is to allow the '99 engines in the early cars. ( I know we won't HAVE to do that either)

Ken

Ken,
In my opinion you are the one saying the 1.6 cars don't have to be cometitive. The guys that know what theyr'e talking about in this class offered you a gift and you told them "We don't want that".

And if you thought it might have only been perceived to be faster then it would have been smart to not do the mod right away.

A wise man would wait and use the money the other guys spent to buy new tires or track time and become a better driver.

Then look for a guy that you're familier with that did do the mod, see if his driving has changed/improved, collect some data, compare his lap times from the prior year and see how he compares to the 99's against how he did the year before. Then you could have made an informed decision if the mod was only perceived and if it was worth it to take advantage of or not.

But now we don't have the "Option" because what I believe was the vocal minority didn't think that far ahead or about what was good for the class just what they perceived to be good for them.

I guess you think that the SCCA should slow the 99s down or make the 1.6 faster or do something to make the 1.6 more competitive?

In fact the NA cars were pretty close - before the open timing and FP ruling (that only helped the 99+ cars). I think A little added stability would have gone a long way towards making the NA cars more cometitive. With more consitant lap times and lower weight it would mean the NA car should have better tires and better brakes at the end of the race then the heavier 99's and then the real race would have been on.

I just wished you would have latched on to opposition to open FP and Timing like you did this because you can forget about beating the 99's at the big races now - they just legally got faster and we stayed the same - oh wait we got a little weight that should do the trick [nope]

2011 - another year of watching the 99's win all the big races in SM and more and more of the NA cars moving to ITA... [yep]

Mark Zwolle

Cliffy Chains
Member

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

quote:
Originally posted by Z-MAN:

2011 - another year of watching the 99's win all the big races in SM and more and more of the NA cars moving to ITA... [yep]

Mark Zwolle

Why don't we put away the crystal ball for now..........Lets wait till Jan Nationals, really next big race besides the ARRC, and see how the 1.6, the 1.8's and the 99's stack up.

I think a "really good" driver in a top 1.6 will be on podium at the Jan Natls this year. This may hush the crowds a bit, much like a Tampa Bay stadium home game..

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

JIM DANIELS Verified Driver Made Donation to Website Series Champ
Site Founder

Region: Mid-South
Car #: 76
Year : "You Pick"
Posts: 4422
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for JIM DANIELS   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Z-MAN:
quote:
Originally posted by Ken SM-94:
quote:
That's where the "OPTIONAL" part came in.

You don't want to update, then don't.

Many of us wanted the choice to spend OUR OWN money to upgrade. Our own individual choice.

It's kind of like saying you don't want a spiffy enclosed trailer with A/C, so nobody should have a spiffy enclosed trailer with A/C. Well guess what? I bought a spiffy trailer with A/C with my own money, you STILL don't have to get one. Interesting concept, this freedom of choice thing, huh?

Defect to where? Regional only? No thanks!!



Thanks for puting the "optional" in caps because I didn't really understand it before.

I love the brilliant minds that tell the 1.6 guys that they don't have to be competitive if they don't want to. Thanks for that!

Can't wait to hear what you have to say when the only option left is to allow the '99 engines in the early cars. ( I know we won't HAVE to do that either)

Ken

Ken,
In my opinion you are the one saying the 1.6 cars don't have to be cometitive. The guys that know what theyr'e talking about in this class offered you a gift and you told them "We don't want that".

And if you thought it might have only been perceived to be faster then it would have been smart to not do the mod right away.

A wise man would wait and use the money the other guys spent to buy new tires or track time and become a better driver.

Then look for a guy that you're familier with that did do the mod, see if his driving has changed/improved, collect some data, compare his lap times from the prior year and see how he compares to the 99's against how he did the year before. Then you could have made an informed decision if the mod was only perceived and if it was worth it to take advantage of or not.

But now we don't have the "Option" because what I believe was the vocal minority didn't think that far ahead or about what was good for the class just what they perceived to be good for them.

I guess you think that the SCCA should slow the 99s down or make the 1.6 faster or do something to make the 1.6 more competitive?

In fact the NA cars were pretty close - before the open timing and FP ruling (that only helped the 99+ cars). I think A little added stability would have gone a long way towards making the NA cars more cometitive. With more consitant lap times and lower weight it would mean the NA car should have better tires and better brakes at the end of the race then the heavier 99's and then the real race would have been on.

I just wished you would have latched on to opposition to open FP and Timing like you did this because you can forget about beating the 99's at the big races now - they just legally got faster and we stayed the same - oh wait we got a little weight that should do the trick [nope]

2011 - another year of watching the 99's win all the big races in SM and more and more of the NA cars moving to ITA... [yep]

Mark Zwolle

Agree....

Timing and FP is a game changer the wrong way.

Unless every single '99 was cheating, this gives the local Mr. Do Rights 4/4 HP/Trq and all the Runoffs guys the same.

The good news, the expensive ECU can be almost circumvented for less. The bad news, every '99+ just got a rather large legal HP upgrade.

What am I missing? I don't understand???????

1.6 owners, you could always hold out attending events until the rules are right. Or, start running '99 motors quietly so one day, when many of you have them, they will make it legal.

It is inevitable, SSM/ITA or 99+ SM, pick and get use to it.

[duck]

--------------------
Jim Daniels

MAZDARACERS.COM

Steven Holloway Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Blue Eyes, Aquarius, hates being squeezed to the grass in SowDiv!

Region: Lonestar
Car #: 97
Year : 91
Posts: 740
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Steven Holloway     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

I think it's time for those of us who saw the big picture to flood the BoD with letters expressing our displeasure with their decision.

--------------------
If you can't fix it with a hammer, it's got electrical problems.

Z-MAN Verified Driver
Member

Region: Mid-South
Car #: 54
Year : 1990
Posts: 711
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Z-MAN     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by John Mueller:
quote:
Originally posted by Steven Holloway:

You mean like Data Aq, pro motors, thinner shaves on tires, fresh shocks, scales/good setups...
Shall I continue?

Steve, I get where you are coming from but none of these are in the rules as optional.
But allas they are optional all the same... and you will not be really fast without all of them...

John you are the new SM guru in NASA, can I ask you a couple questions:
How much time do you have driving a SM?

How many tracks have you raced at?

Have you driven all three models of the car equally prepped?

MZ

guest driver
Member

Region: 011
Car #: 47
Year : 94
Posts: 488
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for guest driver     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Mark;
"the vocal minority" had nothing to do with the 1.6 suspension 'upgrade' being rejected by the BOD.
Nasa will soon play their hand which is to capitalize on the 1.6 unrest in the land of SCCA.
Expect a helping hand for the 1.6 majority to help entice the mass exodus.
Yes, another year of '99's winning everywhere that counts in SCCA but that was pre ordained anyway. That is the direction of the class, along with the '01 - '05's, no way will the NA's ever be allowed to win anything worthwhile.
All the parrot jabbering about prep, driving and parity is all smoke, if "Dewayne" were to bring his old 125/109 1.6 to the RunOffs next year 'they' would crucify him at Tech. That's why he went '99 no matter what '3 point swish' he posts here.
Fully agree that Road America is better for the 1.6 than Mid Ohio, just that there is no 'slack' gonna be given to the 1.6 redheaded step child like was (is) given to the '99's.
Fact of life.
Lets see how Nasa plays the next hand ...
back to my coke and a smile ...

Steven Holloway Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Blue Eyes, Aquarius, hates being squeezed to the grass in SowDiv!

Region: Lonestar
Car #: 97
Year : 91
Posts: 740
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Steven Holloway     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Now would be NASA's chance at a big coup. But from reading John Mueller's posts I wouldn't expect it.

--------------------
If you can't fix it with a hammer, it's got electrical problems.

cam Verified Driver
Cheap member

Region: southwest
Car #: 14
Year : 90
Posts: 739
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for cam   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

NA (90 - 97) owners who are SCCA members and want to have the option to upgrade to the 99+ front suspension, please submit your letters to the CRB. CRB site

It is quick and easy. You are members of a club, let the club leadership know you wishes. I wrote my letter as soon as I saw the orginal post.

Edit: changed to include all per 99+

--------------------
"The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
~Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
~Thomas Jefferson

l8tbreakr
Member

Region: NER
Car #: 17
Year : 90
Posts: 69
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for l8tbreakr     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Mike LL:
quote:
Originally posted by Brian Ghidinelli:
quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Lyon:
From my understanding, the open timing/fuel pressure primarily helps the 99+ cars, which were the HP kings to start with. Sounds like the powers that be want the masses to start moving to the NB's. [twocents]

Horsepower:
99s: 2450#/127hp = 19.29#/hp
1.8s: 2375#/125hp = 19.0#/hp
1.6s: 2285#/123hp = 18.58#/hp
~ 3.6% sprea

Torque:
99s: 2450#/119ft-lbs = 20.59#/ft-lbs
1.8s: 2375#/114ft-lbs = 20.83#/ft-lbs
1.6s: 2285#/108ft-lbs = 21.16#/ft-lbs
~ 2.7% spread

wow 123 hp and 108 tq
i've got some work to do [Confused]

Thinking the same thing, I have a SM pro built motor. Guess the wrong pro.

CRB letter sent in favor of optional NB suspension for NA. Even if the cars are less competitive at least they can be also be less expensive.

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

TSouth Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: Cincinnati
Year : 90
Posts: 180
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for TSouth     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by cam:
NA owners who are SCCA members and want to have the option to upgrade to the 99+ front suspension, please submit your letters to the CRB. CRB site

It is quick and easy. You are members of a club, let the club leadership know you wishes. I wrote my letter as soon as I saw the orginal post.

Fixed it, just in case any '94-97 owners want the stuff.

Teamfour Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: WDCR
Car #: 04
Year : 1993
Posts: 519
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Teamfour   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

CRB letter sent in favor of NB suspension upgrade.

--------------------
Lee Tilton
1993 Meowta #04
Brimtek Motorsports/ Team Four Racing
Team Four Racing

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 Teamfour:
CRB letter sent in favor of NB suspension upgrade.

Didn't we already all do this. We all sent letters - sounds like the feedback was close on both sides, so aren't we done for a year? Or does the losing side now get to provide additional feedback? I don't get it.

Steven Holloway Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Blue Eyes, Aquarius, hates being squeezed to the grass in SowDiv!

Region: Lonestar
Car #: 97
Year : 91
Posts: 740
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Steven Holloway     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Didn't Drago say it was 16/10?

What's the rule here? Majority, or does it have to be unanimous?

--------------------
If you can't fix it with a hammer, it's got electrical problems.

cnj
Member

Region: SW Division
Car #: 32
Year : 1999
Posts: 194
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for cnj     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Motor City Hamilton:
quote:
Originally posted by Teamfour:
CRB letter sent in favor of NB suspension upgrade.

Didn't we already all do this. We all sent letters - sounds like the feedback was close on both sides, so aren't we done for a year? Or does the losing side now get to provide additional feedback? I don't get it.
I believe that we are done for this year on this subject. With that said, SCCA is our club and we get to send letters any time we want to on any club subject we choose. An involved membership is a good thing.

Craig J

John Mueller Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Okay, not the slowest anymore...

Region: SoCal
Car #: 13
Year : 1992
Posts: 847
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for John Mueller   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Z-MAN:
John you are the new SM guru in NASA, can I ask you a couple questions:
How much time do you have driving a SM?

How many tracks have you raced at?

Have you driven all three models of the car equally prepped?

MZ

I'm a guru of love and of noting else, but I am the SM National Director for NASA. I got the job because several folks at NASA liked the way I don't make snap judgments, stay cool under fire, can remain objective, have a nice smile and only take the bait a little bit. [Smile]

So your questions are all good, just not applicable because I'm not the sole decision maker and have the ability to ask a lot of questions.

However, I do own & drive (not very well mind you) a 1.6.

quote:
Originally posted by Steven Holloway:
Now would be NASA's chance at a big coup. But from reading John Mueller's posts I wouldn't expect it.

Ouch... I'm a good poker player bro. [Cool]

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

Ken SM-94 Verified Driver
Veteran Member

Region: Oregon
Car #: 94
Year : 91
Posts: 971
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Ken SM-94   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Ken,
In my opinion you are the one saying the 1.6 cars don't have to be cometitive. The guys that know what theyr'e talking about in this class offered you a gift and you told them "We don't want that".

And if you thought it might have only been perceived to be faster then it would have been smart to not do the mod right away.

A wise man would wait and use the money the other guys spent to buy new tires or track time and become a better driver.

Then look for a guy that you're familier with that did do the mod, see if his driving has changed/improved, collect some data, compare his lap times from the prior year and see how he compares to the 99's against how he did the year before. Then you could have made an informed decision if the mod was only perceived and if it was worth it to take advantage of or not.

But now we don't have the "Option" because what I believe was the vocal minority didn't think that far ahead or about what was good for the class just what they perceived to be good for them.

I guess you think that the SCCA should slow the 99s down or make the 1.6 faster or do something to make the 1.6 more competitive?

In fact the NA cars were pretty close - before the open timing and FP ruling (that only helped the 99+ cars). I think A little added stability would have gone a long way towards making the NA cars more cometitive. With more consitant lap times and lower weight it would mean the NA car should have better tires and better brakes at the end of the race then the heavier 99's and then the real race would have been on.

I just wished you would have latched on to opposition to open FP and Timing like you did this because you can forget about beating the 99's at the big races now - they just legally got faster and we stayed the same - oh wait we got a little weight that should do the trick

2011 - another year of watching the 99's win all the big races in SM and more and more of the NA cars moving to ITA...

Mark Zwolle

Mark, I didn't write any letters for or against anything. I rarely do. I figured it would work itself out and it did.

"They" said the subframe wasn't a performance adjustment and I believe them.

You think leaving things the same is going to kill this class and I think constantly chasing the next go-fast part is gong to kill it.

I say let them do whatever they want to the 99' and when it gets to the point when enough of the 1.6 owners (the great majority of this class) are pissed off about it we can kick them to the curb and the 1.6 class will grow in peace. If the trend is toward the newer car, fine. let them have thier own class. We had a class where the cars were basically the same and we let the 99' in. I thought it was a mistake then and still think so.

What are they going to give the 1.6 cars when they let the 06' cars into SM?

I believe the cars are too different to be equalized in this ultra competitive class. We will be fighting this loosing battle for years to come. I say stop it now.

Ken

Z-MAN Verified Driver
Member

Region: Mid-South
Car #: 54
Year : 1990
Posts: 711
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Z-MAN     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Ken,
You believe the BOD?

The guys that are the best in the business of racing SM cars made the recomendation because they know what they are talking about. Is a performance adjustment? In the typical term - probably not. But if I can get rid of the bump steer in my NA car and make it handle the bumps like the NB car then I will have a better car and that results in a performance gain.

In my opinion the BOD didn't approve it because there was some decent and they didnt want to make a decision that would make some angry. And you trust them? I don't think anyone on the BOD has ever raced an SM so how would they know what it's like to race one?

That is why we have guys that know what they are talking about on the CRB and on the SM advsory commitee so they can tell the BOD what is going on in the cars in our class.


But, if it as you say we're fighting a loosing battle? What do we do? Give up? Quit racing NA cars because they can't compete? What is your solutiuon? because thoses are not options in my opinion...

MZ

darmstrong Verified Driver
Member

Region: sediv
Car #: 66
Year : 1992
Posts: 87
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for darmstrong     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

We 1.6 owners could do as the 99 owners (some), cheat our subframes (optional), instead of ECU's, and then SCCA would make it legal.

Dave
SM #66

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

Guys
Lots of emotion on both sides. We all knew this was pretty close to 50/50 and was a significant step away from "normal" changes like weight and plate. We all knew, CRB,SMAC and membership that this was not a slam dunk and BOD decided not to pass it. I was not surprised, not even upset.

We can argue about this for the next 12 to 24 months, call each other names etc, but what's done is done. I suggest we move on as it is not happening at this point and very doubtful it will hapen in the future. This does not spell the end of the 1.6 by any means. If adjustments are needed, we will adjust. But at this point adjustments will likely not effect the 1.6, but the other cars. Right now the 1.6 is at worst the second best car by most accounts. The 94/97 being third and 01/05 being the least desirable.
Lets try and look at the positives and move forward. Let me also say opinions that consistantly favor the car in your garage seldom carry much weight with SMAC and CRB, next to none.
We have the best class, best racing in the SCCA and NASA, PERIOD. We are passionate and dont want to ruin a good thing, I asure you all on SMAC, CRB and BOD have exactly the same opinion. We all may not agree with way to get there, but we all want to get to the same place, I assure you. We all want a very competitive healthy class where all cars can compete for years to come.
Thanks
Jim

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

EAST STREET RACING

JIM DANIELS Verified Driver Made Donation to Website Series Champ
Site Founder

Region: Mid-South
Car #: 76
Year : "You Pick"
Posts: 4422
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for JIM DANIELS   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Drago:
Guys
Lots of emotion on both sides. We all knew this was pretty close to 50/50 and was a significant step away from "normal" changes like weight and plate. We all knew, CRB,SMAC and membership that this was not a slam dunk and BOD decided not to pass it. I was not surprised, not even upset.

We can argue about this for the next 12 to 24 months, call each other names etc, but what's done is done. I suggest we move on as it is not happening at this point and very doubtful it will hapen in the future. This does not spell the end of the 1.6 by any means. If adjustments are needed, we will adjust. But at this point adjustments will likely not effect the 1.6, but the other cars. Right now the 1.6 is at worst the second best car by most accounts. The 94/97 being third and 01/05 being the least desirable.
Lets try and look at the positives and move forward. Let me also say opinions that consistantly favor the car in your garage seldom carry much weight with SMAC and CRB, next to none.
We have the best class, best racing in the SCCA and NASA, PERIOD. We are passionate and dont want to ruin a good thing, I asure you all on SMAC, CRB and BOD have exactly the same opinion. We all may not agree with way to get there, but we all want to get to the same place, I assure you. We all want a very competitive healthy class where all cars can compete for years to come.
Thanks
Jim

+1

I actually understand this one. Plate and weight are more to the philosophy of SM. Action to alter those two is another story.

Being a self taught race engineer and rather familiar with these cars I will say it does make a difference. I'm not sure who analyzed this but I'm confident, based on the view, they did not plug the cars into WinGeo3 Suspension Geometry Software and a copy of Milliken's book was no where in sight. The car ('99+)is better in many ways other than power.

I disagree about the car being in the class. SM was NEVER a 1.6 only class, PERIOD. Furthermore, less the politics and self preservation the parity could be spot on, a toss up.

I "WILL" be ok with one of the 4 cars being "the" car at the Runoffs as soon as I'm confident that all cars also have "their" track. Right now, if I place a '99 in their hands, any 1.6 consistent winner, anywhere, will go faster at those tracks in a legal '99, PERIOD.

Jimbo, I know the data and you guys are within all rights to stick to them. But, you won't get any relief from me until I'm satisfied and proven wrong. To date, no one is willing to even do the test. It's real simple, third party build 100% transparent to the community of each car, pro driver, three tracks, results. With as much money this class generates for both bodies, why do the two not own test cars already?

Maybe the compliance fee idea needs to be an open forum build of cars for true parity tests. Or, both bodies can ponder how many customers they have from this class and use some of that "life blood" funds to build test cars.

(excuse grammar)

--------------------
Jim Daniels

MAZDARACERS.COM

John Mueller Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Okay, not the slowest anymore...

Region: SoCal
Car #: 13
Year : 1992
Posts: 847
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for John Mueller   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Drago:
We have the best class, best racing in the SCCA and NASA, PERIOD. We are passionate and don't want to ruin a good thing, I assure you all on SMAC, CRB and BOD have exactly the same opinion. We all may not agree with way to get there, but we all want to get to the same place, I assure you. We all want a very competitive healthy class where all cars can compete for years to come.

Absolutely 110% agree !!! NASAs process is fed and aimed at this too. We just want to do what is right for the class as a whole.

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

JimEli Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

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

quote:
Originally posted by darmstrong:
We 1.6 owners could do as the 99 owners (some), cheat our subframes (optional), instead of ECU's, and then SCCA would make it legal.

Dave
SM #66

LOL.

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

Drago Verified Driver Made Donation to Website Series Champ
MegaModerator

Region: mid south
Car #: 2
Year : 1999
Posts: 4275
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Drago   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by JIM DANIELS:
I "WILL" be ok with one of the 4 cars being "the" car at the Runoffs as soon as I'm confident that all cars also have "their" track.
[/QB]

99's have tracks, 1.6 car have tracks...
there are no 94/97 tracks and no 01/05 tracks


quote:
Originally posted by JIM DANIELS:

But, you won't get any relief from me until I'm satisfied and proven wrong.
/QB]

Fair enough, I feel the same way, When someone proves a 1.6 can't win or run well at Road America, I will buy into the propaganda. Why dont you build one? You had 123 in 2005? I know, I dynoed it with you and know what prep it was, no reason you couldn't get back there now. [Smile]

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

EAST STREET RACING

pat slattery Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Veteran Member

Region: cincy
Car #: 79
Year : 92
Posts: 1495
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for pat slattery     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Drago:
quote:
Originally posted by JIM DANIELS:
I "WILL" be ok with one of the 4 cars being "the" car at the Runoffs as soon as I'm confident that all cars also have "their" track.

99's have tracks, 1.6 car have tracks...
there are no 94/97 tracks and no 01/05 tracks


quote:
Originally posted by JIM DANIELS:

But, you won't get any relief from me until I'm satisfied and proven wrong.
/QB]

Fair enough, I feel the same way, When someone proves a 1.6 can't win or run well at Road America, I will buy into the propaganda. Why dont you build one? You had 123 in 2005? I know, I dynoed it with you and know what prep it was, no reason you couldn't get back there now. [Smile] [/QB]
JDr I think you need to race a 1.6.

I could maybe even get you a Slim Fast sponsorship if your interested. [Eek!] [Big Grin] [rolling on floor laughin]

Pat

--------------------
keeping the faith for the 1.6

Arrow Karts

Drago Verified Driver Made Donation to Website Series Champ
MegaModerator

Region: mid south
Car #: 2
Year : 1999
Posts: 4275
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Drago   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by pat slattery:
quote:
Originally posted by Drago:
quote:
Originally posted by JIM DANIELS:
I "WILL" be ok with one of the 4 cars being "the" car at the Runoffs as soon as I'm confident that all cars also have "their" track.

99's have tracks, 1.6 car have tracks...
there are no 94/97 tracks and no 01/05 tracks


quote:
Originally posted by JIM DANIELS:

But, you won't get any relief from me until I'm satisfied and proven wrong.
/QB]

Fair enough, I feel the same way, When someone proves a 1.6 can't win or run well at Road America, I will buy into the propaganda. Why dont you build one? You had 123 in 2005? I know, I dynoed it with you and know what prep it was, no reason you couldn't get back there now. [Smile]

JDr I think you need to race a 1.6.

I could maybe even get you a Slim Fast sponsorship if your interested. [Eek!] [Big Grin] [rolling on floor laughin]

Pat [/QB]

If I made weight, this discussion would have long since been over [nope]

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

EAST STREET RACING

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

This weekend I had a quick trip back to Seattle, during which I had lunch with a good friend who's been around racing for several years, from Pro-7 to SM to BMWs to Mustang Challenge to Grand Am and everything in between. I asked him what he thought about the latest SM changes/proposals/drama, etc. and he replied "I quit paying attention to all that about two years ago."

Wise words.

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

TR6
Member

Region: Southwest
Car #: 500
Year : 2002
Posts: 179
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for TR6     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Drago:
...and 01/05 being the least desirable.

Why is this? Not doubting it, but just want to know since I'm relatively new to SM and don't know the perceived advantage/disadvantage of the different year models.

--------------------
Greg H.
2002 red Miata #500
Denton, Texas

darmstrong Verified Driver
Member

Region: sediv
Car #: 66
Year : 1992
Posts: 87
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for darmstrong     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

We 1.6 owners could do as the 99 owners (some), cheat our subframes (optional), instead of ECU's, and then SCCA would make it legal.

Dave
SM #66

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

Is it just me or does that Armstrong guy sound like a broken record? [Big Grin] [Razz]

JIM DANIELS Verified Driver Made Donation to Website Series Champ
Site Founder

Region: Mid-South
Car #: 76
Year : "You Pick"
Posts: 4422
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for JIM DANIELS   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Drago:
quote:
Originally posted by JIM DANIELS:
I "WILL" be ok with one of the 4 cars being "the" car at the Runoffs as soon as I'm confident that all cars also have "their" track.

99's have tracks, 1.6 car have tracks...
there are no 94/97 tracks and no 01/05 tracks


quote:
Originally posted by JIM DANIELS:

But, you won't get any relief from me until I'm satisfied and proven wrong.
/QB]

Fair enough, I feel the same way, When someone proves a 1.6 can't win or run well at Road America, I will buy into the propaganda. Why dont you build one? You had 123 in 2005? I know, I dynoed it with you and know what prep it was, no reason you couldn't get back there now. [Smile] [/QB]
Fair enough.

--------------------
Jim Daniels

MAZDARACERS.COM

darmstrong Verified Driver
Member

Region: sediv
Car #: 66
Year : 1992
Posts: 87
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for darmstrong     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Sorry, have no idea why that posted twice, over an hr. apart. Anyway, didn't know there was a limit on the number of allowed responses.

Dave

Willie the Tard Verified Driver
Member

Region: NASA Texas
Car #: 8
Year : 92
Posts: 697
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Willie the Tard   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by darmstrong:
We 1.6 owners could do as the 99 owners (some), cheat our subframes (optional), instead of ECU's, and then SCCA would make it legal.

Dave
SM #66

[Smile] Get a Sammy subframe with a manual rack (it is samller and you can get it closer to the pan)

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

Willie the Tard Verified Driver
Member

Region: NASA Texas
Car #: 8
Year : 92
Posts: 697
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Willie the Tard   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by TR6:
quote:
Originally posted by Drago:
...and 01/05 being the least desirable.

Why is this? Not doubting it, but just want to know since I'm relatively new to SM and don't know the perceived advantage/disadvantage of the different year models.
It appears the “tech shed” now fully legal prep does not work on the 01+ (or maybe event the 00). By looking at the rule books it looks to be a winner (same weight, same better NB head, bigger RP, higher compression and crude variable valve timing) but I have seen only one built in the SOWDIV and it was not very fast.

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

Drago Verified Driver Made Donation to Website Series Champ
MegaModerator

Region: mid south
Car #: 2
Year : 1999
Posts: 4275
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Drago   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Willie the Tard:
quote:
Originally posted by TR6:
quote:
Originally posted by Drago:
...and 01/05 being the least desirable.

Why is this? Not doubting it, but just want to know since I'm relatively new to SM and don't know the perceived advantage/disadvantage of the different year models.
It appears the “tech shed” now fully legal prep does not work on the 01+ (or maybe event the 00). By looking at the rule books it looks to be a winner (same weight, same better NB head, bigger RP, higher compression and crude variable valve timing) but I have seen only one built in the SOWDIV and it was not very fast.
I agree, on paper it is a clear winner. much better intake cam and 10:1 compression. Problem is intake manifold from my testing and cam timing. The cams advance so much that they feel great on street, but very little above 6000 RPM.
Even Air:fuel is very close from the factory.


If you put a 99 intake and lock that cam in a similiar cam timing position to the 99, it would be very very good!

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

EAST STREET RACING

Willie the Tard Verified Driver
Member

Region: NASA Texas
Car #: 8
Year : 92
Posts: 697
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Willie the Tard   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

good to know -- could the 01+ cam be controled with a computer from New Braunfels? What is the diffrent in the intake manifold?

What is the deal with 00, none have been built around here?

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

Drago Verified Driver Made Donation to Website Series Champ
MegaModerator

Region: mid south
Car #: 2
Year : 1999
Posts: 4275
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Drago   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

The 00 is same as 99, just far more 99 donors, We have done them as well.
I think McTexas may make it better if he can in fact control the cam timing selenoid? I havent asked. But the sweet spot for racing is outside the mechanical adjustability. I think most lock to full retard.
Intake just is not ver good on 01 up and it is very good on 99. Basically the 99 changes runner length with VICS and provides max tq on low rpm and max hp on top. The 01 system just doesnt work [Frown] Like 4-5 hp hit. The runner diameters are also smaller and the butterflies are right at the head.
the common cheats are pulling butterflies and locking intake cam.

from wikipedia
In 2001, Mazda introduced the BP-Z3 (also called BP-VE) variant of the BP engine with S-VT variable valve timing on the intake side, no more VICS, but there is Variable Tumble Control System (VTCS)in the BP-Z3. A similar looking but effectively very different set of valves that restrict the intake on cold start for emissions purposes, rather than the torque enhancing set of partial butterflies that increase velocity that are used in VICS. This was found in the 2001+ Miata.

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

EAST STREET RACING

Willie the Tard Verified Driver
Member

Region: NASA Texas
Car #: 8
Year : 92
Posts: 697
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Willie the Tard   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

we should use that intake manifold on the 99s [Smile]

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

Drago Verified Driver Made Donation to Website Series Champ
MegaModerator

Region: mid south
Car #: 2
Year : 1999
Posts: 4275
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Drago   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Willie the Tard:
we should use that intake manifold on the 99s [Smile]

SOME HAVE [Wink] [Big Grin]

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

EAST STREET RACING

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 Drago:
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Bolanos:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jamie Tucker:
[qb] Because it was proposed (advertised [Wink] ) incorrectly as a performance upgrade and not a "larger parts supply" update/backdate.

No it wasnt Alex... It was never presented as a competition adjustment. It was put forward to get all the cars on the same suspension, much like we now have all on the same gear.
From above post:

It was never presented as a competition adjustment.


It was put forward to get all the cars on the same suspension,

From Nov. 2009 posts:

* Runoffs report

* Steves reports about ease and consistency....

* I am working on measuring the bump steer and after I get the results I feel confident with 99 knuckles and a spacer under the rack we will be able to help the bump steer on the 90-97 cars and replicate the 99 bump steer without spending a lot of money. I can't see the entire swap costing more than $175/200 and 60-90 minutes in time.

Makes me go Hmmmmmmm............ From this side of the fence it sounds like it is (was) all about bump steer (competition adjustment/performance upgrade) at least at the get-go. What happened to this $200.00, 90 minute economical bump steer swap for the 1990/1997 cars?

Old posts don't disintegrate, they must be deleted. [Wink]

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

David Dewhurst
CenDiv
Milwaukee Region
Spec Miata #14

Drago Verified Driver Made Donation to Website Series Champ
MegaModerator

Region: mid south
Car #: 2
Year : 1999
Posts: 4275
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Drago   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Dave
Not quite sure what you think you found? You really crack me up. You must have lot of time on your hands? Maybe rather than complaining with every spare minute of you have or searching throuh my old posts trying to catch me in something, you could actually spend some of your time helping the class instead of constantly trying to tear it apart?

As I have said in other posts, ( they didn't disingrate either) Rack spacing doesnt do it alone, the pick up points are different. That was my intention cheap and easy, but didn't get there. Save this post so you dont get confused later. It was not presented as a competition adjustment.

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

EAST STREET RACING

B(Kuch) Kucera 45 Verified Driver
Veteran Member

Region: NeOh
Car #: 45
Year : 1991
Posts: 858
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for B(Kuch) Kucera 45   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

I feel if we can get the car's closer at all track's the car counts will go up per event.I believe that car counts are low at some track's because the car's are diff. at certain track's like RA and Mid-O.

I know a couple of driver's that don't go to certain track's (including myself)because they know there car isn't equel or have a chance of a podium finish.Don't get me wrong,I think we are close just not perfect yet.

I would love for all the car's to be the car to have! If we ever get to that day I believe we will have those 30 to 50 car's per event again,not just at the Runoff's and major race weekend's.

Wouldn't that be nice? [scratchchin]

--------------------
Bob
!KUCH!

"All my drinking buddies have a racing problem"

'Strongbad'
Member

Region: Atlanta
Car #: 28
Year : 1992
Posts: 14
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for 'Strongbad'     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Can someone remind me why we cannot adjust weights and/or RP for certain tracks? Seems the easiest way to keep the class together.

Joseph Strong

'Strongbad'
Member

Region: Atlanta
Car #: 28
Year : 1992
Posts: 14
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for 'Strongbad'     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

And BTW, real parity is when a $15k car can compete head to head with a $+30k car. Didn't this class start because it was cheap (relative term) and fun?

Joseph Strong

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



[ 10-21-2010, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: Gatoratty ]

--------------------
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 Gatoratty:
I am requesting that a competitive adjustment be made effective 1/1/2011 to allow the use of any clutch and pressure plate, aluminum flywheel, and allow the use of new cams which will allow for 4-6 hp and increased torque to allow the 1.6 to be competitive with the 1999 and 1994-97 model years.

Updated numbers:

Horsepower:
99s: 2450#/127hp = 19.29#/hp
1.8s: 2375#/125hp = 19.0#/hp
1.6s: 2285#/128hp = 17.85#/hp (+5hp)
~ 7.47% spread

Torque:
99s: 2450#/119ft-lbs = 20.59#/ft-lbs
1.8s: 2375#/114ft-lbs = 20.83#/ft-lbs
1.6s: 2285#/111ft-lbs = 20.58#/ft-lbs (+3ft-lbs)
~ 1.2% spread


quote:
Originally posted by 'Strongbad'
And BTW, real parity is when a $15k car can compete head to head with a $+30k car. Didn't this class start because it was cheap (relative term) and fun?

And why not a $10k car? Or a $5k car? [Roll Eyes]

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

 
Page 3 of 4 1  2  3  4  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: