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

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello Spec Miata Community » Sports Car Club of America » SCCA Great Lakes » NB Suspension on NA cars (Page 1)

 - Email this page to someone! | Subscribe To Topic
Page 1 of 2 1  2  next » 
 
Author Topic: NB Suspension on NA cars
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

I’m going to start out by saying right off the bat that I drive an NA car so I have a dog in this fight and I want the NB suspension. I have a very early 1.6 and in 2007 I won the MidAm (Regional) championship with the car - It is really low weight early 90 car and it could easily make the current weight and even go lower with a less enthusiastic eater then me - and I have a 94.

I’m a budget racer, I built the 94 from the ground up over a year at home in my garage, no crew, no team, no real help (except copying Drago’s stuff when he wasn’t looking) and I like the 94 more then the 90 because of two reasons.

1. Ya you probably guessed it… I’m a big guy and I can make weight in the 94 and I don’t have to worry about eating too much at the Mexican restaurant on Saturday night – or drinking to many Margaritas…

2.The Torque is soo cool…

I have to be honest, I didn’t build a 99 only because of the initial cost of the donor car – my 94 was almost free. Up until now I wish I had sprung for the 99… If the upgrade rule goes through I’ll look like a genius… The lower cost donor car and the handling of a 99… Sweet… I might be able to run with those 99’s at National events…

Now, to stir the pot…

Why in the world would anyone that drives an NA oppose a rule that will ALLOW the upgrade of NA cars with NB suspension?

No one said you had to do it, if you like the handling don’t make the change. My guess is that if you like the handling you haven’t driven a 99 – once you feel the stable turn in and smooth transition to the power on a bumpy track you will not argue the point. The NA cars have awful bump steer that the 99’s DO NOT HAVE… This makes for a more consistent and easier drive resulting in better lap times and higher finishing positions…

The guys that I think would oppose the new upgrade would be the 99 guys??? Funny a couple of the guys supporting the rule change the most are guys that make a living building and selling race winning 99’s???

In my opinion – any good NA car that is well prepared and well driven with NB suspension would be a threat to the 99s… It would again make it where any year car can be built into a competitive car.

Again my opinion; It would bring better parity to all the cars. For example; a guy that’s been running a 90 in regional’s for a few years and doing pretty well thinks he would like to give the Runoff’s a shot. He could prep the car to National level – add the NB suspension and if he can wheel the car he should be competitive. Without the NB suspension it’s going to be a real uphill battle - Most if not all of the fast guys are going to be in 99’s and he is going to be chasing them everyday… All day…

Once all the cars are on the same suspension, same gear and the same sway bars we can stabilize the overall rules and make adjustments to the performance of each individual year group with weight and plates. Then we can spend our time going after the cheats…

It seams obvious many regions have noticed that the early cars are not competitive with 99’s with the invention of spin off classes; we don’t need SSM, SM2 or all the other SM based groups for NA’s only. We need more even cars in SM and it’s too late to say the 99’s ruined parity – the door was opened and that horse has left the barn. The SCCA is not going to remove the 99’s from SM; they are not going to MAKE the NB’s run NA sub-frames. They might however, allow those that run NA cars that want to be competitive with 99’s the ability to do so by allowing the proposed upgrade OPTION…

So, you run in a region dominated by high car count NA cars and you say the 99’s are not that big of deal in your region? I say watch out… Oppose this rule and you do so at your peril… A couple guys learn the tricks from out East and down South and start selling well prepped 99’s in your region and you will have opposed the only thing that could have helped you be competitive against them.

Last argument; Cost, I saw listings all over E-Bay and Craigslist for used complete sub-frames for a couple hundred bucks.

Now it seams to me that those that are opposed are being very vocal and the BOD is about to decide which way to go – want the 99’s to keep gaining the upper hand and be the only car that wins the Runoff’s, the Sprints, the ARRC and most of the championships then do nothing and that is what will probably happen.

If you want to make SM a class where any car can win at any track? Tell you RE, write to the CRB and BOD and tell them you want all the cars to be able to run the same suspension and you support the proposed rule to allow upgrade of the NA cars with NB suspension.

Sorry for the rant I just don’t want to build a 99 to be competitive in the future… I like those cool head lights but it’s just not worth it… By the way the headlights for a 99 cost more then an NB sub-frame, rack and A-arms on E-Bay…

Let the flaming begin…


Thanks,

Mark Zwolle

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

Lots of good points in there Mark. Good post.

Make it a rule and its your "option" to upgrade to 99 suspension is the way to go.

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

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

www.blakeclements.com

Pat Newton Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Enduro addict

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

quote:
Originally posted by Z-MAN:
Last argument; Cost, I saw listings all over E-Bay and Craigslist for used complete sub-frames for a couple hundred bucks.

I am not necessarily opposed to this proposal and I'm taking a couple years off from driving anyway so I don't really have a dog in the fight, but I have to disagree with this particular point.

You're being factual, yes, but IMO any competitor who's committed enough to make this change is going to buy new parts, not buy somebody else's cast-offs from Ebay or Craigslist and hope that they're not bent. So the whole "they hardly cost a thing!" argument is a false one.

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

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 slope keeps gettin more slippery.

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 Pat Newton:
quote:
Originally posted by Z-MAN:
Last argument; Cost, I saw listings all over E-Bay and Craigslist for used complete sub-frames for a couple hundred bucks.

I am not necessarily opposed to this proposal and I'm taking a couple years off from driving anyway so I don't really have a dog in the fight, but I have to disagree with this particular point.

You're being factual, yes, but IMO any competitor who's committed enough to make this change is going to buy new parts, not buy somebody else's cast-offs from Ebay or Craigslist and hope that they're not bent. So the whole "they hardly cost a thing!" argument is a false one.

Taking most of the year off myself - but when I go back to the track in next month or two I want to be at least a little competitive. Do nothing and we can forget it with NA cars - the NB guys are developing all the time and they will soon be the only car that can win unless we do something.

If you are not comfortable buying used parts you need to find a new supplier - I have always gotten good parts from Drago... (and trust me I have used some parts [Eek!] ) I only the Internet as an example of how easy they are to get.

Hope to see you back on the track soon...

MZ

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 d mathias:
The slope keeps gettin more slippery.

It's not a slippery slope - it's a greased rail...

It started when the 99's were allowed to run in SM. We can't go back and change it and you can't slow down the 99's enough to make a difference with weight and plates so something else will have to be done.

If not this what do you recommend?

SSM and SM2 and other spin offs for NA only cars are not good for the class...


MZ

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

It seems obvious to me that NA owners should eagerly embrace the whole NB suspension upgrade. Even if buying all new parts, it is much cheaper to upgrade our existing cars than to build a 99. The benefits are multiple. Easier to be more consistent through out the race, broader spectrum of new and used parts to select from, we can keep our NA cars and be competitive, if we sell our NA cars then they are no longer the known under dogs, it is significantly less expensive to upgrade our existing cars than having to start over with a 99. Plus, we will be one step closer to a true spec class.

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

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 use a lot of "experienced" parts on my cars. Didn't we all start with a used car, full of used parts. The sellers we all know and love (Jim, Mark etc) do their best to only sell quality experienced parts.

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

wheel Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: kc
Car #: 20
Year : 92
Posts: 1801
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for wheel     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

The way many of us drive these things, it is only a matter of time before the front cross member, etc. needs to be replaced from hitting curbs and other Miatas, anyway.

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

IF and ONLY IF you also allow the use of the 93 R model tie rod ends. They also eliminate the bump steer and cost less than 30 bucks.

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

Spence Gatrell
Member

Region: Oregon
Car #: 27
Year : 1991
Posts: 23
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Spence Gatrell     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Anyone know if the sub-frames on all NB tubs (1994-2005) are the same, or are the 99' sub-frames just the hot ticket?

--------------------
When in doubt.. Stand on it!

Spence Gatrell
Member

Region: Oregon
Car #: 27
Year : 1991
Posts: 23
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Spence Gatrell     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Strike that...

NA -1989 to 1997
NB -1998 to 2004
NC -2005 to present

info via wikipedia... Anyone?

--------------------
When in doubt.. Stand on it!

Chris Haldeman
Member

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

there is no 98 and the nc cars start as model year 2006 so you need the parts from 1999-2005 miata IF APPROVED

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

Some quantitative data from Mazda on the changes:

Front

Lower subframe brace stiffened
Lower control arm position moved forward 2.1mm
Lower control arm position lowered 5.7mm
Upper control arm position moved backward 3.0mm
Tie-rod mounting position raised 7.1mm on knuckle
Improved mounting rigidity of steering rack

Rear

Rear subrframe brace stiffened
5mm wider track from knuckle mounting location repositioning

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 Kent Carter:
IF and ONLY IF you also allow the use of the 93 R model tie rod ends. They also eliminate the bump steer and cost less than 30 bucks.

I don't think they eliminate but rather reduce it.

I also understanding that the steering rack could be shimmed and with the use of those rod ends bump steer would be further reduced but still not as good as the 99's.

And that would make all the cars more different and that's what we need, more differences in the cars and getting farther away from "Spec"...

However, if I'm miss-informed then this is the best answer to the problem - why has it not been recommended already?

Anyone have data on this that is willing to share??

MZ

Mike C Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
MegaModerator

Region: WDCR - 042
Car #: 75
Year : 93 & 95 & 99
Posts: 3727
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Mike C   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Kent Carter:
IF and ONLY IF you also allow the use of the 93 R model tie rod ends. They also eliminate the bump steer and cost less than 30 bucks.

Been allowed for over a year.

--------------------
Mike Collins
MEATHEAD Racing
http://www.SHEETZ.com
The MEATHEAD Racing 2010 Calendar is up!!!!
www.MEATHEADRacing.com
SMAC Member
WDCR-SCCA SM Drivers Rep.
ALL OPINIONS ON RULES OR SPECIFICATIONS ARE JUST THAT, MY OPINIONS!

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

"5mm wider track from knuckle mounting location repositioning"

The difference is NOT in the mounting. It is in the cast steel upright. The mounting locations are the same.

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

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

+1 MZ
Thanks and well said

If you have an opinion send your request to the crb

http://www.crbscca.com/

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

This suspension change is not just about bump steer. These changes make this an upgrade, not optional. I would argue that most of us couldn't feel the affects of bump steer. When I raced off-road, bump steer was hugely important - jumps and huge suspension movement. Bump steer on pavement really has it's greatest affects under load through the corner. Miata's will gain toe out on up travel of the outside wheel and lose it on down. Bumps "in corners" could unsettle a car a bit.

I have my eye on the other affects of the 99 changes. These seem way more significant than bump steer. Haven't looked at a 99 up-close, but this is what I see from the measurements listed in the previous post by TSouth.

Front

Lower subframe brace stiffened
- Stiffer is usually better for a more consistent feeling car. Making the suspension do the work, not the chassis.

Lower control arm position moved forward 2.1mm
Upper control arm position moved backward 3.0mm
- More caster and that means more agressive turn in

Lower control arm position lowered 5.7mm
- Lower roll center, if nothing else changed with the upper arm angle or outter mounting point. Should make the front more stable.

Tie-rod mounting position raised 7.1mm on knuckle
Improved mounting rigidity of steering rack
- Does the steering rack move up or down at all? Reguardless, we lower these cars below the stock ride height, so we are already adding bump steer. I would assume that the 99's will have some bump steer as well, but maybe not as much as the NA cars?

Rear

Rear subrframe brace stiffened
- Stiffer is usually better for a more consistent feeling car. Making the suspension do the work, not the chassis.

5mm wider track from knuckle mounting location repositioning... The difference is NOT in the mounting. It is in the cast steel upright. The mounting locations are the same.

Where does the wider track come from front and rear. Not mentioned here. Wider track = lower center of gravity and somewhat softer spring feel (not actually softer springs, but longer fulcrum point at the wheel).

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:
These changes make this an upgrade, not optional.
+1

Precisely. Given the way racers think this upgrade is mandatory. With my budget money spent on subframes is money that will not be spent on entry fees.

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

So, Are you in favor or opposed?

I was really expecting more of an argument from the opposed side.

So far I haven't heard any good arguments against the OPTIONAL upgrade...


MZ

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

This is an upgrade. It should make a NA handle like a 99. Again, easier to drive fast over the course of the entire race.

I feel like we are getting the cars closer and this is a step in the right direction.

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

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

Opposed. I believe it will discourage the "little guys" and further shrink this size of fields.

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

Dont hit the OPTIONAL part too hard Mark. The shock hats and FC bumpstops were optional until the whole field needed them because their closest competitors got them.

I am pretty much in favor the changes, but being a class advisor for a region dominted by 1.6s, I'm trying to look out for my friends best interest. We think we have a way to fix the ITA problem in our supps.

The other problem we currently have is cost vs. benefit, so please try to stick with that debate, as the optional logic doesn't really fly.

-Bruce

--------------------
Bruce Wilson
2010 Oregon Region Champ
2010 Monte Shelton Driver of the Year
2010 25 Hours of Thunderhill E3 and Under 2 liter Overall Champion
Oregon Region SM Class Advisor

d 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

Why are some folks so eager to spend probably at least $1,000 in parts, many hours of time if you turn your own wrenches or probably another $1,000 of labor if you hired the job out just so the 5 guys running 1.6 cars at the Runoffs can feel good about it?

Have you got a wad of money burning a hole in your pocket?

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

Have you driven a 99? I call them Cadillac's.

Basically, I like having the option to make my 96 drive like one. I can spend $1000 (probably less, I'm cheap and patient) and have a 99 in disguise.

Do I think I'll qualify better? Probably not. But, it will make the car easier to drive over a longer period.

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

Opposed. My understanding of suspension dynamics leads me to like and take advantage of these upgrades. With these, I WILL go faster and WILL move up on those who don't.

I am apposed based on time and money. I am tired of seeing posts from the leaders of this class that say, "for regional racers who don't want to spend any money, this is optional." I do spend money, but I have a budget. I would guess that most regional guys are like me. Each year I save up, establish a budget and upgrade the next area of my car needed to get closer to national prep. This year was better rims, improved safety gear and dyno time. This off season's money was to buy the 4:30 gear, a pro engine head, a few headers, more dyno time and/or GPS data. Now I will have to consider the suspension upgrades too and make a choice what I can upgrade.

This rule will just set me back further from having optimal national level prep. This rule and the "optional" quotes from the leaders of this class communicates to me that I am in over my head and no longer welcome in this class. If you can't spend to keep up, find somewhere else to participate... SM is for real racers, not guys on a budget.

Just my opinion.

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 Neil O:
This is an upgrade. It should make a NA handle like a 99. Again, easier to drive fast over the course of the entire race.

I feel like we are getting the cars closer and this is a step in the right direction.

Plus, this is untested. Or at least no results have been posted. Will this indeed make NA cars handle like NB. I think there are some leaps taken here. Yes, I will give the other side this, they will be closer, but I doubt the same.

David Dewhurst
Veteran Member

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

quote:
Originally posted by Motor City Hamilton:
quote:
Originally posted by Neil O:
This is an upgrade. It should make a NA handle like a 99. Again, easier to drive fast over the course of the entire race.

I feel like we are getting the cars closer and this is a step in the right direction.

Plus, this is untested. Or at least no results have been posted. Will this indeed make NA cars handle like NB. I think there are some leaps taken here. Yes, I will give the other side this, they will be closer, but I doubt the same.
Let us ALL remember the path we took getting to the FatCat bumpstops. [banghead] [banghead]

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

I deleted the last 3 or four posts, send PM's.
Jim

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

EAST STREET RACING

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 Motor City Hamilton:
Opposed. My understanding of suspension dynamics leads me to like and take advantage of these upgrades. With these, I WILL go faster and WILL move up on those who don't.

I am apposed based on time and money. I am tired of seeing posts from the leaders of this class that say, "for regional racers who don't want to spend any money, this is optional." I do spend money, but I have a budget. I would guess that most regional guys are like me. Each year I save up, establish a budget and upgrade the next area of my car needed to get closer to national prep. This year was better rims, improved safety gear and dyno time. This off season's money was to buy the 4:30 gear, a pro engine head, a few headers, more dyno time and/or GPS data. Now I will have to consider the suspension upgrades too and make a choice what I can upgrade.

This rule will just set me back further from having optimal national level prep. This rule and the "optional" quotes from the leaders of this class communicates to me that I am in over my head and no longer welcome in this class. If you can't spend to keep up, find somewhere else to participate... SM is for real racers, not guys on a budget.

Just my opinion.

I am not a leader in the class - I'm just another guy that runs an NA car and I'm tired of watching guys that I normally fight it with all the time go spend the money on a 99 and then drive away...

It's clear the BOD is not going to make the NB's run NA suspension and it's not just HP my car has a pretty good motor...

You guys in regions that only have a few NB's are crazy to think they aren't coming - when they start dominating in your region what will you say then??? We need parity.... Is my guess...

MZ

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

The other side of that argument is to continue to restrict the 99 hp. I'll flip your question from haven't seen a good argument yet for why the NAs shouldn't spend to equalize the class to "haven't seen any good arguments for why we can't restrict the 99's a little more?" Restrictor plates and weight vs. the expense and effort/time to change over the majority of the cars in the class.

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 Motor City Hamilton:
The other side of that argument is to continue to restrict the 99 hp. I'll flip your question from haven't seen a good argument yet for why the NAs shouldn't spend to equalize the class to "haven't seen any good arguments for why we can't restrict the 99's a little more?" Restrictor plates and weight vs. the expense and effort/time to change over the majority of the cars in the class.

What???

Have you read the latest Fastrack????


Plates and weight have just been changed, why not take the offer to ALSO upgrade the suspension?


MZ

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 davew:
"5mm wider track from knuckle mounting location repositioning"

The difference is NOT in the mounting. It is in the cast steel upright. The mounting locations are the same.

That's what I tried to say Dave, but didn't very clearly. Thanks for the clarification.

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 Motor City Hamilton:
[QUOTE]Plus, this is untested. Or at least no results have been posted. Will this indeed make NA cars handle like NB. I think there are some leaps taken here. Yes, I will give the other side this, they will be closer, but I doubt the same.

Oh, not true - this has been tested it's an old cheat. [yep]

Or... Um... aaaa... So I've heard... (But not on my car) [duck]

You don't think the guys that are recommending rules now have been racing these little chick cars for a looong time and they know what works and what does not..


MZ

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:
The other side of that argument is to continue to restrict the 99 hp. I'll flip your question from haven't seen a good argument yet for why the NAs shouldn't spend to equalize the class to "haven't seen any good arguments for why we can't restrict the 99's a little more?" Restrictor plates and weight vs. the expense and effort/time to change over the majority of the cars in the class.

I'll bite. Your question presupposes a need to slow the 99's which is in debate. What is not in debate is that each car (certainly 90/99) performs quite differently at different tracks, on different parts of those tracks and with differing performance at different times of the race. The simplistic solution of adding weight and reducing restrictor plate size (even if I agreed this was needed) does not begin to solve this dilemma.

Restrictor plate size reduction does NOTHING to reduce the complaint that 90 drivers have about real world racing with 99 cars which is exit torque on corners. Mat Pombo covers this enthusiastically in a recent posting.

Weight addition simply further distances the handling character of the cars and hence the driving styles.

Bringing the suspension of the NA cars to NB specs, while understandably an annoying cost to the current NA owners, will be a very good long term investment in the class as it brings the cars a little closer together. I have repeatedly read the argument that 99 cars as the minority should not be dictating the class direction of the majority (90's). Fair enough. Let me note that when I put my 99 on the track in TX in 2008 I believe I was one of 4 in the region. In 2010 around 40% of the field was 99's and next year it looks like over 50% of the field will be 99's. The car is 10 years younger, donors are getting cheap, it's a little easier to drive for newcomers and thus virtually all new cars on track are 99's. If I had a 90 I would spend (or plan on spending) the $1,000. But that's me.

Craig J

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 wondering, what happens if the NA with NB subframes/suspension becomes the overdog and dominates. Then what? More competition adjustments? Revert to NA subframes? I know some of you remember the lightweight clutch/pressure plates. Here one year, gone the next. How many folks took a bath on an $1,100 clutch?

The 99+ might be a Sedan DeVille and the 1.6 with the MANDATORY upgrade might be a STS.

-Denny

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 cnj:
quote:
Originally posted by Motor City Hamilton:
The other side of that argument is to continue to restrict the 99 hp. I'll flip your question from haven't seen a good argument yet for why the NAs shouldn't spend to equalize the class to "haven't seen any good arguments for why we can't restrict the 99's a little more?" Restrictor plates and weight vs. the expense and effort/time to change over the majority of the cars in the class.

I'll bite. Your question presupposes a need to slow the 99's which is in debate. What is not in debate is that each car (certainly 90/99) performs quite differently at different tracks, on different parts of those tracks and with differing performance at different times of the race. The simplistic solution of adding weight and reducing restrictor plate size (even if I agreed this was needed) does not begin to solve this dilemma.

Restrictor plate size reduction does NOTHING to reduce the complaint that 90 drivers have about real world racing with 99 cars which is exit torque on corners. Mat Pombo covers this enthusiastically in a recent posting.

Weight addition simply further distances the handling character of the cars and hence the driving styles.

Bringing the suspension of the NA cars to NB specs, while understandably an annoying cost to the current NA owners, will be a very good long term investment in the class as it brings the cars a little closer together. I have repeatedly read the argument that 99 cars as the minority should not be dictating the class direction of the majority (90's). Fair enough. Let me note that when I put my 99 on the track in TX in 2008 I believe I was one of 4 in the region. In 2010 around 40% of the field was 99's and next year it looks like over 50% of the field will be 99's. The car is 10 years younger, donors are getting cheap, it's a little easier to drive for newcomers and thus virtually all new cars on track are 99's. If I had a 90 I would spend (or plan on spending) the $1,000. But that's me.

Craig J

The 99s make up almost 50% of the fields in the SE already. According to the entry list for this weekends race at Sebring we have 16 1.6s, 12 99s, and 5 1.8s.

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

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

quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Tucker:
quote:
Originally posted by cnj:
quote:
Originally posted by Motor City Hamilton:
The other side of that argument is to continue to restrict the 99 hp. I'll flip your question from haven't seen a good argument yet for why the NAs shouldn't spend to equalize the class to "haven't seen any good arguments for why we can't restrict the 99's a little more?" Restrictor plates and weight vs. the expense and effort/time to change over the majority of the cars in the class.

I'll bite. Your question presupposes a need to slow the 99's which is in debate. What is not in debate is that each car (certainly 90/99) performs quite differently at different tracks, on different parts of those tracks and with differing performance at different times of the race. The simplistic solution of adding weight and reducing restrictor plate size (even if I agreed this was needed) does not begin to solve this dilemma.

Restrictor plate size reduction does NOTHING to reduce the complaint that 90 drivers have about real world racing with 99 cars which is exit torque on corners. Mat Pombo covers this enthusiastically in a recent posting.

Weight addition simply further distances the handling character of the cars and hence the driving styles.

Bringing the suspension of the NA cars to NB specs, while understandably an annoying cost to the current NA owners, will be a very good long term investment in the class as it brings the cars a little closer together. I have repeatedly read the argument that 99 cars as the minority should not be dictating the class direction of the majority (90's). Fair enough. Let me note that when I put my 99 on the track in TX in 2008 I believe I was one of 4 in the region. In 2010 around 40% of the field was 99's and next year it looks like over 50% of the field will be 99's. The car is 10 years younger, donors are getting cheap, it's a little easier to drive for newcomers and thus virtually all new cars on track are 99's. If I had a 90 I would spend (or plan on spending) the $1,000. But that's me.

Craig J

The 99s make up almost 50% of the fields in the SE already. According to the entry list for this weekends race at Sebring we have 16 1.6s, 12 99s, and 5 1.8s.
However, I would bet that '99s do not make up half of the total number of spec miatas in the SE.

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

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 d mathias:
I was wondering, what happens if the NA with NB subframes/suspension becomes the overdog and dominates. Then what? More competition adjustments? Revert to NA subframes? I know some of you remember the lightweight clutch/pressure plates. Here one year, gone the next. How many folks took a bath on an $1,100 clutch?

The 99+ might be a Sedan DeVille and the 1.6 with the MANDATORY upgrade might be a STS.

-Denny

99's would lose weight or get a bigger plate which will make the 99's much more fun to drive. Then the 1.6 cars would be an underdog again. You'll be offered the option to replace your flywheel with a lightweight one and a special set of cams. The 99's will then be slower and get less weight and the plate will be made larger. Then the 1.6 cars would be an underdog again. You'll be offered the option to replace your 1.6L with a 1.8L lump. The 99's will then be slower and get less weight and the plate will be made larger or removed. Then the 1.6 cars would be an underdog again. You'll be offered the option of installing a 99+ 1.8L motor provided you install a torsen at the same time.

All of this is optional, of course, but it is all in the interest of parity.

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

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

Having the approval of this proposed rule make the 1.6 cars the overdog would be great...

Plates and weight are easy to adjust. When all of the cars have more similar handling characteristics if the 1.6 cars become the overdog then a little weight can be added to them while reducing the weight on the other cars to equalize the balance - and I think that is what is going to happen.

Once we see what happens when the NA cars are running the NB suspension the CRB can recommend some weight and plate changes that should make it where any year car can be a winner at any track.

Now - please go make your voice be heard - fill out the submission for at this link.

http://www.crbscca.com/


MZ

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 Z-MAN:
quote:
Originally posted by Motor City Hamilton:
The other side of that argument is to continue to restrict the 99 hp. I'll flip your question from haven't seen a good argument yet for why the NAs shouldn't spend to equalize the class to "haven't seen any good arguments for why we can't restrict the 99's a little more?" Restrictor plates and weight vs. the expense and effort/time to change over the majority of the cars in the class.

What???

Have you read the latest Fastrack????


Plates and weight have just been changed, why not take the offer to ALSO upgrade the suspension?


MZ

Did I miss some changes to the 99s other than making them faster(FP and timing)?

--------------------
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 cnj:
virtually all new cars on track are 99's.

Craig J

I not really true -- only 99 new cars built by those in the money, the know and planning to be at the front. The two newest cars in our camp are 1.6s (both after only one season are planning/building 99s). The newest build I know of is a well connected front running who has a NA1.8 being caged right now (he bought the donor before the rule change -- like I said well connected)

When I see one well connected front runner build/switch to a 1.6 I will know we have parity -- until then keep taking [Smile]

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

Tom Kirkham
Junior Member

Car #: 54
Year : 91
Posts: 8
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Tom Kirkham   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Mike C:
quote:
Originally posted by Kent Carter:
IF and ONLY IF you also allow the use of the 93 R model tie rod ends. They also eliminate the bump steer and cost less than 30 bucks.

Been allowed for over a year.
Are comp bushing legal? If not, would they not be a cheap upgrade?

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 Kent Carter:
You'll be offered the option of installing a 99+ 1.8L motor provided you install a torsen at the same time.

I think so that everybody is starting over at zero -- The 01+ 1.8L should be made mandatory for everyone and the few folks that run 01s currently should be banded for 3 year to allow the rest of us to catch up on development.

This makes as much sense as most everything else proposed as we dismiss the cheap weight and plate option.

--------------------
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 Mike C:
quote:
Originally posted by Kent Carter:
IF and ONLY IF you also allow the use of the 93 R model tie rod ends. They also eliminate the bump steer and cost less than 30 bucks.

Been allowed for over a year.
Mike could you point me to that rule -- I do not see it in 9.1.8.4?

Thanks

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

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

There are other missing items that were approved. This needs to somehow be fixed!!!

-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

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 B Wilson:
There are other missing items that were approved. This needs to somehow be fixed!!!

-bw

I looked thru Fasttracks too -- but I am a Tard and might have missed it

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

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 Willie the Tard:
quote:
Originally posted by cnj:
virtually all new cars on track are 99's.

Craig J

I not really true -- only 99 new cars built by those in the money, the know and planning to be at the front. The two newest cars in our camp are 1.6s (both after only one season are planning/building 99s). The newest build I know of is a well connected front running who has a NA1.8 being caged right now (he bought the donor before the rule change -- like I said well connected)

When I see one well connected front runner build/switch to a 1.6 I will know we have parity -- until then keep taking [Smile]

Drago began building an NA 1.8 a long time ago Last year I believe - it was raced for the first time over the week end and except for 100+ weather and missing the set up the car was really competitive - oh and he finished second behind a 1.6... (Oh, and watch out for that kid - he is getting really fast)


Now Drago or Cottrell or Collins or me in a 1.6 - not likely to happen [duck] . To many trips to 31 flavors - this is the young mans car and I think in the hands of one of the good young guns with NB suspension this will be the car to beat in the future [yep]


MZ

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

DaveW on a thread ealier this year...

The front subframe is available on the used market for $100-$150 all day long. They are plentifull and easy to get from all the normal used parts sources. Or buy new for $369.11 from Mazda

Power steering racks are also plentiful and cheap, they depower just like the early ones. A used unit should include at least the inner tie rods. Outers are the same. From Mazda,$349.65

I have been told by reliable sources that the geometry of a 99 upper/99 spindle combination is the same as an early combination. But you can not use a 99 spindle with early upper, or vice versa. So there is no need to buy upper arms and spindels.

You are still going to use your current brakes, shocks, springs, sway bars, sway bar links, cam bolts etc. All you really need is a subframe, steering rack and a few pieces of hardware. Approximately $750 from Mazda, less if used.

So really the minimum cost is $150 used front subframe, a $100 used steering rack (priced at car-part.com) and an alignment.

-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

 
Page 1 of 2 1  2  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: