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

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello Spec Miata Community » SpecMiata.com » Spec Miata Rules & Competition » Runoffs results parity discussion (Page 2)

 - Email this page to someone! | Subscribe To Topic
Page 2 of 5 1  2  3  4  5  next » 
 
Author Topic: Runoffs results parity discussion
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

quote:
Originally posted by disquek:
Here's the slightly funny part ... he's right.

When you let a car into the class, you make an implied promise that it will be competitive (able to win under equal prep levels).

The really funny part is that anybody with a brain would realize that including cars after the 1.6l car is this classes second biggest problem. It would be just as much fun with only the 1.6l car and there would be none of this parity BS.

Who can guess the #1 problem? I bet the tow truck driver at Road America knows.

But hey, this drama sure is fun to watch.

-Kyle

WOW , two reverse jedi mind trick meanings & agendas in one post [scratchchin] not bad ...
yes, he is right, in theory, "abstract" theory that is ... in the 'real' world, it don't work that way ... one must spend the time and money to develop their new, somewhat rare package ... or pay someone else to do it.
More important / relevant question is what your end goal is ; be competetive in Regionals, Nationals or RunOffs levels ...
if you know how to set up your car and can drive it, the first two levels are already there for the '01, the final level ...
lets see what 2010 brings.

Jason Holland Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Mediocrity rules!

Region: SouthEast
Car #: 28
Year : 95
Posts: 3756
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Jason Holland   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by PedalFaster:
Let's back up to first principles here. What's the benefit of making the '01 - '05 cars faster? As far as I can tell, it's (1) satisfying some people's concept of fairness and (2) helping the very small number of people currently trying to be competitive in cars of that generation.

Now, what's the risk? The risk is that any error that accidentally made the '01 - '05 cars faster than the other years would make it hugely more expensive to be competitive, not primarily because of the cost delta between an '01 donor and an earlier one, but rather because everyone who currently owns a non '01 - '05 car would have to pony up for one, and sell their now-uncompetitive earlier car at a loss.

One could reasonably argue that the SMAC and CRB could make very careful, incremental changes until the cars are in perfect balance, and this year's restrictor plate change suggests that that's exactly what they're doing. There's still danger here, though; even if they get it right in aggregate, as this year's Runoffs appear to be demonstrating, the '01 - '05's different torque characteristics could still make it dominant on key tracks (like where the ARRC or the Runoffs are held).

Seems to me that the worst case outcome of speeding up the '01 - '05 cars, even if somewhat unlikely, far outweighs the benefit in this case, and thus that we should leave well enough alone.

werd.

--------------------
Jason Holland
Semi-interested civilian

fixrim
Member

Year : 92
Posts: 74
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for fixrim     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

I can weigh in here.... No, I would not build another 01... Yeah it was close, but close in SM isn't enough.

And I don't race in the series any longer, but I would if they went to a simple crate motor program. Funny to see the threads of everyone fighting the same issues we have faced in SM nearly since its inception and certainly since it went national. I can't figure out what the fuss is about, because it is so simple to solve. You race at a national? Then you need a motor, sealed by mazda, to compete. No more "motor wars".

I now race a car that is a total riot to drive, has 500hp, goes 160mph, and costs about the same as a SM, and about the same to run it. That being said I miss racing with all you guys!

Gibscreen Verified Driver Series Champ
Member

Region: NASA-SoCal
Car #: 23
Year : 1995
Posts: 912
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Gibscreen   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by fixrim:

I now race a car that is a total riot to drive, has 500hp, goes 160mph, and costs about the same as a SM, and about the same to run it. That being said I miss racing with all you guys!

Do tell.

--------------------
Rob Gibson
RJ Racing
2010 NASA Nationals TTE Champion
2008/2009 WERC Champion
2007 NASA SoCal SM Champion
rjracing.net
Weekend-Racer.com

fixrim
Member

Year : 92
Posts: 74
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for fixrim     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

It's a GTA car. I think the site is GTAChallenge dotcom.. we race at the ARRC this year... I wish we had more drivers, but they are fun todrive, and BTW, I have 2 so anyone want a rental???

EBudman Verified Driver
Idle Member

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

quote:
Originally posted by Tvance13:
Wow - I am now enlightened. Thanks for that clarity Steve. OPM - Who knew? I am loading the car on a flat bed as we speak. Problem solved.

If I thought you were serious, I'd thank you, but I can sense your sarcasm.

I've got a $400 junkyard engine, should I be bitching about needing help because I've chosen to run it? Writing my letter to the CRB now, asking for turbocharging on non-pro powerplants... [Confused] I'll guarantee that there are more than 10 of us out there, so I'm sure the SMAC will hear our cries of despair...

Seriously, drive the damn thing or get rid of it. If you're upside down on your investment, welcome to the fu$#ing club.... that's racing!!

Eric

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

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

quote:
Originally posted by EBudman:

Seriously, drive the damn thing or get rid of it. If you're upside down on your investment, welcome to the fu$#ing club.... that's racing!!

Eric[/QB]

[rolling on floor laughin] Awesome.

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

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

I think the '94 - '96 cars need some help. They went a little too far on the changes they made for this season for those cars.

I've got a '91 and if they drop the weight anymore there's no way I will ever be able to get to the min.

Also, they should add 100 lbs to the '99s and maybe make them breathe through a soda straw.

fishguyaz
Member

Region: AZ/SoPac
Car #: 92
Year : 99
Posts: 131
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for fishguyaz     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Blake Clements:
And you built an 01 because?

Sell it and buy another car if its that bad....

as someone who left the class and is now returning to the class, what is said above is the real truth here.

as a buyer of a car, i have done my research and decided to buy a 99 car with a pro motor.
I also have looked at the 1.6 with a pro motor.
those are the only things i feel i would be happy with.

I also think there is something to be said about the phrase
"the enemy of good is better"

you guys( now myself included) have a darned good thing going. its a big class in most areas of the country.
i think if you keep fixing this class, it will become broken.
stability in rules is a good thing.
if the 01+ cars are not competitive, then.........dont race one, its not like there are not lots of the other year miatas to build.

rule #1 before getting into a race class is to research the rules, and the group, and make an educated decision on what you buy.

you will never have %100 parity unless all cars are the same generation, and all come from the same builder.

just enjoy what you already have, it is good enough to have many people buying into the class, like me.
Josh

--------------------
Josh Pitt
AZ Region

AllardK3 Verified Driver Made Donation to Website Series Champ
Member

Region: Az
Car #: 13
Year : 1993
Posts: 59
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for AllardK3     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Josh,

Welcome back!

I heard a rumor that you are buying a certain blue car....

Will you be out at PIR this weekend with the porch?

Mike

Looking forward to runnign with ou again.

--------------------
Mike Donick

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 Cajun Miata Man:
quote:
Originally posted by mdavis:
quote:
Originally posted by Sean Yepez:
quote:
Originally posted by Blake Clements:
quote:
Originally posted by Sean Yepez:


The 2001 may need a bigger plate, but it's impossible to know that without having a top-prepared 2001 there driven by a top driver.

How does anyone know that a top builder hasn't built an 01? Its obvious OPM has one. Others have built too.

I heard Bobby Carter's was real fast too?

I really have no idea. I haven't seen a competitive one run. It could very well be at a disadvantage (though I have no reason to think so), but someone needs to prove it. Mr. Vance has been asking for a bigger plate for the 2001 for a long time now, but until someone builds the SMAC a top 2001 or someone takes the time to put one together (and has a top driver try to win a race in it), it's really hard to say. I hear what Tyler's dad is saying (that no one at the Runoffs is campaigning one, but just because one isn't there, it doesn't mean they can't be fast.

Bobby said something about not being able to get his 2001 to where it needed to be, but I don't know how far he went in his motor development program with Rebello. I have a feeling there was more left on the table. It did okay at Laguna, but he said he was down on power. I think he got 7th (but qualified poorly).

My point was made above. Bob Stretch has moved on from SM but built a no expense spared 2001 and could not compete. Top notch driver, top notch build. Casey seems to know a thing or two about the 2001+ cars as well. Is everyone so scared that the car they have is going to be obsolete that we won't allow a different RP for the 2001+? How about someone put one on a dyno and make some real RP suggestions? Absent of that- I know how folks hate objective data- I'm going to propose a 48mm plate.
Oh... about objective data for William- there were over 80,000 Miata produced from 2001-2005.

Flame Away [flamed]

Bob's attempt at the 01 was BEFORE the adjustment to a larger RP. Bob built my 99 and a 1.6 for me so I was lucky enough to be a "friend" of Bob's. With the smaller RP, Bob indicated he would come up a few HP short of his 99, but better torque. I have seen dyno data of the effect of a 2 MM RP change. That gets the 01 up to roughly within 0.5 to 1.5 HP of his 99. How close is enough with more torque? Maybe we should give the SMAC/CRB some credit that they had similar dyno data they used to establish the present plate size.
James is exactly right. I did spend the money and build one of these cars, suggested that plate change I believe it needed. I never finished the car as I felt it would be hypocritical of me to run a car that I just approved a larger plate. With the 43 mm plate, a 01/05 car can get to within 2 hp of the best 99's and with more torque. Thats as close as I feel they should be at this time. It is not in the best interest of the class to make the most expensive car the "car to have" So if you have a 01/05 car, realize now that it will most likely never be the car to have, but it is certainly competitive now.

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

EAST STREET RACING

George Munson Verified Driver
Member

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

Tvance13

I can't speak for the 2001 model but I have had dealings with OPM on another problem car earlier in my build. I drove 9 hours to let Tom work on my car after some local shops had said this was as good as it gets. Tom showed me 5 more HP's and car that is as good as anyones. Its worth a try in my humble opinion.

George Munson

EBudman Verified Driver
Idle Member

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

And there we have it. I knew I liked Drago for a reason.... who knew it was the voice of reason!?

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

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

So with the results from the Runoffs, are their going to be new adjustments to the various models ? It certainly seems that RA requires a 99 in order to be competitive so I think it's reasonable to assume that 99s are what the fast guys are going to continue to bring there. I'm just wondering what the current thinking out there is as of today.

Now if you excuse me, I have to get the exhaust system off my 1.6L so that I can have it ceramic coated and wrapped. [Wink]

J.D.
Guest


Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted    Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by fixrim:
I can weigh in here.... No, I would not build another 01... Yeah it was close, but close in SM isn't enough.

And I don't race in the series any longer, but I would if they went to a simple crate motor program. Funny to see the threads of everyone fighting the same issues we have faced in SM nearly since its inception and certainly since it went national. I can't figure out what the fuss is about, because it is so simple to solve. You race at a national? Then you need a motor, sealed by mazda, to compete. No more "motor wars".

I now race a car that is a total riot to drive, has 500hp, goes 160mph, and costs about the same as a SM, and about the same to run it. That being said I miss racing with all you guys!

Miss seeing you out there too!

J.D.
Guest


Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted    Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Clearly the '99 is faster. I liked the 5 car race we saw yesterday but what it suggest is not what SM means to me.

At this point I think weight is the way. No need to completely re-tune and/or retool RPs.

The '99 needs 100 pounds.

The '01-'05 needs 50 pounds.

The '94-'95 needs 25 less pounds
(and/or I still think it should be forced to run the 4.3 gear at some point)

Then lets get through another Runoffs and see....

I also support sealed motors for all of SM so long as Mazda or Enterprises does the program. I made this known quietly some time ago. Until we get the motors the same for everyone we will never know how much weight to add or subtract for parity. Personally, I'm not able to keep up with all the builders, tricks, tech legal dos / donts, it has gone a bit far.

Moreover, until we have sealed motors we will always have to race "that" guy in our divisions who is clearly pushing the rules in a tech-less atmosphere....

I hate it for those making a living on SM but hope they remember that its class first, vendors second........

It will be an interesting winter, my sabbatical is over....

Sean Yepez Verified Driver
Team Keeblerspeed

Region: SF
Car #: 94
Year : 94
Posts: 671
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Sean Yepez     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by J.D.:
Clearly the '99 is faster. I liked the 5 car race we saw yesterday but what it suggest is not what SM means to me.

At this point I think weight is the way. No need to completely re-tune and/or retool RPs.

The '99 needs 100 pounds.

The '01-'05 needs 50 pounds.

The '94-'95 needs 25 less pounds
(and/or I still think it should be forced to run the 4.3 gear at some point)

Then lets get through another Runoffs and see....

I also support sealed motors for all of SM so long as Mazda or Enterprises does the program. I made this known quietly some time ago. Until we get the motors the same for everyone we will never know how much weight to add or subtract for parity. Personally, I'm not able to keep up with all the builders, tricks, tech legal dos / donts, it has gone a bit far.

Moreover, until we have sealed motors we will always have to race "that" guy in our divisions who is clearly pushing the rules in a tech-less atmosphere....

I hate it for those making a living on SM but hope they remember that its class first, vendors second........

It will be an interesting winter, my sabbatical is over....

Great points, Jim. It is no coincidence that many guys who ran in 1.8's last year decided to stay home in 2009 (mostly at the National level but some at the Regional level as well).

I think you are spot on with your assessment of which car needs help and which needs to be slowed down. The only thing I would be concerned about is the '99 carrying another 100 pounds since that might equate to almost 300 pounds of ballast for some. Is it safe for a Miata to carry that much lead? Maybe a smaller plate would be better in addition to a more moderate weight increase (or further weight reduction for the other cars, i.e. 2275/2350/2475).

--------------------
2008 San Francisco Region SMT Champion

Sean Allen Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Veteran Member

Region: SFR
Car #: 54!
Year : 90'
Posts: 1907
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Sean Allen   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Wasn't there some discussion for a three year rule freeze that started the beginning of this season? I thought I remember Drago saying something about that...

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

Maybe we need to handicap more by track.

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

Arrow Karts

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 Sean Allen:
[QB] Wasn't there some discussion for a three year rule freeze that started the beginning of this season? I thought I remember Drago saying something about that...

I will bet they would like a three year freeze [Roll Eyes]

Pat

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

Arrow Karts

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

.

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

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

Jim, are you just stirring the pot (a common activity on this site for many) or are you seriously suggesting that 99's should add 100 pounds (ie.run at 2550), thus 265 lbs more than a 1.6?

If you or anyone else is serious about this then I have a few questions for you:

1. Can you please show a normalized national set of results data that indicates that this is what is needed?

2. Can you present data proving your point which was developed via side by side comparisons of the cars (same driver, same day and averaged across a range of tracks which are suspected to favor one car against another)?

3. Please explain why 100lbs? In other words how much exactly will this slow the cars down on average, how does this work out in race conditions? Please also cover the issue of driving a much heavier car in rain conditions.

4. Have you done any work to prove that this change would not increase operating costs on tire, brake pad and other items? If it does make the 99 more expensive to operate, do you care?

5. Why do you think that the NASA race was won by a 1.6 against 99's? Andy is a good driver (I am used to seeing him in front of me), but is he that good that parity would have suggested an additional 100lbs on 99's in the Miller race?

I'm all for parity, but for goodness sakes please prove the point factually or don't start up a crazy debate that could cost a lot of us money. Under these suggestions I would have to carry 200lbs in my car. Not only to I have serious questions about how to do this safely, but more importantly the added weight results in a crappy car to drive rather than the fun, responsive car I built.

If the complete data does in fact show that more parity is required, then make some suggestions to speed up the 1.6 rather than screwing up the 99 to meet the goal.

Craig J

Sean Yepez Verified Driver
Team Keeblerspeed

Region: SF
Car #: 94
Year : 94
Posts: 671
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Sean Yepez     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

I know Jim will respond with much greater expertise (and objectivity considering he has access to all the models). Regardless, if you look to see what cars have been winning all year, you will see that the '99 has won the overwhelming majority of major races (such as the Runoffs, Sprints, Road Atlanta National, etc.).

Additionally, I do not believe the results of the NASA Championships should be relevant to SCCA parity discussions. It was a great race, but I think it has a different dynamic than the SCCA Runoffs. There were also significantly fewer '99 cars entered at Miller. Finally, they missed a rather significant tech issue in 2008. I must say that I trust SCCA results a bit more at this point.

I understand where you are coming from with regards to a competition minimum weight of 2550. The cars should be safe, responsive, and fun, and a weight increase of this magnitude would certainly diminish these characteristics. However, it is very difficult to speed up the 1.6 because it does not have a plate and many drivers cannot make weight even as the rules are written. Unless the '99 takes on a smaller plate, it does seem like a weight increase is needed (and more than just a cursory one). Remember, all sandbagging ends at the Runoffs. Once the chips fell, the top 7 spots were taken by '99 cars with the fast lap from the 1.6 over a full second back and the fast lap from the 1.8 over two seconds back. It is possible and even perhaps probable that both cars could have had better showings if they were "driven better" or if they were "better builds." However, it is difficult for me to overlook the fact that all the fast 1.8 cars and drivers disappeared this year as a mere coincidence.

Therefore, we are left with the idea that a '99 is practically required to win the Runoffs. To me, that is very discouraging and, as Jim Daniels stated, in significant conflict with what SM should be especially considering the '99 is one of the most expensive cars to build. Jim's right. The 1.6 should stay the same because it is as fast as it can be without making the majority of the class pay for upgrades and/or reducing the minimum weight even further. The 1.8 needs a little bit of help and the '99 needs to give a little bit back. [twocents]

Hey, look on the bright side! With regards to operating costs, a smaller plate could theoretically decrease your fuel bill. [Wink]

[ 09-28-2009, 12:51 AM: Message edited by: Sean Yepez ]

--------------------
2008 San Francisco Region SMT Champion

Mike Tesch Made Donation to Website
Member

Posts: 65
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Mike Tesch   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by J.D.:

The '94-'95 needs 25 less pounds
(and/or I still think it should be forced to run the 4.3 gear at some point)


I think this point is dead on. Rear gear ratio is a variable that shouldn't be... they should all be the same. At some tracks the 4.10 is an advantage, others it's a dis-advantage.

Yea it might cost the 94-97 drivers a few dollars, but it needs to be done.

Just my $.02 worth, and probably not worth that.

--------------------
"I've got 5 kids... here there are hundreds"

Mike Tesch
Go Time Racing LLC

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

Sean, thank you for your interest in reducing my fuel bill. Always good to know someone is looking out for me .

I simply ask that the data used to support any changes be balanced, objective and complete. I don't buy that one race at one track defines viable test data. Informs it yes, but not defines it.

To a couple of your points.

I sure hope that people have not been sandbagging all through the SW Div season. I didn't (although its an interesting excuse for me to use) and I don't think that Aaron McSpadden and James York (both in 99's and strong drivers with extremely well prepared cars) were sandbagging when they got beaten by 90's. In a field with multiple 99's the SW Div had 90's in 2nd, 3rd and 5th positions at the end of the year points tally. Both Verges and Rushing were in the thick of every race in their 90's and certainly not 1 second off the pace at any track.

Not including the NASA championship in the data set sounds pretty selective to me.

Is the 99 the car to run at RA? The data exclusively from that track and that race certainly seems to support that supposition. My concern would be any proposal to use this single and limited data set in a decision that affects hundreds of racers racing at dozens of tracks around the country.


So what do I propose? Well I think that the leadership at both SCCA and NASA are fully engaged in this issue of parity and probably will not make a radical change, if any. To the extent that they do, I would hope it includes actual testing data and largely ignores political pressure from people (includng me) on this site.

In the event complete data indicates the 99 needs to be slowed (or the 90/94 sped up) then I would happily go to a smaller restrictor on the 99 - and even might accept more weight if that was also proven effective. I doubt either will.

What are the performance goal posts? We should NOT have rules that:

a. Allow a lighter car to go deeper into the braking zone, move faster through tight sections of the track and then initially accelerate faster out of the corner.

b. Allow a car with more torque/power to catch up to lighter cars on longer straights, and pass them for no other reason than the motor.

c. Have differences in how the cars deal with tire behavior in the middle and end of the race.

Personally I would support sealed, identical motors across the board (ie 1800's in all cars) which would obviate all this parity debate. Of course this (along with several other suggestions for parity) were suggested by others, notably Jason Saini and they were shot down. Instead we have perceptions of COTY and people swapping cars and installing $7K motors.

Craig J

Andy Bettencourt Verified Driver
www.flatout-motorsports.com

Region: NER
Car #: 09 ITA
Year : 90, 91, 94 Rentals
Posts: 1109
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Andy Bettencourt   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Bottom line? For SM, Road America may just be a horrible track for the Runoff's. Making parity decisions based on a power track will hurt regional racing across the country.

--------------------
Andy Bettencourt
Flatout Motorsports
www.flatout-motorsports.com

J.D.
Guest


Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted    Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Craig, I listed my opinion, it does stir the pot, it is how I feel. Not sure what you are insinuating about "this site", I rarely post anymore? The nature of forums is to bitch and well, discuss, have fun, vent. Would not be a very popular site if we all acted civil and did not have some man drama.

Forget anything I'm saying and just ask the top 4 guys why they race a '99. Maybe just to spend more or the cool headlights? I'm not sure what proof you want but I hope you find it.

That is all im going to say on the subject, I sent my CRB letter, one member one vote. To say more would require that I divulge knowledge that could possible hurt my own future racing ventures. I'm done leaking out my prep, hope you understand.

I would like to add one thing. If the 1.6 is not a front running car at the Runoffs every year, SM will die. New people to racing, looking at SM, are budget minded. To keep them coming the low cost car must be competitive. From where im sitting now, a $40k '99 that you dyno tune with 5 different $5k motors and twice as many heads (not included in the $40k) is not the class those new folks will be looking at.

My "class first" philosophy has been satisfied, I will rest easy at night. Now back to JD the racer......

In the good old days we brought one of each car to see what the fastest one was...... I sure wish we were back to those low cost days (pot stir yes).... IMO (no H)

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

Jim, thanks for responding. I was not intending to insinuate anything about your posting or the site. If my post read that way to you then I apologize. My point was that parity decisions should not be unduly influenced by politics (ie. how many forum posts support one way or the other).

As to you expressing just one persons opinion, I think you undersell yourself substantially. Your opinions influence many in this crowd.

To be clear, I am not against changing any of the cars if the complete data indicates it is needed. My preference is to not screw up the fun of any in the class. In my opinion 100lbs would make my car far less rewarding to drive and I doubt will bring parity in the areas I mention in my second post.

Well this is the most I have posted on any subject in 3 years of reading this site - so I will step aside on the subject for a while.

Craig J

Gatoratty Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

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

RA is a three year contract. We will have to see what happens next year.

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

David Dewhurst
Veteran Member

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

***Bottom line? For SM, Road America may just be a horrible track for the Runoff's. Making parity decisions based on a power track will hurt regional racing across the country.***

Andy, that ^ is a very closed minded SCCA traditionalist statement. How about we think outside the SCCA box. As I have stated & as Slattery stated, how about a different parity maker for Road America & other similar tracks. At Road America when a car leaves T14 there is a 100 foot vertical rise over approx 840 foot run. The run from T14 to the first brake marker KILLS the 1.6...................... The MMP track is flat as hell, hence the 1.6's did very well towards the 99's. They also don't have many 99's on the left coast. The fiken track is FLAT........................... From my observations the 1.6 is in good shape at many other venues. They maybe didn't win their share but they sure as hell didn't get abused like they do at Road America. Slattery was the best placing 1.6 at the Runoffs while being 30 seconds rearward. 30 seconds is damn neer a mile back which means Slattery was approx in the Kink when the checkered flag fell.

My CRB letter is next........... Here it comes Bud Light guy. [help] If Steve would get his 1.6 preped to the n'th degree I'll get Loshak to do several tests at Road America. Bud Light guy, is the driver good enough for you? [laughing] My only request will be for thinking outside the box to have parity at Road America.

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

David Dewhurst
CenDiv
Milwaukee Region
Spec Miata #14

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

I would hate to see changes made due to thirty-eight cars running at a single track. Parity is an issue that affects the entire class from regionals to nationals. Don't screw with the class just to equalize cars at the runoffs...most of us are regional or divisional racers and are not running for a national Championship or the June Sprints. Let's have some stability in the rules.

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

David Dewhurst
Veteran Member

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

***My only request will be for thinking outside the box to have parity at Road America.**&

Paul, if you don't race at Road America it isn't an issue. [nope] Why should the 99's force the 1.6's to stay home from Road America for either a Regional, a National or for the Runoffs? Combined there are 5 to 7 Regional/Nationals there per year plus the Runoffs for the next two years & maybe more years.

Maybe you should talk some of those fast 1.6's from the left coast to come & play at Road America like they did at MMP. [duck] If no one has posted the probable results for the FAST 1.6's they will.

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

David Dewhurst
CenDiv
Milwaukee Region
Spec Miata #14

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

A lot of the fastest 1.6 guys on the left coast were the victims of the economy. Travel to the runoffs, 2 weeks off with no idea how our cars will fair against the Mid/East coast 99s pretty much seals the deal. The super fast 94 guys have moved on to other things and HooverSpeed moved to the East coast.

Currently building a new 1.6 with all the best stuff. My car was totalled in June. We'll see what we can do next year. Sponsorship might help [Smile]

JD Said it all. Too bad it came to this.

-b

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

tony senese Verified Driver
Phew, that was close!

Car #: 99
Year : 1994
Posts: 836
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for tony senese   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by EBudman:

I've got a $400 junkyard engine, should I be bitching about needing help because I've chosen to run it? Writing my letter to the CRB now, asking for turbocharging on non-pro powerplants... [Confused] I'll guarantee that there are more than 10 of us out there, so I'm sure the SMAC will hear our cries of despair...

Seriously, drive the damn thing or get rid of it. If you're upside down on your investment, welcome to the fu$#ing club.... that's racing!!

Eric

Damn it, Damn it, Damn it! my junkyard motor cost $500!!!!

--------------------
Tony Senese
SM#99
2008 NASA-NE SM Champion
NASA-NE SM Director
2008 PRO-IT SM 3rd place
http://www.nosenseyet.com/coppermine

J.D.
Guest


Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted    Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

One coil wire comes off a car that was waiting for the last lap to drive by and you guys actually think the 1.6 is fast, sad.

I don't own any car but could easily be bias given my friendships. But, that aint how it works for me. I call it like I see it, class first. The easy route is to just build the fastest and exploit the rules, still lots of holes I see. That is what I will do come spring (well, come the first weekend that the rules are locked in for the Runoffs). A search back will show that from time to time I interject, from the first SMAC to now. It wont last long but everyone will know I tried, that is my only goal. At some point, I will have no problem using the rules we have to race the best car (prep and protests).

As of right now, I would not take a 1.6, that I built, to any track where a top driver was in even a shelf built '99. Or where an average driver was in a custom tuned, hand selected component, car. Some of you may be able to get the 1.6 to race better than I, power to you. Speaking for myself, a 1.6 is a knife at a gun fight, everywhere, if they are all Runoffs tech legal with top drivers.

I will choose the gun personally. But the new kid and his family cant and wont. That is my concern. I get hundreds of emails a year, telling them they cant be competitive unless they buy xyz... just sucks and is NOT what SM is about.

I'm not suggesting that a $500 motor be the norm. History lesson aside, im the first person to run a pro motor in the class, im the guy that got many started in the class, im the guy that buys 5 motors to find the best, im the single person that pushed for the '99 to be classed, long before many of you were racing and im the first person to build a '99 2 years before I got the car approved. Some of this is a bit patronizing to me, I kind of understand the class, a little. To quote the 4th founder, that no one acknowledges.... "Jim was fired as SMAC Chairman before the current SMAC was racing in SM". I only quote that as I suspect we have some new folks with '99s wondering what the hell I know.... It aint much, but may qualify me to call this scenario.

The notion of making the 1.6 faster is ridicules. The class was formed on that car and each car added was done so for car count not to make the 1.6 obsolete. The builders of the new cars to the class are the folks who should spend the money to conform, not the core cars (ratio alone settles that to me).

I'm sorry you had to build a '99 to beat your local 1.6 guy or another '99, it should not be that way. But, nothing in the rules says the class has to protect your '99 anymore than the scores of 1.6s that need help. That help need not be at their expense, they are bystanders to the '99 and its rule package, not the other way around.

No, I dont think 300 pounds is unsafe personally or to much. But, a 35mm plate would be ok too.... Cost wise, cheaper to add weight due to tuning, head design etc...

Folks who can make a difference know what needs to be done. The eyes should be on them as it is in every class with a overdog situation. What SCCA does to slow down the SSC Accura is similar to what they need to do to the '99. In fact, it is an easier decision in SM as it was not just one overdog to single out. Watch other classes, look to see what the CRB does to the fast cars, insist the CRB do something similar to the '99 in our class. The time for waiting and speculating is over, the overdog is clear now, INSIST!

There is always the mass protest method, it works too I guess....

SoH time.......

tburas Verified Driver Series Champ
SM

Region: 003
Car #: 56
Year : 1990
Posts: 401
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for tburas   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by J.D.:


I would like to add one thing. If the 1.6 is not a front running car at the Runoffs every year, SM will die.
(no H)

A wise man told me 1.6 drivers are asking for the wrong thing, How do we speed up the 1.6. WRONG QUESTION... The correct question, "How do we slow down the 99" Answer "Purchase a new $20 dollar RP...

--------------------
[URL=http://www.toddburas.com]
//East Street Auto//Traqmate//SafeRacer//

Chris70 Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: NER
Car #: 17-7-70
Year : 1994
Posts: 129
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Chris70   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

The way I see it take the 35 lbs from the 94/97 and give it to the 99. Just take a look at the asking prices for the different years and you will see that the initial cost of a donor does NOT justify the current prices of the 99s as the sm kit prices and the labor to build a new car is just about the same. What does justify 99 prices in the 30s ?

--------------------
"Talent is often perseverance in disguise"

mat pombo Verified Driver
Member

Region: Atlanta
Car #: 01
Year : '90 & '99
Posts: 535
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for mat pombo   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

My opinion is give the 94-97 35lbs off. Give the 1.6L cars the old aluminum clutch and a 3 lb lighter spec flywheel (find one to spec) and we are in business. I have a top '99 and a top 1.6L car. You all see which one I drove. Make the above changes and I will be torn.


To me. If I have a 1.6L car, a $1500 investment to make my car competitive is much cheaper than building a new model. Also, you may ask why do we need to spend money to do it? Why not give the '99 a smaller restrictor? Because if you look at the hp/weight numbers the '99 and 1.6L cars are close. The issue is the torque. Give the 1.6L cars the clutch/flywheel and you will affect torque without giving it a hp advantage.

Lastly, we could spec a new cam for the 1.6L car. But this is a bit farther from the sealed engine initiative.

My 2 cents. Leave the '99 alone and give the other cars help. If you add 100lbs, we will be having the same discussion next year regarding the '99 instead of the 1.6L.

Mat

Danny Steyn Verified Driver
Member

Region: SE
Car #: 39
Year : 1999
Posts: 835
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Danny Steyn   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by tburas:
quote:
Originally posted by J.D.:


I would like to add one thing. If the 1.6 is not a front running car at the Runoffs every year, SM will die.
(no H)

A wise man told me 1.6 drivers are asking for the wrong thing, How do we speed up the 1.6. WRONG QUESTION... The correct question, "How do we slow down the 99" Answer "Purchase a new $20 dollar RP...
Todd - if we are to slow down the '99, I think this is the way. Not agreeing to this of course [Smile]

Adding weight will only compound the problem that the 99 has already - tires going off faster than on the lighter 1.6's. Lots of data on Mylaps that shows this.

Personally if weight is added, I just might be the guy that starts a search for a good 1.6 or considers building a new one.

Todd any interest in selling that UNDERDOG of yours? If so call or PM me - I saw what it did to us OVERDOGS at Daytona!!!!

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

mat pombo Verified Driver
Member

Region: Atlanta
Car #: 01
Year : '90 & '99
Posts: 535
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for mat pombo   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Even better, we could all be required to dyno our cars after each session and add weight to get parity (i.e normalize the wt/hp and wt/torque with ballast). It would keep the rediculous $$$ people spend on development to get more hp, because they will just have to carry more weight. I think the sprints and runoffs are where this should occur. Add the ARRC, regional championships, etc. should you like.

J.D.
Guest


Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted    Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by mat pombo:
My opinion is give the 94-97 35lbs off. Give the 1.6L cars the old aluminum clutch and a 3 lb lighter spec flywheel (find one to spec) and we are in business. I have a top '99 and a top 1.6L car. You all see which one I drove. Make the above changes and I will be torn.


To me. If I have a 1.6L car, a $1500 investment to make my car competitive is much cheaper than building a new model. Also, you may ask why do we need to spend money to do it? Why not give the '99 a smaller restrictor? Because if you look at the hp/weight numbers the '99 and 1.6L cars are close. The issue is the torque. Give the 1.6L cars the clutch/flywheel and you will affect torque without giving it a hp advantage.

Lastly, we could spec a new cam for the 1.6L car. But this is a bit farther from the sealed engine initiative.

My 2 cents. Leave the '99 alone and give the other cars help. If you add 100lbs, we will be having the same discussion next year regarding the '99 instead of the 1.6L.

Mat

I forgot about the clutch, my memory is the one I have has always been a paper weight. [Wink] Good points Doc, would work too.

I've not seen a '99 I helped setup run the tires off as of yet.... Take a peak at the top '99s on Mylaps, look where their fastest race lap is [Smile]

BTW, I dont much care if my times fall off if I win by 10 seconds [Razz]

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

CRB hat on...
We have data from the following cars and we will analyze it from start to finish.

99's
Gorrarian
Drago
Vanvurst

1.8's
Beaver and Gerber

1.6's
Verges and Slattery

I think we have a good sample of what these cars are making and feel it is fair to say that all of the data box samples are cars I would say are top notch or very close.

It is imperative for the 1.6 to be competitive for the health of SM. If the data shows that the early 1.8 and or the 1.6 can not compete. Changes will be made. I have been the biggest proponent of rules stability, but over stability, it is important that all versions of the cars can truly win.

Also look for much stricter and very defined do's and don't's with Cylinder heads and valve jobs over the next few months. The FSM is not near specific enough and the cars need to be reigned back in closer to stock and/or a very specific and enforceable rules set on heads needs to be established. I am working on something as I type and we will have a better and completely enforceable rule with go/no go tools etc as they have in some of the other classes. This will take some of the advantage pro motor builders have over the local machine shops etc.
Thanks again
Jim

--------------------
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 J.D.:
One coil wire comes off a car that was waiting for the last lap to drive by and you guys actually think the 1.6 is fast, sad.

I don't own any car but could easily be bias given my friendships. But, that aint how it works for me. I call it like I see it, class first. The easy route is to just build the fastest and exploit the rules, still lots of holes I see. That is what I will do come spring (well, come the first weekend that the rules are locked in for the Runoffs). A search back will show that from time to time I interject, from the first SMAC to now. It wont last long but everyone will know I tried, that is my only goal. At some point, I will have no problem using the rules we have to race the best car (prep and protests).

As of right now, I would not take a 1.6, that I built, to any track where a top driver was in even a shelf built '99. Or where an average driver was in a custom tuned, hand selected component, car. Some of you may be able to get the 1.6 to race better than I, power to you. Speaking for myself, a 1.6 is a knife at a gun fight, everywhere, if they are all Runoffs tech legal with top drivers.

I will choose the gun personally. But the new kid and his family cant and wont. That is my concern. I get hundreds of emails a year, telling them they cant be competitive unless they buy xyz... just sucks and is NOT what SM is about.

I'm not suggesting that a $500 motor be the norm. History lesson aside, im the first person to run a pro motor in the class, im the guy that got many started in the class, im the guy that buys 5 motors to find the best, im the single person that pushed for the '99 to be classed, long before many of you were racing and im the first person to build a '99 2 years before I got the car approved. Some of this is a bit patronizing to me, I kind of understand the class, a little. To quote the 4th founder, that no one acknowledges.... "Jim was fired as SMAC Chairman before the current SMAC was racing in SM". I only quote that as I suspect we have some new folks with '99s wondering what the hell I know.... It aint much, but may qualify me to call this scenario.

The notion of making the 1.6 faster is ridicules. The class was formed on that car and each car added was done so for car count not to make the 1.6 obsolete. The builders of the new cars to the class are the folks who should spend the money to conform, not the core cars (ratio alone settles that to me).

I'm sorry you had to build a '99 to beat your local 1.6 guy or another '99, it should not be that way. But, nothing in the rules says the class has to protect your '99 anymore than the scores of 1.6s that need help. That help need not be at their expense, they are bystanders to the '99 and its rule package, not the other way around.

No, I dont think 300 pounds is unsafe personally or to much. But, a 35mm plate would be ok too.... Cost wise, cheaper to add weight due to tuning, head design etc...

Folks who can make a difference know what needs to be done. The eyes should be on them as it is in every class with a overdog situation. What SCCA does to slow down the SSC Accura is similar to what they need to do to the '99. In fact, it is an easier decision in SM as it was not just one overdog to single out. Watch other classes, look to see what the CRB does to the fast cars, insist the CRB do something similar to the '99 in our class. The time for waiting and speculating is over, the overdog is clear now, INSIST!

There is always the mass protest method, it works too I guess....

SoH time.......

AMEN!!!!

Pat Slattery
1.6 owner

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

Arrow Karts

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:
CRB hat on...
We have data from the following cars and we will analyze it from start to finish.

99's
Gorrarian
Drago
Vanvurst

1.8's
Beaver and Gerber

1.6's
Verges and Slattery

I think we have a good sample of what these cars are making and feel it is fair to say that all of the data box samples are cars I would say are top notch or very close.

It is imperative for the 1.6 to be competitive for the health of SM. If the data shows that the early 1.8 and or the 1.6 can not compete. Changes will be made. I have been the biggest proponent of rules stability, but over stability, it is important that all versions of the cars can truly win.

Also look for much stricter and very defined do's and don't's with Cylinder heads and valve jobs over the next few months. The FSM is not near specific enough and the cars need to be reigned back in closer to stock and/or a very specific and enforceable rules set on heads needs to be established. I am working on something as I type and we will have a better and completely enforceable rule with go/no go tools etc as they have in some of the other classes. This will take some of the advantage pro motor builders have over the local machine shops etc.
Thanks again
Jim

Jim, it would be great if they would share the data to the Spec Miata Community.


Pat

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

Arrow Karts

J.D.
Guest


Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted    Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Gatoratty:
I would hate to see changes made due to thirty-eight cars running at a single track. Parity is an issue that affects the entire class from regionals to nationals. Don't screw with the class just to equalize cars at the runoffs...most of us are regional or divisional racers and are not running for a national Championship or the June Sprints. Let's have some stability in the rules.

Less of many evils....

I think you leave out a very important component. This element is SCCA and NASA wide, not just SM. Regional and Divisional championships are decided by points, not a single win. Thus, any rule package designed for parity at a single track should be damn close in any points based series.

The main focus needs to be "coin toss" parity at the NASA and SCCA single race championships. The rest will settle itself out via the points systems they are governed under.

I understand that teams have different goals. Some folks use their SM to do track days, some to autocross. But, as a national class, the goal and focus is on that national level and the rules need to be addressed from that perspective.

Thanks for the note Mr. Drago!

Cajun Miata Man Verified Driver
Overdog Driver

Region: Houston; SWDIV
Car #: 15
Year : 99
Posts: 680
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Cajun Miata Man     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by mat pombo:
Give the 1.6L cars the old aluminum clutch and a 3 lb lighter spec flywheel (find one to spec) and we are in business.

Why not give the '99 a smaller restrictor? Because if you look at the hp/weight numbers the '99 and 1.6L cars are close. The issue is the torque. Give the 1.6L cars the clutch/flywheel and you will affect torque without giving it a hp advantage.

Mat

I like this proposal verses carrying a bunch more weight on my 99. RA does favor the 99 cars due to the elevation changes I can't deny it.

Verges talked to me after the race and spelled it out, "The 1.6L just can't race a 99 at RA. The early car can't drive trough the car in front at the apex, and the result from having it's speed checked, is that the 99 in front and any behind just line up and use the torque to motor past." Kieth qualified 5th, the top 1.6L car and finished 14th with Slattery being the top 1.6L in 8th in the race.

Keith successfully ran his 1.6L winning a race and finishing 3rd in our division. Obviously, our tracks our pretty flat in TX so hills don't play a part. At some tracks his car was better than the competition and others worse.

I think making adjustments to modify the effective torque of the 1.6L is better than throwing weight on the 99 which translate into so much more than just slowing the acceleration down.

That's my 2 cents for what it is worth.

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


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

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:
CRB hat on...
We have data from the following cars and we will analyze it from start to finish.

99's
Gorrarian
Drago
Vanvurst

1.8's
Beaver and Gerber

1.6's
Verges and Slattery

I think we have a good sample of what these cars are making and feel it is fair to say that all of the data box samples are cars I would say are top notch or very close.

It is imperative for the 1.6 to be competitive for the health of SM. If the data shows that the early 1.8 and or the 1.6 can not compete. Changes will be made. I have been the biggest proponent of rules stability, but over stability, it is important that all versions of the cars can truly win.

Also look for much stricter and very defined do's and don't's with Cylinder heads and valve jobs over the next few months. The FSM is not near specific enough and the cars need to be reigned back in closer to stock and/or a very specific and enforceable rules set on heads needs to be established. I am working on something as I type and we will have a better and completely enforceable rule with go/no go tools etc as they have in some of the other classes. This will take some of the advantage pro motor builders have over the local machine shops etc.
Thanks again
Jim

Jim, it would be great if they would share the data to the Spec Miata Community.


Pat

Pat
The SCCA will not share any competitors data. However, we will give you the data we collected from your car. If you chose to share it, you may. So you need to read between the lines here. I will share mine as I have nothing to hide ( otherthan a few lifts in the kink when I couldn't see behind Todd. [Confused] So start working on the others on the list. Regardless of what others do, anyone, and I mean anyone who asks can have mine.

Jim

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

EAST STREET RACING

38BFAST Verified Driver
Member

Region: Waterford Hills
Car #: 38
Year : 96
Posts: 348
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for 38BFAST     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Data was collected using what system? Traqmate?

--------------------
Ralph Provitz
#38
2008 WHRRI SM Champion
2008 WHRRI Top 10 Overall
V2 Motorsports, Race support, Data Dude

J.D.
Guest


Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted    Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Just for fun.....

Peak at the rules from C2K I did with Motorola Cup, 10 years ago. The '99 I used in that series is the basis for where the '99 started in SM (Turned into Tim Evans' SSB then SM car).

We did not class the older car, no way to be competitive with the bolt on limitations of the day. Notice the rule change, took some heavy politics to get those cams, intake etc... included (lol, some things never change)

http://www.motorolacup.com/index1.html

Andy Rushing Verified Driver Series Champ
2009 NASA SM National Champion

Region: Lone Star
Car #: 5
Year : '91
Posts: 66
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Andy Rushing     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

There are problems with trying to use the lighter flywheel to cure the problem the 1.6 is having at RA... The speed the cars are at when they hit The Hill at RA is probably too high for the lighter flywheel to make a measurable enough difference--the cars just aren't changing in speed enough at that point for it to make a difference. Also, for those three spots on the track where the cars get into 5th gear (where I'm sure the 1.6 starts to get killed as well), the lighter flywheel will not help enough.

--------------------
Andy Rushing

 
Page 2 of 5 1  2  3  4  5  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: