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 4)

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

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

quote:
Originally posted by B Wilson:
Greg, Cams fixes the track dujour problem by equalizing the torque issue. Of course this would necessitate starting over on weights and RPs, so it's not all as easy as it sounds.

-b

Start over? I'm pretty sure you won't get many takers on that one.....

Most will admit the cars are close now, but not perfect.

I'm still not sure we are all after the same goal.

Is it:
A) Parity at the runoffs ????

or

B) Parity everywhere (or as close as is possible with one set of rules)????

SM-SCCA
Member

Region: Southeast
Posts: 43
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for SM-SCCA     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Let us not forget about the other tracks that have similar characteristics to Road America like Road Atlanta (turn 1, turn 5 and the turn 10a/b complex), Laguna and Infineon. I am sure there are others.

Todd Lamb Verified Driver Made Donation to Website Series Champ
Playboy Mazda MX-5 Cup Champion 2009

Region: SE Div, Atlanta
Car #: EddieFur
Year : Party like it's ____
Posts: 952
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Todd Lamb   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

My point is that you aren't going to achieve parity across the board for the majority of SM racers if you look at Road America results. This is the first time the Runoffs have been at Road America, and the first time the 99 has dominated the Runoffs. Past adjustments were to make the cars equal for Runoffs, but Topeka was more of an equal track for the 1.6/1.8/99.

Adjust the 1.6 to be equal at Road America, and you're going to end up with the 1.6 being the overdog at a lot of tracks.

--------------------
Mazdaspeed // SafeRacer // Traqmate // OPM Autosports // East Street Auto // Cobalt Friction
Racers Edge Motorsports Rolex GT RX-8 // i-MOTO Racing Conti Challenge MAZDASPEED3
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/toddspeed

racerfink Verified Driver
Gig 'em Aggies

Region: Central Florida Region
Car #: 111
Year : '90 Miata
Posts: 189
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for racerfink     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Make the '99's run a 3 1/2" exhaust to take away the torque advantage??? [Wink]

--------------------
'90 Spec Miata
'90 Street Miata
'96 Chevy 1500
http://www.AutoTechnikRacing.com
www.myspace.com/projecthband

Greg Bush Verified Driver
Thread Killer

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

There are a few tracks similar to RA, but way more that are different.

My point is what are we after.

Parity every weekend for the thousands of racers at regional and national levels, track differences aside?

Or parity for one race, THE championship?

Todd Lamb Verified Driver Made Donation to Website Series Champ
Playboy Mazda MX-5 Cup Champion 2009

Region: SE Div, Atlanta
Car #: EddieFur
Year : Party like it's ____
Posts: 952
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Todd Lamb   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Casey Z:
quote:

I think the argument could be made that if you aren't willing to spend the money for the 99, you probably can't afford to win the Runoffs anyway, at least while they are at a power track like Road America.

And what are we supposed to do with our 1.6 or 1.8 we have sitting in the garage for the next two years while we are running our new 99's we build? For that matter what do we do with our 99 that is obsolete when the runoff's move in a couple of years and the 99 is no longer the CTH? What if the runoff's stay at RA for the next 10 years? The logic in your statement escapes me.[/QB]
Not sure who "we" is, since you weren't one of the few at Runoffs (you were with the majority of the class on the sidelines - which is part of my point).

The logic is pretty simple if you are open to it. There were 38ish cars at Runoffs. Are we going to adjust so that the 1.6 can be competitive at that one race and be an overdog everywhere else, or just come to the realization that the car of the year is the 99 at Runoffs and know that the cost of running up front at Runoffs is what it is (i.e. high)?

--------------------
Mazdaspeed // SafeRacer // Traqmate // OPM Autosports // East Street Auto // Cobalt Friction
Racers Edge Motorsports Rolex GT RX-8 // i-MOTO Racing Conti Challenge MAZDASPEED3
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/toddspeed

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 Casey Z:
quote:
Originally posted by Todd Lamb:
Put it in perspective - how many SM's in total actively run at tracks across the country? Are we going to make adjustments based on just the 38 that go to Runoffs?

Adjustments have been made every year since the class went national based on the runoff's results. Why should this year be any different?

quote:

I think the argument could be made that if you aren't willing to spend the money for the 99, you probably can't afford to win the Runoffs anyway, at least while they are at a power track like Road America.

And what are we supposed to do with our 1.6 or 1.8 we have sitting in the garage for the next two years while we are running our new 99's we build? For that matter what do we do with our 99 that is obsolete when the runoff's move in a couple of years and the 99 is no longer the CTH? What if the runoff's stay at RA for the next 10 years? The logic in your statement escapes me.

I agree. It's ridiculous that 1.8 and 1.6 owners would have to leave their cars in the garage for next two years until the Runoffs potentially moves to another track. Every model should be able to win at the Runoffs. The fact that the top 7 cars were 1999's or 2000's is ridiculous. By the numbers, it is the worst Runoffs for parity since SM went National.

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

Casey Z Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
MegaModerator

Region: MidDiv
Car #: 13
Year : 92
Posts: 2873
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Casey Z     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Todd,

Obviously I meant owners of other year cars which this year happen to be non 99's. One could make the argument that last year "we" were possibly 1.6's and 99's since the track changed and HPT seemed to favor another car.

I understand your point and your point of view. I just disagree that the class should just decide to give up and succumb to the COTY/CTH philosophy. There are ways to make the cars more equal at all tracks, it is just going to take more creativity than the weight/RP formula that has been used to this point.

--------------------
----------------
Z Brothers Racing / East Street Auto

Casey Z - 1.6 Kettle
MidDiv National #13

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 Todd Lamb:


Adjust the 1.6 to be equal at Road America, and you're going to end up with the 1.6 being the overdog at a lot of tracks.

I see nothing wrong with that. We have that situation now on the other side of the coin [thumbsup]

PAT

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

Arrow Karts

trimless1 Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Low Budget Member

Region: Southwest
Car #: 11
Year : 99 and 93
Posts: 347
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for trimless1     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by racerfink:
Make the '99's run a 3 1/2" exhaust to take away the torque advantage??? [Wink]

LOL, that's great. A 3 1/2" exhaust with a fart can exhaust [Smile]

--------------------
Gale Corley
99 SM GRE Super Deluxe
93 SM GRE Jr. Deluxe

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

Great, sounds like cams is the answer then. Somelthing for everyone, parity at all tracks/races. Flywheel whon't do it for all tracks. This just follows with the addition of the 99 shock hats (never thought that would happen as well) to better equalize the handling.

-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

Casey Z Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
MegaModerator

Region: MidDiv
Car #: 13
Year : 92
Posts: 2873
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Casey Z     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by B Wilson:
Great, sounds like cams is the answer then. Somelthing for everyone, parity at all tracks/races.

If only it were that easy. Let's see what the data that people share (if they share) tells us before we declare victory... [Wink]

--------------------
----------------
Z Brothers Racing / East Street Auto

Casey Z - 1.6 Kettle
MidDiv National #13

Greg Bush Verified Driver
Thread Killer

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

Lets get parity close for all racers at all tracks (we may be there or real close now) and have the Runoffs hopefulls (all 38, or less than 5% of active SMs) be prepared to adjust parity the week of the Runoffs.

Base the adjustments on tests made by a pro driver the week of the race in top flight cars brought by hopefull competitors. Dyno the cars to make sure they are within the range of expected HP, then turn the pro loose to see how fast the cars are. Play with weights and restrictors until the cars are equal with the same driver.

Then hand out new minimum weights and RP sizes at the start of qualifying.

This could all happen in place of the first day of qualifying, leaving the class 3 days to get a time.

The other 95% of us can continue to watch from the sidelines, and not have to change our cars.

B Wilson Verified Driver Series Champ
Gold Member

Region: Oregon
Car #: 68
Year : 91
Posts: 2359
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for B Wilson   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Casey Z:
quote:
Originally posted by B Wilson:
Great, sounds like cams is the answer then. Somelthing for everyone, parity at all tracks/races.

If only it were that easy. Let's see what the data that people share (if they share) tells us before we declare victory... [Wink]
Lots to do Casey. Just trying to fit it all in one day. [Smile]

-bw

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

Keith in WA Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Pack Fodder

Region: NWR / Oregon
Car #: 88
Year : 95
Posts: 2000
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Keith in WA     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Greg Bush:
Lets get parity close for all racers at all tracks (we may be there or real close now) and have the Runoffs hopefulls (all 38, or less than 5% of active SMs) be prepared to adjust parity the week of the Runoffs.

Base the adjustments on tests made by a pro driver the week of the race in top flight cars brought by hopefull competitors. Dyno the cars to make sure they are within the range of expected HP, then turn the pro loose to see how fast the cars are. Play with weights and restrictors until the cars are equal with the same driver.

Then hand out new minimum weights and RP sizes at the start of qualifying.

This could all happen in place of the first day of qualifying, leaving the class 3 days to get a time.

The other 95% of us can continue to watch from the sidelines, and not have to change our cars.

I was thinking about that since it's done in Formula Barber but the competitors don't own the cars there or do any of the tuning. How do you account for a competitor bringing a somewhat shoddy car? Make everyone meet the lowest common denominator? What if someone sandbags their pairity test setup in some way to stack the odds and then changes back to their fast setup when it matters?

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

J.D.
Guest


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

quote:
Originally posted by Greg Bush:
There are a few tracks similar to RA, but way more that are different.

My point is what are we after.

Parity every weekend for the thousands of racers at regional and national levels, track differences aside?

Or parity for one race, THE championship?

It obviously must be at the one track. The points systems of divisional racing lets the rest sort itself out. This is a national class now, each entrant and driver needs to have a chance to win at the big show. That need not require owning three cars.

There are plenty of regional series and each region can control those rules. So, parity on a regional level can be dealt with on a regional level. Not sure what the issue here is?

However, if you want to run nationals, the ball game is different. Those points and spots to the big show need to be achieved in cars that are equal at the big show. It is that simple. Of course some cars are going to do better here and there, same for every class. But that is the best it can be in a not so perfect world when one race does indeed decide a national champion.

I find it funny that we are more worried about a perception....... if the 1.6 is faster it will win everywhere and the '99 will only then be equal at the Runoffs.... rather then the obvious. I said it many times, tech shed legal events and Billy Bob Bad Ass 1.6 is winning everything out here is daylight and dark, ponder it.... [Razz]

I sure did not see the '99 bunch rolling off any 1.6s this year cause it was better, at any track? Or did I miss that?

Come on guys!!!!

I contend that when we have parity, you will see guys showing up with 2-3 cars because they are not sure, that would be a good sign.....

Right now, the guys that can afford 3 cars have one, guess which one it is........ [Wink]

(but they do have 3 heads..... [duck] )

(disclaimer: not much of anything but you can email Drago with your concerns)

J.D.
Guest


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

Mr. Thornton, what does a 1.6 gain with cam gears only and same cams, anything?

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

I think the cars are so close now that any rule change will only cause the pendulum to swing in a different direction; which does not fix the problem. Would it not just be easier to just add more weight to the 99's while the runoffs are at RA or at tracks with elevation changes? It seems that at flat tracks the cars are pretty even so I think all is fine here in Florida or other flat places. If (a big if) something needs to be done to give EQUALLY prepared 1.6L cars a shot to win at the runoffs or other tracks with hills than it seems logical to make the change for that race or those tracks only and leave the rest alone. If the runoffs would have been at a track without hills we would still be having this discussion because the top 10 would have still had a bunch of 99's even though all of the cars would have had a chance to win.

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

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

I think the 99 still has a smaller advantage at flat tracks, just not as dramatic at a track like Road America. To leave the 99 as is would be a mistake. 1.6 and even the 1.8 need some help.

If you check, I believe you will see that a majority of the Divisional National Champs were driving a 99 also.

Pat

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

Arrow Karts

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.:
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Bush:
There are a few tracks similar to RA, but way more that are different.

My point is what are we after.

Parity every weekend for the thousands of racers at regional and national levels, track differences aside?

Or parity for one race, THE championship?

It obviously must be at the one track. The points systems of divisional racing lets the rest sort itself out. This is a national class now, each entrant and driver needs to have a chance to win at the big show. That need not require owning three cars.

There are plenty of regional series and each region can control those rules. So, parity on a regional level can be dealt with on a regional level. Not sure what the issue here is?

However, if you want to run nationals, the ball game is different. Those points and spots to the big show need to be achieved in cars that are equal at the big show. It is that simple. Of course some cars are going to do better here and there, same for every class. But that is the best it can be in a not so perfect world when one race does indeed decide a national champion.

I find it funny that we are more worried about a perception....... if the 1.6 is faster it will win everywhere and the '99 will only then be equal at the Runoffs.... rather then the obvious. I said it many times, tech shed legal events and Billy Bob Bad Ass 1.6 is winning everything out here is daylight and dark, ponder it.... [Razz]

I sure did not see the '99 bunch rolling off any 1.6s this year cause it was better, at any track? Or did I miss that?

Come on guys!!!!

I contend that when we have parity, you will see guys showing up with 2-3 cars because they are not sure, that would be a good sign.....

Right now, the guys that can afford 3 cars have one, guess which one it is........ [Wink]

(but they do have 3 heads..... [duck] )

(disclaimer: not much of anything but you can email Drago with your concerns)

Absolutely right. Relegating 1.6 and 1.8's to be "Regional-only" cars would be inappropriate. It should not be necessary to have a '99 to win at RA. I also think your comment about the "Billy Bob" 1.6 winning at Regionals is accurate as well. Equalization should only consider Runoffs-quality cars both in legality and in level of preparation.

quote:
Originally posted by pat slattery:
I think the 99 still has a smaller advantage at flat tracks, just not as dramatic at a track like Road America. To leave the 99 as is would be a mistake. 1.6 and even the 1.8 need some help.

Pat

[thumbsup]

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

Keith in WA Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Pack Fodder

Region: NWR / Oregon
Car #: 88
Year : 95
Posts: 2000
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Keith in WA     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Flat vs. hilly isn't the only issue. I'm thinking of one local track with some serious elevation change but some very twisty bits too that can ballance the equation. There aren't a lot of '99s here so it's hard to say how they fare in terms of pairity but it's no RA by comparison.

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

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

Does anybody know realistically who at the runoffs had a chance to win the race in a 1.6? The reason I ask is because when you look at the top 5 cars they were all driven by people that would be up front at any track in any car (just my opinion). Yes Drago and others drive 99s but that does not mean they should be penalized because they run well. No offense to Drago, Lamb, or Van vusrt but I think they would all be over weight in a 1.6 and therefore would be at a disadvantage. That is one reason why they did not show up with a 1.6. The lap times don't even seem to be all that different between the cars so what are we talking about. There were plenty of 99's that did not win the race either!

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

David Dewhurst
Veteran Member

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

***The lap times don't even seem to be all that different between the cars so what are we talking about.***

8th was the best placing 1.6 30 seconds behind the lead car or approx 1 mile behind the lead car. Someplace between the Kink & Canada corner when the checker fell.

14th was the second place 1.6 further back yet.

From my observations at Road America a 99 can run down a 16. any time. [yep] A 1.6 at Road America can not run down a 99. [nope]

The SCCA has data box info from the Sprnts & from the Runoffs. Let the data speak.

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

David Dewhurst
CenDiv
Milwaukee Region
Spec Miata #14

Jamie Tucker Series Champ

ARRC 2010 Champ

Region: CFR
Car #: 97
Year : 1990/99
Posts: 788
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Jamie Tucker     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by David Dewhurst:
***The lap times don't even seem to be all that different between the cars so what are we talking about.***

8th was the best placing 1.6 30 seconds behind the lead car or approx 1 mile behind the lead car. Someplace between the Kink & Canada corner when the checker fell.

14th was the second place 1.6 further back yet.

From my observations at Road America a 99 can run down a 16. any time. [yep] A 1.6 at Road America can not run down a 99. [nope]

The SCCA has data box info from the Sprnts & from the Runoffs. Let the data speak.

So are you saying that the cars are not equal or the drivers? There were also 99's that far back! The lap times are what matter not the drivers ability to race the car. I'm not saying that the drivers of the 1.6s are bad drivers by any means but if you look through the field you will see good drivers in 99s with a proven front running track record that did not do that well either. How do you explain that?

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

JimEli Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

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

FWIW, the following analysis is based upon the 2009 Runoffs results.

Fastest lap time by model:
99: 164.487
90-93: 165.715 (+1.228)
94-97: 167.111 (+2.624)

Average fastest lap time top 3 of each model:
99: 164.564
90-93: 166.229 (+1.666)
94-97: 167.554 (+2.990)

Average fastest lap of all cars:
99: 166.959
90-93: 167.886 (+0.926)
94-97: 169.307 (+2.347)

Average best lap of entire field:
167.464


For comparison purposes 2008 Runoffs:
Average fastest lap time top 3 of each model:
99: 113.792
94-97: 114.216 (+0.424)
90-93: 115.142 (+1.350)

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

Todd Lamb Verified Driver Made Donation to Website Series Champ
Playboy Mazda MX-5 Cup Champion 2009

Region: SE Div, Atlanta
Car #: EddieFur
Year : Party like it's ____
Posts: 952
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Todd Lamb   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Seems to me like everyone should be jumping on the 1.8 bandwagon with Sean...I see the new overdog if we consider RA lap times to be the deciding factor. [Big Grin]

Or maybe the 01+ is the new dark horse - they weren't even in the show.

--------------------
Mazdaspeed // SafeRacer // Traqmate // OPM Autosports // East Street Auto // Cobalt Friction
Racers Edge Motorsports Rolex GT RX-8 // i-MOTO Racing Conti Challenge MAZDASPEED3
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/toddspeed

Dennis Brown Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: Indy
Car #: 55
Year : 94
Posts: 88
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Dennis Brown     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Since I think my car still has electrical issues I did not weigh in, but I will now.

The RP change for 94 made a dramatic difference in top end. The car is not the same as a 96-97 even though we can run the same pistons, they have different ecu's and should not be compared to each other.

My personal experience is that I compared data to Drago with the new RP at the last national at Road America and the car was down about 3-5 mph at the end of the straights. On the dyno the torque numbers and horsepower numbers were 122/117 on break in. I also noticed the same thing at Road Atlanta in August.

I do believe that the cars as close as we are going to get. These are all different cars that we are trying to equalize and it will not happen. I do believe the best drivers with the best setup are running up front and winning races.

Dennis

B(Kuch) Kucera 45 Verified Driver
Veteran Member

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

quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Tucker:
Does anybody know realistically who at the runoffs had a chance to win the race in a 1.6? The reason I ask is because when you look at the top 5 cars they were all driven by people that would be up front at any track in any car (just my opinion). Yes Drago and others drive 99s but that does not mean they should be penalized because they run well. No offense to Drago, Lamb, or Van vusrt but I think they would all be over weight in a 1.6 and therefore would be at a disadvantage. That is one reason why they did not show up with a 1.6. The lap times don't even seem to be all that different between the cars so what are we talking about. There were plenty of 99's that did not win the race either!

Not trying to start a fight,but why did driver's show up with both models and decide to run the 99 over the 1.6? [scratchchin]

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

"All my drinking buddies have a racing problem"

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

As a 1.6 owner, parity between the cars is always going to be problem...
I have a really good 1.6 car, but I will never race Road Atlanta, Road America, and a hand full of other tracks again. Simple reason...Torque

I am glad I do not make the call on what to change but something needs to happen...

Jamie
Didn't you just build a 99?

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

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

Verges switched from 99 to a 1.6 and did very well

--------------------
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!

Waterboy Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: WDC
Car #: 15
Year : 1995
Posts: 314
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Waterboy     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by J.D.:
[QUOTE] Of course some cars are going to do better here and there, same for every class. But that is the best it can be in a not so perfect world when one race does indeed decide a national champion.


There you have it! Some cars are just going to be better at some tracks than others.

--------------------
Tim Jacobs
Montgomery Irrigation

Waterboy Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: WDC
Car #: 15
Year : 1995
Posts: 314
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Waterboy     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by David Dewhurst:

8th was the best placing 1.6 30 seconds behind the lead car or approx 1 mile behind the lead car. Someplace between the Kink & Canada corner when the checker fell.


This means nothing. Lap times is what needs to be looked at and even that is subjective. Were they in a draft or not. The 5th place car, a 99, was several seconds back as well. I believe there was a spin on the 1st lap that separated the cars and created the gap.

--------------------
Tim Jacobs
Montgomery Irrigation

David Dewhurst
Veteran Member

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

Tim, understood. [yep] There are many variables within every lap. The first 4 slowly left 5th behind during the second half of the race to the point of 16 seconds back. Results are results, no trophy at the green flag. [Wink]

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

David Dewhurst
CenDiv
Milwaukee Region
Spec Miata #14

Dennis Brown Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: Indy
Car #: 55
Year : 94
Posts: 88
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Dennis Brown     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

I want to clarify my post above. This year the 94 was given a smaller restrictor because in my opinion no one could police the computers. The result seems to drop hp/tq on the dyno which put it in line with the other years which makes sense. What I am seeing at the track is at fast courses with long straights that require 5th gear that the top end is down 3-5 mph from last year. I have more hp/tq than last year with less top end.

My issue is that these cars were never desiged to have restrictors and I do not believe that anyone has a real grasp on the impact other than on a dyno.

I do not want anyone to think that I am comparing Drago's 99 in the previous post. I thank him for allowing me to see his data as I was completely frustrated by the times. I would not have posted anything about the top end without my own follow up data from Road Atlanta.

My car is now a fast regional car which is disappointing.

Dennis

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 tburas:
As a 1.6 owner, parity between the cars is always going to be problem...
I have a really good 1.6 car, but I will never race Road Atlanta, Road America, and a hand full of other tracks again. Simple reason...Torque

I am glad I do not make the call on what to change but something needs to happen...

Jamie
Didn't you just build a 99?

Todd,
I did build a 99 so that I would have a shot at tracks with elevation changes. I also have the luxury of having both a fast 1.6 and 99. As you have said the 1.6 needs some help getting up the hills; which I fully agree. I also believe that on flat tracks they are very close and any change for one track might affect the others. What do you think? Your 1.6 runs real well at flat tracks right?

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

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 Jamie Tucker:
quote:
Originally posted by tburas:
As a 1.6 owner, parity between the cars is always going to be problem...
I have a really good 1.6 car, but I will never race Road Atlanta, Road America, and a hand full of other tracks again. Simple reason...Torque

I am glad I do not make the call on what to change but something needs to happen...

Jamie

No wonder you sounded like yor were sticking up for the 99 [Eek!]

Pat
Didn't you just build a 99?

Todd,
I did build a 99 so that I would have a shot at tracks with elevation changes. I also have the luxury of having both a fast 1.6 and 99. As you have said the 1.6 needs some help getting up the hills; which I fully agree. I also believe that on flat tracks they are very close and any change for one track might affect the others. What do you think? Your 1.6 runs real well at flat tracks right?


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

Arrow Karts

bcmazda Verified Driver
Member

Region: North East
Car #: 08,63,67
Year : 2008,1999,1993
Posts: 36
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for bcmazda   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

As a disclaimer we run two phenomenal cars (3 drivers) a 99 and a 93 1.6, pro-built by Flatout up here in the Northeast.

From first hand experience the 1.6 just isn't going to be a match for the 99 on a track like RA. For example, my brother Craig, who is a far better racer than I am, consistently finishes in the top ten at NHMS (not an apt comparison, but bear with me here) but when we switched cars and he drove the 99 he was able to lead the last NARRC race there from start to finish, average lap times almost 1.5 seconds quicker than in the 1.6. That being said he was able to put our 1.6 on pole at Watkins. Simlarly, it looked like the car to have at NJMP (Lighting) this year were all late models...

REGIONALLY it appears that the cars are pretty darn close in the hands of capable drivers (I don't count myself in this group haha).

With regards to the Run-Offs. I don't think you can deny that the 99's had a clear advantage at RA. Different cars different tracks, right?, that's fine. But I think Drago hit the nail on the head when he said that the level of PREPARATION is extremely high for this event. Sure the guys who had the option chose to run the 99s, because obviously there was an advantage, so why wouldn't they? But had the 1.6's been the CTH at RA I would imagine their equally prepped 1.6's would have been off the trailers pretty quick. Point being, if your going to allow someone to bring 3 cars to the track and allow them time to figure out which is fastest (i.e. one day of testing. Three days of qualifying), then idea of parity at the run-offs is kind of silly. A guy with one car regardless of model, doesn't have much of a chance of winning compared to a guy who has all three!

Maybe limiting the testing time or saying you can only run one car all weekend might help? Probably not realistic solutions, but as long as we allow the option for that advantage someone will always capitalize on it. And thats not a bad thing neccesarily thats just racing, and what the class rules "allow".

Perils of the one race championship, is that the CTH for the track of choice becomes the car you need to be the champion! It would seem that this problem is pretty specific to the run-offs, and even more specific to RA... So when the runoffs location changes maybe the CTH will too... I say we hold the run-offs at NJMP and then we can have this whole conversation in reverse next year! (maybe?)

Just my two cents. Looking forward to see all you NER folk at the track next year!

Ryan

--------------------
Ryan, Craig and Hugh McHaffie
NER #08, #63,#67

Adroitracer Verified Driver
Member

Region: NER
Car #: 80
Year : 99
Posts: 100
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Adroitracer     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Ryan,
Great points, but you forgot to mention that there were some very well prepped 99's at the Runoffs both driven by excellent drivers and they were no where near the pointy end of the stick. [duck] I would have been right there with them if I had been there.

I don't want people to start thinking the the drivers up front at the Runoffs are only there because they have a 99. I'm pretty sure if you put those top finishing drivers in a "comparably" prepped 1.6 or 1.8 they would be very close to their finishing positions with their 99's. Maybe not quite as far ahead of everyone else, but very fast none-the-less. They choose the 99 because at that track it performs just a smidge better for them. General driving skill and experience at that particular track still leaves a lot on the table for SM drivers.

I also think you will find true what Ryan is saying that different model years have particular tracks that they perform well at. It is going to be impossible to eliminate that factor that tracks are different, and our cars are different no matter how hard we try to equalize them.

In general I'm just worried that a race involving 38 cars/drivers is going to have a major impact on the hundreds of regional and national racers that maybe don't give a darn about the Runoffs or will never race at RA.

I agree with JD that the 1.6L needs to be the heart and soul of the class, and that SM was supposed to be an affordable class. That does not necessarily mean that the 1.6L needs to be the dominant car at RA. We need to look at the large picture of how many regional and national races each car type is attending an event and finishing. I wonder what everyone would say if the 1.6L had more wins or better average finishing position than the 99's. Would we then say the 99 is inferior?

I also agree with JD that a sealed motor program would bring a lot of the parity back to ground zero. It was the first person that spent as much on a motor as their competitor spent on their entire car that started taking this class in the bigger $$$ direction. We all want to compete with a chance to win, so naturally more people get on the pro-motor bandwagon and thus the snowball effect where everyone else is simply trying to catch up. I don't think that we will see sealed motors happen, but it is always nice to dream.

Can't we all just get along. [group hug]

--------------------
Sponsors: Masy Systems, Inc (Validation/calibration/biostorage). http://www.masy.com
nanoCLEAN (Cleanroom cleaning services). http://www.nanoclean.us

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

Boy the arguments are getting longer and longer.

The 1.6 and 1.8 should have a chance to win the runoffs (Could be at RA for the next 15 years.) or the class will suffer.

Car prep is car prep, and if someone had the slightest inkling that a 1.6 could have been an advantage someone would have definitely pulled the trigger.


-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

SM-SCCA
Member

Region: Southeast
Posts: 43
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for SM-SCCA     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

At this point it really comes down to every participant in the SM community having complete confidence in the SM founding fathers, SMAC, SCCA and NASA to review the data gathered from Road America and other tracks for the 99ís, 1.6ís and 1.8ís and make the necessary decisions to equalize the cars to the best of their abilities. I have confidence that the representatives from each of these groups do not have any hidden agendaís and only have the best interest of everyone participating in this class in mind as they make these difficult decisions.

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 B Wilson:
Boy the arguments are getting longer and longer.

The 1.6 and 1.8 should have a chance to win the runoffs (Could be at RA for the next 15 years.) or the class will suffer.

Car prep is car prep, and if someone had the slightest inkling that a 1.6 could have been an advantage someone would have definitely pulled the trigger.


-bw

Absolutely. Those racers buying multiple motors for their 1999's would undoubtedly be preparing 1.6's if that car offered an advantage at RA. Also, there's no excuse for not bringing a 1.8. There are a ton of top-level 1.8 cars out there from last year. None of them showed up this year. I don't think this is a coincidence. If anybody suspected the 1.8 were competitive, I'm sure we would have seen more entries than we did and at least one or two running in the top 15. I've sent my letter to the CRB!

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

Tvance13
Member

Car #: 85
Year : 2001
Posts: 161
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Tvance13   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Sean - Isn't this essentially the same argument I was making for the 01...No one raced it because they knew it would not be competitive. How can that theory apply here, yet be ignored for the 01? Oh wait, it's because we have all that "data" to rely on to make an "informed" decision. I'm sure no one tested the 01 at that track...Good luck in your quest!

I have moved on. I can always run the 01 in PTE. I will wait for the rules to be published for 2010 and build a second car. Hell, with 2 cars I can actually get back out there and race WITH my kid.

--------------------
http://TylerVanceRacing.com

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 Tvance13:
Sean - Isn't this essentially the same argument I was making for the 01...No one raced it because they knew it would not be competitive. How can that theory apply here, yet be ignored for the 01? Oh wait, it's because we have all that "data" to rely on to make an "informed" decision. I'm sure no one tested the 01 at that track...Good luck in your quest!

I have moved on. I can always run the 01 in PTE. I will wait for the rules to be published for 2010 and build a second car. Hell, with 2 cars I can actually get back out there and race WITH my kid.

It is similar, but there are two key differences. First, it isn't a big deal that no 2001 cars showed up because they represent less than 1-2% of SM's built. There are plenty of top-prepared 1.8 and 1.6 cars out there which were not brought to the Runoffs. Second, it is not in the best interest of the class for the 2001 to offer a competitive advantage. As Jim Drago said, it is the newest and most expensive car to build. If anything, the earlier cars that were originally classed in SM should be favored. After all, the NB was allowed into the class in order to give old SSB cars a place to race. They weren't included so that people could build overdogs out of them.

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

J.D.
Guest


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

Race
Tear down
Results
Adjust for parity

You cannot do the last part less the first three occurring. I'm sorry that no 1.6 has made the list above, that is my concern.

DerekFSU Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Posts: 214
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for DerekFSU     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

As a Jim Daniels trained driver of a Drago 99 with a top Sunbelt motor, I think the 99 needs some help. I can't catch the frontrunners, something ain't right. And no, I'm not going on a diet.

I still have Blake's old 1.6 and Dewey's old 1.8 so just pick one to make an overdog so I can get up front. What's it like up there?

CP Verified Driver
Member

Region: NER
Car #: 7
Year : 1999
Posts: 636
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for CP   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Slightly off-topic, but I vote for sealed motors. Costs are getting out of hand in this, a series that was developed to be "cheap entry-level racing." My bone stock crate motor (@15K miles) in my 99 can't keep up with the "pro motors" in my region, be it a pro 1.6, pro 1.8 or a pro 99. If I can scrape together $8000+ for a professionally built motor then I can run with the top dogs, but that defeats the purpose of the class.

--------------------
-Cy
Supported by LTD Racing & Speed Shack - New England's Premier Auto Accessory Store
Rt1 AutoMile - Norwood, MA
http://www.speedshackonline.com

Unsafe Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Team Saferacer

Region: Kansas City
Car #: 70
Year : 95
Posts: 477
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Unsafe     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Dennis Brown:
Since I think my car still has electrical issues I did not weigh in, but I will now.

The RP change for 94 made a dramatic difference in top end. The car is not the same as a 96-97 even though we can run the same pistons, they have different ecu's and should not be compared to each other.

My personal experience is that I compared data to Drago with the new RP at the last national at Road America and the car was down about 3-5 mph at the end of the straights. On the dyno the torque numbers and horsepower numbers were 122/117 on break in. I also noticed the same thing at Road Atlanta in August.

I do believe that the cars as close as we are going to get. These are all different cars that we are trying to equalize and it will not happen. I do believe the best drivers with the best setup are running up front and winning races.

Dennis

+1 for Dennis' post....only raced once this year with my 1.8 at a track that we are very familiar with. No complaints on torque, but the restrictor plate took away 4th gear...the car just stopped pulling on the upshift. Not really a problem on a track with a normal front straight, as it did let the 1.6 cars that weren't getting off the corner catch up. But at Road America....forget about it....the straights are just too long. I will submit, that there are pro sanctioning bodies that have no trouble making competition adjustments by track. Just a suggestion for RA...post the rules early so its fair for everyone.

--------------------
Mike Asselta
http://www.saferacer.com

Jamie Tucker Series Champ

ARRC 2010 Champ

Region: CFR
Car #: 97
Year : 1990/99
Posts: 788
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Jamie Tucker     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by SM-SCCA:
At this point it really comes down to every participant in the SM community having complete confidence in the SM founding fathers, SMAC, SCCA and NASA to review the data gathered from Road America and other tracks for the 99ís, 1.6ís and 1.8ís and make the necessary decisions to equalize the cars to the best of their abilities. I have confidence that the representatives from each of these groups do not have any hidden agendaís and only have the best interest of everyone participating in this class in mind as they make these difficult decisions.

Well said!! If a change is needed than I am sure it will be done with fairness in mind. We certainly have a lot of good people working hard to make sure everybody has a shot to win. Thanks to all of you.
JT

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

mr von charbonneau
Member

Region: 83
Car #: any
Year : any
Posts: 229
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for mr von charbonneau   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

please hay jamie i will race you to the beer cooler with anyting your 1.6 against my big wheel

mr von charbonneau
Member

Region: 83
Car #: any
Year : any
Posts: 229
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for mr von charbonneau   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

sorry this question about parity to many variables

wake up people its hard to win period.

2 horses to 10 horses the moons have to come together.

let us race try spec racer one time that will show you how hard it is.

 
Page 4 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: