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

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello Spec Miata Community » SpecMiata.com » Spec Miata Garage » NASA and/or SCCA Spec change (Page 2)

 - Email this page to someone! | Subscribe To Topic
Page 2 of 4 1  2  3  4  next » 
 
Author Topic: NASA and/or SCCA Spec change
Willie the Tard Verified Driver
Member

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

quote:
Originally posted by JMorris:
Kent
How did that IRL and CART split work out? [Big Grin]
J~

fine for the IRL -- who is who in this?

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

Qik Nip Verified Driver Made Donation to Website Series Champ
Loose Member '09 & '10 Great Lakes Regional Points Champion

Region: Cincinnati Great Lakes
Car #: 60
Year : 1990
Posts: 1487
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Qik Nip     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by d mathias:
I don't think anyone wants to split the class between organizations, but NASA has historically followed the SCCA's lead. All I'm suggesting is that perhaps the SCCA might be motivated to comply with NASA's rule set instead.

Personally, I run with both groups and plan to continue to do so next year.

I wish I didn't live so far from Florida - I really like what John Adamczyk has been doing down there.

+1 To EVERYTHING Denny said!

--------------------
Fortune Cookie Racing SM 60
Directions for use: Race, Rumple, Repair ... Repeat!

Drago Verified Driver Made Donation to Website Series Champ
MegaModerator

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

quote:
Originally posted by Willie the Tard:
quote:
Originally posted by JMorris:
Kent
How did that IRL and CART split work out? [Big Grin]
J~

fine for the IRL -- who is who in this?
Willie

They split in 96, CART and NASCAR were virtually at a dead lock in TV ratings, sponsorships etc. FF 14 years... they merge, IRL gets 1/10th of NASCAR ratings if that? Barely have a field of cars in most cases. Bump day at Indy is gone, hardly 33 cars most years, attendance at indy is a joke. The TV coverage is almost as bad as MX5 cup and the Runoffs. [Big Grin] Most all are sponsored drivers, most all are foreign, only two teams win races and you could go on and on. I was a huge fan of CART, it was a terrible mistake! I just now stopped sending hate mail and death threats to Tony George and only did so after his family fired him!!! [Big Grin]
Jim

[ 10-15-2010, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: Drago ]

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

EAST STREET RACING

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

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

quote:
Originally posted by Drago:
NASA great lakes was going to see numbers regardless next year with the Championship moving back to Mid Ohio.

John Mueller is actually invited on our SMAC call next week and plans on attending. Our hope is that both Series run the same rules, same as when Jason Holland was the director. We will see what comes of it. Parting here is in no ones best interest, especially that of the class.

Jim

Sorry for keeping quiet, been lurking and working... Indeed I have been invited to the SMAC call by Jim & his band-of-merry-administrators, I'm looking forward to learning a bunch from this group.

Just so everyone is aware, my role within NASA is to be an advocate and voice of the NASA SM community to NASA national and a major "influence'er" in the decision making process. I do not make the rules or the final decisions but I do play a major part.

That being said:
NASA will soon publish a Mission Statement with their overall philosophy and approach to making their decision.

The bottom line is NASA is hoping to do what is right for their members and will be finishing-up testing soon to nail down the details. However, regardless of the intent or reasoning NASA is currently opposed to major changes (like sub-frame mods - I informed SMAC of this yesterday). Partly because NASA feels it goes against the original intent of the class and in this economy is not a wise spend. Yes NASA knows some of these are non-mandatory mods, it's just the way they see it.

So give us some time... Anyone want to join me in the fire [flamed] dang its getting warm

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

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

In the history of racing I have never seen a split (Line drawn in the sand) work out. It seems to always hurt both sides severely. Be very careful what you ask for you might get it.

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

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

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

quote:
Originally posted by Drago:
quote:
Originally posted by Willie the Tard:
quote:
Originally posted by JMorris:
Kent
How did that IRL and CART split work out? [Big Grin]
J~

fine for the IRL -- who is who in this?
Willie
This post makes as much sense as some of your others? [Confused] Really?

They split in 96, CART and NASCAR were virtually at a dead lock in TV ratings, sponsorships etc. FF 14 years... they merge, IRL gets 1/10th of NASCAR ratings if that? Barely have a field of cars in most cases. Bump day at Indy is gone, hardly 33 cars most years, attendance at indy is a joke. The TV coverage is almost as bad as MX5 cup and the Runoffs. [Big Grin] Most all are sponsored drivers, most all are foreign, only two teams win races and you could go on and on. I was a huge fan of CART, it was a terrible mistake! I just now stopped sending hate mail and death threats to Tony George and only did so after his family fired him!!! [Big Grin]
I guess define "fine" If your definiton is they won the right to name a struggling open wheel series that is barely making it financially and is a a shadow of its former self, I guess they came out "fine" [Wink]
Jim

Jim, you are absolutely right about ChampCar/IRL. However, the split we are really mimicking here is not ChampCar/IRL, it's USAC/CART. When USAC began to have wobbly rules designed to try to keep parity between the chassis/engine combinations costs escalated, cheating was rampant, politics held sway and eventually the drivers and teams revolted, forming CART. CART created a stable, lower cost rules set and USAC died fast. SCCA is USAC. Is NASA CART? Or will a new sanctioning organization bloom as SCCA drives itself off into the weeds?

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

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

Kent
That split was before my time, well, before I was interested in motorsports so I have no real position or information.

I agree with what Ralph said above as a general principle.

Jim

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

EAST STREET RACING

d mathias Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

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

I wasn't there but I was told that Mid-Ohio had to turn away spectators at the gate for this year's IRL race, they had reached a capacity crowd. That never happened in the 20-some years that CART raced there.

Motor City Hamilton
Member

Region: Great Lakes/Detroit
Car #: 51
Year : 1994 Miata
Posts: 401
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Motor City Hamilton     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

The VS. network is killing IRL and the NHL.

IRL has other problems too beyond the bad TV deal.
Not much marketing
No video game
Made it too much of the Danica show
Not a great web community

Now they hired the guy who ran Professional Bull Riding. Now there's a highly rated set of events!

Willie the Tard Verified Driver
Member

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

quote:
Originally posted by Drago:
quote:
Originally posted by Willie the Tard:
quote:
Originally posted by JMorris:
Kent
How did that IRL and CART split work out? [Big Grin]
J~

fine for the IRL -- who is who in this?
Willie
This post makes as much sense as some of your others? [Confused] Really?

They split in 96, CART and NASCAR were virtually at a dead lock in TV ratings, sponsorships etc. FF 14 years... they merge, IRL gets 1/10th of NASCAR ratings if that? Barely have a field of cars in most cases. Bump day at Indy is gone, hardly 33 cars most years, attendance at indy is a joke. The TV coverage is almost as bad as MX5 cup and the Runoffs. [Big Grin] Most all are sponsored drivers, most all are foreign, only two teams win races and you could go on and on. I was a huge fan of CART, it was a terrible mistake! I just now stopped sending hate mail and death threats to Tony George and only did so after his family fired him!!! [Big Grin]
I guess define "fine" If your definiton is they won the right to name a struggling open wheel series that is barely making it financially and is a a shadow of its former self, I guess they came out "fine" [Wink]
Jim

Ok "fine" was the wrong word Ė but the fact is that one is still here one is gone. I was also a CART fan and thought that CART would win. But my question is still who is who? Who you (and me) want to survive and who does are often not the same. Also do not think the SCCA would fold if half the SM drivers move to NASA so it not a good analogy. But if our car counts did drop to half of the current numbers our class would lose a lot of clout with the BOD.

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

Willie the Tard Verified Driver
Member

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


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

Karl Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
2001 ARRC Winner


Region: SW
Car #: 50
Year : 1600
Posts: 1926
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Karl   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

If I have been reading well, the SCCA BOD votes on the proposed rules this weekend. Do they have the option to wait until next month's meeting before addressing the SM rules?

JDr, why donít you give them a call and ask them to hold off for a month? Possible?

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 John Mueller:
quote:
Originally posted by Drago:


Jim

So give us some time... Anyone want to join me in the fire [flamed] dang its getting warm
Welcome to the wars John, I think the water is fine in here..... hop on in!!!!!

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

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 Gatoratty:
quote:
Originally posted by davew:
They designed a track for a 1.6 ??????????

Weeeelllllllll maybe small British cars.......yeah that's the ticket.
i'll be more specific and say "the best" SM driver in the country at a track tailor made for the 1.6;
the first part is subjective but having raced against most of the top 10 finishers at the RunOffs, that's my opinion.
The "tailor made" part;
name me a race track (other than Daytona) where you are in 5th for over 2,600 feet (front straight starts way back at the apex of T-6 to the 150' marker at T-1),
every turn is momentum flowing at the 1.6 sweet spot of 5,600 - 6,800 RPM in third, no where do you see 2nd gear, no elevation changes.
Least torque requiring track in the country, perfect for the free breathing 1.6 to sing at the upper end of it's HP curve.
Bolanos in a top '99 did a hellava job to keep it close against the best SM racer out there in his 1.6. Notice i said "racer". Roebling is about the only track where the 1.6 is truly competitive against a top '99 ...
[scratchchin]

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

Seeemed pretty good at Barber too [Wink]
And Daytona...
And Sebring long...
And..
Hey wait, how many races has Mr B lost in his 1.6 this year?? HMMmmmmmmm [scratchchin] I think 6 wins and 1 second in Pro IT against Steyn at Barber(Steyn was on Hoosiers and all due respect to Danny, but he doesnt win that race on RA1's) Ask him..
Make you think doesnt it? [scratchchin] I share Carlos sentiment in Todds ability,for sure one of the best ever in SM and the driver I most admired starting in SM. But sorry no one wins every race entered in SE( where supposedly all the best 99's live less Gorilla)not even Todd! Less a competive car,it doesnt happen. I guess he must be very good at cherry picking tracks I guess? There is always has to be a qualification when a 1.6 wins... Seems like Road Atlanta may be his achilles heel in the 1.6, I am trying to convince him to run the ARRC in it.( that way if he doesnt win we can all scream parity again ) [Big Grin]
[Eek!] [yep] [Razz]

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

EAST STREET RACING

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 Drago:
Seems like Road Atlkanta may be his achilles heel in the 1.6, I am trying to convince him to run the ARRC in it.( that way if he doesnt win we can all scream parity again ) [Big Grin]
[Eek!] [yep] [Razz] [/QB]

He can enjoy the last couple races of 2010,
remember, 1-1-11, "HMS Valor" will rule the waves.
All the Pirates of the Caribbean will be 100% legal running 130+/118 under the Union Jack Flag, not a 1.6 in the country, not even one driven by T Bee will be able to stay with the top '99's at National races, including Roebling Road.
[Eek!] [nope] [Razz]

P.S.
Fortunately von C will always be 'Jack Sparrow', plays that role better than Johnny Depp
[Big Grin]

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 guest driver:
quote:
Originally posted by Drago:
Seems like Road Atlkanta may be his achilles heel in the 1.6, I am trying to convince him to run the ARRC in it.( that way if he doesnt win we can all scream parity again ) [Big Grin]
[Eek!] [yep] [Razz]

He can enjoy the last couple races of 2010,
remember, 1-1-11, "HMS Valor" will rule the waves.
All the Pirates of the Caribbean will be 100% legal running 130+/118 under the Union Jack Flag, not a 1.6 in the country, not even one driven by T Bee will be able to stay with the top '99's at National races, including Roebling Road.
[Eek!] [nope] [/QB]

If you can find me one of these 130/118 legal engines, I am a buyer at almost any price, you fill in the blank on price, HP guaranteed of course.. That goes for any engine builder [Big Grin]

Please explain as well, as ALL in SE have admitted to running ECUS all year, every front runner... They have been named before, exactly who goes faster next year again?

Anymore qualifications? [Big Grin]

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

EAST STREET RACING

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

Oddly enough the 1.6 even wins in Texas. Mmmm [scratchchin] In the last year 1.6's have won at MSR Houston, TWS, ECR and podiumed at TMS. Mmm. Different drivers too. Mmm. [scratchchin] And the competition in 99's were drivers that were in the top 10 at Runnoffs this year, no slouches.

I'm not immune to some of the complaints that the 1.6 drivers have, but to suggest that they are not competitive at all tracks is not bourne out by the evidence. The problem is that the cars are not more equal to race against.

For the record I support the direction that the SMAC appears to be going along with member input. I believe that time will prove this to be the best path. I understand that NASA does not want to always be following SCCA, however I hope that they will consider thier decisions carefully in the light of keeping the numbers of participants high and a long term effort to move the cars to equality.

Craig J

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

please check in your shop, i'm the one gonna be buying from you
[Big Grin]
yours come with a union jack flag on the valve covers. Mine, well, remember that protest at Sebring you had referred to, where you wouldn't post the bond ?
that's my engine builder
[Big Grin] [Wink] [Smile]

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, the best you told me you could do for me if I decided to buy from you was 127 maybe 128 if I squinted at the dyno sheet. You should have told me about the 130+ deal you have going! I thought that was just an internet rumor...

John A - 5X Racing Verified Driver
www.5xracing.com

Region: NASA FL / CFR SCCA
Car #: 25
Year : 1991
Posts: 374
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for John A - 5X Racing   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

It seems this topic is withering out anyways, but we need to realize a couple of things here:

1. This is not going to be NASA's fault. It will be just as much the SCCA's fault for inking the proposed rules in the 2011 GCR as much as it will be NASA's fault for NOT adopting the SCCA's rules. What if it were the other way around? What if NASA was the bigger fish in this pond and wanted to make a rule change that could effect the class? Would everybody be blaming the SCCA for not following along? As said many times before in this topic: Hmmmm....

2. The SCCA and NASA are two different organizations with the same popular class. NASA is wanting to separate themselves from any association to the SCCA, and this class is the biggest (if only) thing tying them together. The two organizations are not going to "work it out" between themselves, as I really catch the drift that they do not like each other too much. I wouldn't blame one or the other for "splitting up the class", they are in business to make money (everyone is), however you look at it. NASA is taking a different approach to doing so by not adopting the SCCA's rules, the SCCA doesn't care what NASA does with their rules and I would imagine that the higher up's in both organizations are going to murmur a collective "good" when the rules come out different in the 2011 rule books.

3. Although I don't know much about it as most of you do, I do not see a relevance to the IRL vs CART comparisons. That was one organization that split into two. The SCCA and NASA are two different organizations to begin with, there is nothing to split when they are already separate! They happen to have the same class within their own separate organizations, but they are two different organizations, they offer a similar experience in a different way. NASA is not a "sister" organization to the SCCA, they are not affiliated with each other and should not have to worry about splitting anything up between themselves because they are not sharing anything physically.

4. A division between rules in two different organizations will make things more difficult, but will not kill the class. What will kill the class is when our true grassroots guys, the people that are out to have a good time and cannot spend $20k on a car or $15k on a race season, which typically fill a good portion of the grids at regional races (where I'm from at least), get tired of all the politics (BS) involved with this class and either say "screw this, I am not having fun anymore", "I cannot compete without doing all of this stuff to my car, or I do not want to do all this stuff to my car", "There is too much controversy and BS with this class, I am going to race something else", "This class is too expensive now", etc... Who do we point the fingers at when that happens? It's already happening to a certain extent, look at the SM car counts for National Race results in the back of Sportscar magazine. We should really be very careful on how expensive we make this class for the sake of keeping the people that made this class as big as it is and still fill most of the grids out there in regional racing. This is going to be the difference between NASA and the SCCA, if the SCCA rules pass, the price of a competitive SCCA car just went up, whether it's having to update/build an early car with late suspension, or just skipping that entirely and just building a 99 (the trend in the last 2 years). NASA is going to capitalize on this and keep the class more affordable and attempt to freeze development and costs where they are currently at. Business 101: supply and demand. People that want to be more on the affordable end of the spectrum will race with NASA, and people that can afford a competitive SCCA car will race with the SCCA. Right?

The sad fact is that it came to this and it will put a serious dent in our SM racing community one way or another. Anyone care to determine how that happened? What was the chain of events that led to these rules being proposed to the BOD? That might be the very thing that will eventually kill the class... Food for thought.

As a spec miata racer, a business owner that caters to spec miata racers, and therefore a part of this community, it saddens me to realize that SM is gradually falling from the greatness it has accomplished. I just hope that the we can avoid the slow death I see happening by making smart decisions.

Fire away! [fight]

--------------------
John Adamczyk

Owner: 5X Racing Online Race Shop
Driver: Team 5X Racing #25 Spec Miata
NASA FL Race Director
Race Engineering Powered 1.6

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

Hi John

First of all I consider you a good friend on the track and a tremendous asset for SM. BUT I am surprised at your comments above.

I do not have a dog in this hunt in terms of a NASA vs. SCCA argument. I currently race SCCA but the minute NASA draws the majority of the top drivers to its class I will be there.

BUT I do have a dog in this hunt in terms of the future of SM.

I believe that ALL decisions made by both organizations should be made with one goal in mind, ensuring that this class continues to be popular and competitive. If they succeed at this, then the numbers and entry fees and business revenues will follow. If they do not, the numbers will diminish and the associated revenues will fall.

The numbers decline has as much to do with the current economy as anything else. My personal business income has declined by more than 50% in the past year and I am competing in 50% fewer events than before. Personally I believe that the powers at be in SCCA in SM are doing the best they can to ensure a future for this class.

I also personally believe that any splitting of the class into SM/SM2 etc will have a long term consequence, and I believe too that NASA taking a different path from SCCA will also be detrimental to the future of the class. (Just my own opinions)

As to your IRL vs. CART argument, I think you have taken the wrong tack. SM existed in SCCA and NASA saw money attached to it and immediately incorporated it into its events to boost car counts. So it adopted the SCCA spec as a sensible immediate adoption path with no expense to the driver. Now it plans to take a divergent path that will ensure that anyone who wants to do both will have to spend money. I see that as a simple division of the class, with long term consequences.

As to the controversy and BS. It has always existed. And it always will. This is racing after all. Show me one class where this does not exist. No claims of unfairness, no claims of politics, no claims of preferential treatment. I have yet to see it.

This forum provides a superb way for people with agendas (on both sides) to motivate their cause and much of the BS only resides here. Many posters appear to have well rounded interests, but others seem to have but one agenda and post ad nausea to forward their case.

For most that do not frequent the forum, the BS is nonexistent. They show up at the track, they race, they leave with smiles on their faces. For those that have aspirations of standing atop the podium, they typically try and educate themselves about all the aspects of this class, end up on this forum and get caught up in the BS. It is a very addictive place as you can see. Way more intelligent persons than I warned me and I didnt listen.

Ultimately all attempts to contain costs in a motor racing class will fail. Simply put, everyone will always look for ways to increase their advantage. In fact the more tight the spec becomes, the more expensive it becomes to game the spec.

What is happening is that a simple grass roots class is maturing. This cycle is typical for all classes and all activities and enterprises. With the maturity comes a general longing for the way things were. This is not real, nor is it achievable. Doesn't mean you shouldn't strive to attain it, but so much of what has been posted in this thread and many others is purely a nostalgic look at years gone by, when a wonderful new class in its infancy appeared to defy the odds and promised a dream of inexpensive grass roots racing for the end of time. It was, and is, a dream.

I admire and respect your motives and effort, as do I those on the CRB and SMAC. But as you can attest this is not a simple issue.

I personally urge all to find a common patch for the future of the class. Separation will ultimately damage this class. Mark my words.

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

d mathias Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

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

quote:
The numbers decline has as much to do with the current economy as anything else.
I'm not sure about that. I know too many people who dropped out because of a slow leak in the fun balloon that developed about the same time SM went national and the effort require to be competitive grew exponentially. This was years before the current economy magnified the effect.

Z-ville Racing Club Verified Driver
Member

Region: Indy Region
Car #: 28
Year : 1990/2000
Posts: 32
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Z-ville Racing Club     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Good discussion guys, but this is typical for any business/industry going through the maturation process. Trying to keep the older technology (cars) competitive by restricting newer technology (cars) does not work in the long run for any industry. I hope the rule makers look to other industries as a guide because what SM is going through is nothing new.

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

+1 Danny

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

chrisp993 Verified Driver
Member

Car #: 3
Year : 1999
Posts: 26
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for chrisp993     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by John A - 5x Racing:
2. The SCCA and NASA are two different organizations with the same popular class. NASA is wanting to separate themselves from any association to the SCCA, and this class is the biggest (if only) thing tying them together. The two organizations are not going to "work it out" between themselves, as I really catch the drift that they do not like each other too much. I wouldn't blame one or the other for "splitting up the class", they are in business to make money (everyone is), however you look at it.

SCCA is a Club, that will do what it's members, internal politics and influencers dictate.

NASA is a For-Profit, with its own sets of bias and vested interests, but with the one difference that it should think (much more) carefully before shooting itself in the wallet. Although I honestly don't know which way (follow SCCA or depart) would be better for NASA car counts and so NASA Profit in the long term.

Last, note that some of the proposed changes actually save money and legitimize the situation which exists anyway - isn't a fuel pressure regulator and slotted timing wheel cheaper than a custom tweaked cheater ECU for a 1999 owner?

taylorf Verified Driver
Member

Region: Houston
Car #: 51
Year : 1994
Posts: 411
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for taylorf     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by cnj:
Oddly enough the 1.6 even wins in Texas. Mmmm [scratchchin] In the last year 1.6's have won at MSR Houston, TWS, ECR and podiumed at TMS. Mmm. Different drivers too. Mmm. [scratchchin] And the competition in 99's were drivers that were in the top 10 at Runnoffs this year, no slouches.

I'm not immune to some of the complaints that the 1.6 drivers have, but to suggest that they are not competitive at all tracks is not bourne out by the evidence. The problem is that the cars are not more equal to race against.

For the record I support the direction that the SMAC appears to be going along with member input. I believe that time will prove this to be the best path. I understand that NASA does not want to always be following SCCA, however I hope that they will consider thier decisions carefully in the light of keeping the numbers of participants high and a long term effort to move the cars to equality.

Craig J

In 2010 the 1.6 in SOWDIV won 2 races out of 10. All others were by 99's.

ECR(3/2010) - Single
99 (Reynolds) had huge lead and spun off and got stuck in mud while chasing lap record, a 1.6 goes on to win.

MSRH (8/2010)- Double
This is a 1.6 track period. A 99 owner just bought a 1.6 for this track alone.
99 won Saturday with 1.6 in 2nd and 3rd.
1.6 won on Sunday, and took second. 2 cars go faster than 1.

No such luck at TWS or TMS. I can assure you handling was not the cause of zero wins at either of those locations for the 1.6. Also, each weekend the 1.6's out number the 99's here. No 1.8 on podium at any SOW Div races in 2010.

--------------------
Taylor Ferranti

d mathias Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

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

What is getting lost in this discussion is the fact that a lot of NA owners are not happy with the prospect of spending $1200+ on suspension parts to keep-up. Ain't an option. Take that to your meeting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ql0xluujPs&feature=related

Teamfour Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

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

quote:
Originally posted by d mathias:
What is getting lost in this discussion is the fact that a lot of NA owners are not happy with the prospect of spending $1200+ on suspension parts to keep-up.

Not sure about the "a lot" quantifier. I know there a folks out there who don't want to do this. However I have been in contact with several NA owners who have already gathered the parts. In fact, I have already made the conversion and will use the off season to test the change. If the rule doesn't pass, then the NA parts will go back in.

As for cost, I spent a total of $690 for all of the parts and that includes new bushings, cam bolts, and lower ball joints. Took a weekend to complete.

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

d mathias Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

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

Like I said - not an option.

Lee, new or used parts? At some point used parts supply will diminish.

John the Impaler Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: Finger Lakes
Posts: 550
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for John the Impaler     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by taylorf:
In 2010 the 1.6 in SOWDIV won 2 races out of 10. All others were by 99's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy

To wit - "The self-fulfilling prophecy is, in the beginning, a false definition of the situation evoking a new behaviour which makes the original false conception come 'true'. This specious validity of the self-fulfilling prophecy perpetuates a reign of error. For the prophet will cite the actual course of events as proof that he was right from the very beginning."

A fast guy thinks there is an advantage to the 99, has some success. Other fast guys think the same thing, hence more 99's. Soon, only the spuds are left in 1.6's.

Are the 1.6's really slower, or is it just that all the fast guys happen to be driving 99's ?

Beware of statistics.

Teamfour Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

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

quote:
Originally posted by d mathias:


Lee, new or used parts? At some point used parts supply will diminish.

Used except for the items listed. The potential diminishment of used parts is what prompted me to go ahead and bite the bullet just in case the rule passes.

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

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

Hey John.....
What's a spud......

heheheheheh

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

John the Impaler Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: Finger Lakes
Posts: 550
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for John the Impaler     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

 -

JTI (1.6)

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

+2 Danny

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

Arrow Karts

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 chrisp993:

Last, note that some of the proposed changes actually save money and legitimize the situation which exists anyway - isn't a fuel pressure regulator and slotted timing wheel cheaper than a custom tweaked cheater ECU for a 1999 owner? [/QB]

isn't a 39 mm restrictor plate even cheaper ...
[scratchchin]
deduct 50 lbs to help the handling - change RP to 39 mm.
does anyone really think virgin OEM ECU's will suddenly appear next year after getting the FPR and timing concession ??

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 guest driver:
does anyone really think virgin OEM ECU's will suddenly appear next year after getting the FPR and timing concession ?? [/QB]

Exactly why the Adj FP reg and timing wheel are needed.

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

EAST STREET RACING

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

Exactly!
guess i'm gonna have to learn to drive like Tomas Largo (my other best ever SM racer) ...
[yep] [Smile]

davew Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Veteran Member

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

I have purposely not posted on this website with the exception of mechanical items. After all the politics, agendas, lying, cheating, lack of tech and general BS of the Runoffs, I could not take it any more. So I took a break and let all of you guys vent.

Here are some facts.

The SCCA Board of Directors (BoD) are meeting this weekend to finalise rules changes for the 2011 race season. All rules that they are considering have been under scrutinee by their respective ad hoc committees for at least 3 months. All changes have been put out for member input. All rules change proposals have to be presented by the comittees by August 2010 for inclusion as a 2011 rule book. The BoD gets to read all of your letters.

This is in regard to rules changes. Competition adjustments or a rules calarification can be made at any time. For our purposes a competition adjustment is plate and weight.

The BoD is considering 3 rules changes. The first 2 combine into a nice package. That being fuel pressure regulators and timing wheels for 99+ cars.

Virtually all front running 1.8 cars are playing with their fuel pressure. They are doing it the hard way. And definately not the best way. Virtually all front running 99+ cars are running a modified ECU, that has the primary purpose of changing the timing.

Doing it this way requires the purchase of several stock fuel regulators, a reprogramed ECU and considerable dyno time to get everything set correctly.

The proposed rule changes will allow you to purchase an aftermarket fuel regulator and slot the pulley with a dremel tool. This is a whole lot cheaper than the way people are doing it now. This allows the average racer to get 95% of the benefits for about 20% of the cost.

Making fuel pressure and timing wheels legal, WILL NOT MAKE THE FAST GUYS FASTER. They already have this advantage. It will make the budget minded and/or drivers who will only run legal cars, faster.

The other item up for discusion is the suspension upgrade. This change will NOT take you from 10th to first place. My opinion is it won't take you from 10th to 9th. At that level of driving ability, you will not be able to gain the benefits of the upgraded geometry. Please do not take that as a put down to anyones ability, because that is where I finish.

The suspension upgrade may bring you from 3rd to 2nd, or 2nd to 1st. But if you are not already running towards the front, don't spend the money. If you crash the car and need to replace the parts anyways, then I would upgrade.

This also insures that no one who accidently installs NB parts on an NA will be found non compiant. I know that I have put the wrong generation of parts on cars at the track to make the next session. I have found many used cars with combinations of NA and NB parts.

Part of this rule change will also increase the rear track width, so all cars can run the same spec.

Everybody gets hung up on bump steer. Yes, the NB front suspension does improve bump steer. But that is only a small portion of the improvements. Caster is increased, anti dive is changed as is roll center. That is why a 99 with 175 pound more weight is able to stay close to a 1.6 in the corners. Take the weight out, and the NB will out corner the 1.6.

Cost of the suspension upgrade is about the same as 2 sets of tires. About the same as a set of 1.6 cams, or a light weight flywheel or any of the other solutions that have been offered. Racing will never be cheap, the fastest thing on the track is a fat wallet.

In my opinion, if NASA does not allow the changes made by SCCA, it will hurt NASA more than SCCA. It will hurt SCCA, just less. I say this as someone who has very little experience with NASA, as they are not that strong in this area.

The goal of any rules makers are to achieve a level playing field where all competitors feel they have a chance to compete at the best of their ability. I know the SMAC tries to do that. I am sure the CRB, BoD and NASA management do their best also.

Time to get some work done

Dave

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

l8tbreakr
Member

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

Maybe NASA should just allow the SCCA changes, but then also require the 99+ to have RP and weight differences - easy to change for a NASA weekend, and preserves the crossover opportunities.

Of course if that makes the 1.6 more competitive, the majority of SM racers (i.e. 1.6 owners) might then spend their money at NASA events.

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

taylorf Verified Driver
Member

Region: Houston
Car #: 51
Year : 1994
Posts: 411
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for taylorf     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by John the Impaler:
quote:
Originally posted by taylorf:
In 2010 the 1.6 in SOWDIV won 2 races out of 10. All others were by 99's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy

To wit - "The self-fulfilling prophecy is, in the beginning, a false definition of the situation evoking a new behaviour which makes the original false conception come 'true'. This specious validity of the self-fulfilling prophecy perpetuates a reign of error. For the prophet will cite the actual course of events as proof that he was right from the very beginning."

A fast guy thinks there is an advantage to the 99, has some success. Other fast guys think the same thing, hence more 99's. Soon, only the spuds are left in 1.6's.

Are the 1.6's really slower, or is it just that all the fast guys happen to be driving 99's ?

Beware of statistics.

Why did all those non-spuds change over to a 99 from their 1.6's?

Sincerely,
Spud #51 in a 1.6

--------------------
Taylor Ferranti

Alex Bolanos Verified Driver Series Champ
Member

Car #: 18
Year : 1994
Posts: 202
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Alex Bolanos     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by taylorf:
quote:
Originally posted by John the Impaler:
quote:
Originally posted by taylorf:
In 2010 the 1.6 in SOWDIV won 2 races out of 10. All others were by 99's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy

To wit - "The self-fulfilling prophecy is, in the beginning, a false definition of the situation evoking a new behaviour which makes the original false conception come 'true'. This specious validity of the self-fulfilling prophecy perpetuates a reign of error. For the prophet will cite the actual course of events as proof that he was right from the very beginning."

A fast guy thinks there is an advantage to the 99, has some success. Other fast guys think the same thing, hence more 99's. Soon, only the spuds are left in 1.6's.

Are the 1.6's really slower, or is it just that all the fast guys happen to be driving 99's ?

Beware of statistics.

Why did all those non-spuds change over to a 99 from their 1.6's?

Sincerely,
Spud #51 in a 1.6

This has been covered extensively in other threads.

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 guess my question is, does everyone think that the 1.6 needs help with handling compared to the 99 cars?

I don't think so, the 1.6 handles much better than the 99 in the current trim that both are racing at, so why does the 1.6 need some espensive, labor intensive retrofit for. I know some say optional, but, I think you either need to make it mandatory or not at all, and my vote would be NOT.

Pat

--------------------
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 davew:
I have purposely not posted on this website with the exception of mechanical items. After all the politics, agendas, lying, cheating, lack of tech and general BS of the Runoffs, I could not take it any more. So I took a break and let all of you guys vent.

Here are some facts.

The SCCA Board of Directors (BoD) are meeting this weekend to finalise rules changes for the 2011 race season. All rules that they are considering have been under scrutinee by their respective ad hoc committees for at least 3 months. All changes have been put out for member input. All rules change proposals have to be presented by the comittees by August 2010 for inclusion as a 2011 rule book. The BoD gets to read all of your letters.

This is in regard to rules changes. Competition adjustments or a rules calarification can be made at any time. For our purposes a competition adjustment is plate and weight.

The BoD is considering 3 rules changes. The first 2 combine into a nice package. That being fuel pressure regulators and timing wheels for 99+ cars.

Virtually all front running 1.8 cars are playing with their fuel pressure. They are doing it the hard way. And definately not the best way. Virtually all front running 99+ cars are running a modified ECU, that has the primary purpose of changing the timing.

Doing it this way requires the purchase of several stock fuel regulators, a reprogramed ECU and considerable dyno time to get everything set correctly.

The proposed rule changes will allow you to purchase an aftermarket fuel regulator and slot the pulley with a dremel tool. This is a whole lot cheaper than the way people are doing it now. This allows the average racer to get 95% of the benefits for about 20% of the cost.

Making fuel pressure and timing wheels legal, WILL NOT MAKE THE FAST GUYS FASTER. They already have this advantage. It will make the budget minded and/or drivers who will only run legal cars, faster.

The other item up for discusion is the suspension upgrade. This change will NOT take you from 10th to first place. My opinion is it won't take you from 10th to 9th. At that level of driving ability, you will not be able to gain the benefits of the upgraded geometry. Please do not take that as a put down to anyones ability, because that is where I finish.

The suspension upgrade may bring you from 3rd to 2nd, or 2nd to 1st. But if you are not already running towards the front, don't spend the money. If you crash the car and need to replace the parts anyways, then I would upgrade.

This also insures that no one who accidently installs NB parts on an NA will be found non compiant. I know that I have put the wrong generation of parts on cars at the track to make the next session. I have found many used cars with combinations of NA and NB parts.

Part of this rule change will also increase the rear track width, so all cars can run the same spec.

Everybody gets hung up on bump steer. Yes, the NB front suspension does improve bump steer. But that is only a small portion of the improvements. Caster is increased, anti dive is changed as is roll center. That is why a 99 with 175 pound more weight is able to stay close to a 1.6 in the corners. Take the weight out, and the NB will out corner the 1.6.

Cost of the suspension upgrade is about the same as 2 sets of tires. About the same as a set of 1.6 cams, or a light weight flywheel or any of the other solutions that have been offered. Racing will never be cheap, the fastest thing on the track is a fat wallet.

In my opinion, if NASA does not allow the changes made by SCCA, it will hurt NASA more than SCCA. It will hurt SCCA, just less. I say this as someone who has very little experience with NASA, as they are not that strong in this area.

The goal of any rules makers are to achieve a level playing field where all competitors feel they have a chance to compete at the best of their ability. I know the SMAC tries to do that. I am sure the CRB, BoD and NASA management do their best also.

Time to get some work done

Dave

Nice post Dave [thumbsup]

Don't agree with everything but informative.

On the fuel pressure issue, does it allow the 1.6 to legally adjust fuel pressure also?

Pat Slattery

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

Arrow Karts

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

Dave

thank you for an excellent synopsis on the motives behind the suggested chages. As you say, this will have no effect on the speed of those at the front of the class - they have found wasy of doing it already (at a price). Your suggested changes will allow the catching up of the rest of the 99's without the absurd costs. This a good move.

As the 2011 season eveolves, if it becomes apparent that the 99's ahve completely obliterated the 1.6's competition adjustments in terms of RP and weight can easily be applied

I thank you and the rest of the SMAC members for their dedication to the future of the class.

As a PS, I too was actually very disappointed by the lack of tech at the runoffs. I also applaud Mike Collins for protesting the MARRS winners to ensure the entire division could see that the cars were compliant.

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

Alex Bolanos Verified Driver Series Champ
Member

Car #: 18
Year : 1994
Posts: 202
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Alex Bolanos     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by pat slattery:
I guess my question is, does everyone think that the 1.6 needs help with handling compared to the 99 cars?

I don't think so, the 1.6 handles much better than the 99 in the current trim that both are racing at, so why does the 1.6 need some espensive, labor intensive retrofit for. I know some say optional, but, I think you either need to make it mandatory or not at all, and my vote would be NOT.

Pat

The 1.6 needs zero help in the handling department (from my experience), the 99 suspension upgrade should have been presented as an optional update to broaden the sources of spare parts.

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

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

quote:
Originally posted by pat slattery:
I guess my question is, does everyone think that the 1.6 needs help with handling compared to the 99 cars?

I don't think so, the 1.6 handles much better than the 99 in the current trim that both are racing at, so why does the 1.6 need some expensive, labor intensive retrofit for. I know some say optional, but, I think you either need to make it mandatory or not at all, and my vote would be NOT.

Pat

+1

Not that I ever have any [laughing] , but an 1.6 on-track error is by comparison magnified... Once time is lost in a race, itís gone & usually can't be found in a 1.6. Plus, itís harder to keep the 1.6 at its optimum level of tune.

Perhaps the proposed suspension upgrade may help minimize 'errors', but will it drive so much better to find time when there is one? I'd love to see test data that shows a mid-pack driver in a mid-pack car can recover from a hiccup on the clock.

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

Todd Green Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: Utah
Car #: 55
Year : 1990
Posts: 22
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Todd Green   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by John A - 5x Racing:

3. I do not see a relevance to the IRL vs CART comparisons.

The relevance is that they had a pool of racers. When they split, the pool became divided, and both organizations suffered. Obviously CART more than the IRL, but Jim summarized nicely that the IRL didn't exactly come out ahead.

The SCCA and NASA also share a common pool of racers. If they force the racers to pick one over the other, they also risk suffering. Of course one org might gain a larger percentage of the pool and thus benefit, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

Personally, I'm a member of NASA and the SCCA, but NASA has no current plans to run at our local track (MMP). There seems to be quite a few areas where NASA doesn't run, but the SCCA does. Odds are those racers will adopt the SCCA rules since that is what they run under. What happens when NASA expands to run in that region and the cars aren't NASA legal?

I'd type up my thoughts on the rules themselves, but I have to get my car ready to race this weekend and that sounds like a whole lot more fun. [Big Grin]

Karl Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
2001 ARRC Winner


Region: SW
Car #: 50
Year : 1600
Posts: 1926
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Karl   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Dave,

What NB parts can you swap onto an NA that didn't already come from the NA or are superseded parts allowed on the NA or are NB parts already allowed on the NA by rule?

-rear uprights
-front sub frame which requires the newer steering rack

What else is there?

What happens when the updated 1600 owners still see differences? Will you allow the entire 99 front clip?

You can still call the BOD and ask them to pull the suspension upgrades from the rules.

2450/2275 = 1.077

2400/2275 = 1.055

Which brings the handling closer for less money?

-Roughly 2% less weight difference or $???? in suspension parts and $??? in install.

I REALLY don't want to be inflammatory, but can you see that quite a few see that two people who want the class to go the more expensive route service cars and sell used parts. Given that, why do you make rules that SEEM to serve your financial interest.

Personally I like you guys, but really...what are you doing?

JDr You are obviously frustrated but as the guy that everyone likes why are you being openly critical of some here. Think about that, please. I know you love this class, but maybe...just maybe...you are in too tight.

What about that call to the BOD? Possible?

Karl Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
2001 ARRC Winner


Region: SW
Car #: 50
Year : 1600
Posts: 1926
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Karl   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Todd,

The theory is that there are quite a few 1600s out there in storage waiting for a better economic climate.

 
Page 2 of 4 1  2  3  4  next » 
 

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic | Subscribe To Topic
Hop To: