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

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello Spec Miata Community » SpecMiata.com » Spec Miata » Member input needed (Page 1)

 - Email this page to someone! | Subscribe To Topic
Page 1 of 3 1  2  3  next » 
 
Author Topic: Member input needed
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

Copied from the SCCA website forums...

The SMAC/CRB is requesting information on the following, it will be in the upcoming Fastrak. These things are being considered for the 2011 season. To send your official comments, go to http://www.crbscca.com
Use SM for category.


1) Bringing back the SM compliance program in some capacity

2) Allow 90-97 cars to upgrade to 1999/05 suspension parts.

3) All cars permitted open timing and open FP

While you are welcome to discuss these topics and comment here, this or any forum will not be looked at as Official member input. If you want your opinion heard, you must send an email.

Send one letter per topic, not one long letter as they tend to not be as effective. No need for a novel, just quick replies are fine.


Before sending a letter or posting here, I ask that you stop and think first. Gather your thoughts and all the information available to you as well.

Thanks

Jim Drago

CRB

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

EAST STREET RACING

luckymiata76
Member

Region: South Bend
Car #: 76
Year : 1999
Posts: 121
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for luckymiata76     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Letter sent. Thanks for the "heads up."

--------------------
Jeff Luckritz
#76

Zauskycop Verified Driver
Member

Region: Chicago
Car #: 45
Year : 1991
Posts: 115
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Zauskycop     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Okay, please explain to us "beginners"

A. How this would affect us

B. What is involved should the open timing and FP go through

c. Is this something we can do at home? Do you need dyno time constantly? Laptop? Explain please so we may make an educated decision.

--------------------
Tracy Ramsey
Team Blenderblaster

cpdenis
Good Life Member

Region: 11
Car #: 09
Year : 99
Posts: 143
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for cpdenis     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

+1 on the added explanation for the newbies.
Thanks

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

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

Everyone says the 99's are faster because they handle sooo much better. This would allow us to run the same suspension as the 99 cars, hopefully closing some of the gap between the NA/NB and the NC cars.

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

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 Zauskycop:
Okay, please explain to us "beginners"

A. How this would affect us

B. What is involved should the open timing and FP go through

c. Is this something we can do at home? Do you need dyno time constantly? Laptop? Explain please so we may make an educated decision.

A. Stuffing the NB suspension into the NA cars is an untested means of trying to make the NA cars as 'easy' to drive as the NB cars. This ignores the 35% increase in torsional rigidity that the
99 enjoys over the early cars, although the roll cages may negate some of this difference. This is... unknown.

The cost has been debated, but clearly depends on whether you are willing to use potentially bent junkyard parts or will go with new. Last time I priced them, it would be cheaper to just buy a 99 donor. I stopped adding them up when I crossed $4k. It's possible that I'm pricing parts that aren't needed in the conversion, like front uprights and hubs. On the other hand, I forgot to include the $1200 for the springs/shocks/bars. A proper list with costs would be helpful.

Changing these parts out isn't rocket science, so I haven't included labor in the costing, but it's reasonable to consider how many hours would be required.

Bottom line: Kent Carter will build a 99 before he does a subframe swap. Especially once open timing and smart fuel pressure regulators lead to sizable horsepower gains for the 99s. I've heard that 145BHP at the wheels is doable. One person who has been tinkering with 99's for a number of years suggests that those numbers are way low. Sounds like a lot of fun.

The question the CRB/BOD has to answer before they allow open timing/fuel pressure is how they plan to reign in the increases in NB speed that will inevitably come from this change. More weight? Smaller plate? More modifications and costs for the NA cars? This is an important question to be answered now. Not later.

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

IPRESS Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Moderator

Region: MidDiv / SOWDIV
Car #: #39
Year : 99 LS1 Miata
Posts: 1756
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for IPRESS     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Kent, I hate to differ, but it is far from untested. There have been 99 subframes on NAs since soon after SM started. And it does make a difference. Now as far as cost I have no clue. you can be assured that any changes will be watched like the main stage during happy hour at Baby Dolls. It seems the CRB wants the cars as close to the same as possible....probably a good thing.

--------------------
Mac Spikes
IPRESS Racing
MER
East Street Auto
SAFERACER
Hoosier
Carbotech
MotorSport Ranch
Cresson, Texas
"To hell with you Gen. Sheridan...I 'll take Texas!"

LOREN WALLACE IS MY HERO!

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

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

Clipped from last years thread:
(Drago)
"Another misconception...
I know I will most likely get torn apart for this as well, but truth is all these parts can be bought used anywhere in the country for around $300. Check with Planet Miata or your local salvage yard. There is more than enough on used market to outfit ALL early cars.
All you need...
front subframe,steering rack,2 front spindles and 2 upper control arms."

I think we should see what this does for the early cars before we let everyone have open timing and FP.
Open timing and FP for the 99's will be the killshot between the eyes for the 1.6 cars, and leave us no choice but to race IT, or split the class, in my opinion.

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

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 IPRESS:
Kent, I hate to differ, but it is far from untested. There have been 99 subframes on NAs since soon after SM started. And it does make a difference. Now as far as cost I have no clue. you can be assured that any changes will be watched like the main stage during happy hour at Baby Dolls. It seems the CRB wants the cars as close to the same as possible....probably a good thing.

Mac, I appreciate dissent! I'm still forming my opinion and seeking facts. Do we have any blinded, back-to-back test data on the objective differences in lap times?

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

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 Steven Holloway:
Clipped from last years thread:
(Drago)
"Another misconception...
I know I will most likely get torn apart for this as well, but truth is all these parts can be bought used anywhere in the country for around $300. Check with Planet Miata or your local salvage yard. There is more than enough on used market to outfit ALL early cars.
All you need...
front subframe,steering rack,2 front spindles and 2 upper control arms."

I think we should see what this does for the early cars before we let everyone have open timing and FP.
Open timing and FP for the 99's will be the killshot between the eyes for the 1.6 cars, and leave us no choice but to race IT, or split the class, in my opinion.

Currently, Car-part.com salvage yards list having a 99 front subframe for $100 to $500. There are 106 'Grade A' subframes available and it's unclear whether these are with or without the 'stuff'. How many of us are gonna use junkyard 'stuff' like hubs, rotors, calipers, A-arms, etc?

Steering racks are also available. Only 4 non-power grade A racks are listed at $250. There are about 150 grade A power racks listed ranging from $45 to $300.

I'll put together the list of new parts and the total cost. If nothing else, it will be useful as a checklist for those making the conversion.

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

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

Would it be easier, less expensive and better for the class in the long run to simply make adjustments to the 99+? Just asking.

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

Randy Thieme
Member

Region: Oregon
Car #: 51
Year : 1993
Posts: 322
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Randy Thieme     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

As one of those on a shoestring budget I'm going to have to send an email opposed to anything which is going to increase the cost of racing. Even if the parts only cost $1K that's still a significant chunk of change for many. Don't forget to add in the cost of a new setup after installing the parts. Many people still can't do that themselves and have to hire that out.

I guess what matters is what people expect from any series described as a 'spec' series. Is it to guarantee parity between cars regardless of what's needed to achieve it, or is it to keep costs down by avoiding performance "arms races?"

P.S. Mine is a 1.6L NA

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

D-Code | Part Number | Description | Quantity
32-110 | NC10-32-110B | GEAR,STEERING | 1
32-280S | 8AN1-32-280 | BALL JOINT SET | 2
26-169A | T001-26-169 | PIN,SNAP | 2
28-091 | FB01-28-091A | NUT | 2
28-312 | H266-28-312 | BOLT,LINK | 2
28-473 | NA80-28-473A | PLATE,CAM-SUB FRAME | 2
28-664 | NA80-28-66ZC | BOLT,ADJUST | 2
28-664 | NA80-28-66ZD | BOLT,ADJUST | 2
28-7A1 | D061-28-7A1 | NUT,FLANGE-RR DAMPER | 2
34-099 | GJ21-34-097A | BOLT | 2
34-112A | NA01-34-112 | BOLT | 2
34-117A | NA01-34-117A | WASHER | 2
34-211 | N066-34-200 | ARM,UPPER | 2
34-310 | N066-34-310 | ARM,RT LWR ( BARE ) | 1
34-310Z | N066-34-360 | ARM,LT LWR ( BARE ) | 1
34-460 | NA01-34-460A | BUSH, RUBBER LWR | 2
34-480 | NC10-34-480 | BUSHING, RUBBER | 4
34-490A | NA01-34-490 | BUSHING, RUBBER | 2
34-550 | NA01-34-550B | LWR BALL JOINT | 2
39-037 | B001-39-037B | NUT | 2
90-901 | 9992-10-800A | NUT | 2
90-901 | 9992-11-000 | NUT | 2
90-901 | 9YB1-31-204 | NUT | 2
99-133 | 9992-31-400 | NUT | 2
99-133 | 9992-41-201 | NUT | 2
99-203 | 9995-81-426 | WASHER | 2
99-221 | 9922-13-025 | PIN, SPLIT | 2
99-601 | 9GCB-70-275 | BOLT | 2
99-601 | 9GCB-70-280 | BOLT | 2
99-756 | 9975-61-225H | BOLT, FLANGE | 2
26-071 | B455-26-071 | CAP,HUB | 2
33-020 | NC10-33-021 | KNUCKLE(R),STEERING | 1
33-020Z | NC10-33-031 | KNUCKLE(L),STEERING | 1
33-061 | B01A-33-061C | HUB,WHEEL | 2
33-062 | B455-33-062 | BOLT,HUB | 8
33-251A | NA75-33-25XC | PLATE,DISC | 2
90-780 | 9975-61-035 | BOLT | 2
99-756 | 9979-60-812 | BOLT, FLANGE | 2
34-091 | FB01-34-091 | NUT | 2
34-091 | FB01-34-091A | NUT | 2
34-800 | NC10-34-800 | MEMBER,CROSS | 1
34-E90 | N066-34-E90 | BAR,FRONT CROSS | 1
99-203 | 9995-81-226 | WASHER | 4
99-601 | 9GCB-70-225 | BOLT | 4
99-756 | 9978-00-820 | BOLT, FLANGE | 4
34-155 | FB01-34-155 | STABILIZER PLATE | 2
33-610 | NA75-33-61X | BODY & PISTON(R),CALIPER | 1
33-610 Z | NA75-33-71X | BODY & PISTON(L),CALIPER | 1


Total cost: $2,600+

Doesn't include new springs/shocks/sway bars needed to make the packages equal ($1350) nor the fat cats nor labor for install or setup. Also, costs are for stock bushings, not comp. Brake pads are also not included.

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

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 Kent Carter:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zauskycop:
Okay, please explain to us "beginners"

A. How this would affect us

B. What is involved should the open timing and FP go through

c. Is this something we can do at home? Do you need dyno time constantly? Laptop? Explain please so we may make an educated decision.

A. Stuffing the NB suspension into the NA cars is an untested means of trying to make the NA cars as 'easy' to drive as the NB cars. This ignores the 35% increase in torsional rigidity that the
99 enjoys over the early cars, although the roll cages may negate some of this difference. This is... unknown.

The cost has been debated, but clearly depends on whether you are willing to use potentially bent junkyard parts or will go with new. Last time I priced them, it would be cheaper to just buy a 99 donor. I stopped adding them up when I crossed $4k. It's possible that I'm pricing parts that aren't needed in the conversion, like front uprights and hubs. On the other hand, I forgot to include the $1200 for the springs/shocks/bars. A proper list with costs would be helpful.

Changing these parts out isn't rocket science, so I haven't included labor in the costing, but it's reasonable to consider how many hours would be required.

Bottom line: Kent Carter will build a 99 before he does a subframe swap. Especially once open timing and smart fuel pressure regulators lead to sizable horsepower gains for the 99s. I've heard that 145BHP at the wheels is doable. One person who has been tinkering with 99's for a number of years suggests that those numbers are way low. Sounds like a lot of fun.

The question the CRB/BOD has to answer before they allow open timing/fuel pressure is how they plan to reign in the increases in NB speed that will inevitably come from this change. More weight? Smaller plate? More modifications and costs for the NA cars? This is an important question to be answered now. Not later.
[/QUOTE
145 HP at the wheels by just allowing open fuel pressure and timing? Thats not even close! I've got news for you many 99s are already running open timing and fuel pressure and everything else you can imagine and they are no where near 145 RWP. As discussed over and over open fuel and timing is being done anyway and there is no way to stop it. Make it legal and than reevaluate what needs to be done to make he cars equal again using methods that are easily looked at; like a smaller plate.

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

Z-MAN Verified Driver
Member

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

quote:
Originally posted by JimEli:
Would it be easier, less expensive and better for the class in the long run to simply make adjustments to the 99+? Just asking.

I suspect people in the budget racer category - which I find myself in these days - are not going to make these changes and they will most likely finish in the same positions as they did before because the guys around them won't make the changes either.

Without a budget for set-up time for EVERY race, or Dyno Time for proper tuning (especially for 1.6's), or new tires every week end, Etc... budget racers can only expect to be mid pack - and this is fine - the best races I've had were mid-pack races. These prep items make all of the difference in these cars and is the difference between regional and national level racers.


So if you are not doing prep to run at the front of the pack why oppose a rule change that would allow the cars to be more even - if prepped to the same level?

I will support the suspension for all models - that will make the cars more than the same than they are now but I want to see some data on what free timing and FP will do for each of the models - I'm not so sure this will help any of the cars except the 99 and they don't need anymore HP.

MZ

Cajun Miata Man Verified Driver
Overdog Driver

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

quote:
Originally posted by Kent Carter:

Bottom line: Kent Carter will build a 99 before he does a subframe swap. Especially once open timing and smart fuel pressure regulators lead to sizable horsepower gains for the 99s. I've heard that 145BHP at the wheels is doable. One person who has been tinkering with 99's for a number of years suggests that those numbers are way low. Sounds like a lot of fun.

[rolling on floor laughin] Is that the mythical HP figure from Willie's 99 shop? I guess I need to trade up.

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


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

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 Kent Carter:
D-Code | Part Number | Description | Quantity
32-110 | NC10-32-110B | GEAR,STEERING | 1
32-280S | 8AN1-32-280 | BALL JOINT SET | 2
26-169A | T001-26-169 | PIN,SNAP | 2
28-091 | FB01-28-091A | NUT | 2
28-312 | H266-28-312 | BOLT,LINK | 2
28-473 | NA80-28-473A | PLATE,CAM-SUB FRAME | 2
28-664 | NA80-28-66ZC | BOLT,ADJUST | 2
28-664 | NA80-28-66ZD | BOLT,ADJUST | 2
28-7A1 | D061-28-7A1 | NUT,FLANGE-RR DAMPER | 2
34-099 | GJ21-34-097A | BOLT | 2
34-112A | NA01-34-112 | BOLT | 2
34-117A | NA01-34-117A | WASHER | 2
34-211 | N066-34-200 | ARM,UPPER | 2
34-310 | N066-34-310 | ARM,RT LWR ( BARE ) | 1
34-310Z | N066-34-360 | ARM,LT LWR ( BARE ) | 1
34-460 | NA01-34-460A | BUSH, RUBBER LWR | 2
34-480 | NC10-34-480 | BUSHING, RUBBER | 4
34-490A | NA01-34-490 | BUSHING, RUBBER | 2
34-550 | NA01-34-550B | LWR BALL JOINT | 2
39-037 | B001-39-037B | NUT | 2
90-901 | 9992-10-800A | NUT | 2
90-901 | 9992-11-000 | NUT | 2
90-901 | 9YB1-31-204 | NUT | 2
99-133 | 9992-31-400 | NUT | 2
99-133 | 9992-41-201 | NUT | 2
99-203 | 9995-81-426 | WASHER | 2
99-221 | 9922-13-025 | PIN, SPLIT | 2
99-601 | 9GCB-70-275 | BOLT | 2
99-601 | 9GCB-70-280 | BOLT | 2
99-756 | 9975-61-225H | BOLT, FLANGE | 2
26-071 | B455-26-071 | CAP,HUB | 2
33-020 | NC10-33-021 | KNUCKLE(R),STEERING | 1
33-020Z | NC10-33-031 | KNUCKLE(L),STEERING | 1
33-061 | B01A-33-061C | HUB,WHEEL | 2
33-062 | B455-33-062 | BOLT,HUB | 8
33-251A | NA75-33-25XC | PLATE,DISC | 2
90-780 | 9975-61-035 | BOLT | 2
99-756 | 9979-60-812 | BOLT, FLANGE | 2
34-091 | FB01-34-091 | NUT | 2
34-091 | FB01-34-091A | NUT | 2
34-800 | NC10-34-800 | MEMBER,CROSS | 1
34-E90 | N066-34-E90 | BAR,FRONT CROSS | 1
99-203 | 9995-81-226 | WASHER | 4
99-601 | 9GCB-70-225 | BOLT | 4
99-756 | 9978-00-820 | BOLT, FLANGE | 4
34-155 | FB01-34-155 | STABILIZER PLATE | 2
33-610 | NA75-33-61X | BODY & PISTON(R),CALIPER | 1
33-610 Z | NA75-33-71X | BODY & PISTON(L),CALIPER | 1


Total cost: $2,600+

Doesn't include new springs/shocks/sway bars needed to make the packages equal ($1350) nor the fat cats nor labor for install or setup. Also, costs are for stock bushings, not comp. Brake pads are also not included.

I think you may want to stay of the Mazda website! [Smile] Many of the parts are the same as 1.6 parts so you will not need to buy everyting. Also the springs and shocks are the same for each car and the 1.6 would not need new sway bars either. Drago would know the exact price but I think the swap would be less than $300 total.

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

Just give the 1.6 more power or a different restrictor on the 99 or weight, much simpler.

Pat

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

Arrow Karts

Greg Kimble Verified Driver
Member

Region: CFR
Car #: 81
Year : 1994
Posts: 86
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Greg Kimble     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

When the suspension swap question came up last year, I thought someone (Drago??) had mentioned working on a shim kit that would help the earlier cars with bump steer. Is less bump steer the advantage that the 99 has over the earlier cars, or is there more to it? Also I think by going to uniform suspension on all years, you would discourage anyone from building the earlier cars. For instance, my 94 now needs a 4.30 ring and pinion and if approved would require the suspension changes. It would seem to me that if your were looking at building from the ground up, you would just go with a 99+ donor.

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

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

Most new builds are 99's +, at least down here.
When I started , 1.6's and 1.8's were pretty even so I went with the first cheap donor I found. If I were starting today, I'd look for a '99.

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

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 pat slattery:
Just give the 1.6 more power or a different restrictor on the 99 or weight, much simpler.

Pat

The 1.6s should get nothing! In our region they are equal when you compare top prepped 1.6, 1.8 and 99 cars. Just take away the hidden areas and maintain the current power. If a 1.6 cannot keep up in Florida it is because the car is not prepped well or the drivers are not as good as the others. We have had 1.6s, 1.8s, and 99 win down here in what is probably the toughest region in the country. Of course all of this makes no difference if there is not going to be any tech! In the last 5 or so Nationals there has been almost no tech and the regionals 0 tech. Without tech you will start to see those that can run away from those that cant; it is just a matter of time.

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

AllardK3 Verified Driver Made Donation to Website Series Champ
Member

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

Given the number of 1990 to 97 miatas produced and being raced in SM,doesn't it make a lot more sense to require the 99 cars to use the subframe from a 1990 car? A sedan requires backdating of parts on newer more expensive cars, why can't SM?

Mike

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

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

Jamie, you are right about the springs/shocks being the same. I was mistaken. Yes, there are a few cheap parts you could transfer from the 'donor' subframe to the new one, but would you? Would you put the old camber bolts back in? If you did, Drago would say the car was 'badly prepped' and so would I. The key parts are the subframe, the uprights, the A-arms and bushings as well as the rack, rack mounts and tie rods/ends. This is the lion's share of the money.

I took out the brakes, the camber adjusters, the hubs for you. It's now just over $1800.

If we aren't putting the brakes and the sways on, we aren't really moving toward chassis similarity. Just nibbling at a very expensive solution to bump steer? Or is there more this subframe fixes?

I plan to have someone call the local Mazda junkyard and find out what a 99 subframe would cost from hub to hub with the rack and tie rods included. I'll let everyone know what they say.

Good discussion!

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

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 AllardK3:
Given the number of 1990 to 97 miatas produced and being raced in SM,doesn't it make a lot more sense to require the 99 cars to use the subframe from a 1990 car? A sedan requires backdating of parts on newer more expensive cars, why can't SM?

Mike

Interesting idea.

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

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 Cajun Miata Man:
quote:
Originally posted by Kent Carter:

Bottom line: Kent Carter will build a 99 before he does a subframe swap. Especially once open timing and smart fuel pressure regulators lead to sizable horsepower gains for the 99s. I've heard that 145BHP at the wheels is doable. One person who has been tinkering with 99's for a number of years suggests that those numbers are way low. Sounds like a lot of fun.

[rolling on floor laughin] Is that the mythical HP figure from Willie's 99 shop? I guess I need to trade up.
You already have the timing and fuel pressure mods in place and optimized?

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

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 Jamie Tucker:
[QUOTE]In the last 5 or so Nationals there has been almost no tech and the regionals 0 tech. Without tech you will start to see those that can run away from those that cant; it is just a matter of time.

Exactly why we should bring the compliance program back... A few folks complain and it get's shelved, which was a bad deal for all.

-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

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

As a regional guy, I didn't see any more tech with the compliance program than before. We just got to pay $20 more in entry fee to race a double regional. And what for? To buy tech tools and equipment to keep the 30 or so guys who race the runoffs from cheating each other?

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 Zauskycop:
Okay, please explain to us "beginners"

A. How this would affect us

B. What is involved should the open timing and FP go through

c. Is this something we can do at home? Do you need dyno time constantly? Laptop? Explain please so we may make an educated decision.

A: Bringing back compliance is self explanatory, this is my first year running SEDiv National races and I am disappointed by the lack of tech inspection.

B. Open timing and FP will almost eliminate the need for hacked up ECUs. This rule (like the fuel rule) is something that the front runners have supported (and suggested) in order to shorten the gap between the haves and the have nots and keep the cost of SM down. Instead of a $600-$1000 flashed ECU all you will need is a $50-$150 FP regulator and an hour on the dyno to optimize. Timing for 90-97 is already open so no change there, timing for 99s will just be an adjustable crank wheel which will cost pennies compared to an ECU. This change will NOT benefit one generation over another, in SEDiv we have tested 90-2000 with timing and fuel pressure optimized on the dyno and there IS parity. This change will eliminate the need for the entire field to buy an ECU to keep up.

C. These mods are possible to do at home, the FPR takes 5 minutes to install and set to factory fuel pressure. Going to the dyno will allow you to fine tune and extract the last 5-10hp once you feel that you've reached the maximum performance possible with what you've got. Front runner HP numbers are revealed often on here and I've even seen optimal A/F values and timing numbers, there are no secrets anymore. You will not need a laptop for tuning the car but you should have one to look at your Traqmate data (anyone concerned about the last 5-10hp better already be doing data).

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 Kent Carter:
quote:
Originally posted by Cajun Miata Man:
quote:
Originally posted by Kent Carter:

Bottom line: Kent Carter will build a 99 before he does a subframe swap. Especially once open timing and smart fuel pressure regulators lead to sizable horsepower gains for the 99s. I've heard that 145BHP at the wheels is doable. One person who has been tinkering with 99's for a number of years suggests that those numbers are way low. Sounds like a lot of fun.

[rolling on floor laughin] Is that the mythical HP figure from Willie's 99 shop? I guess I need to trade up.
You already have the timing and fuel pressure mods in place and optimized?
What do you think the flashed ECUs do? 145hp is absolutely ridiculous even without the restrictor plate on....

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 Kent Carter:


If we aren't putting the brakes and the sways on, we aren't really moving toward chassis similarity. Just nibbling at a very expensive solution to bump steer? Or is there more this subframe fixes?

Good discussion!

Do you have data that shows that bumpsteer is affecting your lap times? The rule ALLOWS for updating of certain parts should you feel the need to, the 99 subframe will not turn a mid pack car to a front pack car...

Personally I don't see the need for this rule, my '94 and 1.8s in general have an understeer problem because we are required to run the same front sway bar as a 99 which is a totally different chassis. The bumpsteer on my car is not undriveable and I can't conclusively say that installing 99 subframes would make me faster (we do lots of data down here in FL).

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 Steven Holloway:
Everyone says the 99's are faster because they handle sooo much better. This would allow us to run the same suspension as the 99 cars, hopefully closing some of the gap between the NA/NB and the NC cars.

I have driven at least 10 different SMs from 90-2000 and without a doubt the 90-93 are the best handling. 94-97 have terminal push and 99+ have slow reflexes and overload the tires due to the amount of ballast they carry.

Cajun Miata Man Verified Driver
Overdog Driver

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

quote:
Originally posted by Kent Carter:
quote:
Originally posted by Cajun Miata Man:
quote:
Originally posted by Kent Carter:

Bottom line: Kent Carter will build a 99 before he does a subframe swap. Especially once open timing and smart fuel pressure regulators lead to sizable horsepower gains for the 99s. I've heard that 145BHP at the wheels is doable. One person who has been tinkering with 99's for a number of years suggests that those numbers are way low. Sounds like a lot of fun.

[rolling on floor laughin] Is that the mythical HP figure from Willie's 99 shop? I guess I need to trade up.
You already have the timing and fuel pressure mods in place and optimized?
I can off track on the dyno. Adjustable FPR and timing wheel, piece of cake.

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


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

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 Alex Bolanos:
quote:
Originally posted by Steven Holloway:
Everyone says the 99's are faster because they handle sooo much better. This would allow us to run the same suspension as the 99 cars, hopefully closing some of the gap between the NA/NB and the NC cars.

I have driven at least 10 different SMs from 90-2000 and without a doubt the 90-93 are the best handling. 94-97 have terminal push and 99+ have slow reflexes and overload the tires due to the amount of ballast they carry.
I would have to agree!

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

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 Motor City Hamilton:
As a regional guy, I didn't see any more tech with the compliance program than before. We just got to pay $20 more in entry fee to race a double regional. And what for? To buy tech tools and equipment to keep the 30 or so guys who race the runoffs from cheating each other?

How many races do you run each year? I had a couple fairly deep techs happen in both national and regional. Besides, the point is that it could happen any time at random, not every race. That keeps poeple a lot more honest than absolute no chance of tech.

-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

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 Alex Bolanos:
quote:
Originally posted by Steven Holloway:
Everyone says the 99's are faster because they handle sooo much better. This would allow us to run the same suspension as the 99 cars, hopefully closing some of the gap between the NA/NB and the NC cars.

I have driven at least 10 different SMs from 90-2000 and without a doubt the 90-93 are the best handling. 94-97 have terminal push and 99+ have slow reflexes and overload the tires due to the amount of ballast they carry.
I would have to agree!
Why do most choose to build the 99 now, and why do they continue to win more frequently than the other cars [Eek!]

Pat

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

Arrow Karts

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 Jamie Tucker:
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Bolanos:
quote:
Originally posted by Steven Holloway:
Everyone says the 99's are faster because they handle sooo much better. This would allow us to run the same suspension as the 99 cars, hopefully closing some of the gap between the NA/NB and the NC cars.

I have driven at least 10 different SMs from 90-2000 and without a doubt the 90-93 are the best handling. 94-97 have terminal push and 99+ have slow reflexes and overload the tires due to the amount of ballast they carry.
I would have to agree!
Okay... so remind me again why we are proposing to do this? We can fix the bump steer issue definitively with rack shims and R-package rod ends for very low cost. Why does the CRB continue to refuse to allow the R-package ends and rack shims?

Am I wrong in saying that the ONLY reason the 99's are superior on track to the NA cars is that the 99 has a broader power band with better low end torque?

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

Motor City Hamilton
Member

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

quote:
Originally posted by Alex Bolanos:
quote:
Originally posted by Steven Holloway:
Everyone says the 99's are faster because they handle sooo much better. This would allow us to run the same suspension as the 99 cars, hopefully closing some of the gap between the NA/NB and the NC cars.

I have driven at least 10 different SMs from 90-2000 and without a doubt the 90-93 are the best handling. 94-97 have terminal push and 99+ have slow reflexes and overload the tires due to the amount of ballast they carry.
I don't like blanket responses like this. Not all 94-97s push. My 94 handles very well. I actually had to dial in a bit more rear traction. We have enough adjustments available to change from push to oversteer. 94-97s can be made to handle fairly easily.

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 Kent Carter:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Tucker:
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Bolanos:
quote:
Originally posted by Steven Holloway:
Everyone says the 99's are faster because they handle sooo much better. This would allow us to run the same suspension as the 99 cars, hopefully closing some of the gap between the NA/NB and the NC cars.

I have driven at least 10 different SMs from 90-2000 and without a doubt the 90-93 are the best handling. 94-97 have terminal push and 99+ have slow reflexes and overload the tires due to the amount of ballast they carry.
I would have to agree!
Okay... so remind me again why we are proposing to do this? We can fix the bump steer issue definitively with rack shims and R-package rod ends for very low cost. Why does the CRB continue to refuse to allow the R-package ends and rack shims?

Am I wrong in saying that the ONLY reason the 99's are superior on track to the NA cars is that the 99 has a broader power band with better low end torque?

All I can tell you is that if you ask those of us who with top notch 99s (who also ran fast 1.6s) that race against top notch 1.6 or 1.8s we would tell you that we are not pulling anybody off of the turns. The acceleration rates have been very well equalized as long as the 99s do not crank their timing way up or we lean them out. Also we are talking small numbers here; less than 5 hp. I don't think bump steer is a problem for most of the drivers because they could not tell the difference anyway but horsepower is. Let us get the 5 hp that other 99 drivers are getting and than change our plate if needed. The RWP is the same but there is less to tech (and easier too)! If anybody thinks they can't run up front in a 1.6 they are dead wrong. When those drivers start getting beat by a car length or two than they may have an argument because that is all the difference that there is.

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

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 Steven Holloway:
Open timing and FP for the 99's will be the killshot between the eyes for the 1.6 cars, and leave us no choice but to race IT, or split the class, in my opinion.

Open timing and FP pressure are already here this proposal just makes it legal!!

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

Willie the Tard Verified Driver
Member

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

quote:
Originally posted by JimEli:
Would it be easier, less expensive and better for the class in the long run to simply make adjustments to the 99+? Just asking.

Yes, it would but that day is over they (NB cars) now have the numbers and with number comes power. We (NA cars) should have done something, anything 2 years ago!!

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

Willie the Tard Verified Driver
Member

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

quote:
Originally posted by Cajun Miata Man:
quote:
Originally posted by Kent Carter:

Bottom line: Kent Carter will build a 99 before he does a subframe swap. Especially once open timing and smart fuel pressure regulators lead to sizable horsepower gains for the 99s. I've heard that 145BHP at the wheels is doable. One person who has been tinkering with 99's for a number of years suggests that those numbers are way low. Sounds like a lot of fun.

[rolling on floor laughin] Is that the mythical HP figure from Willie's 99 shop? I guess I need to trade up.
Willie's 99 shop is dead -- it only built legal 99's and they only have a small advantage over NAs and could not compete against those junk yard dogs NBs

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

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 would like to offer some input, first on the suspension upgrade.

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

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

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

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

On the rear, the subframe looks different, but the geometry is the same. Rear control arms are the same. 99 rear uprights will give the added 5mm per side of track width.

So to get the benifits of the updated suspension, you need one front subframe, one steering rack and two 5mm rear wheel spacers. A few bolts no bushings no brakes, no sway bars etc.

I do not see this ever becoming a manditory switch.

On the fuel pressure regulator/timing pointer:
Specificly for 99+, By adding an adjustable fuel pressure regulator and allowing the ignition timing to be adjusted via slotting the crank trigger wheel, you get 95% of the benefits at 20% of the costs of a reprogramed ECU. Why do we need to allow this? Because the cost and complexity of developing a fool proof method of detecting modified ECUs is too high. For $150 and some time we can level the playing field amongst all the 99+ cars.

For 90-97 cars, the timing is already adjustable. The only expense would be a cheap fuel pressure regulator. Again, this is an easier way of tuning than the methods currently being used.

The theroy behind these proposals are to allow the cheap easy method, thus making the hard, expensive and currently illegal methods unneeded.

So the question of parity comes into play AGAIN. I personally beleave the future of Spec Miata is to have the cars as equal as possible in suspension, brakes horsepower, torque etc. The reality is that we have to compare the very best apple to the very best orange to the very best bannana. And all 3 must be legal. A difficult thing to do when we have to compare them at different parts of the country.

Feel free to voice your opinion, give us a reason to go your way. But feel confident that every letter sent to SCCA will be read and discussed by the SMAC and CRB.

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

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 Steven Holloway:

I think we should see what this does for the early cars before we let everyone have open timing and FP.
Open timing and FP for the 99's will be the kill-shot between the eyes for the 1.6 cars, and leave us no choice but to race IT, or split the class, in my opinion.[/QB]

Steven I don't know how you arrived at that but here are the facts. You are already forced to race against cars that have open fuel pressure and timing and get to use the power under the premise of it's not legal so it must not be happening. The kill-shot for the 1.6 will come when rules are made that require tech to get into the gas tank, ecu, timing wheel, etc to make sure the car is not to fast. Those things just are not going to happen. Open it up and see how much power we gain and than reduce our plate to take away the power. Tech can than just check for the throttle body cock ring and plate. That will help most people and the ones with cams or such can be taken care of through a protest; but most of those folks don't run up front anyway!

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

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 Greg Kimble:
When the suspension swap question came up last year, I thought someone (Drago??) had mentioned working on a shim kit that would help the earlier cars with bump steer. Is less bump steer the advantage that the 99 has over the earlier cars, or is there more to it? Also I think by going to uniform suspension on all years, you would discourage anyone from building the earlier cars. For instance, my 94 now needs a 4.30 ring and pinion and if approved would require the suspension changes. It would seem to me that if your were looking at building from the ground up, you would just go with a 99+ donor.

It does seam that the powers are trying to make this a one car class by making us stupid for driving or build a NA (the car that the class was founded with)

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

Z-MAN Verified Driver
Member

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

Make you opinions count - send them to the CRB

Letters sent - twice..

If you are going to send in your opinions you will need to go to the CRB submission web site - you can't just send them to the old CRB e-mail address anymore.

Use this link:

http://www.crbscca.com


MZ

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

Dave... very good input. The fact that the part numbers are different for the arms/uprights is curious. Mazda is fairly careful to use the same part number for interchangeable parts.

I appreciate your expertise a great deal. Do we gain anything else from the subframe swap other than reducing bumpsteer?

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

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 pat slattery:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Tucker:
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Bolanos:
quote:
Originally posted by Steven Holloway:
Everyone says the 99's are faster because they handle sooo much better. This would allow us to run the same suspension as the 99 cars, hopefully closing some of the gap between the NA/NB and the NC cars.

I have driven at least 10 different SMs from 90-2000 and without a doubt the 90-93 are the best handling. 94-97 have terminal push and 99+ have slow reflexes and overload the tires due to the amount of ballast they carry.
I would have to agree!
Why do most choose to build the 99 now, and why do they continue to win more frequently than the other cars [Eek!]

Pat

Some say it's the drivers -- I say it's the HP and FT/LBS

[ 05-11-2010, 09:22 AM: Message edited by: Willie the Tard ]

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

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

The 99s make better race cars. Less tuning and they look better! At one time they had an advantage but they do not anymore. Why would anybody build a 1.6 over a 99 unless you need to save a couple thousand dollars on a donor? I and many others were just as competitive in our 1.6s.

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

Andy Rushing Verified Driver Series Champ
2009 NASA SM National Champion

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

quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Tucker:
quote:
Originally posted by Kent Carter:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Tucker:
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Bolanos:
quote:
Originally posted by Steven Holloway:
Everyone says the 99's are faster because they handle sooo much better. This would allow us to run the same suspension as the 99 cars, hopefully closing some of the gap between the NA/NB and the NC cars.

I have driven at least 10 different SMs from 90-2000 and without a doubt the 90-93 are the best handling. 94-97 have terminal push and 99+ have slow reflexes and overload the tires due to the amount of ballast they carry.
I would have to agree!
Okay... so remind me again why we are proposing to do this? We can fix the bump steer issue definitively with rack shims and R-package rod ends for very low cost. Why does the CRB continue to refuse to allow the R-package ends and rack shims?

Am I wrong in saying that the ONLY reason the 99's are superior on track to the NA cars is that the 99 has a broader power band with better low end torque?

All I can tell you is that if you ask those of us who with top notch 99s (who also ran fast 1.6s) that race against top notch 1.6 or 1.8s we would tell you that we are not pulling anybody off of the turns. The acceleration rates have been very well equalized as long as the 99s do not crank their timing way up or we lean them out. Also we are talking small numbers here; less than 5 hp. I don't think bump steer is a problem for most of the drivers because they could not tell the difference anyway but horsepower is. Let us get the 5 hp that other 99 drivers are getting and than change our plate if needed. The RWP is the same but there is less to tech (and easier too)! If anybody thinks they can't run up front in a 1.6 they are dead wrong. When those drivers start getting beat by a car length or two than they may have an argument because that is all the difference that there is.
Chassis stiffness is a big reason the 99 has an advantage--ever wonder why the hands of a driver of an early model car are more "busy" than those of a driver in a 99? That and torque is why "lap time consistency" is always stated as +'s for the 99.

I don't believe a legal 1.6 of 2010 can at all run with (acceleration wise) the top 99's I've seen and heard about here in SW and SE--ask blake how my car compared to his in the power dept at TWS this year... As a reference point, my car has beaten some of the very top cars and been called more than decent over the past couple years from several folks here who know something about driving and car prep. It would no doubt be interesting to get around a 1.6 that keeps up with the fastest 99's down the straights.

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

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

We have the data and the race results to prove it! The none drafting speeds at Daytona were identical for the top 1.6s and 99s. I know for a fact that the 1.6s were legal because one of them had my old engine in the car (119/104). The cars are very close as long as the 99 is legal. If we jack our timing up and lean them out than I could have out run the 1.6 but that is not what I did. That is why I think it is important to take away those hidden areas that cannot be teched easily. Top notch legal cars are very close but it is to easy to get away with having a questionable 99 in my opinion. Consistency is a + for the 99 that is for sure!

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

 
Page 1 of 3 1  2  3  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: