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 3)

 - Email this page to someone! | Subscribe To Topic
Page 3 of 3 1  2  3 
 
Author Topic: Member input needed
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 darmstrong:
Seems like the people with the smaller racing budgets are the ones expected to spend more money to gain equity with those at the pointy end of the budget scale.


That's just it, you are not -expected- (or required) to do anything. The new rule would give you the -option- to switch to the newer subframe IF through some means of data you determine that it will improve your laptimes.

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

quote:
Originally posted by Alex Bolanos:
That's just it, you are not -expected- (or required) to do anything. The new rule would give you the -option- to switch to the newer subframe IF through some means of data you determine that it will improve your laptimes.

hearsay I suppose.

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

Colin MacLean Verified Driver
Fly Fifer

Region: Atlanta
Posts: 845
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Colin MacLean     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

My 0.02c. The problem here is not the rules changes that are being presented up, it's the logic behind them.

So.

CRB are asking that the 99's be given license to make an expensive power upgrade cheap by allowing two new methods of making power hereby nullifying the benefit of an ECU. This sounds good in theory but the issue is the only guys who are benefiting are the (already a minority) '99 guys who are playing legal while the ones who will stay the same power-wise are the small number of '99 guys pushing the envelope.

What's being ignored here, and the reason I question this approach, is that the 90-97 guys will ALL be disadvantaged. As it stands today only the top-prep or top-dollar '99+ guys have access to this extra power. Your home-builder (the core of SM) won't be doing this. Make the change cheap and now all '99's will have it, adding to the power difference between the average '99 and the '90-97. Net result more guys will be "down on power". Net loss for the class. The only benefit is for the average '99 builder.

I understand the suspension idea, this should be allowed (not required) but in no way should this be a "carrot" for the 90-97 guys to compensate for the 99+ power bump. The power bump should be nullified with a smaller restrictor on the '99+ to retain parity.

--------------------
Colin MacLean
Flyin' MacLean Motorsports

David Dewhurst
Veteran Member

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

Not argueing with anyone. [Smile] When Spec Miata rules incorporate something like the upgrade suspension "if you care to" that's just like in the production car rules where there is a rule that for x % weight you may use a dog box "if you care to." Then if a production car can't make the grade people say you haven't developed your car because you don't have the dog box.

Same crap here, different class. [yep]

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

David Dewhurst
CenDiv
Milwaukee Region
Spec Miata #14

Drago Verified Driver Made Donation to Website Series Champ
MegaModerator

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

3 pages of posts in this thread...

Only 23 letters submitted by only 11 people.

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

EAST STREET RACING

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

Is there a window to submit letters?
Can I do it tomorrow?

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

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

Until SCCA can send a survey to all of the Spec Miata owners/drivers who race currently in the SCCA club events......you really aren't getting an accurate idea of what people want. Of course you then get into the whole argument of writing questions that are intellectually honest and not designed to evoke a specific response.

I think some 1.6 owners are tired of hearing that the 1.6 is the equal of the 99...IF it is driven by a top flight driver, prepped to the max, and driven perfectly. Most of us who drive 1.6 cars these days probably don't meet those requirements. So the fact that you want us to spend money and time upgrading our cars just so the 99's won't have to move to their own class.....probably doesn't thrill most of us who own 1.6 cars. You are trying to create a generic Mazda Miata out of three very different models of car just to keep all of the cars in the same class. Not sure where this ends...but I bet next year you will make it so I have to replace my 1.6 motor with a 1.8.

I just read the post about time to submit letters...doesn't this have to be announced in Fastrack?

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

iambhooper
Member

Region: NCR
Car #: NA
SMIM: NA
Posts: 125
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for iambhooper     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

if this were all about "leveling" the playing field, wouldn't the easiest and cheapest solution result in allowing those of us with 1.6's to run fuel pressure adjusted to Xlbs, which in theory would produce a tad more horsepower?

also, as a "newbie" i'm not at ease with the concept of having t upgrade my suspension by next season. what's to keep them from saying all NA's need to be convertedby X date? just like they did with those yoyo 888's!

hoop

--------------------
hoop
'91 Spec Miata
'90 NA Beater/Track Day car
'06 RSX Type S

cam Verified Driver
Cheap member

Region: southwest
Car #: 14
Year : 90
Posts: 739
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for cam   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Referring back to an earlier post I made in this thread, it is much cheaper/less expensive to allow the early model Miata’s to upgrade to the 99 style suspension than it is to build a new 99 year model car. While I think the cars are close, I really like having the option to swap out the front sub-frame if I chose too. The same way it is nice to chose to swap out the shock hats and upgrade to the Torsen Diff. I’m one of the 11 who submitted my letter in favor of the suspension changes. I also support the timing and fuel pressure changes. This is a reasonable alternative to modify the ECU and much cheaper and easier than a true bolt-on aftermarket ECU.

Added:
quote:
Originally posted by Randy Thieme:
Letter submitted.

I don't agree with the argument that the '99 suspension upgrades won't be a financial burden on 1.6 owners since it won't actually be required. What will happen has already happened with the FatCat bumpstops. The GCR does not require using the FatCat bumpstops, yet everyone I know believes they're a 'must have.' For that matter shaving tires is not required by the GCR either.

I also don't agree that only front runners will care to make the upgrade. Say a person with a 1.6 has finished mid-pack 8/15 the last three races. And a another 1.6 has always finished 7/15, always the same car. That second car has the '99 front suspension and the first one doesn't. You can't tell me the guy with the first car isn't thinking he or she now has to upgrade their front suspension to finish 7/15. And you can't tell me they don't want to either.

I have been the top finishing 1.6 in couple of national events and I still neither have the FatCat bump stops nor a Torsen diff. But I really like the idea of being able to upgrade if I wanted to.

But I understand the point you're trying to make. Still, much cheaper to upgrade a 1.6 than build a new 99.

[ 05-14-2010, 09:56 AM: Message edited by: cam ]

--------------------
"The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
~Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
~Thomas Jefferson

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

quote:
Originally posted by Alex Bolanos:
quote:
Originally posted by John A - 5x Racing:
If there were stricter tech and teardowns to begin with there probably wouldn't be many of these problems, or at least not in this magnitude. Want parity? Get the cars as close as you can with restrictor plates (like they are now) and do post race invasive tech on the top 3 or 5 cars.

Agreed but that's just not happening , even at the national events there is minimal post race tech.

quote:

Maybe if the clubs made it easier to protest more people would.

SCCA is not going to change their protest process for one class. Plus, we don't want to protest eachother as that leads to bad blood between racing buddies... The sanctioning body should do it or make it trivial to stretch the bounds of legality. That's the point of opening up fuel pressure and timing, if that is done than all of these $1000 ecus are no better than a cheap FPR and a timing wheel.

quote:

I'm sure some of the creative minds that dwell here can think of something to stop the people that are cheating up cars, not change the rules to allow everyone else to bring their cars up to the level of the "optimized" cars.

Improvement and evolution of the rules is key to the ongoing success of this class (and any series really), the drive to improve the cars and ourselves as drivers is equal. People will always be trying new things and the rules are there to keep development under control, in this case a new rule would trivialize modifying a component that is EXTREMELY difficult (if not impossible) to tech.

I just spent an hour writing my response and opinions about all of this, posted it, then deleted it. What a waste of time. My opinions are strong on this, and since I don't have a 99 to bring even with the modded ecu 99's, and I'm not going to use 99 suspension parts on my 1.6, I don't think my opinion really matters here. Here's to those who make our rules, cause this one makes my head spin!

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

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

Jason Holland Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Mediocrity rules!

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

quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Tucker:
Of course! We looked at the acceleration curves and exit speeds and the cars were the same from exit to top speed; which resulted in the same times. Even at tracks like VIR the speeds were the same using these cars. When you compare my car to the others at VIR using the velocity over distance graph all of our lines sit right on top of each other all the way from the oak tree to the braking zone; except for Alex's 94 which seemed to be a few miles per hour less at the very top end. The cars can run the same lap time but it is easier for me in the 99.

I would LOVE to see these graphs. Can you post them?

I think it would be a strange situation for a 1.6 and a 99 to have the same Accel and speed curves from corner exit to top speed.

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

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

Letter submitted.

I don't agree with the argument that the '99 suspension upgrades won't be a financial burden on 1.6 owners since it won't actually be required. What will happen has already happened with the FatCat bumpstops. The GCR does not require using the FatCat bumpstops, yet everyone I know believes they're a 'must have.' For that matter shaving tires is not required by the GCR either.

I also don't agree that only front runners will care to make the upgrade. Say a person with a 1.6 has finished mid-pack 8/15 the last three races. And a another 1.6 has always finished 7/15, always the same car. That second car has the '99 front suspension and the first one doesn't. You can't tell me the guy with the first car isn't thinking he or she now has to upgrade their front suspension to finish 7/15. And you can't tell me they don't want to either. My experience with club racers is they're a darn good group of people I feel fortunate to be around. But there's one consistent lie I hear in the paddock amongst club racers which is "I'm just here to have fun." [Wink]

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

LOL, that's good Randy. I agreed when I was a mid-packer and of course I agree now. We have fun hanging around, eating good food, and shooting the breeze. We have fun going side-by-side through a set of fast corners. But ultimately, the goal here is to beat the guy in front of you.

I'm thinkin hard about my letter. (I already sent my comment supporting the tech fund), and I will post it here after I send sometime this weekend.
-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

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

"Beat the guy in front of you". Not attacking you Bruce just using the phrase to outline my point and yes just going to have fun. At what cost? Crash your car, crash the other guy, cheat? If it doesn't say you can, you can't. Grey areas my ... it's cheating.
Let the National guys do what they want or let them run FP if it's development they want go develop overthere. Leave the club guys alone. If you have to run a club race " in the grey" to win good for you.
CP Denis

seege Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: NASA So Cal
Year : Thinking on that.... ok done 99
Posts: 82
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for seege     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

As a NASA guy with a 1.6 and no SCCA vote, I say we stop the heavy development. Leave the 1.6 as the low cost entry level car.

If the 1.6 is holding up the 1.8's then let them go run on their own. It won't be the end of the world. The perceived instability of the 1.6 build rules is not bringing many sane people into the class at this point.
-CJ

--------------------
-CJ Johnson

PedalFaster Verified Driver
Member

Region: Northwest
Car #: 86
Year : 1995
Posts: 372
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for PedalFaster     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

I also agree that, to a large percentage of the field including myself, there's no such thing as an "optional" upgrade. If you dangle a go-faster carrot in front of people, they'll either spend the money to get it, or grumble endlessly that they can't afford it and are unfairly disadvantaged as a result.

quote:
Originally posted by cpdenis:
Not attacking you Bruce
Grey areas my ... it's cheating.

Not sure where you got the whole "grey area" thing came from. I don't think Bruce was talking about pushing the rule book at all, but rather agreeing with me that people will spend the money on every available allowance.

quote:
Originally posted by seege:
If the 1.6 is holding up the 1.8's then let them go run on their own. It won't be the end of the world. The perceived instability of the 1.6 build rules is not bringing many sane people into the class at this point.

If you're racing, right away you've waived any claim to sanity. [Smile]

I'll say that reducing the size of the SM field by splitting out the '99s would hurt my desire to race SM more than the small, theoretical improvement in parity would increase it.

--------------------
Stephen Hui - '95 SM #86, Northwest / Oregon Region SCCA

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

First let me say that I do not prep my 1.6 to the level of the top guys, I also need significantly more seat time to drive better, and I will not spend the significant dollars it takes to campaign a season at the National level. That said...I am not going to complain about not being competitive. My concern is with the future of this class and the direction it is headed. I have not driven a 99, but the people who have driven both (and are great drivers) have told me that the 99 makes it easier to recover from mistakes due to its HP and torque out of the corners. In addition, I have been told that it is easier to setup and tune....and more importantly that it is easier to maintain the car at a top level without significant dyno time, etc.

I believe this class is built on low cost budget racers. We don't buy new tires at 2/32 and use a set a weekend. Most of us don't put our car on the dyno before every race. When you allow an upgrade on the 1.6...whether you intended to or not you are forcing me to adapt the upgrade just to stay even with the rest of the field. I have 99 Fat Cat top hats....why because the guys I race were putting them on their cars.

It seems to me that if you were trying to enhance the class and pave a path to the future then put the 99's and up in their own class and let them run without a plate, adjust FP, run an open ECU, and make it a class that SM 90-97 drivers can move up to as opposed to FP or EP. Make the 90-97 class regional only and bring back the low cost and the fun. Just my [twocents]

I love this class and enjoy the close racing (quit hitting me!)and will go along with whatever is best for all of us.

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

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

Finally some sanity!

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

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

The only point I was using from Bruce was the fun factor and again just used Bruce as a segway. My grey area comment is just thrown in there as fluff for open ECU, FP, CAS, and all that stuff that gets tampered with in the name of development or not techable.
I agree with you about spending the money and those who can will. This will further dilute the class.
CP

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

Paul, please don't put me in the same class as 'those 99s'. I run a 110k motor that's had the plugs and oil changed that I built with some friends. My only set of tires purchased since 09' was shaved to 4/32 and I'm hoping to run them for at least another couple of months. I hope you got running to meet you at NASA Homestead.
CP
There is a saying where I come from that translated says 'Rotten teeth have strength on ripe bananas'.

Neil O Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: DC
Posts: 68
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Neil O   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Sorry, I just don’t see regional SM being broken at all. With all the talk about splitting the class and the invincible 99-00 there were two races at VIR last weekend. A na 1.8, (2) 1.6’s, a 2001 & a 99 battled for the lead and had a great time. Bottom line is …SM is…. real racing with some great drivers in a great class.
What happens when someone with the money and time preps a superior 1.6 in the “budget” 1.6 only class? Lots of dyno time…perfect motor….alignment... rolling resistance…. you get the picture. This is racing and people will always look for an advantage if they have the money and the time.
I get tired of the bad rap this class gets on this board.
Get informed on the proposed changes, write your letters and have fun.

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

seege Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: NASA So Cal
Year : Thinking on that.... ok done 99
Posts: 82
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for seege     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Neil O:
Sorry, I just don’t see regional SM being broken at all. With all the talk about splitting the class and the invincible 99-00 there were two races at VIR last weekend. A na 1.8, (2) 1.6’s, a 2001 & a 99 battled for the lead and had a great time. Bottom line is …SM is…. real racing with some great drivers in a great class.
What happens when someone with the money and time preps a superior 1.6 in the “budget” 1.6 only class? Lots of dyno time…perfect motor….alignment... rolling resistance…. you get the picture. This is racing and people will always look for an advantage if they have the money and the time.
I get tired of the bad rap this class gets on this board.
Get informed on the proposed changes, write your letters and have fun.

Speaking for myself: SM is not my first rodeo.
I know what top guys in top cars do. The heck that has to do with bleeding the 1.6 guys to the point of quitting is beyond my comprehension level.

--------------------
-CJ Johnson

cintibob
Member

Region: cfr
Car #: 13
Year : 1990
Posts: 105
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for cintibob     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Gatoratty:
First let me say that I do not prep my 1.6 to the level of the top guys, I also need significantly more seat time to drive better, and I will not spend the significant dollars it takes to campaign a season at the National level. That said...I am not going to complain about not being competitive. My concern is with the future of this class and the direction it is headed. I have not driven a 99, but the people who have driven both (and are great drivers) have told me that the 99 makes it easier to recover from mistakes due to its HP and torque out of the corners. In addition, I have been told that it is easier to setup and tune....and more importantly that it is easier to maintain the car at a top level without significant dyno time, etc.

I believe this class is built on low cost budget racers. We don't buy new tires at 2/32 and use a set a weekend. Most of us don't put our car on the dyno before every race. When you allow an upgrade on the 1.6...whether you intended to or not you are forcing me to adapt the upgrade just to stay even with the rest of the field. I have 99 Fat Cat top hats....why because the guys I race were putting them on their cars.

It seems to me that if you were trying to enhance the class and pave a path to the future then put the 99's and up in their own class and let them run without a plate, adjust FP, run an open ECU, and make it a class that SM 90-97 drivers can move up to as opposed to FP or EP. Make the 90-97 class regional only and bring back the low cost and the fun. Just my [twocents]

I love this class and enjoy the close racing (quit hitting me!)and will go along with whatever is best for all of us.

Me two and I do not even have the 99 top hats.

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 Randy Thieme:
Letter submitted.

I don't agree with the argument that the '99 suspension upgrades won't be a financial burden on 1.6 owners since it won't actually be required. What will happen has already happened with the FatCat bumpstops. The GCR does not require using the FatCat bumpstops, yet everyone I know believes they're a 'must have.' For that matter shaving tires is not required by the GCR either.

+ about 1,000,000
Rick

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

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

Hey Paul,
If you want to run regional only, then more power to you.
Personally, I prefer racing Regional and National even if I don't make it to the podium, and don't want to be forced to run Regional only anymore than you want to be forced to make upgrades to your car. Just my .02

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

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

Just a thought, but I think we should all take a step back and determine what the actual proposed rule changes are, list them here, and tell people where to send their letters to. I think the recipients of the letters are going to be flooded with a ton of "opposed" or "approves" that might not even be something that is planned to be changed.

My thoughts might have changed from previous posts, but some things I have thought of in between rants and frustration, also clarification from people in the know are:

Adjustable Fuel Pressure and Timing.
Although I race a 1.6 and can adjust my timing freely and air/fuel ratio with my meter, we are have racecars here, shouldn't everyone have the ability to tweak their "race car" to obtain optimal race trim? This is not showroom stock, and any horsepower advantages are going to be nulled by restrictor plates if the 99's are too fast. Also, this proposed rule change is more to void the illegally modded ecu's that are out there than it is to boost horsepower in every 99+.

Suspension for 90-97's.
Although this one might piss a lot of people off, and I don't necessarily think that it is something I would jump up and do immediately, it does let the guys with cars nearing 20 years old to use newer, better, more readily available parts. Just like the 99+ bump stops and FatCat kits, it improves shortcomings and lets you have a wider range of parts to choose from. Who knows, maybe these parts won't even make anyone faster. Has anyone ever used 99+ suspension parts on a 90-97?
And knowing how much we crash, the fact that having more parts to choose from off craigslist or your favorite used parts supplier will be nice. And the fact is that it is strictly OPTIONAL. I would probably update to 99+ suspension parts as I broke or wore out my original 91 parts, but the fact is now you have just opened up the available parts inventory for repairing your car. I know our used parts suppliers that support our class and race with us would be happy about this!

As far as I know those are the only proposed rule changes. There has been a lot of other proposed rules thrown out there, I think a lot of us may have gotten confused with what was actually proposed. So, let me ask the questions:

What are the proposed rule changes?
Where do I send my letter?

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

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

David Dewhurst
Veteran Member

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

John, I don't know you but it would seem that someone has you drinking their Kool Aid.

How about thinking about where these changes (whatever OUR GOOD FRIENDS on the SMAC/CRB recomend for US are) for the 1.6's model cars are coming from.

Why should we 1.6 drivers be required to catch up with the 99 cars. Or the recent car of the year that Daniels, Drago & Coello to name a few are building or the cars that have come to life with the updated motor changes. Yes there are restrictor plates on all the newer cars. How about closing the hole on the newer cars. It need not be all about speed.

A thought from a previous post:

***When Spec Miata rules incorporate something like the upgrade suspension "if you care to" that's just like in the production car rules where there is a rule that for x % weight you may use a dog box "if you care to." Then if a production car can't make the grade people say you haven't developed your car because you don't have the dog box.*** [Smash] [Smash] [Smash]

Next weekend I'll be at Road America for 4 days for a double national crewing with an F production car & I hope there are a couple good 1.6 cars with good drivers that I can watch simo with the car of the year & the 99's.

[ 05-15-2010, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: David Dewhurst ]

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

David Dewhurst
CenDiv
Milwaukee Region
Spec Miata #14

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

^^^
with all due respect, it seems to me that A to Z, Fly Fifer, Gator, seege and a few others that have posted here are the only ones not drunk on anyone's Kool Aid.
some serious spin doctors at play here ...
if JD1, JD2 & Coello blow everyone away with their new package it is only because the written rule set is not being properly enforced. Same goes for the '99.
1.6 needs a new cam AND flywheel to match up with what's out there today and what's a coming down the pike, please keep the suspension upgrade carrot away from the equation while trying to legalize the illegalities of the '94's & '99's.
Thank you for your input.

David Dewhurst
Veteran Member

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

+ 1 Thank you very much.

The 1.6 with some torque freed up or added torque will be a back in the game for very little cost. [yep]

***if JD1, JD2 & Coello blow everyone away with their new package it is only because the written rule set is not being properly enforced.***

No, because Voytek Burdzy (The Polish Prince is always great fun along with his straight man.)
who started his season in the South East & continued at Blackhawk Farm 2 weeks ago with his
revived "new package" or shall we say motor rules changes has done very well. The Prince didn't just learn to drive over the winter months. [Wink]

I can't wait for next weekend at Road America to see what times Voytek turns. Oh & I'll bet Coello's car will be complete by then.

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

David Dewhurst
CenDiv
Milwaukee Region
Spec Miata #14

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

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

Ok, I submitted or I should say resubmitted my letters with regards to the subject items.

Compliance program: I can understand it for Nationals but I'd rather not pay a compliance fee for a Regional. Last time we had it, it was "per race" so weekend warriors like me were paying twice since most of the races in my area are double regionals. It should have been "per race weekend" or Regional races should have been exempt from it. My logic: Nationals are serious, Regionals are just for fun.

Suspension upgrades for older cars and open timing and FP: If it helps parity, I'm for it. If it allows the older cars to hold their value relative to the newer cars, I'm for it.

[ 05-16-2010, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: D.B. Cutler ]

Cliffy Chains
Member

Region: Central FL
Car #: 17
Year : 1991
Posts: 275
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Cliffy Chains   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

There seem to be a few problems that keep getting overlooked.

1. Most Important, the 1.6 needs an inexpensive way to gain some torque numbers to climb a hill somewhere "comparable" to a 99.

possible solutions to #1, a slightly lightened flywheel, or an aluminum pressure plate, maybe a lightweight underdrive main pulley; cams, header, anything else would be to expensive, and be overkill in terms of too much HP gains IMO.

2. Timing and FP restrictions lifted on all cars? a 1.6L might gain 1hp with this mod., an early 1.8L about 2hp, a late 1.8l about 1.5hp and a 99 would gain a minimum of 3-4.

possible solutions to #2, If there is no way to "police" an ECU, then you are still going to have programmed ECU's ran in addition to the mods, even if it just for correct fuel mapping tables. Now I agree with allowing this, but only if it prevents the use of a programmed ECU.

3. The 94-97 cars need to fix the problem with the cars running out of "steam" after 6300 rpm. And shortshifting is not an answer here.

possible solution to #3, 47mm plate back, its the only solution. The car might gain 1-1.5hp, but it will pull again at higher rpms.

I personally would say the cars are very close right now, yet any 99 driver knows, "check up" a 1.6 in the turn and there is no contest 99 wins every time. Most 1.6 drivers with a tuned box, know after 6k rpm, start reeling your 1.8 fish in...

There is always going to be pro's and cons for each car, I 100% honestly believe that if we all took the time we spent shouting parity on these forums, and used it to work on setup / testing & data, we'd have alot less to talk about in the future. [twocents]

--------------------
BDR Motorsports, Autotechnik
Cliff Blanchard
Down on power 1.6
Sluggish overweight 99'

Chris Haldeman
Member

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

cliff,i agree with you my 1.6 car is good untill i get checked up by a 99.there is no recovery from that and they all know it.

[ 05-17-2010, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: techchris ]

Cliffy Chains
Member

Region: Central FL
Car #: 17
Year : 1991
Posts: 275
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Cliffy Chains   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Cams would be too much HP gains, and would make it effortless for you to pass any 99'. Since this is alot of trial and error, we try to keep the cost down for changes, just incase they dont work and rules change back, this way owners are not out a ton of Money.

Samll change = good idea [thumbsup]

Cams in a 1.6 = Rocket fuel to a campfire [flamed]

--------------------
BDR Motorsports, Autotechnik
Cliff Blanchard
Down on power 1.6
Sluggish overweight 99'

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

They can have cams if I can take my plate out!

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

 
Page 3 of 3 1  2  3 
 

   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: