166 replies to this topic

[Johnny D]

I'm not sure were the P grab is coming from, Trump reference ?

 

I don't care about your process points being off base. Tell it Xav. Oh you already have, sorry.

 

So you have 4th and 5th, let me know how that goes, show some video, then I'll care, assume you did the proper set up, etc.

 

I'm out.

J~

[Jamz14]

My apologies to johnny and all of you. My comments were out of line an inappropriate.

[Ron Alan]

Dam...missed it!

James...you've been around too long to let Johnny and anything he posts get under your skin! In person Johnny is a good guy...different in his own way...but not malicious. The shorthand he writes on-line is difficult to comprehend on a good day...and more often misunderstood than not!

 

I've never considered my 95 to be a bad handling car...in fact to a man...every driver who has ever driven it felt it was competitive from a grip and braking stand point. And this was even when it had a 47mm plate and was 2400lbs(2010/11?). Time will tell but I've conceded to give this change a chance. My gut reaction initially was not liking the weight back...but I know this change wont hurt performance! Lets see if it helps 

[MPR22]

SURE, then Michael and his Texas buddy (the one that's been real quite lately) would start howling. Their as fast as an NB, note I didn't say faster than an NB, hang an anchor on the em.
 
Now to the real point of my post. With all the in folks talking tenths of a second, how many of you can consistently with clear track run consistently within plus or minus one tenth lap after lap?

SURE, then Michael and his Texas buddy (the one that's been real quite lately) would start howling. Their as fast as an NB, note I didn't say faster than an NB, hang an anchor on the em.
 
Now to the real point of my post. With all the in folks talking tenths of a second, how many of you can consistently with clear track run consistently within plus or minus one tenth lap after lap?

To be fair to me, you will not find one post where I am not supporting improvements to the NA 1.8. I have raced Taylor F. In both his 97 and his 99 and I can say without a doubt the 97 was an underdog. I consider his cars very comparable to mine and his driving also.

As for running +\- .1 for several laps in a race almost all the top guys can do it. Hell I have even done it on occasion. After lap 4 you will see many guys +\- .1 for 4-5 laps or even longer. That's what wins races.

[Bench Racer]

Maybe we should allow the NB subframes on the NA cars to make them handle better.

 

Did I say that out loud!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Michael, this ^ was/is the attached quote and what I was referencing. NB sub-frames on the NA. Thanks for the +/- one tenth reply. Hey Voytek, need to check your lap time variance. Voytek response, you want WHAT. 

[Danica Davison]

For what it is worth, Alex Bolanos is running a top prepped NA1.8 this weekend at Sebring and is running 2:38s.  At the majors, in an Autotechnik Rental VVT car, he ran 2:35s at will.  However, there are obviously variables at play: It is warmer this weekend and there is less competition, so less of a need for alex to push the car. 

 

I still think it may be too early to tell if any more changes need to be made (its only been like two months).  But, if there is anyone who can offer any feedback/data, it would be Alex Bolanos after this weekend.

[Jamz14]

You are right ron. And an always calming voice to me. I just don't feel I am being unreasonable by asking for someone in charge to define what success is with these changes. That is all. No one wants to do that. At least in a specific way.

[Bench Racer]

When you find those particular spec line cars winning at SCCA events with the pointy end players on different track configurations, it's time to gather your data showing how these spec line cars are whipping the a$$ of all other spec line cars. For now prep your car to your max and then put a pointy end driver in your car for results. I put a pointy end driver in my car and the car is very capable. I'll take full responsibility for when I'm in the car as I recognize my capabilities. Turned 75 (Dargo) Feb. 7th.  

[Jamz14]

So conversely bench, if they aren't on the podium at a majors event you would support a removal of the weight? And all of it just so that it can be fair in having a better performing car for the same amount of time it was under speced?

And also agree that it doesn't matter if they were raced or not as big boys not racing them constitutes a proof that they are not desirable to build because of the spec? I think you have made that same case a time or two yes?

[Bench Racer]

Let me expand on this...

 

I did a very careful test on a good day keeping every variable as close to the same as possible except for the weight and plate changes.  At Blackhawk, the average of 3 best laps in back to back sessions was 1/10th of second faster at heavier weight and no plate.  That's a tight track with 2 100MPH straights and a lot of 3rd gear stuff.  Beyond the test day I raced the car at 2400 and no plate the day following the test and wasn't impressed running with the heavier fuel load necessary to finish the race above 2400.  At a longer track I believe (no data to back this up yet) the car will benefit a bit more from the extra HP under 2017 rules.  We'll see.

 

I have had the luxury of having 2 cars (a '95 and '01 with the '01 preceeded by an '00)  and am probably one of the few that has driven both an NA 1.8 and and NB in the same season for each of the past 8 years and on 2 occasions have driven both cars on the same weekend.  In my case the NB cars have been overall faster at every track I've been to.  The results I got from the previously mentioned test will not convince me to enter the '95 more often as I believe the '01 is still the faster car.  The flaw in the new rules IMO is adding too much weight to a car that has the older front suspension geometry.  The weight will likely make the car weaker than other cars on some tracks or portions of tracks and the extra power won't be enough to overcome that IMO.  NA1.8 at 2400 pounds is likely the worst handling car among all the SM variants but again it's too early to say for sure.

 

When our season starts up here in May at Blackhawk I'll be in the '01 for sure, although I'll probably enter the '95 at the June Sprints at Road America as that track provides a better opportunity for the extra power to matter. 

Each of our phylosophy makes zero difference. Data makes a difference. Here's my data for the 95. Our friend Tom Sager did some serious back to back testing at the Farm the last race weekend in Oct. 2016. Tom has owned several different Spec Miata's. Because he's been a racer for MANY years and a pointy end racer, but maybe not quite as consistent as should be to stay at the pointy end during a race, I'll believe his data any day of the week.

 

You on the other hand have a hand full of races under your belt and really haven't proven a whole bunch to very many. Not being harsh, just stating reality. Me on the other hand did many more races, 60 some in my Spec 7, converted to ITA car from 2000 through 2006 including setting a track record. Haven't raced nearly as many times since finishing my Spec Miata and starting racing it in year 2011. But I have gotten 10 years older since 2006 and Feb.7 hit 75.

[Jim Drago]

So conversely bench, if they aren't on the podium at a majors event you would support a removal of the weight? And all of it just so that it can be fair in having a better performing car for the same amount of time it was under speced?

Not accurate IMO.. look at the sample size alone? What is there 15 NB cars to every one NA1.8 car? If all drivers and cars are equal they should only be on the podium once every 5 races?

And also agree that it doesn't matter if they were raced or not as big boys not racing them constitutes a proof that they are not desirable to build because of the spec? I think you have made that same case a time or two yes?

I dont agree with that, nor did I when it was being talked about in regard to 1.6 cars. I think you can make a valid argument that the 1.6 is now better at some tracks, yet their is not a migration to the 1.6. IMO, the only way that happens is if the rules make one car a spec line a clear over dog. If a car is only at a slight advantage an overnd at some tracks, I dont see people selling their cars and building them. Especially if not the newest model. Just my 2 cents

[av8tor]

I think the NB is more popular just because it looks better, parity be damned.

[Diller]

I got a chance to race the new setup this weekend at CMP and overall I am not disappointed with the changes but I don't expect the NA1.8 to be the new hotness. The changes really didn't make as much of a difference as I thought overall. CMP is not a power track and really likes sticker tires (which I didn't have). The weight is more noticeable than I thought it would be though. Racing around a 1.6, I was struggling to keep up in areas that had quick transitions where I remember catching some NB cars in the past. This track doesn't have long enough straights to get into 5th but the car seemed to pull a little better at the top of 4th. I feel that what is gained at the top end is lost getting off the previous corner.

 

I wish I had a good comparison of what my car was like at this track before the changes but the last time I was at CMP was two years ago and the car was way under developed then. My next race is at Road Atlanta next month and that should be a much better comparison of what effect the changes made.

 

In my opinion from this weekend, I think dropping 25# to 2375 is going to be the sweet spot. In reference to the other cars out this weekend the changes were a wash.

[Jim Drago]

Andrew
Thanks for the feedback and reporting back here. I appreciate and realize you were just reporting on your weekend and not asking for changes based on the one weekend.  I am probably incorrectly using your post as a talking point, so don't take it personally as I am aware this was not a letter submission to SMAC or CRB.

 

 Just to give an insiders view from someone who received these letters and made these decsions for 7-8 years. I can tell you when feedback comes back that says a track requires new tires and I didnt have, followed by I hadnt been there in two years, followed by but I think 25 lbs less will be the sweet spot.  The information is all but discarded immediatley. Is it fair, probabaly not 100%, but that is what happens.  I can't tell you how many letters like this that would come in. 

 

Your opinion may be 100% accurate, but the SMAC/ CRB will be looking for data that is current, on best tires etc.  Just keep that in mind if and when sending in letters asking for changes in any car, in any class.  Letts such as slow the 99 or slow the corvette as basically tossed in the garbage. There needs to be facts and data as to why.

 

While I using Andrews post as a talking point, this applies to all of us.  Support your opinions with hard, current data and you will get better results with SMAC/ CRB.  The SMAC has/had their opinions and made a rule based on those opinions. In order to get a change, they will want to see how/why their opinion was incorrect. 

 

Thanks

Jim
 

[Diller]

Absolutely agree Jim and I wanted to make that clear so I didn't try to stir up anything that didn't need stirring yet. My overall point is that we didn't totally tip over the apple cart with the changes.

 

If I really feel changes need to be made, I will know after next months trip to Road Atlanta with Nasa. The turn out looks to have some competitive cars/drivers of a few generations and I have more laps there than anywhere. I will be on stickers and the car will be prepped and setup to the best of my ability so that will be a much better comparison for me. I also have loads of data from RA that should be able to filter out some of the noise from normal racing variables.

[Jim Drago]

Absolutely agree Jim and I wanted to make that clear so I didn't try to stir up anything that didn't need stirring yet. My overall point is that we didn't totally tip over the apple cart with the changes.

 

If I really feel changes need to be made, I will know after next months trip to Road Atlanta with Nasa. The turn out looks to have some competitive cars/drivers of a few generations and I have more laps there than anywhere. I will be on stickers and the car will be prepped and setup to the best of my ability so that will be a much better comparison for me. I also have loads of data from RA that should be able to filter out some of the noise from normal racing variables.

perfect!

[Johnny D]

Dam...missed it!

James...you've been around too long to let Johnny and anything he posts get under your skin! In person Johnny is a good guy...different in his own way...but not malicious. The shorthand he writes on-line is difficult to comprehend on a good day...and more often misunderstood than not!

 

 

 

[Jamz14]

I am willing to stand corrected if the following statement isn't true;

 

A change is made without hard data from multiple drivers, but hard specific data will be needed to make changes back?

 

If I am wrong and hard specific data was provided to initiate this change in the first place, then it should be extremely easy for someone to say what that was and what success would look like.

 

Jim, I didn't say at the first majors I would expect to see a NA 1.8 . Any majors this year would do for me. If one doesn't, would you then support pulling all the weight?

 

Bench - Ok. That has been the point of many here that my opinion doesn't count. Couple of things though. Im fighting to have the thing left alone. I never thought the NA 1.8 really needed anything and felt MY driving was the difference between me winning and not the car (if im wrong about that, why not let people run either the old rule set or the new? It would just be hurting me right?). That point was also made by Johnny with him worried about Rob already winning alot out here in a NA1.8 OBD1. I also referenced not my unrespected data and opinion but TOMS and Dave Wheelers data that showed these changes will yield almost nothing in lap time. Such minuscule improvements you will never distinguish it in this so called specific data you all are looking for. I also should not need to be a majors winner to know and it be trusted that adding weight to a car does not make it handle better. But in case that is in doubt because it comes from my lips, this already seems to be reported by at least one person you respect above, and another that I am unfamiliar with. But I concede the point, my opinion doesn't count. As long as the point is applied fairly. Meaning everyone that hasn't won a majors should shut the F up when it comes to commenting on these things. Only major winning guys have valid acknowledged opinions that can be used to gauge whether the cars are on par with each other. But again, my points are primarily about what is going to be used to judge success. YOU have confused that with me thinking that my driving opinion is valid. My PROCESS experience is valid. And you of all the people I have listened to over the years should be agreeing with me on that. It has been YOU making similar points to mine for years when it comes to the 1.6. But now that it is about a different car than YOU have, all the sudden you have taken the same position of all those people you fought back on. You haven't asked one data related question when it comes to this subject.

 

What I also don't need to be a majors winner to have an opinion on is that the weight was added because it was just too hard for the SMAC to say we needed a different RP because it wasn't on the shelf and ready to go. I guess the idea was that the $45 or whatever they cost was just going to break the bank of all the NA 1.8 drivers out there. But that completely forgets the cost of 50 lbs of ballast. In my opinion....... and as valid as any that you have had about SMAC, this seemed like taking the easy way out. This would have been all so easy for them to just open the RP up a bit and see. Instead we have opened the POSSIBILITY that they made the car worse as conceded by people you respect.

 

But why would 2375 be the "sweet spot"? This sounds like a Donald Trump negotiation that happened. Ask for the outrageous so everyone is happy when you pull it back a bit. How was 2375 settled on as the sweet spot in advance of any data coming in? Because it sure seems like a forgone conclusion by folks that 2375 is going to be where this lands. If pulling the plate is worth .2 to .3 , what was the perceived gap in performance before all this? It seems you guys are trying to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. And if you ask me, the number of people qualified to do that here is very very few and does not include me or you.

 

People forget that I had asked to leave the thing alone. Im asking to show the data from the respected people that led to this change in the first place. Not that my opinion should be used to judge parity or not. I am asking for exactly what you guys are asking me for now. Doesn't anyone see the irony in this? Or the hypocrisy?

 

ALL HEAR THIS. Maybe this is a good change, Im not saying it isn't. But how will you and I know? You all have made the case that I can't judge it so who is? Even if I felt it was a good change after driving it , you all have already dismissed my opinion so why would I ever need to report back to you that it helped? So stop suggesting that I should just try it and see when you have dismissed my feedback in the first place.

[Bench Racer]

Without being disrespectful to Rob, if he didn't come on this site, I wouldn't have a clue he raced a Spec Miata. Granted I don't pay any attention to NASA.  2016 NASA Nationals, 10th place, 2 seconds off fastest race lap time.

 

I for sure did not tell you to shut the F up because you didn't win a Majors.

 

Tom Sager reasons previously explained, why his data works for me. Dude, have you won a Majors?

 

Tom and other's had been referencing raising the 7,000 rpm by a couple hundred rpm for ever.

 

Talking about weight, I can't remember how many times the weight was changed back and forth for the 1.6, 5-6 times. IMHJ, 1 % weight change didn't do squat.  

 

I didn't win a Majors nor have a couple other guys who turned in 1.6 data for ambient air intake and wrapping the snorkel. Turned in my test day data along with accepted engineering practice for power increase per reduced air temperature units. Best guess is the SMAC reviewed our data maybe along with some of their know information and they made a decision. IIRC, a tail was hung on the change, if over kill, change will come quickly.

 

Didn't attempt to hit all your points. I'm retired and don't have all that much time.   

[Rob Burgoon]

Without being disrespectful to Rob, if he didn't come on this site, I wouldn't have a clue he raced a Spec Miata. Granted I don't pay any attention to NASA.  2016 NASA Nationals, 10th place, 2 seconds off fastest race lap time.

 

 

Overheating problems will indeed impair lap times and finish positions...