This was quiet! GCR update

I thought this was dead a long time ago?!

2020 GCR...

u. On the upper control arms, the original outer mounting holes may be slotted to obtain additional camber. The max slot size shall not exceed 0.433” X 0.600”. No material shall be added.

...it gives me hope mine and others request to get back some weight on the NA 1.8 might happen!

woah, that was stealthy

woah, that was stealthy

and not needed... looks like another one of those rules we fixed that didnt need fixing

 

...it gives me hope mine and others request to get back some weight on the NA 1.8 might happen!

And why would they do that? 

The car makes more power than EVERY other SM out there, a little less tq, little less revvs.. No one who has been historically at the front is racing them to show they are off?  The Runoffs are heading back to Road America, so you want to take weight off of the car that makes the most HP? 

 Meanwhile Konrad nearly podiumed with his at Homestead in four car break away two weeks ago and Danny won both days at Daytona in one he had never even driven in a 60 car field. Sager choses his NA1.8 over his VVT in most cases. Marc Cefalo drives one and he builds more cars than all of us.  You think he is just trying to give all of us an advantage?  I would think if he felt the cars were not a good choice he would not have built one and continually choose it over VVTs  and 99's he has raced and has at his disposal? Maybe he just feels sorry for all of us and wants to give us a better chance

And why would they do that? 

The car makes more power than EVERY other SM out there, a little less tq, little less revvs.. No one who has been historically at the front is racing them to show they are off?  The Runoffs are heading back to Road America, so you want to take weight off of the car that makes the most HP? 

 

 Meanwhile Konrad nearly podiumed with his at Homestead in four car break away two weeks ago and Danny won both days at Daytona in one he had never even driven in a 60 car field. Sager choses his NA1.8 over his VVT in most cases. Marc Cefalo drives one and he builds more cars than all of us.  You think he is just trying to give all of us an advantage?  I would think if he felt the cars were not a good choice he would not have built one and continually choose it over VVTs  and 99's he has raced and has at his disposal? Maybe he just feels sorry for all of us and wants to give us a better chance

It has been 3 years since the last "parity" adjustment to the NA 1.8. It was done because there was a feeling the car needed something correct? At the time I was optimistic the change would help. Now I'm confident it was just a sideways change. My letter was not the only one requesting another look...and more specifically a reduction in weight. Pretty sure I know what Mark C asked for and thinks! Your claim it makes the most HP of all SM cars is accurate from what I have seen...we agree! And it plays to the audience. Hopefully the many other factors involved are being considered by SMAC. The other question...is there something in the works for the vvt?

It has been 3 years since the last "parity" adjustment to the NA 1.8. It was done because there was a feeling the car needed something correct? At the time I was optimistic the change would help. Now I'm confident it was just a sideways change. My letter was not the only one requesting another look...and more specifically a reduction in weight. Pretty sure I know what Mark C asked for and thinks! Your claim it makes the most HP of all SM cars is accurate from what I have seen...we agree! And it plays to the audience. Hopefully the many other factors involved are being considered by SMAC. The other question...is there something in the works for the vvt?

Your post kind of sums it up..   

Parity adjustments SHOULD NOT be made on "feelings"  Nor should they be made on race results, just facts and data.. 

pretty sure the same ones asking for help in the NA 1.8s are asking for pulling back the VVTs', Why? 

The Runoffs started the VVT talk.. 

Here are some facts.. You need to consider drivers when looking at results.. Please tell me who driving a non VVT do you think was held back and would have beat these drivers if he/she was in a VVT?

1-Todd Buras, Pro driver 20 plus year sm driver

2- Preston Pardus  SCCA National Champion/Xfiniti driver multi time super tour winner

3- Michael Ross NASA national Champion, Super tour and majors winner

4- Brian Henderson Super tour winner/ Imsa driver

5 Elivan Gopuliart SM national Champion, 5 time national champion in all, pro driver

6 Jim Drago 3x national champion,  Multitime Supertour winner

If we all switch to cars , the results look the same.   The cars all have advantages and disadvantages. generally speaking the VVT makes 1.5-2 hp less than 99 and makes about 3-3.5  more ft lbs of tq. 

Many that are in the know are still building 99/00  because it will be the better car at Road America. Chris Haldeman for one, Preston for two, me for three.. You would think these people should know.? I was beat by Tyler Brown at the Sprints last year. in a 99 with my engine.  Michael Carter was in four car break away this weekend in his 99 and he races only one or two Sm weekends a year.  Rich Astacio sold his VVT and we just built him a 99 and he had his best two weekends in racing. The problem with non VVT cars is not the car.. it is driver, quality of car builds and car preparation. Slowing the car down will only hurt the mid pack VVT drivers and penalize the front running VVT drivers for skill and proper preparation. 

Concerning your NA 1.8..

No one who has every won a super tour or built a car that has won a super tour currently races one.  If Marc is planning on going to Road Atlanta Super tour.. I will gladly pay to enter his NA 1.8 in STL, I will pay for any damage and the tires. Preston who is the same size will drive his car in that class...  if he is not at least 1/2 second a lap faster in non draft assisted laps than Marc, I will fully support that car needs help and you should have all the data you need. It will cost you guys nothing, I will foot the bill because I KNOW you are wrong. My bet is this doesn't happen because not sure you guys really want to know

This parity stuff for the front is fun reading. 

Please remind me why more rear camber is needed. Sure, you bet, it's needed for the same reason as the front offset bushings and the high dollar front hubs and Penske Shocks. Slide another rule down the sewer because of the tires.

 

 

Please remind me why more rear camber is needed. Sure, you bet, it's needed for the same reason as the front offset bushings and the high dollar front hubs and Penske Shocks. Slide another rule down the sewer because of the tires.

It wasn't needed and I don't think it was even asked for?  Was a letter attached to that recommendation? 

Your post kind of sums it up..
Parity adjustments SHOULD NOT be made on "feelings" Nor should they be made on race results, just facts and data..

pretty sure the same ones asking for help in the NA 1.8s are asking for pulling back the VVTs', Why?

The Runoffs started the VVT talk..
Here are some facts.. You need to consider drivers when looking at results.. Please tell me who driving a non VVT do you think was held back and would have beat these drivers if he/she was in a VVT?

1-Todd Buras, Pro driver 20 plus year sm driver
2- Preston Pardus SCCA National Champion/Xfiniti driver multi time super tour winner
3- Michael Ross NASA national Champion, Super tour and majors winner
4- Brian Henderson Super tour winner/ Imsa driver
5 Elivan Gopuliart SM national Champion, 5 time national champion in all, pro driver
6 Jim Drago 3x national champion, Multitime Supertour winner

If we all switch to cars , the results look the same. The cars all have advantages and disadvantages. generally speaking the VVT makes 1.5-2 hp less than 99 and makes about 3-3.5 more ft lbs of tq.

Many that are in the know are still building 99/00 because it will be the better car at Road America. Chris Haldeman for one, Preston for two, me for three.. You would think these people should know.? I was beat by Tyler Brown at the Sprints last year. in a 99 with my engine. Michael Carter was in four car break away this weekend in his 99 and he races only one or two Sm weekends a year. Rich Astacio sold his VVT and we just built him a 99 and he had his best two weekends in racing. The problem with non VVT cars is not the car.. it is driver, quality of car builds and car preparation. Slowing the car down will only hurt the mid pack VVT drivers and penalize the front running VVT drivers for skill and proper preparation.


Concerning your NA 1.8..

No one who has every won a super tour or built a car that has won a super tour currently races one. If Marc is planning on going to Road Atlanta Super tour.. I will gladly pay to enter his NA 1.8 in STL, I will pay for any damage and the tires. Preston who is the same size will drive his car in that class... if he is not at least 1/2 second a lap faster in non draft assisted laps than Marc, I will fully support that car needs help and you should have all the data you need. It will cost you guys nothing, I will foot the bill because I KNOW you are wrong. My bet is this doesn't happen because not sure you guys really want to know

Wasn't Ross driving a 99? Maybe that's why he didn't win! Bahahahaha

VVT

It wasn't needed and I don't think it was even asked for? Was a letter attached to that recommendation?

VVT

I had sent a letter in support of it when it was originally an topic of discussion. It hurts nothing to have it if you believe you can get enough camber without it don't do it. If you think you need more camber then do it, pretty simple stuff whether actually needed or not solves the problem of someone thinking not enough camber is holding them back problem solved just like allowing offset bushings in the front.

If it dose or if it dose not fix/improve an issue, what's the accumulative cost to obtain maximum performance from the soft tires? And whose the winner and I don't mean winner of the race.

I thought this was dead a long time ago?!

 

2020 GCR...

 

u. On the upper control arms, the original outer mounting holes may be slotted to obtain additional camber. The max slot size shall not exceed 0.433” X 0.600”. No material shall be added.

 

 

Maybe if I write a letter to make it retroactive they will give me my 2nd Place Indy Runoffs podium trophy back - eh maybe not!!!!!       

It has been 3 years since the last "parity" adjustment to the NA 1.8. It was done because there was a feeling the car needed something correct? At the time I was optimistic the change would help. Now I'm confident it was just a sideways change. My letter was not the only one requesting another look...and more specifically a reduction in weight. Pretty sure I know what Mark C asked for and thinks! Your claim it makes the most HP of all SM cars is accurate from what I have seen...we agree! And it plays to the audience. Hopefully the many other factors involved are being considered by SMAC. The other question...is there something in the works for the vvt?

Here we go.................................

It is winter so
 

Maybe if I write a letter to make it retroactive they will give me my 2nd Place Indy Runoffs podium trophy back - eh maybe not!!!!!

I had sent a letter in support of it when it was originally an topic of discussion. It hurts nothing to have it if you believe you can get enough camber without it don't do it. If you think you need more camber then do it, pretty simple stuff whether actually needed or not solves the problem of someone thinking not enough camber is holding them back problem solved just like allowing offset bushings in the front.

Then that's clearly the only reason he and I finished p3 in the respective championships as neither of us can drive

Weight Reduction? Really? Few grams will make no difference. 

Why don't they just make the 40% stiffer bushings legal instead of this offset bushing and rear control arm slotting?  Mazda already sells them for crying out loud!

We put the stiffer bushings in our ITA car and we no longer need the offset bushings.  Tire temps are excellent at 3.3 deg negative camber all around. We are almost at the end of our camber adjustment in the front. 

I wonder if NASA will adopt the same rule? Anyone?