603 replies to this topic

[Danny Steyn]

The idea of splitting the class is ridiculous. Some geographic areas may have enough numbers to justify this at the regional level but not everywhere.
While the big dogs were running in Road America the local Florida SCCA club had one of their meets at Homestead. There was a total of 15 SMs. Five (5) NBs and ten(10) NAs. If the class was split I would have been racing 5 cars.
CP Denis

CP - I cant believe I am going to take the side of the "split the class" idea that I so vehemently ralled against, just like you, but let me play devils advocate for the sake of debate.....

How would your race at Homestead been any different if they had split the class, run both classes together and awarded 2 sets of trophies. Your racing would have been just as close, you would have had the same number of drivers to compete against, but the 1.6 drivers who have long felt that they are not competing on a level playing field would have had the opportunity to trophy. WIN - WIN ....... maybe?

Still not sure I am for this approach, but I have finally decided to consider this as an option.

My preference is of course that the NA and NB cars get equalized, but as we have seen over the past few years that this is difficult. NA cars rule at certain tracks and NB cars at others. Hopefully the stuff that JD, John Mueller and the SMAC have been working on will make this closer, but I doubt that the debate will stop anytime soon!

[DDG]

Anyway, most of you were not at the Runoffs board meeting when I called all of us at the top cheeters. The more rules, the more places to hide. It's very simple. But that is how the system works currently. Want an example? We came with the same motor HP as last year (122.5 at-track dyno) and was one second off. Andy was nice enough to dyno his car for me (126.5) and at that point I went up to Dennis Dean, John Bauer and told them I had to program the box in my car to be the same (spec?). I offered them to check it afterwards, offered to pay for the dyno time. DP Tune was at the track, program without more total advance (that's all tech can check for) and we were at 126 with more torque.

Now what is "Spec"? Is it HP when every year the HP changes? (I wonder why less talent is showing up at the Runoffs?). So..... wouldn't it be cheaper buying a sealed long block from SCCA? We will not make all the cars the same (90 up) on all the tracks. Period. Someone mentioned different classes and I'm all for that. From the begining I was all for that at the National level.

If you want to put a star on the best driver........ here it comes....... National: 99 and newer / sealed long block and programmed box from SCCA returning the timing wheel, fuel pressure to stock / (pull the restrictor / spec exhaust). Isn't the word "Spec" why you built one of these things?

[pat slattery]

I love the SM concept, I invested in a 1.6, that is all I can afford, and it has been a competitive car at most venues, even at the runoffs, Its just not the car to have at RA, but I still think it could be close if everything is spot on. I would hope that in the future, the runoffs would be a one year deal at a different venue from year to year. That might take the track dependent car equation out of the mix. Maybe the next year it could be at Grattan or maybe Black Hawk.

Seriously, I would like to see a neutral site like Indy. That would be awesome, and no one would have a home track advantage, but I guess I am dreaming

[pat slattery]

Danny how about the 1.6 and 1.8 still be the national class since they are more of them and the 99's become the regional class? I am sure you would not like that just as I would not like the 1.6 to be a regional car. I still think the 99 should be moved to the MX5 class. We had a pretty good thing going before the 99 cars was introduced into the class.

Pat

[DDG]

Pat, for the clubs sake I'd love to see you at RA racing the same spec cars (in a 90). Chances are you would come back if you weren't being stiffed. Chances are the club would do better.

[Todd Green]

How would your race at Homestead been any different if they had split the class

Do you foresee that if the classes are split that the 99 would retain the restrictor and additional weight? If I had a 99 and the classes were split, I'd certainly want to run lighter and have more power. That would most likely change the race if you ran the two groups together.

[DDG]

Pat, the original intention was to enter the MX5's with the 99's. It's at least what Shannon and I proposed to SCCA when we dreamed this nightmare up.

[Danny Steyn]

Danny how about the 1.6 and 1.8 still be the national class since they are more of them and the 99's become the regional class? I am sure you would not like that just as I would not like the 1.6 to be a regional car. I still think the 99 should be moved to the MX5 class. We had a pretty good thing going before the 99 cars was introduced into the class.

Pat

Hi Pat - please note that I am not proposing anything - I am reflecting what people are posting. Actually I am THRILLED that you want to keep the 1.6 in ONE SM class and not split it. Unfortunately you have been on of the very lonely 1.6 voices expressing that viewpoint. However Shawn and several other 1.6 drivers have proven time and time again that the 1.6 is more than competive at other tracks, but gives up too much at Road America.

If you read most of my posts on this issue, I am very much against splitting it, but when 1.6 guys shout out every week to split the class, and use that as a cause for the diminishing numbers, then in the interests of the class you have to give it some consideration.

Thanks

[john mueller]

So if your not taking car data(ecu), only GPS, you are able to determine"power"by certain track segments? Aren't there some engine parameters that would be beneficial to know?

Sure having more input would always be beneficial but they way the data is analyzed paints a rather complete picture...

Everyone needs to know that NASA's goal with the 2011 rules was not to "take power away from the 99", it was to slow the 99 down while attempting to get braking and shift points to be the same (on track) as the other cars. Essentially, we were attempting to make the racing better.

[Charlie Hayes]

I have a 1.6 and do not think splitting the class is needed. You either have a winning car or you don't. Its not easy to win and it shouldn't be.

[Danny Steyn]

I have a 1.6 and do not think splitting the class is needed. You either have a winning car or you don't. Its not easy to win and it shouldn't be.

Thanks Charlie - would be great if more 1.6 drivers that would prefer to keep the class united would voice their opinions. Sometimes we just here the loudest voices.

[john mueller]

Thanks Charlie - would be great if more 1.6 drivers that would prefer to keep the class united would voice their opinions. Sometimes we just here the loudest voices.

A split is not required. While under my watch it won't even be an option on the table for NASA to discuss unless it really is deemed impossible to get the cars closer... Which at this point in time it's not.


Phew, finally all caught-up... Lots of stuff in this thread.

[FTodaro]

I would not favor splitting the class or moving the 99's to MX-5. I would rather you move the runoffs from RA first, since the parity issue is track specific why are we not discussing that issue.
Move the Runnoffs back to Mid Ohio if you want the 1.6 to be competitive at the big event. MO does not offer the 99 an advantage, lots of turns and the light wt 1.6 can get through the corners faster if well driven.
Justin Hillie won the Nasa great lakes Regional series in a Non 99 ( i am pretty sure he has a 1.6, but know for sure not 99) And the SCCA great lakes championship which will be decided the end of this month are also non 99's at the top and in contention.

SO no parity issues in the Great Lakes Region.

[Jim Drago]

A split is not required. While under my watch it won't even be an option on the table for NASA to discuss unless it really is deemed impossible to get the cars closer... Which at this point in time it's not.


Phew, finally all caught-up... Lots of stuff in this thread.

That makes two people intimately involved in the decision making process on the same page. If we were to start today with a blank sheet of paper or money wasn't a concern for most who already have cars. I think starting with a single car, whatever year we picked makes way more sense, but that is not reality. The consequences at this point would far outweigh the potential benefits IMO. I do agree the cars will NEVER be perfect at every track.

[Ron Alan]

I have always advocated keeping the classes together, but maybe it is time to separate them, as long as we run the two classes in one race. We have way too many undersubscribed classes in SCCA right now. And we all want to run in large fields. So we now hand out two sets of trophies. Big Deal. So what if the SM2 (what 1.6 is called in SE) wins overall and creams the national 99’s at certain tracks.

From our experience in the SFR...

2 classes run together...SMT and SSM. 50 car average fields. Grid is set by qualifying times of both classes combined...fastest to slowest regardless of class.

Pros and cons...IMO! And issues others may experience in other regions or if the class is split in the future.

Pro's...

-Big fields
-Generally starting with equal talent/speed around you
-Lap traffic usually occurs pretty late in the race. (If split start, creates lap traffic very quickly for both classes)

Cons...

-More often than not, can't race with your closest in class competitors. have to race with or get thru different class cars. This can be an advantage...able to stay ahead of the next class car because he is stuck behind 2 out of class cars. Disadvantage...stuck behind two out of class cars!
-Contingency money(Toyo bucks)is paid out to the top 5 cars...regardless of class. Somewhat of a disadvantage for the SSM cars...which is why that class also has a random drawing for all in class. No such thing for SMT.
-But as mentioned above, IF split starts, traffic becomes an immediate(well, much sooner) for both classes. Potential for more carnage and bad blood.

Just some things to consider since many current SM run groups are alone in a single class...no question the guy ahead of you you are racing for points along with the guy behind you!!

Maybe it's the mixed that is my issue(would prefer separate I guess?) in this case.

[JBlaisdell]

Alrighty then...All those in favor of splitting the class? Yeah or nay?
Looks like the nays got it...glad we all figured that out!!! (now, what about that middle-east peace issue).

We STILL haven't solved the large issue of...a simplier policy and procedure to uniformly(Nat. and Regional) enforce the rules.
Everyone seems to agree on enforcement, but no one agrees on "HOW"...

[john mueller]

We STILL haven't solved the large issue of...a simpler policy and procedure to uniformly(Nat. and Regional) enforce the rules.
Everyone seems to agree on enforcement, but no one agrees on "HOW"...

I've had the luxury of seeing lots of NASA Traqmate data this past season... By analyzing the data it is very evident very quickly the effect of a superior racing driver over someone with gobs of power and little less talent. Honestly, talent in a slightly lesser car can and usually will beat the big motor.

The HOW is a big question and we may or may not have answers to it today (but we shouldn't stop talking about it). But, once SMAC and NASA announce our joint attempt at parity that we feel will have all cars on top of each other like back in the good ol'days... My opinion is that the "outliers" (read cheaters) should become even more evident (I said should). My guess is the pool of rampant cheaters who are tits deep in the gray-areas is smaller than we collectively think. Not that this makes the 'cheater problem' go away, I just think it's not an epidemic.

So, if you know you're cheating, please stop. - Done. Yay! Lets go racin' now!

[mmcspecracer]

We can all sit around and mentally masturbate about how much cheating is going on, but until you have real tech at all races, regional and national, no one knows the answer to this question. Perhaps the rules are pretty good already and they are just not being enforced and that is the main reason for disparity. Bottom line, no sense making more rules until the ones in place are complied with, then you have some data to work with. Start with enforcing the rules and see where that takes you.

I think a lot of people would be surprised to find out that the cars are more equal then they thought and they just aren't as good a driver as they would like to believe and yes, I drive a 99. -

[mellen]

We can all sit around and mentally masturbate about how much cheating is going on, but until you have real tech at all races, regional and national, no one knows the answer to this question. Perhaps the rules are pretty good already and they are just not being enforced and that is the main reason for disparity. Bottom line, no sense making more rules until the ones in place are complied with, then you have some data to work with. Start with enforcing the rules and see where that takes you.

I think a lot of people would be surprised to find out that the cars are more equal then they thought and they just aren't as good a driver as they would like to believe and yes, I drive a 99. -

+1!!!

[space]

Engine and ECU claim.....cost, same as a crate engine and ECU from Mazda. I don't see how else we can fix what has been created. "What!?" you say, "but I spent 2-3 times that having my engine built." If you did, rules or not, you went against the idea of the class.

Other ideas would be to dyno everyone and have a power/weight ratio per track....this might need to be per year too