603 replies to this topic

[Danny Steyn]

Regarding tech people, I was VERY impressed with John and the team at the Runoffs and the way they handled Spec Miata

Mike you bring up a great question - if so many feel others are cheating, why are we as a class not doing something about it and writing protests???

Personally I beleive that there is SOME cheating going on, but WAY more exploitation of limits of the ruleset - Not cheating, not gray area - just WAY better understanding of where to find that extra performance within the ruleset

For example - the current hub prep that allows front wheels to do 30+ revolutions when spun by hand was not fully understood two years ago - now many have got there and their cars are faster

[Bench Racer]

David - please DONT make posts like the one above - for the first time I am actually agreeing with you !!

Thank you Danny.

I'm off for my morning 2 mile fitness walk (been on some list additions for a bit this a m). Sometime today there will be additions from yours truly to the brainstorming list.

[James York]

Finishing our 2nd season in the class. Got into the class for all the reasons that have been mentioned numerous times already. But unlike many who seem to think things have changed for the worse, I just don't get it Have had a great time, made great friends(on and off track), and never a lack of information to be shared by many. It has been everything we expected it to be and more! If you can find a better bang for your buck in racing...go do it...and then come back and tell us so we can all jump ship

The suggestion that something needs to be done so the budget racer can compete with the deep pockets is ludicrous. Can all you rich guys please send a check to all us budget racers so after you kick our asses we can at least buy the beers(Wine...sorry!) Driving skills are #1 reason why guys are finishing at the pointy end, #2 is car set up and tires, #3 is HP and TQ...IMO. This is assuming all start within +/- 5HP. As Drago said, really doesn't matter how you change the rules for parity, the same fast drivers are still going to finish up front. No doubt, RA does favor TQ and top end speed which as the current rules are written does favor the NB. The biggest thing SCCA could do to stop the"current" arms race and throw a bone to the NA cars is move the runoffs to a tighter track with speeds under 105mph and short straights That said, is the future of the class really the 20 year old car?? Fast forward 10 years..."As the rules are written, my NB can't keep pace with the MX5, its just not fair!"

Sorry, back to the discussion It's naive to think we can't listen to guys like Jim D or Mike C when they tell us the dyno isn't the solution. That's like telling the heart surgeon you think your Gardner can do a better job with your triple bypass. He doesn't really need to explain when he tells you your nuts! We also have to remember we are a club, and clubs need volunteers. If we exclude people from what they do, know, or if they drive to serve at any variety of SCCA positions, we would have know one Thanks guys for volunteering to do a thankless job

-More compliance may be the only true deterant for rules creep and the blatant cheater. Plus pretty severe penalties for repeat offenders.

-Like the idea of some form of black/box, data logger...especially for the guys collecting trophies and contingency money!

This is the best class hands down. Lets just try and make it better, not reinvent the wheel

Excellent post and pretty much is my feelings as well about the class.

[James York]

I still want to know/understand:
1) If, after qualifing, the top (5) and several random cars, go straight to a mobile dyno, at the track.
2) HP and TQ numbers are reviewed (by SCCA/NASA Tech ONLY). No data needs to shared with drivers.
3) Post race dyno of top (5) and several random cars go straight to the SAME mobile dyno, operated by the SAME operator.
4) How can this be "gamed"??? Besides BS limp mode...

I'm not trying to be a gardener preforming heart surgery...I simply want a clear explanation as to how and why this would NOT work. This "is" supposed to be a open discussion/brainstorming session...so, Jim D/Mike C., please share/educate us.

BTW...I would gladly pay $30-50 compliance fee per weekend(mobile dyno at the track)...to know the" immediate truth" (Danny's quote)...

I've got a switch under my dash you can't find that "tricks" a sensor. So unless you are an expert like Meat or Drago, you could easily miss it. A contracted dyno dude will be clueless.

[dmathias]

I don't have a problem with a compliance fee per se. What I do have a problem with is paying a compliance fee for a double regional entry, twice, once for each day, when I've never, NEVER, seen a compliance team at any regional event I entered.

This is my tenth season in SM. A lot of people started after me and have quit long ago. My perception is that many simply lost HOPE. Hope that they could ever be competititve on a budget.

The stock answer is "that's racing", all classes have rules creep, all classes have development wars.

Spec Miata was supposed to be different.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

I've got a switch under my dash you can't find that "tricks" a sensor. So unless your an expert like Meat or Drago, you could easily miss it. A contracted dyno dude will be clueless.

LOL now that sh*t's funny I don't care who you are!

[Gatoratty]

Better compliance and tech especially at the regional level sounds great until you try to coordinate the manpower, equipment, and then the time it takes. Two years ago at the Sebring National race we had the National compliance team conduct an inspection of the entire SM grid. The process was lengthy, but found everything from heat shields, wrong tires, and other items. I would gladly pay a compliance fee, but not if National races are the only ones who get the visits. In CFR we have a car count at our regional races that ranges from 20-70 cars depending on which venue and month. Great place to tech a large number of regional cars or run data. If we want the car counts to grow then maybe tip the rules slightly in favor of the 1.6 as it is much cheaper to buy an older donor. You can enjoy our class on a small budget or spend as much money as you want. It is a choice not a requirement.

[JBlaisdell]

Jim Blaisdell,

The dyno while a great tool, is not the solution everyone wants it to be. At best it can give the operator or knowledgeable tech person enough information to figure out where to go look.

Jim D owns a dyno and I have unlimited access to the one I use. On average I dyno 3 or 4 cars each week for as much as 2 hours each sometimes more. You would be amazed at how easy it is "change" the result for a lower number, I have done it unintentionally so many times and chased it for hours.

All dyno's are not the same so using an arbritary number is a waste. Best car ever on our dyno is 114. That pulled 124 at the runoffs, which was great compared to the many 121 & 122 we saw. We did also see a 126. Was the 126 car cheating because he has 2 more than me ? I think not. He passed tech.

The root of our problem is not lack of rule or adding a dyno. It has already been addressed many times in this thread, enforcement! We have GREAT rules. Tech lacks the man power, time and at some races the ability perform the task. If you want more tech we need to start recruiting tech people, that specialty needs help.

Trivia question: how many mechanical protest were written an executed in the entire scca for 2010?

First off...Thank you for taking the time to listen and respond to all of us. It is very much appreciated...
Most here, I believe, understand the challenges and thankless job that Jim D and people like yourself devote to SM.
And it is encouraging to still see people passionate about it, in this thread...

I whole heartedly agree that we have GREAT rules. And the issue is the lack of "knowledgable" man-power and time required to perform tech. But, as Jim Creighton and Gatoratty pointed out earilier(in this thread), the SCCA is already challenged with trying to find volunteers...and in my NASA FL world, we are challenged with exactly the same problem. Just not enough qualified man-power to go around!!! We would need a Mike Collins in every region
I fear that if we stay the status quo...nothing will change...GREAT rules that are not getting enforced.

BTW...I don't believe there is rampant cheating...I beleive there is a preception of rampant cheating, because we have GREAT rules that are not being uniformly enforced. And this is why people lose hope...

[Mike Collins]

Better compliance and tech especially at the regional level sounds great until you try to coordinate the manpower, equipment, and then the time it takes. Two years ago at the Sebring National race we had the National compliance team conduct an inspection of the entire SM grid. The process was lengthy, but found everything from heat shields, wrong tires, and other items. I would gladly pay a compliance fee, but not if National races are the only ones who get the visits. In CFR we have a car count at our regional races that ranges from 20-70 cars depending on which venue and month. Great place to tech a large number of regional cars or run data. If we want the car counts to grow then maybe tip the rules slightly in favor of the 1.6 as it is much cheaper to buy an older donor. You can enjoy our class on a small budget or spend as much money as you want. It is a choice not a requirement.

I do not agree that it is MUCH cheaper to buy an older donor. The older donors cost significantly more to replace worn parts and bring up to a capable running race standard. I have a PERFECT '99 on a trailer in front of my house now that we purchased for $1,000 with a blown head gasket.

[Jim Drago]

I do not agree that it is MUCH cheaper to buy an older donor. The older donors cost significantly more to replace worn parts and bring up to a capable running race standard. I have a PERFECT '99 on a trailer in front of my house now that we purchased for $1,000 with a blown head gasket.

I'll give you $1500 for it

[Keith Novak]

Dyno testing really doesn't seem feasible. We hear lots of complaints about paying a compliance fee and never seeing inspections already. When I hit the scales today, I'm frequently asked "How much are you supposed to weigh?" or I'm told "Wow your car is heavy!" even though my weight is clearly written right there by my smiling face in the window. When I got my plate pulled and it was deemed too small, the nice gentleman had to go look up the proper size to find out which of us didn't read the latest memo (released 8 months before) and I was relieved to learn it wasn't me. When one tech was showing someone new what to look for, they pointed at my steering rack plugs and commented, "That's how you can tell it's a 1.8."

A dyno will be more expensive, less available, more time consuming when it is available, and the experts say it won't prove anything.

[DDG]

You guys crack me up. Danny, you said something about "applauding the protestor". Who might that be? Trust me it's pointless.

Ready, I'll say it again. National: 99 and newer, seal the motors, return to stock fuel pressure and timing disk. allow the computers to be programmed. That's as simple as you can make it and the only way you find out who has the talent. Up to this point nobody has proven driving talent. This has been a scam. Mike will agree with me Jim will rub his wallet and break into a sweat.

[George Munson]

First I'd like to "Thank" Danny and the others for starting this topic and Jim D for taking the time to gather these thoughts for the future rule sets.

From my propective, the biggest issue with this class and whether I race has to do with all of the carniage as of late. I've grown tired of the hugh repair bills from all of the ego driven, over agressive drivers that think "Rubbing is Racing". And whats worst is that even when a driver is found at fault theres very little done to detour that behavior. This is an easy fix. The Stewards and the Sanctioning Bodies could do a better job of applying stiffer penalties and perhaps even fines for this type of driving.

Next on my list is the "Parallax Issue" between the early and later cars. While I agree its not that far off, its still off. My approach to resolve this is different than most as to how we fix it. I am tired of trying to slow down the faster cars. This is just wrong from a racers view. I don't get the thought process where I as a 1.6 driver should expect the world to stop turning because I built a "Race Car" back in 2007 and newer technology has surpassed this. I would like to see "Spec Bolt On Items" to instead bring the power levels closer to the newer cars. This way weights and plates can be reduced on the newer cars and the overall performance for all cars should become a lot closer. I know there are those that will "Poop" all over this but think about it. You can buy a nice 1.6 car for under $10,000.00 add a few thousand to update it and still have a lot less in it than a "Top Flight 99 Car".

Next is "Common Rule Sets". We need one set of rules between "National" and "Regional" levels and between the "SCCA and "NASA". To have different rules from one to the other costs us all in the end.

More Tech. As some have pointed out I believe more cheating is being done at a "Regional Level". At least at a "National Level" the chances for tech is higher. I like most of the ideas given above to resolve this. Clean up the rule sets and enforce them.

These are just a few idea's moving forward. One comment I will make is I don't want to see any "Class Splitting" period. I got into this class because of the competition and larger class. I don't need any more trophy's riding around by myself. We can fix this with some "Out of the Box Thinking" and a little give and take.

As Danny say's, "Flame Away"

George Munson

[Waterboy]

Agree with George on the contact. Just this past weekend we have a drivers meeting and the steward said (not his exact words) gentlemen we are not going to tolerate bump drafting, the corners will be calling it, you better be prepared with your videos, there will be penalties. On lap 2 I got hit so hard in the braking zone I had a headache for hours. Did the other driver do it on purpose, probably not, but it should have at least warranted a vist to the tower by both of us.

Don't know how it is in other regions but we hear this same stuff every weekend. Guys get penalized for drafting but you can run someone over and never hear a thing about it.

That will drive people away quicker than the "cheating".

[FTodaro]

Any fix must be simple to implement. Regarding the issues of Parity and Cheating i think NASA has it right to fixate on HP & Wt ratio.

So if you set an HP to wt ratio for each of the Miata classes you are taking an important step towards parity. at the end of the day that will make folks think about trying to get the car lighter not more HP and wt. It also will equalize the issue if you have a big guy trying to race and make wt.

On the cheating side, to check the HP numbers you can develop a wire harness to move the ECU to an accessible location in the driver compartment so that you can un plug the ECU, use a SCCA test ECU to do the dyno run, plus this will be a better apples to apples comparison.

The only thing we would need to do is get someone to come up with a bench test for an ecu to see if it is hot.

I think the compliance and dyno is the simple way to go. we just need to figure out the best way around the manipulation.

Other points:
In the Great lakes region no issues with mobile dyno, Rich Johnson from backstreet is willing and able.

We are spending allot of time speculating that there is allot of cheating.We assume there is but how much? I do not know how you know this, I only know what I do. So I have to wonder how big the problem is and if we are chasing ghosts. If Jim is right and only the mid pack guys are cheating, then until they start winning how much does it matter and how much are you willing to inconvenience the complaint racers. maybe i am just ignorant of it as I have only raced regionally.

[mellen]

I'll give you $1500 for it

will up that to 2K ..................................sorry Jim

[Mike Collins]

I'll give you $1500 for it

will up that to 2K ..................................sorry Jim

Nah, thanks for the offers! It has the right diff in it .

[Chris70]

2500.00 ? :-)

[Jim Drago]

First off...Thank you for taking the time to listen and respond to all of us. It is very much appreciated...
Most here, I believe, understand the challenges and thankless job that Jim D and people like yourself devote to SM.
And it is encouraging to still see people passionate about it, in this thread...

I whole heartedly agree that we have GREAT rules. And the issue is the lack of "knowledgable" man-power and time required to perform tech. But, as Jim Creighton and Gatoratty pointed out earilier(in this thread), the SCCA is already challenged with trying to find volunteers...and in my NASA FL world, we are challenged with exactly the same problem. Just not enough qualified man-power to go around!!! We would need a Mike Collins in every region

I hope that angel praying is saying, Please lord no!

I fear that if we stay the status quo...nothing will change...GREAT rules that are not getting enforced.

BTW...I don't believe there is rampant cheating...I beleive there is a preception of rampant cheating, because we have GREAT rules that are not being uniformly enforced. And this is why people lose hope...

Jim
First off thanks, many are passionate about SM, why it is such a great class, why so many issues get heated, feelings hurt etc. I really don't see all the "perception of rampant cheating"
Maybe it is just brought to attention as much? I truly don't hear that as much as it is brought on the board and this thread? Maybe i am missing it? Just sharing what I see and hear.

Tech
Don't shoot the messenger...

The tech many say they want here on this forum is FAR above normal tech in any class in club racing in any sanctioning body. I am not saying it is not possible and I am not saying we shouldn't do it. What I am saying is that the level of tech at the Runoffs and NASA champs is more than most pro series. The level of tech wanted, is not a $10 compliance fee, it is not a $20 compliance fee, it is likely a $50 plus fee. That being said it is very likely you could pay $50 a race and not see a tech crew show up. We are working on something now, not sure what will come out of it. Personally, my car has been through multiple major teardowns, two or three compliance checks when the compliance team was coming around. I never minded at all, but I am pretty equipped to handle this. Many who are out there for fun, did not appreciate the compliance team asking for anything to be removed at all, they were not equipped and really did not want to be bothered as they didn't finish at the front. Again, I understand that sentiment, but we really can't have it both ways? I know everyone will say "yeah yeah yeah, but how many have ever really gone through this? less than 1/4% of the entire class? Make no mistake, it is not fun, it is stressful and you are always glad when you are done. ( Yes even when you "think" your car is 100% compliant.



Perhaps we should have another thread on compliance program alone? Outlining what we want and don't want? I know I would like to establish reasonable, standard protest fees.

[Rob Burgoon]

I've got a switch under my dash you can't find that "tricks" a sensor. So unless you are an expert like Meat or Drago, you could easily miss it. A contracted dyno dude will be clueless.

Thanks, that's exactly what I wanted to hear. Makes sense. Change the value on the sensor, horsepower goes down, curves change shape a tiny bit, and unless an expert took the time to tune the car to its max potential during the test, nobody is going to find out.