291 replies to this topic

[George Munson]

So if I read John's post above right the 1.6 cars are now "Undogs" by about 1.5 to 2.5 HP based on the weight increase from last year.

[Jim Drago]

I defy ANY of you to do a blind test and tell me when you are 10 lbs heavier/lighter, 1 mm more or less restrcited etc.

In NASA trim, 99 gain 1.5 hp and gained 10 lbs ... virtual wash
The 1.6 gained 15 lbs, lost 2/3 of one hp or so

That is some huge change...
In SCCA
much larger changes, but ratios still similar..

If anyone "caved" it was SCCA, NASA rules were virtually unchanged. SMAC said they would monitor NASA rules and did. NASA took a big swing at it and the results overall were good. SMAC and NASA felt a few minor tweaks were needed and they were made. Both organizations feel this is best rule set we have had and why it was decided not to touch the plates and weights for three years. There was no pressure, no conspiracy , no black helicopters. Just lots of volunteers working for what we all felt was the betterment of the class, which in turn would help grow the class.

If you weren't winning races last year in either club YOUR car was not prepared well enough to win or the driver was not capable of doing so, it wasn't a rules problem. Same goes for this year, the rules in both organizations were very close last year, closer in both organizations this year. If you feel you need to continue to blame the rules for your inabilities, then go ahead, but not sure anyone is listening anymore. Frankly when people realize they are down 3-5 hp to the best cars of their generation and then complain about rules, i Know longer pay much attention. I don't expect to win when I show up down 4-5 HP, yet many complaining seem to think that is a rules problem? Does anyone care to explain this phenomenon to me?

When people make comments that are so clearly baseless and unfounded, it shows how #$%^&* some of you can be. Do some math, do some research before you start accusing people... Or better yet, use the time you spend complaining about the rules and work on your car, set it up more than once every few years etc!

[pat slattery]

Really Pat? I'm glad you know how everything works... You say something like this yet you don't show-up at Nationals? Come'on man! I really hope you were trying to make a joke.

I worked closely with SMAC to do what 99.999% of SM'ers wanted - the same rule for both organizations. I and NASA were willing to make changes as long as it supported the plate and weight philosophy we decided upon for 2011 while achieving 'unification'... If we agreed to enlarge the 99's RP, the appropriate weights were added as well and the other cars were then adjusted. It's all related so somewhat easy to balance.

• Mid-season I started to believe that the 99 was a teeny-tiny bit under powered but needed to see it play out more.
• One thing I admitted early on is that I made an error on was making the 99's I tiny bit light in 2011.
• +1 mm is about 1.5-2 hp and +10lbs is about -1/2 hp for a gross of 1-2 hp which is just about what I felt was needed. (these are broad estimates, you engineering types keep you panties on)

All you naysayers, if you really think NASA and SCCA are that wrong and out of touch, either prep your cars and prove it to us or shut your pie-holes and move-on.

I wasn't joking John, I thought you guys hit the numbers pretty well for 2011, Most of the racers did to. My son gave up racing at his Home Track (Mid Ohio) to give SCCA one more try for 2011, but now we have the same rules where the 1.6 in my estimation in NASA trim went backwards from 2011 rules. Why, the 99 at the Nasa Championship was the the fastest car there in the dry. I don't understand the change. Help me understand other than caving into SCCA.

Are you now building a 99 John

[pat slattery]

In NASA trim, 99 gain 1.5 hp and gained 10 lbs ... virtual wash

The 1.6 gained 15 lbs, lost 2/3 of one hp or so

You should work on your math!

So Jim using your math the 10 lbs your 99 gained is equal to 1.5 hp but the 15lbs the 1.6 gained is only 2/3 of a HP. Wow!!!!

Help me understand that one.

Pat

[pat slattery]

Not that I care but I see it was NASA that forced the issue...and SCCA moved more towards them. Unless you mean NASA should never have moved off their 2011 weights and plates then I see your point. But I think in the end it doesn't matter as both clubs can only benefit from coming together 100% What's 15lbs among friends?

I was trying to say that NASA should have stayed the same as 2011.

[Nsparks]

, the 99 at the Nasa Championship was the the fastest car there in the dry.

I was there in my 1.6 and that time was achievable for a well prepped 1.6. I just hadn't been to Mid-Ohio in a few years and in the best session for times I was out on new tires.

[Ron Alan]

In NASA trim, 99 gain 1.5 hp and gained 10 lbs ... virtual wash

The 1.6 gained 15 lbs, lost 2/3 of one hp or so

You should work on your math!

So Jim using your math the 10 lbs your 99 gained is equal to 1.5 hp but the 15lbs the 1.6 gained is only 2/3 of a HP. Wow!!!!

Help me understand that one.

Pat

Restrictor plate Pat? Obviously they felt the 99 needed just a little back and they did this by giving and taking a little to each...which helped the goal of getting the cars much closer to equal in weight! As far as the math lets just call it "rounding"

Like it our lump it...the deal is done! Can't we all just get along Protesters these days are really getting on my nerves..and others

[pat slattery]

I was there in my 1.6 and that time was achievable for a well prepped 1.6. I just hadn't been to Mid-Ohio in a few years and in the best session for times I was out on new tires.

Not saying you couldn't but did the 99 really need some more help? Did you switch to a 99 car?

[Charlie Hayes]

Not saying you couldn't but did the 99 really need some more help? Did you switch to a 99 car?

He had a '99 and built a 1.6 from what he told me in Ohio. He chose that car over his '99, obviously it didn't matter in the rain.

[Nsparks]

Not saying you couldn't but did the 99 really need some more help? Did you switch to a 99 car?

It really depends on what event you go to if the 99 needs help. The main reason for having got the 99 was a friend gave us a very good deal on one. I personally like the 1.6 over the 99 in the current ruling.

[George Munson]

Jim, My little comment was just "Busting Chops". But, I should have known me passing everything in sight was because my little 1.6 was just over powered and not my driving. Again I'm just having fun. Again I truely respect the dedication you and everybody involved has shown to make this the best class ever.

[James York]

I wasn't joking John, I thought you guys hit the numbers pretty well for 2011, Most of the racers did to. My son gave up racing at his Home Track (Mid Ohio) to give SCCA one more try for 2011, but now we have the same rules where the 1.6 in my estimation in NASA trim went backwards from 2011 rules. Why, the 99 at the Nasa Championship was the the fastest car there in the dry. I don't understand the change. Help me understand other than caving into SCCA.

Are you now building a 99 John

Pat,

Haven't you guys tried 3 straight years at RA, and bitched every year about the 1.6 being an underdog? Then NASA makes a big change in rules for 2011, that you indicated by posts you think was/is correct, holds its championship race at Mid-O, your home track, and you go to RA again in SCCA trim (which you express displeasure with very frequently) What?

You know what they say about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a differently result right?

[Cnj]

Nasa caved in to the SCCA power brokers

Pat, I've read your posts for a couple of years now. You adopt a consistent and strong position of support for the 1.6 and challenge everything that, in your view, provides advantange to other versions (the 99 in particular). Its healthy for the class that we have people defending the various models of cars and I hope you remain vigilant regardless of whether I agree or disagree with your views. However it's unfortunate that your post questions Johns decision making integrity and NASA's independence; also suggesting that SCCA are bullies. Given the respect that John has earned in the community I'm not completely sure what your goal is, but this post does not seem designed to achieve the change you seek.

Cnj

[FTodaro]

Here we go again. Why don't we just give this a go, get some data and then draw our opinions, before we go off on the few people who care enough about this sport to volunteer there time and try to come up with some honest improvements. My hats off to John an Jim.

[Jim Drago]

Pat,

Haven't you guys tried 3 straight years at RA, and bitched every year about the 1.6 being an underdog? Then NASA makes a big change in rules for 2011, that you indicated by posts you think was/is correct, holds its championship race at Mid-O, your home track, and you go to RA again in SCCA trim (which you express displeasure with very frequently) What?

You know what they say about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a differently result right?

This year he showed up with a car that was about 3% ( not .3%) off on cross for the first few qualifying sessions until another competitor helped him set up the car, still down a few ponies to the best 1.6 cars and we are worried about 15 lbs... Is that an effort worthy of a podium at a National championship event? I can guarantee had anyone who qualified in the top five showed up that way, they would certainly have been outside the top ten.

[pat slattery]

Jim you only know half the story. Yes my car wound up like you said but it was setup properly when we left for the runoffs. We had a caliper retaining bolt back out, which in turn broke the rear knuckle. I had to replace with a used one which turned out to be slightly bent. Ademir, did help us get the car back to a good setup. We have our way to get our car setup, you have yours.

Ademir is a great guy, and he saw that we could use a little help, first time we ever met, and he pitched in and offered some great help. Unlike some I have known for years, and have offered nothing but criticism about our car.

[James York]

I had to replace with a used one which turned out to be slightly bent.

Tim and the Mazda trailer didn't make it to the Runoffs this year?

In the past Runoffs when I needed parts, they have had a good stock in the trailer and at the very least overnighted me anything I needed no problem.

[pat slattery]

Pat,

Haven't you guys tried 3 straight years at RA, and bitched every year about the 1.6 being an underdog? Then NASA makes a big change in rules for 2011, that you indicated by posts you think was/is correct, holds its championship race at Mid-O, your home track, and you go to RA again in SCCA trim (which you express displeasure with very frequently) What?

You know what they say about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a differently result right?

Two reasons for staying with the SCCA, Number one reason we just feel that SCCA competition and also the SCCA is better organized. There are excelent drivers also in NASA, but we enjoy the SCCA better, just not where the Runoffs are run. I also let my son keep the contingency money and the SCCA awards are certainly better.

We have always tried to seek out the best competition, whether it be cars or karts. Maybe SM has passed us by as a low cost entry level class. It was certainly more fun when we started, even when we weren't winning and were trying to get up to the front. Now, with multiple cars, teams, etc, it is different and I don't feel for the better.

[pat slattery]

Tim and the Mazda trailer didn't make it to the Runoffs this year?
the best we could
In the past Runoffs when I needed parts, they have had a good stock in the trailer and at the very least overnighted me anything I needed no problem.

Tim is no longer, with Mazda. The trailer was there, but they did not have the parts I needed. I got a part from dealer at the track, it appeared ok but, once we got it all installed discovered that the toe was way off. Running out of time we tried to get the car aligned the best we could, went and qualified and then got DQed because we didn't get enough fuel in the car as we just made it in time to qualify.

[pat slattery]

Pat, I've read your posts for a couple of years now. You adopt a consistent and strong position of support for the 1.6 and challenge everything that, in your view, provides advantange to other versions (the 99 in particular). Its healthy for the class that we have people defending the various models of cars and I hope you remain vigilant regardless of whether I agree or disagree with your views. However it's unfortunate that your post questions Johns decision making integrity and NASA's independence; also suggesting that SCCA are bullies. Given the respect that John has earned in the community I'm not completely sure what your goal is, but this post does not seem designed to achieve the change you seek.

Cnj

CNJ, my remarks were not intended dis John. I don't agree with the decision, but, John has always been fair with me. I thought he took a couple of shots at me, but I can take it. He is standing up for what he believes in, and so am. If I had the time and money, I would have run at both NASA and SCCA Championships.

Am I the only one that doesn't agree?