291 replies to this topic

[Blake Clements]

I think it is a step in the right direction and interesting to see how things turn out.

I am not uber excited about losing 2mm on the plate in the 1.8 (would have been content with one, and joyous if left the same as SCCA) but I think you will see the 99's have some strong challenges now.

Blake

[Cnj]

Congratulations to the two organizations for working together. I am very pleased to see the cars run weights which are much closer and I am convinced this will improve our racing. As a 99 driver I am thrilled to be able to run a lighter car even if I have to give up power and torque to do so. Its simply more fun to drive. If only we were on the same tires.

Cnj

[Bench Racer]

i don't understand your focus on 'spec line weight'. we have a minimum weight for each car type including driver. period. your machinations to produce 'MINUS 14%' and 'PLUS 10%' don't seem to create any argument so far as i can tell - you still end up with 1.6's adding .6% percent weight and 99's adding .4%

while i certainly understand anyone's frustration whose 'home track' has a definitive best car that doesn't match whats in their trailer, i think you essentially have to either switch cars or race at other tracks. i don't think it makes sense to change the rules that work at most tracks so it works better at one particular, even if the runoffs are there (or NASA championships for that matter).

accidentally posted earlier than i wanted too

You can clearly see how I come to the difference numbers from my post, correct.

I don't have a clue how you came to your numbers of the 1.6 adding .6% & the 99 adding .4%. As DW would say, splane to me please.

Forget the home track stuff, what I explaned is the normal for the SCCA. If some people would bring there 99 killen 1.6's to Road America they would understand in a hurry. When the Runoffs track becomes another track things will change. For two more years Road America is the Runofs track, might be longer.

Just a side comment, often partnerships don't last long.

Jim, as many people reading on this site know (at least those that been to the track), I asked the right questions in T14 to T1, T3 to T5 & T5 to T12. Because I don't play follow the leader others are not talking. Nuff said............

With the weigh lets say the build of both the 1.6 & the 99 cars are 2100 pounds. The difference of the 1.6 build weight & the 2011 spec line weight is 175 pounds. The added 1.6 spec line weight for 2012 is 25 pounds. That would be a 14.28571% PLUS weight to the difference weight of 175 pounds. Do the same math with the 99 numbers & you get 14.28571% MINUS weight.

Help me out with Adam's numbers. "you still end up with 1.6's adding .6% percent weight and 99's adding .4%"

[Adam Molaver]

15lb is .6% of 2285. 10lb is .4% of 2390

2285 was the 2011 1.6 NASA weight
2390 was the 2011 '99 NASA weight

ahm

[Jim Boemler]

Jim, as many people reading on this site know (at least those that been to the track), I asked the right questions in T14 to T1, T3 to T5 & T5 to T12. Because I don't play follow the leader others are not talking. Nuff said............

I'm glad your homies know what you mean -- I, and probably most of your readers, haven't got a clue why those three sets of corners should control my racing on the other side of the country.

With the weigh lets say the build of both the 1.6 & the 99 cars are 2100 pounds. The difference of the 1.6 build weight & the 2011 spec line weight is 175 pounds. The added 1.6 spec line weight for 2012 is 25 pounds. That would be a 14.28571% PLUS weight to the difference weight of 175 pounds. Do the same math with the 99 numbers & you get 14.28571% MINUS weight.

OK, but so what? One went one direction by this percentage, the other went another direction by some other percentage. They changed (which was, after all, the goal). But so WHAT? What are these percentages whispering in your ear (and seemingly no one else's)?

[Tom Sager]

Bravo! I think those in '99's that haven't driven at the lighter weight yet are going to like how the car drives at 2400 and we should get closer racing on the big tracks. The best class just got better.

[xczach]

While it is nice to see that the weights are closer, the rule changes still don't seem to address the biggest issue the class faces: costs! Honestly, considering how expensive all of the road racing classes are, I will probably wind up racing at my local IMCA sanctioned dirt tracks instead. You can do a lot more racing with a lot less money.

[Bench Racer]

15lb is .6% of 2285. 10lb is .4% of 2390

2285 was the 2011 1.6 NASA weight
2390 was the 2011 '99 NASA weight

ahm

Thanks Adam, I wasn't paying attention to the nasa weights. When I do my build weight to spec line weight difference math which is also real I get in round numbers, plus 8% for the 1.6 & plus 3% for the 99. Different strokes for different folks. In my eyes view full % points are more meaning full than 1/10 of a % point or 1/1,000 of a % point. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Cnj]

While it is nice to see that the weights are closer, the rule changes still don't seem to address the biggest issue the class faces: costs! Honestly, considering how expensive all of the road racing classes are, I will probably wind up racing at my local IMCA sanctioned dirt tracks instead. You can do a lot more racing with a lot less money.

My racing costs are driven overwhelmingly by: tires, fuel (both in racing and back and forth to the track), hotel costs, food, registration, licenses, maintenance (including replacing transmissions, hubs, brakes, rotors, engine repair, etc), car damage, tow vehicle, trailer and safety equipment maintenance. I'm not clear how changes to the rule book would reduce my costs. If I want to spend less I race less. I agree that racing at the local dirt track is probably cheaper than road racing - and autocross is cheaper still, but I personally like road racing.

Cnj

[Tom Sager]

My brother tried an entry level circle track class several years ago. I don't want to paint with a broad brush but he experienced huge cheating, frequent metal to metal to the point the car was destoyed and nobody cared, even less enforcement of the rules than SCCA/NASA and nowhere near the parity we have. I don't know if he saved much money but it was a short experiment. Less than one season.

It was, however, very entertaining for those of us in the stands.

[dstevens]

My brother tried an entry level circle track class several years ago. I don't want to paint with a broad brush but he experienced huge cheating, frequent metal to metal to the point the car was destoyed and nobody cared, even less enforcement of the rules than SCCA/NASA and nowhere near the parity we have. I don't know if he saved much money but it was a short experiment. Less than one season.

It was, however, very entertaining for those of us in the stands.

I can only speak about where I've run my circle track car. Cheating? Many try, depending on the track/sanction, many get caught. Most of the time it's no points on the license thing, it's supensions and cold hard cash. Contact? You bet. Some deliberate some just racing. It's racing, cars touch sometimes. If there were egregious or deliberate contact same thing applies. Tech? Everyone techs, pre race, no showing up with your helmet and a log book. You roll through the line like everyone else. Depending on the class sometimes post qual impound. Depending on the track usually the top 5 or so post race and at some tracks everyone comes in for some small thing then the top guys stay for a bit more. Sometimes carbs, or dist/ignition. Sometimes heads. If you are really lucky sometimes it's a cam or if you piss someone off too much it's a crank.

With what you guys are spending regionally to run SM you could be up late model, super late or modified. Run almost every week. And run for money. Many places a grand to win. Though it may cost you 1200-1500 that weekend in tires, fuel and plus with whatever you tore up. I appreciate you trying not to paint all the circle track guys with a broad brush, no matter how close it may be to the truth. That said, I do get a chuckle though because if someone that wasn't that familiar with club sports cars or SM read some of the Runoffs posts they might think that there were a bunch of old men that didn't want to rough up their manicure with another bunch that are cheaters. It's all about perception, I suppose...

[dstevens]

My racing costs are driven overwhelmingly by: tires, fuel (both in racing and back and forth to the track), hotel costs, food, registration, licenses, maintenance (including replacing transmissions, hubs, brakes, rotors, engine repair, etc), car damage, tow vehicle, trailer and safety equipment maintenance. I'm not clear how changes to the rule book would reduce my costs. If I want to spend less I race less. I agree that racing at the local dirt track is probably cheaper than road racing - and autocross is cheaper still, but I personally like road racing.

Cnj

That's why I bought the chick car, I wanted to start road racing again. A guy I know that runs pro teams says hobby racing is all about the "3 Ts". Time, tires and travel. Ain't that the truth.

[Ron Alan]

Just curios about the #'s. It would seem that the 94-97 cars were an overdog this year based on the -2mm RP drop compared to the -3mm RP of the 99 but only -15lbs compared to -50lbs?? Did well prepped 94-97 cars on average wipe up in other areas of the country that i'm not aware of? Though the rules this year seemed to make the 94-97 a good car to have...it wasn't a popular chose at the National level. Jim??

I see that all cars have been effectively slowed to some degree but with weights moving much closer. I like the move...will be interesting to see what changes(if any)the top guys make as to what car they run. I can see a lot of guys right now scratching there heads thinking how they are going to lose 50lbs Can we talk about rev limiter parity???

[Keith Novak]

I can't believe I'm the only one that hears the black helicopters!

After the 2010 runoffs the parity discussions reached an all time high. The other JD kept dropping hints about all the known cheats. He no longer runs the site and only leaves occasional messages tapped out in moris code on the drain pipes of the dungeon where he's been hidden away. Rumors of waterboarding him for those secrets abound. It became a cold gray world with only the emoticons allowed in North Korea and the wild west of open fuel pressure and timing.

The new management seeks to placate the angry masses. They throw us some new emoticons. They paint the site a nice green, meant to make us think a leprechaun is leading us to a pot of gold but with a charge for classifieds and a "Donations" link conspicuously at the top of the page. A thread pops up on the discussion of parity started by one of the key conspirators leading to mind numbing pages of pages of posts ranging from "split the class into a million pieces" to "I had tuna for lunch."

As the chaos, the base element of Spec Miata dies down and much anticipation of new rules, a new announcement is made. A couple mm of plates, a few pounds in spec weight, the posts that fuel the machine resume again and the dark factions at SCCA Enterprises put on their mirrored sunglasses and throw the big switch on the RP production line. The sound of black helicopters is deafening!!

1% of the SM racers own 99% of the runoffs trophies. Occupy Topeka!!! (And yeah...allowing 1.8 owners to do something about the rev limiter issue would be very cool.)

[Bench Racer]

Keith, there is defiantly a place outside aerospace engineering for you. Fun read........

[Tom Sager]

Just curios about the #'s. It would seem that the 94-97 cars were an overdog this year based on the -2mm RP drop compared to the -3mm RP of the 99 but only -15lbs compared to -50lbs?? Did well prepped 94-97 cars on average wipe up in other areas of the country that i'm not aware of? Though the rules this year seemed to make the 94-97 a good car to have...it wasn't a popular chose at the National level. Jim??

I see that all cars have been effectively slowed to some degree but with weights moving much closer. I like the move...will be interesting to see what changes(if any)the top guys make as to what car they run. I can see a lot of guys right now scratching there heads thinking how they are going to lose 50lbs Can we talk about rev limiter parity???

Can't speak for those that make the rules but here is one view.

The 99 at 38mm and the '94 - '97 at 45mm should make very close to the same power. The 50 pound differential compensates some for the suspension differences in the cars.

[Bruce Andersen]

I like the direction with more equalization of weight. It will be interesting to see how the cars match up now at all the various tracks. Thanks to all for making this happen.

2 weeks to tune the cars for nationals...

For those of us running the two double nationals in January, it does not leave a lot of time to get the cars ready. This should be an interesting year with these changes and the Hoosiers.

[Glenn]

I like the direction with more equalization of weight. It will be interesting to see how the cars match up now at all the various tracks. Thanks to all for making this happen.



For those of us running the two double nationals in January, it does not leave a lot of time to get the cars ready. This should be an interesting year with these changes and the Hoosiers.

Turkey Trot! "Run what ya brung" and TEST away!

[wheel]

Keith,
What I can't believe is that anyone even knows the old moris code. I bet there are only a handful of folks who can understand morse code, either. But, then, I'm not an aerospace engineer.
wheel
dit dit dit da da da dit dit dit

[john mueller]

Can't speak for those that make the rules but here is one view.

The 99 at 38mm and the '94 - '97 at 45mm should make very close to the same power. The 50 pound differential compensates some for the suspension differences in the cars.