291 replies to this topic

[Steve D]

... slower out of the corners ... this is the most important spot for increasing your chances of passing at the end of the straight!

If you completely ignore the better top end of the 1.6 over the choked-down 99, that might be a true statement. Me? I'd love to have the run at the end of the straight (where Miatas actually complete the pass, as far as I have seen).

Ideally, all the cars would work the same down the straight. I believe the effort to bring weights together better equalizes braking, cornering, and tire behavior during a session. You can argue those trade-offs, of course.

[Tom Sager]

No sense in complaining until the racing starts, but on paper, I think the 1.6 went backward. 1.6 gained 15 or 25 lbs depending if you run NASA/SCCA, and I believe the 99 got a 1mm larger restrictor vs last years NASA rules. Not sure why the 1.6 had to add any weight. That should have been the standard car to base all others against for parity.

If the 99 doesn't lose torque with the restrictor, the 99 will have about a 2 ft pound of torque per weight advantage. I probably didn't explain that right, but hopefully you understand.

Hey Pat, I'd like to correct a myth that floats around out there. A smaller restrictor plate reduces torque in both the 1.8 and '99 cars. On a 1.8, 2mm less restrictor will reduce peak torque by 2 ft/lbs and HP by 2.0 - 2.5 HP. More importantly, the drop occurs throughout the RPM range in which we run the cars. It's not merely a hit to peak HP as some may think. I don't have as much dyno experience with a '99, but those that do will report soon (once the new plates are distributed) that a 3mm smaller plate reduced HP and torque significantly. Probably 4+ HP and torque in those cars. The '99's will race differently with that much less power.

[Keith Andrews]

WOW, someone with a Brain.

Ah,well, limited capacity but trainable.

[Jim Drago]

Hey Pat, I'd like to correct a myth that floats around out there. A smaller restrictor plate reduces torque in both the 1.8 and '99 cars. On a 1.8, 2mm less restrictor will reduce peak torque by 2 ft/lbs and HP by 2.0 - 2.5 HP. More importantly, the drop occurs throughout the RPM range in which we run the cars. It's not merely a hit to peak HP as some may think. I don't have as much dyno experience with a '99, but those that do will report soon (once the new plates are distributed) that a 3mm smaller plate reduced HP and torque significantly. Probably 4+ HP and torque in those cars. The '99's will race differently with that much less power.

99/00 will lose 4-5 hp and 3-3.5 ft lbs
01/05 will lose 3-4 hp and 3-3.5 ft lbs

[Ron Alan]

Going with good #'s I've seen posted here....

2400lbs/125hp=19.2lbs per 1hp
2300lbs/122hp=18.85lbs per 1hp (add 1 to 99's and subtract 1 from 1.6...dead even at 19)

The few neh sayers to this whole change I feel have there head in the sand...so many 1.6 drivers just got a nice bump because they had a hard time getting close to min weight...plus the 1.8 cars all just got slowed down. Maybe it's not as much as you think it should be but lets see how it plays out. I guarantee you many of the top 99 drivers read the new rules and collectively said F******k. But they are wisely very silent here...never let your compitition feel you are nervous!!

Torque advantage...1.8 cars
rev limiter advantage(some tracks)..1.6 car(less potential missed shifts!)

I again applaud all those who worked hard to come up with these changes...time will tell how close you got

[Blake Thompson]

_{im a meh sayer.}

[FTodaro]

I guarantee you many of the top 99 drivers read the new rules and collectively said F******k. But they are wisely very silent here...never let your compitition feel you are nervous!!

I am not a Top 99 driver, but i have a 99 that I ran all last year in NASA and i think that this is a step up for me compared to what we did last year in NASA, so That is why i am behind the rule. In SCCA last year of course I like what we had over NASA but I think this is still a fair compromise. For us getting to 2400 is no problem, I am 200lbs and will need about 10lbs of ballast in the car.

I may have to cut back on my beer consumption next season that would be my only down comment, but I consume my fair share so a cut back would not be the end of the world.

[john mueller]

No sense in complaining until the racing starts, but on paper, I think the 1.6 went backward. 1.6 gained 15 or 25 lbs depending if you run NASA/SCCA, and I believe the 99 got a 1mm larger restrictor vs last years NASA rules. Not sure why the 1.6 had to add any weight. That should have been the standard car to base all others against for parity. If the 99 doesn't lose torque with the restrictor, the 99 will have about a 2 ft pound of torque per weight advantage. I probably didn't explain that right, but hopefully you understand.

My opinion is that minor weight changes (>25lbs) are insignificant for 98% of the SM drivers (aka, the non-pro level)... Chances are one or more of the following will have more of an impact on the lap than under 3.5% weight increase (% estimated):

• a dropped wheel
• hanging brake pad
• missed shift
• brake lock-up
• wrong fuel pressure
• failing wheel or axle bearing
• late on the gas
• slightly lower car prep level
• too heavy gear lube
• wrong set-up
• blown shock
• to early to brake
• (shall I go on)

If you are a pro-level driver chances are all the above mentioned 'dings' has you in front of your competition anyways...

All of you who think the 1.6 is still dead need to take a look at last years NASA results from around the country... Get out of your wambulance and research what happened. Not just a single track on a single weekend, look at several and include the 2011 NASA Nationals. The NA's did well, the 99 needed a tiny bit of help and the few 01's we saw needed to be slowed a tad. SMAC did a great job taking what NASA started and tweaking to fix what I feel needed fixing so we could agree and get to this point.

As one who helps make the rules, I'm so geek'd for next season to start !!! Knowing what I know about the data, has me so excited for everyone no matter what you drive or where in the pack you run.

[Jim Drago]

This is what 38 mm looks like by the way Thanks for the picture Ademir!

[William Keeling]

Only time will tell on this rule set. As these are “fixed” for 3 years we will be living with them right or wrong.

If we NA folk feel that the ’99 is still an issue I suggest that we fix it ourselves. With only 55,000 ’99-’00 built and some of those automatic and others totaled we can make the problem go away. I guess that 25,000 manual donors are left in the America. If each of us buys 2 to 3 ’99-’00 manual donors we can make them very hard to find. That is only a 75 million dollar investment. You must keep it as a street car, convert it to LSx or scrap them. If scraping remember to destroy the engine with sodium silicate, cut the ECU harness to pieces and cut the tub in half before selling it to a junk dealer. Then we let the nature of racing take its course with those already built.

[Blake Thompson]

Only time will tell on this rule set. As these are “fixed” for 3 years we will be living with them right or wrong.

If we NA folk feel that the ’99 is still an issue I suggest that we fix it ourselves. With only 55,000 ’99-’00 built and some of those automatic and others totaled we can make the problem go away. I guess that 25,000 manual donors are left in the America. If each of us buys 2 to 3 ’99-’00 manual donors we can make them very hard to find. That is only a 75 million dollar investment. You must keep it as a street car, convert it to LSx or scrap them. If scraping remember to destroy the engine with sodium silicate, cut the ECU harness to pieces and cut the tub in half before selling it to a junk dealer. Then we let the nature of racing take its course with those already built.

i have already bought 5 or 6. I think Drago has bought more than his share too.

Don't worry, the build quality on the NB was NOTHING compared to the NA. There will not be much left of the salt driven ones in a few years.

[William Keeling]

i have already bought 5 or 6. I think Drago has bought more than his share too.

Don't worry, the build quality on the NB was NOTHING compared to the NA. There will not be much left of the salt driven ones in a few years.

but you two are not scraping them; y'all are parting them and that does not help

[Blake Thompson]

but you two are not scraping them; y'all are parting them and that does not help

lol yeah I'm the glue that holds together most of the cendiv spec chassis... if you see stitch welding you should think of me

[Bench Racer]

SMAC did a great job taking what NASA started and tweaking to fix what I feel needed fixing so we could agree and get to this point.

This is aimed at nasa & the SCCA SMAC CRB.

There is no question people put some real effort into this whole weights & plates deal. I won't even belabor the 25 pound nemesis added to the SCCA 1.6's.

BUT, as transparent as nasa & SCCA SMAC/CRB want members to believe they are, how about someone posting some of these computer model results of a 1.6 & a 99 for Road America. Pick a zero side G force point off T14 & show some speed/time segments to the brake point of T1. Show/sell folks that there is parity at Road America where the premier SCCA event of the year (there's actually a 2nd premier event annualy the June Sprints) is held at least through 2013 & the 1.6's may come. The SCCA SM Runoffs numbers are in decline. There's a lot more to the SM Runoffs race than having the first 10 spots filled with 99's.

To many of you Road America is meaningless, but that's only because you don't belong to the CenDiv & or you don't do the SCCA Runoffs.

[Jim Boemler]

To many of you Road America is meaningless, but that's only because you don't belong to the CenDiv & or you don't do the SCCA Runoffs.

Translated, most of us aren't in the tiny minority. True. You seem to be buying into the idea that RA should control the entire country. I certainly don't, and the non-CenDiv members probably don't. But even more so, the NASA guys don't. After all, this was an effort to create a level field for both organizations, and there's no reason the NASA members should be worshipping at the RA altar. If there's any justice in the world, RA will become even more an outlier in the parity calculation. Too bad for 1.6's at the Nationals -- and I truly do regret that -- but if the parity is really there for the rest of the country, that's more important.

I don't know if it really IS there, mind you. But making RA "just another track" for this purpose really is the right thing to do. We should NOT be picking it apart as the sole criterion for parity.

[john mueller]

This is aimed at nasa & the SCCA SMAC CRB.

To many of you Road America is meaningless, but that's only because you don't belong to the CenDiv & or you don't do the SCCA Runoffs.

Yep, it is meaningless except being another data point. NASA ain't a club so don't expect to see their model.

[Keith Andrews]

Translated, most of us aren't in the tiny minority. True. You seem to be buying into the idea that RA should control the entire country. I certainly don't, and the non-CenDiv members probably don't. But even more so, the NASA guys don't. After all, this was an effort to create a level field for both organizations, and there's no reason the NASA members should be worshipping at the RA altar. If there's any justice in the world, RA will become even more an outlier in the parity calculation. Too bad for 1.6's at the Nationals -- and I truly do regret that -- but if the parity is really there for the rest of the country, that's more important.

I don't know if it really IS there, mind you. But making RA "just another track" for this purpose really is the right thing to do. We should NOT be picking it apart as the sole criterion for parity.

Thank you Jim. +1

I couldn't come up with such concise statement without sounding like a jerk.

[pat slattery]

My opinion is that minor weight changes (>25lbs) are insignificant for 98% of the SM drivers (aka, the non-pro level)... Chances are one or more of the following will have more of an impact on the lap than under 3.5% weight increase (% estimated):

• a dropped wheel
• hanging brake pad
• missed shift
• brake lock-up
• wrong fuel pressure
• failing wheel or axle bearing
• late on the gas
• slightly lower car prep level
• too heavy gear lube
• wrong set-up
• blown shock
• to early to brake
• (shall I go on)

If you are a pro-level driver chances are all the above mentioned 'dings' has you in front of your competition anyways...

All of you who think the 1.6 is still dead need to take a look at last years NASA results from around the country... Get out of your wambulance and research what happened. Not just a single track on a single weekend, look at several and include the 2011 NASA Nationals. The NA's did well, the 99 needed a tiny bit of help and the few 01's we saw needed to be slowed a tad. SMAC did a great job taking what NASA started and tweaking to fix what I feel needed fixing so we could agree and get to this point.

As one who helps make the rules, I'm so geek'd for next season to start !!! Knowing what I know about the data, has me so excited for everyone no matter what you drive or where in the pack you run.

John, are you telling us 1.6 owners that all the above driving errors and setup and prep issues are only involving the class of cars that gained the 25 lbs?

Also if you refer to Friday, the last day of qualifying and qualifying race at the NASA Championship, was pretty much dominated by a 99 car, Didn't appear the 99 needed much help there.

Pat

[FastM3]

I am open to see what 2012 will bring.

I could not get the 1.6 below 2300 so this weight is welcome as it sets a reasonable standard.

I was hoping to see the 94's to 97's and the 99's weight stay where they were.

Good to see the restrictors made smaller. Should help bring the power closer.

Personally my wife and I had been very down on SM this year with the gains that the 1.8's made against the 1.6. We were not sure what direction to follow. So here is hoping for more fun racing in 2012.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

My opinion is that minor weight changes (>25lbs) are insignificant for 98% of the SM drivers (aka, the non-pro level)... Chances are one or more of the following will have more of an impact on the lap than under 3.5% weight increase (% estimated):

• a dropped wheel
• hanging brake pad
• missed shift
• brake lock-up
• wrong fuel pressure
• failing wheel or axle bearing
• late on the gas
• slightly lower car prep level
• too heavy gear lube
• wrong set-up
• blown shock
• to early to brake
• (shall I go on)

If you are a pro-level driver chances are all the above mentioned 'dings' has you in front of your competition anyways...

All of you who think the 1.6 is still dead need to take a look at last years NASA results from around the country... Get out of your wambulance and research what happened. Not just a single track on a single weekend, look at several and include the 2011 NASA Nationals. The NA's did well, the 99 needed a tiny bit of help and the few 01's we saw needed to be slowed a tad. SMAC did a great job taking what NASA started and tweaking to fix what I feel needed fixing so we could agree and get to this point.

As one who helps make the rules, I'm so geek'd for next season to start !!! Knowing what I know about the data, has me so excited for everyone no matter what you drive or where in the pack you run.

John, I love all those ideas, where were they last year? Before I spent alot of money on professional coaching? Maybe there is a future in coaching for you?

All of those are good points!!!! IMO these changes should have all been done last year not just a castration of the 99 to answer all the incesant whinning about the 99 being so dominant. I do not debate it has been dominant at some tracks. If anyone didn't like the 1.6's chances last year at RA, why in the hell would they have gone? If it was a title they were after they had their big chance at Mid Ohio, which favors a top prepped, setup, and driven 1.6 even in the 2010 SCCA trim.

Some will point to the one stand out 99 at Mid Ohio last year. There was ONE, did you read that? ONE, capable of winning the show. You can say whatever you want, I spent lots of laps on track with him and the guy has tallent bar none, and he had VanVursts car prepped to the max, with an engine that maybe 5 guys in the country could stack up against. And importantly he hit the setup when alot of others did not!

I for one believe the racing is going to be unbelievably more competitive this year between top prepped, set up and driven cars, as well as in the middle of the pack and even at the tail end. There is no longer a clear cut favored car, on paper or otherwise.

The last three races I ran I came off the track 30lb heavy each time! I won all three races, 25lb is not going to cost you a race alone, the best car and tallent almost always rises to the top. Everyone believes they are the best driver, and therfore the only way they can be beaten is some difference in HP and TQ, or cheating. I can say without hesitation that everytime this year that I did not finish on the top step of the podium, was because someone drove better, or had a better setup on the car. I did not feel I got beat because of a lack of prep, or by a cheater. But there is no doubt there are more tallented drivers, or equal drivers with a better setup for the track that day, that have beaten me! In SM sometimes even one seemingly minor mistake can cost you the race. What other class can really boast to that fact?