291 replies to this topic

[Adam Molaver]

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.

[George Munson]

I've tried to sit on my hands but one slipped out. I'm going to say what a lot of 1.6 drivers are thinking. I was fine with most of the comments but really when someone compares a "Torque Monster" to a 1.6 in terms of being over weight by 30 pounds. Adding 25 pounds is a big deal when comparing over 10 pounds of torque difference between the two motors. I understand there is data collected from NASA and the SCCA from both cars, but giving the 99's a bigger restrictor plate over last years NASA plate and about the same weight while adding more to the 1.6 car seems hugh. Torque or lack there of is the down fall of the 1.6 car as well as slight handling differences. It "Appears" to me this is too far and I'm not ready to drink the "Koolaid".

That being said, I truely respect all of the members from both organizations and all of the hard work they have put in. I know each and everyone of them have worked hard at meeting the needs of all generations of cars. It's a job I wouldn't want. I will remain optimistic going into next year and see what happens.

[Cnj]

I've tried to sit on my hands but one slipped out. I'm going to say what a lot of 1.6 drivers are thinking. I was fine with most of the comments but really when someone compares a "Torque Monster" to a 1.6 in terms of being over weight by 30 pounds. Adding 25 pounds is a big deal when comparing over 10 pounds of torque difference between the two motors. I understand there is data collected from NASA and the SCCA from both cars, but giving the 99's a bigger restrictor plate over last years NASA plate and about the same weight while adding more to the 1.6 car seems hugh. Torque or lack there of is the down fall of the 1.6 car as well as slight handling differences. It "Appears" to me this is too far and I'm not ready to drink the "Koolaid".

That being said, I truely respect all of the members from both organizations and all of the hard work they have put in. I know each and everyone of them have worked hard at meeting the needs of all generations of cars. It's a job I wouldn't want. I will remain optimistic going into next year and see what happens.

I must be missing something so I will also scratch my chin. You reference NASA numbers above and say that the 1.6 got a 25lb bump and the 99 stayed about the same. You seem to be mixing up your numbers. In NASA the 1.6 increased 15lbs and the 99 increased 10lbs for a net increase of 5lbs to the 1.6 - hardly the "huge" amount you seem to suggest above. If you want to argue that the 1mm increase in restrictor plate size on the 99 is a unreasonable advantage, that is a different discussion, but the net weight change between the 1.6 and 99 is inconsequential.

Cnj

[Blake Thompson]

something on my body won't fit into the new restrictor plates.

[Ron Alan]

something on my body won't fit into the new restrictor plates.

Your spending way to much time in the shop...alone

[john mueller]

I must be missing something so I will also scratch my chin. You reference NASA numbers above and say that the 1.6 got a 25lb bump and the 99 stayed about the same. You seem to be mixing up your numbers. In NASA the 1.6 increased 15lbs and the 99 increased 10lbs for a net increase of 5lbs to the 1.6 - hardly the "huge" amount you seem to suggest above. If you want to argue that the 1mm increase in restrictor plate size on the 99 is a unreasonable advantage, that is a different discussion, but the net weight change between the 1.6 and 99 is inconsequential.

Cnj

Indeed. Like I said, 2012 brings minor changes to NASA's 2011 rules, which were close... These are better.

[Todd Green]

Miller (no elevation track other than 20 feet)

Miller is not flat. It isn't Laguna Seca either. Data from my GPS. Using Dewhurstian numbers, you're off by about 300%.

[George Munson]

My comment has more to do with adding weight to a car that has over 10 foot pounds of torque less no matter how the restrictor plates line up. I realize the jump from the old NASA weight is only 15 pounds. I understand the intent of the rules and I support the thought of equalizing the weights, however lets equalize the torque a little first. My comment also is to the fact that no 1.6 "National Driver" can really be 25 to 30 pounds over weight and expect to be at the pointy end of the field. At least not in our region. This again is only my humble opinion.

I do understand I have not seen the data that helped make this happen. Again I have a "Lot" of faith in what Jim, John, Mike, Dan, and the rest of the hard working crew behind the scenes are doing. I just don't see it from where I sit. I will keep an open mind going into next season and see what happens. If I'm wrong I don't have an issue with saying so.

[Jim Drago]

George
We could have went 2275,2325 and 2375 or 2250, 2300 and 2350. The goal was to stay within 100 lbs. The plates would have still been adjusted the same way( different numbers for these lower weights), the parity would be the same between the years. The only difference would have been some would have had difficulty making weight in the cars. Being a spec class, lowering all the weights for ultimate lap times really wasn't a major concern. Making it realistic for most to make weight in their cars was more important that ultimate lap times. All the cars were based off a 2300 lb 1.6 car. The 1.6 was 2300 in 06 when it swept the podium at the Runoffs. That weight is not "too heavy". in making parity adjustments, the SMAC used weight more often and not enough with plates. The result was a weight disparity that went from 125 lbs to 175 lbs from 2006 to 2011. I am confident these rules will be the best we have ever raced under and looking forward to next season.
Jim

[Caveman-kwebb99]

George, don't take this the wrong way! I as among the most vocal who railed against the changes to the 99 last year, I still stand by my original gut that the 99 needed 39mm. But if the other cars have changes made to them then the 38mm and 2400 is going to be fair. My car is a nationally competive 99 that has been raced regionaly for the most part by a second year sm'er in myslef. I have had my ass handed to me more times than I care to admit by 1.6's at mid ohio. I first thought as many do, it couldn't be me it must be my car vs. Their car. I have sat pole at mid ohio more than I can remmber, but only won 3 times, I believe right now today I could win those same races in 2011 nasa trim. I drove 3 mistake free races, hit the setup perfectly, and drove against those same 1.6ers that smoked me earlier in the year. The big changes were not the car it was inside my head between my ears. I really believe the racing is gonna be far tighter and far improved with the new rules in both clubs, but it will be better and tighter in SCCA than NASA next year only because of the tire difference. The Hoosier will give the mid pack guy more confidence to drive the corners harder closing some of the gap to the leaders.

[Bench Racer]

The top twenty cars from the Topeka Runoffs in 2006 were the following. 2006 was the first year the 99 was classed. In all fairness which of the top twenty cars were 99"s?

Ovr No of Fastest

Pos Car Driver/Hometown

1 88 Andrew Caddell/Graham, WA

2 12 Brad Rampelberg/San Jose, CA

3 80 Matt Cross/Folsom, CA

4 42 Karl Zimmermann/Austin, TX

5 48 Eric Foss/Braselton, GA

6 67 Aaron McSpadden/Austin, TX

7 27 Tony Rivera/Missouri City, TX

8 74 Matt Reynolds/Fair Oaks Ranch, TX

9 77 Sammy Valafar/Las Vegas, NV/

10 95 Bobby Carter/Radiator Springs, CA

11 56 Blake Clements/Kennedale, TX

12 3 Al Bell/Ashton, MD

13 17 Anthony Coello/Palmyra, WI/

14 54 John Willenborg/San Francisco, CA

15 94 Ken Sutherland/Sherwood, OR

16 09 Gary Bockman/Portland, OR

17 47 David Vodden/Willows, CA

18 59 Jarrod Igou/West Des Moines, IA

19 26 Steve Ott/Missouri City, TX

20 5 Chris Prey/Oshkosh, WI

[Bench Racer]

Miller is not flat. It isn't Laguna Seca either. Data from my GPS. Using Dewhurstian numbers, you're off by about 300%.

First off the 20 ft. elevation I mentioned came from a MMSP person at the track via phone during the nasa races there.

When I review your data I see several little blips up & down in sort of 20 ft increments. Accumulatively they add up to 50-60 feet. Please find a track map with the elevation heights identified.

The following track map of Road America will show 4 major blips by compairson. T14, 100 ft. up in 840 ft. T5, up 40 ft. in 960 ft. T7 down 50 ft. in 1,000 ft. T12 to T13 up 35 ft. in 1,100 ft. That mountain man is elevation change & we don't even have any mountains in Wisconsin. Study the included track elevation map & you'll see all kinds of gental bilps like your talking about at Miller Moror Sports Park.

Ask that Dude Tyler Dahl with the black primered car pink #70 IIRC from Utah that ran the 2011 SCCA Runoffs about real elevation changes on a race track.

http://roadamerica.c...itor Map(1).pdf

[George Munson]

Jim, I'm saying this "Tongue and Cheek" but wasn't 06 the year that the 1.6 cars had the RE pressure plates and spec ground cams. Just what I was saying more torque "Please". Again I'm just stating what is seen from the outside looking in. I have the utmost respect for the job you've done. Just my humble opinion about the changes. As you stated it might be the best racing yet. I sure hope so for the entire class.

Kyle, Don't worry I'm not taking any of this to heart. I just wanted to state what a few of us are feeling about the changes. I will remain postive and wheel my little unpowered, over weight 1.6 as hard as I can next year and most of all just have "Fun".

[Jim Drago]

Those clutches aren't coming back, those clutches were also in 99's, I had one. Same with cams, they were available for all years of SM's. With all due respect to everyone's feelings and opinions.. NASA, SMAC and CRB feel we have the weights, plates and rules about as close as possible. If you are not winning currently, the year of your car is probably not the reason, probably not in the top five of reasons. We have very little intention of changing the rules as pointed out when releasing these weights and plates. I respectfully ask you give these rules a chance, I think most will be pleasantly surprised.

[Tyler Dahl]

Miller is flat like a pancake compared to road america. I think willow springs has just as much elevation as road america and 1.6 don't do too bad. But then again it's up with some twisty bits, not straight.

[Todd Green]

First off the 20 ft. elevation I mentioned came from a MMSP person at the track via phone during the nasa races there.

I'm glad you'll take hearsay over hard evidence. Just google "Miller Motorsports Park 'elevation change'" if you don't trust my GPS data. Point still stands, you're off by 300% (give or take. 1500% if I really want to maximize my Dewhurstian math.) Never said it had mountains, in fact I specifically said it wasn't like Laguna Seca.

But honestly that isn't the real point. The real point was to show you how silly it is to take small absolute numbers and try to make them seem significant by twisting them. I have a 1.6. I'm "in" your camp, but you're not winning any friends, nor arguments with the tactics you're using IMO. If those of us on your side are calling BS, what do you think those who are against you are thinking? If your goal is to effect change, you may want to reconsider your approach. If it is just to stir up the forums, please continue on your current path.

Ask that Dude Tyler Dahl

You mean Hot Cheeks? Rumor has it he's retiring (or at least taking a breather from local events next year.)

[dstevens]

Miller is flat like a pancake compared to road america. I think willow springs has just as much elevation as road america and 1.6 don't do too bad. But then again it's up with some twisty bits, not straight.

Ever been on the Horse Thief Mile at Willow?

[Todd Green]

Miller is flat like a pancake compared to road america.

Going way off topic here, so anyone who doesn't run MMP please feel free to ignore. Tyler, pop quiz:

1) Do you gain or lose elevation from Satisfaction to Agony?
2) Which has a larger elevation change, 1st Attitude -> Bad Attitude or Satisfaction -> Agony?

No fair looking at data.

Edit: For grins, I added a calculus channel to integrate the elevation changes for MMP Full track and there's a total of 314' of changes. (Obviously that can be misleading as a track that oscillates up and down a foot over 100' would be very different than a track that climbs a 100' hill.)

[Team Cochran]

Please don't take my comments as disrespecting those that volunteered their time for the various committees to better our sport. Your efforts are appreciatged!

[Bench Racer]

(Obviously that can be misleading as a track that oscillates up and down a foot over 100' would be very different than a track that climbs a 100' hill.)

I believe we agree to agree.