145 replies to this topic

[Mike Asselta]

Not looking to start a bonfire, but if you agree that class participation and parity would benefit by returning the 94-97 Miata's to the 47 mm restrictor plate, please join me by sending your request/support to the SCCA CRB. I am also suggesting that the weight remain the same as current. The current plate is 45 mm.

If you disagree, don't need to do anything.

Here is quick link to the form:

http://www.crbscca.com/index.php

[Ron Alan]

Or at least allow a rev limiter mod! Hey Jim

[Caveman-kwebb99]

I would like my 41mm RP back also, with no weight adjustmant.

[Mike Asselta]

I would like my 41mm RP back also, with no weight adjustmant.

Same form can be used for that...

[Caveman-kwebb99]

<sup>unfortunate as it is, we will both recieve the same respnse letter: thank you for your input...

In all fairness, I have had the unfortunate luck to work on two of these 97's in the last 3 years, one was blazing fast, the other not so much, even with the wieght and plates the fast one was damn fast. I dont thin the 97 needs a different RP, I dont even think the 99 needs a bigger RP.
Now as for me personally I need a bigger RP, ao I can be more competitive. I think SCCA and Nasa should have 3 different size plates for every year, for the poor driver he gets the largest opening RP, for the good driver he gets 2-3mm smaller, for the great driver give him 2 mm less again.

So easy a Caveman can comer up with new parity rules LOLOLOLOLOL</sup>

[KAGEY]

As the class sits the least desirable car is the 95-97. I think a 46mm is more realistic for bringing perfect parity to the class. It is all very close now but it could be even closer with that small adjustment.

Kurtis

I have owned a kick ass 1.6 and a now own a very strong 95

[Jamz14]

Putting aside for a minute on whether the 97 needs additional parity changes or not, what would be required to show or to prove that it does need a change? Who would you need to convince at NASA and what would be convincing data?

Now jumping into whether the 97 needs a change; from everything I hear, the 97 is at a disadvantage because of the gearing and rev limiter. If the commentary from people regarding this is correct, why isn't a change in the works? Is there just not enough 94-97 owners complaining? It would seem that this would be fairly easy to prove out empirically whether it needs a RP change or not.

J.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

John Mueller would be initiator of change at NASA, for the most part it seems to me everyone at the top seems very content with the rules as they are. I would think it would take a major upevil by 97 owners to make any such change if it would be done at all. I know the changes for 2012 were well vetted before hand between the CRB and NASA, not sure what all in the way of testing was done, possible Drago could enlighten us as to what testing procedures where done. I am sure dyno results were part of it, as well as NASA had lots and lots of data they collected via traqmate durring the 2011 season, including sticking one of things in my car before my very first lap at Road Atlanta, I am quite sure that is why the 99 recieved an extra MM for 2012

[DrDomm]

I'm not experienced enough to claim my '94 is at a disadvantage. For all I know, it's just me. But I'll, take a larger restrictor!

[trimless]

Seem to remember at Nasa Nationals that Clements 1.8 had the best power to weight ratio for all cars that were dynoed. I think we need a bigger plate for the 1.6

[Caveman-kwebb99]

are you sure it wasnt the best weight to power ratio?

[Bench Racer]

I think we need a bigger plate for the 1.6

[FTodaro]

Tom Sager, here is your parity thread you asked for, lol.

[Tom Sager]

Not looking to start a bonfire, but if you agree that class participation and parity would benefit by returning the 94-97 Miata's to the 47 mm restrictor plate, please join me by sending your request/support to the SCCA CRB. I am also suggesting that the weight remain the same as current. The current plate is 45 mm.

If you disagree, don't need to do anything.

Here is quick link to the form:

http://www.crbscca.com/index.php

I think there are a few hurdles to get over here but one at least that is quite reasonable. I think the 2012 shared ruleset adopted by NASA and SCCA this year has made the racing quite close and for the most part the entire parity discussion has been pretty quiet. As for SCCA, I think the SMAC and CRB are both a little worn out on all the parity beefs over the past few years (just my opinion) and they're very reluctant to make any changes because one of their stated goals was to keep the rules stable for more than a year. I don't think that group will be very receptive but that doesn't mean you or me or a group of competitors shouldn't make a case. I also think that the '94 - '97 suffer from the same problem the 1.6 has had in recent years. The old "not many have run them recently and not many are top prep cars" syndrome. With the new rules this year, how many of the top driver's and teams built a 1.8? Very few that I can recall and that says a lot because if the big budget guys felt a 1.8 was a better car then we would have seen more of them for sure. I saw very few 1.8 cars at either the NASA or SCCA events I attended this year. Of course this year at the SCCA June Sprints a 1.6 car won the race which means that the 1.6 has been competitive at any track all along, right? It's just that nobody ever showed up with a good car and drove the wheels off it, right?

Another hurdle and the one that I think can and should be cleared is that the '94 - '97 cars are all lumped together rules-wise but there is something that makes the '94-'95 different from the '96-'97. The '94 - '95 can't achieve air/fuel ratios across the whole racing range that are as favorable as the '96 - '97. The '94 - '95 when adjusted (fuel pressure) for peak performance at the upper RPM range is much leaner than you'd like in the midrange. The '96 - '97 maintains better A/F ratio throughout the entire racing range. With a '94 - '95 you can tune for the upper range to be decent (about 5750 - 6900) but you end up much leaner than desired otherwise (about 4500 - 5500) . You can adjust the lower range to be better but then you give away a little at the top and lose 1-2 HP. None of the Miatas have great A/F curves (with unmodified electronics) but the '94 - '95 is the worst of them all. I think an excellent case can be made to give the '94 - '95 a 1-2mm larger plate which would make the car on par with the '96 - '97. There are several people on this board that are either involved in the rules making process or have a bunch of experience with 1.8 cars that know what I've written is true but they may feel that the difference is not enough to worry about. To that I'd say that when you make rule changes as small as a 10-15 pound weight adjustment then this difference in the '94 - '95 vs '96 - '97 cars is just as important. I'd also say that I can't recall any driver who had intentions of competing for any NASA or SCCA championship that built a '94 - '95 in recent years. There have been some '96 - '97's. Had I been aware of this back in 2007 when I had the '95 built, I would have made a different choice.

Those that have '96 - '97 cars will have to make a case that they need help compared to 1.6 and/or '99+ if they want a bigger plate. Some people (not among rules makers) this year have told me that they feel the top '99 cars are making more power at 38mm than was expected when the rules were crafted. I own a 2000 also but it has a worn out motor so I can't speak to that.

[Jamz14]

Thanks Kyle,

Power to weight and dyno numbers cant be the only consideration though. Gearing and the rev limiter have to play a part too. Shift points come into play. If some people are having to shift to fifth on long straights where other are floating fourth and still making power, then the 94-97 have to be compensated in some other manner than just comparing power to weight.

I guess I am with Drdomm in that I am probably not technically astute enoguh to make a case for a larger plate. But I have heard from some people that probably are astute enough that the 97 is at a disadvantage. If this is true, then why is getting a change such a long shot? If it is a long shot even if a very good case can be made, then I'm not even interested in trying and I will quietly back out of the conversation and let people beat heads against the wall. Just not worth it when I can probably find more time and power within the current rule set without having to convince unconvincable people.

I think it would be worth it to NASA and to SCCA for just a quick check of the number of 97's running and to determine if they are in the hands of winning capable drivers and if there is some conclusions that could be drawn from the results. This would at least provide enough impetus to at least ask questions from these drivers as to how they feel their cars stack up. Then couldn't it be as easy as sending a trusted impartial qualified driver out in both cars to compare the differences in shift points and rev limits and the affect it has on overall lap times? And then if this proves interesting, devoting some time to empirically prove out a weight or RP change. But for all I know, this has already been done and a decision has been made and I am back to the point that I am not going to pursue a futile path of frustration and will get on with the racing.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Thanks Kyle,

Power to weight and dyno numbers cant be the only consideration though. Gearing and the rev limiter have to play a part too. Shift points come into play. If some people are having to shift to fifth on long straights where other are floating fourth and still making power, then the 94-97 have to be compensated in some other manner than just comparing power to weight.

I guess I am with Drdomm in that I am probably not technically astute enoguh to make a case for a larger plate. But I have heard from some people that probably are astute enough that the 97 is at a disadvantage. If this is true, then why is getting a change such a long shot? If it is a long shot even if a very good case can be made, then I'm not even interested in trying and I will quietly back out of the conversation and let people beat heads against the wall. Just not worth it when I can probably find more time and power within the current rule set without having to convince unconvincable people.

I think it would be worth it to NASA and to SCCA for just a quick check of the number of 97's running and to determine if they are in the hands of winning capable drivers and if there is some conclusions that could be drawn from the results. This would at least provide enough impetus to at least ask questions from these drivers as to how they feel their cars stack up. Then couldn't it be as easy as sending a trusted impartial qualified driver out in both cars to compare the differences in shift points and rev limits and the affect it has on overall lap times? And then if this proves interesting, devoting some time to empirically prove out a weight or RP change. But for all I know, this has already been done and a decision has been made and I am back to the point that I am not going to pursue a futile path of frustration and will get on with the racing.

I have personally, driven 2 drago cars my 99 and my team mates 97, I was actually faster in his 97 when i raced it, it was harder to keep control of for me personally. That was last year in NASA trim, which if im not mistaken the 97 is unchanged from that trim level. my 99 at the time with nasa rp had 125hp, i am not sure what hp that 97 was at the time but if I remember right it was 122hp ish. The shift marks were identicle in my recolection with both of those cars at Mid ohio. That car was also just as fast as mine at the Watkins Glen SCCA national in 2011, my 99 might have a bit at the top end but it was so minor I could gain no advantage out of it. my car in 2011 SCCA trim was 129.5hp.

[Blake Clements]

Not looking to start a bonfire, but if you agree that class participation and parity would benefit by returning the 94-97 Miata's to the 47 mm restrictor plate, please join me by sending your request/support to the SCCA CRB. I am also suggesting that the weight remain the same as current. The current plate is 45 mm.

If you disagree, don't need to do anything.

Here is quick link to the form:

http://www.crbscca.com/index.php

My name is Blake Clements, and I approve this message.

[Jamz14]

Good info. Thanks Kyle.

[Greg Kimble]

I would be curious to hear from Andrew Von C on this. I am pretty sure that the car he drove in the NASA nationals was a '94 at the Run Off's he was in a '99.

[Blake Clements]

I would be curious to hear from Andrew Von C on this. I am pretty sure that the car he drove in the NASA nationals was a '94 at the Run Off's he was in a '99.

Greg, good idea. I also believe he tested both cars during the test days if my secret intelligence was correct.