145 replies to this topic

[Alex Bolanos]

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

He did run similar lap times to Steyn and Tisseront that day but we never put good tires on the 94 so there's no useable data. That 94 is a clone of mine and it can run top 10 anywhere in the country, Andrew just prefers his 99 because he has the ability to put an "eyelid" on one of the two headlights

[Mike Asselta]

That 94 is a clone of mine and it can run top 10 anywhere in the country

Alex, if my memory is correct, you had a 99 at the NASA Champs and Run-Offs, but you also own a top flight 94. Can you share any specifics as to why you chose the 99 for these events at two very different types of tracks? Also, which car will you campaign in 2013 under the current rules?

Thanks!

[john mueller]

Personally I'm open to looking at a change but if we're talking 1mm I know NASA won't go for it... Probably not with a 2mm change either.

I agree that we should hear from those who have both to provide good info but unless there is a massive ground swell of unrest from the 1.8 owners I doubt anything will be changed on NASA's side.

Edited by john mueller, 10-05-2012 05:00 PM.
underline my statement about a 2mm change

[MPR22]

No dog in this hunt, but it sure seems like the rev limiter should be adjusted to put the car on a more similar platform to at least the 99'. Don't have clue what other can of worms that opens up.

[Tom Sager]

Personally I'm open to looking at a change but if we're talking 1mm I know NASA won't go for it... Probably not with a 2mm change either.

I agree that we should hear from those who have both to provide good info but unless there is a massive ground swell of unrest from the 1.8 owners I doubt anything will be changed on NASA's side.

OK John if 1-2mm increase won't be considered then how about 3mm increase to 48mm or maybe we just make it a nice round number like 50mm?

[john mueller]

OK John if 1-2mm increase won't be considered then how about 3mm increase to 48mm or maybe we just make it a nice round number like 50mm?

Sure, but not in 2013... 2014 or 15 maybe

Edited by john mueller, 10-05-2012 05:02 PM.
This post IS meant as a joke response to Tom's

[Blake Clements]

The car needs help. Everyone is moth-balling them because they have no benefits (99 - peak power, sustainable power at the RP limit, stable and easier to drive; 1.6 - low weight, nible with mazdacomp rear end). I feel like the 1.8 cars are the "middle child" that doesn't get any attention paid to them. They are cars that with a decent wheel can finish in the top 5-10 at a big race, but can't win given equal prep 99 and 1.6 cars.

[Alex Bolanos]

Alex, if my memory is correct, you had a 99 at the NASA Champs and Run-Offs, but you also own a top flight 94. Can you share any specifics as to why you chose the 99 for these events at two very different types of tracks? Also, which car will you campaign in 2013 under the current rules?

Thanks!

I ran the 94 at the four winter nationals and finished in the top 10 in all four races. I then rented it for the rest of the year and worked on/raced the 99, the 94 went to the body shop to be sexified (technical term) and wouldn't have been ready in time for the far away races so we chose to run the 99. The plan is to put the 94 up for sale soon and finish up two 1.6 projects that should be done sometime early next year.

As far as the two types of tracks, in my opinion all 4 generations are dead even at Mid Ohio. Road America is a different beast and I'll admit that I thought you needed a 94+ to win there until I witnessed Buras' heroics with the raspy donut car.

I do believe that someone who can build a top prep 99 can also build a top prep 1.8 or 1.6 and all of the cars will be within .5s at any track. Remember that the grass isn't greener on the other side.... it's green where you water it

P.S. 90-97 cars are much cheaper to fix!

[Mike Asselta]

I do believe that someone who can build a top prep 99 can also build a top prep 1.8 or 1.6 and all of the cars will be within .5s at any track. Remember that the grass isn't greener on the other side.... it's green where you water it

Thanks for the info Alex.

We "watered" our way to a 2nd place SM Run-Offs finish in 2007 and a SM Run-Offs Championship in 2008 (complete with the Harbor Freight drama that we saw this year) with a fleet of 94 car$, so I very much appreciate the truth in your comment.

By the same token, I'd like to see a lot more "well-prepped," if not fully tweeked and tempermental, 90-97 cars at the 50th Anniversary Run-Offs at Road America. That's the goal of my appeal to the CRB. If I knew a $100 way to get more 1.6 cars there, I would write that letter, too.

The sacred science behind who wins is of less importance to me than getting a big field with good competition. Jim Drago will tell you that after the ticker tape parade in New York ended, and he spent all the endorsement money from Adidas...he still had to show up for work on Monday morning and feed the dog when he got home.

Dirty secret? I wouldn't care if restrictor plates were track specific. Its so easy a caveman could do it.

[Blake Clements]

I do believe that someone who can build a top prep 99 can also build a top prep 1.8 or 1.6 and all of the cars will be within .5s at any track. Remember that the grass isn't greener on the other side.... it's green where you water it

We ran out of water. Need new retention pond with more FLOW RATE.

[Alex Bolanos]

We ran out of water. Need new retention pond with more FLOW RATE.

Thanks for your input, we appreciate your letter but the rules are frozen until further notice.

[Jim Drago]

Hey Jim

[Rob Burgoon]

Wait... 96-97 is less lean at 4K? Only takes 2 vins and some engine bolt ons to become a 97 right?

I don't own enough cars to be able to tell if the 1.8 needs help, but I get the whole "it's better than its ever been, don't touch it" thing.

Leave it be to prevent "car of the year", it's close enough. Meanwhile, I'll build a 99.

[Keith Novak]

There are tracks where the rev limiter is a real issue. I find that more the faster I get. We seem to have a lot of those tracks here. There are a few types of sections:
1) Brake for twisty bit, enter at rev limiter, tap brake change directions and hammer gas. The 1.8 either enters slower or in a different gear and shifts mid twisty bit when everyone else is WOT.
2) Short straight in 2nd or 3rd where all other cars just get to the limiter or rattle it once or twice. The 1.8 either adds and extra up and down shift or pedals it for the last second.
3) Sustained high speed corner where the other cars get to the rev limiter when they're unwinding our just tracking out, the 1.8 going the same speed is still heavily loaded on the suspension.

It might just add up to .5 sec over the track ajusting for that, and I've definately picked up a bit more skill shifting 50% more than others or doing it where I'd rather not but it is a handicap.

[Jamz14]

Seems like there are people that say the 99 is the car. Some saying that the 1.6 is still a competitive car. Some disagreement to those two statements exists too. But what I absolutely don't hear is: " oh I can't wait to build a 97, it is going to be the car to have". I haven't seen one comment from anyone that suggest that if they had a choice between building a 99 or 1.6 or a 94-97, that they would pick the 97 on purpose.

Wouldn't you think that you would see at least one person from this group of opinionated, experienced, talented, drivers and builders open their mouth and say we are all crazy and that they WANT a 97?

What I do hear consistently is that the reason for this is that the 97 people haven't spoke up and made a stink about it. That without people pushing, there will be no change. So I ask again, what is it that I would have to prove or show to get someone to consider a change for the 97? Come on CRB people, you know what you want to see to make a change. I am not asking you to actually do the work, I am asking someone to tell me what the work I need to do is!!!!!!! And secondly I am asking that if I do the work, someone will take the time to evaluate it and make the change they are obligated to make instead of saying that the rules are frozen for two years. I appreciate that we are talking about volunteers. But I am only asking for a review of work done on the backs of people that want to make a change.

But if everyone thinks that the 97 is just fine, I am cool with that and I will not push for any changes (I'm not experienced enough myself to know).

So poll questions, everyone fine with the 94-97? No changes required? You would gladly pick a 97 donor car if the base price was good? If you answer no I assume that you would want and support changes with these years as it opens up more donor car possibilities for you and you won't have to spend 3 years getting the car to parity.

Sorry I have to ask like this but I haven't been doing this long enough to know myself exactly where the 97 stands and I don't have enough experience in developing a car to its full potential to have a base of what is needed. If the answer is hale no I'm not going to help you get a car on par with mine, then I am fine with that answer too. Just say that. But then I would question the practice of allowing class competitors on the technical review boards for that class. BTW - I don't think that competitors on the review boards is a problem; if they are agressively helping to bring parity. Locking something as simple as weights and RP for multiple years just so it doesn't have to be addressed is not agressively helping. That being said I do support locking down major car changes for multiple years. Im not trying to force anyone to look at head parameters of bore sizes, ETC. These types of changes are big financial drivers and should be locked down for a time so that investments can be returned instead of constantly having to reinvest. But our parity adjusters (weight and RP) should never be locked down. There should be a robust, dynamic system in place to modify the parity devices. Whats the risk of not locking them down? Will all of the sudden my midpack driver and car suddenly shoot in front of all the great drivers and tuners here? NO!!!!! And even if the worst possible thing happened and a midpack driver did shoot to the front, if the parity devices were dynamic, then a change to correct the mistake can happen quickly instead of being mired and the mistake carrying over for multiple years and punishing those that fall on one side and rewarding others that are on the other side for no fault of their own.

[john mueller]

Seems like there are people that say the 99 is the car. Some saying that the 1.6 is still a competitive car. Some disagreement to those two ................ practice of allowing class competitors on the technical review boards for that class. BTW - I don't think that competitors on the review boards is a problem; if they are agressively helping to bring parity. Locking something as simple as weights and RP for multiple years just so it doesn't have to be addressed is not agressively helping. That being said I do support locking down major car changes for multiple years. Im not trying to force anyone to look at head parameters of bore sizes, ETC. These types of changes are big financial drivers and should be locked down for a time so that investments can be returned instead of constantly having to reinvest. But our parity adjusters (weight and RP) should never be locked down. There should be a robust, dynamic system in place to modify the parity devices. Whats the risk of not locking them down? Will all of the sudden my midpack driver and car suddenly shoot in front of all the great drivers and tuners here? NO!!!!! And even if the worst possible thing happened and a midpack driver did shoot to the front, if the parity devices were dynamic, then a change to correct the mistake can happen quickly instead of being mired and the mistake carrying over for multiple years and punishing those that fall on one side and rewarding others that are on the other side for no fault of their own.

Wow, lots of words...

Significant amounts of time was invested to reach the point where NASA & SCCA landed. No one can say that parity is the not best it's been for years unless they are being a nonobjective hater. (and we all know who you are)

Historically, the 1.8 SM has had the fewest number of cars and even fewer are in the hands of top teams/drivers. It may be a function of rules gone past or just the way it happened organically, I don't know and really don't care how it happened. But what I care about is that due diligence is served to keep us where we are now, or better if possible.

I'm not saying that because there are not many of these cars in the SM population then nothing should be done. Quite the contrary. If there is DATA that suggests something should be done then I know it will be. However, 1-to-2mm or +/-25lbs will not make any difference for the majority of the drivers/cars out there. The majority of us aren't good enough to take advantage.

Remember, NASA had shift & braking points in mind when moving weights & plate back in 2011 (thanks Karl Zimmerman) but we had to play toward the center of the data to keep from favoring a particular type of track.

So, if it's a real issue I'm open to looking at it but I also know how NASA rolls and tiny insignificant for the majority changes will not be supported.

[James York]

Jamz14, Whoever you are.. it would be nice to know, I'll give you my 2 cents.

Polls here are of course not based on data and unscientfic. You'll get voting bias based on each person trying to better their position.

Next, 2 front drivers I know of build 96-97s because they anticipated they would be the car of the year with 2012 changes. When I was around their cars, I believe they were having teething problems so no real world data that I can compare.

Would I personally build an SM older than a 99? Absolutely not. 99's are old enough already, there is no advantage to try to build an older car as it will not save any money.

The SMAC recommends rule changes to the CRB. I believe they have periodic conference calls to dicuss various topics and discuss parity. I can't remeber all the members anymore, but I am sure Jim does. Jim was on the SMAC in the past.

Short of compiling some sort of nationwide data from race results, I am not sure what you can do as an individual to gather data since no one is going to take an individuals data as being unbiased. I guess you can just lobby for a change. Or maybe start with speaking to a SMAC member and discuss your questions.

[Jamz14]

James,

Not sure exactly why it would be nice to know who I am but I certainly have no problem telling who I am. My name is James Brown and I fielded the number 17 car in the NASA socal region with my son driver Nova Brown. We came up through karting and this is our first year racing sports cars and my first year trying to develop a sports car. I have no reason to question your comments and I do not disagree with them in any way. You describe the current situation.

John,

I am not questioning the integrity or dedication of the review boards in any way. What I am saying with all those words boils down to this; 1. What "data" does a review board want to see in order to consider a weight or RP change? 2. If I as a competitor choose to collect that data, it should be enthusiastically evaluated and not hindered by a lack of willingness to implement.

Also, I never suggested that it should only be a 1 or 2 mm change. If after review of the data there is an indication that it should be 10mm then so be it. Make it 10. But don't be afraid of implementing 10 just because it is such a large number. If the data supports, the data supports. By the same token, if the data shows a 1 or 2 mm, then implement a 1 or 2 mm and don't be put off by having to write a GCR revision. If the data supports it the data supports it and this should be looked at no differently than racers spending a lot and time money and effort to eek out even the smallest advantage. People don't get it both ways. If you want to say to them that to be competitive you have to pay attention to every detail and be supremely prepared(see dragos comments on SCCA runoffs), then the review boards have to be in alignment with that philosophy as well and be prepared to implement even very minor adjustments.

But again, do to my lack of experience I ask, what do you want to see in order to make the determination that a change is necessary?

One additional comment, if this is another of those things that people understand the point but it isn't going to change regardless of the point validity......so be it. Oh well, and I live with that and try to deal with it when selecting my next car to build. I have strong opinions about parity, but I also have the ability to live with the fact the world isn't fair and to try to deal with it if affecting a change to the situation won't ultimately work.

[James York]

James,

Not sure exactly why it would be nice to know who I am but I certainly have no problem telling who I am. My name is James Brown and I fielded the number 17 car in the NASA socal region with my son driver Nova Brown. We came up through karting and this is our first year racing sports cars and my first year trying to develop a sports car. I have no reason to question your comments and I do not disagree with them in any way. You describe the current situation.

Only so I am not addressing you by some made up screen name that sounds goofy. And I think everyone was trying to post their names if the screen name wasn't obvious in hopes of adding some civility. That's all.

[Jamz14]

James,

Ahhh. I tried to use my real name to establish my account, but James was already taken!