145 replies to this topic

[john mueller]

1. ... what do you want to see in order to make the determination that a change is necessary?

2. 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.

1. Data (Dyno, lap times & Data Aq) collected in known & controlled environments with all prep level know (disclosed) and as equal as possible between the cars tested.


2. 10mm? Dude, it's a good day to stop smelling glue , but I get your point. Really, we're at the point then a big swing like that has already been done (2011) and the data will never show something like that is needed. Also from the stuff I've seen, collected and reviewed doesn't really support 1mm either. That's been my point of my posts... But what do I know, I'm the guy who ruined the class.

[Jamz14]

John,

LOL. I don't have a lot of history with the class so I certainly don't think that you ruined the class, because I think the class is great!! I also think the cars are close. I am trying to be a racer though and develop the car to the ragged edge so that I can also be a winner! And if that means fighting for 2mm, then so be it. I am also responding to what everyone says is the secret....... COMPLAINING. Not in a mean spirited way I hope. But in the spirit of driving hard. Certainly not from the standpoint of being a hater. I love all you guys.

So it sounds like there is data that shows a 2mm plate increase is warranted in your experienced opinion. That's great! It is irrelevent whether or not I can take advantage of that 2mm change or not. What is relevent is that the data shows it to be needed. So why not do it? To hard to change 45mm to 47 in the rule book? Don't sweat it, I'll make the redline edits if opening the word document is too hard for the review board. And then if in the experts opinion we are winning because of an unfair 2mm increase in plate size, I'll volunteer again to change it back.

Just have a hard time understanding the idea that the review boards just won't do it.

I'm sure all of you have been down this road before. But because I am new let me just throw this out there and ask. Would anyone have any objection if NASA changed the 97 plate to a 47mm plate? Lets see how many people pipe in with an objection.

If no one objects, and we have some expert data and thoughts to support, why can't it just happen?

One other thing we might want to consider. If we want the data on a 97 by top teams, you might want to consider building in an advantage to run the 97 for a year or two. That way teams will migrate to it and you will get the needed data. The system as it is ensures that data will never come because no one with experience is going to select a platform on purpose that they feel is at a disadvantage.

[Rob Burgoon]

John,

LOL. I don't have a lot of history with the class so I certainly don't think that you ruined the class, because I think the class is great!! I also think the cars are close. I am trying to be a racer though and develop the car to the ragged edge so that I can also be a winner! And if that means fighting for 2mm, then so be it. I am also responding to what everyone says is the secret....... COMPLAINING. Not in a mean spirited way I hope. But in the spirit of driving hard. Certainly not from the standpoint of being a hater. I love all you guys.

So it sounds like there is data that shows a 2mm plate increase is warranted in your experienced opinion. That's great! It is irrelevent whether or not I can take advantage of that 2mm change or not. What is relevent is that the data shows it to be needed. So why not do it? To hard to change 45mm to 47 in the rule book? Don't sweat it, I'll make the redline edits if opening the word document is too hard for the review board. And then if in the experts opinion we are winning because of an unfair 2mm increase in plate size, I'll volunteer again to change it back.

Just have a hard time understanding the idea that the review boards just won't do it.

I'm sure all of you have been down this road before. But because I am new let me just throw this out there and ask. Would anyone have any objection if NASA changed the 97 plate to a 47mm plate? Lets see how many people pipe in with an objection.

If no one objects, and we have some expert data and thoughts to support, why can't it just happen?

One other thing we might want to consider. If we want the data on a 97 by top teams, you might want to consider building in an advantage to run the 97 for a year or two. That way teams will migrate to it and you will get the needed data. The system as it is ensures that data will never come because no one with experience is going to select a platform on purpose that they feel is at a disadvantage.

James, you're worrying about this too much. Fund a trip to the track for me to drive Nova's car, I'll crush his lap times and tell you what all is wrong with the car. Unless Nova can get within a second of my 95, there's no point in worrying about a few mm worth of parity adjustment.

[James York]

.........So it sounds like there is data that shows a 2mm plate increase is warranted in your experienced opinion. ......

Where did you read that from John's reply. He said in his opnion, he didn't even think a 1 mm increase is justfied.

John,

One other thing we might want to consider. If we want the data on a 97 by top teams, you might want to consider building in an advantage to run the 97 for a year or two. That way teams will migrate to it and you will get the needed data. The system as it is ensures that data will never come because no one with experience is going to select a platform on purpose that they feel is at a disadvantage.

This is EXACTLY what SCCA and NASA are attempting to prevent by keeping a stable rules set. This is club racing. Small buget (mostly) operations that can't afford to shift cars when don't have the car with the "built" in advantage. I hope the idea from the rulemakers is the rules are out, anyone getting into SM now should research and know what car they wish to campaign under the existing rules. Constant rules tweaking gets old as everyone is chasing a moving target.

[Jamz14]

Rob,

Thank you for the offer and we may very well take you up on it. Might be the cheapest way for me to quickly get the car well prepped.( I am still going to wash my car though Rob! )

However I take exception to the comment about worrying about it too much. 1. I am only making some comments on a fairly unproductive forum in this regard. Nobody is going to change the rules just because of some straw poll on a forum site. 2. No such thing in racing of worrying too much about performance gains. As many many racers have pointed out, if you do not try to get absolutely everything you can out of driver and car, you will not be number one. My competitors are certainly worrying about everything they can.

I do get your point though that we have other things that will ultimately yield more percentage gains than a plate change. I say we should worry about both this, and the other things you mention.

[Jamz14]

James, I think that if you reread all of John's comments you will see a suggestion that he believes a 2 mm change would be warranted to help with the rev limiter issue with the 97. Maybe I am misinterpreting his comments,but John will jump in and clarify if I am misreading him.

I also think that there is a major difference between broad rule changes and changes to weights and plates. You point is valid though, that if everyone wants to freeze the rules as they are, then people should research ahead of time to know exactly what car has an advantage and to build that car. I am down with that. Consider it a lesson learned on my part as a newbie coming in and that I made a stupid newbie mistake of selecting the wrong platform. I am good with that. An expensive lesson learned but it sounds like moving to a 99 is easier and more productive than getting tech bodies to consider changes (even if as Rob has pointed out that we are not yet skilled enough to realize the advantages of said changes). But your logic works in the reverse too. If this is small budget club racing. Then it is very important to have evolving rules to help bring parity to the low budget guy that can't make a platform change. Should he be permanently penalized for selecting a handicapped valid entry just because they were so new that they didn't even know where to look for the info? Not saying that was the case with me. But it is certainly the case sometimes. Now that poor fellow has no hope unless he ponies up for a new pony. Hardly in the spirit of club racing don't you think? Hardly a budget limiter.

Won't spend much more time on this subject but just so it doesn't escape attention;haven't heard anyone jump on and say BS, the 97 is 100% equal to the 99. Only have heard why it won't be productive to attempt to change regs. So........with that, I go back to, I'm good with the plate staying the same. I'm good with the rev limiter issue. But I am also going to stop listening to people that suggest that if you want something changed you should speak up.

Be honest everyone. What you really want is for everyone to shut up and just race. That's what the organizers want, that's what the winners want. It is only the losers that want to question how things are. I might be a loser currently, but I am not a whiner. Let the plates and weights stand and everyone shut up about the 94-97.

[Mike Asselta]

Folks are WAAAYYY off base asking driver's not too worry about small changes or suggesting they aren't worth our time. Small gains are everything in spec racing if we're doing it legally, we fight for every bit of power and torque. That's what we do. This is where the fun and competition lie and should not be toned down. In fact, a tempest on a website does not translate to real world upheaval. Live in the real world...respectfully exchange ideas here or just watch. http://www.crbscca.com/index.php

Secondly, this wave of demand for science and empirical data is like viewing a forest with your nose touching the bark of a tree. Kudos to John and NASA for having a large and varied turn-out at the MidOhio Championship, but....SCCA at Road America for the 50th Anniversary next year and saying "SM is fine the way it is" sounds very, very silly for a club whose success hinges on car counts and participation.

One or two millimeters isn't going to put me on the podium at the Run-Offs, or knock off guys willing to work and spend as hard as past champions have, but we do need to get more people with 90-97 cars to entertain the idea of having a fun and competitive experience at RA next year.

As I've stated to others, if I knew a $100 way to make the 1.6 more competitive at RA, I would suggest that too. Please save me the example of the singular exception...especially if you are one of the self-professed slaves to scientific data (unless you know the long term health and environmental effects of burning donut grease in a Miata).

[john mueller]

John,

LOL. I don't have a lot of history with the class so I certainly don't think that you ruined the class, because I think the class is great!! I also think the cars are close. I am trying to be a racer though and develop the car to the ragged edge so that I can also be a winner! And if that means fighting for 2mm, then so be it. I am also responding to what everyone says is the secret....... COMPLAINING. Not in a mean spirited way I hope. But in the spirit of driving hard. Certainly not from the standpoint of being a hater. I love all you guys.

So it sounds like there is data that shows a 2mm plate increase is warranted in your experienced opinion. That's great! It is irrelevent whether or not I can take advantage of that 2mm change or not. What is relevent is that the data shows it to be needed. So why not do it? To hard to change 45mm to 47 in the rule book? Don't sweat it, I'll make the redline edits if opening the word document is too hard for the review board. And then if in the experts opinion we are winning because of an unfair 2mm increase in plate size, I'll volunteer again to change it back.

Just have a hard time understanding the idea that the review boards just won't do it.

One other thing we might want to consider. If we want the data on a 97 by top teams, you might want to consider building in an advantage to run the 97 for a year or two. That way teams will migrate to it and you will get the needed data. The system as it is ensures that data will never come because no one with experience is going to select a platform on purpose that they feel is at a disadvantage.

I don't think you're complaining, I applaud you desire to get all you can. I love that forums like this exist where we can have these discussions. With that in mind:

• Where did I say a 2mm is warranted so I can edit that post?

• Stop the argument that it's hard to change the documents, make new plates or even make the decision to change... Who do you think actually types the rules doc, orders NASA RP's from the vendor and makes a recommendation to NASA on what to do? Besides, that's talking down to me and I've earned enough respect by making hard decisions for this class and living through the abuse that they created.

• Why would I support an advantage for any car when we've worked so hard to to achieve what we have now? Create more problems for myself and SMAC? No friggin way. You're new to the show, so I suggest that go back and read the 2011 threads when NASA pulled away from common rules (my suggestion). I got my butt kicked for months! Then around September, after enough races had been run and the results showed we were onto something.

At risk of sounding rude, for which I apologize for in advance for, I strongly suggest you develop your car and the driver to the point that you're consistently behind 99's and 1.6's in P3-P5 at SoCal events. Really, I mean no disrespect to you or Nova, but have some results that illustrate that you guys are hitting a glass ceiling where the rules are creating limitations for your ultimate success. When guys who have run in the top 5 at Runoffs and Nationals who have (or had) both cars say the 1.8's need help, I and those on SMAC will take notice. So far only one has said something but he sold his 99 last year, so I think he's just complaining.

James, you're worrying about this too much. Fund a trip to the track for me to drive Nova's car, I'll crush his lap times and tell you what all is wrong with the car. Unless Nova can get within a second of my 95, there's no point in worrying about a few mm worth of parity adjustment.

Rob is spot-on here. I did this last year with my car with a hotshoe who had NEVER drove an SM and his first lap was a half-second faster than my best lap at that track (and I gave him crap tires). In my situation the car is fine, it's me that needs development.

[Jamz14]

John,

I GREATLY, I mean GREATLY respect your tenure in the community. But I do not agree in any way that you should not push every avenue to gain an edge. This is what I tell my son. "Son", we have two areas to improve to move into the top 5. 1. Improve the car, 2. Improve the driver". You do this in tandem, not in sequence. The reason you do this in sequence is because it is inefficient to get all the performance out of the driver and then spend valuable track time to then begin working on the car. For people with no desire to ever do anything but SM, you might be able to afford the extra time to work on stuff in sequence.

To address your comments in order.

1. 2mm plate change - I don't really know how to quote post so sorry I can't place your words here. But you stated to someone that there was no way that NASA would consider a 1 or 2 mm change. You then said maybe a 3mm change would be considered after 2014 or something to that nature. It now sounds like I misread that comment so I retract my comment that it sounded like you would support a RP change. Sorry for the misrepresentation of your comments

2. who makes the doc changes - I actually have no idea who makes those changes. And I certainly didn't think it was you as your comments gave me the impression that you had little currently to do with the spec changes. Didn't mean to talk down to you in anyway so please accept my apologies for how that came off. I was just trying to make the point that I don't understand why it is such a big deal to modify them if enough people seem to think that it is needed.

3. Why would you support the building an advantage for a particular car? - You wouldn't if you thought that you had achieved parity between all the years. My mistake, I misunderstood the crowd and I misunderstood how you feel about the 97. You think it is fine so there is no reason to change it. Simple enough for me. But you would support it if you thought that there was a disadvantage to this year and you wanted to drive people to it to start working on eliminating the disadvantage of owning a 97. But I now understand that you don't think there is so moot point that we both agree on.

4. Stop worrying about this until Nova hits a glass sealing - I'll refer to my opening statement on this. I can stop worrying about it as you suggest, but it will just take me longer to be number one if I delay worrying about the car until such a time that the driver is the best. I don't understand at all why working both ends to the middle isn't the proper solution. Should I also forego a pressure regulator , comp exhaust, 94 tie rod ends, ETC ETC until Nova is as good a driver as you? Would be a lot cheaper to run the car in stock trim until he is perfect. I know I am taking your comment to the extreme, but only to make the point. But lets say I take your advice in this area and I shut up until he is P3-P5 . Then do I get the street cred to suggest a change? I don't mean to get anyone in trouble here, but that the 97 is disadvantaged is not my idea. I am not talented enough yet to make that ascertion. You being in socal as long as you have, you certainly have heard what I am suggesting by other drivers of cars that are currently running in P1 even. It's just that they are not running in P1 with a 97!!!!! And they never will because they will never build a 97 because right or wrong, they FEEL that the 97 is not the car to have.

I can give the car to the hot shoe. He will certainly present better times than what we are posting. The better question however is will he place better times in a 99 over the identically prepped 97? THIS is my point.

I get all of you. We are not on par with all of you guys. We will get there though. But we won't get there by accepting that we shouldn't eek out everything we can. Now, not later.

And finally , I take no offense to your comments and have no problem coming to grips with where we are at in the pecking order. Again, GREAT respect for you and for all of the NASA crew.

[Go Time Racing]

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?

Before my brain explodes , can I just say that the 94-97 is just fine - no changes required.

My suggestion would be to not worry about car parity until you are 'experienced enough to know' yourself. Then you will have more insight about what you are talking about.

Where is Tom Sager when his comments are needed?

[Jim Suhr]

I have been trying for years now to try and make a 1996 car competitive, and its really just not happening. The payoff for countless hours on the dyno and engine rebuilds to the GCR specs is a car that hits 119 whp on a good day and can't pass most 99s on the straights at Road America even with a point by (that is both frustrating and embarassing). I do enjoy racing regardless of where I finish, but the enjoyment sags quite a bit when you know you don't really have a chance past mid-pack.

I do think parity needs to be seriously examined for the 94-97 if the class want to keep those owners participating in SM.

[Justin Baltrucki]

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.

I am not sure of the root cause for the AFR problem, is it an ECU calibration issue? Wouldn't it be easier to ask for 94-95 ECU or misc hardware swap rather than a plate change? If there is a percieved difference it may be easy to ask for allowable parts/harness swap to make a 96/97 run identical to a 94/95 car. If the board see's no significant difference between the 1.8 model years I would think this would be easier to pass than a weight or plate change.

[Rob Burgoon]

This is EXACTLY what SCCA and NASA are attempting to prevent by keeping a stable rules set. This is club racing. Small buget (mostly) operations that can't afford to shift cars when don't have the car with the "built" in advantage.

It's been too long, it's time for me to piss everyone off again!

What I'm going to say is gonna be very controversial, but I believe there is a strong case for getting the cars close enough where any car can win at the typical regional race, but having one car slightly be the best. The cars are close enough so that joe SM schmoe can win his regionals when he's the best driver, but the national champ and hot regions know which car to build for that slight edge. If you make the cars too equal, then the fast guys will not only chase "car of the year" problems, but they will also need a different car for each kind of track.

The best thing we could ever do for parity in this spec class is pick a car, have it be the "car to have" and slightly sabotage the rest. Bam, now it's a true spec class.

Not saying it's the best idea for participation or business, but having 5 different cars in a "spec" class is bull-snort.

[Jamz14]

Go time,

As I have pointed out to my son many times when I am reviewing his video and he tells me I am not a driver but a mechanic, you dint have to be the fastest to know a little bit about what you are talking about. But ill concede the point. I know nothing until we are on top. At at that point I guess I don't need to be havimg these discussions any more though .

[Rob Burgoon]

Go time,

As I have pointed out to my son many times when I am reviewing his video and he tells me I am not a driver but a mechanic, you dint have to be the fastest to know a little bit about what you are talking about. But ill concede the point. I know nothing until we are on top. At at that point I guess I don't need to be havimg these discussions any more though .

If it helps, my first two years I was on fire with ideas about improving the class, but as I learned more I started to understand why much of it is the way it is and embrace it. You guys are probably going through a similar phase.

[Rob Burgoon]

That doesn't mean I'm done though. The start rules are still a crock, but that's for a different thread.

[Jamz14]

If you were to go back and read most of the postings I have made, rarely do I ever suggest that I have the answers for the class. And I always acknowledge my relative newness to the class . Doesn't mean I don't have strong opinions. But I usually always say that whatever the experienced guys want to do , I am good with doing it their way. As long as it is transparent, understandable, and replicable.
So no, not really trying to change the world. As matter of fact, in regards to the subject we have been discussing, I have said that I am not qualified to know if a parity adjustment is warranted. I have stated that people that have been around alot longer than me have suggested that the 97 is not on par with the 99. But if john says it is par, then I trust him and I am done worrying about it.

Ill let the big boys work it out.

J

Ps. Just because im new to sm doesn't mean I haven't been around racing and know a bit about what im talking about.

[Ron Alan]

If it helps, my first two years I was on fire with ideas about improving the class, but as I learned more I started to understand why much of it is the way it is and embrace it. You guys are probably going through a similar phase.

God dam Rob, this is the most lucid thing you've ever written...and it only took you 3 or 4 years to get there Of course this is exactly what I was thinking...been there, done that!

James...don't take this the wrong way...but if you had spent half the time reading archives as you did typing these novels, you might understand better how the current rule set was achieved and how much work it took to get there between NASA and SCCA. The yearly rule changes and the ongoing parity debate was a cluster...it still may not be perfect but pretty freaking close.

We campaign a 95...I have complained publicly and lobbied Jim privately about what the diff change(4.1-4.3)did to our car given the factory rev limiter...this can be a real disadvantage at certain tracks. But then again the 99 is also lower than the 1.6...should we allow all rev limiters the same #? Your car is OBD2 while ours is OBD1... hence the reason why yours has a nicer AFR than ours as Tom S pointed out... advantage over the 94-95? Our car set 2 poles this year in a very large SFR region...it really isn't lacking much but I'll take the 47mm plate and 15 lbs back

Bottom line is the max HP a top flight car in each flavor makes in relation to its required Min. weight...puts them all right there within fractions. Set up, tires and driver ability are what really separate the pointy end from the midpack. John, Rob and many others are right on when they say work on the driver...the car will come to him!

BTW...in Robs world we are known as helicopter dads

[Rob Burgoon]

I could get behind some sort of rev limiter equalization move.

[Ron Alan]

I could get behind some sort of rev limiter equalization move.

Smart man...now were talking!