145 replies to this topic

[tferranti]

Letter sent.

[Motor City Hamilton]

Make the 4.30 change optional for the '94-97's.

My lap times got quicker at Mid-Ohio, Gingerman and Grattan with the additional torque from the 4.1 to 4.3 change. Who would want to give back torque for an easier gear change on the top end. If you have to go to 5th, then right back to 4th in one section of the track, I don't think that is an even trade off for more torque everywhere?

[Jamz14]

MCH,

You are probably right, and I am not happy about trading torque. But if you agree that the 94-97 would have a different shift point, and you want to keep the 4:30 torque, then the only question is, has the disadvantage been balanced enough with the parity adjusters of weight and RP's? And I think that at some tracks, the 4:10 may ultimately pay off. Probably not all tracks, but maybe some. I just have to invest in testing it.

We are 2 seconds off the front runners so I don't know for sure how big of an issue this is. I'd like to think that I can get another second out of the car and the driver has another second in him, so therefore this is a non issue. But then I ask myself, why do some people agree with what I am saying and they ARE top runners? The good news is that if they are right, it is an issue, and I am right, I have another second in the car(still no FP regulator and other things) and another in the driver, then our program is progressing well and we should be able to compete at the front at some point when we mature as a team.

[Alex Bolanos]

Make the 4.30 change optional for the '94-97's.

No, then people will cry when we show up with both diffs to the track and change them out depending on the data.

[Jamz14]

Alex,

It is allowed already at the regional level. I don't hear anyone complaining about it. But then again, everyone I have talked to about it was surprised that it was allowed in the rules at the regionals.

[Jamz14]

Alex,

Also, from what I hear, you are one of the best there is. I would be willing to bet that means you have changed out everything based on data. Exhaust, transmissions, diffs, AFM, timing, intakes, exhausts,alternators, heads. No one complaining about that,how is this different?

[Jim Drago]

Jamz
I feel fairly certain the 4:10 will not be coming back in SCCA. The 1.6 car has the highest rev limit, should we adjust all to that rev limiter? The 1.6 down and the NA 1.8 up to the 99/05? How do you suppose we do this? How do we enforce this after you allow it? We( SCCA) want to stay within the apple cart as much as possible, re flashing computers etc is not a way we will likely ever go and that is the only way to do what you are suggesting safely. The Crystal is mess, it changes the clock speed of the entire computer, which changes EVERYTHING in the computer that runs off that clock..

Depending on the track, I think I could buy about .2 on rev limit, as far as the rest, that sits with the car and/or the driver. Scroll back and read last years parity threads before and after the rules were announced.. Which did everyone predict was the overdog with current rules?

My position was then and is now that no one is winning or losing races because of 1-2 hp, especially not mid pack. The 1-2 HP is far more important at the pointiest end of the grid than anywhere else. The rules were completely turned upside down this year, yet the same people are still winning for the most part. The rules worked in both SCCA and NASA last year as they were. When the adjustments went in last year, they went in ( SCCA) as a three year freeze,less a significant issue came up or we had it entirely wrong. I know I presented it to the other CRB members that way. II will be on the SMAC call, but IMO, I think if you needed a 3 + mm plate change or 50 lb plus weight change, you would have a better chance of that being approved. Just a note to help the cause, letters saying "help the 94/97" or "We need a 47 mm plate" hold very little weight, as do copy and pastes. If you have opinions, present them. All will be read.

Thanks
Jim

[Brandon]

Alex,

It is allowed already at the regional level. I don't hear anyone complaining about it. But then again, everyone I have talked to about it was surprised that it was allowed in the rules at the regionals.

I would be suspect of that statement. From the GCR itself:
3. Transmission/Final Drive
a. Transmission and final drive ratios must remain stock for the
year of car. All cars shall only use the 5 speed transmission
and the 4.3 differential ratio. Transmission gear ratios must be
stock. All cars may use the stock 4.3 unmodified OEM open
differential or one of the approved alternates listed below.

And that note about 'listed below' corresponds to the various LSD types we're allowing.
Essentially, if you're running a 4.1 gear, you are illegal and can be protested as such regardless of regional vs. national race.

And as echoing what JDrago is stating above, the 4.1 vs. 4.3 is a moot point within the rules committee. We now have all chassis running essentially the same driveline from the flywheel back. It's only the body design/type, engine & front sub-frame bits now that are different between the 3 "types" of Miatas we're racing and I think that's about as close as it's going to get.

I can speak directly to the controversy about the 4.1 (though I'm not at the pointy end of the field - solidly midpack) but it all does boil down to the driver. We'll use the Glen (long) as a single track to look for examples of where it's beneficial or not with the 4.1. (Not totally fair to you as you are in CA and may not have driven it.)

Advantageous (my opinion):
Front straight (before turn 1) - don't have to mess with a 5-3 shift (would probably be 5-4 w/the 4.3 I'd bet; others can confirm this)
Back straight (before bus stop) - same as turn 1
Exit of the boot - I'm not bouncing off the limiter before braking

Not advantageous (again, IMHO):
Carousel/outer loop - I'm shifting from 3-4 at about the first third of the turn and can sometimes get it squirrelly in doing so (no offense to M&S here )
Laces of the boot - if I don't want to string it out and bounce off the limiter before I enter the toe I short shift which can bog me leading up to the braking zone
Exit of the boot - I'm in a worse part of the power-band upon exit of the turn (but applying power is tricky here w/an off-camber "top of hill" style turn)
Entrance to turn 10 (the "left hander") - I'm shifting just before the (no so) braking zone which can mess up entry if I'm following someone too closely

I don't think it can be stated enough: it does all come down to the driver. I can understand and agree with getting all advantages possible with the car model chosen but that's part of the 'game' isn't it? Picking the best tool for the job at hand and seeing how well you fare.

I know I'm not the fastest (still nearly 4 seconds off the pointy end at the Glen) but I counter with the "don't have the budget to put in a 4.3 nor roll on Hoosiers all season" which to me implies if I were to 'prep to the fullest' I would be a whole lot closer. And after 3 seasons of racing I know I'm getting closer even with a less-than-100% car. I'm happy in knowing that I'm keeping up with well-prepared cars and making the most out of the advantages of my car while learning and adapting around the disadvantages it also presents.

Because of this I'm doing what I can to improve the loose nut behind the wheel while making room for the necessary 'upgrades' to make me 100% legal.

Prep to the limit of what you can, get the driver whatever aids that help them, and mark the high-points whenever possible. I marked one of mine last weekend (the 6th) with my first time breaking into the 2:22s consistently (not just a one-off). Had a couple of beers with friends to celebrate.

And isn't that why we do this crazy hobby? Drink beer with friends/competitors?

Signed,
Illegal '96 w/a 4.1

[Jamz14]

Brandon,

Below is the copy and paste from NASAs rules for SM regarding this. And yes, I love the guys in the hobby and working with them.

Jim, the same guys are winning in the same cars they have been winning in. If a top team was winning consistently in a 97 after moving from another year, then I hear you. But for some mysterious reason, they are choosing not too even though as you pointed out, on paper it looks to be an overdog, so why aren't they running this year?

14.3. Differential
14.3.1. 1990 – 1993 (1.6L)
· The OEM Viscous limited slip (4.30:1) or Mazda Competition Parts; part number QN10-
64-A00 (previously T0Y1-27-200 & 0000-02-5501) in addition the alternate
MAZDASPEED #0000-02-5500 limited slip differential is permitted as well.
· The 90-93 Miata may convert to the 99-05 differential housing and the 4.3 differential
gear ratio from the 99-05 model years (this conversion includes the driveshaft and halfshafts).
The original 90-93 model rear suspension uprights must be retained.
14.3.2. 1994 -1997 (1.8L)
· The OEM 4.10:1 Torsen limited slip or 4.10:1 open differential is allowed. Optionally, the
4.30:1 rear axle ratio as found in the 99+ cars is permitted. The original 94-97 model
rear suspension uprights must be retained
· The 4.30:1 gear will be mandated for use during the NASA Championship event.
NASA_SM_FINAL_2012_2v_1 Page 9 of 18
· Use of the 90-93 differentials is not permitted.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

I have to say Jim, I was one of the biggest complainers about the 2011 rules with NASA especially as it related to the 99. I still beleive they were wrong... Although they did attempt to do somethign drastic and make things better. Ultimatley they got together with the SCCA before the 2012 season and made some changes to all the cars that has truly brought parity to all models. When I can drive a team mates unfamiliar Drago 97 as fast or faster than I could drive my own 99, That is same driver same track against same competition...

I for one dont think we need any changes for 3 years unless someone comes up with some crazy big advancment that sets one model on a different plane. Look at the 97 listed in classified, it was best HP/Weight of any cars at NASA nats and there were some very good cars there.

As for the Rev limit, I am all for letting us all go to the 1.6's rev limit if thats what people want, although I dont think that will help, almost every track has some goofy spot where you have to make a choice to ride the limiter or make a gear change, you have to do what proves out to be the fastest with the aid of your data.

[john mueller]

I have to say Jim, I was one of the biggest complainers about the 2011 rules with NASA especially as it related to the 99. I still beleive they were wrong... Although they did attempt to do somethign drastic and make things better. Ultimatley they got together with the SCCA before the 2012 season and made some changes to all the cars that has truly brought parity to all models. When I can drive a team mates unfamiliar Drago 97 as fast or faster than I could drive my own 99, That is same driver same track against same competition...

I for one dont think we need any changes for 3 years unless someone comes up with some crazy big advancment that sets one model on a different plane. Look at the 97 listed in classified, it was best HP/Weight of any cars at NASA nats and there were some very good cars there.

As for the Rev limit, I am all for letting us all go to the 1.6's rev limit if thats what people want, although I dont think that will help, almost every track has some goofy spot where you have to make a choice to ride the limiter or make a gear change, you have to do what proves out to be the fastest with the aid of your data.

Wow! Kyle, who wrote that incredibly well thought out reply for you or did Frank hack your account ? I kidd , great reply dude.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Wow! Kyle, who wrote that incredibly well thought out reply for you or did Frank hack your account ? I kidd , great reply dude.

John I'm wotking on my Corporate Image lolololol... Maybe next year you will sponsor me, it might cost you a cool suit sale or two along the way....

[Jim Drago]

Jim, the same guys are winning in the same cars they have been winning in. If a top team was winning consistently in a 97 after moving from another year, then I hear you. But for some mysterious reason, they are choosing not too even though as you pointed out, on paper it looks to be an overdog, so why aren't they running this year?

I heard the same thing about the 1.6?? We built one, Right now it is arguably the FASTEST car in the country. Not sure why " I" should have to build a 94/97 to prove a good version could win anywhere. I think Charboneau drove the Autotecknik "RENTAL 1.8" to a top five finish after a spin the NASA Champs this year, that car was down 3+ hp in that car. If I felt I had to build a 94/97 the rules would not be right be close. I am helping a driver in California with a 1.8 for next year, hopefully that will put this all this to rest.
In your particular case, you say you are 2 seconds off? You would seemingly have much more you could work on other than a 1-2 MM restrictor plate change. I suggest you pull the plate out completely during a test session, you will still be about 1.7 seconds off the pace ( if you are 2.0 now) I have done with many 99 customers who say they are down on power. I would have them pull there restrcitor plate for STU, they would maybe improve .5 or so, but still not run front running times. That is 10-12 HP.
Not to say you shouldn't campaign for what you believe is correct. But don't loose site of the trees through the forest either

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Hmmmm as a customer I wonder if I pulled my restrictor and went 2+ seconds faster in same car if someone would supply ME with the remaining 2 hp I need? hahahahaha

[Jamz14]

Jim,

No argument at all that our work is with the driver for the most time gains. But as I have said before, the proper approach is to works both car and driver. I don't think you should have to build one. Never said that. I asked why no one is building one for top level comp. Why all the 1.6's and 99's? Why not more 94-97's? I don't know the answer but I do find some of the arguments from reputable people to be compelling.

I also don't think HP is the problem. Nit picking the HP differences is a red herring. The problem is the revs and shift points. This is maybe worth a couple of tenths at some tracks. But that is two tenths. What would you give for two tenths? Two tenths is 10% of what we need to be at front. Never suggested that the revs, plate, or weight is the difference in that 2 seconds. But I FEEL it is some. I did suggest that one way to compensate for the difference is by changing the standard parity adjustments of W&P's to make up for that. SUGGESTED. I leave it to you all. But you know that HP alone is not the total measure of the cars parity. If that were so, dragsters would be the fastest cars around the tracks. I saw it with my own eyes and heard it with my own ears Jim. My driver was longer on the rev limiter than all other drivers by far on some corners (working with him not to ride the limiter). Now either he is carrying so much more speed out of the corners than guys running multiple seconds faster than him (unlikely), or the limiter is being hit much earlier than others even with him not carrying as much exit speed as fast guys. This may be an advantage in some cases. But if you want parity, you can't ignore the difference.

Tell me that this isn't so.

The only thing that can be claimed (I think) is that this has been adjusted for in every ones expert opinion. This is the part that I am unqualified to comment on and would need to trust in those that have been part of the community longer until such a time we are as fast and can speak with more intelligence on the subject.

What I really need to work on is tire pressures and suspension changes. His times were dramatically different in the race than in qualifying and the previous day's race, No ones times were the same from the previous day, but ours went south a higher percentage and I don't have a grip on why yet.

Kyle, think deeper than a caveman about the 97 for sale. I am playing, I don't know you well so I hope the comment is taken in good fun.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Jim,

No argument at all that our work is with the driver for the most time gains. But as I have said before, the proper approach is to works both car and driver. I don't think you should have to build one. Never said that. I asked why no one is building one for top level comp. Why all the 1.6's and 99's? Why not more 94-97's? I don't know the answer but I do find some of the arguments from reputable people to be compelling.

I also don't think HP is the problem. Nit picking the HP differences is a red herring. The problem is the revs and shift points. This is maybe worth a couple of tenths at some tracks. But that is two tenths. What would you give for two tenths? Two tenths is 10% of what we need to be at front. Never suggested that the revs, plate, or weight is the difference in that 2 seconds. But I FEEL it is some. I did suggest that one way to compensate for the difference is by changing the standard parity adjustments of W&P's to make up for that. SUGGESTED. I leave it to you all. But you know that HP alone is not the total measure of the cars parity. If that were so, dragsters would be the fastest cars around the tracks. I saw it with my own eyes and heard it with my own ears Jim. My driver was longer on the rev limiter than all other drivers by far on some corners (working with him not to ride the limiter). Now either he is carrying so much more speed out of the corners than guys running multiple seconds faster than him (unlikely), or the limiter is being hit much earlier than others even with him not carrying as much exit speed as fast guys. This may be an advantage in some cases. But if you want parity, you can't ignore the difference.

Tell me that this isn't so.

The only thing that can be claimed (I think) is that this has been adjusted for in every ones expert opinion. This is the part that I am unqualified to comment on and would need to trust in those that have been part of the community longer until such a time we are as fast and can speak with more intelligence on the subject.

What I really need to work on is tire pressures and suspension changes. His times were dramatically different in the race than in qualifying and the previous day's race, No ones times were the same from the previous day, but ours went south a higher percentage and I don't have a grip on why yet.

Kyle, think deeper than a caveman about the 97 for sale. I am playing, I don't know you well so I hope the comment is taken in good fun.

I have thick skin I'm a caveman lol...

even a caveman knows qual times are nearlt always better than race laps...

[Bench Racer]

Why all the 1.6's and 99's? Why not more 94-97's? I don't know the answer but I do find some of the arguments from reputable people to be compelling.

Please share some of the compelling arguements for all the 1.6's & 99's with the 94/97 being the red headed step child.

From my perspective the class started out being regional only with 90/97 cars. The class explode with 1.6's 90/93 similar to what is on the left coast today, from what I read. When SM was a regional class there would be 60 to 70 SM cars at Road America for the Cat National. SM invited outside the normal National classes. IIRC in the northwest there is mostly 1.6 cars & a year ago someone showed up with a 99 & promptly showed a thing or two.

Because no one gave a crap about how many of each spec line were built including Mazda & the SCCA we don't have a clue how many cars from each spec line have been built.

IMHJ there are minimal folks (mid pack & back) selling/trading off & building 99+ cars. The pointy end will do what's necessary to have the COTY.

When your told the 1.6 is the greatest thing since sliced bread please find the youtube video of the 2012 June Sprints winner & report back after you have viewed the video. Not being the least bit disrespectful to the 2012 June Sprints winner. On tracks other than Road America the 1.6 holds it's own.

If were not flush & choose the wrong partner that's what we sleep with.

[Jamz14]

Caveman, Ours fell off more dramatically.

BR, the 1.6's hold their own at our tracks too. We do have a fast 95 in our region that can podium every race. In the hands of a really good driver the 94-97's seem to do okay at most tracks in Socal. How much harder are those drivers having to push to be there? The compelling argument that some people I respect make is the rev limiter and shift points. If there is not a difference and they are wrong, then say so and that's it. And respected people have said that it is a non issue. So until I can say with confidence that I KNOW, it is a non issue with me too. But I think at the very least, the 94-97 should be allowed to run the stock 4:10 torsen at the championship if someone wants to. This would eliminate the rev issue. Then up to us if the shortcomings of the 4:10 are not worth it. And at RA, you might even have an advantage. Someone has already probably done the testing and knows if it is or not. This crowd does not seem the type to leave any stone unturned. Not sure exactly what you wanted me to notice from the vid.

Look all, I know the driver needs much much improvement. Just trying to get the most out of every little bit. I know you guys are too!!!!!

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Caveman, Ours fell off more dramatically.

BR, the 1.6's hold their own at our tracks too. We do have a fast 95 in our region that can podium every race. In the hands of a really good driver the 94-97's seem to do okay at most tracks in Socal. How much harder are those drivers having to push to be there? The compelling argument that some people I respect make is the rev limiter and shift points. If there is not a difference and they are wrong, then say so and that's it. And respected people have said that it is a non issue. So until I can say with confidence that I KNOW, it is a non issue with me too. But I think at the very least, the 94-97 should be allowed to run the stock 4:10 torsen at the championship if someone wants to. This would eliminate the rev issue. Then up to us if the shortcomings of the 4:10 are not worth it. And at RA, you might even have an advantage. Someone has already probably done the testing and knows if it is or not. This crowd does not seem the type to leave any stone unturned. Not sure exactly what you wanted me to notice from the vid.

Look all, I know the driver needs much much improvement. Just trying to get the most out of every little bit. I know you guys are too!!!!!

I have gone on record as saying this before I have driven a 97 drago and my 99 drago identicle prep and setup with identicle Driver ME (Caveman at the wheel) My shift points at Mid Ohio were withing a couple of feet of each other. Is that corner speed, is that rev limit, I dont know, but it was so close I did not notice the difference. The 97 is for sure harder to drive have said that before, i suspect the 1.6 which is the only model I have not driven is just as hard to drive as the 94-97. Easiest model to drive and most forgiving is the 2001+ bar none. Maybe you need to swap out a few ECU's and find one that gives the the 200 more rpms I have notices a difference in rev limit changing ECU's in my 99 although its only about 100 on the stock tack and never bothered to test it on traqmate.

I will say this we all want to think we are better drivers than we really are, that goes for every single racer in the class and especially me... I have complained to Drago and he will attest to this on a couple of occasions about my power only to send him some vid and end up watching it myself and see I am not driving the car worth a sh it. He is always quick to point out my flaws, which keeps my head in the game. I usually go out the next weekend and turn it up 3 notches, for some reason its easy to fall back into bad habits, that why coaches are so valuable... I still want to blame my equipment but in reality when I suck 9 out of ten times its me, there was once this year my car was off 10hp and still turned some personal best laps that one weekend it was the car, not that I could have won a double national at ATL in that field but I would have had a fighting chance at a top 10 maybe?

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Honestly if the problem is so bad for the 94-97 where in the he ll is bugeroon on this one?