145 replies to this topic

[john mueller]

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

Rob is the Quick NA1.8 in SoCal, he can run with any model in his car. I believe he already said his car is equal and no change is necessary. Rob, did I quote you accurately?

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?

Caveboy is on a roll today... Wheaties this morning or Cinnamon Life ?

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Rob is the Quick NA1.8 in SoCal, he can run with any model in his car. I believe he already said his car is equal and no change is necessary. Rob, did I quote you accurately?



Caveboy is on a roll today... Wheaties this morning or Cinnamon Life ?

Teridactle eggs and dino bacon!

[Blake Clements]

Come an get your overdog 1997 in the classifieds TODAY!

[Jamz14]

LOL, No, we'll continue to run the 97. Ok , ok, everyone!!! The 97 is fine.

[Ron Alan]

This thread is giving me a headache

Jamz...since you have self pro-claimed many times you are a rookie and know nothing...you should really use names when quoting someone else...it will hold more water.
Trust me, the powers that be fully understand the issue with the rev-limiter...and if it was a snap your finger easy fix...it would have been done. Your trying to equal 4 flavors of cars that are supposed to run "stock" ecu's. There are many "special" ecu's out there including those that are no longer necessary because of the FP rule!
The upside to changing the diff(for 94-97)outweighed the downside...and brought the cars that much closer to "spec". Every gen car has its good and bad...unfortunately when we are starting out we usually buy the first car we find that fits our budget...without much research...then a year or 2 into it we become much more educated and some realize(or feel) the grass is greener Then they go and change the rules and your stud car now can't stay in the draft(many changes in the last 10 years!) You cant win!

We run 3 tracks and the rev limiter is only an issue at one of them...so we shift! Out of the 3 tracks, 1 is better with the 4.3, one is neutral, and the other...well, we just get to shift! In the hands of a good driver, the NA8 is still competitive Would I like a little extra as an owner of one? Sure! But it's close...real close.

So lets jump forward 2 years...how about this for the new norm??

Spec Miata is tuned off a 99 stock motor and what it can produce...no more RP's. Early gen cars are allowed HPmods, 1.8 brakes, equal track width, maybe aero if that is deemed unequal, and legal ecu mods done by one source and sealed. How long can we stay with a 22 year old car...at least in a 3 gen combined class?? Flame away

Drago...I think DD is coming around but look how quickly he gets replaced No worries DD, we need you! Just dont let it go to your head

[Ron Alan]

Come an get your overdog 1997 in the classifieds TODAY!

1 year to late Blake

[Jamz14]

Sounds good Ron.

[Rob Burgoon]

I believe he already said his car is equal and no change is necessary. Rob, did I quote you accurately?

Mmm... not quite. More like I understand the class leaders that say it's "close enough" and don't want to meddle with a good thing. I'd like to think that I'm the best driver in socal and am being held up by parity issues, but like James was nice enough to point out, I regularly podium and often have a decent shot at winning. So I can't really complain.

However the rev limiter thing is worth fixing if it can be fixed with a crystal or an affordable flash. I understand the crystal will throw the mixture off, but so what, I can retune, right? I'm just not sure the right frequency crystal is available.

All the people that are dead set on the rules mandating a "totally stock ECU" aren't being terribly pragmatic.

My biggest wish for 2013 is for people in my region to stop cheating in STL, not for a 1.8 adjustment.

[Ron Alan]

Easy...throw paper Rob and see if it sticks!

[Caveman-kwebb99]

My biggest wish for 2013 is for people in my region to stop cheating in STL, not for a 1.8 adjustment.

Beating the best driver in southern california = Cheater!!!!!!!

[Rob Burgoon]

Beating the best driver in southern california = Cheater!!!!!!!

I heard they got caught last month, but for some reason I don't see DQs on the results. Remains to seen whether they start bringing honest cars for 2013.

[Johnny D]

Actually they all already got caught and DQ'd a few weeks ago. Remains to seen whether they start bringing honest cars for 2013.

You being good and running with your Anti-Lock brakes disconnected for SM ?
J~

[Rob Burgoon]

You being good and running with your Anti-Lock brakes disconnected for SM ?
J~

Yeah? Why? ABS would probably slow my corner entry. Locking up the inside rear is a good thing.

[Johnny D]

Yeah? Why? ABS would probably slow my corner entry. Locking up the inside rear is a good thing.

Just giving you crap.
J~

[john mueller]

NASA will have no changes to the Weights & Plates for 2013 - on any car.

There will be no changes with the ECU (rev limit) or gearing of the NA1.8

[Ron Alan]

NASA will have no changes to the Weights & Plates for 2013 - on any car.

There will be no changes with the ECU (rev limit) or gearing of the NA1.8

To clarify that my info is correct...NA1.8 can run either the oem 4.1 or the 4.3 from the NB at any regional. But only the 4.3 at the Championships? Or did this change?

[Tom Sager]

So I've been scratching my head for a few days trying to figure how we ended up where we are parity-wise after so many tweaks over the past few years. The dreaded middle child 1.8 has been yanked around like a cheap yo-yo for years having run at 6 different weights by my count over the past several years (2340 (NASA), 2350 (twice), 2365, 2375, 2385 and 2400 pounds). It's no wonder that I have a huge collection of lead ballast and many sets of bolts to go along with it. If I were more ambitious today I would have taken a picture of it all and posted it here. Restrictor plates have been more predictable changing almost every year and with 2013 being an odd year, it's almost certain that a 1.8 be on 47mm somewhere. I had better hang on to all my ballast. Hard to know which pieces will be needed next year. To the credit of the rulesmakers, all of the changes have been well intentioned with those intentions at times meant to slow the 1.8 car down. It was a killer at Topeka, especially with the 4.10.

Equalizing 2 types of Miatas would be a lot simpler than equalizing the 4 types (or 5 types if you see the '94 as different from the '96) that we have. A move in either direction by the car in the middle moves that car closer to one and further from the other (in terms of characteristics) which to me explains why the 1.8 has been tweaked so much.

So where do we stand now? The 1.6 is essentially where it's been for years and a some really good cars and drivers this past year showed again that it's a winner and a contender in the face of top competition. Looking at SCCA, the 1.8 is in essentially the same place it was in 2008. Then the '94-'95 was at 47mm and 2350 pounds while the '96-'97 was at 45mm and 2350 pounds due to its' superior ECU. The '99+ has had the most change in the past few years. It got benefit from the open timing rule and arguably the most benefit (compared to the other cars) from the addition of the adjustable FPR. It also races now at 50 pounds less than in 2008 but also at 38mm rather than 41mm. The million dollar question is where is the '99 power now compared to 2008 (pre-open timing and pre-adjustable FPR)? Can't say I'm an expert on this question but I have a very strong hunch that a 2012 '99 at 38mm well tuned makes the same power as a 41mm 2008 '99. Throw in a 50 pound weight reduction since 2009 and you have a faster race car. No doubt the '99 makes less power in 2012 compared to 2011 (again in SCCA trim) but the big weight adjustment helps the car overall. The '94-'95 is now restricted to 2mm less than in 2008 with no weight reduction compared to then. The '96-'97 is unchanged since that time. If you thought that the 1.8 was an overdog in 2008 then you should be happy today.

NASA was pretty bold with its' ruleset in 2011 and that may be the best set of rules to date.

What's harder to grasp is the advantage of the '99 chassis over the older cars. The 1.8 isn't going to handle quite as well as the 1.6 being 50 pounds heavier and a bit more nose heavy. A 1.8 might accelerate a bit quicker than a 1.6 in a portion of the RPM range and a bit slower in the upper ranges. At 100 pounds lighter the 1.6 might be a better handler than the '99, but anyone that has driven both NA and NB cars seems to share the opinion that the NB chassis handles better and is easier to drive consistently over the duration of a race. The greatest evidence to me does not come in the form of traqmate data but in the form of entries, results and the choice that some make who have more than 1 well prepped car in their garage.

NASA and SCCA competitors may have differing perspectives on all this and I wouldn't be surprised if the tire difference isn't another factor in the results.

[Jamz14]

Ron,

If John says that there are no changes, then that means we will be allowed to run the 4:10 diff at every event except the championships. We are going to test the 4:10 . I had one for one race weekend and there seemed to be some advantages at that particular track.

I will also continue to lobby for the 4:10 option at the championships. It makes no sense why it is allowed for regionals but not the championship. If it isn't fair at the championships, then why would it be at the local level? The only justification I can think of is that they do not want to force new builds to have to change the diff before starting to compete. Fine, but if I can take advantage of that I will seeing how I KNOW, the shift points at some tracks are off and at detrimental points on the track compared to others.

And if the 4:10 doesn't come with any advantage as most have stated, then again, why not let us run the stock 4:10 at the championships? Because it just might and people know that.

Seems reasonable to be allowed to run stock parts for a stock spec class, for a part that isn't perceived to have an advantage over other car years, and IS allowed at most races.

[trimless]

Ron,

If John says that there are no changes, then that means we will be allowed to run the 4:10 diff at every event except the championships. We are going to test the 4:10 . I had one for one race weekend and there seemed to be some advantages at that particular track.

I will also continue to lobby for the 4:10 option at the championships. It makes no sense why it is allowed for regionals but not the championship. If it isn't fair at the championships, then why would it be at the local level? The only justification I can think of is that they do not want to force new builds to have to change the diff before starting to compete. Fine, but if I can take advantage of that I will seeing how I KNOW, the shift points at some tracks are off and at detrimental points on the track compared to others.

And if the 4:10 doesn't come with any advantage as most have stated, then again, why not let us run the stock 4:10 at the championships? Because it just might and people know that.

Seems reasonable to be allowed to run stock parts for a stock spec class, for a part that isn't perceived to have an advantage over other car years, and IS allowed at most races.

I think the answer is the new rule set adjustments were established with the 4:30 gear set in the 1.8. Having all cars on the same gear ratio when the new rules were established. Allowing the 1.8 to use the 4:10 at the non-championship races allows those that don't want to upgrade to save the expense of doing so. At some point I would guess the 4:10 will not be allowed at any level.

[Jamz14]

And we will probably see that change soon now that I have been clear that we will run it if it tests out to be advantageous. But it won't according to most so maybe there is a chance that it will be ignored. After all, why would anyone devote valuable parity review time to prevent a disadvantage right?