563 replies to this topic

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

But last I checked a southern BBQ 35k car competes FAVORABLY against a 50k yankee car

Kyle, if I had your money and talent I would have two 50k cars ! You know one for Sat. race and one for Sun race !

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Kyle, if I had your money and talent I would have two 50k cars ! You know one for Sat. race and one for Sun race !

 Sadly kuch, i have little of both!!!!!  Thats why I know My 35k car is doing all the work for me LOL, One day I will be able to stel Drago's Traqmate chip slip it in my car and the car will run on auto pilot to the win

[Bench Racer]

No one likes there class going away, but yet we all cry we have too many classes. The BOD has tasked us to consolidate classes and reduce the overall amount of classes we have. Look at the GTL participation numbers and let me know if you would have started elsewhere?

 

I have never cried we have to many classes. To many classes is not a bad thing, each car brings $$$ to an event And the owner/driver is included. There are rules with respect to trophies therefore that's a covered cost. Why do we screw over GTL and do nothing that I have heard or read with the lowest performer B Spec with 80 entries to date? I'm not saying throw B Spec away, I'm asking a question. Oh, I may get it. We can throw GTL at several different classes and tell the GTL guys, it's better than nothing. Where would we throw B Spec?   Oh Oscar, would you like some friends. 

[Parity]

It is obvious the empirical evidence proves the '99 has a huge advantage and should be restricted further...Update, just picked up a '99 and now realize the 1.6's have  huuuuge advantage and should have 50# added to the minimum weight.

[Jamz14]

A racecar driver picks up a girl on the way home from a race. After doing it they fall asleep only to have him snap out of his sleep from her slapping him across the face. He says "whats the matter, didn't I satisfy you?" She said yes, but it was after you fell asleep that got me angry. While you were sleeping you grabbed my t!ts and said, mmm what nice headlights.You then rubbed my thighs and murmured, what a smooth finish. Whats wrong with that the driver said. Nothing said the girl, but after that you grabbed my p**%& and yelled, who the hell left the garage door wide open?!.

 

( just didn't want the parity thread to fall below the days hot topics with the distractions of championship smack talk and all.)

[Tom Sager]

Moved here in order to comply with the rules...  Hey, it's that time of year.  

 

Ya know we can all point to a race here or there or a lap here where one year car did better than another.  Or we can point to 1 car. None of that matters. The body of work (not to be confused with body work) by each type of car and the choices that racers make as a whole says it all.  Forget the opinions (including mine).  If those intent on winning (which is a lot of drivers in our class) thought the '95 was the car to have then you would see mostly '95's on the race track and at the top of the results.   Same could be said for the 1.6. There may be some regional differences that could be explained by the style of tracks in those areas and the local choice of cars.

 

Just like in financial markets, capital moves away from places where it is treated harshly.  Racers vote with their pocket books too.

[Bench Racer]

Damn, he's got you in the  now. 

[Jim Drago]

Damn, he's got you in the  now.

I'm working on you now

[Ron Alan]

I'm working on you now

My guess is a shiny new Eaststreet 99 build will work!

[Jim Drago]

I posted in wrong thread and reposted here.

This would certainly improve the lap times of the 1.6 but it increases the "cars are different" gap.    The $40K Miata thread seems to suggest that we aren't going the put limits on spending or prep effort any time soon so why not allow rule changes that make the cars more the same and put this debate to rest as best we can. It's not hard.  It simply takes the will to do it.

• Allow all NA cars to update to NB suspension
• Allow early 1.8 engines in 1.6 cars
• Increase plate size of NA 1.8 cars to the point that they make the same power as '99.
• Allow '94-'95 to update to '96 engine management
• If some want to keep 1.6 engines but need more torque, put a 1.6 engine package together that does that with a restrictor
• Adjust weight of all cars to be equal.  

Now it really doesn't matter what car you have.  The rules provide a path to equality and you can spend and prep your way there.  If we were a private company looking at this from a business standpoint, we'd make these changes in 5 minutes and fire anyone that disagreed.

You left out some stuff, but lets assume all of this worked to perfection..

We would then be argueing the following and the racing would be NO closer.

My NA 1.8 car has less area under the curve than your more heavily restricted 99 up 1.8
The 01 up has too much TQ and pulls me out of the corners
My 01 up needs more top end
My 1.6 engine package does not get me close, It needs help. The one Drago did was illegal and should not be considered when making such decisions.

And then the same people would still be winning, just like with the lasted bunch of changes ( most 1.6 guys applauded by the way)of smaller plates and more similar weights two years ago. A good idea, I like that the cars are closer in actual HP and weight. But the cars were already close on track, now just close in a different ways but the racing and the results are the same. The same people in the same cars are still winning. All we can do is make it so those same people dont win to appease the vocal minority, then these people will either build whatever car we choose to make a "winner" and continue to win or they will just quit because they are tired of all the BS and COTY.


If you want Spec, like IROC spec, because we are already better than the "spec" SCCA classes now..

The easiest..
Use David Delgenios formula
Majors cars 99/00 only or 01/05 only and all the rest all go to regional Sm as it is now..
simple and done. That IMO is the smartest.



If we want to keep atleast a little of what we have now?

All year cars 90-05 run one engine, you pick ( can't be 99/00) as parts are not available, I suggest 01-05 as they are available new and used and most recent vintage.

All must run "megasquirt or something similar" spec the best possible tune, all must run same tune.

All cars Must run 99 up suspension ( or not coomplain about it)

No restrictor plates ( which will kill many of the home built guys and average engine builders as plates keep many close) Or keep the plates to slow engine develpment dpown, doesnty matter



There you go, that is as close as you can ever get for little money relatively speaking.


Arguements should be down to aero and a few very small issues at that point.

We do that tomorrow, start racing like this in 1/15. I guarantee you the results will look very similar to the january results at Sebring, it will be the same 10-12 guys at the front except for maybe the 5-6 who decide not to bother.





I bought my 1995 BMW318ti( its' a beauty) Monday for Chump car, like many others, this is getting old and far less fun.

[Jim Drago]

I love ya Jim but there is so much wrong in this post I don't even know where to begin.  I'll just assume you're venting.  Sounds to me like you've surrendered in terms of resolving the parity or equality effort. As for SCCA, if it is part of the club's agenda or even an idea being kicked around by those that make such decisions to eliminate the NA cars from majors competition, then that needs to be disclosed to membership immediately and formally.  Sounds nice from a parity standpoint.  It's wrong on so many other levels IMO.

First,
These are my opinions, not my master plan or intention as a CRB member  . Just offering the best way at getting to an "IROC"  type spec, as that seems what we are shooting for in the last few threads and it is the offseason.( at least for me)

What I proposed is one of the few things that gets us that type of "spec" I didnt say it was practical. What you posted just prolongs the percieved problems we have now or shifts them around.Your ideas cost people even more money( which I think may have to happen) and doesnt accomplish much of anything(splits a hair in half that people want split 10 ways), not much better than we are now in the "perceived problem world". Your ideas are good intentions, but you know what they say about good intentions All the problems(real or perceived) that I mentioned will certainly exist after your changes are fully implemeneted.

If you or anyone else wants truely "equal" cars, what I propsed gets us there. There is NO PLATFORM that exists that will give us equal cars as long as we have four different cars with four different engines, two different bodies and 3-4 different suspension packages depending how close you want to compare them. IT IS JUST NOT POSSIBLE AT THE LEVEL PEOPLE ARE WANTING TO COMPARE. 

Can we improve on what we have now, sure. You can improve on anything. As I have said before and will say again, there are NO RULES or adjustments that will end with 51% of this class agreeing the rules are "right".

[davew]

No matter what the rules makers do, someone will build a $X0,000.00 version and someone else  will complain.

 

Dave

[steveracer]

[If we want to keep atleast a little of what we have now?

All year cars 90-05 run one engine, you pick ( can't be 99/00) as parts are not available, I suggest 01-05 as they are available new and used and most recent vintage.

All must run "megasquirt or something similar" spec the best possible tune, all must run same tune.

All cars Must run 99 up suspension ( or not coomplain about it)

No restrictor plates ( which will kill many of the home built guys and average engine builders as plates keep many close) Or keep the plates to slow engine develpment dpown, doesnty matter



There you go, that is as close as you can ever get for little money relatively speaking.


Arguements should be down to aero and a few very small issues at that point.

We do that tomorrow, start racing like this in 1/15. I guarantee you the results will look very similar to the january results at Sebring, it will be the same 10-12 guys at the front except for maybe the 5-6 who decide not to bother.]

 

I vote to "allow not require" this.

 

Those of us who want to get to, everybody else STFU!!

 

[davew]

I would be in favor of allowing NA cars to update to NB suspension. But that was killed years ago by the 1.6 crowd that said "no f-ing way"

 

I would be in favor of allowing 1.8's in 1.6 chassis. I doubt it will ever happen.

 

With enough notice, I would be in favor of the DDG rule. But keep a restrictor plate on all cars to keep the reliability as it is now.

 

2 cents

Dave

[AW33COM]

SM5 would be better, more equal, and cheaper than what you are proposing above. 

[Bruce Wilson]

I think it's really silly we haven't figure this out when SRF has it down to a well thought out plan and planned it all out while we sit here and bicker for years!!! 

 

Engine swap trial period 2014, two classes 2015, merge 2016  -- and we can't even figure this out? 

 

Come on are we giving up and just saying the SRFers are smarter than us?

[Jim Drago]

SM5 would be better, more equal, and cheaper than what you're guying proposing above. 

 

Then build an SM5 car and go race it, that class exists now. 

[James York]

SM5 would be better, more equal, and cheaper than what you're guying proposing above. 

And that is an option for anyone, even today.

[Jim Drago]

I think it's really silly we haven't figure this out when SRF has it down to a well thought out plan and planned it all out while we sit here and bicker for years!!! 

 

Engine swap trial period 2014, two classes 2015, merge 2016  -- and we can't even figure this out? 

 

Come on are we giving up and just saying the SRFers are smarter than us?

smarter yes! Enjoy closer racing or better parity? No absolutely not!

[Dan Tiley]

I personally like that we have small differences in the different vintages of cars.  It keeps things interesting.  I've been part of more 5-7 car race-long drafts this year in both Nationals and Regionals than any of my previous years of racing.  At Charlotte this year (one of the perceived "dyno tracks"), we ran a '99, '01, 1.6L and NA1.8L nose to tail  for the entire race, swapping the lead out multiple times.  Each car had slightly different strengths and weaknesses, but any one of those cars had a legitimate shot at the win.

 

I'll take a closely matched 40-50 car field over four 10-15 car fields with exact parity any day.