563 replies to this topic

[Steve Scheifler]

I'm not against the letters, i'm just saying that it is ridiculous to suggest a good idea can't be considered without them, or that three letters for something should be more relevant than large numbers expressing their preference here. Historically, for all classes, letters from a TINY minority have driven the rules, and that needs to change. Or at least allowed to change if people want it to.

Perhaps every letter should immediately be posted publicly, before any SMAC discussion, anonymous if the submitter wishes, then we can all respond online and in letters.

[Steve Scheifler]

Jim, I hadn't meant to suggest that the SMAC is out of touch, though I see it seems I did. My point is that they do have a good sense of the pulse of the class, but the value of that isn't fully realized if they adhere too closely to the old way of doing things and deciding what to discuss.

[James York]

I'm not against the letters, i'm just saying that it is ridiculous to suggest a good idea can't be considered without them, or that three letters for something should be more relevant than large numbers expressing their preference here. Historically, for all classes, letters from a TINY minority have driven the rules, and that needs to change. Or at least allowed to change if people want it to.

Perhaps every letter should immediately be posted publicly, before any SMAC discussion, anonymous if the submitter wishes, then we can all respond online and in letters.

 

I support entirely the idea that the SCCA input system could be improved and moved into the 21st century for sure.  I am sure some internet whiz kid could develop a system that sends out notifications to mailing list of subscribers anytime a letter was input relevant to their class of racing.  Then they could either write in support, dissension or alternatives.

[Ron Alan]

No disrespect Ron. 

 

Never any taken...always said my 2 cents isnt worth much

 

Based on previous posts, i was under the impression weight and plates was it for any adjustments at this point for 2015? So...that said...25lbs is my suggetion for now. BTW...if this is actually lowered...no one will force you to do so David! 

[wheel]

Weights and plates are two of the (very few) things that the CRB can change during the regular season without going through the BoD.  Other rule changes are subject to the "rules season", which is firmly in place for 2015.  Some rule changes are allowed at mid-season, but there really needs to be an overwhelming reason.  Weights and plates can be done with a Tech Bulletin at the end of the month when the CRB decides on the change.  So, if a weight adjustment is approved by the CRB during their meeting on 3 Feb, it could be in place on 1 March.

 

wheel

[Jamz14]

Weights and plates are two of the (very few) things that the CRB can change during the regular season without going through the BoD.  Other rule changes are subject to the "rules season", which is firmly in place for 2015.  Some rule changes are allowed at mid-season, but there really needs to be an overwhelming reason.  Weights and plates can be done with a Tech Bulletin at the end of the month when the CRB decides on the change.  So, if a weight adjustment is approved by the CRB during their meeting on 3 Feb, it could be in place on 1 March.

 

wheel

This is exactly what I have been saying. A 3 year rules freeze to make parity adjustments is not necessary and can be attempted mid season and pulled back if it ends up going too far. We can do it without major over the top engineering analysis. If a car is perceived to be disadvantaged, give them some relaxing of weight or plate requirements ( or conversely, add weight and reduce plate on the other cars ), and if it corrects the perceived advantages then great!!!! If it goes too far you will know because the guys that can and do afford any car they wish, will change to that car, and the ones already with that car will start winning, or improving.It also has the benefit of actually mitigating some of the advantage those with unlimited money have. If a guy can buy any car he wishes because he knows it has an advantage (he knows because he can afford to pay experts to tell him), would he be more reluctant to buy another car because the rules changed giving another car an advantage, and then the rules could change back again the very next month removing that advantage? Yes there are guys that will just buy every car and select per track and rule flavor of the month. But you will never stop those guys. But there are people that reside between the extremes of buying every car and not being able to change from their...... 1.6 . A willingness to play with weights and plates often and dynamically address the middle of the extremes and keeps people in their current chassis.

 

This rigid idea that we can't do anything because of a self imposed restriction of a rules freeze is........

 

I understand that I am highly simplifying something that is more complicated than what I am suggesting. It also comes for the perspective of owning a 97 and it has been thought that the 97 needed adjustments but they were not considered because of the rules freeze. This was unnecessary and could have happened at any time during the year per Wheels email.

 

Just my 4 cents.

[Brandon]

Jim, I hadn't meant to suggest that the SMAC is out of touch, though I see it seems I did. My point is that they do have a good sense of the pulse of the class, but the value of that isn't fully realized if they adhere too closely to the old way of doing things and deciding what to discuss.

 

Steve (and everyone else reading/commenting): the one thing to remember about the SCCA is they are very, very formal & proceduralized (is that even a word?).  Everyone should take this to mean any input you hope to be considered or reviewed needs to be submitted through the standard channels.

 

And as some have noted, the SCCA's 'standard channels' have begrudgingly been yanked into the 21st century via the web submittal form when before it required ink, paper, & stamps!  I've used the page/form to submit letters during "Plunge Gate" and felt this is what reinforced the final decision regarding that issue.

 

I hope to not be putting words into any of the other SMAC member's mouths but I would state the following: the conversations taking place here are absorbed for the nuggets of data shared but any proposals we do submit to the CRB for consideration must be founded on letter input.  Anything else is effectively hearsay that cannot be articulated as coming 'from a submission by a member'.

 

It's not like we can submit to the CRB a requirement all SMs now must run a 2' tall "dorsal fin" because we hope to get Sea World to sponsor us if there wasn't any input to do so!

(hyperbole intended)  

[ECOBRAP]

James,

 

I'm not an SCCA member, so I guess I'll have to try bothering John Mueller even more   Any 1.6 drivers that have SCCA licenses, please send a letter. It sounds easy as hell to do online and I would if I were allowed to. I would like to see a weight drop for the 1.6 made official before March.

 

Bench,

 

We know that torque is the issue, but that ship has sailed for 2015. Let's focus on what we can do for this year, lower the weight. This will give us better acceleration in the power band to compensate for the low torque. This may not solve the parity issue at some tracks, but it will inarguably make us faster at every track.

[Ron Alan]

James,

 

I'm not an SCCA member, so I guess I'll have to try bothering John Mueller even more   Any 1.6 drivers that have SCCA licenses, please send a letter. It sounds easy as hell to do online and I would if I were allowed to. I would like to see a weight drop for the 1.6 made official before March.

 

 

You are aware NASA and SCCA have been known to change their own SM rules unilaterally? If SCCA changes...no guarantee NASA follows and visa versa...so unless you plan to join SCCA and come run with the crowd...your request is somewhat pointless! Then again, you'd be wise to get your license and come run some SCCA events this year! I know someone that may help you  

[ECOBRAP]

You are aware NASA and SCCA have been known to change their own SM rules unilaterally? If SCCA changes...no guarantee NASA follows and visa versa...so unless you plan to join SCCA and come run with the crowd...your request is somewhat pointless! Then again, you'd be wise to get your license and come run some SCCA events this year! I know someone that may help you

 

I thought they usually acted together so thanks for the info --> Time to spam Mueller's inbox.

 

Unfortunately I can't do SCCA. I have to focus on NASA for TMC+Mazda Shootout and can't afford to attend any more events. Let's hope this changes when I graduate in June and get a job lol... anyone hiring business grads? 

[Cnj]

Steve, your on the correct track to help/mitigate the 1.6 issue if thats what you want to do. IMHJ, what the 1.6 requres will be an out of the box deal to play heads up. I believe the hepl/mitigate that I read about will not allow the 1.6 to play heads up. A bit of over bore, a bit of compression, a bit of ambient air, highly doughtful. Lots of people are talking about torque, but not where the torque is the shortfall. By the way, have you ever openly stated what you believe the 1.6 issue is? And when you say torque, please specify where the torque is the shortfall.
 

Bench,

I don't get you, I really don't. You have this unrelenting obsession with torque below 5,500 which you have now documented in what, well over a hundred posts? But not once have I read your solution to this in a 1.6 - but this does not stop you critiquing every proposal that has been put forward, all while complaining that the SMAC and CRB have not been doing their job (in fact your posts have been deeply critical of them). You appear convinced that only you can read a torque/hp overlay chart of the 99/1.6. I promise you, we all know that the 1.6 has less torque below 5,500 than the 99 plus. It's not a mystery that only you have uncovered. Please put forward YOUR plan given that you seem to dislike everyone else's.

CNJ

[FTodaro]

Bench,

I don't get you, I really don't. You have this unrelenting obsession with torque below 5,500 which you have now documented in what, well over a hundred posts? But not once have I read your solution to this in a 1.6 - but this does not stop you critiquing every proposal that has been put forward, all while complaining that the SMAC and CRB have not been doing their job (in fact your posts have been deeply critical of them). You appear convinced that only you can read a torque/hp overlay chart of the 99/1.6. I promise you, we all know that the 1.6 has less torque below 5,500 than the 99 plus. It's not a mystery that only you have uncovered. Please put forward YOUR plan given that you seem to dislike everyone else's.

CNJ

CNJ

I was thinking about taking up a collection to buy Bench a 99 to get him on the other side of the argument. This was my parity plan for 15.

[Jim Drago]

Bench,

I don't get you, I really don't. You have this unrelenting obsession with torque below 5,500 which you have now documented in what, well over a hundred posts? But not once have I read your solution to this in a 1.6 - but this does not stop you critiquing every proposal that has been put forward, all while complaining that the SMAC and CRB have not been doing their job (in fact your posts have been deeply critical of them). You appear convinced that only you can read a torque/hp overlay chart of the 99/1.6. I promise you, we all know that the 1.6 has less torque below 5,500 than the 99 plus. It's not a mystery that only you have uncovered. Please put forward YOUR plan given that you seem to dislike everyone else's.

CNJ

may be the best post ever

[Caveman-kwebb99]

You guys need to just stop hassling the modern day robin hood of the 1.6...

If you would just fix the under 5500 h surely would get lost in Sherwood forest.

[pat slattery]

The have's have been beating down the have nots for so long most have given up. 

 

Keep plugging away Dave. 

 

We, the 1.6 owners and drivers have not had a advocate in the decision making process for the past 4-5 years.  They have done a good job for the 99, there car of choice while, beating down the 1.6,

 

Keep the faith Dave, there are lots of 1.6 people out there but most have been discouraged for so long they have given up.

 

Pat

[Bench Racer]

I really do understand others understand how to read the dyno graphs. I really do understand how some may believe some weight reduction of the 1.6 will cure the the issue to get meaningful weight/pound foot below 5,500 rpm. My 1.6 could race at 2,200 pounds (with driver) and it would not mean stink to the weight/pound foot short fall untill 5,000 rpm. I really do believe a 99 would be to no benefit with me as the spacer. I really do understand the insignifant items from within the box collectively will not improve the torque below 5,500 rpm (had to insert the rpm one more time) for the 1.6 to play heads up. I really do understand to improve the torque signiffantly where needed the idea will come from outside the box (current rules). I really do understand if the torque were improve something may need to be unleashed for parity, open up the 99 plus RP. I really do beleive when some insignifant items from within the box are allowed, after implementation, folks will be asking for more and will be told to go fly a kite. I really do understand short of the BoD nothing will occure during the year 2015. I really do understand a fully built 1.6 ITA car (can not de-shroud or plunge cut) which is much more open engine wise than the 1.6 Spec Miata does not gain signifiant torque, below you know where. If you know of an ITA 1.6 Miata that increases signifianlty you know where, please provid contact.

Now, how about all of you that are all in for the class, do something positive for the 1.6 and you may even be able to open up your RP a bit. Oh, and by all means please be open with your 1.6 engine knowledge and post how to improve the torque where needed along with the torque value at what rpm.

Saul will show up shortly to jerk me straight, which is ok by me. 


 

[Jim Drago]

I really do understand others understand how to read the dyno graphs. I really do understand how some may believe some weight reduction of the 1.6 will cure the the issue to get meaningful weight/pound foot below 5,500 rpm. My 1.6 could race at 2,200 pounds (with driver) and it would not mean stink to the weight/pound foot short fall untill 5,000 rpm. I really do believe a 99 would be to no benefit with me as the spacer. I really do understand the insignifant items from within the box collectively will not improve the torque below 5,500 rpm (had to insert the rpm one more time) for the 1.6 to play heads up. I really do understand to improve the torque signiffantly where needed the idea will come from outside the box (current rules). I really do understand if the torque were improve something may need to be unleashed for parity, open up the 99 plus RP. I really do beleive when some insignifant items from within the box are allowed, after implementation, folks will be asking for more and will be told to go fly a kite. I really do understand short of the BoD nothing will occure during the year 2015. I really do understand a fully built 1.6 ITA car (can not de-shroud or plunge cut) which is much more open engine wise than the 1.6 Spec Miata does not gain signifiant torque, below you know where. If you know of an ITA 1.6 Miata that increases signifianlty you know where, please provid contact.

Now, how about all of you that are all in for the class, do something positive for the 1.6 and you may even be able to open up your RP a bit. Oh, and by all means please be open with your 1.6 engine knowledge and post how to improve the torque where needed along with the torque value at what rpm.

Saul will show up shortly to jerk me straight, which is ok by me. 


 

That makes... 101, 102, 103 and 104

[Jim Drago]

The have's have been beating down the have nots for so long most have given up. 

 

Keep plugging away Dave. 

 

We, the 1.6 owners and drivers have not had a advocate in the decision making process for the past 4-5 years.  They have done a good job for the 99, there car of choice while, beating down the 1.6,

 

Keep the faith Dave, there are lots of 1.6 people out there but most have been discouraged for so long they have given up.

 

Pat

 

btw, chairman of the SMAC Dave Mac is a 1.6 guy

[Bench Racer]

That makes... 101, 102, 103 and 104

What's the deal, your addition capabilities counting a specific word are without dought very accurate, but when your doing the difference of comparing, naw, I ain't going there because you always  things.

 

btw, chairman of the SMAC Dave Mac is a 1.6 guy

There's a new guy on the SMAC that understands the plight of the 1.6.

[pat slattery]

btw, chairman of the SMAC Dave Mac is a 1.6 guy

Someone said ESR was building him a 99 car