189 replies to this topic

[Danny Steyn]

Danny, how would you regulate team racing?

 

I'm thinking about how long stewards have been trying just to deal with bump drafting, but have yet to see anyone get penalized.  And I don't think it's all about enforcement either.  Over the years we've learned how to avoid pushing beneath the starting stand, near corner stations and stewards standing along the wall.  We've had mustard packets taped to both ends of our cars and we still have figured out ways to avoid penalties.

 

Bruce, I am not sure what makes sense here. Yes we all played the game you mention when bump drafting was "against the rules", but now that it is "officially sanctioned", expect to see an entirely new style of team work evolving. You might not have witnessed it first hand on the left coast, but what we all witnessed at the Glen was something pretty earth shattering. 

 

By way of example, at pretty much every race I have been to this year, on tracks that I know well and on tracks that I don't know, the front guys have all been able to run times within a few tenths of each other, I think at Sebring there were 12 drivers with their best lap times within one second of the winners lap. VIR the same. But at the Glen Race 1, my best lap time (in 5th place) was almost a full second or more off the winners and I believe my best time was approximately equal to their worst time (please excuse me if I am wrong here as I am going from memory. If someone can find the data on MyLaps or on Race Monitor I think it would be well worth examining). 

 

And please note I have nothing but TOTAL RESPECT for what Elivan and Matt achieved in Race 1. They understand how to make it work and what they did shows exactly just what a SIGNIFICANT ADVANTAGE a fully dedicated team approach makes to overall lap times. In Race 2 when they were split up, I believe the lap times were closer, but don't hold me to that. However they did not pull away from the field at a rate of a second per lap.

[Jim Drago]

Jim - I think the specs have been tightened up considerably, and yes you are right, tighter specs mean that the differences are harder to come by and cost more to get in terms of searching for advantages (and that's what racing is about). I personally think SMAC has done a pretty decent job of closing many of the loopholes. I do think we should offer some advantages to both the 1.6 and 94-97 cars as I personally believe that they need to be encouraged to stay in the class. This view might not be popular with SMAC, but I do see their car counts declining. This might be intentional (Mazda driven) but I am not privy to the insider conversations.

I think you missed my point or I missed yours. I thought you had some ideas to control costs through rules or at least that what I was wanting. I wasn't fishing for the rules and parity are great etc. We can agree /disagree on parity, not sure better parity will control escalated costs, but I will concede to some extent. What else outside parity can be done to help contain costs?
There has to be some ideas out there.

[Johnny D]

I think you missed my point or I missed yours. I thought you had some ideas to control costs through rules or at least that what I was wanting. I wasn't fishing for the rules and parity are great etc. We can agree /disagree on parity, not sure better parity will control escalated costs, but I will concede to some extent. What else outside parity can be done to help contain costs?
There has to be some ideas out there.

How do you make people not need/want a pro built engine?

Have the rules of Tq/Hp set at a crate engine?

But gets messy with dyno needed.

Just throwing out ideas.

 

I know i'm talking SSM.

Everyone happy in SSM?

Any improvements for that class to make more attractive?

J~

[David L]

I am running my engine from last year in this years Runoffs.
Sandlins motor is the same for three full seasons with a $2500 refresh in there somewhere
Stearns motor is on its 4th season, it came directly out of Roger Burdettes car and bolted into Eriks.
Craig has same engine as last year as well, refreshed after Runoffs tear down

Wow I am quite shocked by that. Thanks for the info. I was under the impression that they didn't last as long still producing quality power. 

[Bench Racer]

Yes we all played the game you mention when bump drafting was "against the rules", but now that it is "officially sanctioned", expect to see an entirely new style of team work evolving.

 
Care to explain where the SCCA written document is that bump drafting is "officially sanctioned"? Please use the 2013 SM Runoffs practice/qualifying/race as the point of reference. I don't want to hear that it's not enforcable therefore bump drafting is officially sanctioned.

[David L]

How do you make people not need/want a pro built engine?

Have the rules of Tq/Hp set at a crate engine?

But gets messy with dyno needed.

Just throwing out ideas.

 

I know i'm talking SSM.

Everyone happy in SSM?

Any improvements for that class to make more attractive?

J~

Well we are very happy in SSM at least in the WDCR. I was pretty shocked to see the longevity that Jim is speaking about. I still feel at least for the majority of the class the #1 drawback is the pro motor even though they may last. I believe the upfront cost of purchasing 1 can be seen as a huge drawback for the majority. Here is an idea that I will thow out there again LET US UPDATE OUR OLD CARS TO 99 SPECS SUBFRAMES MOTORS AND ALL. I don't see why anyone in our class would have a problem with this. We replace these components all the time and they can be had for little money. This would bring the parity argument to an end. all the same no plates same weight, Win win. Jim, Dave, Mike, why will this never happen?      

[Blake Clements]

And since when did SM get special on-track driving rules in the GCR? 

 

[Johnny D]

[Bench Racer]

 all the same no plates same weight, Win win.   

I keep reading we have parity now, why would anyone want to make all these changes?

[MPR22]

I keep reading we have parity now, why would anyone want to make all these changes?

I believe all pro built 99s have parity. Blake Clements approves this message.

[Bruce Wilson]

LET US UPDATE OUR OLD CARS TO 99 SPECS SUBFRAMES MOTORS AND ALL.      

YES!!!

 

Off topic I know BUT look at what SRF is doing with their new engine.  We can't at least be as creative as SRF???  Please!

[Danny Steyn]

 
Care to explain where the SCCA written document is that bump drafting is "officially sanctioned"? Please use the 2013 SM Runoffs practice/qualifying/race as the point of reference. I don't want to hear that it's not enforcable therefore bump drafting is officially sanctioned.

 

David, if you have been following my posts, at the VIR Majors event, the SCCA had an open session with SM racers and asked us for our input. The class overwhelmingly indicated that they wanted bump drafting to be "OK". SCCA took it under consideration. It would only apply to SM (same bumper/fender heights, plastic bumpers etc) and in many instances it is felt that it promotes safer racing (up for debate of course). Since VIR at all the Eastern Conference Majors the SCCA officials have "unofficially condoned" it (as well as experimented with the "pass under yellow" give back). However it was stressed several times while they would turn a blind eye in SM, they would most certainly not in STL or any other class where Miatas run, since not all vehicles have the same bumper height / material. So with this continuing, there has been a significant increase in teaming up together to move forward. That is a part of the back story to the developments we are seeing today. 

[Bruce Wilson]

David, if you have been following my posts, at the VIR Majors event, the SCCA had an open session with SM racers and asked us for our input. The class overwhelmingly indicated that they wanted bump drafting to be "OK". SCCA took it under consideration. It would only apply to SM (same bumper/fender heights, plastic bumpers etc) and in many instances it is felt that it promotes safer racing (up for debate of course). Since VIR at all the Eastern Conference Majors the SCCA officials have "unofficially condoned" it (as well as experimented with the "pass under yellow" give back). However it was stressed several times while they would turn a blind eye in SM, they would most certainly not in STL or any other class where Miatas run, since not all vehicles have the same bumper height / material. So with this continuing, there has been a significant increase in teaming up together to move forward. That is a part of the back story to the developments we are seeing today. 

Wish our stewards were informed.  Do we race in the same club?    I totally believe you.  I just know our stewards, and they're not budging...

 

Hoping your (East coast) problems become our (West coast) problems next year!!!

[Danny Steyn]

Jim, a rule set applies to not only the car itself, but also to what happens on the track. There GCR contains a technical rules set, and there is a rule set that prohibits / allows certain on track conduct. I don't have the answers. I have the questions, and I am hoping to stir up debate to solicit suggestions on how to deal with the recent changes. 

• Are we as a class in favor of the move to allow bump drafting?
• IS this likely to change the way we race?
• No change, small change, large change?
• Will this impact the future strength of the class?
• Ultimately will it hurt or strengthen the class, chase away or attract drivers, increase or decrease costs

Just some of the questions up for consideration and I am sure there are many lurking here that have opinions but might not want to post here for a wide range of reasons. I am hoping a civil debate brings out both the pros and cons for what is happening. 

[Jim Drago]

David, if you have been following my posts, at the VIR Majors event, the SCCA had an open session with SM racers and asked us for our input. The class overwhelmingly indicated that they wanted bump drafting to be "OK". SCCA took it under consideration. It would only apply to SM (same bumper/fender heights, plastic bumpers etc) and in many instances it is felt that it promotes safer racing (up for debate of course). Since VIR at all the Eastern Conference Majors the SCCA officials have "unofficially condoned" it (as well as experimented with the "pass under yellow" give back). However it was stressed several times while they would turn a blind eye in SM, they would most certainly not in STL or any other class where Miatas run, since not all vehicles have the same bumper height / material. So with this continuing, there has been a significant increase in teaming up together to move forward. That is a part of the back story to the developments we are seeing today.

A rarity.. I will agree with what DDW is going to say here " that is great, but it is still NOT legal in SCCA". The rule was not enforced there at that race, but that does not spell it out legal from there forward, no rule changed. It can be enforced at anytime. The activity could also be protested. If on camera, it would be hard or impossible to defend. I am as guilty as anyone. But by the book, DDW is 100% accurate. perhaps an SM pre runoffs meeting is in order? As long as we know what is going to be enforced, I have no issue racing however they like. I thought JoAnnes meeting was very constructive and helpful Pre Sprints

[Jim Drago]

Jim, a rule set applies to not only the car itself, but also to what happens on the track. There GCR contains a technical rules set, and there is a rule set that prohibits / allows certain on track conduct. I don't have the answers. I have the questions, and I am hoping to stir up debate to solicit suggestions on how to deal with the recent changes.

• Are was as a class in favor of the move to allow bump drafting?
• IS this likely to change the way we race?
• No change, small change, large change?
• Will this impact the future strength of the class?
• Ultimately will it hurt or strengthen the class, chase away or attract drivers, increase or decrease costs

Just some of the questions up for consideration and I am sure there are many lurking here that have opinions but might not want to post here for a wide range of reasons. I am hoping a civil debate brings out both the pros and cons for what is happening.

Fair enough, my questions are off topic anyway. So are the parity posts.. Send them to the parity thread please

After reading all of this on team mates, team driving etc.. I guess I am of the opinion of "just give me the dam rules and what you are going to enforce and I will race accordingly" Only odd gears? Standing starts? Old style line em up jump in car and go? Sure lets line em up:) The rules are just part of it for me. Whatever the rules may be I will try and do the best I can within the confines of those rules. As long as the rules are the same for all, I am good with it.

All very good questions, like many here.. I think i have more questions than answers.

[Ron Alan]

Well we are very happy in SSM at least in the WDCR. I was pretty shocked to see the longevity that Jim is speaking about. I still feel at least for the majority of the class the #1 drawback is the pro motor even though they may last. I believe the upfront cost of purchasing 1 can be seen as a huge drawback for the majority. Here is an idea that I will thow out there again LET US UPDATE OUR OLD CARS TO 99 SPECS SUBFRAMES MOTORS AND ALL. I don't see why anyone in our class would have a problem with this. We replace these components all the time and they can be had for little money. This would bring the parity argument to an end. all the same no plates same weight, Win win. Jim, Dave, Mike, why will this never happen?      

 

Appreciate your enthusiasm here...but I have to disagree for the most part. 

 

The "Pro Motor" is a convenient excuse for those who would likely improve by a couple spots if they had 5 more HP. The rest of their game wont change as well as their driving ability.  You cant get into what is a relatively expensive hobby with your eyes wide open and then complain you cant afford it or others can't. It would be like being seated in a 5 star steakhouse and then complain to the waiter you can only afford the chicken

 

The notion of parity and mixing car parts is not viable(though yes, it is been done a little)...here are a few facts that may surprise some...and you think the "COST" to be competitive is expensive now????

 

Sales of all Miatas in North America by type and percentage of total number of cars(352,660 sold...90-05) and a few facts....

 

NA 1.6.......41.6%

NA 1.8.......23.3%

NB 99-00......16.4%

NB 01-05.......18.5%

 

Last I heard, 99 crate motors are not being made and the JDM and equivalents are charging $1000+ for a high mileage core.

Not to mention the reliability of the 99 harness and most trying to find a spare one of these

 

Can you imagine every NA car owner trying to UPGRADE to 99 parts??? That would be a class killer!! RP are cheap!!!!!! 

 

I see eventually only 2 options...2 classes(NA/NB) or as i see happening after this year...move the runoffs! And just for chuckles...throw a bone each year to 1 gen of car! Start with the 94-97 for next year  

 

THE PARITY DEBATE WILL NEVER END....for newbies like you David to remember

 

Sorry for the jack...back to team racing...which btw at Laguna will not require a pusher but a blocker at race time!

[Danny Steyn]

A rarity.. I will agree with what DDW is going to say here " that is great, but it is still NOT legal in SCCA". The rule was not enforced there at that race, but that does not spell it out legal from there forward, no rule changed. It can be enforced at anytime. The activity could also be protested. If on camera, it would be hard or impossible to defend. I am as guilty as anyone. But by the book, DDW is 100% accurate. perhaps an SM pre runoffs meeting is in order? As long as we know what is going to be enforced, I have no issue racing however they like. I thought JoAnnes meeting was very constructive and helpful Pre Sprints

 

Jim I think a request for a "town hall meeting for SM" at the runoffs will be of real value. With regards to "it being hard or impossible to defend" this is where I think your argument fails. The head honchos SOM Chair has actually officially told us at VIR, Summit and NJMP that it will be allowed and that the corner workers would be instructed not to call in front to rear contact pusing cars forward. If a car was pushed out of balance then to still call it in or any side to side contact. This has been running in the Eastern Conference since VIR with the class welcoming it. There have been no dissenting SM voices at the track as far as I am aware. 

 

So unless there is a very specific statement to the contrary, I believe most would be very easily able to defend the current bump drafting practice. 

[svvs]

how did the conversation about team racing become a parity debate/sealed motor debate?

 

If we're going that way then I'll just keep up my chant of 1.6L forever!  I'll race against all your 99's and 01's with a smile.

[LarryKing]

Ya know what I think club racing needs? A low cost spec class. (That ain’t SM anymore)
 

I’m thinking something like a closed-wheel version of SRF/bigger Legends car/smaller, cheaper Panoz GT.

 

Front engine/rear drive, steel tube frame, sealed inline four, sealed trans and diff, maybe a live axel, spec fiberglass/plastic body that is modular-easy to replace panels, steel wheels, one tire for SCCA/NASA. Keep it simple and over-engineered for durability (I'm amazed at some of the hits I seen SRFs take with relative minor damage). Price point around $20,000.

 

PS: I'd like to go on record as stating bump-drafting holds no appeal to me.