199 replies to this topic

[chris haldeman]

timestamp="1383083475"]



Even if the 1.6s where given something to improve their performance, the vocal minority would shout it down as too costly. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt to prove it.

Dave[/quote]

Ding ding ding!!!!! There is the answer.

[Jamz14]

 and IMO should get some concession to encourage the cars to come back. !

F THAT!!!! Either the car is at parity or it isn't. I have no opinion either way. But to give it a concession just to get them to come back and without a parity case is a political move and an open attack on the NA 1.8  .

 

If car counts and what people are building is the new criteria for performance adjustments, then please remove the plate completely on the 1.8 and reduce the weight to 2300. I DO have the talent to write political cases without a technical foundation. Be glad to write those letters.

[James York]

Thats great but the cars are supposed to be equal, and they can say all they want but for many money is no object and no one is building 1.6 cars for a good reason. 

There are two very good reasons based on the cars being equivalent.  Why would anyone, 

 

1.  Want to restore/refurbish a 20+ year old worn out car vs. 13 year miata (that will save you nothing by the way)

2.  Or want to constantly fiddle, tune and adjust for different environmental conditions vs. a plug and play 99+

[James York]

And 40 to 50K for a 99 isn't

40 or 50k is costly.  That wasn't his point.  

 

He was referring to when the SMAC asked membership if the 1.6 drivers wanted the OPTION to update to the 99+ suspension and he got ripped apart the forum for something that wasn't even required as it being "too costly".

[Ron Alan]

Hey Ron,
 
Good try!! I won't be writing any letters. Be happy to sign a few but no way no how am I going to author one. Here are my feelings about the subject though.
 
I feel there are reasons that talented people that have way more experience than me have abandoned their 94-97 builds and sold their cars. I feel there are reasons that you never see these years come up in these parity conversations, it's 1.6 or 99 in the conversation. I feel there is a reason that those years aren't represented well at the runoffs and national championships. I KNOW that I do NOT have the talent to present meaningful data for consideration by people that are smarter at this game than me, have more influence in the game than me, and have built way more cars than me. I believe that if those people don't think there is a problem, then that is good enough for me. I haven't heard from one engine builder on this or any other site that the 1.8 NA isn't anything other than on par with every other year. Drago, Tiley, Wheeler, Fowler, Collins, Blake, Daniels, ETC and others, can comment on that if they feel differently.
 
Without support from people like those above, I would be disappointed in the process if a guy like me with little data could influence a parity change and that a letter basically saying please help me out would even be considered. I would be disappointed to find out that the guys that can influence parity changes wouldn't do so if they truly thought it was necessary even if they knew it was helping to bring their competitors on par with them. I don't believe there is any other position than that to take from a guy like me.
 
I was very impressed with Ron after meeting him in person recently and I have strong confidence in Ron's ability to make a case that could compel the powers that be in the need for an adjustment for these years if one exists. I especially believe in Rons ability to point out subtleties in the car outside of just the engine that might affect overall performance that cannot be seen on the dyno. It is meeting guys like Ron, Johnny D, Webb, ETC, and talking with good people like I have mentioned above that has humbled my views in the last 2 years I have been a SM wrench and coach for my son. Hence my reduced and tempered responses to the site as of late.
 
And if for some reason my views are off base, building and succeeding in the 97 has become a point of pride for me. When we stand on the podium in a car that no one else wants, then respect for what my son and I have done will follow. And that's what makes the trophy priceless.

Thanks for the nice words...fact is I really know nothing! But I am good at listening to those who do and processing what I learn!

Do I think the 94-97 could use some help? Yes. Is it enough that a top prepped car and driver can't win against the same in a 99 or 1.6? No.
Jim's comment in regard to any written outrage is telling. I would at least think there would have been 2 letters

Sorry Mr York if my sarcasm was taken seriously....

BTW...for those keeping track, a well prepped 94 with a great wheel man has walked strong fields in 3 of its last 4 races at Sonoma. It put down the fastest qual and race times I have seen in 3 years!

[James York]

Ron,

 

No I did not consider your post as anything other then well meant humor.

 

What is lost on the vocal few here, is that bitching like old maids on this forum WILL NOT get any rules changed.  

 

Personally, I would just like to see all the cars run the 01+ powertrain (since 99 engines are not manufactured) in a couple years and get the parity discussions over.  And provide provisions to allow cars to not have to upgrade.  

[LarryKing]

 

Personally, I would just like to see all the cars run the 01+ powertrain (since 99 engines are not manufactured) in a couple years and get the parity discussions over.  And provide provisions to allow cars to not have to upgrade.  

It makes no sense to upgrade an almost 15 year-old car. The smarter and most economic solution would be to reboot the class with only the 2006+ MX5 being eligible, with a much more stringent ruleset written to prevent creeping.

 

All NA and NB cars would compete in regional only class, maybe call it IT-Miata.

 

Vocal few?!?  I count exactly 13 people in the entire U.S. that give two shiz about this argument anymore.

 

Not with a bang but a whimper.

[Bench Racer]

Let's cut to the chase:

 

 

1. The shape of the dyno curves (forget the absolute numbers because they vary from dyno to dyno) show that the three generations of engines make power in very different ways. The 1.6 is top-biased,. the 01 is bottom-biased and the 99 is in-between. The dyno simply confirms our on-track impressions.

 

 

 

I am reminded of how my father used to describe his philosophy of business negotiation: He would smile innocently, shrug his shoulders, show his palms and declare, "All I want is a fair advantage!" Think about it.

IMHJ, this post # 132 is well grounded and written by a non biased person. Point # 1 is why this thread was started. Way to many people get personally biased/side tracked and throw fluff around. The torque below 5,500 rpm for later year cars continues to rise and flatten. Taking weight off the 1.6 does nothing to support the 1.6 below 5,5000 rpm................ Equalizing the torque below 5,500 rpm and adding weight to the 1.6 takes it out of the game above 5,500 rpm. Bringing the 99 and newer engines torque lower to equal the 1.6 eliminates the only parity bitch I recall from 1.6 owners. If weight changes are required after the 99 and newer engines torque is lowered, use engineering calulated weight changes.

 

If one were to install a 1.6 engine in a 99 or newer chassis the issue will continue to exist. < This respone is for those with all the fluff improvements to the 1.6 through the 99 suspension and so on. The answer is not, procure a new car...... The answer is not, the same cars will win. The answer is not, shut up to those don't see eye to eye with the 99 and newer car owners. We have all ready heard the roar (not engine noise) about the engines newer than the 99. It's a pretty sad day for the class when the pointy end 99 owners need to upgrade to a newer year chassis to play in the Spec Miata game. I feel for any car owner whose day is close because newer car/engine technology is passing their current car technology. The 1.6er's have all ready seen that day.

 

Skip's father had it nailed.

 

Went back and read the latest posts. Ya got ot love the one timers.

 

 Here's a one timer.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=okpj28E55U4

 

Oh my, was he below 5500 rpm and STILL pulled Pombo's bumper..........  it can't be.  I hear that is not possible.

 

 I know I have ol eyes, maybe that's why I can't read the 5,500 rpm on the tach. How much tech was completed on this car. Naw, you don't answer questions.

[Jim Drago]

Not with a bang but a whimper.

Wow, We are coming off one of the best particpated years in club history and your perception is go out with a whimper. The class has certainly developed far from what it was in early 00's, that doesnt make it doomed or less successful. The facts prove the class is as healthy now as ever before. It is certainly different now, unfortunately we have left many good people along the way for many different reasons. People who werent around in those days think it is great now and it is, just different. IMO it is just the natural progression of a class.

Allowing the MX5 into Sm will be after my tenor on CRB ends next year as that is not doable IMO. The MX5 have a class, it is SM5, it is building slowly but surely. They should be able to correct some of the mistakes that were made in SM, but when all is said and done, SM5 will have similar issues as well, most of which we can't even think of right now.

[LarryKing]

You misunderstood me Jim, I didn't mean that the MX5 be added to SM - I mean MX5 only should be SM. Older models no longer would be eligible, make a new regional only class for 1990-2005 . SM should be a single generation platform class. That way (almost) everyone has to start over, not just the 1.6 teams.

 

You want different, I give you different.

[James York]

It makes no sense to upgrade an almost 15 year-old car. The smarter and most economic solution would be to reboot the class with only the 2006+ MX5 being eligible, with a much more stringent ruleset written to prevent creeping.

 

All NA and NB cars would compete in regional only class, maybe call it IT-Miata.

 

Vocal few?!?  I count exactly 13 people in the entire U.S. that give two shiz about this argument anymore.

 

Not with a bang but a whimper.

2006 is fine too.  Get the rules re-written.

[James York]

 

 

 

 I know I have ol eyes, maybe that's why I can't read the 5,500 rpm on the tach. How much tech was completed on this car. Naw, you don't answer questions.

I don't need to see his tach.  I have raced that track, I know what gear he was in, so I know what the RPM would be.  Regarding tech, I guess any good 1.6 is a cheater.  Nice accusation.

[Jim Drago]

You misunderstood me Jim, I didn't mean that the MX5 be added to SM - I mean MX5 only should be SM. Older models no longer would be eligible, make a new regional only class for 1990-2005 . SM should be a single generation platform class. That way (almost) everyone has to start over, not just the 1.6 teams.
 
You want different, I give you different.

If we are going to do that.. lets just go to spec BRZ/FRS .. cooler car

[Johnny D]

You misunderstood me Jim, I didn't mean that the MX5 be added to SM - I mean MX5 only should be SM. Older models no longer would be eligible, make a new regional only class for 1990-2005 . SM should be a single generation platform class. That way (almost) everyone has to start over, not just the 1.6 teams.

 

You want different, I give you different.

 

How about leave Regional alone and tweak the Majors.

Get the 1.8's to show.

J~

[LarryKing]

 

lets just go to spec BRZ/FRS

I already envision parity arguments over which grill is most aerodynamic.

[Bench Racer]

I don't need to see his tach.  I have raced that track, I know what gear he was in, so I know what the RPM would be.  

Some peoples logic defies logic.

[Johnny D]

Some peoples logic defies logic.

 

Thus this thread.

J~

[James York]

Some peoples logic defies logic.

Yeah, I understand it is hard for you to grasp real world experience vs. sitting behind a keyboard trying to discuss theory.  Perhaps one day you will have hundreds of SM races, driven/owned every model class SM and been to 2 dozen tracks.  Add it to your bucket list.

[Bench Racer]

How the smack can you talk theroy when you wouldn't even answer a question after you were slamming weight on the 1.6.

Keep singing your song.

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=QCsNunGnqE0

[James York]

How the smack can you talk theroy when you wouldn't even answer a question after you were slamming weight on the 1.6.

Keep singing your song.

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=QCsNunGnqE0

Because, you said it clearly was a game and I concluded it wouldn't do any good anyway.

 

But continue on.  Maybe one day when you get the rules changed enough to make the 1.6 the COY I will build another one.  Meanwhile have fun with the 1.6 parity obsession.  I guess we all need something to do in our lives.