199 replies to this topic

[James York]

Sorry, posted in wrong thread.. moved to parity page

Jim,
 
I like either of these answers.   Either
 
1) Pick a model for majors (championship) as is and allow any car to run regionals,
 
2) Allow all to run the 01+ package with the mods you list.  I would keep the RP to help limit the development around flow.  The ECU map should be tuned to make the combination superior (just a little bit) to any of the cars today.  (All would still be permitted to run their cars as the existing rule set, but understanding it will be an underdog and NEVER will any provision be allowed to boost performance)

[Todd Green]

Only trouble is it makes the performance "envelope" of the cars further apart.  You'll need a bigger gap between a 1.6 and a 99 going into a corner to not get boned on exit.  I'd be less likely to buy a 1.6 in a field full of 99s with that.

This is very much true, but the monetary cost is zero, and if you make no changes to the other cars, I doubt you're going to hear 1.6 owners complain that they got a weight break.  It certainly isn't going to hurt them.  I don't seriously think this would ever fly, but I also don't think that the minimum weight will be dropped across the board like it should be.  No one has ever made a good case as to why we should accommodate overweight drivers.  Other than the basic retort that it'll hurt field sizes.  $40K SMs hurt field sizes as well, but we're not putting limits on that.

 

On a different note, if we're going to redo the rules for 2015, can we get rid of the PIECE OF S*** Bilsteins?  I've raced on blown JRZ's that had no oil that had better dampening than these wunderbars (only half joking here).   Something like the Xidas from 949 would be nice so we could actually stay off the bumpstops, tune them for different tracks, and they aren't that expensive in the big picture.  The price could probably come down a couple hundred if they became the spec suspension.  By the time you add in the collars and springs to the Bilsteins you're at what $1K or so?  We could probably get the Xidas for $1750.  Would have to look into how they hold up to the pounding SM tends to give them and cost/frequency for doing rebuilds.  I realize it is a major hurdle to change something fundamental, but by giving enough notice and grandfathering in the old spec shocks, it should be doable.  It's been done before with flywheels, wheel offsets, etc.

[LarryKing]

Beginning 2015 only the 2006+ MX5s are approved for SM racing.

 

That way (almost) everybody has to start over from square one.

[James York]

Beginning 2015 only the 2006+ MX5s are approved for SM racing.

 

That way (almost) everybody has to start over from square one.

That will only hurt most of the 1.6 drivers and financially constrained drivers more, but if you have the support of the majority, sure lets ALL get new cars.  The builder's will LOVE you.

[pat slattery]

Sounds nice, I think they race those in eutopia.

 

On a seriousness note though, instead of posting just wishes, why don't you formulate a rules adjustment to help steer the class to your objective.

I have been doing that James, for 5 years, falling on deaf ears

[James York]

I think "someone" will always complain they are driving an underdog car and the parity is wrong no matter what adjustments are made.  If someone is not winning and they think they should, it is an easy thing to blame instead of themselves.  This goes across all versions and years of SM.  Today it might be one group, two years from now it might be the 99 drivers.  Who knows.

 

We need one "car" for SM and be done with it.  Bite the bullet and do it.

[Johnny D]

I have been doing that James, for 5 years, falling on deaf ears

 

So with all that's been said, I would think it would be clear.

 

You get out, what you put in.

And if you are not putting 100% in, somebody else is.

 

So you want to change it all up?

Shuffle the deck, spend more $ ?

Doesn't matter what the rule set is.

As been stated, you're still going to get the same people at the pointy end, why ? because they do what it takes.

 

Yes, Majors is the 99 club. You may have noticed.

 

But I don't see how you fix a spec class from people not putting in what is required and expecting to win.

J~

[pat slattery]

So John, all the 99's  have 100% effort and only 1,   1.6 on the east coast has done the same.  HA HA HA.  I though this was an affordable SM class, for entry level.  You shouldn't have to pour 40-50K to be competitive in this class.  Our powers to be have let it get out of hand, some for personal gain, some to further there particular car.  How is it that there are no one running a top 1.6 on the east coast.  Could it be that the 40K spent would only fetch 10-12 K if you did try to sell it.  You saw Dragos dyno sheet.  Even the best 1.6 in the country has a built in handicap, everytime you race on a track that you have to dip below to 5K or lower. 

[Johnny D]

My point is if you don't do what it takes, does it matter? You'll get the same result.

 

Have you rented another car for your driver and seen a difference.

Have you had a faster driver, try yours?

 

I havn't see "over the years" your adjustments.

 

You should use all the best parts, but when it comes to the car, all of a sudden, oh no, I'm a 1.6er forever ?

 

Yes, 40K, I don't like it either. But it's been stated you can for less, you just need the know how.

J~

[pat slattery]

My point is if you don't do what it takes, does it matter? You'll get the same result.

 

Have you rented another car for your driver and seen a difference.

Have you had a faster driver, try yours?

 

I havn't see "over the years" your adjustments.

 

You should use all the best parts, but when it comes to the car, all of a sudden, oh no, I'm a 1.6er forever ?

 

Yes, 40K, I don't like it either. But it's been stated you can for less, you just need the know how.

J~

I am not a 1.6 forever because I want to, I don't have the  40K to get a 99 and can't get much out of the 1.6 car I have even though it has been a good car.  We won GLD Nationals  2 years ago, highest finishing 1.6 at the runoffs, every year we entered, finished 37th in points this year after only racing 4 races, finished 11th in 2012 with 1 race short of maxing our points.  I think my driver has the respect of the people we race with. 

[Johnny D]

Sounds good. So on a budget, can't afford. I hear you. How about rent for the Runoffs when it counts.

Then again, I'd hate for you to rent a 99, when you should of brought your 1.6 to MRLS.

 

Also for everone...

Here's the reality check.

Have you rented a top prep car for your driver and seen a difference?

Then it's your car.

 

Have you had a faster driver, try yours?

If they can go faster, it's the driver.

 

Could be both, but you'll see what work needs to be done. 

J~

[Brocodile]

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.

 

2. The dyno does not lie... but it doesn't tell the whole truth, either-- It can't measure the influence on acceleration of the 100 lb. weight difference between the 1.6 and the other two. Jim gave an example of a rough formula and I trust the committee took a hard look prior to the last rule change.

 

3. On track, the cars are close, but they still are apples and oranges. In the 1.6, tq starts very weak in the low rpm range and rises rapidly, while the curve in the other cars is much flatter. As a result, at tracks where the 1.6 is forced to pull out of a turn at low rpm's, or snatch a lower gear briefly, it is placed at a disadvantage. This disadvantage is magnified if the exit is uphill. If the revs are low enough, It's probable that the 100 lb weight advantage is not enough to offset the tq deficit. Grabbing a lower gear fixes this issue, but raises the spectre of missed shifts, and even a good shift takes time. On the other hand, the 1.6 is really strong on top and the old body style appears to have an aero advantage as well. There are tracks at which the 1.6 is the favorite (fast, flowing and not too hilly). Horses for courses.

 

4. I am not a technician, but I have observed that the 1.6 seems to require a lot of at-track tuning - even between sessions. If it's as finicky as it appears to be, I suspect a lot of 1.6 drivers are wheeling cars that are a bit off-song.

 

5. I have driven all three models and the 1.6 is the most fun to drive...but also the hardest. It has quick reflexes (some would say it's twitchy) and it doesn't handle curbs as well as the heavier cars. Also, because of its weakness at low revs, the driver is always trying to go 11/10's, which requires skill. I have won races in all three cars but it was easier to run consistent laps in the newer models.

 

6. Some of the suggested "fixes" such as increased compression and cams are worthy of consideration, but will meet resistance due to cost. Remember the shock hat fiasco? It would be a worthy goal to equalize weight. It may be appropriate (if possible) to give the 1.6 enough power to require a restrictor, assuming this would obviate the search for flow with the attendant cost.

 

All that said, the fact remains that these are very different cars and that it is impossible to precisely equalize them. There will always be debate about which is the better car, no matter what. The SCCA has done a good job, considering what they have to work with. Flame me if you wish, but I agree with Drago that further "equalization", as distinguished from favoritism, would have little effect at the front of the field.

 

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.

[Rob Burgoon]

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.

 

2. The dyno does not lie... but it doesn't tell the whole truth, either-- It can't measure the influence on acceleration of the 100 lb. weight difference between the 1.6 and the other two. Jim gave an example of a rough formula and I trust the committee took a hard look prior to the last rule change.

 

3. On track, the cars are close, but they still are apples and oranges. In the 1.6, tq starts very weak in the low rpm range and rises rapidly, while the curve in the other cars is much flatter. As a result, at tracks where the 1.6 is forced to pull out of a turn at low rpm's, or snatch a lower gear briefly, it is placed at a disadvantage. This disadvantage is magnified if the exit is uphill. If the revs are low enough, It's probable that the 100 lb weight advantage is not enough to offset the tq deficit. Grabbing a lower gear fixes this issue, but raises the spectre of missed shifts, and even a good shift takes time. On the other hand, the 1.6 is really strong on top and the old body style appears to have an aero advantage as well. There are tracks at which the 1.6 is the favorite (fast, flowing and not too hilly). Horses for courses.

 

4. I am not a technician, but I have observed that the 1.6 seems to require a lot of at-track tuning - even between sessions. If it's as finicky as it appears to be, I suspect a lot of 1.6 drivers are wheeling cars that are a bit off-song.

 

5. I have driven all three models and the 1.6 is the most fun to drive...but also the hardest. It has quick reflexes (some would say it's twitchy) and it doesn't handle curbs as well as the heavier cars. Also, because of its weakness at low revs, the driver is always trying to go 11/10's, which requires skill. I have won races in all three cars but it was easier to run consistent laps in the newer models.

 

6. Some of the suggested "fixes" such as increased compression and cams are worthy of consideration, but will meet resistance due to cost. Remember the shock hat fiasco? It would be a worthy goal to equalize weight. It may be appropriate (if possible) to give the 1.6 enough power to require a restrictor, assuming this would obviate the search for flow with the attendant cost.

 

All that said, the fact remains that these are very different cars and that it is impossible to precisely equalize them. There will always be debate about which is the better car, no matter what. The SCCA has done a good job, considering what they have to work with. Flame me if you wish, but I agree with Drago that further "equalization", as distinguished from favoritism, would have little effect at the front of the field.

 

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.

 

 

Wasn't it NASA that gave us our current parity formula?

[pat slattery]

No, SCCA tweaked it by adding weight to the 1.6 and bigger restrictor to the 99 I believe

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Let's cut to the chase:

 

6. Some of the suggested "fixes" such as increased compression and cams are worthy of consideration, but will meet resistance due to cost. 

 

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.

 

Ok lets take #6...  You all have sen what a 1.6 is capable of so now you give it more compression and some cams???  evryone else will be equal to a 99 now on a tight budget...  But what about those with the money that will now move to the 1.6 and add the compression and those cams to what Drago has already proved can be built and delivered to the track on a weekly basis.

 

Johnny, is the only one who F ing gets it!!!!!  The same guys winning now will be winning then and nothign changes PERIOD!!!  if Drago can build a 1.6 with 128hp, you really doubt he has lacks the ability to do it again and again and again...  Would be best thing ever happened to his car building biz!!!

 

Its a joke that you Pat and others  "not you skipper"  suggest that Those who are making the rules are just in it for greed and gain...  If that is so the 1.6 would be getting all kinds of shit and East Street and others would be hiring more mechanics to build and assemble all those engines and building a host of new cars!  At least that what I would do If I was Jim and I was out for my personal gain!!!  

 

I would invite any of you that unhappy to take your cars and run SCCA IT or nasa PT.  but then again you would just moan and groan over there about how someone is beating you with a Saturn!

[Waterboy]

which brings me back to my point, create a 1.6 SM class

There is one, ssm

[Brian Ghidinelli]

You shouldn't have to pour 40-50K to be competitive in this class.  Our powers to be have let it get out of hand, some for personal gain, some to further there. 

 

As we've established, you don't have to spend $40-50k so ditch the exaggerations.  If you sell your 1.6 even at a fire sale price of $10k and do a lot of the work yourself, you'll be in it for well under $20k and competitive.  But then you'll be out of excuses!! 

 

PS - don't confuse "winning the runoffs" with "affordable SM class, for entry level".

[Ron Alan]

PS - don't confuse "winning the runoffs" with "affordable SM class, for entry level".

As someone said way back in this thread(or another)...don't bring common sense into a rant thread  

 

This is worth repeating. This IS an AFFORDABLE ENTRY LEVEL CLASS!!!  No one has every claimed it is AFFORDABLE and guarantees SUCCESS...though a few talented few have done this    

[JRHille]

heres another good example of a 1.6 

 

[James York]

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