199 replies to this topic

[pat slattery]

I guess all the comments on this site about parity have slipped your mind Jim. 

 

Pat

[James York]

If I were in the motor business, I wouldn't see an issue either.

 

"A few hundreds of motor builders". Really..... 

 

 

Actually it would benefit the SM motor builders to see an issue here since they might have the opportunity to turn over a lot of 1.6L engines with whatever modification you figure out.

 

And yes a few "of the hundreds" of motor builders.  (if you are going to try to quote me, do it right).  And yes there are hundreds of motor builders.  I didn't say SM motor builders, don't wear blinders.  Our engines are not unique or some high evolution of technology by any means.

[Jamz14]

Spoken like a true blooded 99 driver Still can't help you DD...got my own battle to fight with the underdog NA 1.8...waiting for Jamz to draft a letter that I can sign

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.

[James York]

Spoken like a true blooded 99 driver Still can't help you DD...got my own battle to fight with the underdog NA 1.8...waiting for Jamz to draft a letter that I can sign

 

My thoughts are, if it really is important for a person, they will gladly do whatever work it takes to find a solution.  If they only complain but otherwise do nothing, it must not really be a big deal.

 

As Jim indicated, lots of noise here by a few, but not one person expended the effort to even submit a letter.......  

 

 

The problem is that the cars will NEVER be equal until the chassis and engine are EXACTLY the same (then we could argue aero I guess).  The best anyone can do, is to establish them EQUIVALENT over the distance of a lap at a TYPICAL/AVERAGE track.  This will mean, at some points of the track, each car may be better or worse than the other, and at different tracks each car may be better or worse.  No way around this.  

[Bench Racer]

I am sure if its viable, people won't have an issue with helping the torque and slapping weight on the 1.6L.  

This ^ was intentially left alone in my previous post.

 

If the torque of the 1.6 and newer engines were the same as they are today above 5,500 rpm and the torque below 5,500 rpm were more equal, how much weight would you recomend be added to the 1.6?

[Jim Drago]

I guess all the comments on this site about parity have slipped your mind Jim. 
 
Pat

I have told you and everyone on this site, your posts here are chatter and meaningless in terms of rules or parity adjustments.

Again the way the system works.. send a letter in.. SMAC reviews all the letters and makes recommendations to the CRB ( my level). Rarely ( never since I have been on CRB) has the CRB over ridden SMAC on decisions.

Outside of a letter being submitted, once a year, parity is addressed on a SMAC conference call( usually the call after the Runoffs) That call was last week and there was no support for any changes.

[Bench Racer]

I dont even know what that means, but I'm sure it isnt a compliment.

 

It was a comment to Ron that adding a name or several names to one (1) letter is not a value added process. Value added would be each person sending a separate letter.  Nothing more, nothing less...........

[James York]

This ^ was intentially left alone in my previous post.

 

If the torque of the 1.6 and newer engines were the same as they are today above 5,500 rpm and the torque below 5,500 rpm were more equal, how much weight would you recomend be added to the 1.6?

What is more equal?  That is not a value that can be measured.

[Johnny D]

I so glad the thread is back on topic.   

J~

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=UXoNE14U_zM

[Jim Drago]

It was a comment to Ron that adding a name or several names to one (1) letter is not a value added process. Value added would be each person sending a separate letter.  Nothing more, nothing less...........

I would agree with that..

[Bench Racer]

What is more equal?  That is not a value that can be measured.

I'll play your silly little game.

 

If the torque of the 1.6 and newer engines were the same as they are today above 5,500 rpm and the torque below 5,500 rpm are equal, how much weight would you recomend be added to the 1.6?

[James York]

I'll play your silly little game.

 

If the torque of the 1.6 and newer engines were the same as they are today above 5,500 rpm and the torque below 5,500 rpm are equal, how much weight would you recomend be added to the 1.6?

I am not here to entertain you then, figure it out yourself.  

 

It doesn't matter anyway, nothing will satisfy you.  Just write your letter to the SMAC and let the club decide on your suggestion.  Whatever the rules are, I will follow.

[Danny Steyn]

This makes me laugh !

The reason I say this is, a lot of you 99 guys take this personally and are so quick to deny the fact that at most tracks it is the car to have. I will say open your FN eyes and look at the facts. 

 

Butch, I doubt that I am the only one, but there is at least one '99 driver that has publicly said that he believes the 1.6 is at a disadvantage, and IMO should get some concession to encourage the cars to come back. And I say this will all humility and no agenda, other than to promote larger fields in Spec Miata racing. I know my viewpoint is not a popular one, but it still stands. Flame suit on!

[chris haldeman]

Give the 1.6 cars 10.0 compression and adjustable cam gears
Give the 1.8 na cars 9.5 compression and adjustable cam gears
Run all cars at 2400. Just a guess

Compression obtained by milling the head only
Can gears will be required too put the can timing back too where there is a torque gain instead of loss due too retarded cam timing specs

[Jim Drago]

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

This has been a popular opinon, I even shared it at one point, but not anymore.

Here a few things to consider

1)How many cars did SM2 bring out of the wordwork at the ARRC? All of these cars were going to come out now that they had a "chance" to win. How many showed up?

2) When NASA changed the rules and was viewed by ALL especially the 1.6 owners as "right", how many 1.6 guys came out and raced that werent already racing? Not many, It suprised me and when I stopped believing the rules were parking all these cars.

[davew]

Untill we have a 100% built 1.6 with a 100% driver we will never know the truth.

 

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

[Craig Berry]

Untill we have a 100% built 1.6 with a 100% driver we will never know the truth.
 
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

I think Buras may count as 100% car and 100% driver

[pat slattery]

Untill we have a 100% built 1.6 with a 100% driver we will never know the truth.

 

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

And 40 to 50K for a 99 isn't

[Chris Ashcraft]

I have only been in SM for 1 year now and am driving a 1992 car....Even for me only being in this a year on this board...OMG this parity BS for some of you that have been doing this a while have got to be WAY tired of this..
My only comments are this..
1. If you feel you are at a disadvantage being in anything less than a 99...THAN BUILD ONE
2. Is driving a 99 going to give you the chance to win.....THAN BUILD ONE
3. Have you spent enough time on the track to warrant being up front....THAN BUILD ONE
4. If you cant afford to BUILD another car...their is always TENNIS

For me i am going to stick with my 92 for another year or two to get more seat time and learn as much as possible...GUESS WHAT HAPPENS NEXT

I AM GOING TO BUILD ONE!!!!

just my 2 cents

[pat slattery]

I have only been in SM for 1 year now and am driving a 1992 car....Even for me only being in this a year on this board...OMG this parity BS for some of you that have been doing this a while have got to be WAY tired of this..
My only comments are this..
1. If you feel you are at a disadvantage being in anything less than a 99...THAN BUILD ONE
2. Is driving a 99 going to give you the chance to win.....THAN BUILD ONE
3. Have you spent enough time on the track to warrant being up front....THAN BUILD ONE
4. If you cant afford to BUILD another car...their is always TENNIS

For me i am going to stick with my 92 for another year or two to get more seat time and learn as much as possible...GUESS WHAT HAPPENS NEXT

I AM GOING TO BUILD ONE!!!!

just my 2 cents

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.