448 replies to this topic

[pat slattery]

I think you could throw out all the 1.6, 1.8, 99 comparisons for this 2011 Nasa race, bald tires and rain, the car did not make a difference IMHO, it was drivers, and a little luck, not getting taken out. Congrats to the winner.

If you want to split hairs, look at the heats during the dry and see how the cars faired. At this time I don't know who was driving what year, but maybe some on has that info.

Pat

[FTodaro]

A lot can be learned through the windshield and the rear view mirror. I learned this past weekend that a top prepped '99 at 37mm goes down the straights at Mid-Ohio every bit as good as my 1.8 car (which is no slouch).

This is an interesting debate because there is likely no clear right answer. for every good point is a pretty good counter point. But healthy discussing sometimes can find the right answer.

Now my counter point Tom, I can show you on my data logger that if I carry 1 more mile per hr in the keyhole from the middle of the corner to exit, I will carry that extra speed all the way down the back stretch to the brake zone, so the straightaway speed is just as much to do with set up and handling, as it is HP .

Maybe 39 mm is not the right answer but I do not think 37mm is either. That dead Horse is still kicking.

[Bench Racer]

Jim, why lets the facts get in the way of another David Dewhurst rant. We all know he's right

Mike, if the 1.6 is in parity with the 99 at Road America why don't one of you guys (rule makers) that own both top flight cars bring the 1.6 to Road America & show that parity exists at Road America. Other tracks I pay attention to there is parity................... I hope like hell it rains for the Runoff Spec Miata race because then it's more about driver than car/wallet.

***The runoffs at Road America doesn't mean sh.. to the majority of the racers. Your argument is old.***

Being that you don't race at Road America why do you care what rules are used at Road America for regular SCCA races or the Runoffs. Maybe if you used the word stupid a little less you could think outside the box. If you drink the Kool-Aide served with the SCCA "Power Number" you are hopefully lost. Just another little fact for you. Normally a RED FLAG is raised at the Runoffs location for a car within a class that is not within parity.

***Fuel pressure regulator and 99 suspension parts.***

Let's see now the fuel pressure regulator change was made for all models because some non 1.6 cars were working in the gray area therefore the rule was changed for the cars working in the gray area. As I understand the 1.6 AFM & 1.6 fuel pressure regulator take you pick of 1 because both are not required. I'd call that a no gain for the 1.6. Tell me about the 99 suspension parts that may be used on the 1.6.

***At this time I don't know who was driving what year, but maybe some one has that info.***

Pat, if you "mylaps" the 2011 nasa race the car year is within the car info.

***That is what member input wanted specifically. Most don't care about the Runoffs, they want even racing all year long.***

Jim, I'll repeat my understanding of cars that receive parity attention.

Normally a RED FLAG is raised at the Runoffs location for a car within a class that is not within parity. THEN it's tracked at other tracks.

Why does the SCCA care that "MOST don't care about the Runoffs" when these MOST don't take part in the Runoffs. This whole thing of the 1.6 getting hosed at the Road America Runoffs is not a big deal to cure. You know it & I know it. It's tradition that is the road block.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

As Rodney King said "Can't we just all get along?"

[Jim Drago]

It isnt really a major deal to me one way or the other ... I just glad the post count is going through the roof

[Bench Racer]

It isnt really a major deal to me one way or the other ... I just glad the post count is going through the roof

How about telling some of the harsher users to show some . My goal is your goal, post count.

[dstevens]

Let's see now the fuel pressure regulator change was made for all models because some non 1.6 cars were working in the gray area therefore the rule was changed for the cars working in the gray area. As I understand the 1.6 AFM & 1.6 fuel pressure regulator take you pick of 1 because both are not required. I'd call that a no gain for the 1.6. Tell me about the 99 suspension parts that may be used on the 1.6.

Gain or not it's a rule change that adds cost for performance instead of slowing the faster car.

Have you not heard of the Fat Cat suspension kit or using 99 shock hats on an NA?

[Tom Sager]

This is an interesting debate because there is likely no clear right answer. for every good point is a pretty good counter point. But healthy discussing sometimes can find the right answer.

Now my counter point Tom, I can show you on my data logger that if I carry 1 more mile per hr in the keyhole from the middle of the corner to exit, I will carry that extra speed all the way down the back stretch to the brake zone, so the straightaway speed is just as much to do with set up and handling, as it is HP .

Maybe 39 mm is not the right answer but I do not think 37mm is either. That dead Horse is still kicking.

Yes, it's a good debate and I agree there is no perfect answer. The basis of my opinion is this. If all '99+ cars were required to run the early 1.8 motor but also had to weigh 50 pounds more than a '94/'97 car, which car would be the better performer? My opinion is that the newer chassis plus 50 pounds would prove to be the better setup. Why? because it's a better balanced and better handling platform and it has an aerodynamic advantage. Aerodynamics has a big impact on acceleration over 60MPH and handling as well. I read an article a couple years ago that I cannot find now that spoke in detail about the new (then) '99 Miata. It spoke at length about the better aerodynamic design with less lift and a lower drag coefficient. My opinion based on drivng and racing against both a '95 and '00 SM is that a 50 pound weight difference does not offset the newer chassis handling-wise. My opinion also is that 50 pounds has less impact on 60MPH - 120MPH acceleration than does the aerodynamic differences in the car. The latter could be proved easily if we had the aero numbers on both cars in race trim. That's hard info to get. So in conclusion, I think that equalizing the '94-'97 with the '99 requires more than a 50 pound weight difference and also requires that the '99 be restricted to make just slightly less power than the '94-'97. The 1.6 is tougher to equalize but the 100 pound weight difference from the '99 should be enough or more than enough to offset the chassis. The motor difference between these 2 cars is tougher to handicap.

Overall I think the NASA ruleset for this year which was heavily criticized turned out to be closer to parity than many predicted.

[James York]

I would suggest that our bigger than OEM tires, cool looking chin spoilers and open windows dirty up the air flow so much that the aero differences between the years is so tiny to no factor.

[Jim Drago]

My opinion based on drivng and racing against both a '95 and '00 SM is that a 50 pound weight difference does not offset the newer chassis handling-wise. My opinion also is that 50 pounds has less impact on 60MPH - 120MPH acceleration than does the aerodynamic differences in the car. The latter could be proved easily if we had the aero numbers on both cars in race trim. That's hard info to get. So in conclusion, I think that equalizing the '94-'97 with the '99 requires more than a 50 pound weight difference and also requires that the '99 be restricted to make just slightly less power than the '94-'97. The 1.6 is tougher to equalize but the 100 pound weight difference from the '99 should be enough or more than enough to offset the chassis. The motor difference between these 2 cars is tougher to handicap.

Tom
Owning both cars now for almost two full seasons, the 95 and the 2000, which are you racing at the Runoffs again? I see you chose the 95 at Nasa Champs. You would think the ease of driving etc would have helped the car at Mid Ohio with all the turns etc. Sorry, couldn't resist

[Mike Collins]

Aero is negligible between the two! But when we tried to give the 1.6 the later front subframe which may of helped with some of the suspension geometry we got nothing but negative comments and it never passed.

[Adam Molaver]

just a couple quick, off-the-cuff comments on the NASA championships. 1) bolanos had the field covered in the dry in his '99. not sure what happened to him on Thursday, but Friday in the dry, he flat out whipped everyone. no idea how strong his motor is, but i've got to believe there is a smidge of talent involved my car was competitive power-wise i believe with a Rossini motor and non-flashed ECU. the conditions for the championship race - i think everyone on track will agree - were pretty insane. if you haven't run mid-o in the wet, it is an, ahem, experience! Friday's qual had me 9th, but 9-5 were all WITHIN A TENTH! i feel pretty confident that the top 5 or 6 guys (including alex) drove great races - have i mentioned how slick-as-snot it was out there? not sure if was caught on video anywhere, but even Nate had a serious moment, bouncing off a tire wall!

despite my run ending badly (http://www.vimeo.com/28989311) i did have a lot of fun and met some great folks. thanks to Mike for helping out with tech, and hats off to the field for (mostly) running clean. there was definately a number of contact incidents during the championship race, but as slick as it was, i'm not sure it could have been much better. no doubt there were a couple of folks taken out by other's errors (ahem), but it was still a lot of fun and i'm looking forward to going back.

ahm

[Andrew Charbonneau]

[Tom Sager]

Tom
Owning both cars now for almost two full seasons, the 95 and the 2000, which are you racing at the Runoffs again? I see you chose the 95 at Nasa Champs. You would think the ease of driving etc would have helped the car at Mid Ohio with all the turns etc. Sorry, couldn't resist

The '00 has no motor in the engine bay. Tough to drive it that way. However, neither the 37mm NASA rule nor the threat of a smaller plate in SCCA will deter me from investing in a good motor for that car and racing it next year. I should have delivery of the motor by 10/1. If I had a car like yours, I'd be racing that one.

[Tom Sager]

Aero is negligible between the two! But when we tried to give the 1.6 the later front subframe which may of helped with some of the suspension geometry we got nothing but negative comments and it never passed.

I thought the suspension upgrade was a good idea. Might still be. Negligible aero difference? Do you know the numbers for frontal area and drag coefficient for the 2 cars? If so send them to me and I'll have acceleration calculated based on some dyno reports that I'm sure Jim can provide.

[Bench Racer]

But when we tried to give the 1.6 the later front subframe which may of helped with some of the suspension geometry we got nothing but negative comments and it never passed.

I was going to quit helping Jim's post count numbers but some people can't let a subject alone.

The rules makers continue to say there is parity so why would anyone want to implement the 99 suspension. I'd love it if there were a couple pointy end late 1.6 entries with pointy end drivers.

The key in your statement is "may of helped". Now if you said that you built a cheater car & the FACT is we ran as fast as with our pointy end 99 car that would put a foundation under the words "may help you".

Have you entered the 99 suspension & suspension pick-up point locations in you "power number" formula & if you did what was the formula answer. Did it make up the 5/100's lb/P difference. How does the 99's extra 12 foot pounds of torque & presumed better torque band play into the "power number".

Maybe if the SCCA loosened the 99 grip on Road America there would be more than the 15% (5) 1.6's enetered compared to the 68% (23) 99's entered with the other years totaling 17% (6).

Yes dstevens I have the FatCat suspension kit. I presumed you were talking abouth the same thing Mike Collins is talking about. Sorry about that.

[Astro]

Well my 99 pro motor makes 122 in NASA trim and I weight a hell of alot more than a 1.6 with an overweight driver. Hmmm. figures seem right to me! Also Hmmm wasnt the 99 slowed down because they all had pro motors? I dont believe you can achieve parity from putting junk yard motors in all the models for parity power/lb testing.

For everyone who doesnt have a pro motor in their 99, they got hosed by the new NASA rules because of those who did have the pro motor, why should it be any different for a 1.6 or a 1.8? Testing should be done with off the shelf well preped pro motors, otherwise the parity would be horrible once someone developed one model more than another. That is why they have rules changes.

Just my two cents!

My 1.6 pro-motor dyno'ed at 113/98 and a weight 2310 after the race so I don't have anywhere near the lb/P ratios mentioned earlier but I still finished 4th. I say the hell with parity if it means changing the rules EVERY YEAR! Leave the rules alone and drivers will migrate to the cars that best suit the tracks that they run and their driving style. I don't understand why people think changing the rules every year is good for this class. These cars have been competing for 10 years and we still can't get the parity equation right. What makes anyone think it will be right next year???


The only people that benefit from constant changes are the guys charging to "optimize" your car to meet the latest rules.

I vote to stop the changes!

[Astro]

just a couple quick, off-the-cuff comments on the NASA championships. 1) bolanos had the field covered in the dry in his '99. not sure what happened to him on Thursday, but Friday in the dry, he flat out whipped everyone. no idea how strong his motor is, but i've got to believe there is a smidge of talent involved my car was competitive power-wise i believe with a Rossini motor and non-flashed ECU. the conditions for the championship race - i think everyone on track will agree - were pretty insane. if you haven't run mid-o in the wet, it is an, ahem, experience! Friday's qual had me 9th, but 9-5 were all WITHIN A TENTH! i feel pretty confident that the top 5 or 6 guys (including alex) drove great races - have i mentioned how slick-as-snot it was out there? not sure if was caught on video anywhere, but even Nate had a serious moment, bouncing off a tire wall!

despite my run ending badly (http://www.vimeo.com/28989311) i did have a lot of fun and met some great folks. thanks to Mike for helping out with tech, and hats off to the field for (mostly) running clean. there was definately a number of contact incidents during the championship race, but as slick as it was, i'm not sure it could have been much better. no doubt there were a couple of folks taken out by other's errors (ahem), but it was still a lot of fun and i'm looking forward to going back.

ahm

Same crash from a different view!

[Alex Bolanos]

Now my counter point Tom, I can show you on my data logger that if I carry 1 more mile per hr in the keyhole from the middle of the corner to exit, I will carry that extra speed all the way down the back stretch to the brake zone, so the straightaway speed is just as much to do with set up and handling, as it is HP .

[dmathias]

Do you know the numbers for frontal area and drag coefficient for the 2 cars? If so send them to me and I'll have acceleration calculated based on some dyno reports that I'm sure Jim can provide

Don't forget to factor in various unintended sheetmetal "adjustments".