448 replies to this topic

[5X Racing]

Just for a numbers reference, here are the results and lap times from our Homestead NASA race from our thread on the NASA Southeast room on this board. I will note the year of car the people were in:

Saturday

http://www.mylaps.co....jsp?id=1803380 (note fast lap!)

1 17 cliff blanchard 17 30:53.545 1:48.147 6 72.651 (1.6)
2 87 Selin M. Rollan 17 31:02.042 8.497 1:48.317 4 72.537 (99)
3 96 Patrick Wehmeyer 17 31:25.542 31.997 1:48.919 2 72.136 (1.6)
4 25 John Adamczyk 17 31:30.491 36.946 1:48.145 4 72.652 (1.6)
5 12 bruce byerly 17 31:30.970 37.425 1:49.509 2 71.748 (1.6)
6 24 Manny Platis 17 31:57.827 1:04.282 1:50.752 11 70.942 (1.6)
7 59 Timothy Allen 17 32:02.904 1:09.359 1:51.472 4 70.484 (1.8)
8 51 Daniel Fine 17 32:09.120 1:15.575 1:51.020 15 70.771 (unsure)
9 44 Rick Adamczyk 17 32:10.130 1:16.585 1:51.902 3 70.213 (1.8)
10 65 Jim Blaisdell 17 32:18.504 1:24.959 1:52.337 11 69.941 (1.8)
11 61 Ivan BeRossy 17 32:32.940 1:39.395 1:53.188 12 69.415 (99)
12 97 Mitchell Taylor 16 31:12.297 1 Lap 1:55.654 14 67.935 (1.6)
13 0 Team Skunk Ape Racing 16 31:12.683 0.386 1:54.425 2 68.665 (99)
14 57 Alex Bolanos 12 21:50.725 5 Laps 1:48.108 6 72.677 (99)
15 165 Michael Lliteras 1 2:11.837 16 Laps 2:07.158 1 61.789 (1.8)

Sunday

http://www.mylaps.co....jsp?id=1803383 (note, the lap times were smoking! The SCCA lap record on this track is a 1:48.1. Cliff turned a 1:47.5 at a November race here with NASA, so that is the previous best)

1 25 John Adamczyk 17 35:31.757 1:47.841 9 72.857
2 17 cliff blanchard 17 35:32.100 0.343 1:47.970 14 72.770
3 171 Alex Bolanos 17 35:38.665 6.908 1:48.577 3 72.363
4 87 Selin M. Rollan 17 35:39.098 7.341 1:48.690 11 72.288
5 12 bruce byerly 17 35:52.478 20.721 1:49.643 9 71.660
6 96 Patrick Wehmeyer 17 35:53.134 21.377 1:49.575 8 71.704
7 31 Scott McKay 17 36:03.505 31.748 1:49.683 4 71.634
8 24 Manny Platis 17 36:07.446 35.689 1:50.801 13 70.911
9 59 Timothy Allen 17 36:16.432 44.675 1:51.748 15 70.310
10 51 Daniel Fine 17 36:17.680 45.923 1:50.986 11 70.793
11 65 Jim Blaisdell 17 36:22.642 50.885 1:52.137 2 70.066
12 61 Ivan BeRossy 17 36:49.394 1:17.637 1:53.928 15 68.965
13 0 Team Skunk Ape Racing 16 36:56.785 1 Lap 1:54.595 9 68.563
14 97 Mitchell Taylor 3 8:19.245 14 Laps 1:58.079 2 66.540
15 44 Rick Adamczyk 0 1:57.649 17 Laps --:--:--.--- 0 -


And, just for inquiring minds, this is the best lap from Alex in Cliff's car in SCCA trim racing in our PT class:

http://www.mylaps.co....jsp?id=1803384


171 Alex Bolanos 14 25:24.672 7 Laps 1:47.425 773.139

[5X Racing]

Wait a minute - you mean the sky isn't falling?

Not in sunny NASA Florida!

[Mike Collins]

So? A nationally competititive '99 with top driver runs heads up with a well built regional 1.6 and good regional driver?

[Caveman-kwebb99]

So? A nationally competititive '99 with top driver runs heads up with a well built regional 1.6 and good regional driver?

You mean that wasn't the plan? ROFLMFAO

[JBlaisdell]

I think John and I are on the same page...just a different paragraph.

I completely agree with his summarization of the past weekend...all the cars are VERY close now. NASA did do a better job of parity.

Now, it would be best (IMHO) if NASA and SCCA came to a common ground adjustment. Like I said in my previous post 39mm plate and 2420 lb....I have heard from several reliable test sources that this is the "sweet spot" for parity. I think our recent Homestead race shows similiar results.

Quick thought:

Car NASA vs SCCA
1.6 10lb weight difference
1.8 2mm plate and 25lb difference
99-00 4mm plate and 60lb difference (current)
99-00 2mm plate and 30lb difference (proposed)

To me, the above proposed seems like a fair common ground solution to "the sky is falling". Is it splitting hairs? yes...will it make it easier for drivers and tech (crossover racers)? yes...Is it just my opinion? yes...

I think there is oppurtunity for NASA Nat. to look like a hero here...

Thanks for listening...

[5X Racing]

I think it could go either way Mike, Alex turned the fastest lap in Saturday's race in his 99 before he had car trouble, so on Saturday a top national driver in a top prepped 99 was fastest, just didn't finish that way. On Sunday, Alex was in Cliff's 99, didn't turn the fastest lap, but finished a solid third with the 3rd fastest lap. On tracks with hills it might be different, I can't speak for that data, only what I saw at Homestead.

I think the new rules are fair, everything should be based off the 1.6 cars in my opinion because they have been developed and proven for 10 years now. If the 99's keep getting faster (which they did with the timing and fuel pressure allowance), we will have to make the 1.6's faster to equalize. That's harder and more expensive than adjusting the 1.8 and 99 with weights and plates. In our most recent race, a top level 99 was even with a well prepped 1.6 (I don't know how my car would fair against SCCA national cars, but I know Cliff's 1.6 does well, and our cars are exactly the same speed). So, that's the fact from the Florida front if NASA racing. Call me ignorant, but from what I see down here In FL (and from the after race impound talk), NASA did a good job with the new rules.

This is all very trivial, because when you get down to it, you are entitled to race whatever and wherever you choose. Nobody is telling you to race a car in NASA competition you feel is uncompetitive in NASA, if you feel that way, then race with the SCCA or wherever you feel your car will have an advantage! If you enjoy track time and racing for fun, and don't plan on chasing a national championship, then race your car where you have the most fun and follow their rules, what's the big deal about changing your plate and weight? 30 minutes
in your garage. If that's too cumbersome, then stick with one organization. That should be simple to understand, why are we all bitching about this? If things are grossly lopsided with parity, then NASA will adjust it, just like the SCCA does.

And for the "better of the class" arguments, that's easy too. NASA feels their rules are better for the class, the SCCA feels their rules are better for the class. They differ, of course. I believe what you will see is SCCA SM national racing become a 99 majority class and NASA be more of an NA class because of the rules, people will choose what they like better. Call it a split, call it detrimental to the class, but that is what's happening. As a business minded person, I see NASA catering to the majority of SM racers out there and SCCA catering to the guys that can afford to build top prepped 99's and are more "competition hungry" than "fun seeking". Both can be blended, as I like competition and having fun, but when things get to be too professional and costly to me, it loses it's fun appeal in a way. This is probably why you hear people talking about the runoffs as a big deal and shrugging off the NASA championships, it's a different vibe between the two organizations (down here for sure, can't claim it to be that way anywhere else).

I want to disclaim also, my OPINIONS (emphasis on that) are not intended to be directed at anyone here. I enjoy the conversation and am very interested in the whole class and rules associated with. I am also involved with my local NASA region, but am in no way defending or saying anyone should race one instead of the other. The thing I care most about in our local NASA races is that all of our racers are having a good time and get along with each other, in my opinion we are club racing and it is taken too professional at times, which skews the fun factor for me.

So on that note, I have nothing else! My thoughts are exhausted! Sorry if I have offended some.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

I just have to say! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!!!!!!!! I wish I had a good YouTube to post right about now.

IMO

[JBlaisdell]

How about a youtube of SRV's " The Sky is Cryin'"

[dmathias]

Mr. Adamczyk,

Considering you are in the "Spec Miata" business, it is refreshing to read that you place fun over continuous development. The constant exploitation of 'gray areas' is what drives the hobbyists away.

Your's was a very reasoned, thoughtful post.

That sort of thing will not be tolerated here!

-Denny

[john mueller]

I've raced the roval at Fontana and I suppose it's better than nothing. I prefer Big Willow or even Streets. Haven't been to Buttonwillow yet.

You'll like BW, technical track takes skill to go quick.

In SoCal CalSpdwy 3/5&6) Sammy brought his 1.8 NA, hooked-up with Clement Lee (rental 1.8 NA) and ran-away, Clement won both days. Third both days was Rob Burgoon in his 1.8 NA. There was on 99 in attendance, it was quick on the oval seemed ok on the twistys.

BW will be a better test, it's a proper road-race track.

[john mueller]

So? A nationally competititive '99 with top driver runs heads up with a well built regional 1.6 and good regional driver?

Mike, I'll bite.

IMO the whole idea of this class is that your scenario should be pretty even. This was my position with NASA when updating the 2011 rules. The 'sweet-spot' will continue to move, but I think NASA is really really really close... SCCA is too but from a different angle.

[dstevens]

The disconnect is the class serves two masters now. The top tier of the national programs are running pro level programs and guys like me that just want to go out and have a bit of fun racing sports cars have different desires and goals. There is more potential for people running 10-15k cars than there are running 25-30k cars in terms of overall car counts, regardless of the make. It seems to me that this is the approach NASA is taking. A good part of the vocal majority here on the forum haven't raced NASA in either a few years, or at all with some having some sort of sense of entitlement to have a voice on a rules package in a series in which they do not race. I'd go as far to say that if there weren't the hobby racer guys in the slower cars many of the pro level programs run by builders would nave to be funded out of pocket. With three cars and the class going national some years back this was inevitable.

[Johnny D]

The disconnect is the class serves two masters now. The top tier of the national programs are running pro level programs and guys like me that just want to go out and have a bit of fun racing sports cars have different desires and goals. There is more potential for people running 10-15k cars than there are running 25-30k cars in terms of overall car counts, regardless of the make. It seems to me that this is the approach NASA is taking. A good part of the vocal majority here on the forum haven't raced NASA in either a few years, or at all with some having some sort of sense of entitlement to have a voice on a rules package in a series in which they do not race. I'd go as far to say that if there weren't the hobby racer guys in the slower cars many of the pro level programs run by builders would nave to be funded out of pocket. With three cars and the class going national some years back this was inevitable.

I agree with most of what you said.
I don't agree about the "Haven't raced, entitlement" comment, at least on this thread.
J~

[dstevens]

I agree with most of what you said.
I don't agree about the "Haven't raced, entitlement" comment, at least on this thread.
J~

Not talking about this thread specifically re: some feeling entitled but the tone of a few of the more vocal posters on the forum. Racing isn't some utopia and the guys with the funding that work hard are going to be fast. Nothing is going to change that. The reason these guys chose 99s is because that was the better car for the class. Nothing wrong with that. That's what racers do. Now NASA comes along and instead of trying to make the old cars fasters, they make the new cars slower and some guys that don't race the sanction are up in arms.

[Rob Burgoon]

Not talking about this thread specifically re: some feeling entitled but the tone of a few of the more vocal posters on the forum. Racing isn't some utopia and the guys with the funding that work hard are going to be fast. Nothing is going to change that. The reason these guys chose 99s is because that was the better car for the class. Nothing wrong with that. That's what racers do. Now NASA comes along and instead of trying to make the old cars fasters, they make the new cars slower and some guys that don't race the sanction are up in arms.

IMHO, they aren't completely out of line complaining about it because depending on how it goes down it could end up hurting their club, but tough rocks, that's competition, something I understand the SCCA hasn't had to deal with for much of their life.

I can't fault NASA for trying to grow. If NASA is a real threat, the SCCA is just going to have to try to offer a superior experience, whatever that might be. "Make it easy, make it fun" and all that crap.

[Johnny D]

I agree up to "Nothing wrong with that". It gets alot more expensive to get the older cars faster and that defests the point.

IMO, NASA is trying to attract more racers and that's great.
I think the 99 is a tic faster (SCCA) for the top prep guys, this also trickles down for mid pack guys as well.
37mm is not the answer from what i've seen IMO, 39 is closer and SCCA and NASA should work together on weights so we're not corner weighting for each event and makes it easier for the driver to come out and race.

Does NASA need Regional and National?
Have an over and under for say 120HP?
Dyno like SSM if there's a question of performance on the car.

I think here in San Francisco Reg we're real close (SCCA) but we don't have the rovals like SoCal, Texas, FL. so will see.
J~

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Not talking about this thread specifically re: some feeling entitled but the tone of a few of the more vocal posters on the forum. Racing isn't some utopia and the guys with the funding that work hard are going to be fast. Nothing is going to change that. The reason these guys chose 99s is because that was the better car for the class. Nothing wrong with that. That's what racers do. Now NASA comes along and instead of trying to make the old cars fasters, they make the new cars slower and some guys that don't race the sanction are up in arms.

Just for the record, I have been highly critical of the new rules and I WAS and AM a NASA Racer!

I just dont worry to much about it anymore as I have stopped caring. Everyone here has their own point of view and I totaly respect that! NASA is a free enterprise and can do whatever they want, SCCA is a club and is run by members, if you want something changed in SCCA then you have to get off your perverbial @ss and get involved on the rules committee, if you want to change something in NASA correct me if I am wrong (wouldnt be the first time) You have to complain like hell cause you are nothing but a customer! The 1.6 guys from what I can assertain have been bitching for a few years sorry if I have that wrong as I am only a 1 year old racer, and never gave 2 sh@ts about a Mazda Miata before the day I decided to race one. NASA finally listened to the thier complaints the way I see it. Time will tell if they were right to do so!

I stand by my new moto " The Sky is Falling"

[5X Racing]

Denny,

I put my arse on the line for that one huh? Lol!

It is all for fun, we are racing little 120hp cars and paying a lot of money to do so, you'd better be having fun, right? Yes I am in the spec miata business, but it also relates to fun proportionately, because if the fun is lost the racers will go to the next class that is more fun and business will not be there. Plus, I started the business because spec miata was a good time and to get involved with the sm community beyond being a driver, not to make a fortune off of it. So let's keep it fun so I don't have to start selling drag racing parts! Boo!

[5X Racing]

Mc Donalds or Burger King? Dominos or Pizza Hut? Ford or Chevy? All products of the same type, but different experiences come with each. Burger King isn't going to remove tomatoes from their Whopper for "the better or the burger" just as NASA is not going to copy SCCA rules for "the better if the class". They are going to offer the same base product (SM class, or burger if you may) with their own unique twist on it to attract the customers that are not entirely happy with the competitors product (SCCA, or Mc Donalds if we stick to the example). Business 101. You eat where you like the food better, you race where you like racing better. We all have the choice, everyone should try both and decide for themselves. That is for the better of the class, because if we don't support this class in both organizations, there will be nowhere to race in the future. We are the biggest money makers for both of these organizations, they need us.

Mmmm, Whopper.....

[Johnny D]

Ya. My Burger King has alot of Infineon on it and I like it.
McDonalds has just a little but the combo is bigger.

I try to eat at both but sometimes leave a bad taste if I'm not ready for each one.
J~