448 replies to this topic

[Caveman-kwebb99]

No, the basis for NASA's specs is parity in the mid field with mid prep cars. Haven't you been paying attention??

No so far it has been YOU in your front running rocketship having parity with all the low budget mid pack guys!
What you should have done for the testing is taken off all the hot ticket items so your car would have been a budget build, then chopped one of yor arms off preferably your shifting arm and then we could have done some real testing on parity! roglmfao

[James York]

So the basis for NASA's specs should be the 1-2 races you attended at 1-2 tracks?

Sure, why not.

The Texas arm of NASA has had some races too and I think some comments made about the results of one driver in his 1.6 and 99 in each of the days. A bit more (of the same) along with FL.

[fishguyaz]

the subject has come up "what was the basis for the tests that made NASA change their rules"
simple question it would seem, but there really doesnt seem to be an answer for it.
not even when the rules change was announced

99s didnt dominate the NASA championship at miller.
the results of the races i have been in seem to have parity as close are one could expect with 3 generations of cars out there.
the rules have been good enough to have made people(like myself) buy into the class, and choose whichever car fits their budget, or body mass(big guys wont make weight in the 1.6) I am at 205 lbs, and i chose the 99 for that reason alone, i wont make weight in the 1.6

al the bitching and moaning is strange because under the current rule set we have the largest feilds of the weekend.
if its not broken(the rule set), why did it need to be fixed?


I ran at TWS with some of the real fast drivers known around the country.

my obsevation was that "the fast 99 guys" are serious racers, and they will be fast in whatever year car the rules have them choose to race. they have skills, and prepare their cars to the max of the rule set to win.

I used to race a spec 944 here in AZ. nasa spec and scca were close, but not the same. it made it to where a choice needed to be made as to which club to prepare the car for if i wanted to max out the car per the clubs rule set.
it wasnt good for racers who wanted to run with both clubs. I made my choice for a few seasons, then sold the car.
this rule change bothers me because it makes me feel like i just entered the same pissing match that i left when i sold the spec 944.
rules that are the same for both clubs is good for all racers.

glad that i own a formula ford that i can go run to supplement my SCCA 99' spec miata racing time.

[Danny Steyn]

Alex or anyone not bringing there 99 back.
Would you come back in your 99 if you had a 39mm RP?
J~

Johnny D - this might very well get me to NASA this year. I really wanted to do the season, but I cannot come anywhere close to the new weight. Car was not built for it. So in its current form I do not want to try and compete at 50-60lbs over the limit. Add some weight and open the restrictor to 39mm and I would consider it. I would love to go to Mid Ohio but I do not have the budget to build a new car to be competitive.

Steve D - thanks for keeping your ears and eyes open. You and John A have a tough time with this. I know what you want to achieve and its gonna be difficult, but this class should not be fractured in my opinion. Keeping the car counts high and attracting the top drivers should always be the goal. No-one wants to lamely boast that they are the champion of a 10 car class, when all the fast guys are playing somewhere else.

[Johnny D]

Danny, Fishguyaz,
Preaching to the choir.

How about 40mm RP in the testing or we just do odd stuff around here.
J~

[Steve D]

Steve D - thanks for keeping your ears and eyes open. You and John A have a tough time with this. I know what you want to achieve and its gonna be difficult, but this class should not be fractured in my opinion.

Achieving parity will be easier than achieving the perception of parity. But I'm working on both!

Keeping the car counts high and attracting the top drivers should always be the goal.

That is two goals. The two definitely influence each other, though. And I want to accomplish both in the Southeast.

No-one wants to lamely boast that they are the champion of a 10 car class, when all the fast guys are playing somewhere else.

I believe we will still see a good field of fast guys at MidOhio. As I understand it, the winner still gets to go to the Mazda shootout and still gets some pretty good prize $, right?

If the data and results warrant changes, they will be made before September! I personally believe we can change the rules in a way that tightens parity and encourages crossover between NASA and SCCA. I hope those crossover drivers will lift registration numbers in the Southeast. Don't let me down!!

[JBlaisdell]

Keeping the car counts high and attracting the top drivers should always be the goal.
That is two goals. The two definitely influence each other, though. And I want to accomplish both in the Southeast.

And I'm also trying very hard to accomplish the same for NASA in FL (land of the super fast 99-00 cars)...

[Johnny D]

That's great to hear.
Do you think someone will take him up on his offer?
J~

What we really need is a test day, with (1) Good solid 1.6 car and (1) good solid 99 car , with 3 drivers, with some exp in both cars.

get all 3 drivers to run the 99 with the 37 plate @ 2390 and what we wll think it needs a 39mm plate @ 2400
record their best lap times , and avg lap times in at least a 10 lap test.

have all 3 drivers drive the 1.6 car for 10 laps, record the same.

I would be willing to supply the 2 test cars, both cars are very competitive and most of you have raced against them on more than one occasion.

Now we need 3 drivers, a test day (hopefully paid for by NASA) and the outcome to be taken into consideration for any plate changes that should be made (or not made) to the 99 cars.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

That's great to hear.
Do you think someone will take him up on his offer?
J~

Sure havent seen or heard any comments from the NASA big wigs on that post! So.... are they serious or not?

[Johnny D]

I know.
That's why I threw in the testing comment.
Chances are everyone is still on the side lines.

But don't thoughs comment just give you a warm fuzzy.
J~

[dstevens]

Keeping the car counts high and attracting the top drivers should always be the goal. No-one wants to lamely boast that they are the champion of a 10 car class, when all the fast guys are playing somewhere else.

I'd rather some of those "fast guys" concentrate on losing the head in ass driving style that lead to the carnage at Runoffs and Road Atlanta. Those guys are lucky they haven't seriously injured anyone yet. I can respect that you aren't pleased with the current rules but I think some of those guys have a lot more to be concerned with rather than what is happening in a series they aren't running. I'd like to see fishguy and Johnny (and the others out here) reach a compromise but if that group of fast guys from back there can't keep the red mist, retaliation and low percentage moves off the track I'd rather not have them boys racing in the sanction even if it impacts the car counts.

[john mueller]

No, the basis for NASA's specs is parity in the mid field with mid prep cars. Haven't you been paying attention??

Apologies in advance if I'm taking one comment John made out of context, but the mid-pack comment seems really important?

The problem is that NASA seems confused in where and why they are seeking parity. Or maybe this is NASA seeking to subjectively please (since objective mid-pack is impossible) the most drivers at one time. If NASA aren't seeking parity at front of pack i.e. placing those who can win races on an even footing to fight it out for the podium, then I really don't understand what the intent is ........ ?

Chris, great argument & good points, but they are based on my opinion. My opinion (on this) was not even communicated to NASA as the 'desire of the class', because it shouldn't be. I guess you have to know me to understand that I can be truly objective and would never push my personal agenda (other than my desire to grow SM in NASA) in front of my duty. Yes I know, I'm weird.

So Chris, my comments were not taken out context, you (and others) just assumed that I'm a different person. Which is cool, you guys don't know me... But now you do, so please be sure of what you say or I will find you where you sleep.

So let me say again for the fifteenth friggn' time: NASAs National SM Director DOES NOT MAKE THE RULES, they are the voice of the SM community. The NatDir makes suggestions (steers the conversation) and answers questions in attempt to keep SM the most competitive and largest class on the track. No personal agenda or allegiance should (or ever will with me) ever enter into it.

[dmathias]

Where are the demands for the SCCA to conduct parity tests?

[Caveman-kwebb99]

I know.
That's why I threw in the testing comment.
Chances are everyone is still on the side lines.

But don't thoughs comment just give you a warm fuzzy.
J~

I dont know I just don't think they are that serious about testing.
But yes it did give me the warm fuzzies till I awoke from my daydream.

[john mueller]

What we really need is a test day, with (1) Good solid 1.6 car and (1) good solid 99 car , with 3 drivers, with some exp in both cars.

I would be willing to supply the 2 test cars, both cars are very competitive and most of you have raced against them on more than one occasion.

Now we need 3 drivers, a test day (hopefully paid for by NASA) and the outcome to be taken into consideration for any plate changes that should be made (or not made) to the 99 cars.

Great idea and thank you for the offer. In a perfect world it would happen in a heartbeat but NASA has a methodology and they want to see to the end, which will come soon.

I met with NASAs National Chairman today to see where we are and to map out the near future... I can say once NASA collects a few more pieces of information decisions will be made. I don't have an exact date of when but once I know it (the date) I will post it. However, know NASA is rather pleased so far, but is willing to tweak to make it better should the data they have/will collect support it.

Thanks everyone for your enthusiasm, proves we have the best damn class on the grid.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Where are the demands for the SCCA to conduct parity tests?

Don't know maybe thats a good question. I am new to SCCA, but as a club member you should have a voice have you been asking for that?

Every race I have been to either NASA or SCCA all of the car's models have won their fair share, isn't that parity?

Last SCCA race I attended at MO was was won by a 97 model and next race was won by the 1.6! There were guys there in 99's why didn't they win? Or better question why didn't they even finish within the top 5. I was 5th both races in my 2001 and not one single 99 in front of me. Great lakes regional champ runs a 1.6!

Not taking a swipe at you just asking the questions?

[Johnny D]

Where are the demands for the SCCA to conduct parity tests?

Free country. You could always do a vote from the top drivers assuming they will honest.
It's not broke, don't fix it.
It needs to be adjusted just a touch.

Not the 1st time and won't be the last.
As long as NASA doing this, might as well learn from it.
Test.

If anyone wants RP to test I'll be happy to make them if that helps.
J~

[Chris Price]

Chris, great argument & good points, but they are based on my opinion. My opinion (on this) was not even communicated to NASA as the 'desire of the class', because it shouldn't be. I guess you have to know me to understand that I can be truly objective and would never push my personal agenda (other than my desire to grow SM in NASA) in front of my duty. Yes I know, I'm weird.

So Chris, my comments were not taken out context, you (and others) just assumed that I'm a different person. Which is cool, you guys don't know me... But now you do, so please be sure of what you say or I will find you where you sleep.

So let me say again for the fifteenth friggn' time: NASAs National SM Director DOES NOT MAKE THE RULES, they are the voice of the SM community. The NatDir makes suggestions (steers the conversation) and answers questions in attempt to keep SM the most competitive and largest class on the track. No personal agenda or allegiance should (or ever will with me) ever enter into it.

John - I wasn't implying you were exercising some personal agenda! But I did genuinely believe you were a significant voice in changing the rules ... and if you aren't, who the heck is? Who is at the wheel and saw fit to introduce both a significant shift in the rules AND a break with SCCA. Now I just don't understand what is going on! Who is the mysterious guru of SM parity within NASA and on what basis did they make the changes?

Apologies if I'm just ignorant here .......

[john mueller]

John - I wasn't implying you were exercising some personal agenda! But I did genuinely believe you were a significant voice in changing the rules ... and if you aren't, who the heck is? Who is at the wheel and saw fit to introduce both a significant shift in the rules AND a break with SCCA. Now I just don't understand what is going on! Who is the mysterious guru of SM parity within NASA and on what basis did they make the changes?

Apologies if I'm just ignorant here .......

I am a "significant voice" but don't make the decision. I present what I have learned from conversations I've had with several smarter people than me (mostly for technical issues) and research from reading from this and other boards. Add that to that modeling NASA and I developed and most of the bases were covered. (read back threads to find what was missed for one reason or another)

Why to deviate from SCCA? NASA decided before I took the gig they did not to chase after 99's performance anymore... It became my job to find out how to go about it most effectively within the guidelines NASA set (KISS and cheap). I presented my findings, made suggestions and NASA made the decision.

For what's it worth I agree with the overall direction, it's still close racing and field sizes are growing. It may need a tweak here and there, but it's not known with certainty just yet.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

it's still close racing and field sizes are growing. It may need a tweak here and there, but it's not known with certainty just yet.

Thats exactly why most are so worried about it because when Alex runs close with a 1.6 admittadly mid prep with an non nationaly known racer (No offense intended John) with his top car and top talent, NASA stands up and pounds their chest and says we have found parity! IMO you will see your numbers fall when you decide that your rule set is right after all this so called testing and time to tweek, when nothing is done because the rules are so close to the perfect rule set. Again Just MO, and I am a PTE racer!

I gather that from turning down your best testing oportunity from CHAINS, as we (NASA) really dont need that we have enough info to make our decisions!

I stand by my statment Price for PRES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!