448 replies to this topic

[Caveman-kwebb99]

I was one of those guys 3 seconds behind, and no, I don't believe in slowing down Adam's 99, or any other car to make up for my lack of driving ability, or set up skill, or wallet. I want everyone who is fast to be on equal footing, whether they are in a 1.6 or a 99, and I want everyone else to also have the same benefit of having cars as equally matched as is possible. Obviously some cars will have an inherent advantage at certain tracks over others. With that being the case, it makes no sense to me to hold either the NASA championships or the Runoffs at the same venue year after year.

Great reply dude! I am not one of the top 20 racers in the country I am but just a 99 owner wanting to be one of the top drivers in the country. I want to race against the best prepped cars and best drivers, I like to be able to set the bar as high as possible because I will only jump high enough to hit the bar! I might not even be able to hit the bar but I sure dont want you to lower it for me so I can hit it easier!!!!!

As for moving the Nat champs around I think that would be very challenging for the groups to do contractually as well as monitarly! I am biased but I like Mid Ohio for both champ races as it is almost in my back yard!

[Alex Bolanos]

I don't think their approach is an attempt at parity as much as it is an attempt to make the most of their membership happy as possible.

This was my hunch after lots of conversations with the NASA FL guys and it's been confirmed (in mind) with this thread.

Pick your path, stick to it, take the criticism and give it time to pan out.

Agreed. The FL/Texas/MA boys have all shown the results, we'll see how things pan out in the rest of the country. The next event down here in FL probably won't have any 99s so the data from March will be it, Blanchard's/mine will be home, Lliteras' was sold after the rule change (he can't run SCCA yet), I doubt Rollan will run his in SM (probably only in TT), same for Jared's 99.


Cheers!

[Jim Drago]

look at the bright side...
maybe we are getting people back to the new site.. 13 pages and counting...

[Caveman-kwebb99]

look at the bright side...
maybe we are getting people back to the new site.. 13 pages and counting...

And you were Reluctant to say the least!

[dmathias]

Kyle, You can't compare regional SCCA to national SCCA. The top national drivers in GreatLakes typically don't show up at regional events, but as an example Bennett let the entire field roll out of the grid ahead of him at the IT-SPECTacular this year after taking pole, just for fun. Within 7 laps he was leading.

Rick is a good driver, but attendance counts as much in regional championships as victories.

I personally know many drivers who have left the class because of the ever increasing effort/money required. That is not good for the class. Car counts peaked about 2006 and have been in decline since.

Thank you for the offer of a beer, but never on race weekends.

lets be honest really in a 50 car field there are maybe 7 guys who could win.

It's like you read my mind. Number one reason why I will most likely be spectating at the NASA Champs instead of racing in it. Why spend a pile of money and time to be a field-filler. No desire.

Denny

[William Keeling]

Speaking only for myself – I have stating running with NASA again (since 2008) and I am running only enough SCCA events to keep my license (and will review that after the rules season).

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Kyle, You can't compare regional SCCA to national SCCA. The top national drivers in GreatLakes typically don't show up at regional events, but as an example Bennett let the entire field roll out of the grid ahead of him at the IT-SPECTacular this year after taking pole, just for fun. Within 7 laps he was leading.

Rick is a good driver, but attendance counts as much in regional championships as victories.

I personally know many drivers who have left the class because of the ever increasing effort/money required. That is not good for the class. Car counts peaked about 2006 and have been in decline since.

Thank you for the offer of a beer, but never on race weekends.



It's like you read my mind. Number one reason why I will most likely be spectating at the NASA Champs instead of racing in it. Why spend a pile of money and time to be a field-filler. No desire.

Denny

Well as I have said here a few times already I am not a NASA SM racer any longer due to these new rules, I still like NASA and I still like SM, as I am sure everyone can tell that I am passionate about it!

How about that beer on Sunday after the last race? I'm buying!!!!!! I can afford it I own two 99's!

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Not yet but it's going to be big.
I can see it now.



J~

Dude now that is PARITY! I wonder if those helmets are SA2010? I think those cars still have the beer holders in the console!

[dmathias]

I am not a NASA SM racer any longer due to these new rules

You're not going to be at Mid-O in 2 weeks?

[Caveman-kwebb99]

You're not going to be at Mid-O in 2 weeks?

Just not racing SM any longer! Still racing at Mid Ohio April!

[dmathias]

Good luck. By the way, have you looked at the lap times at the front of PTE?

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Good luck. By the way, have you looked at the lap times at the front of PTE?

Only know the track records

[James York]

So does everyone that thinks that NASA is trying to balance the top 99s with midpack 1.6s.

Sort of.... I think the adjustments took aim to permit "less competative" 1.6s, to compete with top line 99s. It's hard to define "midpack" since in that area you get all sorts of experience, talent and car prep.

But I don't have a bone in this fight since I no longer run NASA, however you asked "everyone", so I answered.

From the information I have, if a 37mm plate is right for the 99, then the 1.6 needs to carry about 100 more lbs (give or take since I don't recall the NASA weight regs, but I can read dyno data and overlay curves like anyone else.)

[Rob Burgoon]

Sort of.... I think the adjustments took aim to permit "less competative" 1.6s, to compete with top line 99s.

So you're saying a 1.6 should never be competitive with a 99.


If you want to make the argument that awesome prep 1.6s don't exist, so parity can't be achieved, fine.

If you want to make a claim that NASA is deliberately killing the 99 for business reasons, that could be plausible.

The way the whiners persist in the notion that NASA's goal is to make a regional 1.6 with a regional driver equal to a runoffs 99 is simply moronic. How people have money to afford racing and yet manage to make such asinine claims blows my mind.

If people want to play politics and keep the 99 as the car to have, at least make a semi convincing case. Anything less is embarrassing.

[James York]

So you're saying a 1.6 should never be competitive with a 99.


If you want to make the argument that awesome prep 1.6s don't exist, so parity can't be achieved, fine.

If you want to make a claim that NASA is deliberately killing the 99 for business reasons, that could be plausible.

The way the whiners persist in the notion that NASA's goal is to make a regional 1.6 with a regional driver equal to a runoffs 99 is simply moronic. How people have money to afford racing and yet manage to make such asinine claims blows my mind.

If people want to play politics and keep the 99 as the car to have, at least make a semi convincing case. Anything less is embarrassing.

Rob,

Since you quoted my post, I am guessing you are replying to me. Did you read my post or simply regurgitate your PR for why you support the NASA rules changes for 2011? I absolutely did not say any of the above statements you made.

Yes 1.6s are competative with 99s
Yes I am positive there are top flight 1.6s in the US (I owned one and race against a few)
I don't know what NASA's business plan is, ask them
I don't whine about these rules, I don't run NASA. I can comment if solicited on data I know, seen or have.

What I did say was, I believe the NASA ruleset permits a "lesser" 1.6 compete with a very good 99. In other words, if I was running a NASA championship race and someone offered a top flight 99 or 1.6 for me to drive, I would choose the 1.6 since I believe it is measurably advantaged in NASA regulations. NOTE; I left out the 2001 and 94-97 since the discussion was mostly about 1.6 vs. 99.

[Rob Burgoon]

I don't know what NASA's business plan is, ask them
What I did say was, I believe the NASA ruleset permits a "lesser" 1.6 compete with a very good 99.

That's not all you said.

Sort of.... I think the adjustments took aim to permit "less competative" 1.6s, to compete with top line 99s.

Sure sounds like you're commenting on NASA's goals to me. Was it a typo?


You're not the only person my comments are directed towards, just the largest and closest target.

Also, where is the PR in my message? I'm encouraging people to express their concerns but do so in a coherent manner. I didn't say anything about whether the adjustments are correct or not.

[James York]

That's not all you said.



Sure sounds like you're commenting on NASA's goals to me. Was it a typo?


You're not the only person my comments are directed towards, just the largest and closest target.

Also, where is the PR in my message? I'm encouraging people to express their concerns but do so in a coherent manner. I didn't say anything about whether the adjustments are correct or not.

Well you're right, you know everything and I am glad you're here to moderate this discussion for our benefit. I prefer not to run NASA so it doesnt matter to me personally but appreciate how you have highlighted some of those asinine claims for me. Thanks. I'll let the die-hards continue the debate.

[Rob Burgoon]

Well you're right, you know everything and I am glad you're here to moderate this discussion for our benefit. I prefer not to run NASA so it doesnt matter to me personally but appreciate how you have highlighted some of those asinine claims for me. Thanks. I'll let the die-hards continue the debate.

My pleasure.

[trimless]

I have a 99 and a 1.6. I'm running the 1.6 at NASA races that I plan to attend this year. If I just had the 99 I would not be racing with NASA. I actually think the new rules were good for NASA (car counts)and if they would just change the restrictor size up to a 39mm I think it would be a good compromise and allow the 99's to at least be competitive. Just my personal opionion, now back to the debate

[Jim Drago]

That's not all you said.



Sure sounds like you're commenting on NASA's goals to me. Was it a typo?


You're not the only person my comments are directed towards, just the largest and closest target.

Also, where is the PR in my message? I'm encouraging people to express their concerns but do so in a coherent manner. I didn't say anything about whether the adjustments are correct or not.

Rob
What are your opinions of the NASA rules changes?