448 replies to this topic

[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?

[Rob Burgoon]

Rob
What are your opinions of the NASA rules changes?

Having spent so long driving an oem engine that wasn't healthy, and driving the only 1.8 in my region, I don't think I am the right person to decide if NASA is close or still way off from on track perceptions. Also, a number of fast 99s in socal just retired from SM entirely (due to burnout I'm told) so that doesn't help.

I'd have to look at dyno and traqmate data to take a stab at whether NASA is in the ballpark or not, but I'll probably still come out to play with my 1.8 even if it does end up with the reputation as the least competitive model again once the smoke clears.

I feel NASA is right to try to balance the cars at more similar power to weight, I like that.

At the same time, I can see a strong argument for turning SM into spec 99. Even as a 1.8 owner, I think it's a fine idea (no car of the year, true spec) but we need to be overt about it if that's the goal. I can also see a lot of kicking and screaming.

My point was/is, if you're going to criticize NASA for trying something different, please make an argument that is better thought out than:

A. My 99 was the fastest year and now it isn't
B. NASA wants slow drivers in 1.6s to beat up on fast drivers in 99s
C. Commie conspiracy

I don't know if they have it right, but I never thought they would get it on the first try either, so we'll see how the rest of the year goes.

[MPR22]

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

Like Gale, I have both a 99 and a 1.6. I have raced 2 NASA events this year one in each car. The first race in the 99 with no plate, it was not required. We did dyno my 99 after the event and it dropped about 5 Hp. The second race was at a track that favored the 1.6 before the rule change so I ran the 1.6.

I will not be running my 99 at any of the other NASA events because it would be my second best car.

I run which ever car gives me the advantage at SCCA events because I can.

One of the problems I have with the NASA rules is the drop in weight of the 99. I can't make weight in the 99, I'm 40 lbs over with no balast. So small restrictor, heavier car, no race when I have the option of faster, reasonably prepped 1.6.

As to what Alex B. has experienced, I should not be able to race with him or his peers at the front end of the field in either car. I am new/learning midpack racer. It would not be parity if me or my midpack peers were suddenly racing for the podium against, Alex, Blake, Highchair, Burgoon.....

Parity would be Alex B. driving a 1.6 against Blake in his 99 at neutral track, (MSR Houston). The cars are very close in parity under the SCCA rules when in the hands of talented drivers at neutral tracks. From what I have observed one car or the other is the overdog depending on the track under the SCCA rules.

If NASA raced at Texas Motor Speedway we would probably see how handicapped the 99 is with the new rules. Under the SCCA rules the 99 is a clear favorite at TMS. (In my opinion)A medium prepped 1.6 should be able to easily handle the 99 with the NASA rules at TMS. The track is simple enough to alow the midpack drivers to compete with the front end just based on the cars overal speed. That is not the definition of parity. NASA doesn't race there so its a moot point but it is a problem.

From my observations the track dictates which car is the favorite more so than the RP and weight.

IMHO NASA should reduce the 99' RP to 39 mm and set weight to 2450.

Does it really matter what a midpacker thinks?

With NASA yes, with SCCA not so much.

[William Keeling]

Mr. Ross which track do you plan to run your 1.6 at under SCCA rules?

[MPR22]

Mr. Ross which track do you plan to run your 1.6 at under SCCA rules?

MSRH in August

[William Keeling]

cool - too cold at the Jan. race?

[MPR22]

I'm not smooth enough to keep the tires under me in the heat.

[tLinder]

Like Gale, I have both a 99 and a 1.6. I have raced 2 NASA events this year one in each car. The first race in the 99 with no plate, it was not required. We did dyno my 99 after the event and it dropped about 5 Hp. The second race was at a track that favored the 1.6 before the rule change so I ran the 1.6.

I will not be running my 99 at any of the other NASA events because it would be my second best car.

I run which ever car gives me the advantage at SCCA events because I can.

One of the problems I have with the NASA rules is the drop in weight of the 99. I can't make weight in the 99, I'm 40 lbs over with no balast. So small restrictor, heavier car, no race when I have the option of faster, reasonably prepped 1.6.

As to what Alex B. has experienced, I should not be able to race with him or his peers at the front end of the field in either car. I am new/learning midpack racer. It would not be parity if me or my midpack peers were suddenly racing for the podium against, Alex, Blake, Highchair, Burgoon.....

Parity would be Alex B. driving a 1.6 against Blake in his 99 at neutral track, (MSR Houston). The cars are very close in parity under the SCCA rules when in the hands of talented drivers at neutral tracks. From what I have observed one car or the other is the overdog depending on the track under the SCCA rules.

If NASA raced at Texas Motor Speedway we would probably see how handicapped the 99 is with the new rules. Under the SCCA rules the 99 is a clear favorite at TMS. (In my opinion)A medium prepped 1.6 should be able to easily handle the 99 with the NASA rules at TMS. The track is simple enough to alow the midpack drivers to compete with the front end just based on the cars overal speed. That is not the definition of parity. NASA doesn't race there so its a moot point but it is a problem.

From my observations the track dictates which car is the favorite more so than the RP and weight.

IMHO NASA should reduce the 99' RP to 39 mm and set weight to 2450.

Does it really matter what a midpacker thinks?

With NASA yes, with SCCA not so much.

Well said Mr Ross, +1. Hopefully our NASA SM National Director hasn't bailed on this thread. (From another learning mid-packer in a 1.6).

[Andrew Charbonneau]

If I bring a 99 to this event at the end of the season and win will this stop this cray crap its getting old each track is different own two cars and be like gorgggggorian pick the best.
pay up suckers

[john mueller]

Well said Mr Ross, +1. Hopefully our NASA SM National Director hasn't bailed on this thread. (From another learning mid-packer in a 1.6).

no chance, I read every post...

[Chris Price]

OK, following up on my earlier post (here) see attached graphic Yes, I know its simplistic ..........

I think what NASA is aiming at is parity in the "mid-pack", whereas what SCCA is aiming at is parity at the "front of pack". The difference is just impacting the 1999 performance by moving down the "green" line. But, since the 1999 and 1.6 (and not forget the 1.8) all respond differently to applying $$$ and time, you can't have parity everywhere! You have to pick a spot - try for credible racing with parity at front leaving driver skill to win-out, or try to please the bulk of your customers? Problem with the aim for mid-pack parity is that there is no such beast as I argued earlier

Would really appreciate John M's comments on this - is this what NASA is aiming at? Are my assumptions re: prep level, $$$ and time for different cars just faulty? Help me out?

I'm also still confused while John M said that his personal opinions were just that, he also said his is a strong voice, I still don't know whose was the first voice - what was the origin FOR the change - what was broken that needed fixing etc. In SCCA, the rules change process, debate and conclusion are easy to see, whereas this seems a mystery in NASA, which is troubling for those (me!) who have invested a lot of time and $$$ in supporting and participating in NASA events!

Attached Files

•  NASA vs SCCA.JPG   40.21KB   48 downloads

[Rob Burgoon]

In SCCA, the rules change process, debate and conclusion are easy to see

By the by, doesn't the open fuel reg and timing for all years close the effort gap between the 1.6 and the 99 by a fair amount?

[Alex Bolanos]

By the by, doesn't the open fuel reg and timing for all years close the effort gap between the 1.6 and the 99 by a fair amount?

No, it closes the gap between any 1.6 and mid shelf 99s, the 99s running up front were already controlling timing and fuel using ECUs. This is also something NASA was against (at least down here in FL) even though it increases parity.

[Rob Burgoon]

No, it closes the gap between any 1.6 and mid shelf 99s, the 99s running up front were already controlling timing and fuel using ECUs. This is also something NASA was against (at least down here in FL) even though it increases parity.

What else is there for an effort gap between 1.6 and 99? Is sorting out an intake all that hard?

[Protech Racing]

I have brought our '93 back from the rental fleet, to race again. No way was it close last year. Now, maybe , if we get it right, and the kid keeps his foot down. It is SM or SRF .
MM

[john mueller]

... the 99s running up front were already controlling timing and fuel using ECUs.

You mean cheating, because it was.

Regardless, I can not speak about individual regions but once I got involved on a national basis (Mid-Sept 2010) I can say that NASA knew following SMAC's recommendation was the right thing to do. Indeed, it has helped parity. Truth be told, the lack of information and adjustable FP hardware to outfit NA's for testing contributed to the 37mm plate on the 99's. As I've said over & over & over & over again NASA is very close to having all the data points they need to decide if a change is warranted.

[john mueller]

Would really appreciate John M's comments on this - is this what NASA is aiming at? Are my assumptions re: prep level, $$$ and time for different cars just faulty? Help me out?

I'm also still confused while John M said that his personal opinions were just that, he also said his is a strong voice, I still don't know whose was the first voice - what was the origin FOR the change - what was broken that needed fixing etc. In SCCA, the rules change process, debate and conclusion are easy to see, whereas this seems a mystery in NASA, which is troubling for those (me!) who have invested a lot of time and $$$ in supporting and participating in NASA events!

SCCAs rules process is rigid and published, NASA is a business and will do what they feel is best for their business ... It's the fundamental difference between the two organizations. So, NASA (to use your words, 'first voice') thought it was not in the best interest of their business to follow this time and forge their own path (they thought it was going to become broken). Therefore, changing the 2011 SM Rules NASAs wanted to achieve 100% parity ('aim'), or as close as possible within these guidelines:

• Allow open timing & fuel pressure (neutralize cheater ECUs)
• Slow the 99's with a smaller RP instead of having the majority of the class change something to catch-up.
• Get the weights of all the cars closer to each other (attempt to even tire wear).
• Grow car counts.

[Jim Drago]

You mean cheating, because it was.

Regardless, I can not speak about individual regions but once I got involved on a national basis (Mid-Sept 2010) I can say that NASA knew following SMAC's recommendation was the right thing to do. Indeed, it has helped parity. Truth be told, the lack of information and adjustable FP hardware to outfit NA's for testing contributed to the 37mm plate on the 99's. As I've said over & over & over & over again NASA is very close to having all the data points they need to decide if a change is warranted.

Many were able to get to the same numbers without a re-flashed ECU long before SMAC opened timing and FP, without slotting the timing wheel or using an adjustable regulator. My prep level in that regard has been the same since 2006. It was not "tech" legal etc, it was legal. There are regulators all over the board on pressure without any manipulation, you can also bin match all the parts on the front of the engine to get really close to 15 degrees of timing ( which if anyone read the FSM is the spec, not 10 degrees.) So as we suspected, the front end 99's are going no faster, but now allows all the weekend racers and guys without 20 hours a week to devote to their cars the same advantages that weren't talked about before.

[FTodaro]

Well now that you can adjust the timing and regulate the fuel by a legal method I suspect that some will still re flash the ECU to flatten out the A/Fcurve as you cannot get a flat curve with the manual system, or at least that is what I have seen on dyno sheets so far. But I am not going to cheat either. I have my dyno tune appointment this weekend and my first race April 10-11 so we will add another data point then.

[FTodaro]

Well now that you can adjust the timing and regulate the fuel by a legal method I suspect that some will still re flash the ECU to flatten out the A/F Curve as you cannot get a flat curve with the manual system, or at least that is what I have seen on dyno sheets so far. But I am not going to cheat either. I have my dyno tune appointment this weekend and my first race April 10-11 so we will add another data point then.