448 replies to this topic

[john mueller]

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.

Possible, yes. Prevalent, doubtful.

Regardless those were two great changes for parity.

[dmathias]

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

Hell's bells - we can't have that - somebody do something!

[davearm]

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.

This allows the weekend racers and guys without 20 hrs a week to devote to their 99's the advantages. So the midpack 99 owners now have a legal way to even faster than the 1.6 drivers. I know the 1.6 can also use the adjustable regulator, but the jury still seems out on the extent of the benefit.

[Chris Price]

This allows the weekend racers and guys without 20 hrs a week to devote to their 99's the advantages. So the midpack 99 owners now have a legal way to even faster than the 1.6 drivers. I know the 1.6 can also use the adjustable regulator, but the jury still seems out on the extent of the benefit.

Not really: the '99s can have the +2hp advantage of open FP and Timing (many of which had the ECU for this anyway) and the -6hp disadvantage of losing 20% of their restrictor plate area. The '99s can weigh less but unfortunately most can't make weight anyway. NASA giveth and ..... NASA taketh away http://mazdaracers.c...tyle_emoticons/default/mad.gif

[Johnny D]

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.

Open time +1
Slow 99's fine. What about mid pack 99's. Shouldn't it be all top prep cars?
Get weights closer. Lighter 99. Heavier 1.6's, 1.8's ??? Makes it difficult to crossover from SCCA.
Grow car count +1. But with difficult crossover are you going to get it?

J~

[fishguyaz]

Open time +1
Slow 99's fine. What about mid pack 99's. Shouldn't it be all top prep cars?
Get weights closer. Lighter 99. Heavier 1.6's, 1.8's ??? Makes it difficult to crossover from SCCA.
Grow car count +1. But with difficult crossover are you going to get it?

J~

Johnny, I know you asked me directly if i would run nasa with the 39 plate in my 99.
I didnt answer because i wanted to really think about it before responding, especially since right now all the 99 entries in NASA are basically the beta testers, only they are spending their own $ to do so for NASAs new product(rules).

I made your question in bold because thats what i wanted to address.
In AZ we had spec 944 with different rules for NASA and SCCA. i think it came from a pissing match between people on each side, and in many ways was a line dranw in the sand.........which rules set are you going to build to, and where are you going to choose to run. I used to run with both NASA and SCCA in my old SM. when i got the spec 944 that was built to the SCCA rules set, i just ended up running it with SCCA. I hated that it was only politics, and personal agendas that was the reason for the different set of rules. I didnt want to go run with another club, and know that my car was not built to the max of the rules (with one club)while knowing i was in a competition.
what happened was that you basically got "SCCA GUYS", and you got "NASA GUYS". a division of drivers, with a few exceptions. it wasnt good for crossover. i will say that the NASA guys were very cool to accomadate for a one race weekend, but if you wanted to do anything on a regular basis, the car needed to be correct for the club.

having said that, i just dont want to finacially support that situation again by being a customer of NASA(right now). one of the reasons I bought my SM was that i could run it with both SCCA AND NASA under the same rules for both clubs.

now that this has been changed (***and for a reason that i cannot justify from what i have seen***)i dont want to participate in that situation again. I will pick which rules set to have the car set up for, and run it like that. I am choosing the rules set that i bought into the class under, and spent my $ on.
to me, the divergent rules now, while not a huge amount of work to change the car for either club (at this point), i just dont like the direction for the class.
keeping crossover easy is best for the class for both clubs IMO.

for rob burgoon, my freind, and i am stating this below as coherently as i can

*** the results that i have seen in in sopac national races do NOT show the 99 to be the dominant car, actually it shows parity. 1.6 have won, 1.8 have won, and i beleive a 99 has won also in 5 races run so far this year in nationals in the region. that seems like parity. i get it that the 99 is the car to have for the road america runoffs, and at certain other HP tracks, but thats just the way it is when you have 3 cars that you are trying to equalize. they will get close, but they will NEVER be perfect. parity needs to be set overall, not just at one track. it seems to me at a track that is not like RA, that the 99 is good in some areas with a bit more power, but the other cars make up the gap with handling/less weight in the tighter sections.***

I didnt see any need for changes to the 99.
what i saw when i was at texas world speedway was that "the really fast guys" have skills and car prep that take them to that level; i truely feel that they will be at the pointy end of the SM field whatever the rules are and the choice of car that they feel is best under those rules. so you slow down their 99, i bet they show up in another generation car, prepped to the max of the rules, and with their driving skills in that car they will still kick the shit out of the majority of us.
I am fine with that. all i want is to be able to show up to an event and feel like whoever i end up racing with, for whatever postion it is for that we have cars that are close.

I just dont see how under the rules that NASA came up with, from somewhere (since the testing is being done after the idea to change was implemented) that if the 1.6 cars HP/weight ratio is = to the 99 ratio that the 99 is just supposed to ignore the ~100 lb "handicap" that it has been given. 100 lbs is a lot of # to carry around and just ignore.


I have always felt that if something isnt broken, it doesnt need to be fixed;the fact that SM is the 1st or 2nd largest subscribed class in the country should verify that.

I may try NASA in the future after others have spent their $ testing NASA ideas. once its stable and i know what to expect i will reconsider

I hesitate to get into this stuff on the internet because things get taken the wrong way, and attitudes towards people are formed even before the people have ever met. i like spending my race weekends with old freinds, and new ones. I dont want to be (pre)judged for something i wrote on the internet that wasnt written clearly.
Josh

[Johnny D]

+1

I'm on the fence, unless I convince myself it's a track day with a race in it.
I've been thinking of just showing up in SCCA trim and if I get caught it's "My Bad".
I want to run by the rules, run with a good setup, not change it back and forth. Too much to ask, I don't think so.

J~

[Weekend Warrior]

So should we just discredit all the 99s that have won races in NASA so far, since they were racing against inferior drivers in inferior 1.6s?

[Mike Collins]

you make me laugh. you've never been within 50 miles of my new car. you haven't been at a track with me in what, 3 years?

we all know you know a crapton about these cars, but having actually been on track with the new rules, i'm not so sure the package isn't damn close. if you throw out the $50K cars as statistical anomalies - which they are - i think the cars are REALLY close.

screw the car and driver - look at the lap times. NASA MA's lap records appear to be missing at the moment, but i believe the current record @ VIR full is in the 2:19's. i ran a 2:20.2 in practice on friday and clicked off two 2:20's (granted, .7 and .9) during the race.

so if i'm not that good behind the wheel and was turning 2:20's, lap record in the :19's...what does that say?

and John - i had an absolute blast in the car all weekend. sunday was one of my favorite races ever. did you see the margin of victory? .024 seconds on a pass off the last corner!

ahm

Adam this may have been taken out of context, but to your point, the problem lies when all of those 50k outlier cars show up for the championship race and race each other. Most of those 50k cars have owners who can build or race the car of the year. I am not against parity, I just think NASA went a little to far. We will see I will have my '99 on the track next weekend in NASA trim and the following weekend in SCCA trim. Lets hope the weather stays close both weekends. And before anyone ask, NO I will not be sharing my raw Data. If NASA wants the data from my car they can compensate me for it, they are a business and they should understand that.

[Steve D]

And before anyone ask, NO I will not be sharing my raw Data. If NASA wants the data from my car they can compensate me for it, they are a business and they should understand that.

Just to clarify NASA's collection of Traqmate data...

I believe that the only Traqmate data being used in the ongoing analysis of Spec Miatas is collected using units owned by NASA. Those units are installed in vehicles chosen by NASA immediately prior to a session and then collected immediately following the session.

NASA is not using data from drivers' personal Traqmates. But thanks for the generous offer.

[dmathias]

[Mike Collins]

The NASA CCR does not specifically allow for the installation of NASA data collecting devices in competitors cars nor do the NASA Spec Miata rules. So once again, I will be testing the plates and the weights with a traqmate, personally. If NASA would like my data I am certain we can arrange something.

[Steve D]

The NASA CCR does not specifically allow for the installation of NASA data collecting devices in competitors cars nor do the NASA Spec Miata rules.

I believe you are correct. As I understand it, CCR 2.7.1 gives the Executive Director pretty broad powers, though. Thankfully, none of the SM drivers at our first two NASA Southeast races objected to data collection. We haven't been faced with someone refusing, but the culture is a little too laid back for some people's taste.

[Rob Burgoon]

I believe you are correct. As I understand it, CCR 2.7.1 gives the Executive Director pretty broad powers, though. Thankfully, none of the SM drivers at our first two NASA Southeast races objected to data collection. We haven't been faced with someone refusing, but the culture is a little too laid back for some people's taste.

Yep, I got logged by NASA at my last race. No big deal. They'll just change the rules to force it like for PT if people get testy about it.

In fact, I'll bet that change is already in the works. I don't believe NASA has a formal rules freeze.

It itches a little, but you get used to it.

[Adam Molaver]

<br />The NASA CCR does not specifically allow for the installation of NASA data collecting devices in competitors cars nor do the NASA Spec Miata rules.  So once again, I will be testing the plates and the weights with a traqmate, personally.  If NASA would like my data I am certain we can arrange something.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

i refer you to 21.1:

The Race Director reserves the right to make changes in rules and/or penalties to ensure fairness of all aspects of competition. He/she will make every effort to correct problem situations to the fairness of the majority before invoking penalties, in full or in part.

the race director can indeed place data acquisition in a competitors car in the interest of ensuring fairness.

i'm not speaking for NASA, but i don't think setting parity for all competitors across the country should be done solely on the results from one race, at one track, where the competitors are willing to do anything they think they can get away with. saying those are the only results that matter, frankly, doesn't make any sense. and i'll be the first person to say i wasn't happy with how these rules came into being, but the results so far, at least that i've seen, seem to indicate they are far from the 'sky is falling for '99s' that was initially feared.

ahm

[Mike Collins]

I don't think the sky is falling either. But I will not do a "for profits" race testing and data collection for them. I will gladly pay my fee and race in the event and have fun.

The SCCA and or SMAC does not use one race to set parity for the entire country. We do use data sets from the best of the best, we do multiple test at multiple tracks across the country and we have access to race teams and drivers with actual experience in all 5 of the cars. It's kind of a Novel Concept, actually have the people that build race and own all of the body/engine styles help write the rules?????

[Weekend Warrior]

The SCCA and or SMAC does not use one race to set parity for the entire country. We do use data sets from the best of the best, we do multiple test at multiple tracks across the country and we have access to race teams and drivers with actual experience in all 5 of the cars.

How do they use data from "the best of the best", when "the best" are all racing 99+ cars?

[Adam Molaver]

I don't think the sky is falling either. But I will not do a "for profits" race testing and data collection for them. I will gladly pay my fee and race in the event and have fun.

The SCCA and or SMAC does not use one race to set parity for the entire country. We do use data sets from the best of the best, we do multiple test at multiple tracks across the country and we have access to race teams and drivers with actual experience in all 5 of the cars. It's kind of a Novel Concept, actually have the people that build race and own all of the body/engine styles help write the rules?????

strange, i haven't seen any data made public from the SMAC/SCCA documenting side-by-side, same-day testing of the various flavors at multiple tracks. am i missing it? because if i'm not, what i see is a group of non-trivially interested parties, with a lot of money and 'development' tied up in 99s saying, 'trust us, we know this is fair'. it might be a 'Novel Concept' that those who 'build race and own all of the body/engine styles help write the rules', but i'm not sure they are the only folks who deserve a say. when grand am decides to add rewards weight are they asking the teams who are about to receive an extra 50lb if they think its a good idea?

i reiterate - i'm not 100% certain the current ruleset is perfect. i'm not happy with how the changes were decided and how we were notified of it. but i look at the results of the races i've been in and those in other regions and see things are pretty close. i do see folks with 1.6's and NA 1.8's feeling a lot better about parity. and as a '99 owner with a car i built for the old rules, i see 'the death of the 99s' as greatly exaggerated.

you're right - i'm not the fastest driver to ever strap into an SM, and my car certainly isn't the highest hp (though Rossini makes a hell of a motor, i'm not running $50+/gal fuel nor have a flashed ECU, nor run ceramic bearings, nor any of the other 'development' pieces). but for that very reason i don't think it makes sense to exclude it from an analysis of parity. 99% of those out there racing aren't the fastest driver in the fastest car. why should we craft the rules to make the 1% happy with their cubic spending and 'development' to further distance the '99 from the rest of the cars? i'm not speaking for NASA, but i want parity for equal, typical, prep levels. the $50K cars are simply not relevant to the vast majority of racers, and parity for them is likely not representative for the majority of the fields. i mean, if those folks aren't even willing to share their data in the interest of improving the class, i'm not sure what your issue is.

ahm

[dstevens]

99% of those out there racing aren't the fastest driver in the fastest car. why should we craft the rules to make the 1% happy with their cubic spending and 'development' to further distance the '99 from the rest of the cars? i'm not speaking for NASA, but i want parity for equal, typical, prep levels. the $50K cars are simply not relevant to the vast majority of racers, and parity for them is likely not representative for the majority of the fields.

That's the crux of the issue right there. Good post Adam. The class is broad enough now that the different rule sets define a hobby/regional and a national/top level sort of tier. Rather than splitting the class into two defined groups, it sorts itself out where drivers are still allowed to run with either group. Nothing is stopping those guys from putting the plate and weight on the car.

[Jim Drago]

I have yet to see a 50k car, only argument can be made for one is two cars owned by the same guy in New Hampshire IMO. I'm sure Andrew would sell last years National championship winning car to anyone right now for under 35k. Lambs 2x NASA championship winning car sold for under 30k.