448 replies to this topic

[Cy Peake]

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.

There's no way he's the only one of you guys with $50k+ worth of cars in his stable. And he doesn't even drive any of them!

[Adam Molaver]

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.

i'm sure everyone will agree that you are unlikely at best to get your money back out of a racecar. i think most here are educated enough to know that if they are considering buying one these mondo money cars, if they don't buy the car right off the track, they are not likely getting exactly what was raced. and whats not there are those few items that took a long time to be 'developed', and therefore have the most value.

the sale price of a racecar is not likely to be anywhere near the cost of putting it together. put real $/hr figures on the time spent, and i'd guess there are at least a half dozen $50K cars out there.

ahm

[Jim Drago]

Well at any time, I do mean any time some one likes, they can buy my personal car for 35k, off the track, on the track, before a race, just bring the funds and leave with the car Just leave me my big seat

Jim

[Steve D]

Well at any time, I do mean any time some one likes, they can buy my personal car for 35k, off the track, on the track, before a race, just bring the funds and leave with the car Just leave me my big seat

Jim

But Jim, that's only because you are bad at math!

OK - for guys who don't own prep shops, a $35-40k build cost is not unusual for a tub-up, Nationals quality build. Add a year of "development" and you are $40k+. To the legion of guys out there racing $8-12k Spec Miatas, there ain't a hellova big difference between $40k+ and $50k.

Let's just pretend Adam said "$35-45k" instead of "$50k", and continue the debate...

[Jim Drago]

But Jim, that's only because you are bad at math!

OK - for guys who don't own prep shops, a $35-40k build cost is not unusual for a tub-up, Nationals quality build. Add a year of "development" and you are $40k+. To the legion of guys out there racing $8-12k Spec Miatas, there ain't a hellova big difference between $40k+ and $50k.

Let's just pretend Adam said "$35-45k" instead of "$50k", and continue the debate...

Steve
Please do not teach my wife your accounting practices Regardless of the cost or perceived cost, you can buy a car capable of winning the runoffs, new or used for under 35k..

[dstevens]

Indeed Jim but that misses the bigger point of Adam's post. Which is what segment of racers is best to drive the future of the class. If the benchmark is set too high, you'll start seeing turnouts like at Hallet. (the BFG @ Buttonwillow looks to be about the same)If it's too low it's more like Chumpcar. I think there can be a happy medium. It's looking like NASA for those of us that want to go out and have a bit of fun and SCCA for hardcore, serious club racers.

[Jim Drago]

Indeed Jim but that misses the bigger point of Adam's post. Which is what segment of racers is best to drive the future of the class. If the benchmark is set too high, you'll start seeing turnouts like at Hallet. (the BFG @ Buttonwillow looks to be about the same)If it's too low it's more like Chumpcar. I think there can be a happy medium. It's looking like NASA for those of us that want to go out and have a bit of fun and SCCA for hardcore, serious club racers.

Dave
Or maybe look at last years Runoffs entries in SM, the largest Runoffs field EVER! Or ALL the other races I raced this year.. Sebring 60 Sm's,Texas 40Sm's and Road Atlanta 25 plus. Not sure on NASA car counts at the same tracks? But I think we are doing just fine

I think you missed the point, we(SCCA) feel that you set parity by the best possible version of each car, there are hard core racers in SCCA and NASA,just as there are weekend racers in both organizations. SCCA/NASA differ on how and where to set the parity levels. But make no mistake, at the championship race in NASA, you will see full prep cars, just as "hard core" as any SCCA event, for the most part the guys at the front come from the SCCA

[dmathias]

So if a 99 wins the 2011 NASA Champs will all the NB drivers stop hyperventilating?

[Bruce Wilson]

So if a 99 wins the 2011 NASA Champs will all the NB drivers stop hyperventilating?

Nah, it will just change the driver power rankings

My car is either worth 50k or 18k, just depends on which day you ask...

-bw

[Protech Racing]

It's very hard to get equal lap times with different weight and power cars. It cannot happen, both, on tracks with long straights and tracks that are turning tracks. The dynamics are too far apart.
SCCA is governed by those that race the class, with vested interest in the class. Very hard to get equal cars and rules. SCCA is Very slow , and poorly managed. IMHO. (30yrs)
NASA has done what it takes to get equal cars, same weights , more or less, same power output for 98% of the cars. A great step in the right direction. The 1.6 has a reason to live once again. The 99, or any car, should not be the ringer for the class, for the class to remain large , with new comers.
A mid pack 1.6, can now be a mid pack 1.6. The entry cost is again about 10k for an old 1.6, freshened up.
I am sure that Iam not the only one that has pulled the old car out of the barn to go racing again. MM

[Bench Racer]

^ + 1

[Alex Bolanos]

A mid pack 1.6, can now be a mid pack 1.6. The entry cost is again about 10k for an old 1.6, freshened up.
I am sure that Iam not the only one that has pulled the old car out of the barn to go racing again. MM

A mid pack 1.6 will still be a mid pack 1.6 when an "eeeeevil SCCA front runner" leaves his 99 at home and comes in a front pack 1.6.

As Drago said, the only "change" that these new rules will trigger is the type of headlights at the front. The "entry" cost to SM will still be ~$5k-8k for a tired old one (which is what I started with and still own) and ~$25k-$30k for a shiny new one.... REGARDLESS of generation!

[Johnny D]

It's very hard to get equal lap times with different weight and power cars. It cannot happen, both, on tracks with long straights and tracks that are turning tracks. The dynamics are too far apart.

Not true. I guess you haven't seen us race much in 30yrs, IMO.

NASA has done what it takes to get equal cars, same weights , more or less, same power output for 98% of the cars. A great step in the right direction. The 1.6 has a reason to live once again. The 99, or any car, should not be the ringer for the class, for the class to remain large , with new comers.

I like the "more or less" part.
1.6's lives where I'm at.
A ringer can be 1.6, 1.8 or 99 because it's top prep.
If your happy running mid pack, why is your car in the barn, your still running mid pack?
J~

[Jim Drago]

It's very hard to get equal lap times with different weight and power cars. It cannot happen, both, on tracks with long straights and tracks that are turning tracks. The dynamics are too far apart.

David Dewhurst, since you agree and know this information...

Can you please quote the best 1.6 lap times at Road America of Mr. Slattery (1.6)and that of the winner Mr Von Charbs (99)from last years Runoffs.. (The longest straights) Or say Mr. Buras (1.6)at Barber last year a few weeks before the same Runoffs vs any of the 5 of the top 15 99 's at the Runoffs, who were also at that race. The two tracks could not be more dynamically opposite. (Barber is all turns and short straights)

In case you can't remember the times are on my laps. But don't let the facts stand in the way of a good story.

SCCA is governed by those that race the class, with vested interest in the class. Very hard to get equal cars and rules.

Not only 100% incorrect, but in poor taste as well.
Jim

[Steve D]

Not only 100% incorrect, but in poor taste as well.
Jim

Hear, hear. I do believe that the powers that be in both SCCA and NASA are making what they believe are the best decisions for their racers - and ultimately the health of each sanctioning body's coffers.

The continual insinuations - or outright accusations - of ulterior motives, conspiracies, and conflicts of interest are so unbelievably tiresome...

Jim and I don't have the same view of "parity" and how to achieve it, but I respect him completely for the countless hours he has put into the class.

Neither SCCA or NASA is trying to screw any of you out of a chance to race a competitive car. Even with five different cars, those who came before me set up a class that is tight as a tick. Compare SM lap time differentials with SRF lap time differentials. Can we get it even closer? I'd like to try. Are the "dynamics too far apart"? Hardly.

[dstevens]

Not only 100% incorrect, but in poor taste as well.

It's in no more poor taste than the guys that have attacked John and Steve's character.

[Bench Racer]

Jim Drago, I also respect all the time, effort & money you have coffed up while being part of the SCCA SMAC & CRB. Later, I need to watch Law & Order SVU. I shall return, but you all ready knew that.

[Bench Racer]

David Dewhurst, since you agree and know this information...

Can you please quote the best 1.6 lap times at Road America of Mr. Slattery (1.6)and that of the winner Mr Von Charbs (99)from last years Runoffs.. (The longest straights)

In case you can't remember the times are on my laps. But don't let the facts stand in the way of a good story.

Jim

jIM dRAGO, it's always fun to debate with you. In this case I took out the fluff that you always like to use. & of course when I post what you don't want to respond to you use your selective responding skills. I could care less about Todd & short tracks. I also could care less about the infamous SCCA Runoffs report by you know who. I also could list the prominent SCCA drivers that have tryed the 1.6 at Road America or will not bring their 1.6 or will not build a 1.6 for use at Road America because they know it's like bringing a knife to a gun fight. You have heard & know these same drivers. I'm in agreement that the 1.6 on short tracks/driver tracks the SCCA parity for the 1.6 is ok. I also know from your posts that the 1.6 is short in the chassis department & that per you many of the 1.6 drivers don't have their $hit together. The two time national championship winning driver that has interest in driving my new build 1.6 has his $hit together.

2010 Runoffs qualifying:

Andrew 2:44.297

Shawn 2:45.314

2010 Runoffs race:

Shawn 2:46.801

Andrew 2:46.982

Golly gee, according to these stats & the infamous 2009 SCCA report Shawn won the 2010 SCCA Runoffs.

Now on to a couple items we can talk about face to face the first time we meet at a CenDiv race:

Item A. The SCCA standard for driver weight when classing cars vrs what was used when classing Spec Miata cars other than the 1.6.

Item B. The normal SCCA process used when classing cars. Please think in terms of full prep production cars vrs limited prep production cars withinthe same production class. We have the same deal in Spec Miata with the drastically different motors(per me)/chassis(per you) betwen the 1.6 & the 99 cars when it comes to Road America.

Law & Order SVU was really good tonight.

[Jim Drago]

The two time national championship winning driver that has interest in driving my new build 1.6 has his $hit together.

Ok to clarify..
Lap times don't matter, data doesn't matter. We are using an Al Davis approach here? Until a 1.6 wins at Road America, we don't have parity?

If you get that driver to drive your car at Road America( or anywhere else for that matter) with anywhere north of 120/105 SAE on dynojet. (I'm assuming the 4 years you took to build it means you did a good job) You will be eating crow soon enough. Your sure you want to know the answer?

If that driver ( or any his caliber) shows up in a good 1.6 and is uncompetitive, it would prove your case IMO.

Jim

[Weekend Warrior]

...and I thought my engine builds took a long time.....