448 replies to this topic

[Tom Sager]

We'll talk with John Mueller when thinking on next years rules, I would like to see the rules the same myself. But we will definitely be on different tires, but if it is only tires, that isn't too terribly different.
Jim

I think the tire difference will prevent more people from crossing club lines due to the extra investment required for wheels for separate rain and dry tires. It's either that or spend a bunch of money on mounting and balancing on top of the tire cost also.

Toyo isn't the tire it used to be IMO. There seems to be truth to the rumor of a compound change as evidenced by the faster wear on recently bought tires and the necessity to cycle more carefully.

[Jim Drago]

I think the tire difference will prevent more people from crossing club lines due to the extra investment required for wheels for separate rain and dry tires. It's either that or spend a bunch of money on mounting and balancing on top of the tire cost also.

Toyo isn't the tire it used to be IMO. There seems to be truth to the rumor of a compound change as evidenced by the faster wear on recently bought tires and the necessity to cycle more carefully.

Well most SCCA guys who want to Run the NASA champs will have plenty of good tires next year, I will be using most of mine next week

[Danny Steyn]

GEEZ JD - 5.54 am!!!!! - dont you ever sleep - I guess you were on the hamster wheel this am!!!!

[Danny Steyn]

The only reason there weren't more '99s at the front is because most of the competitive '99 cars did not come. Don't assume they aren't competitive just because they didn't show up!

Astro - I totally agree with you - I believe that most of the really comeptitive 99s did not show up. Here in the SE we have several top flight '99's and only Bolanos and Blanchard made the trip.

I know for me the decision not to run was simple. I suspect the weight / RP formula that NASA settled on is close, but I just cannot get my car anywhere near the weight without completely gutting the cage and starting again, and I did not want to compete at 60lbs over the limit. We built it for 2450 with me as the driver. I carry zero weight with 1 gallon and come in at 2455.

If NASA keeps the same RP and weight formula, I guess several will consider building cars for NASA

Once again, congrats to all the drivers at the NASA champs who raced cleanly in really tough conditions (bald tires in the rain). I have watched your video several times and it was a great race.

Spec Miata is such a great class and I would hate to see it diverging into different camps in different organizations. I am sure that we all want to cross over as much as possible with the least amount of expense and effort.

[dmathias]

Spec Miata is such a great class and I would hate to see it diverging into different camps in different organizations. I am sure that we all want to cross over as much as possible with the least amount of expense and effort.

+1

[Jim Drago]

I'm sure this will go over well


If you are building a car tomorrow to win the NASA champs under the current rules, YOU ARE NOT picking a 99. The fact that two of the best 99 cars in the country were able to compete is not surprising, the rules are close, but slightly favor other generation cars. If those two drivers applied the same prep level to a 94/97 ( which Alex was set to campaign until he had engine problems) they both would have been further ahead. Justifying rules based on the exception proves nothing.. That is why you didn't see many top 99's there. As far as SCCA you can make the same case with the 1.6 guys at the Runoffs, no one is building a 1.6 to go win the Runoffs right now. Many often remind me of that, some of them do it daily!
Fast lap, race wins etc all sound good for proving your case, pro or con. But that is not showing much except the outlaying data.
NASA IS looking at the data, SCCA is looking at the data. Both sets of rules are very close. Both could be closer.


Some quick calculations..
Current SCCA rules on 90-95% fully prepped cars, very good National cars but certainly not best.


01/05 125/120 20.0 lbs/P
99/00 128/117 20.0 lbs/P
94/97 124/114 19.87 lbs/P
90/93 123/105 19.95 lbs/P

If you add hp+Tq= power number(P) look at the p/lb ratios..


Under current NASA rules, same prep I came up with...

01/05 haven't tested with smaller plate yet
99/00 122/112 20.42 lbs/P
94/97 123/112 19.91 lbs/P
90/93 123/105 19.95 lbs/P


If there is a problem with NASA rules is the 99 is just too heavy for that plate or too small of a plate for that weight..

If there is a problem with SCCA rules is that the weight disparity is too large.. While the power numbers are very close, on small tight tracks the 1.6 pulls out, on long tracks, the weight doesn't hurt as much, the 99 pulls out.. Leaving the 1.8 car good in both types, but rarely the best anywhere.


This is nothing but my opinion mixed with fact. In a perfect world.. All cars would be within 100 lbs and the power number would be 20.0 for all, that would give the best chance to every car at every track. hmmm... That being said, both sets of rules are very close, closer than SRF, we shouldn't forget that. There is always room to tweak the rules, neither are perfect. People in both organizations are working on this constantly to make it as close for everyone as possible. No one is trying to help or handicap any particular year car, even yours, I promise.

Lastly, I respect the job Ryan and John did with NASA rules, taking the step to get the weights closer was a good call, as I said early on, we have been watching the NASA results closely and John and Ryan have been very good to work with and we plan to look at all the NASA data after the Runoffs and before next year and hopefully we can come to the same conclusion and put the cars back on the same rules, which will be best for all of us.

Jim

[dmathias]

Until 'level of prep' is quantified, much of this is subjective.

[Bench Racer]

As close as it is to the Runoffs and with no disrespect to you Jim may I throw a couple curve balls at the data? I would also ask for some dyno hp-tq graph data to be posted.

No names mentioned, but some people get real sensitive before big races at Road America when I talk about the 1.6 & Road America and I don't want to get anyone in a funk.

[FTodaro]

I'm sure this will go over well


Some quick calculations..
Current SCCA rules on 90-95% fully prepped cars, very good National cars but certainly not best.


01/05 125/120 20.0 lbs/P
99/00 128/117 20.0 lbs/P
94/97 124/114 19.87 lbs/P
90/93 123/105 19.95 lbs/P

If you add hp+Tq= power number(P) look at the p/lb ratios..


Under current NASA rules, same prep I came up with...

01/05 haven't tested with smaller plate yet
99/00 122/112 20.42 lbs/P
94/97 123/112 19.91 lbs/P
90/93 123/105 19.95 lbs/P


If there is a problem with NASA rules is the 99 is just too heavy for that plate or too small of a plate for that weight..

Jim

Jim I could not agree more, there is no scientific value to comparing lap times in a race to determine parity. To many variables none of which deal directly with the ability of the car. However the issue of hp/tq to wt is the issue. My 2 cents, the plate need to go to a 39mm at the current wt, and it will be a good compromise. is that horse dead yet.

[Johnny D]

I guess I be fair here.
So is 'What's good for the goose is good for the gander' ???
If there's a sea of 99 at the front at the SCCA runoffs.
Anybody going to take a look at a rule change ?
J~

[James York]

Well there will be a sea of 99s at the front of the Runoffs for sure. Reason, top drivers and in top prepped 99s outnumber the other types of cars (top drivers/prep) combined about 3:1. So statistically it's likely to be 99 podium.

There will be a few 99s scattered around and at the back by inexperienced/lesser drivers but a disproportionate spread.

[Jim Drago]

I guess I be fair here.
So is 'What's good for the goose is good for the gander' ???
If there's a sea of 99 at the front at the SCCA runoffs.
Anybody going to take a look at a rule change ?
J~

I thought I addressed that in my post? Absolutely fair to say!

[Bench Racer]

I'm sure this will go over well

Some quick calculations..
Current SCCA rules on 90-95% fully prepped cars, very good National cars but certainly not best.


01/05 125/120 20.0 lbs/P
99/00 128/117 20.0 lbs/P
94/97 124/114 19.87 lbs/P
90/93 123/105 19.95 lbs/P

If you add hp+Tq= power number(P) look at the p/lb ratios..

Jim, this is not aimed at you.

This conversation from my perspective is relative to Road America only. To which some of you will say, make a point. The point is that in other classes THE SCCA Runoffs races are used to set parity within the class. You bet a different parity can be set for Road America & parity may be as it is for other tracks where parity looks very good.


In some real worlds people look at these ^ numbers & say, round the numbers off & call them equal. Crap, some people wouldn't even round the numbers off. They would call the numbers equal equal.

That 1.6 hp/tq difference used to create the power number which is someones guiding light is a whole lot different that 5/100's lbs/P. Because if you divide the 5/100's lbs/P by the hills at Road America the quotient equals crap.

Me thinks someone is not including the extra 12 foot pounds of torque within the usable torque band the 99 has on the hills of Road America.

Also when were talking parity what do we do with the know fact (per 99 owners)that the 1.6 suspension points/handling sucks compared to the 99? Is that included in the Power Number?

Lets hear from someone that owns a pointy end 1.6.

Jim, you have an e-mail.

[dstevens]

I think what the SCCA CRB is missing is the fact that due to the depth of the class, there are developing different camps with respect to what a particular racer wants to achieve. There are a bunch of racers that aren't interested in spending 30k on a car or spending thousands to run nationally. The difference I see is that SCCA is catering toward the high end of the class. For example look at the change in the rule allowing Runoffs entry. As a result one of the most popular classes has had the car count greatly reduced in order to give the appearance to give the event a greater stature. I don't think that's a good thing for the class or the club.

NASA to me seems to be taking a different approach. They seem to me to be catering to those racers that aren't interested in 30k cars and the expense that goes with preparing a car to that level. It's pretty obvious that many in SCCA have a dismissive and arrogant attitude toward NASA and it's not limited to some in SM. Some people, me included, want to race in a class but not one with as tight a spec as SSM. I think that rather than be concerned about any possible cross over, that each sanction cater to those racers they serve the best. In terms of cross over while some at the pointy end cross over, most of the cross over I can see from looking at MyLaps is from the middle and rear of the pack. I don't see how keeping the rules the same between the two sanctions is good for the long term of the class, particularly given that SCCA seems to be raising the bar in terms of cost over the life of the class. Additionally many seem to think that NASA should just do what SCCA does without respect to the racers that NASA serve. Two sanctions catering to two different sets of of racers with respect to what each group wants from racing.

[James York]

I am more convinced now than ever we will never get the cars balanced enough (in perception) to make the masses happy. I think it might be time to really consider splitting SM into two. One group, 90-97, the other 99-05. I know splitting the class is a hard choice.

For the later cars we could drop some weight and speed them up (open up the restrictor some) and get some time gap to the early cars. This way both groups could run together with minimal chance of screwing up podium results in each group. Maybe that would satisfy more folks?

[Waterboy]

Maybe that would satisfy more folks?

Aren't you an optimist

You would think that would be the case but then there will be plenty that will find something new to whine about. I think the only thing that will make the ones that are whining happy would be to institute a new qualifying rule. The fastest X number of qualifiers have to start from the back so the slower drivers (not cars) might win. Of course when said faster drivers (not cars) still beat them I guess that could be interpreted as theirs cars still being overdogs.

Someone mentioned that SCCA caters to the high end of the class and nasa caters more towards the folks not interested in 30k cars. Completely disagree with the SCCA statement, in fact I think it is just the opposite. There have been numerous conversations about all cars being pretty damn equal everywhere but Road America, possibly Road Atlanta. How does it get any better than that. Two tracks out of how ever many we race on favor one car but the rest are "neutral". Pretty damn good if you ask me.

[dstevens]

Someone mentioned that SCCA caters to the high end of the class and nasa caters more towards the folks not interested in 30k cars. Completely disagree with the SCCA statement, in fact I think it is just the opposite.

The rules changes instituted by the SCCA lately have largely been to add performance to the NA cars to get them more in line with the NB cars. That costs money. NASA, OTHO, much to the displeasure of many 99 owners chose to slow the 99 down rather than increase performance (and cost) of the NA cars. It's the difference between speeding the slower cars up, or slowing the faster cars down. I'm not advocating one over the other rather pointing out the difference in approach.

To James' point about the class split I think that there is a defacto split happening between the orgs based on the respective member community. I was thinking of a split more based on desire/ability/budget rather than car type but perhaps car type is an easier, more just way to split. I think NASA by turning off many of those front runner 99s with the rule change have done this. As for tires, I respect the contract but as stated before I'd still prefer moulded race tires. Perhaps in the next season or two they can come to terms with a common tire.

[Bench Racer]

Aren't you an optimist

There have been numerous conversations about all cars being pretty damn equal everywhere but Road America, possibly Road Atlanta. How does it get any better than that. Two tracks out of how ever many we race on favor one car but the rest are "neutral".

Let's play a different game for grins. Let's talk about Road America where the Runoffs will be for a year or two more after this year. I forget the exact.

The SCCA Runoffs are used as the major gauge for parity within classes. When people don't bring the 1.6 to Road America for the Runoffs because it's the same as binging a knife to a gun fight. Somethings off.

It's been years since a 1.6 has been on the podium at Road America for a national race. IIRC Steve S. from St Louis was the last when the front 11 cars beached it at the Carosel

What's the cure so there's parity for all models at the Runoffs at Road America. Think outside the SCCA box please.

[Bench Racer]

The rules changes instituted by the SCCA lately have largely been to add performance to the NA cars to get them more in line with the NB cars.

Could you please specify these changes for the 1.6.

[Waterboy]

What's the cure so there's parity for all models at the Runoffs at Road America. Think outside the SCCA box please.

Who cares. Runoffs at Road America doesn't have anything to do with the majority of the class. How many SM's are going to be at the runoffs compared to how many SM's race all year long at other events. Since I don't have any idea what your math skills are let says there are 60 SM's at the runoffs, and let's say there are 1,000 SM's (number is much higher i believe) that run the rest of the year. You want to change the rules for the 6%, really? That's just stupid. The runoffs at Road America doesn't mean sh.. to the majority of the racers. Your argument is old.