448 replies to this topic

[dmathias]

Just for you Kyle.

[dstevens]

Maybe I read the question wrong, but I think Mike is asking if a nationally competitive car and driver should run head-to-head against a regionally competitive car and driver. And the answer is yes?

That's what I was alluding to in my earlier post. This single class means different things to different people. When the rules are slanted to the high buck cars you may find fewer cars overall. It's a generalization but it's true regardless of car type, class or sanction. At that point the guys that don't have the funds sell them or put the car up on stands. I don't see a 20k plus car as being a cost conscious class. But it's all a matter of perspective. Compared to a GT or even a Pro Series circle track car it's pretty cheap. When a class goes national this sort of thing is bound to happen.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Just for you Kyle.

Dude I love it!!!!!!!!! The SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING.........

Thanks Denny you made my day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Aparently you do not have to be SM National champion to be a TOP NOTCH YOUTUBE champion!!!!!!!!!!

See you at Mid Oh in 21 days!!!!!

[Johnny D]

That's what I was alluding to in my earlier post. This single class means different things to different people. When the rules are slanted to the high buck cars you may find fewer cars overall. It's a generalization but it's true regardless of car type, class or sanction. At that point the guys that don't have the funds sell them or put the car up on stands. I don't see a 20k plus car as being a cost conscious class. But it's all a matter of perspective. Compared to a GT or even a Pro Series circle track car it's pretty cheap. When a class goes national this sort of thing is bound to happen.

FYI, there's SSM if you don't like it.
J~

[dstevens]

FYI, there's SSM if you don't like it.

On the other end of the spectrum there's always Spec MX5 or Playboy Cup. It's not about either liking or not liking it, it's recognizing there are different issues that at times must be addressed. The class has grown by leaps and bounds since inception and allowing basically 3 different cars has compounded the difficulty in getting a rules package together. I don't see SSM as viable because it's a different class in many regions. Plus I don't know that splitting a class like SM (which is really a limited prep class now, not spec) which is arguably the largest production sports car class in the country is necessarily a good thing. I think parity formulas with larger classes is a healthy option. The hard part is the parity formula.

[Johnny D]

We're getting off topic and if you start a new thread will see how far it goes but.

Don't quote me on everything here but paraphrasing.

You said part of the reason/problem was it being in national, top prep vs grass roots (or mid pack, etc.)
Cost and having the all in one group.

SSM
Not National,
Really doesn't have top prep, but I guess it's possible to have a pro built SSM car.
Costs are lower because of the spec rules.
Yes, there 1 or 2 1.8's but mostly all 1.6's.
What's not to love.

As for me, I know what I have (car) and how good I am.
I know who is pro built and who is on a shoe string budget and in between. (mostly)
I don't need a sticker on the side of my car telling me a class for me to feel good or bad about how well I did that day.
My 2 cents.
J~

[john mueller]

We're getting off topic and if you start a new thread will see how far it goes but.

Don't quote me on everything here but paraphrasing.

You said part of the reason/problem was it being in national, top prep vs grass roots (or mid pack, etc.)
Cost and having the all in one group.

SSM
Not National,
Really doesn't have top prep, but I guess it's possible to have a pro built SSM car.
Costs are lower because of the spec rules.
Yes, there 1 or 2 1.8's but mostly all 1.6's.
What's not to love.

As for me, I know what I have (car) and how good I am.
I know who is pro built and who is on a shoe string budget and in between. (mostly)
I don't need a sticker on the side of my car telling me a class for me to feel good or bad about how well I did that day.
My 2 cents.
J~

In NASA all classes are "National"
In NASA SSM is 1.6's only

[smscca]

Road Atlanta SCCA Double National Qualifying Times are posted:

Saturday Qual:


http://www.mylaps.co....jsp?id=1804947


Sunday Qual:

http://www.mylaps.co....jsp?id=1804953



NASA Road Atlanta results from previous week - Lightning division:

http://www.mylaps.co...t.jsp?id=632633


Interesting to see the lap time difference between Cliff's 99 in NASA v/s SCCA trim. Weather, draft, track conditions, etc most likely account for a significant portion of this lap time difference.


Looks like this is going to be a great race. I would love to be on the bridge at 10 watching this one.

[dmathias]

See you at Mid Oh in 21 days!!!!!

+1

[5X Racing]

John,

I've tried to stay out of it but your last comment is exactly why NASA should seriously consider a 39mm plate with a little more weight. I don't care where you race (NASA or SCCA) the crossover gap is too large. Both groups need the crossover or one group will die a slow and painful death. To have both groups so entrenched in their postitions is harmful. Keep in mine a lot of 99 drivers can't make your weight anyway so whats the point. Remember the group that levels the playing field completely will ultimately win. To have a group favor one car over another car is just wrong.

Just my humble opinion from someone who wants his cake and be able to eat it too. My comments are not meant to offend anyone. I just want to be able to support both groups in my area as painless as possible.

George Munson

George,

Glad you did join the conversation, we woke the bear from hibernation! You're a Mc Donalds guys huh? No tomatoes and lettuce for you. Your input is duly noted, there's no need to rehash anything I said previously, I think everyone knows my opinion maybe a little too much right now! BUT, you are basing all of your opinions on hear-say of how the NASA rules are working out from the point of view of a loyal SCCA racer that has not used the NASA rules on your 99 yet. Like you, I imagine a lot of people in here are basing their opinions on hear-say without having gone bumper to bumper on track with a 99 in 2011 NASA trim. How can anyone be sure of the effects based on the results from only two regions or so reporting after their first race or two of the season?

So, here's my pitch: Get that beautiful 99 of yours out to our next event in May, and we'll do the same testing that we did on Alex's car on yours. We were not able to collect data to send to NASA national because Alex forgot to turn on his traqmate, so we would like to gather some more. I would consider your 99 the most legal, built to the rules car that would encompass the majority of 99 owners competing in NASA competition, so it would be a good test to determine if the rules are too restrictive on the more "fun seeking/competitive blend" of 99 drivers (that's a fair assumption, right?). If I can pull it off, I will try to get you free track time in either the other race group or one of our time trial groups and you can run the car in SCCA trim. You run in the SM class using NASA rules, then you run in the other group in PTE class with SCCA rules, we compare the difference. Or, if you are not comfortable doing this at Homestead, we can try to do it for the Sebring race where you are most comfortable. Jim just did this for Alex at our last event, but like I said the data unable to be collected.

Sound good? You want to keep that car clean right? Here's a chance to help out NASA (your words: "I just want to be able to support both groups in my area as painless as possible"), and put yourself in a different environment than you are used to with the SCCA and see how you like our fun based approach compared to CFR SCCA's hard nosed competition approach that you are used to. I know you've raced with us once before about a year ago, but it really takes a couple of races to get in the swing of the way we do things. Plus, we might be needing an assistant SM director here soon if we keep getting the amount of SM's racing that we saw at our last event. I'd love to have a guy that is in a 99 and can provide us with consistent results in case we do really need to change the rules. Gotta be dedicated though, that means a full season with us!

Just a little history for everyone: George, Jim B, and myself have been friends for years and talk about this stuff regularly. We are constantly trying to get George to come out to our NASA events and bring his wisdom and influence to our race group, but he has been reluctant because he enjoys the competition and car count found in our local SCCA events. I am NOT calling him out as much as I am just giving him a hard time for fun. Although, I'd love to see him take my offer...

[5X Racing]

Everyone,

After thinking about this for the weekend, and talking about it with my father, who now races an SM and was a professional tunnel boat racer for many years, there is something we must remember, and that is when something becomes so serious and "professional", sometimes it stops being fun. He has climbed the ladder from local races to nationally televised professional races, and his best memories in boat racing was when he was at the "regional" or local level during the beginning of his amateur career because it was a bunch of his friends having a good time. This is getting a little too serious about these rule changes between the organizations. I mean, c'mon, we have only had a couple of races this season to determine if the rule changes are accurate or not, and two were from Florida and the Southeast. We still need to hear from the NE, NW, CA, Mid Atlantic, and Mid-Ohio based NASA regions to see how the changes effected their 99 participants. Isn't everyone being a little assumptious here? Shouldn't we let some races be run all over the country and then determine if the new rules are lopsided? If they are, John Mueller has said multiple times that they will adjust them if needed, and Frank is right, we don't need a plate change three months after we just had to buy a new plate, that's ridiculous.

My report from our experiences in FL were that the new rules worked well at bringing a top flight 99 to level ground with a top flight 1.6 (I think Cliff's car and mine are pretty stout 1.6's). Some thought they worked too well and would scare off potential 99 racers, which is a valid concern, but we all have to let the organizations make their own decisions and go with them and see where it takes us. Like it or not, just go with whatever rule package works for you the best if you are in it for the all out competition, or go with whatever organization you have the most fun participating in regardless of the rules. Let's let the other regions check in with their test results and then we can start arguing again. Just remember, if it all gets so serious that it ceases to be fun, then people will quit or look for another class (I highly doubt these problems arise in NASA PT classes or SCCA IT classes, damn that sounds nice doesn't it?) because it becomes too much trouble or too much controversy for the average fun seeker to want to deal with. So, let's not bite the hand that feeds us and kill our own class in either organization. We are in a strange position of control because the SCCA has the SMAC which is comprised of a committee that hears the requests of the members and makes decisions based on them, and NASA has a National Spec Miata director that does the same thing (they did do extensive real world testing before committing to a rule set though). Let's not run our racer controlled class into the ground.

In the meantime, I am going to start building a radical 99 miata to whoop up on all of those overrated NASA PT cars and SCCA IT cars. I'm tired of all these rules!!!

[Alex Bolanos]

Sorry I'm a bit late to this thread, let me go back and reply to some of John's assessments...

[Alex Bolanos]

[quote name='5X Racing' timestamp='1300290571' post='4217']
Just did a NASA weekend at Homestead-Miami speedway this past weekend and did a test with the new NASA 99 rules on Alex Bolanos' front running SCCA national car. I must say, if NASA was looking to eliminate the advantages a top level 99 has, they hit the nail right on top of the head!

The basis was to Test the NASA rule set for 99's on a front running SCCA driver and car for Saturdays spec miata racing, and then have him switch to the SCCA rule set and race in the PT class in our "thunder" group (big, fast cars). It was ideal because it was the same driver, same car, same tires, on the same weekend. On Saturday, the race results were:
1st: 1.6 (Blanchard)
2nd: 99 (Rollin)
3rd: 1.6 (Wehmeyer)
Bolanos (99) was running second to Blanchard when he dropped out of the race prematurely, and I (1.6) was running 3rd closely behind Bolanos when I had a handling issue that kept me from turning consistent laps. When we all gathered at impound, everyone came in right on weight and the results were staggering, the top 3 lap times (Blanchard, myself, and Bolanos) were all within tenths, hundreds, or even thousandths of a second off of each other in the 1:48 range! All of our cars are built well and are fast, with the higher level of prep and development going to Alex's car, as it is his SCCA championship chaser.

[/quote]

I had to pit prematurely due to an engine issue but there was zero chance of catching Blanchard with the 37mm plate on my car. He easily controlled the pace of the race and had another half second in the bag if anyone caught him.

[quote name='5X Racing' timestamp='1300290571' post='4217']

On the track, the cars were EXACTLY the same in terms of power.

[/quote]

Exactly, two 1.6s and two 99s with the same horsepower and the 99s carrying ALOT more weight.

[quote name='5X Racing' timestamp='1300290571' post='4217']
Several times throughout the race I found myself inches from Cliff or Alex's bumper and could not even bump draft them, where in previous races against Alex's 99 at the same track using last years 99 rules, he walked away from me out of the corners and through the mid range.
[/quote]

I may have walked away from you on corner exits with the 2010 rules but if you recall, Blanchard and myself traded the lead 5+ times at the last NASA event of 2010 at Homestead. He was driving his 1.6 and I was in my 99.

[quote name='5X Racing' timestamp='1300290571' post='4217']
Alex was supposed to provide data from his traqmate for submission to NASA national, and I am not sure what happened on that front.
[/quote]

The data wouldn't have been accurate, I had to park my 99 and the traqmate didn't work in Cliff's 99 on Sunday for the lightning race unfortunately.

[quote name='5X Racing' timestamp='1300290571' post='4217']
Alex did not run his car on Sunday, he ran Cliffs other car, which is a 99. He ended up finishing 3rd behind Blanchard and myself, his lap times were a half second or so off of ours, which is understandable being he was in a car that was not his.
[/quote]

There was two races within the lightning race on Sunday, you (1.6) and Blanchard (1.6) in the distance and Selin (99) and myself (99) at least a straightaway back. I have run a 2:35.6 in my 99 and a 2:35.7 in Cliff's 99 at Sebring, both cars are clone Autotechnik 99s....

[quote name='5X Racing' timestamp='1300290571' post='4217']
Since Alex's car was parked, no data was able to be gathered from the experiment using the SCCA rules in the PT class. Cliff's car was racing in PT with Alex at the wheel, but I am unsure if the SCCA plate was used or of they just had a fun run with no plate, because the lap times were in the 1:47.5 range, which was faster than any SM time of the weekend.
[/quote]

I ran the Thunder race for fun with no plate, the results from the Saturday race already showed NASA National what they wanted to accomplish with the new rules.

[quote name='5X Racing' timestamp='1300290571' post='4217']
So, this is what happened when a top level driver, in a top prepped 99 used the 2011 NASA SM rules in a race with other well prepped 1.6's (no na 1.8 cars in the top 5). At this track, the car was dead even with the 1.6. Essentially what I see here is that NASA's new rule set made a top level 99 no better than a well prepped 1.6. This might have been the point in NASA's rule change, and if so, they have nailed it.
[/quote]

To be clear (and Blanchard will attest to this), neither of your 1.6s are at the same level of prep as my 99, Blanchard's 99, or Selin's 99. Your car has never been to a dyno and Cliff has a 150k mile block in his car, both of your motors have untapped potential. I ran my car as I would run it at the big show.

[quote name='5X Racing' timestamp='1300290571' post='4217']
I also think that NASA has it's own program and agenda, which is to build up it's race group within it's own HPDE ranks and not rely on crossover racers from the SCCA, and keeping the rules the way they are for the 99 cars will do that, as top prepped 99's and their owners will most likely stick with the SCCA where their cars are faster. But the 85% of regional based SM owners that don't have top prepped 99 front running cars will be happier in NASA competition, as their cars will be more competitive then they would be in SCCA competition.
[/quote]

Finally, we agree. NASA's agenda appears to be to have top shelf 99s from SCCA be even with low prep 90-97 cars for regional events. Nail, head, bang.

[quote name='5X Racing' timestamp='1300290571' post='4217']
Call it "not good for the better or the class", but I think it will prolong the class. The racers with home built or mid pack early na cars will come back out of the woodwork and jump back into the sport without thinking they need a pro prepped 99 to be competitive. We have seen this happen already, we had several new drivers attend this past race that have not raced with us before, and they didn't come up through the NASA HPDE ranks.
[/quote]

Home built 90-97 cars will still lose to top prepped 90-97 cars, the results will be the same. The only difference is that competitive drivers will show up with pop up headlight cars.

[Alex Bolanos]

So? A nationally competititive '99 with top driver runs heads up with a well built regional 1.6 and good regional driver?

[Mike Collins]

That's what I thought.

[Alex Bolanos]

[quote name='5X Racing' timestamp='1300364738' post='4275']

I think the new rules are fair, everything should be based off the 1.6 cars in my opinion because they have been developed and proven for 10 years now.
[/quote]

Really?

[quote name='5X Racing' timestamp='1300364738' post='4275']
If the 99's keep getting faster (which they did with the timing and fuel pressure allowance), we will have to make the 1.6's faster to equalize.
[/quote]

Flashed computers = Manual FP/Timing change, the front running 99s did not get faster which is what we're talking about here.

[quote name='5X Racing' timestamp='1300364738' post='4275']
Call me ignorant, but from what I see down here In FL (and from the after race impound talk), NASA did a good job with the new rules.
[/quote]

Which part of my "this weekend is a waste of mileage on my motor" impound statement gave you that impression?

[quote name='5X Racing' timestamp='1300364738' post='4275']
If things are grossly lopsided with parity, then NASA will adjust it, just like the SCCA does.
[/quote]

-8hp is not an adjustment, it's a clear message.

[quote name='5X Racing' timestamp='1300364738' post='4275']
As a business minded person, I see NASA catering to the majority of SM racers out there and SCCA catering to the guys that can afford to build top prepped 99's and are more "competition hungry" than "fun seeking".
[/quote]

To some, "competition hungry" = "fun seeking". It's possible to build a top prepped 1.6 and 1.8 too, you'll see it this year at Mid-O A business minded person would see the value in making it easy for an SCCA 99 to come to a NASA weekend and be competitive. Having to re tune the car to counter a 4mm plate change and re cornerweight the car to counter a -60lb ballast change (assuming you can even remove that much) is not convenient.

[Jim Drago]

Me too. but I didn't want to get involved.


I figured I would corner Alex this weekend as I was surprised how his experience could be so different than what I saw on dyno etc. When I told him of this thread, he looked at me like I had a third eye coming out of my head. Blanchard laughing the entire time, respectively telling me he was literally just driving around. Time will tell where this leads.
I rate Alex as one of the top 15-20 drivers in the country, if he cant compete, something is wrong. I suspect he may come back in a the old 18 car and see what happens? However, that may be the desired effect?
Jim

[5X Racing]

Alex,

Wow! Looks like you took some offense to my opinions. Why? They were based on what I saw at homestead involving you and your car in a proposed test of the new NASA weight and plate rules on 99 cars. Nothing was directed at you, it involved your name as you were our test subject. You seemed to be the only one dissatisfied by the results there (I know, you were the only front running 99 driver present). Based on the majority of drivers there, even Cliff said he thought NASA did a good job with the new rules!

So Alex, it's safe to say with your current level of prep, program, money spent, and aspirations, your better suited to run your 99 with the SCCA?
It sounds like you didn't have a good time at our last race despite Jim busting ass to get the new NASA plates overnighted for the test because you were going to show up without one and run with the notion of "throw paper at us if you want, but I am running in SCCA trim"; given extra track time at no charge to use for the purpose of testing the SCCA rules back to back with the NASA rules on the same weekend and not even use the SCCA plate in the test run. Thats a shame, I hate seeing people not have fun at our events. But you still did good despite your gross disagreeance with the new rules. Did you even know that you had fast lap in Saturday's race? I am sure you could have caught Cliff and held me off knowing that.

You're right, at least we agree on something, that is NASA does not want to rely on crossover racers from the SCCA and the assumption that their agenda is to keep top shelf 99's in the SCCA. Let's see what happens.
And, in my opinion a business minded person (or organization) can see what will kill their business and drive their best customers away and proactively avoid it before it happens (hmm, maybe I should stay out of these conversations...).

Thanks for your input, I wish we could have collected that data from you, it would have been useful for national to determine whether or not to adjust the rules. Now we are still just basing our facts on lap times and opinions unfortunately.

Thanks for your input

[5X Racing]

Hey, and I could be wrong too, which is why I stressed the "let's see what happens" with more data and race results using the new rules. If car counts decrease in NASA and they change the rules to aid the 99's and more people show up, then it was the wrong move to begin with. I can't help that some were in disagreeance with my report of the results during our race using Alex's car as a subject, its just what I saw while going nose to tail with Alex during the race in real time.

If I am wrong and they dont work out, then they don't work. Simple as that.

[Alex Bolanos]

Alex,

Wow! Looks like you took some offense to my opinions. Why? They were based on what I saw at homestead involving you and your car in a proposed test of the new NASA weight and plate rules on 99 cars. Nothing was directed at you, it involved your name as you were our test subject. You seemed to be the only one dissatisfied by the results there (I know, you were the only front running 99 driver present). Based on the majority of drivers there, even Cliff said he thought NASA did a good job with the new rules!

John, this isn't personal. I'm just correcting your synopsis of the weekend because I found it to be inconsistent with my findings. It's clear that you have an anti SCCA/anti top level prep attitude and you don't want to race against people that spend more time/money to prep their cars than you do (your words not mine).

P.S. I'm sorry that you didn't see the humor in Cliff's post race commentary, I'll see you with my '94 at the next one