448 replies to this topic

[Steve D]

... FAIR FIGHT ... Some think it a lower level driver in a low prep level car fighting it out with one of the countries best drivers in one of the best cars.

Again, this is my personal opinion, but that is ludicrous.

Prep and talent will always win. Based on discussions I have had with the other NASA folks, I believe everyone wants to see the cars equalized. Kudos to the powers-that-be for taking a bunch of weight off to attempt to equalize the platforms.

I don't believe anyone with influence truly wants to (or can... or will...) equalize results between the guys who never unload the car from the trailer between races and the guys who are on the scales between each session of a race weekend.

I am but one voice in the NASA discussion but I will loudly, tirelessly argue against the definition of "fair fight" in the quote above.

[john mueller]

One problem is we all define FAIR FIGHT differently. To some it is a budget car fighting fair with a top prep car. Some think it a lower level driver in a low prep level car fighting it out with one of the countries best drivers in one of the best cars. Others it is a top prep car competing with another top prep car, with equal driver abilities.

NASA needs to come out and define for us all what exactly FAIR FIGHT means!

Then you might be able to straighten this whole mess out!

I'm not NASA but I do represent it, so this my opinion:

I'd define your "fair fight" as having nothing to do with the driver. It would be based 100% on the cars performance at the same level of prep (I'd choose mid-pack). In this scenario more talent and prep would usually rise to the top, which IMO is a basic founding principal of this class.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

I'm not NASA but I do represent it, so this my opinion:

I'd define your "fair fight" as having nothing to do with the driver. It would be based 100% on the cars performance at the same level of prep (I'd choose mid-pack). In this scenario more talent and prep would usually rise to the top, which IMO is a basic founding principal of this class.

I understand you are not NASA, but if you were then the only viable option is to take only top prepped cars into account as no matter what you do to the cars with weights and plates great drivers will most certainly prep their cars to the hilt to win races. IMO you cannot base this on cars or dirvers that are mid pack, what happens when one of those drivers decides to get some coaching and really gets into prepping his car? All of a suddent that driver has real advantages that will pass through the tech shed. That is what has brought this whole argument to the forefront IMO. The most serious racers chose the 99's for the most part (not everyone obviously), the most serious racers also prepped the hell out of their 99's, those same drivers would have done the same thing to their 1.6's, I have read all about what Mark Bennett went through to prep his 1.6 and keep it there. Sounds to me like Chains offers you the best testing idea I have heard of late. Offering two top prepped cars one a 1.6 and one a 99. Why not take him up on that, and put this thing to rest.

And the FAIR FIGHT was introduced by Steve D, not by me I just asked the simple question as to what that is supposed to mean.

At least your here and your ears are open. I commend you for that!

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Again, this is my personal opinion, but that is ludicrous.

Prep and talent will always win. Based on discussions I have had with the other NASA folks, I believe everyone wants to see the cars equalized. Kudos to the powers-that-be for taking a bunch of weight off to attempt to equalize the platforms.

I don't believe anyone with influence truly wants to (or can... or will...) equalize results between the guys who never unload the car from the trailer between races and the guys who are on the scales between each session of a race weekend.

I am but one voice in the NASA discussion but I will loudly, tirelessly argue against the definition of "fair fight" in the quote above.

Steve looks like you assume that was my opinion of what a FAIR FIGHT was! Looks almost like your trying to twist my words by cutting out the rest of my question. I would certainly hope not I just want to know what a FAIR FIGHT is to NASA since you brought it up!

[dstevens]

The most serious racers chose the 99's for the most part (not everyone obviously), the most serious racers also prepped the hell out of their 99's, those same drivers would have done the same thing to their 1.6's, I have read all about what Mark Bennett went through to prep his 1.6 and keep it there.

They bought 99s because under that rule set it was the car to have. The rules were changed, they no longer have the advantage in NASA they once had and aren't pleased about it. It seems to me that NASA is looking down market and not at the few that run that level of car.

[Steve D]

Steve looks like you assume that was my opinion of what a FAIR FIGHT was! Looks almost like your trying to twist my words by cutting out the rest of my question.

That was not my intent. You posed a question about whether that was the definition of "fair fight" that NASA was operating under.

My post was meant to support your position that *that* definition of a "fair fight" (i.e. mid-level talent & prep should be able to compete with top-level talent & prep) was ridiculous.

Sorry for the confusion.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

That was not my intent. You posed a question about whether that was the definition of "fair fight" that NASA was operating under.

My post was meant to support your position that *that* definition of a "fair fight" (i.e. mid-level talent & prep should be able to compete with top-level talent & prep) was ridiculous.

Sorry for the confusion.

Thank you for clearing that up! And thanks for answering the question.

[Chris Price]

I'd define your "fair fight" as having nothing to do with the driver. It would be based 100% on the cars performance at the same level of prep (I'd choose mid-pack). In this scenario more talent and prep would usually rise to the top, which IMO is a basic founding principal of this class.

Problem with this is the focus on mid-pack for parity instead of front-pack. Apologies in advance if I'm taking one comment John made out of context, but the mid-pack comment seems really important?

First I'd argue it's pretty difficult to reliably define what "mid-pack" means in terms of driver, car, prep level etc. and arrive at any reasonable gauge of parity there, whereas the front of the pack is pretty easy to define and measure.

Second, take the example of two cars, a 1.6 and a '99. My understanding (and, full disclosure, the reason I own a '99) is that I was told the '99 is much less finicky and much easier to setup and keep in place as a top-level car. The 1.6 needs far more tweaking and tuning for a particular track and day to remain competitive?

If the goal is to spend some mid-pack appropriate amount of XXX dollars and YYY time on both a 1.6 and ’99 and have parity – then the BIG problem is that the resultant ’99 will be fairly close to a top-level '99 whereas the resultant 1.6 will have MUCH more opportunity to benefit from the sort of $$$ and time the top-level guys can throw at it. In other words, I think that seeking parity at mid-pack level is equivalent to handing a big advantage to any 1.6 at front of pack?

The problem is that NASA seems confused in where and why they are seeking parity. Or maybe this is NASA seeking to subjectively please (since objective mid-pack is impossible) the most drivers at one time. If NASA aren't seeking parity at front of pack i.e. placing those who can win races on an even footing to fight it out for the podium, then I really don't understand what the intent is ........ ?

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Problem with this is the focus on mid-pack for parity instead of front-pack. Apologies in advance if I'm taking one comment John made out of context, but the mid-pack comment seems really important?

First I'd argue it's pretty difficult to reliably define what "mid-pack" means in terms of driver, car, prep level etc. and arrive at any reasonable gauge of parity there, whereas the front of the pack is pretty easy to define and measure.

Second, take the example of two cars, a 1.6 and a '99. My understanding (and, full disclosure, the reason I own a '99) is that I was told the '99 is much less finicky and much easier to setup and keep in place as a top-level car. The 1.6 needs far more tweaking and tuning for a particular track and day to remain competitive?

If the goal is to spend some mid-pack appropriate amount of XXX dollars and YYY time on both a 1.6 and ’99 and have parity – then the BIG problem is that the resultant ’99 will be fairly close to a top-level '99 whereas the resultant 1.6 will have MUCH more opportunity to benefit from the sort of $$$ and time the top-level guys can throw at it. In other words, I think that seeking parity at mid-pack level is equivalent to handing a big advantage to any 1.6 at front of pack?

The problem is that NASA seems confused in where and why they are seeking parity. Or maybe this is NASA seeking to subjectively please (since objective mid-pack is impossible) the most drivers at one time. If NASA aren't seeking parity at front of pack i.e. placing those who can win races on an even footing to fight it out for the podium, then I really don't understand what the intent is ........ ?

Well said!!!!!!

[Chains]

If the goal is to spend some mid-pack appropriate amount of XXX dollars and YYY time on both a 1.6 and ’99 and have parity – then the BIG problem is that the resultant ’99 will be fairly close to a top-level '99 whereas the resultant 1.6 will have MUCH more opportunity to benefit from the sort of $$$ and time the top-level guys can throw at it. In other words, I think that seeking parity at mid-pack level is equivalent to handing a big advantage to any 1.6 at front of pack?

well said, are you a politician? if so you got my vote!!

[Caveman-kwebb99]

well said, are you a politician? if so you got my vote!!

Price for Pres!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! even got a vote from someone from both parties!

[Johnny D]

John Mueller

Can you tell us if this is still the thinking of NASA?

"None of these changes would prohibit a SCCA configured vehicle from competing with NASA. NASA wanted to get the 99 cars closer to the actual weight of the 90-98 cars to make it perform the same under braking and corner exit."

J~

[john mueller]

John Mueller

Can you tell us if this is still the thinking of NASA?

"None of these changes would prohibit a SCCA configured vehicle from competing with NASA. NASA wanted to get the 99 cars closer to the actual weight of the 90-98 cars to make it perform the same under braking and corner exit."

J~

It is, kinda... It's becoming apparent that adjusting the NB's down may not be the way to go.

(HA, now lets watch all the NA owners freak )

[Johnny D]

Old quote (Dec), just checking.
Thank you,
J~

[dmathias]

Guys, the season above the Mason-Dixon line hasn't even started yet. Maybe run a few more races - get some more data before the NB crowd starts jumping out windows?

[Alex Bolanos]

Guys, the season above the Mason-Dixon line hasn't even started yet. Maybe run a few more races - get some more data before the NB crowd starts jumping out windows?

I'm sure parity down in FL will improve once you all have some race events up in the North...


Wait what?

[Bench Racer]

I'm sure parity down in FL will improve once you all have some race events up in the North...

Road America is up north.

On another subject:

If I heard correctly there is a ChumpCar double enduro there this weekend. Good time for you sourthern folks to come on up. It's 18* currently.

[juliancates]

On another subject:

If I heard correctly there is a ChumpCar double enduro there this weekend. Good time for you sourthern folks to come on up. It's 18* currently.

I heard that it was postponed by a week and will be happening the following weekend now.

[dmathias]

I'm sure parity down in FL will improve once you all have some race events up in the North

So the basis for NASA's specs should be the 1-2 races you attended at 1-2 tracks?

Sure, why not.

[Alex Bolanos]

So the basis for NASA's specs should be the 1-2 races you attended at 1-2 tracks?

Sure, why not.

No, the basis for NASA's specs is parity in the mid field with mid prep cars. Haven't you been paying attention??