856 replies to this topic

[Jamz14]

You have no reason to apologize James! Glad you feel comfortable coming on and speaking up Here is reaching out with a big internet hug in your direction 

Thanks Ron. You guys are my family and I sure would miss you if I didn't come on.

[Bench Racer]

Runoffs appeals (and there were appeals) will likely be in the next Fastrack.

John, do you understand why they were sent to the rear of the line and not DQ'ed???

 

Opp's, you don't know Bench Racer.

 

Thanks

David Dewhurst

[John Nesbitt]

I was not a party to the action, so I don't know what the basis was of the decision.

 

We shall just have to wait on the December Fastrack.

[pmiranda]

They have that class, it's called SRF. That is not what Spec Miata was ever meant to be.

 

So, if not a strict spec class, what is SM meant to be? single-make limited prep? 

[Johnny D]

So, if not a strict spec class, what is SM meant to be? single-make limited prep? 

 

Oh, do we want to open this can of worms.

J~

[Mark]

So, if not a strict spec class, what is SM meant to be? single-make limited prep? 

 

Per SCCA GCR Section 9.1.7.A : 

 

A. PURPOSE AND INTENT

The Spec Miata (SM) class is intended to provide the membership with the

opportunity to compete in low cost, production-based cars with limited

modifications, suitable for racing competition.

 

The rules are intentionally designed to be more open than the Showroom

Stock class but more restricted than the Improved Touring class.

 

The bolded text I think goes to the heart of some of the confusion regarding the SM rules. There is no mention of 'Spec' in the intent clause for the class. Because 'Spec' is part of the name of the class many people assume that SM IS a Spec class but it really is not and was never intended to be so though it seems it keeps moving more in that direction over time.  

 

Don't shoot the messenger

Mark

[MPR22]

So, if not a strict spec class, what is SM meant to be? single-make limited prep? 

Not my quote, may be Dragos, " we don't race Spec Miatas we race Similar Miatas."  

[Jim Drago]

Not my quote, may be Dragos, " we don't race Spec Miatas we race Similar Miatas."  

Not mine.. 

[Andrew Charbonneau]

Not mine.. 

So to be open what car do you run please adv

[Andrew Charbonneau]

[Andrew Charbonneau]

ok lets open real deal when did i miss the memo on the engine, computor, weel spacers, kunivila pin ooops no one is supposed to know that one

[Andrew Charbonneau]

Have a basic question for all when do we fix it . I will start today anyone on board ooops should have not used that one

[LarryKing]

The only solution:
Remove all engine "builders" from Amateur SPEC Racing, and create true spec racing with one car, and sealed drive train.      

 They have that class, it's called SRF. That is not what Spec Miata was ever meant to be.

 

That's EXACTLY what the class WAS meant to be.

[Bench Racer]

Posted #63 by Kyle Webb within thread, Should Mazda be directly involved in Spec Miata rules.

Copied to the thread because I stoped posting within this thread ^. 

"How can we be assured that anyone will actually throw their head away and replace? How can we enforce this rule without tear downs each weekend?"

 

There is a rule within Reasonable Protests, Preserving Evidence. Parts can be retained by the SCCA National. One tear down, found illegal with questions, send part to SCCA National office, found to be totally illegal part, do not return part to entrant, part out of circulation.   

 

Maybe that's where the Runoffs heads went.

 

[Jim Drago]

That's EXACTLY what the class WAS meant to be.

I don't know what "it was supposed to be" as I didn't come up with it, wasn't there when it was. There have been bumps and bruises along the way, but what we have now is better than all the rest. Does it fit what all of us hoped "it should be" no.. But it is close enough and why we all continue to race here and no where else.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Posted #63 by Kyle Webb within thread, Should Mazda be directly involved in Spec Miata rules.

Copied to the thread because I stoped posting within this thread ^. 

"How can we be assured that anyone will actually throw their head away and replace? How can we enforce this rule without tear downs each weekend?"

 

There is a rule within Reasonable Protests, Preserving Evidence. Parts can be retained by the SCCA National. One tear down, found illegal with questions, send part to SCCA National office, found to be totally illegal part, do not return part to entrant, part out of circulation.   

 

Maybe that's where the Runoffs heads went.

  maybe you shoudl have cut and pasted this one also????

Sounds like a ridiculous story doesn't it. But don't worry its all true little boys and girls the only illegal heads in this class are on those 8 cars we really have no real problems to solve.as they had the secret pact not to build every head they produced the same way. Bead blasted and deburred. I trust this version of the story please join me in also this deep belief.

[Bench Racer]

  maybe you shoudl have cut and pasted this one also????

Sounds like a ridiculous story doesn't it. But don't worry its all true little boys and girls the only illegal heads in this class are on those 8 cars we really have no real problems to solve.as they had the secret pact not to build every head they produced the same way. Bead blasted and deburred. I trust this version of the story please join me in also this deep belief.

You asked a question, your question was answered. there is a rule in place to insure the heads will never be used again. If the rule were used, sooner than later folks will get tired of giving their cheater heads away for nothing. From info posted yesterday there seems to be much more at play than burrs and it's a whole bunch easier to tech for. And no I don't have a burr up my a$$ and my 1.6 has no burrs up it's tail pipe. Confiscate the heads and let's get on with a more legal racing life.  Now you drag the circus to clowns (not you Jim B.) town.