535 replies to this topic

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

Personally I don't know why everyone is thinking the worst. I think there will be changes but I don't think there going to be ridiculous. In no way do they want to hurt this class. I believe there will be small changes and just a more clear rewrite of the rules.

[Todd Green]

Many years ago the SMAC discussed Lexan windows. This was back in the days of Myself, Fowler, meathead and Drago on the committee. After a lengthy discussion, we turned down the idea, Knowing that approving the Lexan would be a financial "good deal" for us shop owners. As it is a bad idea for the class.

 

part of the issue is that it is not as simple as remove the glass and glue in plastic. SCCA general rules for plastic glass would require 3 internal braces and external clips/straps. Rules also require 1/4" or 7mm plastic, which is not available at the big box stores. Thick Lexan is hard to bend, creates visuale waves when bent.

 

Having a properly formed, 1/4" thick piece of scratch resistant Lexan would be in the $400 range if I agreed to purchase 20 pieces plus pay for the mold. This is from one of the racing industries premier lexan window manufacturers.

 

Thanks for the response Dave.  I already looked into it, because you can do it in PTE/E3 and yes your pricing is about right.  I'd imagine with a large order/group buy it'd be just under $400:

 

http://www.racingshi...ld_pricing.html

 

WRT to wear-n-tear, just allow tear-offs to be put on top of the lexan.  Sure they are not cheap either, but a lot cheaper than 2-3 windshields a year.   Most of the people I've talked to get several years out of theirs with the coating on the Racing Shields and that is without the tear-offs.

 

We can weld a cage in the car, but can't handle doing simple tabs/braces/etc. for the windshield?  Besides they are only recommended, not required (and it is 6mm, not 7 just for the record), though being in 'Merica it'll probably be 1/4" anyway:

 

--- From the GCR:

Alternatively, no clips or straps are required if polycarbonate windshields and rear
windows are securely bolted to the frame.

 

It is recommended that 3 – 1 inch wide strips of steel or aluminum be installed behind the windshield to support it from collapsing inwards if it
becomes damaged.

---

 

Guess I'll just go buy some stock in Safelite and fund my racing from it.

[Karl]

Why did I stay away so long?  This is wonderful reading......

 

...but back to the topic if I may:

 

"the1600 is the LCD" in response to "why do we cater to the LCD?" ???????

 

When attorneys have no case, but they don't want to tell their clients so (too proud, too greedy, etc.), they add new meaningless pleadings to confuse the issue (yes, there are other sound reasons for doing this, but they are all self serving), or just intentionally respond nonsensically until they confuse and frustrate the other side into submission.  No really, it works.

 

I submit that if you can't respond in an organized logical fashion, you should "just go away."

 

The 1600 has less torque than the other models. (LCD)

The 1600 doesn't make as much HP as the NBs ANYMORE (became LCD but wasn't at one point)

The 1600 is much harder to electronically cheat (MOST CLEARLY NOT LCD)

The 1600 offers drivers and mechanics a better educational experience (NOT LCD)

The 1600 does not have cut-out issues like the NB (NOT LCD)

The 1600 offers drivers and mechanics a better educational experience (NOT LCD) Clearly the favorite of the Department of Redundancy Dept.

The 1600 is the lightest platform (NOT LCD)

The 1600 has the weakest diff (LCD if this is not specific to the installation of the Comp LSD) 

etc. (Feel free to add more)

 

Why bother?  If you believe JD, you will all be installing 2.0s in the next three years.  How many of you like that idea?

 

OVERDOG THE 1600 and get Mazda on-board with...

 

"First gen MX-5 (1989-1993): Consistently winning races twenty-five years on."

 

-Remove outer FW ring on 1600 only and reduce min weight from 17.6 lbs by corresponding amount.

-Add another 50lbs to both NBs

-Reduce the RP sizes for the NB by 2 mm each

-DO NOT go back to "Mazda only" machined heads.  In fact, allow port modification into port below valve seats to 9 and 12 mm (distances as currently specified in rules) 

[James York]

Karl,

 

Just out of curiosity since I didn't see any reason for your proposed performance modifications (other than to make the 1.6 the overdog), why make the 1.6L the overdog?  What does that accomplish exactly and how is that "good" for SM?

[Karl]

You missed a few of my posts.  I'll recap in my next one.

 

FYI...what I suggest above your post does not overdog the 1600.

[Karl]

<<why make the 1.6L the overdog?>>

 

1-If you don't it will die away and then be written out of the rules.  That could open the door for the same logic to be applied to the NB when newer models come in.

2-History and Culture.  Ever wonder why so many beautiful old buildings still stand in Europe (and elsewhere) when more energy efficient, etc. buildings can be built on their razed ruins?

3-Great for Mazda Marketing Dept. when they develop the right wording

4-Because the 1600 is a greater challenge to master

5-Its lighter weight rewards lighter drivers.  Perhaps not PC, but if one enters this class to win, then win in other aspects of life.  Their loved ones will thank and or be inspired by them too.  Yes, Kyle, I do understand the "let's just have some fun" part.  To show you how much I'll supply the magic brownies.  Double dose for you so you won't get double the calories.

 

Also note that I do not want it so much an overdog that it will win in mediocre hands, but it should win when both its driver and the others make the same number of mistakes.  It should also be enough of an overdog that it can overcome being brake checked or over-slowed in the middle of a corner by an NB.

[Danny Steyn]

Karl

 

enjoying your contribution as it is stirring up the pot.

 

The only aspect that I would change in your 2nd last sentence above is ...... "but is should be capable of winning when both its driver and the others make the same number of mistakes."

[James York]

 

<<why make the 1.6L the overdog?>>

 

1-If you don't it will die away and then be written out of the rules.  That could open the door for the same logic to be applied to the NB when newer models come in.

2-History and Culture.  Ever wonder why so many beautiful old buildings still stand in Europe (and elsewhere) when more energy efficient, etc. buildings can be built on their razed ruins?

3-Great for Mazda Marketing Dept. when they develop the right wording

4-Because the 1600 is a greater challenge to master

5-Its lighter weight rewards lighter drivers.  Perhaps not PC, but if one enters this class to win, then win in other aspects of life.  Their loved ones will thank and or be inspired by them too.  Yes, Kyle, I do understand the "let's just have some fun" part.  To show you how much I'll supply the magic brownies.  Double dose for you so you won't get double the calories.

 

Also note that I do not want it so much an overdog that it will win in mediocre hands, but it should win when both its driver and the others make the same number of mistakes.  It should also be enough of an overdog that it can overcome being brake checked or over-slowed in the middle of a corner by an NB.

 

 

Fair enough explanation.  But I think your comparing the 90-93 Miatas to the architectural achievements in the old world is a little over the top on the nostalgia factor.  It's just a car.  Mazda moved on, people move on and the racers did also.

 

But I can see your motivation for a vintage class.  Ahhh the glory days....queue Bruce Springsteen. 

 

 

And regards to overdog status in your post above my first,.... you said it not me.

 

 

 

OVERDOG THE 1600 and get Mazda on-board with...

 

 

[LarryKing]

... and the 1999 Miata is 16 model years old - practically vintage.

[pat slattery]

 

[James York]

... and the 1999 Miata is 16 model years old - practically vintage.

 

Yep.  Maybe it is time to pull a SRF.  SM Gen 2.   Everyone has 2 years to go 2006+ or be outclassed at back of field.

[john mueller]

<<why make the 1.6L the overdog?>>

 

1-If you don't it will die away and then be written out of the rules.  That could open the door for the same logic to be applied to the NB when newer models come in.

2-History and Culture.  Ever wonder why so many beautiful old buildings still stand in Europe (and elsewhere) when more energy efficient, etc. buildings can be built on their razed ruins?

3-Great for Mazda Marketing Dept. when they develop the right wording

4-Because the 1600 is a greater challenge to master

5-Its lighter weight rewards lighter drivers.  Perhaps not PC, but if one enters this class to win, then win in other aspects of life.  Their loved ones will thank and or be inspired by them too.  Yes, Kyle, I do understand the "let's just have some fun" part.  To show you how much I'll supply the magic brownies.  Double dose for you so you won't get double the calories.

 

Also note that I do not want it so much an overdog that it will win in mediocre hands, but it should win when both its driver and the others make the same number of mistakes.  It should also be enough of an overdog that it can overcome being brake checked or over-slowed in the middle of a corner by an NB.

 

 

I've always enjoyed Karl's ideas, just not his implementation tactics (too much too fast/soon).  Karl was largely responsible for the direction NASA went we choose different weights & plates.

[Karl]

lol...now you have gone and done it John....the secret is out....

 

but wait a minute...too much too fast??????  Done years ago we would not be here today....okay maybe......but my suggestions right above James' post can't possibly be seen as "too much too fast/soon"

 

James, sorry I'm not communicating well with you it seems.  What I suggested above your post is, for me, a start.  I think you will find even with those changes, the NB drivers will learn how to play the check and run game which I find potentially dangerous.  But as John was kind enough to point out, some have found my desired implementation a tad on the impulsive side.  As a result I have learned to ask for little changes even though I make the desire for more known up front.  (edit.......was that a run-on, or what?)

 

Danny, I don't agree.  My guess is that any given driver will make more mistakes in a 1600 than an 1800 back to back at 100%.  If so, you have to make the 1600 the winner if two drivers have an equal number of errors and one drives a 1600 and the other an NB.  Logical?.....not asking if you agree ;-)    

[Johnny D]

We're really close Karl, so a 1mm adjustment might be more John's speed, mine too.

But it all depends what their big picture is...

Slow down NB's, Speed up NA's or some combo ??

IDK

J~

[Danny Steyn]

Danny, I don't agree.  My guess is that any given driver will make more mistakes in a 1600 than an 1800 back to back at 100%.  If so, you have to make the 1600 the winner if two drivers have an equal number of errors and one drives a 1600 and the other an NB.  Logical?.....not asking if you agree ;-)    

 

Logic depends on your perspective and as a fellow debater, you and I will agree that it all depends on where we want to find it (the perspective)

 

But yes, in essence, with the current performance equalization, I would agree that the 1.6 is more difficult to drive, as the driver has to wring more out of it and keep it on the boil, essentially putting him near to the limit of his comfort zone, so yes, I would expect the driver to make more mistakes. 

 

So here comes the other perspective, if it does go your way, and the 1.6 becomes the overdog, then ipso facto the driver will make fewer mistakes as he drives more within his comfort zone, and hence you would want with the new performance equalization that both drivers have the same chance of winning if they make the same number of mistakes,  ....logical????

[Johnny D]

Did you want to split hairs and talk about the difference in recovering from a mistake in a NA or NB?

J~

[Karl]

Danny, logical if you take out the 100% effort.  I did include that for a reason.

 

Two identical twins (perfectly identical for this example) drive 20 laps in the same time (it's a funny TT for argument's sake).  One does it at an average of 140 beats per minute and the other one at 150.  Who wins if you have to pick one? 

 

I would argue that one of the two was driving more within his comfort zone and would also say that "one" had a better car and over several races one car would prevail more than the other.....and that's not the car that got his heart beating above.

[Karl]

Johnny, I think that goes away with a greater weight delta.  A smaller RP also pulls some torque

[Johnny D]

Ya, all that goes away when everything gets balance, just have to get things balanced, piece of cake.

Let me know when you're done Karl, tomorrow ok?

J~

[Steve Scheifler]

Karl, I hope that "fun to drive" doesn't factor in anywhere.