535 replies to this topic

[James York]

Since we seem to be debating a bit, I will add some thoughts:

 

1.6 and 1.8L cars are not staying away (in my opinion) due to lack of perceived parity.  Most of the drivers I know in those cars don't even frequent the forum or worry about such things.  They are staying away because the economy still sucks for most, costs have risen to race and competing priorities in life.

 

The reason I believe this is the local NASA region still has boatloads of early cars show, and they have exactly the same rules other than tires as the SCCA.  People that run at the front typically have the financial means to run any car they want or that is felt best.  So no rule change is suddenly going the vocal few on this forum to suddenly podium if the early cars are "made" superior by rule changes.  The front runners will just change cars.  Rule change are not going to suddenly increase turnout.

 

This is the same discussion year after year.  I'll say it again, to eliminate it once and for all, all cars should be allowed to run the NB suspension, and update to a 99+, powertrain.  Then the only difference is sheetmetal.  Then the parity discussion is done.  And make these updates optional, so anyone who thinks they are podium material but their early car is holding them back will surely update, but the pure budget have fun racer is not required to do so.

[steveracer]

Since we seem to be debating a bit, I will add some thoughts:

 

1.6 and 1.8L cars are not staying away (in my opinion) due to lack of perceived parity.  Most of the drivers I know in those cars don't even frequent the forum or worry about such things.  They are staying away because the economy still sucks for most, costs have risen to race and competing priorities in life.

 

The reason I believe this is the local NASA region still has boatloads of early cars show, and they have exactly the same rules other than tires as the SCCA.  People that run at the front typically have the financial means to run any car they want or that is felt best.  So no rule change is suddenly going the vocal few on this forum to suddenly podium if the early cars are "made" superior by rule changes.  The front runners will just change cars.  Rule change are not going to suddenly increase turnout.

 

This is the same discussion year after year.  I'll say it again, to eliminate it once and for all, all cars should be allowed to run the NB suspension, and update to a 99+, powertrain.  Then the only difference is sheetmetal.  Then the parity discussion is done.  And make these updates optional, so anyone who thinks they are podium material but their early car is holding them back will surely update, but the pure budget have fun racer is not required to do so.

Agreed. I've said this also in years past,

 

Let me add, except for 2 people who want the NA's to be regional only, it appears many respected members of the SM community (Steyn, Kuch, etc) are backing improvements to the 1.6's in hopes of increasing turnout.

So, what if as Drago says we make these changes and no more 1,6's show up, who looses/ what harm is done? The point will be moot. But, what if more 1.6's DO show up?! Who looses/ what harm is done?

[Steve Scheifler]

I'm not taking sides in this at the moment because I'm not sure a really good solution exists even assuming the 1.6 needs help. However, as the owner of several NAs and one VVT, a more competitive 1.6 would in fact increase the likelihood of me racing SM. But I aknnowlege that I am rarely in the majority on anything.

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

I will ask the same question I always ask...
If in a perfect world if we made these cars as even as possible without drastic changes why would anyone chose to build the 1.6 or even the 1.8 at this point? The NB car is newer car with suspension upgrades over the na car and the cost to build one is the same or less at this point.
The only reason would be if at a clear advantage. I also don't buy that all these 1.6 and 1.8 cars are siting in garages just waiting to start running 6 plus weekends a year when the parity favors them. You remember when all were congratulating NASA on getting the rules "right" where we finally favored the 1.6 and all these cars would start racing again ? They never showed.. Remember Arrc SM2 again.. 1.6 cars not showing bc of the rules... Again it failed as none came out. When a good one does come, everyone calls him a cheater.
The majority are clearly NB cars racing regionally and the majors at this point. If we truly feel slanting the rules to favor the NA cars at this point would bring more people out.. I could at least entertain this position.. But this has not proved to work, so all we would be doing is penalize the competitors who are actually racing and paying the enter fees etc.
As far as us and the 1.6, I can openly tell you that our intention is to at the very least to test the hell out of the 1.6 at Daytona. BSI took Todd's 1.6 to the tub and it is coming back to me in about 6 weeks. We will run whatever is fastest at Daytona. The 7200 rpm rev limiter and talks of smaller plates on nb cars will make it a very attractive package there.

I kind of agree and kind of disagree. The only reason I'm having a hard time with this is because I had a pretty good past record. I have had 3 Reg. NEOHIO championships and the one year I went to the runoffs I finished 2nd in National points behind the one and only MB. So I'm not a slug,but every year after that it has been harder and harder to get on the podium. My car has more power then I had back then and still gets harder every year. What makes it worse is the fact that guys I used to crush come out with a newer car and I have to drive my a$@ of to keep up with them when they still don't know the correct racing lines. I can almost bet that you guys will test the 1.6 for Daytona but stay with the 99+ car. The only reason is, you might get the 1.6 to get a great qualifying lap but will realize you can't run a whole race at that pace and would cook the tires off by lap 8. And even if it is the car to have the next year will Mid-O and definitely be back in the same boat unless your Murtick.

Hell I wish I was in a position to buy a new car and then I wouldn't have anything to say. But I'm just trying to get the most bang for my buck !
You know I still love you Jim ! Lol

[FTodaro]

Since we seem to be debating a bit, I will add some thoughts:

 

This is the same discussion year after year.  I'll say it again, to eliminate it once and for all, all cars should be allowed to run the NB suspension, and update to a 99+, powertrain.  Then the only difference is sheetmetal.  Then the parity discussion is done.  And make these updates optional, so anyone who thinks they are podium material but their early car is holding them back will surely update, but the pure budget have fun racer is not required to do so.

On your first point, I paddocked with Novak all this year, who started this thread, we never listen to him anyway so the debate is on.

 

On your second point, i would like to hear more about why this option would not work, i do not know how hard it would be to put a 99 motor in a 1.6 shell, i would think its the motor, the wiring harness, and maybe a drive shaft if they had not yet done a torsen swap, it seams like it would be a simple solution. What do the 1.6 guys think?

[davearm]

Just curious, what is the availability of 99 motors for this swap if it should happen?

[Steve Scheifler]

Or more specifically, heads.

[Duncan]

On your first point, I paddocked with Novak all this year, who started this thread, we never listen to him anyway so the debate is on.

 

On your second point, i would like to hear more about why this option would not work, i do not know how hard it would be to put a 99 motor in a 1.6 shell, i would think its the motor, the wiring harness, and maybe a drive shaft if they had not yet done a torsen swap, it seams like it would be a simple solution. What do the 1.6 guys think?

 

The wiring would probably be the most challenging part of the swap.  These swaps are fairly common on miata.net, but most people use the stock 1.6 harness with minor modifications and add a standalone ECU.  To use the factory ECU, you'd probably need most of the wiring harness from an NB car.  

 

Duncan

[Steve Scheifler]

It just makes no sense to me. Way too much just to salvage an old tub & cage, and no chance at all that large numbers of current 1.6 owners looking for a little help would, or could, do it.

There might not be a good answer, but there is no shortage of bad ones. 😝

[James York]

It just makes no sense to me. Way too much just to salvage an old tub & cage, and no chance at all that large numbers of current 1.6 owners looking for a little help would, or could, do it.

There might not be a good answer, but there is no shortage of bad ones.

 

Ok, everyone.  There you have it.  Your 1.6s have no value.  Worthless tubs and cages.  No wonder you guys don't race, it's not the parity, it's that your cars are junk.  So just junk them and step up to a NB or go home.  Glad that is cleared up, I guess we can move on.

[Dickweed]

Ok, everyone.  There you have it.  Your 1.6s have no value.  Worthless tubs and cages.  No wonder you guys don't race, it's not the parity, it's that your cars are junk.  So just junk them and step up to a NB or go home.  Glad that is cleared up, I guess we can move on.

I think you meant NC!!

[Steve Scheifler]

Ok, everyone. There you have it. Your 1.6s have no value. Worthless tubs and cages. No wonder you guys don't race, it's not the parity, it's that your cars are junk. So just junk them and step up to a NB or go home. Glad that is cleared up, I guess we can move on.

James, not at all what I said. I would very much like to see the NA chassis make a comeback but do you REALLY think a significant number of people who own them will do such an extensive conversion? That this is a solution for the disenfranchised masses? Seriously?? Some of the "at any cost" crowd would if they thought it might somehow give them an edge, but the proposal to allow just suspension upgrades was overwhelmingly rejected (of those who offered an opinion). I wonder if you know just how much work, and expense for those who can't do their own, a complete power train transplant would be in addition to the suspension & subframes. More than the average 1.6 is worth, and a lot of people just can't do that.

[Bench Racer]

Bench,

I imagine that no one is responding to your idea to split the current single class up into 5-6 classes for two reasons:

1. Its a crazy idea. (I could list the reasons but won't).
2. Getting into a debate with you is like wrestling with a pig in mud. Pretty soon you realize the pig enjoys it and can do it endlessly

CNJ

 I read private pm's as well as I read posts on the site. List the reasons why 4 or more classes is a crazy idea. Hey, I'm open minded and would enjoy reading your reasons and I don't do the group hug thing just to be one of the good ol boys. I also read the rules pretty well.

If you choose to not pm, you've made a statement about yourself.

 

While your at it how about some commments about finding a sysetm to meaure torque when racing on track. I read folks have tried stuff, but I also read nothing has been successful.  If need be I'll research for a system, finance (within reason) and test a system to make a point. I thought when I posted folks would join in with their to date progress, nothing posted.

 

Enough on that ^ subject. I didn't start the recent parity posts. One question about the 1.6 and the question is aimed at the folks that beleive the 1.6 is at parity with the 99 plus cars. How can anybody really talk 1.6 parity when every time the car is forced below a certain RPM level the driver spends the next lap attempting to catch up. No sense wasting time talking about the torque short fall of the 1.6 because all the xperts know better. If the 1.6 had the up grade to the 99 subframes along with the suspension bits and pieces the friken car still would be sucking hind tit in the torque department. I did see a 1.6 win the June Sprints a few years ago, couldn't back it up at the same track for the Runoffs. < FACTS, don't anyone start throwing out excuses and get all high and mighty.  Daytona may be a different deal, only if the driver doesn't get boged down in the twisties. Make a 99 or whatever engine swap legal with some weight and I'll be on the phone for part's immediately. My next call will be to Loshak to qualify the car throug the Majors Tour (three Majors within 100 miles of my home) and do the Runoffs at Daytona. Some on this site think Loskhak couldn't get the job done. < Said while   Like some have said within the several last posts, what does it hurt to throw a bone or to to the 1.6 and 1.8, if none come out to plaqy, so what, what's lost. < The point being when a bone or two is thrown out, it's something other than talk. To those running their jaws, and if the 99 plus is so great, dump a 1.6 in and see how great the 99 plus cars are.

 

EDIT:

Just read Steve's last post. My car has new everything below the bare tub, completed by me. No I don't build engines or rebuild the trans or Mazda Comp diff.

 

[Steve Scheifler]

David, I don't think many people want the class split into two let alone more parts. There are too many classes already making everyone a podium contender at most events in some parts of the country. A big part on the appeal of SM is the (relatively) large average number of entrants, so splitting it 4-5 ways just seems absurd. As I posted earlier it may eventually be time to split off the NAs do they can either flourish as a separate Runoffs class or return to its roots as a regional class along with the IT cars. I am not proposing it, but I do think it needs to become part of the discussion because there may not be a practical "solution" to the parity issue.

[Steve Scheifler]

David, as for torque measurement on-track, to what end? We know well enough the strengths and weaknesses of each package, so what does that get us? It certainly would not be something to "tech" with, so a lot of complexity and expense with dubious accuracy to confirm what we already know.

I've read your post several times but I'm not sure what you are trying to recommend for the 1.6. Throwing them an ineffective bone will do more harm than good, and for major changes at best a very small percentage of owners can or would do all the work themselves that you do.

[Tom Sager]

Since we seem to be debating a bit, I will add some thoughts:

 

1.6 and 1.8L cars are not staying away (in my opinion) due to lack of perceived parity.  Most of the drivers I know in those cars don't even frequent the forum or worry about such things.  They are staying away because the economy still sucks for most, costs have risen to race and competing priorities in life.

 

 

I own a '95 and an '00.  The '00 wasn't ready to race until late in the year.  My '95 has a strong fresh engine in it.  I skipped the entire SCCA majors season this year and didn't enter a single NASA race all year. I've haven't missed many SCCA Nationals in my area since 2007. This because taking the '95 to the highly competitive events would have been a waste of time.  There's a guy from your state that raced his '94 or '95 once early in the year, great driver and he put his car up for sale after running it for several years. He sold the car because he didn't feel he could compete in that car and had no faith that the rules would be appropriately adjusted any time soon.  I know this because he called me and told me so.   This, the migration away from the NA cars didn't happen overnight.  It's been a slow and steady decline for probably 5+ years.

 

We don't need to slant the rules to the NA cars and the gaps between all the cars are pretty small IMO, but there is room to improve the competitive balance of the cars.  There are probably several good ways to do this depending upon the approach to be taken.  One approach would be to reduce the performance of the NB cars.  The other would be to make the NA cars faster or some combination of both.  The 1.6 is the toughest to figure out because it is the most "different" from the other cars but a good one in good hands is very fast at some tracks.  If the current evidence says that this car needs a positive adjustment compared to the NB cars then one suggestion would be to take 15 pounds off the car for 2015 and then go to the 1.6 community and ask them what changes they would like to increase the power of the engine and evaluate those for 2016.  Of course with more power comes more weight.  

 

A good argument can be made that the NA1.8 needs a positive adjustment against all the cars.  It has the same suspension handicap as the 1.6, lugs around 50 more pounds and makes no more peak HP (or possibly less). It has more peak torque than the 1.6 in the mid-range but not what a '99 or '01 has.  It should race at a weight closer to the 1.6 than it does now or be given a larger plate to cover the extra weight.  Simplest thing to do for these cars IMO is to restrict them so that they make very close to the same power as a '99 and maintain a small weight advantage (40-50 pounds?) compared to the '99 in recognition of the older and less performing suspension.  The rev limiter is problematic at some tracks.  That too could be looked at for 2016.   

 

'99 drivers have something to bitch about too, and that is the '01.  The extra spurt off the corner is an advantage over all the cars and this threatens the rest of the class.  

 

'01 drivers have a bitch too and that is that a number of them have invested in these newer cars due to the torque advantage and now that advantage may be reduced.  

 

NC fans have the most to complain about since the vast majority of the SM community doesn't even want them in the same sandbox.  

[Tom Sager]

Here are my $0.02c and I mean to provoke debate - sorry for the thread hijack.

 

Personally I would love to see more of the 1.6's and NA 1.8's come out and race. If for a moment any of us with money thought that we could win with one of them, we would be building them to the current level of prep that we do with our '99's and VVT's. The fact that NONE of us are even contemplating the build tells us that they are not competitive with the current rules package. And the opinion that is being floated that the top 1.6's in the current rules package will win Daytona has very little credence in my book. It is only once we see several of the top 10 spots being taken by 1.6's that we can consider that we have parity. 

 

THe 1.6's we supposed to come out in force at the Laguna Seca Runoffs and were conspicuously absent, that is more ammo for the argument

 

I am personally in favor of granting some power/ torque to these cars, even if it means that in the short term they become the overdog and wipe the floor with us '99 and VVT drivers. Only when we see a decent percentage of cars coming out, or new cars being built, can we accept that we have some sort of parity. 

That's a manly post right there.  

[Bench Racer]

 As I posted earlier it may eventually be time to split off the NAs do they can either flourish as a separate Runoffs class or return to its roots as a regional class along with the IT cars. I am not proposing it, but I do think it needs to become part of the discussion because there may not be a practical "solution" to the parity issue.

Steve, I can live with this ^, it's dificult to live with those in their 99 plus cars making suggestions the 1.6 (or 1.8) needs to be gone. The suggestion of classes within the class was/is to let a spec line stand on it's own or take a normal path of becoming a non Runoff class.

[Bench Racer]

David, as for torque measurement on-track, to what end? We know well enough the strengths and weaknesses of each package, so what does that get us? It certainly would not be something to "tech" with, so a lot of complexity and expense with dubious accuracy to confirm what we already know.

I've read your post several times but I'm not sure what you are trying to recommend for the 1.6. Throwing them an ineffective bone will do more harm than good, and for major changes at best a very small percentage of owners can or would do all the work themselves that you do.

There are constantly comments about having more dynos at more tracks. Very costly.  If anyone looks at the dyno info they can clearly view that parity does not exist for the 1.6. If anyone cared or paid attention they would say, gee, when one looks at torque to weight at different RPM's from 3k to 7k the 1.6 sucks below a certain RPM. We posted at length about torque to weight a year or so ago. As the saying goes, do the math, I'm not even going to look for my math from a year ago. A system for on track measuring torque through all the gears is real race track data and may be more cost effective than the now and then dyno at big events.  Don't know if anyone has an on track measuring system, no one openly talks.

 

 

The bone comments. Those on the pulpit while driving 99 plus cars ( do they make the rules) have made suggestion that giving the 1.6 the 99 suspension would improve parity for the 1.6. If pulpit folks really beleive that, just dump a 1.6 in a 99 chassis and presto, we've got exact parity. Wouldn't need all those new 99 heads. Hey, the pulpit players say it's all in the chassis.

 

See ya all in a week or so, going to the ARRC and do some other friend visiting in the South East while gone. I'm sure the players will have this (measuring torque simpler than the dyno and the 1.6/1.8 parity) all figured out within a week.

 

Have Fun 

[LarryKing]

The real disparity is not between model years. Rather it is the disparity between pro-built, bells and whistles cars versus home-built low-budget hobbyist cars.

 

The escalation of the cost to be competitive has been the common denominator in the demise of all once successful club racing classes. I believe the founders of Spec Miata were acutely of this and sought to form a class that avoided this pitfall. I guess it is inevitable that cost will go up when a popular class attracts highly competitive people. I don’t think we will ever see again the explosive growth that SM witnessed in its early years.

 

I think a very likely scenario is that an NC based class, SM5, will gradually attract more participants, popularity will foster increasing popularity, and SM will fade. No need to add NC cars to SM - It’s quite possible that SM5 will become the “new SM.” I hope the rule-makers will learn from SM and keep SM5 a sealed drivetrain, single-generation classis class.