535 replies to this topic

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Very well said Denny!

 

Now back to arguing about shit that don't really matter...

[MPR22]

David, 

 

Why do you insist on on being so single minded in your approach to getting what YOU want?  The whole point of this thread is to suggest rules changes for the class. 

Your suggestion is to break up the class.  Since you are so single minded go race ITA and call it SMA.  You and about 3 other guys can race your own special class, hell you will even podium.  

 

As to this   about measuring torque on the track, what point will you prove that we don't already know.  The 1.6 is at a torque deficit to the other cars, nobody is doubting that.  James York made a suggestion to swap out suspension and ENGINE, yet you chose to write another book about how everyone is ignoring you and your on track torque measuring crusade.  

 

It appears to me you don't care about the class and parity, you care about you and your personal crusades.  

 

I am fortunate enough to own all but an NA 1.8 and I intimately know the strengths and weaknesses of three cars i race.  In my opinion the 99 is the standard all cars should be adjusted to match if possible.  It is fully developed and has the most parity within its own model year.  Good to great examples of the car are very close in speed. It is the car that most current national entrants choose to race.  

 

Your personal crusades are exactly that, personal.  The rest of us are interested in making the class stronger to draw out the most participants.  

[Tom Hampton]

Ross. Don't feed the animals.

[Bench Racer]

David, 

 

Why do you insist on on being so single minded in your approach to getting what YOU want?  The whole point of this thread is to suggest rules changes for the class.  I am one of the few 1.6 er's that post. It's a 1.6 thing, not a me thing.

Your suggestion is to break up the class.  Since you are so single minded go race ITA and call it SMA.  You and about 3 other guys can race your own special class, hell you will even podium.  It's not about podium. I's about trying to be inclusive for the 1.6 cars.

 

As to this   about measuring torque on the track, what point will you prove that we don't already know.  The 1.6 is at a torque deficit to the other cars, nobody is doubting that.  James York made a suggestion to swap out suspension and ENGINE, yet you chose to write another book about how everyone is ignoring you and your on track torque measuring crusade.  It's not about the 1.6 cars. Do you not read posts fom others uggesting, it would be good if there were more dyno testing at tracks other than for a few large events. Dynos at track equals, costly. That would be the goal of on track testing if a system is cost effective.

 

It appears to me you don't care about the class and parity, you care about you and your personal crusades.  Have you ever thought, your off base.

 

Your personal crusades are exactly that, personal. And your personal crusade would be carping at someone with a different thought process than yours. The rest of us are interested in making the class stronger to draw out the most participants.

  

[Jim Drago]

Here are my $0.02c and I mean to provoke debate - sorry for the thread hijack.
 
The fact that NONE of us are even contemplating the build tells us that they are not competitive with the current rules package.

I 'll debate a little.
No, that is not what this is saying IMO. It says the cars are not at a clear advantage. You would not build a 1.6 car if it was the same or at a slight advantage. It would need to at a clear advantage. By your own admission, you had a tough time running Toms 1.6 and would struggle getting to weight with all you put in the cars. I wouldn't build one as I would never make weight. Even if I could make weight I would NOT build one now. If I felt I could win in a NB car regardless of the rules, I would not build an NA, nor would you or most anyone else. The ABSOLUTE WORST thing we could do is swing the pendulum so far as to make the 1.6 car at a clear advantage as many would not join the COA circus and go back to an old car after dumping it to build a NB car.

Even if I felt that rules help would bring the 1.6 cars out of storage,( which I don't btw) I would only reluctantly support it as I feel they are being outspent and out driven,not losing due to the rules. Certainly not in the tune of a second plus a lap.( which is the type of help they would need for 10% of current 1.6 combos to compete anywhere near the front) We are talking a few tenths on all cars, worst case.

[Danny Steyn]

I 'll debate a little.
No, that is not what this is saying IMO. It says the cars are not at a clear advantage. You would not build a 1.6 car if it was the same or at a slight advantage. It would need to at a clear advantage. By your own admission, you had a tough time running Toms 1.6 and would struggle getting to weight with all you put in the cars. I wouldn't build one as I would never make weight. Even if I could make weight I would NOT build one now. If I felt I could win in a NB car regardless of the rules, I would not build an NA, nor would you or most anyone else. The ABSOLUTE WORST thing we could do is swing the pendulum so far as to make the 1.6 car at a clear advantage as many would not join the COA circus and go back to an old car after dumping it to build a NB car.

Even if I felt that rules help would bring the 1.6 cars out of storage,( which I don't btw) I would only reluctantly support it as I feel they are being outspent and out driven,not losing due to the rules. Certainly not in the tune of a second plus a lap. We are talking a few tenths on all cars, worst case.

 

Jim, you have been doing this a lot longer than I have, and you have had to deal with this endless debate for way longer than I have. And I respect your opinion. And I agree with you and with several other posters that the majority of the 1.6 cars out there that are sitting on the side lines will NOT come out and play even if there are adjustments that potentially make them the overdog. 

 

When I built the VVT car it was an experiment. I was not sure that it would be competitive, but I wanted to take a stab at it. So far my '99 has been the better car, but not by much. Still don't know which one I will run at the ARRC. You are right, back in 2010 when I tried on one occasion at Roebling Road to run Tom's 1.6 I found it more difficult to drive than my 99. And I never worked at it again. However if If I felt that the 1.6 would have an advantage over my 99 and VVT car, I most certainly would build a top prep car, and learn how to drive it. I am sure I could make weight with the correct build and there are many drivers that can make weight with a 1.6.

 

And I suspect that when other drivers see a 1.6 or 1.8 NA competing at the front in a Majors event, that might just be what it takes to get some of the sidelined cars out to play, and for all of us, we want to race in big fields with a chance of being competitive.

 

As Steve says, if you make some allowances and it doesnt draw them out, then what have we lost. If we make the allowances and the appear in droves and are clearly the overdog, then we can reel them back into line so that they are "equal". IMHO no one currently believes that they are equal.

[pat slattery]

Jim, are the most  influential voice on this site and also IMO the SCCA, as far as Spec Miata is concerned.   You keep telling us the 1.6 is equal, well where are your numbers to back it up? 

[Caveman-kwebb99]

 

 

And I suspect that when other drivers see a 1.6 or 1.8 NA competing at the front in a Majors event, that might just be what it takes to get some of the sidelined cars out to play, and for all of us, we want to race in big fields with a chance of being competitive.

 

 

 

How quickly we dismiss the fact that ToddB did just that for well over a full season yet we saw no change to what people wanted to build or bring to a majors event.

 

We have 1.6's capable of winning the majors at Mid ohio, yet the drivers of those cars dont wish to come to a majors apparently. One held the track record at Mid ohio until the regional race in the middle of this month where new records were set.

 

People drive the 1.6 because they already have the car  and dont feel like upgrading or spending a bunch of dough or doont want to spend a bunch to start with a 99+. they are having a great time racing regionally...  

 

Everyone has their own reason and goals racing in this class, we can all agree that there is great racing up and down the field even if your racing for last you are having a race typically for next to last.  

 

I have seen so many of those guys hooting it up after a race at the back of the field with the guys there were just fighting it out with, its really no different then what happens at the front, only at the front there are constant chassis changes, hours looking at data and vid, many minutes contemplating suicide at the track because someone else is faster and on and on.  

 

I am not in favor or splitting the class, or changing the cars except the VVT needs to be brought back. 

[pat slattery]

Ask yourself, why would someone who has a 1.6, want to sell it and spend 30-40K on a new car, rather than just spend  5-10 and upgrade his 1.6 to the best upgrades.  IMHO because the new cars are better on most track with the current rules package. 

 

We have a race scheduled this year at MIS.  The last time we raced there our 1.6 came  out of the hard left onto the straight in 2nd gear at 4200 rpm's. We were a sitting duck and we will not race there again.

[Jim Drago]

Jim, are the most  influential voice on this site and also IMO the SCCA, as far as Spec Miata is concerned.   You keep telling us the 1.6 is equal, well where are your numbers to back it up?

pat
I have posted all my "numbers" and opinions countless times. You guys disagree.
We will again bring a 1.6 out and test at Daytona for 2015 Runoffs. Under the current rules, even more so if the NB cars are slowed down. So time will tell.

I stand by my opinions as that is what "I" feel is correct, you and others are welcome to disagree. that is the purpose of the forum in the first place. But my opinion is what I feel is 'right", not some conspiracy to hold all the 1.6 cars back. The general sentiment is to slow the NB cars (again) to allow most circa 2006/2007 prep 1.6 cars to get back in the mix.

And you only have two more months of me.. I will be just a "racer" at the end of the year.

[Jim Drago]

You are right, back in 2010 when I tried on one occasion at Roebling Road to run Tom's 1.6 I found it more difficult to drive than my 99. And I never worked at it again. However if If I felt that the 1.6 would have an advantage over my 99 and VVT car, I most certainly would build a top prep car, and learn how to drive it.

I agree with this 100%. However, you are proving my point. You would build if you felt it was an "advantage", not even. You would not build it for any other reason, nor would I. Is that good for the class? Should one car be at a clear advantage in hopes that more come out? I don't think we should ever intentionally put any car at an advantage. Every time we have seen one in my time on SMAC/CRB, we have corrected it. For the record, every parity adjustment made since my involvement in SMAC/CRB was against the car I was driving.
 

And I suspect that when other drivers see a 1.6 or 1.8 NA competing at the front in a Majors event, that might just be what it takes to get some of the sidelined cars out to play, and for all of us, we want to race in big fields with a chance of being competitive.

I agree on big fields and growing the class etc. However, just like the rules reshuffle of plates and weights in 2011 that favored the 1.6, The ARRC SM2 class we tried. This didn't work either. Buras dominated in his 1.6 in 2012 against the best of the best in SE. I put in my personal time and money to prove this point. It proved NOTHING! there is always an excuse or reason. Non compliant, one of a kind etc. I seem to remember a certain 1.6 poster saying if the 1.6 could win the Sprints, he would basically be quiet... That didn't happen either How many 1.6 cars did we see come out due to any one of these three events? I saw no new or recently retired 1.6 cars come back out due to any of these things above. Nor do I suspect any if we slant the rules to favor the 1.6. If we skew them to favor the 1.6 that will bring more 1.6 cars back into the fray. Then most will be built by pro shops at 35-45k 1.6 cars. I don't think that is what we are trying to accomplish here. The goal is to try and get existing 1.6 cars out to race with us.. I don't have a clear answer for what will work and not upset the apple cart.

[Chad Martin]

My 2 cents, i'll not touch the SSRgate...but just my own observations would lead me to say...

 

All NA cars have the option of upgrading the Engine to a NA 1.8L.  Basically allow some flexibility to keep an older chassis but have options to be more competitive when a rebuild time comes.   Thus, allow all NA cars to use either engine.  Weight will depend on powerplant.

 

AND/OR make the 1.6L engine regional only.

 

94-97 1.8L engines get a 47mm plate

 

99-00 cars no change

 

01-05 cars +35 lbs

[Steve Scheifler]

... I believe the founders of Spec Miata were acutely of this and sought to form a class that avoided this pitfall. ...

Huh??? Talk about rewriting history!! 😝

From day one the "founders" (at least some of them" introduced Sunbelt engines with more cheater parts than anything running up front today (but no doubt still in many older cars), re-valved shocks, and no doubt other things from the Showroom Stock classes.

You are absolutely correct that the success of the class is what has lead to some of its current issues, but let's not wax nostalgic about some imaginary pearly white roots, because they were rotten to the core.

[pat slattery]

Chad, the trans. are the same in all years

[pat slattery]

I believe we will have parity when Jim runs a 1.6 for a season. 

[Chad Martin]

Ahh ok, i couldnt remember, changed my submission to take that nonsense out.  No personal experience with a 94-97 car.  Just observations from the tech shed.

[Karl]

Jim said, "And you only have two more months of me.. I will be just a "racer" at the end of the year." 

 

They will continue to call you and as well as you have made all the right friends, I suspect you will be a silent voice for some time to come.

 

Here is why you make the 1600 the car to have (and this will take marketing):

 

It was the car that started this class (the NA 1800 was still active in SS in 1999) and if it isn't supported by the racers and Mazda the entire class will go down the "evolution" path of phase out / phase in.  

 

So, let's look down the road...it's 2025 and all of you young guys now in an NB have put on a few pounds, perhaps marry and have a kid or two and even though you are earning more, there are more expenses.  The NAs are now long gone, so hey, let's take some weight out of the NBs.  ".....but now I can't make weight and why should I have to build the next addition to the class to be able to do what I was doing last year?"  Read the following again and again and ask yourselves how that sentence will change in ten years if you keep going this way.  

 

" I wouldn't build one as I would never make weight. Even if I could make weight I would NOT build one now. If I felt I could win in a NB car regardless of the rules, I would not build an NA, nor would you or most anyone else. "

 

Why isn't racing seen as a fit man's sport, or better asked, why are we not rewarding the really fit guys?  Hey, when I hit 40, the bowls of ice cream had to leave the diet and I'm happy to say that yesterday's half marathon was done 15 minutes faster than the one I did two years ago.  Still way off the pace I want, but we're getting there.  Too bad lbs seem to come with wisdom for most.  

 

RE FLYWHEELS:  I suggested this at the first Topeka Runoffs.  Specifically, to allow removal of the rear "ring" (an outer portion of the mass) which has no effect on the stability of the FW.   Response:  Mazda does not want modifications to OE parts.

 

To answer the Pop Quiz:  The greatest effect to a lighter FW comes during the fastest RPM changes.  The lower the gear the greater the effect of the change to the moment of inertia (reduction of the FW mass).  

 

Rules for 2015

1600 and NA 1800s: Allow removal of material into the ports to the distance already specified in the rules.   

 

Why? Because these heads have the greatest variations and creating well transitioned short side radii will even out the builds. 

 

The same as above for all the cars, for the same reason.  Smaller bringing together, but a bringing together none-the-less.   

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Chad, the trans. are the same in all years

 

There are two styles of transmissions all are same gearing and all are 5 speed but the boxes look different in those early na cars.

[Karl]

And Steve makes an interesting point.

 

Every time a new car comes into the class, only those who understand that car will have "an advantage".    

[Caveman-kwebb99]

 

 

Rules for 2015

1600 and NA 1800s: Allow removal of material into the ports to the distance already specified in the rules.   

 

Why? Because these heads have the greatest variations and creating well transitioned short side radii will even out the builds. 

 

The same as above for all the cars, for the same reason.  Smaller bringing together, but a bringing together none-the-less.   

 

Ok, so Im confused about this...  Are we not allowing the 1.6 heads to be re plung cut like we do the 99's at this time?  

 

Or are you talking about into the intake port from the intake manifold in?