70 replies to this topic

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Ron nobody is giving anybody the finger...

Nobody is going to travel long distance to Sebring with uncertainty.

Scca nasa Mazda all dropped the ball by not taking time to get this right the first time. They could have measured 5 times cut rules once but they measured once and then cut and made an error now we are all in uncertainty...

Who in their right mind puts a stock head on and gets ready for Sebring knowing they may show up 5hp down if scca nasa Mazda wake up and fix their bad dream.

Nobody does that. Everyone that goes to Sebring will run what they currently have illegal or not and they will.change once things become more certain.

I don't blame anyone for not showing for the first 2 majors not even scca nasa Mazda. Those races have been hurt equally by us the racers as well as scca nasa Mazda by not setting a better course after we the racers messed it all up.

[Michael Novak]

Ron nobody is giving anybody the finger...

Nobody is going to travel long distance to Sebring with uncertainty.

Scca nasa Mazda all dropped the ball by not taking time to get this right the first time. They could have measured 5 times cut rules once but they measured once and then cut and made an error now we are all in uncertainty...

Who in their right mind puts a stock head on and gets ready for Sebring knowing they may show up 5hp down if scca nasa Mazda wake up and fix their bad dream.

Nobody does that. Everyone that goes to Sebring will run what they currently have illegal or not and they will.change once things become more certain.

I don't blame anyone for not showing for the first 2 majors not even scca nasa Mazda. Those races have been hurt equally by us the racers as well as scca nasa Mazda by not setting a better course after we the racers messed it all up.

I cant believe it but I agree with Kyle......

 

Ron---I like your optimistic view and most times I would be saying the same thing----But too much time and dollars for the uncertainty....  

[Ron Alan]

Kyle and Michael...fair enough!  For us die hard fans I hope others see it different and show!

[MPR22]

Well James, since we dont know yet maybe its better to expect the worst and hope for the best? It has been said many times, the beauty of SM is no matter where you are, you always have someone to race. But for the record, I dont see the top guys dropping back 20 spots(after weigh penalty) over a guy with a junkyard motor and mediocre setup. Wont many be in the same position anyways...asuming all in the top 20 at least have plunge cuts?

 

If a no show is really because you(I'm speaking to all east coast guys here) are giving the finger to SCCA,NASA and Mazda for a "RASH" decision then just say so. They will hear you.

 

If your decision is because you dont want to finish lower than where you normally do or feel you should finish...is this not an indication of sorts of why we are at where we are at??

 

 

Listen...my comment to Craig was an attempt to be encouraging. If everyone cries chicken little it might in the end have a worse effect on the class than what the current decision has done(hopefully a temporary feeling). I like what Jim wrote and hoping at least him and his team adhere to their goal. If they show up, my guess is others will follow. All we can do right now is race what we have! 

 

Danny has posted a few times with this same sentiment...lets just get out there!

I was going to attend Sebring, mostly because of Craig's comments.  I put it on the top of my travel list this year.  I am honest about my petulance, I have money and a legal car under any rules and I chose to tell the SCCA, NASA and anyone else who came to this decision to FUCKOFF!!!.  They would get a measly $500 from me, but the weekend would cost me $5,000.  Easy decision to save the money and race local organizations that don't make such rash decisions.   

[LarryKing]

Someone should tell the 42 SM drivers entered in the Turkey Trot Double SARRC at Sebring that maybe they should sit it out.

 

And could someone in Texas walk MPR back from the ledge?

[Caveman-kwebb99]

the 42 at turkey trot are racign under 2014 rules... and lots of them will do the majors under the 2014 rules IMO.  And I perosnally hope they have a great race.  

[RussMcB]

"King Hero" is one of my favorite racing stories.    

[Jim Drago]

Well James, since we dont know yet maybe its better to expect the worst and hope for the best? It has been said many times, the beauty of SM is no matter where you are, you always have someone to race. But for the record, I dont see the top guys dropping back 20 spots(after weigh penalty) over a guy with a junkyard motor and mediocre setup. Wont many be in the same position anyways...asuming all in the top 20 at least have plunge cuts?

 

If a no show is really because you(I'm speaking to all east coast guys here) are giving the finger to SCCA,NASA and Mazda for a "RASH" decision then just say so. They will hear you.

 

If your decision is because you dont want to finish lower than where you normally do or feel you should finish...is this not an indication of sorts of why we are at where we are at??

 

 

Listen...my comment to Craig was an attempt to be encouraging. If everyone cries chicken little it might in the end have a worse effect on the class than what the current decision has done(hopefully a temporary feeling). I like what Jim wrote and hoping at least him and his team adhere to their goal. If they show up, my guess is others will follow. All we can do right now is race what we have! 

 

Danny has posted a few times with this same sentiment...lets just get out there!

 

Ron

We "WANT" to go to Sebring.. I have bone stock heads ready for all four cars. First the penalities were going to be punitive.. Now not punitive?

 

 So you tell me.. average loss from 2014 compliant to stock that I have seen is 5 hp/ 3 ft lbs. That is 100 lbs to me minimum to be "close"  That is a "penalty" that most will not accept for doing nothing wrong ( read this as will not attend).  Any less, we will all  have to put plunge cut heads on the cars.  Any more it will be stock.

 

We will wait and see what comes of the weight penalities.. We will make every effort to attend if we feel we will be in the ball park

 

IMO the only real answer to this dilema is this... 

a)all on stock heads effective 1/1/15

b)all on 2014 rules only no blend effective 1/1/15

c)all on 2014 rules with a blend spec effective 1/1/15. 

 

IMO, any mix of stock head and weight penalty will not work very well. This mixing of rules and weights is just not a good idea IMO

[Ron Alan]

I'm just hoping most come out...what is best I have no idea. Either way it hurts me personally...but pretty confident i understand the message being sent. And I'm also sure i wont be campaigning a Honda or Ford next year!

[MPR22]

I assume Jim you mean 1/1/15? 
 
I'm just hoping most come out...what is best I have no idea. Either way it hurts me personally...but pretty confident i understand the message being sent. And I'm also sure i wont be campaigning a Honda or Ford next year!

I'm probably campaigning a BMW Bow tie.

[Steve Scheifler]

I apologize for going a little off topic but this is actually related. And it isn't a rant and I'm not trying to bash everyone who has been running up front with the STR work, because frankly it is just the latest in a long list of similar issues. But I would hope that they all take a little extra time to reflect on a few things.

People are understandably reluctant to build engines until the rules are finalized. But some of what I have heard and read is that people who are accustomed to running at the front won't bother to attend a race if they are likely to be at a disadvantage due to additional weight or a stock head when others will still be trying to slide by for awhile with at least plunge cuts.

What I want to say, with all due respect, is that I GET IT! I understand, because that's exactly how we felt for years as we played by the rules while knowing full well that virtually every car in front of us (and there weren't many) had one or more things that we were not doing because we wanted to stick to the rules. Even after most had given up the shocks and cams, they still ran camber tricks, less conspicuous engine work, expensive fuels, etc. I have never made a lot of noise about 1.6 parity, and even suggested things were probably pretty close if rules were followed, but it is hard to know for certain when we are always up against cars with an undeserved edge in both handling and power. Every time we considered attending one of the bigger events it just seemed pointless knowing how many "top" cars would be there. Who wants to work their ass off prepping and make an expensive trip if you know that at best you will be starting with the 10th best car, if that?

So as you drivers who have grown accustomed to being in the "best" cars are contemplating how to deal with the current situation and the prospect of being at a slight disadvantage for a few races, take a moment to reflect on what it would be like to start EVERY race knowing that a bunch of cars have 4-6 more HP and better handling, and there is nothing you can do about it.

And don't write us off as some under-prepped under-skilled mid-packers deluding ourselves into thinking we'd be up there if not for those damn cheaters, or count us among that second group which Craig B. correctly, if incompletely, describes in another post. The laps we've turned and the people we've beat with our lowly and legal 1.6s makes our case clearly enough. We may or may not have the race craft to win a well attended race, but we've always been close enough that if everyone were playing by the rules we would have had a lot more chances and attended a lot more races to find out.

So yea, I get it that you don't even want to bother if you might be stuck starting with a disadvantage. Welcome to our world!

[Steve Scheifler]

Jim, thanks for sharing your numbers. If the average is +5, 3 then obviously some are even more, some less. The extremes are also important. Hopefully the official testing will have enough samples for reliable results, but we really won't know.

I assume your numbers are based on the plunge+, not just plunge, so in theory the difference between 2014 rules and stock are smaller. Again, hopefully the official tests will quantify each. But it sounds like the + is not even being considered an option unless they find it has little benefit, which seems unlikely, so perhaps closer to 50 lbs for plunge-only. As I've said in another topic I think that still puts us back to cherry picking, and keeps an even smaller number of people in control. The existing rules are still the best compromise even knowing full well that they won't be well enforced and even where tech tries there are still ways to eek out an advantage with little chance of being caught.

[Craig Berry]

Steve, I can relate to almost all you are stating above. I ran a season in 2005 and the parity in Spec Miata was terrible, and I was one of those not "in the know" and very frustrated.
I can speak Only for myself and my team, we are Not contemplating not starting the season in FL because we think we will be at a disadvantage, but because we have a standard that we have set for ourselves, and in all honesty I DO NOT THINK WE WILL HAVE ENOUGH TIME to get the cars ready. If we just wanted track time maybe we would throw the cars into the trailer and not worry about the level of prep, but that is not the case for us.
People can show or not show for whatever reason they want, but to think we will be a a disadvantage because of any rule is not a reason for us.

[Bench Racer]

Steve and Jim, curious to see your calculations used in obtaining your suggested weights.

[Jim Drago]

With respect for the testing going on.. I am not going to post my dyno sheets. After the testing is concluded and weights announced. We will post them, we will also have more data by then. The sample size right now is too small to make any solid conclusions. With all the back and forth.. We are reluctant to do much more testing as we may just wasting time and money. We will see what decisions are made and proceed in the direction we think will suit us best.

[Steve Scheifler]

Respectfully Craig, you can really speak only for yourself, the rest is what others choose to admit, or not, to you. But let's set that aside, just ask yourself how long anyone who is by nature a highly competative personality will keep showing up knowing that they are at a disadvantage before they even unload. You speak of obsessive efforts to prepare and maybe you think that has made the difference, but I'm betting it would not have been enough had your car been compliant while your top competitors were not.

So I challenge you and everyone else at the front to take more responsibility. Demand to know what is being done to your cars, and demand that they follow the strict letter of the rules, at least, and give some thought to following even the intent..

Now please excuse me while I return to the real world.

[RWP80000]

Steve and Jim, curious to see your calculations used in obtaining your suggested weights.

Many race classes are based on displacement to horsepower ratios.   Assuming a current peak horsepower for a well built engine is (and we are talking at the wheel here)  128 H.P.  The displacement/horsepower ratio is 18.75.(2400/128).  If a stock head produces 5 less horsepower then it's Disp./Pwr. ratio is 2400/123= 19.5122 (rounded to the 4th decimal). 

 

Now, if you want to add weight to the higher horsepower engine to match the lower horsepower ratio, you would multiply the higher H.P. value by the lower horsepower ratio.  That would be 128 x 19.5122= 2497.56.  So you would have to add 97.56 lbs (pretty much 100 lbs in round number as Jim had stated) to adjust the cars on a displacement/horsepower basis.  

 

The only issue in doing this is that it is entirely based on a peak horsepower comparison and in reality should be done on the average horsepower difference over the typical operating range of the engine.  You may even want to look at the histograms data of the operating range but now we are looking at specific race lap data and that is track dependent.

[Bench Racer]

Understand and totally agree peak hp does not include the entire picture.

[Rob Burgoon]

Seriously David, dial it back. Your posts are so personal your message is lost.

I actually can potentially agree with what you posted earlier about stricter rules, compliance and penalties. But when it shifts into "shaming" we move from healthy rules compliance and enforcement to group beatings. I like rules and adherence thereof as the foundation for good society (and racing), but for goodness sake, we gave up the public stockades two centuries ago.

CNJ

 

I think Jim gets to grin and bear it for a while.  I generally like the guy, but I think he has earned a substantial amount of public shaming, even on his own site.

[Tom Sager]

Many race classes are based on displacement to horsepower ratios.   Assuming a current peak horsepower for a well built engine is (and we are talking at the wheel here)  128 H.P.  The displacement/horsepower ratio is 18.75.(2400/128).  If a stock head produces 5 less horsepower then it's Disp./Pwr. ratio is 2400/123= 19.5122 (rounded to the 4th decimal). 

 

Now, if you want to add weight to the higher horsepower engine to match the lower horsepower ratio, you would multiply the higher H.P. value by the lower horsepower ratio.  That would be 128 x 19.5122= 2497.56.  So you would have to add 97.56 lbs (pretty much 100 lbs in round number as Jim had stated) to adjust the cars on a displacement/horsepower basis.  

 

The only issue in doing this is that it is entirely based on a peak horsepower comparison and in reality should be done on the average horsepower difference over the typical operating range of the engine.  You may even want to look at the histograms data of the operating range but now we are looking at specific race lap data and that is track dependent.

 

Except that we are not drag racers racing in a vacuum so adding 100 pounds would be ridiculous given the disparity it would create for all the time we spend with the steering wheel turned and/or foot on the brake.  Also that math doesn't take any aero into account.  Just the acceleration calculation alone that should be used for setting weight (with no regard for handling) is a very complicated calculation. There are software calculators out there for this if someone wants to do it right.  This is why a restrictor plate is a more reliable equalizer so that all race at the same weight.  

 

But don't get me started as putting weight or restriction on legal plunge cut headed cars is an overreaction to the whole mess.  Had the cars at the runoffs passed tech there would be no outcry for the change that appears to be coming.   

 

Sebring?  Once we see the entry list we'll be able to easily pick the top 10-15 cars without knowing what they have under the hood.