I like the concept, and was thinking something along the same lines... but more at a regional/divisional level. So, a set of tracks in a geographical area would carry a certain weight for each type of car. But let's say we did it by track...
Q1. What happens when a track has several different configurations? (e.g. Buttonwillow)
Q2. How often would adjustments be made, and who is going to own that work?
Q3. What parameters should be used to make the adjustments? Qualifying laps? Race laps? Both? FTOD? Fastest guy/gal in each type of car, or top X in each?
Q4. What are all the possible ways one could game this system, and what should be done to plug those holes?
Again... I like the concept. But it's a complicated beast that would require an awful lot of thought and effort up front... as well as ongoing maintenance post-implementation. I'd love for the folks at MyLaps to come up with some analytics to help facilitate this sort of thing. Certainly a wealth of data there that could help quantify (or dispel) some claims.
Good questions, and I don't think I'm educated enough on the club legislation to give final answers, but I'll throw out a few conceptual ideas.
1. A majority of tracks that have different configurations will still have the same corners, hills, and straights involved, so I don't think a weight change would be mandatory. If it's a completely different track layout, racers could file a petition with 3 races where there hasn't been a 1.6 in the top 5 to get the weight brought down on that certain configuration. Just an idea.
2. People have outlined a discrepancy between 1.6 qualifying results and racing results. I am hoping we will get to play with intakes to avoid heat soak next year, and therefore eliminate this variation. With that, weight adjustments would be made by the SM regional director, whenever a 1.6 feels they are at a disadvantage in a race. The 1.6 owner would have to submit dyno results to show that he is at the pointy end of a 1.6's legal competitiveness, and show video + data that he is getting left for dead by 1.8's at certain points of the track while driving the balls off the car. This would be done again post-changes to make sure that the time gained from the adjustment doesn't put you at an advantage in terms of lap time. A lot of this is subjective, but again, I really don't care if I at least have the CHANCE to make my 1.6 competitive at tracks like Laguna.
3. Race laps + finishing results. The video or data would have to show how much time is being lost to the 1.8 in certain sectors. The two best data points would be the fastest from each chassis/motor combo. Assuming they are both legal, you have the ability to avoid mid-pack guys' complaints for less weight by telling them that ____ is driving a legal 1.6 at the current weight and fighting in the top 3, so you need to either make your car as fast as his, or improve your driving 
4. Video + data could be useless if the driver is light footing it. That's why you need the SM director to make sure he is driving the balls off a competitive car (check dyno), and that he is indeed flooring it (video data overlay - throttle application). I'm sure there are many other things, but the system is so flexible that it won't let a 1.6 run away from the field for more than one race, because they will be brought in for data review to check for the "light footing" mentioned above. 1.8's will also be brought in to make sure they aren't light footing to let the 1.6 get away in an attempt to increase his weight for the next race.
All just ideas, and they would need to be far more in depth to be implemented. I would do it, but the fact that few people have responded to the basic concept means it most likely isn't worth my time... especially during finals week. I also agree with you that this would be more of a regional experiment, and could then be implemented to national events after working out the kinks.
I thought you were replying to Jim about a list of top drivers sitting on the sideline waiting with their 1.6. Maybe I read your reply wrong, but it didn't seem to me to support a conclusion of fewer drivers participating for that reason. I'll just stick with my observations from our division. No top driver is sitting out because they have a 1.6L.
But who knows. Everyone views this topic through their slant on reality.
I think I am a good data point for this. I just finished my first year of racing, and feel that I have developed into a very fast driver. Last month at the NASA western championships, I finished 4th in a 1.6 at Sonoma Raceway. This is a track that 1.6's are still a weapon at, and if I had a fresh motor it would have given me the 3-4hp I needed to fight with the top dogs in 1.8's (they were half a second faster). With these results, next year I want to compete in the Teen Mazda Challenge and NASA Championships to give myself a shot at the Mazda Club Racer Shootout, BUT I have a 1.6.
Let's get this out there, I will not win the NASA championships next year at Laguna in a 1.6, unless every 1.8 explodes. If the Teen Mazda Challenge has a race at Auto Club Speedway, I will not win in a 1.6, again unless every 1.8 explodes. The fact that my chances of going pro in the racing world are limited by my equipment in a SPEC series, is disappointing to say the least. In my case, I may have a sponsor for next year that will let me rent a 1.8 for those events or upgrade to a 1.8 for the whole season. If I didn't have this opportunity, like many others, my car WOULD be parked for those events, saving my money for races that I actually stand a shot at winning.
This only applies to a VERY small percentage of racers - talented, competitive, low budget - likely no more than one or two racers in each region, but I don't think that means it should be ignored.
Sign In
Create Account
Back to top
Report
