97 replies to this topic

[pat slattery]

Pat i am sure with all your posts that you are as well doing all the testing on your proposed changes to send in the SMAC/CRB for consideration. When can we expect to see the results of your proposed changes?

Ralph, if you check back, I did offer to test headers, paying for all the dyno time, and basically got shot down by everyone saying it was a waste of time.  My offer still stands, If you tell me they will look at data that I present, I will test it and present same. 

[john mueller]

 
REALLY?????
 
Great another move ACTUALLY made without DATA....Because as you say "unforeseen development"     Thanks for the honesty John!!!!!  I am looking for my crazy eight ball as it appears by what you said my chances of guessing what might be done next will be just as good.     Plates and weights on the SCCA side can be changed at any point---changing before it happens is crazy.   DISAPPOINTING to say the least....

 

By "unforeseen" I mean that I do not know what the development is and right now don't care what it is.  The reality is the VVT's speed is increasing and without proactive management of that speed (development/grey area) it will become a problem.

 

 IMO if this sort of proactive management was practiced years ago our rule book would only be a few pages long.  

 

 

I'm done commenting on this here, I'm off to Willow Springs for our first SoCal NASA event of the year.  If anyone wants to have a civil conversation with me send me an email to JohnMueller@DriveNASA.com.

[Dave D.]

This is the complete opposite of a knee-jerk reaction!! Let's change something BEFORE something either bad or good happens!!! Also lets make change without doing any research or having data to back up any ideas.

 

"I mean that I do not know what the development is and right now don't care what it is."

 

John,You're the NASA Spec MIata director, you better damn well care!!! Decisions like these are not to be made on the whim of an individual, but rather a NASA board/panel an not rely on the SCCA's SMAC as this is a NASA matter. We just went through a winter of turmoil,change and hysteria, there has been adjustments made the help the 1.6, help police cylinder head work and deal with any grey area cylinder heads out there. So why can't we just start the season like this and see where things shake out?? IF the VVT is to have weight, I want the weight added to ALL NBs!! They are using as much tuning( both legal and not so legal) as the VVT and they still have the better intake! 

[FTodaro]

Ralph, if you check back, I did offer to test headers, paying for all the dyno time, and basically got shot down by everyone saying it was a waste of time.  My offer still stands, If you tell me they will look at data that I present, I will test it and present same. 

Pat i am not trying to tell you what to do, but for a modest investment. many of your 1.6 guys could do some testing, It may not be to the satisfaction of everyone but think about it there will be vary little to rebut your findings.

 

If I were you i would call Rich Johnson at Backstreet. negotiate the cost of a day of dyno time. show up with some headers, cams cold air intakes what ever you got, and Dyno the snot out of it. It would help if you were make good notes in the dyno procedure keeping track of the temps and other factors.

 

All the 1.6 guys who want change could chip in a few hundred bucks, if that and take a run at it.

 

Its a better approach than the smattering of opinions with no back up.

 

Better yet invite Ralph to watch.

 

I understand that the dyno is not apples to apples with the track but there is no way to test non compliant equipment unless your willing to waste a weekend and even then, its hard to capture objective data.

 

Just an suggestion. 

[Ron Alan]

This is the complete opposite of a knee-jerk reaction!! Let's change something BEFORE something either bad or good happens!!! Also lets make change without doing any research or having data to back up any ideas.

 

"I mean that I do not know what the development is and right now don't care what it is."

 

John,You're the NASA Spec MIata director, you better damn well care!!! Decisions like these are not to be made on the whim of an individual, but rather a NASA board/panel an not rely on the SCCA's SMAC as this is a NASA matter. We just went through a winter of turmoil,change and hysteria, there has been adjustments made the help the 1.6, help police cylinder head work and deal with any grey area cylinder heads out there. So why can't we just start the season like this and see where things shake out?? IF the VVT is to have weight, I want the weight added to ALL NBs!! They are using as much tuning( both legal and not so legal) as the VVT and they still have the better intake! 

Quite a reaction for 15lbs!?? Though i think John agrees with the decision he did say he was not included in it. He also said the rule change was based on others info/data/recommendations. I doubt it was on a whim...

 

Then again, he also said the NA 1.8 needs no help based on the fact it has won out here??? Come on John...what kind of data is that? It may have won but by no means were they the fastest car on the track!!!!! A lot of NA 1,6 cars won out here last year as well...yet they get 25lbs off? Even in an attempt to give you the benefit of the doubt John...I to question your theories

 

Dave...he did leave his email above for civil conversations!

[38bfast]

Pat CRB/SMAC looks at all letters and or data provided. If you believe you have a case to be made by all means submit it. This is how the process works. That being said there is no assurance that it will go through. But first you have to ask. 

[pat slattery]

Where was all this dyno testing that made the 99 the overdog that it is.Lets give them timing and fuel pressure, etc. etc.  As soon as someone asks for something for the 1.6 we need a act of congress, or hrs of testing.  BS

[ECOBRAP]

Then again, he also said the NA 1.8 needs no help based on the fact it has won out here??? Come on John...what kind of data is that? It may have won but by no means were they the fastest car on the track!!!!! A lot of NA 1,6 cars won out here last year as well...yet they get 25lbs off? Even in an attempt to give you the benefit of the doubt John...I to question your theories

 

Where did a 1.6 win out here apart from Kyle L. at Sonoma in one regional race out of the entire year? Honest question, just asking.

 

I believe there is a reason Drennan kept his '94.

[davew]

Where was all this dyno testing that made the 99 the overdog that it is.Lets give them timing and fuel pressure, etc. etc.  As soon as someone asks for something for the 1.6 we need a act of congress, or hrs of testing.  BS

 

Pat, there was a lot of testing done regarding the slotted timing plate and fuel pressure on 99's. I know, I did a lot of it. So did Drago and Meathead.

 

I wish everyone would stop calling the 99 (or the VVT) overdogs. They may be the choice to have, but they are far from an overdog.

 

I wrote 5 letters to the SMAC last month. Most where shot down. I wrote 5 more on different topics the other night. We will see what happens. All letters are seen by their respective advisory committee. That group gives its opinion to the CRB who then reads the letter and votes again. With the recent history, I am sure every member of every committee at SCCA reads ever letter involved with SM. We get plenty of attention.

 

As much as we like to think we can solve the worlds problems on this forum. This is still an UN-OFFICIAL forum. If you have an idea, send the proper letter through the proper channel.

 

dave

[davew]

Also remember the 1.6's already had adjustable timing and also got adjustable fuel pressure. And that was 5 years ago, let's leave that horse alone

 

dave

[Bench Racer]

Also remember the 1.6's already had adjustable timing and also got adjustable fuel pressure. And that was 5 years ago, let's leave that horse alone

 

dave

 

John, these are SCCA comments.

 

Dave, how about the 99 plus horses (gobs of torque all the way down to 3,500 rpm compared to the 1.6) that were let out of the barn a bunch of years ago when it was classed.

 

To who ever posted, yes I know by simple math that the 1.6 doesn't require a reduction in weight above 5,500 rpm and I also know minus 25 pound helps very minimally below 5,500 pounds. The drop 25 pounds on your foot analogy comment is............................................

 

I also know a 10 pound flywheel has a much lower moment of inertia and we all know what that means, correct. The good part of this conversation is that a couple or so from the SMAC stated IIRC, a light weight flywheel will be of minimal help for the 1.6. In that case allow a 10 pound flywheel.

 

 

[Mark Drennan]

I believe there is a reason Drennan kept his '94.

 

There's also a reason why I spent a bunch of $ building a '99 and a VVT.  The '94 isn't competitive at most tracks against top prep/driver '99's and VVT's.  I'm lucky to have two tracks in my backyard where it is competitive, Laguna Seca and Sears Point.  But it's not competitive versus the '99's at Thunderhill (look at results for last years Majors) and CalSpeedway and Buttonwillow (which is why I borrowed my friends '99).  My/every '94 would get demolished at Road Atlanta, Road America, Daytona, VIR, PIR, and every other track with a/multiple long straight(s).  Not sure about Mid-Ohio. 

 

Another reason I haven't sold my '94 is because i can't get much for it, just like the 1.6's,...because it's not competitive at most tracks.

[Dave D.]

Ron,

  I don't have a problem with the 15 pounds( coolsuit cooler weighs more),and I would accept it if the decision came after careful thought,reviewing race results and backed up with repeatable data and it was for the betterment of the class to do it.. I just have an issue when it seems that a change is made to prevent something that may or may not be happening or happen at all with no data,real world examples or research.  After which it was said that the person who unilaterally made the decision didn't care if there was data for or against the said change. I felt as though it was like saying" this is how it's going to be because I said so!"

That I don't like

Was this done as a result of the win this winter at Sebring? Wasn't it brought up that this car may have some questionable qualities about it?? Didn't Danny Stein and others make the remark of how EQUAL a lot of the competition has been this winter following the shakeup at the Runoffs??IF the 1.6 needs more help against the NBs, then add the 15lbs to both VVT ad 99-00. The torque advantage enjoyed by the VVT gets washed by the middle of the straights as the better top end of the 99-00 takes over. At least it looks that way in the videos I have seen posted on here.

[Ron Alan]

Ron,

  I don't have a problem with the 15 pounds( coolsuit cooler weighs more),and I would accept it if the decision came after careful thought,reviewing race results and backed up with repeatable data and it was for the betterment of the class to do it.. I just have an issue when it seems that a change is made to prevent something that may or may not be happening or happen at all with no data,real world examples or research.  After which it was said that the person who unilaterally made the decision didn't care if there was data for or against the said change. I felt as though it was like saying" this is how it's going to be because I said so!"

That I don't like

Was this done as a result of the win this winter at Sebring? Wasn't it brought up that this car may have some questionable qualities about it?? Didn't Danny Stein and others make the remark of how EQUAL a lot of the competition has been this winter following the shakeup at the Runoffs??IF the 1.6 needs more help against the NBs, then add the 15lbs to both VVT ad 99-00. The torque advantage enjoyed by the VVT gets washed by the middle of the straights as the better top end of the 99-00 takes over. At least it looks that way in the videos I have seen posted on here.

Are we reading the same thread?? John did not make the decision(but he did agree with it)...are you familiar with how NASA works????? Even though in this case it sounds like they(those who did make the decision)got their info from others(SMAC/SCCA).

 

It doesnt matter what anybody says here...not how decisions are made. But if you follow close...it can be very predictable what the future may hold based on banter here. And for at least 6 months, the VVT has gotten its fair share of scrutiny. Be thankful its 15lbs and not a 38mm restrictor and 15 lbs!

[Ron Alan]

Where did a 1.6 win out here apart from Kyle L. at Sonoma in one regional race out of the entire year? Honest question, just asking.

 

I believe there is a reason Drennan kept his '94.

You have to look outside our region Matt...and in my head I'm combining the results of a few years since the rules have not changed for 3!

Had it not been for a bum motor I think Mark would/could have won either champs in his 94 out here. He was not beat this year in any car he drove...94/99/01 at Laguna!

[ECOBRAP]

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the info, understandably you guys know why I'm scared to give the NA8 anything! I think we are lucky to live in a region where the NA's aren't too far off.

 

How about driver dependent weight requirements, set Drennan at 2900lbs so I can catch up? 

[RazerX]

We get to randomly set one of Mark tire pressures to 40 psi before the start

[ECOBRAP]

We get to randomly set one of Mark tire pressures to 40 psi before the start

 

Tom Brady will do it for us.