411 replies to this topic

[LarryKing]

I was 7.44th !

 

I was 7.44th !!!

[Steve Scheifler]

Which I believe they can currently.

And you may be correct. Not saying I know one way or the other with certainty, but the cars are different enough that it probably is not true at every track individually, which means that to even out the 1.6 must be better at quite a few, and that sounds less likely.

For me the deciding factor for what car to drive and the cheapest is the car I already have. Surely that is not unusual. In the past, the big issue for me was never rules parity. I doubt you could find a single post complaining that the 1.6 was a serious underdog, or even at a significant disadvantage. It just didn't matter when by far the bigger issue was rules compliance. And make no mistake, that was a very big issue.

[Danny Steyn]

Danny,

 

What is the SMAC charter exactly?  As a volunteer representing SM community, what has the SCCA asked you to exactly do?  (I thought I knew what the SMAC did, but now I am not so sure)

 

And second,

 

Would you say your position is such that under any "equitable" rule set, you would not build a NA model car?

 

James, first off I stated that I would NOT build an NA car under the CURRENT rule set as I believe it is not competitive. I suspect that this an opinion shared by the majority of class as there are no front runners competing in the 1.6. As I replied to Drago, under a different rule set I would consider building an NA car if I believed that it would be competitive and certainly I would consider building one if it appeared to offer an advantage on certain tracks.

 

I am unaware of a "charter" for SMAC. There might be one, and I will find out for you. Drago, Collins, Fowler, Tiley - they might be able to offer a more helpful reply. I have been asked to sit in on the calls, to read all the letters sent in by our members (pertaining to SM) and offer an opinion, one of many. We vote on decisions. One of the requirements is that we may not discuss the proceedings. I am sure you understand

[Danny Steyn]

Let me put my personal agenda another way so that is clear......

 

My personal agenda is to encourage increased participation in Spec Miata. It starts with increased participation at regional events, encouraging some of those drivers to make the trips to the Majors events, and encouraging some of those to make the trip to the Runoffs. Purely statistics - the more that we encourage to race, the more that will sign up. My reference to the RUNOFFS is purely the END result of increased participation throughout our class. This is how I would know what we have done our jobs.  

 

If we are the ONE class at the runoffs that is oversubscribed, and we have to run an A and B race to decide who runs the main race, I think that we would all be able to say that we have built an attractive class that appeals to many drivers.

 

It is purely a measurement ideal, of course its skewed by the economy, the track chosen for the runoffs etc. But if anyone suggests that standard statistical methodology does not apply to this, I look forward to reading why.

 

And yes I personally feel too much emphasis is placed on the Runoffs (thats because I have never won one!!!)

[Mitch Reading]

Danny, you're more than clear.  Keep up the good work. 

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

I'm sorry but I love how some of the guys here believe there are no top level prepped NA cars out there anymore. Well guess what guys,you are wrong. They are everywhere just in other hands now and still being raced to this day. Oh let me guess you guys thought they just ended up at Jim's for scrap metal ! Sorry Jim lol !

The fact is there are plenty of top level prepped NA cars out there. The only thing that has changed is the fact that the R&D has stopped on the NA cars and moved onto the NB cars. Nothing wrong with that because in life everything moves on. Just not get upset with the NA guys asking for some more R&D to keep there cars competitive and on the track. Everyone that has a NA car wants to be able to show up at a race and be able to compete at the top level and have a chance to win.

Now for the NA or NB guys out there that do nothing to there car you can't expect to win,it takes a lot of time and effort to get to the top. All were asking for is a chance for the NA top level prepped car to be able to get to the podium if they put in the time and effort. At this current time there doesn't seem like a chance for that so it does need some help. I for no reason want the 1.6 to become an overdog just want it to be competitive at most tracks.

I'm sorry but that video does no justice for the NB guys. Yes he qualified great with the car but proves are point about actual race conditions, sorry Todd but he did not pass one car out there. And why this hurts the NB guys argument is because that car was driven buy one of the best out there and he didn't make one pass.

[Jim Drago]

Let me put my personal agenda another way so that is clear......
 
My personal agenda is to encourage increased participation in Spec Miata. It starts with increased participation at regional events, encouraging some of those drivers to make the trips to the Majors events, and encouraging some of those to make the trip to the Runoffs. Purely statistics - the more that we encourage to race, the more that will sign up. My reference to the RUNOFFS is purely the END result of increased participation throughout our class. This is how I would know what we have done our jobs.  
 
If we are the ONE class at the runoffs that is oversubscribed, and we have to run an A and B race to decide who runs the main race, I think that we would all be able to say that we have built an attractive class that appeals to many drivers.
 
It is purely a measurement ideal, of course its skewed by the economy, the track chosen for the runoffs etc. But if anyone suggests that standard statistical methodology does not apply to this, I look forward to reading why.
 
And yes I personally feel too much emphasis is placed on the Runoffs (thats because I have never won one!!!)

           

BTW, be prepared for motives to be questioned for awhile

[James York]

James, first off I stated that I would NOT build an NA car under the CURRENT rule set as I believe it is not competitive. I suspect that this an opinion shared by the majority of class as there are no front runners competing in the 1.6. As I replied to Drago, under a different rule set I would consider building an NA car if I believed that it would be competitive and certainly I would consider building one if it appeared to offer and advantage on certain tracks.

 

I am unaware of a "charter" for SMAC. There might be one, and I will find out for you. Drago, Collins, Fowler, Tiley - they might be able to offer a more helpful reply. I have been asked to sit in on the calls, to read all the letters sent in by our members (pertaining to SM) and offer an opinion, one of many. We vote on decisions. One of the requirements is that we may not discuss the proceedings. I am sure you understand

Danny,

 

Thanks for the reply.  In regards to the charter, if there is one, it would just be enlightening.  If there is not one, perhaps the SMAC should consider creating one, otherwise, I would suspect it difficult for SMAC members to carry out responsibilities.  I know you have been around long enough to know what happens when people are set off without any direction or goals.

 

As far as the 1.6, I might not have expressed myself correctly.  I totally understand your position today that you would not build a 1.6.  Another way to ask what I intended is, "do you think it is acceptable to the class to adjust the rules to a spot that you personally feel compelled to build a 1.6? (or any other person for that matter)"

[ECOBRAP]

As far as the 1.6, I might not have expressed myself correctly.  I totally understand your position today that you would not build a 1.6.  Another way to ask what I intended is, "do you think it is acceptable to the class to adjust the rules to a spot that you personally feel compelled to build a 1.6?

 

 

The goal is not to compel people to build 1.6's, it's just to make them an option for front runners. Currently, they are not, regardless of how much money you put in.

 

Before we start messing with CR, headers, etc, I would rather keep it simple. Drop the weight and allow engine bay ducting (not intake).

 

How many people watching this thread are opposed to letting the 1.6 drop 25lbs and use a turn signal intake duct? If so, for what reasons?

[James York]

The goal is not to compel people to build 1.6's, it's just to make them an option for front runners. Currently, they are not, regardless of how much money you put in.

 

Before we start messing with CR, headers, etc, I would rather keep it simple. Drop the weight and allow engine bay ducting (not intake).

 

How many people watching this thread are opposed to letting the 1.6 drop 25lbs and use a turn signal intake? If so, for what reasons?

 

Matt,

 

I was not asking your goal, or the general forum members.  I was asking Danny's opinion as a SMAC member on how far he thought acceptable swing in performace for the 1.6.  Your opinion may differ from his.  So let him share for my benefit.

[Todd Lamb]

I want to know what Charbs thinks about all this.

[Randy Wolfgram]

Danny, you're more than clear.  Keep up the good work. 

 

I agree.  Danny, thanks for taking up what may be an unpopular position.  I'm new, don't know any of the players or motives and don't have any street cred here so my opinion doesn't necessarily mean anything, but I think it's admirable for someone in your position, to take up the charge to try to help a part of the class that feels it's warranted.

[Danny Steyn]

Danny,

 

As far as the 1.6, I might not have expressed myself correctly.  I totally understand your position today that you would not build a 1.6.  Another way to ask what I intended is, "do you think it is acceptable to the class to adjust the rules to a spot that you personally feel compelled to build a 1.6? (or any other person for that matter)"

 

 

James as you and others might possibly allude to, and as posted by Drago above, there will be those that question MY motives. I mean why would I take the time to promote something if I am not going to gain by it? I must have a personal agenda, say trying to get the 1.6 to overdog status so that I can build one and win this year's runoffs at Daytona?? That would make sense, wouldn't it? 

 

Anyone that knows me knows that this is most definitely NOT my agenda. I have no personal interest in seeing the NA cars becoming more competitive other than the pure joy that I get from racing wheel to wheel with more cars. Thats it. Sure I like winning, but I LOVE RACING WAY MORE THAN WINNING, and you will see my genuine joy in my videos,even when I get my ass kicked as it so often happens. 

 

No one believes the 1.6 can compete. So it dies a death. There are thousands of cars that never make it into our class. Those that are there are giving up on them and quitting, they do not have the budget to build a NB car. This IMO does nothing for our class. 

 

As I have stated before, IMO no-one will start campaigning the NA cars seriously until they start winning their fair share of events. So how do you, James, make this happen, or do you personally want to see the NA shelved as competitive option in Spec Miata? From my viewpoint it will take small increases in performance, to the point where it becomes an attractive option, in the same way that the 99 and VVT cars are THE attractive options right now. 

[MPR22]

What would it take for me to race my 1.6? 

 

I would be happy with -25 lbs, underhood venting and bigger brakes (last one just because i hate having to buy different pads and keep them in stock)

 

What would it take for me to build a 1.6. 

 

Delete the AFM, replace with a megasquirt with a SM compliant map, -25 lbs, appropriate restrictor plate.  

 

I could not possibly advocate the second because it would mean a large expense to the "masses" (if that is even true anymore) to upgrade.

 

If the NA 1.6 became the COTY, new builds would be retailed at the same number a 99 build would cost.  

 

As to all the old 1.6's that are getting recycled:  They are freaking race cars, they have a finite life span.  They are truly another consumable, albeit an expensive one.  Why would we make rules that keep outdated, potentially unsafe (talking about 10 year old cages that aren't as good as the current designs) expensive to maintain race cars on the track.  

 

I spent 16,5k building my first car, a 1.6.  Spent about  18k building my first 99.  What was the difference, donor cost.  Which one have I spent more money on developing, my 1.6, (although it is easier on the brakes).  Get the 1.6's out there to race again, yes!  Make it so somebody actually chooses to build one, NO.  

[wheel]

The CRB recruited Danny for the SMAC.  Despite the lack of free time, due to his business, he agreed to join the SMAC and work with them for the class.  As a member of the SMAC, as with any Advisory Committee, he is required to keep all of the SMAC activity confidential until it is sent to the CRB to work its way to the BoD, in the case of rule changes.  He is free to express his personal opinions, which may or may not be what the SMAC, as a group, thinks.  When anything comes out of the SMAC, don't expect Danny or any other member to post, "I voted against it, but they did it anyway."  The SMAC speaks with one voice.

wheel

[James York]

James as you and others might possibly allude to, and as posted by Drago above, there will be those that question MY motives. I mean why would I take the time to promote something if I am not going to gain by it? I must have a personal agenda, say trying to get the 1.6 to overdog status so that I can build one and win this year's runoffs at Daytona?? That would make sense, wouldn't it? 

 

Anyone that knows me knows that this is most definitely NOT my agenda. I have no personal interest in seeing the NA cars becoming more competitive other than the pure joy that I get from racing wheel to wheel with more cars. Thats it. Sure I like winning, but I LOVE RACING WAY MORE THAN WINNING, and you will see my genuine joy in my videos,even when I get my ass kicked as it so often happens. 

 

No one believes the 1.6 can compete. So it dies a death. There are thousands of cars that never make it into our class. Those that are there are giving up on them and quitting, they do not have the budget to build a NB car. This IMO does nothing for our class. 

 

As I have stated before, IMO no-one will start campaigning the NA cars seriously until they start winning their fair share of events. So how do you, James, make this happen, or do you personally want to see the NA shelved as competitive option in Spec Miata? From my viewpoint it will take small increases in performance, to the point where it becomes an attractive option, in the same way that the 99 and VVT cars are THE attractive options right now. 

 

Danny,

 

That is a very long response to something that can be answered yes or no.   (and you still didn't answer by the way)  Or maybe you did with that last paragraph .....  so you think it is good for the class to move the rules over time to a point 99 and VVT drivers feel compelled to swap to a 1.6?

 

I believe you DO NOT have any unscrupulous motives to win Daytona or any other race.  So you can throw that idea out the window from me.

 

I wanted to understand your vision of how far a change is "correct".  That's all.  Simple.  I will tell you my boundary.  If I suggested or supported a rule and subsequently then felt compelled to build a new car model to stay competitive, I screwed up. 

 

My opinion of what I think should happen to the 1.6, is just that an opinion and I most likely don't hold the same view as you.  (but that's ok, it's America).  I will openly admit and share.  I said it a year or more ago on these forums.  SM should be one build of car and it should happen over a transition period.  Pick your model and make the rules.  Take the pain and get it over.  NA, 99, vvt, whatever year, pick something.  Give everyone time to migrate over that then step up the selected model's performance ever so slightly so its the clear winner.  Other models can still race but will never receive adjustments.  Now SM is "spec" and no longer any parity issues.  After a certain period of years, do the same process moving to the 2006+ cars....   We need to get away from the parity problems.

 

Now does this agree with everyone, no, I am sure, but its my opinion.

[LarryKing]

Valid points Mr York, and if you're asking 1/3 to 1/2 of the current participants to re-invest in a new(er) car why would you suggest a model that is already 16 years old?

 

If we're ripping off bandaids then let's include everyone in that pain and make the NC chassis the spec.

[Danny Steyn]

Danny,

 

That is a very long response to something that can be answered yes or no.   (and you still didn't answer by the way)  Or maybe you did with that last paragraph .....  so you think it is good for the class to move the rules over time to a point 99 and VVT drivers feel compelled to swap to a 1.6?

 

I do believe you DO NOT have any unscrupulous motives to win Daytona or any other race.  So you can throw that idea out the window from me.

 

I wanted to understand your vision of how far a change is "correct".  That's all.  Simple.  I will tell you my boundary.  If I suggested or supported a rule and subsequently then felt compelled to build a new car model to stay competitive, I screwed up. 

 

My opinion of what I think should happen to the 1.6, is just that an opinion and I most likely don't hold the same view as you.  (but that's ok, it's America).  I will openly admit and share.  I said it a year or more ago on these forums.  SM should be one build of car and it should happen over a transition period.  Pick your model and make the rules.  Take the pain and get it over.  NA, 99, vvt, whatever year, pick something.  Give everyone time to migrate over that then step up the selected model's performance ever so slightly so its the clear winner.  Other models can still race but will never receive adjustments.  Now SM is "spec" and no longer any parity issues.  After a certain period of years, do the same process moving to the 2006+ cars....   We need to get away from the parity problems.

 

Now does this agree with everyone, no, I am sure, but its my opinion.

 

James - thanks for the vote of confidence regarding my motives.

 

I do NOT want anyone to feel compelled to build ANY car. Right now every NA driver feels compelled to build a 99 or a VVT? 

What do you say to this?

[Danny Steyn]

I agree.  Danny, thanks for taking up what may be an unpopular position.  I'm new, don't know any of the players or motives and don't have any street cred here so my opinion doesn't necessarily mean anything, but I think it's admirable for someone in your position, to take up the charge to try to help a part of the class that feels it's warranted.

 

Thanks Randy - there are a lot of guys like you out there that do not post on this forum for a variety of reasons. I appreciate your support

[James York]

James - thanks for the vote of confidence regarding my motives.

 

I do NOT want anyone to feel compelled to build ANY car. Right now every NA driver feels compelled to build a 99 or a VVT? 

What do you say to this?

 

Danny,

 

I would agree, that the NA drivers on this forum express feelings that they must move to a 99+ to be competitive.  I personally can't say this is true for every driver, nor can I honestly say I have first hand facts since I have never discussed this topic with 1.6 drivers in person.

 

The only anecdotal evidence i can say, is that I have not attended a Majors race myself where a 1.6 car or driver was prepped enough to be expected to win...  in my opinion.  My driving has not been prepped enough either.