207 replies to this topic

[wheel]

Except that in SRF the new SRF3 class will be the only SRF class in the near future.  There is a transition period where both classes will race for Majors and Runoffs wins, but the old SRF cars will, eventually, go away.  Of course, the old cars can be converted to the new configuration and can continue to run as SRF3.

wheel

[Chris70]

Ok, deep breath.

I normally dont post on forums but this class is dear to my heart even after 51 years involved in racing.

At S.A.C. racing we have built a little over 50 complete engines and about 80 + heads with NO STR blending, NO radiusing of unshrouding because my take on the rules always been that the wording is very specific ; there is NO wording that would lend to an interpretation of blending or radius.

When a rule allows you to make it larger or deeper it does NOT mean you can alter the shape/geometry of the stock part. It is a very optimistic and self serving to believe you can reshape it as you see fit.

The next problem I have is with the rule makers who sometimes tend to over react and while trying to solve one problem create an even bigger one.

Some people got mad when I mentioned spherical bearing for the upper A-arms until it was pointed out what the GCR definition was and the rule was corrected. Should we taken advantage of it and when it became a problem make it legal ?

The way things have been handled this year is in my view  wrong, it is a license to be "creative" and enjoy and advantage for a couple of years until it becomes a public problem and then simply make the non compliant  become the norm when it is convenient.

Talk about the slippery slope of rules creep and we are fast on our way to production.

And anyone who believes that those things dont add up is just dreaming, why do you think the builders do it, just to look good ?

After  we bought a whistler and saw what was going on I approached a few builders and told them about what we were seeing , some listened , some totally ignored and later on were embroiled in whistler gate.

Next I approached a few more with concerns about the blending including ex SMAC members that even agreed it was not right but nothing was done about it till now and the solution once again is to change the rules to make it good.

I lobbied hard to get the clarification of the plunge cut being concentric with the valve guide and it was finally done. Now , mind you all this happened over a year ago.

As has been pointed out those of us who built to the rules can NOT go back and add material so we can have a radius that was never there from Mazda but those who have can go and remove it. Why should the burden be on those who followed the rules ?

My official position for SAC and about 25 or so permanent customers is that the proposed rules should NOT allow anything over a .010 radius just so the tip of the cutter cant chip and NO more , .040 is bout 1 mm and it does make a difference just as the STR blending does.

In engine building to a set of rules it is the cumulative effect of many small details that add up in the end, so trying to quantify the gains of individual details is not practical.

Ademir Fedumenti

S.A.C. racing

[FTodaro]

Frank - I put together a second comment to the CRB last night.  Regarding your first point what do you recommend?  I wrote something about clearly defining where the Chamber is and where the first cut meets the Chamber. 

 

This is the only thing I can think of that people don't understand or can bamboozle tech inspectors who are unfamiliar with the term Chamber.  Is this the interpretation you refer to?

 

I did recommend .080 and 1/1/17.

Keith, I am not smart enough to make a recommendation, I will leave it up to those who know this stuff. My concern is getting everyone on the same page without forcing the average Joe to go out and spend another chunk of money, in the near future.

[38bfast]

Just thinking aloud. If identical everything is the goal then we have a long way to go. There is a lot of "open" in our rules. Just a short list, brake pads, exhaust, radiators, wheels to name a few. To me those items make a concidirable impact on performance and are very measurable in gains or losses. Keeping that in mind is .010" vs .060 even in the same scope.

It may just be me but I think that we are squabbling about somthing that is so insignificant compared to what we alow as "open"

Or I other words if we want everyone on the same page there is many more significant places to look in our rules. Or low hanging fruit.

Specing spark plugs would yealed more impact in parity than relief cut radius.

[Ron Alan]

Ok, deep breath.
I normally dont post on forums but this class is dear to my heart even after 51 years involved in racing.
At S.A.C. racing we have built a little over 50 complete engines and about 80 + heads with NO STR blending, NO radiusing of unshrouding because my take on the rules always been that the wording is very specific ; there is NO wording that would lend to an interpretation of blending or radius.
When a rule allows you to make it larger or deeper it does NOT mean you can alter the shape/geometry of the stock part. It is a very optimistic and self serving to believe you can reshape it as you see fit.
The next problem I have is with the rule makers who sometimes tend to over react and while trying to solve one problem create an even bigger one.
Some people got mad when I mentioned spherical bearing for the upper A-arms until it was pointed out what the GCR definition was and the rule was corrected. Should we taken advantage of it and when it became a problem make it legal ?
The way things have been handled this year is in my view  wrong, it is a license to be "creative" and enjoy and advantage for a couple of years until it becomes a public problem and then simply make the non compliant  become the norm when it is convenient.
Talk about the slippery slope of rules creep and we are fast on our way to production.
And anyone who believes that those things dont add up is just dreaming, why do you think the builders do it, just to look good ?
After  we bought a whistler and saw what was going on I approached a few builders and told them about what we were seeing , some listened , some totally ignored and later on were embroiled in whistler gate.
Next I approached a few more with concerns about the blending including ex SMAC members that even agreed it was not right but nothing was done about it till now and the solution once again is to change the rules to make it good.
I lobbied hard to get the clarification of the plunge cut being concentric with the valve guide and it was finally done. Now , mind you all this happened over a year ago.
As has been pointed out those of us who built to the rules can NOT go back and add material so we can have a radius that was never there from Mazda but those who have can go and remove it. Why should the burden be on those who followed the rules ?
My official position for SAC and about 25 or so permanent customers is that the proposed rules should NOT allow anything over a .010 radius just so the tip of the cutter cant chip and NO more , .040 is bout 1 mm and it does make a difference just as the STR blending does.
In engine building to a set of rules it is the cumulative effect of many small details that add up in the end, so trying to quantify the gains of individual details is not practical.
Ademir Fedumenti
S.A.C. racing

Well said Ademir!! Thanks for being a voice of common sense and reason. Those who crap on what others say about insignificant gains in motor shades of gray need to write your last sentence on the chalkboard 100 times!

Ralph,

How I see it, open rules are there for all to test and exploit! This is fair and free to without fear of non-compliance.

Horsepower and torque are the holy grail...and it's one area most of us rely on others to get there. You see where I'm going with this...

[Keith Andrews]

Keith, I am not smart enough to make a recommendation, I will leave it up to those who know this stuff. My concern is getting everyone on the same page without forcing the average Joe to go out and spend another chunk of money, in the near future.

 

Gotcha. I was struggling with the thought that there are "two legitimate but different interpretations we need to clarify to get all on the same page."  I thought you might have some specific verbiage you thought would help.

 

I think I get it now.

[Bench Racer]

Wheel, that much clarification was not required to make my post point.

[LarryKing]

“Your most unhappy customers are your greatest source of learning.” - Bill Gates

 

I can use the workout so I will exercise my futility. I'll try to explain my point of view so even a Texan can understand.

 

Forget 10K SMs (I know that ship has long ago sailed, even though it was the very basis for our class). Forget my personal situation.

 

Let's say Jack Track wants to go W2W racing and has $35,000-$40,000 burning a hole in his pocket. He could buy a new SRF3 and know that his car is exactly identical to every other SRF3 on the grid. Or he could take the same money and buy a "new" SM (should he buy a '99 or a VVT?), and he would have no assurance that he is or is not at a competitive disadvantage to other SMs, depending on his and his builder's "creativity" or lack thereof. 

 

Apparently I am in the minority who sees that as a problem for our class, and apparently I'm stupid for having that opinion.

[Todd Lamb]

Yet somehow SRF3 isn't closer racing. They have MUCH more adjustability on the cars, including shocks. That alone is enough for most people to tune themselves right out of the lead pack.

[Michael Novak]

“Your most unhappy customers are your greatest source of learning.” - Bill Gates

 

I can use the workout so I will exercise my futility. I'll try to explain my point of view so even a Texan can understand.

 

Forget 10K SMs (I know that ship has long ago sailed, even though it was the very basis for our class). Forget my personal situation.

 

Let's say Jack Track wants to go W2W racing and has $35,000-$40,000 burning a hole in his pocket. He could buy a new SRF3 and know that his car is exactly identical to every other SRF3 on the grid. Or he could take the same money and buy a "new" SM (should he buy a '99 or a VVT?), and he would have no assurance that he is or is not at a competitive disadvantage to other SMs, depending on his and his builder's "creativity" or lack thereof. 

 

Apparently I am in the minority who sees that as a problem for our class, and apparently I'm stupid for having that opinion.

Walter,

 

If you buy a 30-40K spec miata from ANY of the builders it will be a Major winning level car---pretty much period---I see it as exactly the same as the SRF3 deal ---buy a SRF or a SM and depending on your skill set you are there.

 

VVT or 99 are track dependent-- buy the one that fits best for what you run.

[Jim Drago]

 

Let's say Jack Track wants to go W2W racing and has $35,000-$40,000 burning a hole in his pocket. He could buy a new SRF3 and know that his car is exactly identical to every other SRF3 on the grid. Or he could take the same money and buy a "new" SM (should he buy a '99 or a VVT?), and he would have no assurance that he is or is not at a competitive disadvantage to other SMs, depending on his and his builder's "creativity" or lack thereof. 

 

 

That is a good point.. However I think some of these items are perception items in both directions.. 

All SRF3 are NOT "exactly" the same

ANY SM bought from a known quality builder 10-15 plus for 35000-40000 will be every bit as competitive as any SRF3 and majors winning capable depending on driver

 

Point made though, to someone just getting in I could see your scenario

[mhiggins10]

“Your most unhappy customers are your greatest source of learning.” - Bill Gates

 

I can use the workout so I will exercise my futility. I'll try to explain my point of view so even a Texan can understand.

 

Forget 10K SMs (I know that ship has long ago sailed, even though it was the very basis for our class). Forget my personal situation.

 

Let's say Jack Track wants to go W2W racing and has $35,000-$40,000 burning a hole in his pocket. He could buy a new SRF3 and know that his car is exactly identical to every other SRF3 on the grid. Or he could take the same money and buy a "new" SM (should he buy a '99 or a VVT?), and he would have no assurance that he is or is not at a competitive disadvantage to other SMs, depending on his and his builder's "creativity" or lack thereof. 

 

Apparently I am in the minority who sees that as a problem for our class, and apparently I'm stupid for having that opinion.

 

I learned a while ago that some folks believe pushing the "gray" areas of the rules (or making gray where the intention was pretty clear) is just as much part of winning as spending time on your setup, data and driving skills.  It's folly to think we will ever get to truly equal cars in this class at any price point.

 

When people ask me about Spec Miata, I generally tell them it's CHEAP racing, not equal racing.  I tell them there are folks who buy $30,000 cars and spend tens of thousands a year to run up front, and there are guys like me that spent $7500 on a car and a few grand a year and will ever only run mid-pack at best.  It's just the reality of the class- driven by the "interpretations" and pushing the limits over the years.  Ademir's post is perhaps the best I've read of someone who wants to do the "right" thing, realizing everyone else is doing something else to win.

 

I've thought a lot about what to do with my racing dollars.  SE30 looks more tempting every day, but the big fields and the fact that the class attracts other folks with budgets like mine that I can race with have kept me here so far.  In the end, SM is still by FAR the cheapest way to W2W race (note: not WIN), and as long as that's true, we'll keep having the same argument over and over.

 

I wonder what NASA could do with that SE30/SE36 with some slick marketing and the right folks running it, while keeping a close eye on rules/parity/tech/etc.  I bet you could have a strong competitor to SM in 3-5 years, with fields growing.  Until the same folks show up and push those cars to $25k as well...

[FTodaro]

 

 

 and there are guys like me that spent $7500 on a car and a few grand a year and will ever only run mid-pack at best.  It's just the reality of the class- driven by the "interpretations" and pushing the limits over the years. 

 

There is nothing wrong with that. Are you have fun? can you have just as much fun racing in the middle as the front? I think so. Everyone cannot be a the front how would that work. I think there is to much focus by some about this point and the cost of being at the front. There are several layers to SM racing Pick what your comfortable with and go have fun.

[MPR22]

 Until the same folks show up and push those cars to $25k as well...

And there is the truth of the matter!

[MPR22]

“Your most unhappy customers are your greatest source of learning.” - Bill Gates

 

I can use the workout so I will exercise my futility. I'll try to explain my point of view so even a Texan can understand.

 

Forget 10K SMs (I know that ship has long ago sailed, even though it was the very basis for our class). Forget my personal situation.

 

Let's say Jack Track wants to go W2W racing and has $35,000-$40,000 burning a hole in his pocket. He could buy a new SRF3 and know that his car is exactly identical to every other SRF3 on the grid. Or he could take the same money and buy a "new" SM (should he buy a '99 or a VVT?), and he would have no assurance that he is or is not at a competitive disadvantage to other SMs, depending on his and his builder's "creativity" or lack thereof. 

 

Apparently I am in the minority who sees that as a problem for our class, and apparently I'm stupid for having that opinion.

You actually make some sense with this post as you have admitted the 10k SM competing at the front is not a reality.  

 

And yes if you have 35k burning a hole in your pocket you could jump into SRF3.  But what makes SM so great is that you can spend $7,500 - 10,000  and learn to drive for a couple of years with the extra money you have saved.  Then you can decide if this wheel to wheel stuff is really a passion or just a hobby.  Passion, step up and build a contender.  Hobby keep on racing and having fun.  Your post seem like you are not having fun and that is a shame.  I would still have fun if i raced in crap can race.  Love passing up my fellow redknecks in their mustangs. 

[LarryKing]

 

can you have just as much fun racing in the middle as the front? I think so.

 

Well then Frank, I cordially invite you to try it for the next 3-4 years and report back.

[FTodaro]

Well then Frank, I cordially invite you to try it for the next 3-4 years and report back.

When i go to a Majors race I am a solid Middle Packer and have been for at least that many years what would you like to know.

I go

 

I have fun.

 

I drink beer with guys when track is cold.

 

Have made lots of friends.

 

Pick on Kyle.

 

did I miss anything?

[Waterboy]

Please remember we all mostly come here because were bored and it's a place to chat with equals, Spec Miata owners/drivers.

 

Back to your comment above, your words, "been forced to buy  new cars" is a  comment. If they choose to play at the pointy end of SRF Gen3, they are required to procure a new engine package which fits the original transmission/engine mounts. Erik and colleagues designed the Gen3 package so the SRF owners were not required to dump their old cars and start with new cars.
 

 

Maybe not a new car but the upgrade is 12-14k. 

[Waterboy]

Well then Frank, I cordially invite you to try it for the next 3-4 years and report back.

 

Tell you what.  Why don't you borrow my car, it is a front running car.  You wreck it, blow it up, etc. you fix it.  If you are still mid pack then maybe it's time to move on from this argument?

[LarryKing]

Ya know kids, it is possible to enjoy something and still have a critical eye towards it. I'm not one who readily swallows an ideology hook, line and sinker.

 

In other words, I still drink the Cool Aid - I just notice it has a weird aftertaste.