1001 replies to this topic

[James York]

Danny,

Thanks, that is a big  improvement.  Drop link attached.

Rich

 

https://dl.dropboxus...ce 16v99 18.jpg

 

I am not sure which car is which, but the red line appears to have a greater acceleration rate.

[ECOBRAP]

I am not sure which car is which, but the red line appears to have a greater acceleration rate.

 

The red is Steve's '99.

The black is my 1.6.

[ECOBRAP]

What you see between the 99+ and the 1.6 is this scenario (out of class), just that the differentials are much, much smaller.

 

Very good analogy, spot on.

 

edit: it is like an SM racing a SpecE30, but not as pronounced. In our region, these two cars set almost identical lap times, but a Spec E30 driving defensively will always beat the SM

[Bench Racer]

i am not clear as to what some are asking. Asking to add power to the 1.6. And then saying if its over to add weight and or a plate. So its ok to add the power (spend the time and money) and then loose a portion of it via weight and plate if needed? So to paraphrase give us power but its ok to take it away if you see fit. 

 

The last two sentences of my letter to SMAC/CRB are very clear.

 

"IF these enhancements on track prove to be on the high side, do not add weight to the 1.6, propose remove weight and or enlarge the restrictor plate in the 1997 plus cars.

 

When mulling your decision process, please keep in your thoughts how many 1.6L cars entered the 2014 Runoffs, where the 1.6L cars finished at the 2014 Runoffs and please remember there are only 4 1.6 L cars out of a total car count of 62 cars for the 2015 Runoffs." 

Thank you
1.6 owner/driver
David Dewhurst
SCCA member #250772

[Johnny D]

i am not clear as to what some are asking. Asking to add power to the 1.6. And then saying if its over to add weight and or a plate. So its ok to add the power (spend the time and money) and then loose a portion of it via weight and plate if needed? So to paraphrase give us power but its ok to take it away if you see fit.

It's a waste of time and money if you don't give them enough. Agree ?
Are you 100% sure you're going to nail the adjustment, unlikely.
Give them more and then tune it back.
Or as DD said open up the 1.8's, etc.
J~

[Danny Steyn]

I am not sure which car is which, but the red line appears to have a greater acceleration rate.

 

James that is why I wanted Rich to maximize the graphs as it amplifies what can easily be missed on the multigraph view. 

 

No doubt about it, the Steve's red car appears to be SIGNIFICANTLY stronger than Matt's black car

[Jim Drago]

When mulling your decision process, please keep in your thoughts how many 1.6L cars entered the 2014 Runoffs, where the 1.6L cars finished at the 2014 Runoffs and please remember there are only 4 1.6 L cars out of a total car count of 62 cars for the 2015 Runoffs." 

1.6 owner/driver
David Dewhurst
SCCA member #250772[/i]

Exactly.. Why upset the apple cart for 6% of the cars entered  

[Johnny D]

Exactly.. Why upset the apple cart for 6% of the cars entered  

 
He's got a point.
 
What are we doing here...
https://www.youtube....h?v=HMcQKz3H0yY

J~

[Bench Racer]

Exactly.. Why upset the apple cart for 6% of the cars entered  

Been trying to stay clear of this sort of discussion. BUT being your screwing with a portion of the Spec Miata class I'll play your senseless game. Noticed you don't directly pick on the SMAC members relative to their positive comments of 1.6 inclusion.

 

If your doing the Daytona math, it would be 4/62=.0645=.065=.07=7% rounded.

 

Wasn't the left coast apple cart upset before the year 2014/2014 Runoffs.   Or is that left coast scenario different because the 99 plus cars decimated the 1.6 ranks.

 

Ron how many 99 plus racing on the left coast previous to 2014?

 

Back under my rock. 

[Jim Drago]

Been trying to stay clear of this sort of discussion. BUT being your screwing with a portion of the Spec Miata class I'll play your senseless game. Noticed you don't directly pick on the SMAC members relative to their positive comments of 1.6 inclusion.

 

If your doing the Daytona math, it would be 4/62=.0645=.065=.07=7% rounded.

 

Wasn't the left coast apple cart upset before the year 2014/2014 Runoffs.   Or is that left coast scenario different because the 99 plus cars decimated the 1.6 ranks.

 

Ron how many 99 plus racing on the left coast previous to 2014?

 

Back under my rock. 

 

 

Current situation for last 5 years or so is the 1.6 cars don't come out, plain and simple. Even when you all claimed NASA had it "right" and even when we proved a 1.6 could win at any track.. still no 1.6 cars anywhere but in regionals. Less new builds by people like me or other prep shops or guys currently running at or near the front, 99% of the existing 1.6 cars will not compete regardless of any realistic competition adjustment made.     BTW 6.45 rounded is 6, not 7

 

The cars should be adjusted to the majority, if too far they will need weight.  As soon as the changes are official, we will once again campaign a VERY strong 1.6 and once again it will prove to be better than 99% of all the other cars out there, not just 1.6 cars. It will then get weight as it should.  We should not be adjusting the majority of the class, we should( and what SMAC is trying to do) adjust the one odd ball. 

[mhiggins10]

James that is why I wanted Rich to maximize the graphs as it amplifies what can easily be missed on the multigraph view. 

 

No doubt about it, the Steve's red car appears to be SIGNIFICANTLY stronger than Matt's black car

 

"Well, neither car is really 100% fully TOP PREP..."

 

"Well, that's not a good segment of data to analyze..."

 

"Well, did you analyze that data over multiple laps on different days compared to the top 5 1.8s to see if there really IS any disadvantage..."

 

"Yeah, but Matt is an amazing driver and Steve, well..."

 

 

Disclaimer: I have no idea who Matt or Steve are- just my experiences around this type of conversation.  And yes, I wrote my letter to the CRB already...

[Johnny D]

Merry Christmas everyone.
https://www.youtube....h?v=v2K02NlSGIo
J~

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

Current situation for last 5 years or so is the 1.6 cars don't come out, plain and simple. Even when you all claimed NASA had it "right" and even when we proved a 1.6 could win at any track.. still no 1.6 cars anywhere but in regionals. Less new builds by people like me or other prep shops or guys currently running at or near the front, 99% of the existing 1.6 cars will not compete regardless of any realistic competition adjustment made.     BTW 6.45 rounded is 6, not 7
 
The cars should be adjusted to the majority, if too far they will need weight.  As soon as the changes are official, we will once again campaign a VERY strong 1.6 and once again it will prove to be better than 99% of all the other cars out there, not just 1.6 cars. It will then get weight as it should.  We should not be adjusting the majority of the class, we should( and what SMAC is trying to do) adjust the one odd ball.

Jim let me start by saying I'm messing with you and hope no hard feelings !

But you would be a great politician keep the rich rich and the poor poor ! Lol

Let's start with no NA will come out and race in a major and haven't in the last 5 years. Well if there not going to come back and race in a majors why are guys so worried about it becoming an over dog ?

I think Tom had a pretty good trial with the stuff he tested on his NA and if it has a better result with a better header so be it. This would be a cheap bolt on for the NA guys and it would be cheaper to change the NB with plates and weights. This would be a lot cheaper then finding the exact parts and all the rd it would take to get the NA to exactly were the NB are now.

So let's let the NA guys have what Tom has tested with a good header and adjust the other cars (NB) with plates and weights and be done with all of this. Plus the majors guys won't have to worry about it because they won't come out and race anyway !

Just think everyone will be going faster then !

[Michael Novak]

Once again please someone make a list of all of these 1.6 drivers who are going to update AND race a major? I know a far amount of racers in the Michigan-Ohio etc area and they are not going to upgrade. Feel free to add names on as many claim they don't come on this site. I can't think of one who is not coming because of engine only. Tires, travel, hotel and the rest. Yes. But a a top notch car that is just not strong enough- nope ....

[Bench Racer]

So, folks with extra recreational money will build the perfect 1.6 and win just as they can do today no matter what car their driving. Big fuzzy deal. There will also be X number of 99 plus cars that will loose race finish positions to the 1.6. That's a big fuzzy deal for the 1.6er's. 

 

Side note, there's more to Spec Miata racing than Majors races.

[Tom Hampton]

Once again please someone make a list of all of these 1.6 drivers who are going to update AND race a major? I know a far amount of racers in the Michigan-Ohio etc area and they are not going to upgrade. Feel free to add names on as many claim they don't come on this site. I can't think of one who is not coming because of engine only. Tires, travel, hotel and the rest. Yes. But a a top notch car that is just not strong enough- nope ....

 

Why "...AND race a major"?  I'll update, but I won't race a major...I probably won't even race SCCA.  I wouldn't even care about the SCCA if NASA wasn't "just following along."  But, as long as NASA is just going to play the SCCA's fiddle, I'm stuck writting letters to the CRB/SMAC. 

 

{{{EDIT: yes, I'm aware that isn't LITERALLY true.  There are a couple of notable exceptions.  But, most people are on-board with the two organizations staying mostly in sync, and for the moment NASA seems to be following the SCCA lead. That could change at any moment.  But, Mueller hasn't given any public indication that is imminent. }}}

 

I understand and am OK with setting the rules based on "top prep" cars. That makes perfect sense to me.  People who fall down the "prep" scale have some idea of what they are sacrificing, and may be making a price/performance trade-off.  I don't really agree with trying to set the rules based on the middle-class.  That's a bit too much like socialism for me.  I don't want a rules hand-out any more than I want to live on welfare. 

 

But, the rules apply equally to me as they do to a Majors participant. So, I don't see how that is or should be a factor AT ALL.

[Jamz14]

Delete

[Jamz14]

.

[Sean - MiataCage]

Once again please someone make a list of all of these 1.6 drivers who are going to update AND race a major? I know a far amount of racers in the Michigan-Ohio etc area and they are not going to upgrade. Feel free to add names on as many claim they don't come on this site. I can't think of one who is not coming because of engine only. Tires, travel, hotel and the rest. Yes. But a a top notch car that is just not strong enough- nope ....

 

Hi Mike..... I respect you and think you are one of the nicest guys in racing, however I see the situation differently than you do.

 

At this years Majors in Portland we had (2) SM entries and one was from California.  The preceding regional weekend we had (27)ish entries.  This is mostly because we have created our own championship series up here in the NW that spans various race organizations.  We take care of our own points, prizes etc.  We encourage all with multiple cars to run their 1.6's (which all have done) so as to try to still comply with the rules and put everyone on a level playing field regardless of the National rule set.  Some don't own multiple cars, but I think out of the 20+ on most weekeds only 3 cars being raced are the NB's.

 

If the 1.6L gets some love to make it a little bit more competitive then I can promise you we will have these 1.6L cars and drivers turn out for a NW Majors race again.  The majority of cars in our area are still 1.6L's and a vast majority of those are well prepared with pro-built motors.  These guys will not have any problem paying (if necessary) to upgrade thier cars to get the maximum allowable performance out of the rules and will subsequently enter a Majors weekend.  I don't think it necessary to name them...

 

Part of the reason for the lack of Majors entries in our area has to do with the price, but I think the general consensus is why spend all this money to do a Majors event that does not support a car that most of our drivers own.  You are correct about Tires/Travel/Etc all play a part in the Majors attendance, but in the case I am referring to this year, it was a local race so travel for most was out of the equation.

 

It seems to me that the Chicago Autobahn guys also prove this point in the fact that they fixed their own problem to allow for upgrades that they feel like make the cars equal.  It seems like there are more areas of the country who are artificially fragmenting the class to accomplish what SCCA National has yet to be able to do.....  Make the cars closer and bring back the fun.

 

I do not see the harm in making the 1.6L more competitive.  If 1 new guy shows up or 100 guys show up, Parity is Parity and I do not believe right now that parity is being achieved.  It is very close but we need to continue to strive for better parity.

 

Thanks.... Sean

[Michael Novak]

Why "...AND race a major"?  I'll update, but I won't race a major...I probably won't even race SCCA.  I wouldn't even care about the SCCA if NASA wasn't "just following along."  But, as long as NASA is just going to play the SCCA's fiddle, I'm stuck writting letters to the CRB/SMAC. 

 

{{{EDIT: yes, I'm aware that isn't LITERALLY true.  There are a couple of notable exceptions.  But, most people are on-board with the two organizations staying mostly in sync, and for the moment NASA seems to be following the SCCA lead. That could change at any moment.  But, Mueller hasn't given any public indication that is imminent. }}}

 

I understand and am OK with setting the rules based on "top prep" cars. That makes perfect sense to me.  People who fall down the "prep" scale have some idea of what they are sacrificing, and may be making a price/performance trade-off.  I don't really agree with trying to set the rules based on the middle-class.  That's a bit too much like socialism for me.  I don't want a rules hand-out any more than I want to live on welfare. 

 

But, the rules apply equally to me as they do to a Majors participant. So, I don't see how that is or should be a factor AT ALL.

By Majors---I am saying TOP Prepped car....  I see many people who feel they are doing a very good job of prep but really are not....  I am just not for making changes to make a mid level car equal to a top prep level 99+. I see many of these at the Regional level races.   Nothing more then that....