1001 replies to this topic

[FTodaro]

one thing for sure, if the 1.6 becomes the overdog, there will be way more guys looking for parity!

The circle never completes, its like a dog chasing its tail.

[Brandon]

Thank you Ralph, Sean, Danny, Todd and SMAC for your energy spent in following through with bones for the 1.6.

 

EDIT:

Thank you 1.6er's and Tom for providing info/letters.

 

What am I? Chopped liver?  :-)

[Tom Sager]

What am I? Chopped liver?  :-)

Yes, anyone driving a '94-'97 is that and also an endangered species.  

[Brandon]

BOOM!

[Steve Scheifler]

I was speaking very specifically of your car since that was the example you chose. ANY car with a decade of racing is not going to be as good as a newer build.

I get that, but at the same time it effectively dismisses all NAs as ineligible for serious contention. With that in mind why object to a spin-off class with otherwise identical rules? I'm not specifically for that, but your vehement opposition is perplexing. If they broke away why would you care what rules they followed??? I personally would not be satisfied winning in that class unless some top talent was in the field, just as I don't get much out of winning against a small regional field now, but so what?

Anyway, it is still possible to find low mileage NB doners but they are no longer common, so if chassis flex is a significant issue then perhaps it's time for the SMAC to work on solving that or the top 1% will only pull further ahead.

[Brian129]

when might we see this change,  When will the CRB review? 

I was just working on putting my car on the dyno for tuning, and got delayed due to other issues.

I know I will be implementing all  changes on my car as soon a I can. 

[Jim Drago]

We have a vastly different definition of 'low cost' my friend.

We should start another thread.. But you can buy an entry level car for about 10,000, a used competitive car for high teens to low 20's, build a very competitive new car for low 20's by yourself or buy one for low 30's all built.

Where should these numbers be to be "low cost"?

[Todd Lamb]

A simple timeline to theorize that chassis flex may not be exclusively an NA issue.


1990 . 1993 . . . . . 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2016

Let me just go ahead and poke a hole in your theory and timeline.

1999 Race car built 2014 = 1 year
1990 Race car built 2002 = 13 years

[Jim Drago]

Anyway, it is still possible to find low mileage NB doners but they are no longer common, so if chassis flex is a significant issue then perhaps it's time for the SMAC to work on solving that or the top 1% will only pull further ahead.

IMO, the mileage on a street tub is almost irrelevant. I would much rather start with 10k than 210k.. but most all that matters is changed anyway and I don't see much flexing and abuse to the tub during street car use, just my opinion. My concern with high mileage cars/age is more issues with harnesses and parts you have to reuse from the donor. that being said.. I have seen some very rough 30-40k cars and some cherry 140k

[Todd Lamb]

I get that, but at the same time it effectively dismisses all NAs as ineligible for serious contention. With that in mind why object to a spin-off class with otherwise identical rules? I'm not specifically for that, but your vehement opposition is perplexing. If they broke away why would you care what rules they followed??? I personally would not be satisfied winning in that class unless some top talent was in the field, just as I don't get much out of winning against a small regional field now, but so what?

Anyway, it is still possible to find low mileage NB doners but they are no longer common, so if chassis flex is a significant issue then perhaps it's time for the SMAC to work on solving that or the top 1% will only pull further ahead.

Why do I care? Because fragmenting the class is not in the best interests of Spec Miata.

What car someone chooses is their own decision. Factor in vehicle age and everything else, and some decisions will be better than others. We have overall parity - but the cars are not, nor will they ever be, identical.

[Bench Racer]

Oh Brandon

 

Thank you Ralph, Sean, Danny, Todd, Brandon and Rich for your energy spent in following through with bones for the 1.6.

 

EDIT:

Thank you 1.6er's and Tom for providing info/letters.

 

[Ron Alan]

I to would be curious what other important business the SMAC should be spending its time on? Outside this current discussion of 1.6 parity are there major issues with our class? Dont get me wrong, I'm being serious since the current group has definitely become much more vocal/public here...which is a good thing I guess as it allows for a little pre-emptive feedback.

 

But just a thought for those on the current SMAC...when public posts take the tone of condescension or sarcasm, the overall message/effort gets lost. Not only this but but it creates cynicism and distrust to what someones real motivations might be...fair or not!

 

Sure...at times people need to be whack-o-moled, but it shouldnt be by the politicians! My 2 cents.... 

[KW78]

I will say it again: the 1.6 is competitive with the current ruleset. As Ralph said with the changes coming it is probably a slight overdog but at worst case it is equal to the 1.8's. The cars are not the same and were never intended to be. They will race different, weight different, have different HP/tq characteristics, and handle different. That's the nature of the cars. Our goal is to make sure they are competitive.

As for what the SMAC is doing - yes we have plenty of other issues to work on. For free. On our own time.

 

 

Yes, anyone driving a '94-'97 is that and also an endangered species.  

 

 

Why do I care? Because fragmenting the class is not in the best interests of Spec Miata.

What car someone chooses is their own decision. Factor in vehicle age and everything else, and some decisions will be better than others. We have overall parity - but the cars are not, nor will they ever be, identical.

 

 

Full disclosure I have only read about every 10th page of this thread.  I just don't have the time.    

 

Speaking of time, thanks to Todd et al on the SMAC - I don't see where you get the time.  I can empathize, did that for a different class for a long time.

 

I think what Todd said is very important, these cars are not supposed to be identical or identically performing.  I also think it is important to stress that the function of the rule book is to define by proxy the maximum performance of a combination.  

 

If the goal is to not fragment the class, then hopefully the SMAC is working on help for the NA1.8's .  Similar to what Steve said (about 1.6s), I have 3 NA8s that were max builds 5+ years ago just gathering dust, and 1 that is stopped at the 1/2 way point, and other doners etc.   

 

The NA8 would be easy to help, just ditch the restrictor.  Adds 4 hp over the current size which still is less than the 99s.

 

If the SMAC was to move forward with the SMNA concept, I think SM would still grow the minute the NB is allowed to go faster as well.  Something to think about.  

 

my .02

Kyle

 

BTW threads like this often lead me to the thought, (and I say this only half-sarcastically)  the only final solution here is to program the best 1.6 into Iracing and go that route!

[Brandon]

*tap*
*tap*
*tap*

Is this thing on?

Everyone likes to say '...they will never be the same...' yet are doing so ignoring the fact the entire suspension/drivetrain (minus engine) could be behaving in "more identical" fashion than they are now with the allowance of the NB front suspension.  Allowing the NB rear would also put things on an even more equal level yet it hasn't even been mentioned (since it seems it's only a track width change of a few MM total).

 

If we really think there won't be any performance change in doing so the only justification of NOT supporting it is because of 'cost considerations' when it comes to the premise of the class.

This reasoning, IMO, if based on false logic.  

 

I'm not saying there is fear the NA w/NB subframes will suddenly become the killer car to have but it may just make it all the more easier for any NA (1.6 or 1.8) to overcome a driving error without spending the money on a 99+.  

 

AKA - fear of not having the best; which should be read as fear of having the equal (which is what everyone gives platitudes towards trying to achieve).

[Bench Racer]

Brandon, my point in posting Todd's 1.6 2012 June Sprints race was in fact asking when during the video the 99 suspension would have been a gain. I understand the driver/car level in the front 5 cars in the train. 

Nothing more, nothing less.

I understand Todd's comment about year 2012 versus year 2015 99 plus development.  

[MPR22]

Brandon, my point in posting Todd's 1.6 2012 June Sprints race was in fact asking when during the video the 99 suspension would have been a gain. I understand the driver/car level in the front 5 cars in the train. 
Nothing more, nothing less.
I understand Todd's comment about year 2012 versus year 2015 99 plus development.

In my opinion where the 1.6 would be better with the 99 suspension is in the carousel and turn 1 also under braking. The cars superior geometry keeps more of the contact patch on the ground in these long constant high G load turns. Also under braking. The comp LSD mitigates for much of this in those same turns. You absolutely have less steering corrections in the 99 in those type of turns but can't lay the piower down as effectively.

[FTodaro]

If the 1.6 were allowed to use the NB suspension front and rear, would that just make the car easier to drive or would it make it faster too.

 

Right now the 1.6 has a 150 lb advantage on the VVT, with NB suspension does that change?

[Steve Scheifler]

Why do I care? Because fragmenting the class is not in the best interests of Spec Miata.

What car someone chooses is their own decision. Factor in vehicle age and everything else, and some decisions will be better than others. We have overall parity - but the cars are not, nor will they ever be, identical.

I'm not crazy about being talked down to, but you don't really know me, probably didn't follow the old site much. I'm not new and not naive, and I've never implied the cars could be identical. We all know it isn't a real spec class, "Similar Miata" and all that. I'm the one who has said ALL along, years and years, that there is no simple way to make the 1.6 equal. And none of that is the point. There are things we can do to make them more similar. Some of them have have been done over time. By your reasoning we would not have the rear subframe brace, the type R tie rod ends, the NB shock hats, the same rear end ratio in NA 1.8s. Suspension updates were strongly recommended by the SMAC years ago but a handful of letters quashed it. Fine, I wasn't entirely sure it was a good idea, but it seems worth bringing back up for discussion. You apparently think the old SMAC were wrong. OK, noted. Now I'd like to hear from others.

[38bfast]

The SMAC contrary to popular belief is very concerned about 1.6 parity. We have spent the majority of our time this year discussing options, data, and testing. I think every option has been discussed in great detail. What we sent up to the CRB will be considered for 2016. Any further adjustments would be considered for 2017. We can make mid season changes if they are a must happen situation.

The SMAC did discuss suspension options but due to the overwhelming negative Input by the membership last time it was proposed it was not a consideration. If the membership has now changed their mind, it would be reviewed for 2017 rule set. IMHO it would take a group of letters supporting it for the SMAC to consider it again. As well it would have to be tested to see if it actually does what was intended. So time and money invested to validate.

[Jim Drago]

In my opinion where the 1.6 would be better with the 99 suspension is in the carousel and turn 1 also under braking. The cars superior geometry keeps more of the contact patch on the ground in these long constant high G load turns. Also under braking. The comp LSD mitigates for much of this in those same turns. You absolutely have less steering corrections in the 99 in those type of turns but can't lay the piower down as effectively.

It also doesnt show up in video as there is a MAJOR draft through carousel.  Funny, I am looking for the lack of TQ in video as I am being pushed up the hill and front straight while in the draft