1001 replies to this topic

[Bench Racer]

There's lots of pushing of the 1.6 that doesn't show up in the video.

 

Also noticed with  all the 1.6 power the car didn't pass anyone on it's own other  than when it had inside position on #29 into T12 and #29 had no issue returning the pass.

 

Discussion only, nothing slamming.

[Jim Drago]

There's lots of pushing of the 1.6 that doesn't show up in the video.

 

Also noticed with  all the 1.6 power the car didn't pass anyone on it's own other  than when it had inside position on #29 into T12 and #29 had no issue returning the pass.

 

Discussion only, nothing slamming.

I think they call this racing?

[Todd Lamb]

*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).

You can bolt on all the parts you want. Still will not be the same chassis. And thus back to the entire point: If you're going to spend a bunch of money bolting NB parts on an NA chassis, you may as well just own an NB and save your money. (This is based on beliefs of those NA owners complaining they have a non-competitive car, not based on the reality that the cars are competitive).

[Todd Lamb]

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.

Steve: I'm sorry that you feel me disagreeing with you and responding to your comments is "talking down" to you. That's not my intention. If you look at specmiata.com archives you'll see I was quite active on the old forums. I too have been around quite a while in SM.


My intention is to point out what should be obvious to anyone: we do not and nor will we ever have identical cars unless we mandate one generation of car, even if rules allowed the NA to update every single part to NB. Why would someone want to do that? What would it solve? Where would it save any money? If someone wants an NB because they feel it is better, they should get an NB. I personally think if someone has a top prep NA that changing to an NB is a complete waste of time and money based on the upcoming 2016 rules.

[Cnj]

I want to thank the SMAC for thier work. You guys have done a great job in being transparent and eager to solicit input and feedback - even when on occasion your intent is questioned. You have spent more of your own time and money figuring out this years 1.6 discussion than anyone should reasonably expect. Now you can move to other important issues.

On that note, when would be the right time for me to submit my request for a weight reduction on my 99 so I can compete with the newly overdog 1.6's?

CNJ

[Bruce Wilson]

We need a five year rules freeze after the adjustment

[chris haldeman]

We need a five year rules freeze after the adjustment

I feel there should be a life time freeze on the rules starting jan 1 2016. Only exception being the occasional alternate part allowed as supply runs out. Aka the 1.6 comp diff now being allowed too be the cusco. And the occasional rules clean up. Far too much time and effort spent messing around with model parity IMO. Majors contenders will build whatever they feel is best for them and regionals will continue too be what they are. A mixed group of legal,illegal,top prep,bottom prep and everything inbetween. Where at the end of the day everybody had fun. These debates and constant change hurts the class more than anything in my mind. It has gotten too where I can't send any new comers too this site or the rule book for advise and knowledge with out them being totally confused and dis enchanted about the whole idea of spec Miata club racing. And too be honest I don't blame them. I feel as tho all but everybody is tired of the changing.

[Steve Scheifler]

People disagree with me all the time, no problem with that.

My intention is to point out what should be obvious to anyone: we do not and nor will we ever have identical cars...

See, that's the sort of thing that rubs a bit the wrong way, not the difference of opinion. No big deal. It is obvious, entirely obvious, and I've certainly never said or meant to imply otherwise. But equally obvious is the fact that over time the rules have changed to minimize some differences where it made sense to do so, as I already listed. So were those changes all a mistake? If not, then why exactly is this the right place to draw the line? To say they will never be identical really is not an argument againtst it, any more than it would have been for any of the other changes. Nor is saying that we should just buy/build NBs when I already have a fleet of NAs. There may be good arguments against, but those aren't it. They are, just as you said, simply obvious statements of fact which to me seem irrelevant to the question. Repeating them
as if they hadn't sunk in yet doesn't make them any more persuasive.

[Steve Scheifler]

I feel there should be a life time freeze on the rules starting jan 1 2016. Only exception being the occasional alternate part allowed as supply runs out. Aka the 1.6 comp diff now being allowed too be the cusco. And the occasional rules clean up. Far too much time and effort spent messing around with model parity IMO. Majors contenders will build whatever they feel is best for them and regionals will continue too be what they are. A mixed group of legal,illegal,top prep,bottom prep and everything inbetween. Where at the end of the day everybody had fun. These debates and constant change hurts the class more than anything in my mind. It has gotten too where I can't send any new comers too this site or the rule book for advise and knowledge with out them being totally confused and dis enchanted about the whole idea of spec Miata club racing. And too be honest I don't blame them. I feel as tho all but everybody is tired of the changing.

Let's be fair Chtis, lately there have very few changes and almost no confusion other than what has been directly caused by builders. Do not hold that against people trying to legitimately tweak rules to maintain basic parity, we are not to blame for any of that other crap.

[chris haldeman]

Let's be fair Chtis, there have very few changes and almost no confusion other than what has been directly caused by builders. Do not hold that against people trying to legitimately tweak rules to maintain basic parity, we are not to blame for any of that other crap.

I agree there has not been many changes other than weights and plates. All aimed at helping the 1.6 the confusion starts at the end of every year wondering what the rules will be next year. Just set them and let it roll

[Steve Scheifler]

So I don't understand your complaint.

[chris haldeman]

So I don't understand your complaint.

Not a complaint. Just a statement geared from the phone calls I have been receiving lately

[chris haldeman]

I want to add as some current readers might not know or remember. I am a large fan of the 1.6 cars and have volunteered in the past too build,help build and or drive anybody's 1.6 at any event too give my 2cents on parity. I have not been in a competitively prepped 1.6 for many years. I started with a home built 1.6 car. Decided I needed a 99 mid way thru my first year of racing. Built a 99 during the off season and promptly went ...... No faster. Then I worked on me. My biggest short coming is the same as most. Not enough time and money

[Steve Scheifler]

I wish those were my only short comings, because I might have a chance of fixing them. :-) I'd really like to tow down your way between now and spring when there is an opportunity for you to drive one of our cars at a track you know well.

[chris haldeman]

Steve you and tom could come down any time.

[cam]

..... I personally think if someone has a top prep NA that changing to an NB is a complete waste of time and money based on the upcoming 2016 rules.

 

Did I miss it?  have these 2016 rules been posted?  Or Todd, is this your sharing insight what is going to be announced?  Is there a time frame for the 2016 rules announcement

 

In either case, thanks for all of your time and effort

[Cnj]

We need a five year rules freeze after the adjustment

Funny Bruce. This and other comments you have made suggest to me that you have insight on what's coming - and after being a very vocal critic of 1.6 parity for several years, you are now confident it's resolved, or more. I hope that you will equally defend the new rules (if they are passed) when many 1.6 drivers don't find the competitiveness they have been blaming on non-parity.

I'm ok with the 1.6 getting a mild bump. The top 1.6 drivers in the region (Gale, Ceasar, Keith) will just beat me more comprehensively

CNJ

[Cnj]

I wish those were my only short comings, because I might have a chance of fixing them. :-) I'd really like to tow down your way between now and spring when there is an opportunity for you to drive one of our cars at a track you know well.

Steve, take up Chris's offer to come down. It would be fun to meet you guys if I'm at the track that weekend.

Chris is a real talent behind the wheel (and behind a set of tools). It would be fun to see what he would do if he had the budget to match some of the other top runners. His capacity to find the gap that no one else sees - or to make a gap by widening the track is astounding and irritating

CNJ

[Bruce Wilson]

No, I'm no more sure what's coming than anyone else, but I also don't expect any big surprises.  Nor do I know if the changes are going to help, but like everyone else, I'm hoping they will. 

 

My biggest gauge will be at the next well attended Majors (which only really happens during West coast runoffs years...)  Last year, at the Majors here in Portland, I was on the front row (with Matt Schultz in his 1.6) for most of qualifying and then got bumped back to the second row in the last minute by Sutherland and Schrader in their 99s. 

 

But both races didn't go as well for both Matt and I, and that was the reason for us concluding there was no longer parity for the 1.6, and so began my vocal quest on the forum and behind the scenes. You will find my comments on this forum about good parity prior to that.

 

I've been racing a long time and have always had great results against the best in the West.  All I (and my homies) need to see to shut up, is a fighting chance to pass a 99+ when I have a really good run off a corner and being inches off the back of a car in front that is pushing air, squeak out a ditch effort pass, if all of the stars are aligned just right (setup, tires, special hub grease , etc.).  That is racing my friends...

 

My point is we only need a very small boost to make that happen, and most any change at this point will probably get us there, although compression will really be the answer in the long run (more on that much later...)

 

For the most part, I like who is on the SMAC now, and think they are sincere when they say that SCCA, NASA, and Mazda want to see the 1.6 included in the class for the foreseeable future.

[tom1977]

So, to speak up about the 1.8NA car... Is it truly competitive with the new "yellow" scca restrictor plate with both the 1.6NA and the 99NB cars for the 2016 season? This statement obviously would be if all cars are driven by same driver. It will be nice to see all cars as equal as possible