1001 replies to this topic

[Brandon]

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).

 

Way to base a position on the (false) argument of sunk costs!

 

Your argument ignores the entire installed base of already built NAs and doesn't take into account those who would want to do so or feel allowing it would make the class "more similar Miata" than otherwise would be.

 

I'm not saying I'm uncompetitive in my current car, I'm not saying I need anything to achieve "more parity", but to the point of us participating in a "spec" class the more we can do to ensure we are all playing on the same running gear, why is this idea not worth pursuing?

 

4-5 years ago when the initial suggestion of permitting the NB front suspension on the NAs was scuttled, I was neither an accomplished racer nor knew of the technical differences or behaviors between the platforms so I felt I was unable to provide input on the suggestion or proposed rule.  Now, from where I'm positioned, it seems there's a significant reluctance to revisit this previously proposed rule change.

 

Why?

[ner88]

The class has found parity and established itself with NB cars.

Any attempt to change this "now" , especially with older cars, is only doing the class a disservice.

I don't see any efforts in the SRF ranks to find parity between SRF and the Gen3 cars.

If the NA cars become the overdog, it will only do damage to what is now working.......

[Todd Lamb]

Way to base a position on the (false) argument of sunk costs!

 

Your argument ignores the entire installed base of already built NAs and doesn't take into account those who would want to do so or feel allowing it would make the class "more similar Miata" than otherwise would be.

 

I'm not saying I'm uncompetitive in my current car, I'm not saying I need anything to achieve "more parity", but to the point of us participating in a "spec" class the more we can do to ensure we are all playing on the same running gear, why is this idea not worth pursuing?

 

4-5 years ago when the initial suggestion of permitting the NB front suspension on the NAs was scuttled, I was neither an accomplished racer nor knew of the technical differences or behaviors between the platforms so I felt I was unable to provide input on the suggestion or proposed rule.  Now, from where I'm positioned, it seems there's a significant reluctance to revisit this previously proposed rule change.

 

Why?

Why? Because it is not better for the class: it doesn't make anything safer, does not improve the competition, and most of all adds COST. NB suspension isn't free. That's not a false argument, that's the facts. The class has had 1.6 and 1.8 for a long long time. Choosing the year of car to race is not a new decision that needs to be addressed with a rule change.

 

We just spent a considerable amount of time making sure the 1.6 was competitive. We have achieved that goal (that the previous SMAC hadn't already is debatable), and there is no reason to continue to make costly changes for the sake of making cars that can never be identical, less identical.

 

Your argument, on the other hand, means that if I want to put a VVT in my 99 I should be allowed to do so in order to have identical cars because I feel it would be the right thing to do to have a spec class.

 

It's a slippery slope. Allowing wholesale updates to cars means we will all need to update to VVT drivetrains. Except the cars will still not be the same because they aren't the same chassis. So we all need to go out and get 2005 cars so we have a spec class. And the same people will prep their cars well, and the same people won't (or they will think they have). The same drivers will win and the same drivers will finish DFL. We will all have spent a lot more money and achieved nothing. Actually, this sounds like a great idea as a shop owner...but a terrible idea for the class. So I defer to what's best for the class.

[Steve Scheifler]

Now see, that included a few actual arguments, mixed in with the usual. Cost certainly is an important factor to consider. On the one hand, it is strictly optional and the average casual racer not expecting to compete nationally (now probably the vast majority of 1.6 drivers) probably won't care or bother until/unless they need to replace some of the major parts anyway. But, there will be the perception of at least a few that they are effectively forced to make the change if those they race with do it, regardless of where they are in the field. An old argument but always some truth to it. I'm pretty sure that's what killed it the last time, for better or worse I don't know.

Most tiresome of all for the small number of people really trying to compete with older platforms is the broadly true but equally unhelpful crap about how the same people will do the same levels of prep and end up the same overall. Yes, of course for the most part that's the case but it completely ignores the fact that there really are some people out there trying very hard to match what the "elite" are doing, (at least within the rules) and only want to know that the playing field is as level as reasonably possible. I have NEVER said that the 1.6 needs a lot of help. I wasn't even saying for certain that it needed any parity help though I did ask to help stabilize intake temps and solve the problem of non-compliant headers coming directly from Mazda. But, I am leaning towards re-submitting to the community a proposal to allow the suspension updates as an OPTIONAL change. I am not yet sold on the idea, which is why I raised it as a question hoping for a variety of constructive debate here before making up my own mind. It would be interesting to see how other 1.6 owners/drivers feel about it. Unless someone can argue that it would make them an over-dog (which implies the difference is significant) then I think our opinion should carry the most weight. If it is somehow "too much" then there are ways to solve that while making the cars even more similar. But again, my mind is still open and seeking input.

[Jim Drago]

I don't think any of the above 3-4 posts are "wrong" Nor did I get that Todd was talking down to anyone? I have been accused of the same thing while I was doing this, wasn't intentional,but was pointed out by people I trusted and and I tried to address. This is a tireless job, I can tell you that and it is often very frustrating as we are a class of infinite experts and everyone truly believes their way is best and "right"

Todds point is a good one.. If the SMAC feels they have achieved parity without the costly changes, then why try to make all equal. We all know the cars were different and will always make lap time differently. get them as close as we can with reasonable changes.

The flip side ( which I have supported) is allowing the 99 up suspension. I dont feel it will bring any NA driver up the grid at all in qualifying. It should help over the course of a race. I dont think that it will be enough to take a non podium driver to the podium. The original intent was to allow with no weight penalty.( At best this is a 2017 issue now)

We took a lot of grief about the three year rules freeze less a major outlier( 25 lbs plus or 2 mm plus) During the three year period, we never felt we were off more than that, so we did not adjust. I encourage the current smac to do the same. These small 1 hp or less than 25 lb tweaks and parity arguments do nothing for the class. Anything less than 25 lbs/2mm plate has all but ZERO effect on finishing position. Set the rules and don't over regulate the class. Let people pick the car that's best and race it. When the rules came out in 2012, MOST thought that we made the NA 1.8 the over dog. Many went out and built and ended up selling or going back to the NB cars. This constant bickering is terrible for the class.

[MPR22]

I think the way the SMAC is going about this is the best way that creates the least amount of chaos for those 1.6 owners and non-1.6 owners.  

 

 

Say for instance they went too far and the 1.6 became the over dog over night (which by the way the 99 and VVT did not, it took years of development of both models).  The number of new 1.6 builds might hit 100 by the time of the run-offs and that is just if the cool kids want to win that badly.  Or conversely the cool kids might just boycott the run-offs because they would be forced to build a new fleet of 1.6s to compete.  Neither of which is good for the class nor is it what Mazda wants as a parts supplier.  They are looking to reduce the number of parts to carry in inventory not prolong the need for obsolete parts.  

 

If the SMAC sneaks up on parity by adding a little here and there to the 1.6 they may eventually find some way to appease the vocal 1.6 diehards.  I doubt that is possible without adding torque to the equation.    

 

Keep up the good work SMAC.  I have a 1.6 that I would love to race but not at the cost of it being the CTH.  Parity in SM does not necessarily mean we are driving cars that drive exactly the same way.  It means each model has an equal chance of winning.  When I can win in my 1.6, VVT and 99 then we have probably gotten to that point.  I have won in the 99 and VVT not in the 1.6.

 

And please someone tell me if the NA 1.8 has an easy fix for the rev limiter?

[Jim Drago]

I think the way the SMAC is going about this in a way that creates the least amount of chaos for those 1.6 owners and non-1.6 owners.  
 
 
Say for instance they went too far and the 1.6 became the overdog over night (which by the way the 99 and VVT did not, it took years of development of both models).  The number of new 1.6 builds might hit 100 by the time of the run-offs and that is just if the cool kids want to win that badly.  Or conversely the cool kids might just boycott the run-offs because they would be forced to build a new fleet of 1.6s to compete.  Neither of which is good for the class nor is it what Mazda wants as a parts supplier.  They are looking to reduce the number of parts to carry in inventory not prolong the need for obsolete parts.  
 
If the SMAC sneaks up on parity by adding a little here and there to the 1.6 they may eventually find some form way to appease the vocal 1.6 diehards.  I doubt that is possible without adding torque to the equation.    
 
Keep up the good work SMAC.  I have a 1.6 that I would love to race but not at the cost of it being the CTH.  Parity in SM does not necessarily mean we are driving cars that drive exactly the same way.  It means each model has an equal chance of winning.  When I can win in my 1.6, VVT and 99 then we have probably gotten to that point.  I have won in the 99 and VVT not in the 1.6.
 
And please someone tell me if the NA 1.8 has an easy fix for the rev limiter?

Add to that none of us want to build a 1.6 at all The only way that 1.6 cars end up being again built by prep shops is if it is a clear overdog. Even then, I think most would lobby for changes rather than build them.

[Mike Collins]

42 pages to give the 1.6 the same stuff we offered it years ago and they didn't want it all so potentially 3 cars can maybe improve finishing position by one or two spots if that....  There ARE NOT tons of moth balled old race cars that are going to suddenly come out of the woodwork and start racing again....why do we continue to have this same conversation every year????

[LarryKing]

I propose a five year freeze on MazdaRacers posts.

[LarryKing]

Add to that none of us want to build a 1.6 at all The only way that 1.6 cars end up being again built by prep shops is if it is a clear overdog. Even then, I think most would lobby for changes rather than build them.          

 

There ARE NOT tons of moth balled old race cars that are going to suddenly come out of the woodwork and start racing again....why do we continue to have this same conversation every year????

 

Then how is it that giving the 1.6 its own regional class a bad thing?

 

Do those who oppose that simply wish to keep the entry numbers up - field fillers?

[Mike Collins]

we gave the 1.6 in WDCR and it works, you should give it one nationally and add the NC to SM.  Evolve or parish.....

[Michael Novak]

we gave the 1.6 in WDCR and it works, you should give it one nationally and add the NC to SM.  Evolve or parish.....

The NC could be made to work in the class.

[Jim Drago]

Then how is it that giving the 1.6 its own regional class a bad thing?
 
Do those who oppose that simply wish to keep the entry numbers up - field fillers?

There is nothing stopping any of you from starting a 1.6 class regionally. One was started in SE, looks to be a smashing success.

My opinion...
Giving a 1.6 its own class is not needed unless you start a new class like SSM

Why shouldn't you make this new class 'anyone who can't win in Sm majors? There are many NB drivers who probably would like their 10-12k build to be more competitive as well. Why couldn't they play here too?


The reason most of race is for competition. A separate class for the non competitive is everything I hate with the "everyone gets a trophy generation" we are living in now. This shouldn't be easy. The rules are there, the rules are fair to all. The budget and talent here is variable in the equation. It always will be.

[LarryKing]

 

Why shouldn't you make this new class 'anyone who can't win in Sm majors? There are many NB drivers who probably would like their 10-12k build to be more competitive as well. Why couldn't they play here too?

The reason most of race is for competition. A separate class for the non competitive is everything I hate with the "everyone gets a trophy generation" we are living in now. This shouldn't be easy. The rules are there, the rules are fair to all. The budget and talent here is variable in the equation. It always will be.         

 

That's a little condescending, don't you think?  We've all heard your "I hate everyone gets a trophy generation" ad nauseum. That kind of public ridicule is sure to discourage people from entering as SMSE.

 

What if all you have is a 1.6, can't afford anything else and just want a place to play with other drivers in the same boat?

 

What I really would like to see is a separate class just for those who can/want to spend six figures/season on club racing a Miata so the rest of us can have our class back. Call it "Spend Miata."

[LarryKing]

 

The NC could be made to work in the class.

 

Oh yeah kids, it WILL happen. (Just like I was told the NB will be brought in as an underdog)

[FTodaro]

That's a little condescending, don't you think?  We've all heard your "I hate everyone gets a trophy generation" ad nauseum. That kind of public ridicule is sure to discourage people from entering as SMSE.

 

What if all you have is a 1.6, can't afford anything else and just want a place to play with other drivers in the same boat?

 

What I really would like to see is a separate class just for those who can/want to spend six figures/season on club racing a Miata so the rest of us can have our class back. Call it "Spend Miata."

Denny I am assuming you are suggesting a Regional class? If you want to propose the the Great Lakes adopt a regional class, then send me your proposal before This coming Weekend, I am not sure it would get voted on this quickly, but we are having a GLD planning meeting in South Bend this weekend. We have a follow up meeting in the spring to finalize the rules.

 

If you want things to change, you have to get involved or at a minimum speak up.

 

Most normal people to not troll her for ideas. Can't say that i blame them.

[High Chair]

we gave the 1.6 in WDCR and it works, you should give it one nationally and add the NC to SM.  Evolve or parish.....

Sweet! not just 1.6s,  90-97 cars in their own class and add the NC to SM. The 99-05 cars would be faster than they are today and we would bring in new builds. At one time I was against the NC cars but it is time for the class to move on. 

[John Wilding]

Both the NC and the NB are ITS cars. Not sure any NC's have been built or will be competitive, but it will be interesting to see if some get built and how competitive they are vs. the NB after the weight is pummeled on. 

[MPR22]

That's a little condescending, don't you think?  We've all heard your "I hate everyone gets a trophy generation" ad nauseum. That kind of public ridicule is sure to discourage people from entering as SMSE.

 

What if all you have is a 1.6, can't afford anything else and just want a place to play with other drivers in the same boat?

 

What I really would like to see is a separate class just for those who can/want to spend six figures/season on club racing a Miata so the rest of us can have our class back. Call it "Spend Miata."

SM is too popular it is not your class anymore, it has grown way beyond that.  

 

I suggest Chump car racing or something similar if you want lower cost wheel to wheel.  

[Bench Racer]

WOW!!!