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.
Thanks Brandon for some insight into your's and Todd's thinking! Completely with Steve on his "usual" comment. Anyone with half a brain could recognize some efforts to persuade arent based on facts(Hope that doesnt go over your head Steve 
)
My 2 cents...the slippery slope argument doesnt hold water I believe. Outside of the motor...every element of a VVT drivetrain can be used now correct? The extra X brace the VVT comes with is not allowed on any car...including the VVT. Tranny, driveshaft, axles, and diff are allowed on any year car. Early cars can upgrade to use the 6 bolt U brace. So what are we talking about in the NB suspension debate? Basically what is different for sure is...Subframe, steering rack with tie rods and i believe spindles. Lower and upper control arms are the same with the exception of the upper ball joint...which BTW are different size between 99-00 and 01+ as well as from all early cars. Only difference in the rear of the car is the uprights...all else is the same.
I really have no idea if this would be some kind of a dramatic performance change but will defer to others who say it changes very little. To repeat myself...not mandatory but optional...why not? People have ALREADY choosen 1.6 cars(be it this year or 10 years ago) and would like to CHOOSE to improve their car given the opportunity. Why continue to tell them it COSTS to much out of one side of your mouth and out of the other side tell them the only SMART thing to do is upgrade to a different car(my words...your words CHOOSE)
If there is a slippery slope...it started a long time ago! To suddenly say..."stop right here" no more, is kind of arbitrary. Bolt on parts in stock models that are EASILY interchanged have overtime been given consideration...and when it makes sense are allowed. Cost to change form a 1.6 diff to a 1.8 torsen is a lot more costly than this idea in my parts world.
I understand Bruces comments about a "red herring" with this suggestion...because it is taking away from what he feels will be meaningful help. But the effort here to squash this makes little sense to me...I am slow sometimes!
This statement is confusing..."no reason to continue to make costly changes for the sake of making cars that can never be identical, less identical"
Wouldn't a NB front subframe and parts make the cars more the same...not less? And remember, Mazda changed the design...and according to the experts here it benefits the handling of the car and make it more predictable(safer!)
Sign In
Create Account
Back to top
Report
