1001 replies to this topic

[Jim Drago]

 I think we are close to the point that debate is getting counter productive.
 
What we know is that some changes for 2016 are proposed, in response to the request for a parity adjustment.
 
We also know that according to procedure that anything additional will not be considered till next year, so for those who have additional ideas, you have say 9 months to evaluate the current rules and do some testing or gather date for any further suggestions.
 
The guys on the SMAC should not be the target of our frustrations, they are simply a conduit for our ideas. 
 
Lets see how this plays out in 2016.
 
Someone come up with somehting else interesting.
 
Lets talk about how Professional NASCAR is and what a wonderful example they set Lol.

spoken like a guy who owns two NB cars  

[Todd Lamb]

See the difference in the statements?

 

Todd, I don't like alienating people, especially someone in a leadership position with credentials like yours.  But when you make absolute statements like "1.6 drivers wanted concessions despite no data showing it was needed", lots of people will believe it unless the statement is challenged.

 

Now you have qualified/amended the statement to "There was no on-track performance data to support the current changes".  Also not factually correct.

 

 

 

Perhaps you mean to say that in your opinion the on-track data was insufficient or otherwise not relevant?

 

As for your advice to wait-and-see on the proposed adjustments, when is the last time you said to yourself -- I'm going to wait-and-see the result of my xyz change before I start working on other improvements to my car and myself.  I have to think someone of your caliber is always working on multiple improvements at the same time and adjusting your priorities based on any new information.

 

Yes I added words for clarification because my words were being twisted to mean something different. Thank you for taking that to a whole new level. However, I stand by my original statement.

[Jim Drago]

Thank you from all of us.......  I personally believe transparency is important and it doesn't really scare me.  We were able to get Mazda and SCCA to publish the data from the testing that was done on the 1.6L changes.  The intent was that was NOT going to be released and through conversations with Mazda they supported the idea of being transparent and showing that they took the parity issue seriously and were willing to spend some money to see what if anything we could/should do to help the 1.6L.   

 

That was in my opinion the start of the transparency and then Todd agreed to talk more about what we as the SMAC are doing which I totally respect and support.  Then Jim gave us a place on this site to post a little bit about what we are up to, so I see that we are certainly moving in the right direction and hope that it continues.

 

My concern is that Todd probably doesn't want to share much anymore ( I wouldn't blame him) because of what happens on these message forums.  We often get people second guessing things we do (without all the facts), making things personal and then we run a slippery slope of airing dirty laundry in public.  I love this site, but it has been said a few times by new people that they get scared to come into the class when they read some of the bickering that goes on here.

 

We all look at SM through a different set of glasses.  Things that I see in the NW maybe don't get seen out East.  That shouldn't mean one is right or wrong, it just means we need to take into account the entire country and the masses and what is right for the class.  I believe that the SMAC is currently made up of very passionate individuals that all have differing backgrounds and view points.  Believe it or not we even have someone who races a NA 1.8L. Thanks Brandon.  Often we don't all agree..... I think that is a very good thing as it forces more detailed discussion and in a lot of cases forces us to go out and get some data to validate what we may think is accurate.

 

So..... I for one appreciate the open and honest communication and hope that it continues as long as it can be respectful from all involved.

 

Thanks... Sean

 

The current SMAC will figure it out.. It is easy for all to have an opinion of how it should be done, why it should be done etc. The bottom line is that the guys doing it the best way they think it should be done and I have no doubt they are doing there best in doing so.  This is a thankless job and during my time on CRB and SMAC liaison, I have never seen so many experts, so many expert opinions 180 degrees from each other. 

As far as posting/sharing.. current SMAC will find a balance. This  SMAC forum  is/was a good idea, but it is quickly turning into something it was not meant to be.( one of 1000 other endless parity threads) What will eventually happen is all the drama here will end up in that none of the SMAC posts here any longer as it is not worth all the BS. Be careful what you wish for. 

 

My advice with lots of experience...

If you truly feel that a SMAC member is doing a disservice, send an email to Jim Wheeler otherwise let them do their job.  I have no objection to suggestions and discussions, but it is very apparent( at least to me) that these changes are done and this is it for 2016. Lets see what happens or write a letter for what else we(you) need.  

[Ron Alan]

Well, I'm glad its obvious by others comments that i am not the only one here that leans back in my chair after reading certain posts.

 

Perhaps the real issue here is communication style...or lack of? Transparency is great but with it does come MORE debate. No way in the internet ERA can one push there way around...so why make it seem like you are trying to? Tone is very hard to convey in words and very easily misinterpreted. When it is, and by more than a few, well... 

 

Iv'e been on the board of a 1500 child youth baseball league...I quickly learned you smile and shake everyones hand that approaches you regardless of what they might say. It can never become personal nor can you ever blatantly disregard someone to their face. You represent all and that cant be forgotten. It is a no win situation but it CAN be a losing situation if you let it!

 

I see Jim's post above and he is right on...something in it for all. Despite our personal differences on certain subjects I have nothing but respect for Jims ability to have a calming style here on the forum. Much can be learned from it!

[Tom Scheifler]

Yes I added words for clarification because my words were being twisted to mean something different. Thank you for taking that to a whole new level. However, I stand by my original statement.

 

Are you saying I twisted your words??  I did nothing of the kind.  I simply pointed out that your statement about "no data" and then "no on-track performance data" were incorrect.  I was hoping you would correct (or at least clarify) the statements but it seems that won't happen.

[Jamz14]

Yes

I think some literary awards are in order too.

[Ron Alan]

Yes, and its wonderful.. It takes the car from being on edge and feeling like the next twitch may send you over to driving a cadillac...  "Back in the day" some had '99 subframes with the rear ears trimmed off to look like earlier frames with with the steering rack mounts swapped out to allow the use of the early steering rack, just placed in the later location...  It would have taken a tear down of epic proportion to prove, something foreign to SM at the time...

 

"Back in the day"...my guess is that day has never left 

 

"Yes, its wonderful"  Do you have data to back up those claims?  Nevermind...I believe you!!! I just had visions of you turning around and saying "here is your data" 

[Mike Collins]

"Back in the day"...my guess is that day has never left 

 

"Yes, its wonderful"  Do you have data to back up those claims?  Nevermind...I believe you!!! I just had visions of you turning around and saying "here is your data" 

 

I "had" DATA, this was years ago when we considered adopting it...  I know that part survived for a very long time with a message written on it in paint pen to another competitor who ultimately discovered the part while the car was on a lift being serviced at someone else's shop....

[Ron Alan]

Well...seat of your pants data works for me as well!! Ok...maybe not for the engineers among us

[MPR22]

What is most educational about this thread is that 1.6 drivers wanted concessions despite no data showing it was needed, and before it is even implemented there is demand for even more concessions, also with no data to show they are warranted.

How about we let the ink dry first?

You have pointed out the root of the problem, now you need to decide when the little boy cries wolf again will you act? 

[MPR22]

 I thought you were someone that would applaud all legal efforts to improve car and driver.

That is not what they are trying to accomplish.  You don't diagnose an electrical problem by changing every part on the car all at once (maybe that is how we fix them though) you do it one part at a time.  Eventually you find the answer.  

[Johnny D]

What is most educational about this thread is that 1.6 drivers wanted concessions despite no data showing it was needed, and before it is even implemented there is demand for even more concessions, also with no data to show they are warranted.

How about we let the ink dry first?

Beside the normal man drama here and on this thread....

Ralph and Sean doing the "I know something I won't tell, I won't tell" since the runoffs.
Now you say you have no data.
Mike's right about discussing it, but have we or not? Letters sent/received, IDK.
Ralph throws out a list of parts with no statement.
Transparency is great except not seeing what your submitting is interesting.

You're certainly making it exciting. The drum rolls been going for a while now.
I thought nothing was going to happen after last months Fasttrack.

So it's hard to tide people over with the unknown unless you have faith.
And their going to post here anyway.
J~

[Jim Drago]

48 pages later and the discussion seems so far off the tracks, I'm not even sure what the heck we are talking about right now

[MPR22]

48 pages later and the discussion seems so far off the tracks, I'm not even sure what the heck we are talking about right now

I think the last coherent ask was for a turbo on the 1.6 miatas. 

[Johnny D]

I know without a doubt the inks not dry but that was a few minute's ago, so...
J~

[Todd Lamb]

There seems to be some confusion on "data".

There's a big difference between data to determine the NEED for a change, versus data determining the EFFECT of a change.

I've been referring to a lack of "NEED" data, but for some reason the conversation keeps going back to "EFFECT" data.

There is no point in disclosing the proposed rules until the CRB/Board approves and publishes them, because they could change (even be rejected like a recent proposal was). It's a no-win situation: we say the wrong thing we will be crucified, or if we say the right thing we will be crucified.

[Steve Scheifler]

The only negativity in the last 10 pages is a debate about whether or not we should be discussing anything at all. Apparently no one got permission, but if you cut out those comments and all the responses they produced, we were actually having a polite and civilized discussion about possible future changes. Excuse the hell out of me for confusing this with a place for doing that.

[Johnny D]

Thank you Todd.
Steve be nice.

Yes we debate and throw around ideas here, only a few pages.

Can you disclose what was the proposal that was rejected ?
Is it being rejected because it's not being proposed correctly or lacking the "effect data"

Any feed back or thank you for your input ?
Just asking,
J~

[Todd Lamb]

I can't disclose it yet, but it is going to go out for member input soon.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

This is stupid that the smac guys don't just have a magic wand and a crystal ball and just already know what the bod will do and exactly down to the .000001 what the effect of any and all changes are and will be till the end of time.

Part of me now just thinks most 1.6 owners are just unhappy no matter what happens. Probably has little to do with what model they own????