Sean - MiataCage,
Congratulations to Mark Drennan for all of his track records. I'm curious about a couple things though and maybe you can shed some light on it.
Mark Drennan set two tracks records with his 94 NA 1.8 at Laguna in June 2014, why did he run a NB for the 2014 Runoffs at Laguna a couple months later? Doesn't make sense to me that he didn't run the car that he just set two track records.
Matt Schultz finished 2nd Position in his NA 1.8 in the 2014 Runoffs is correct BUT he was moved up to that position because the first 6 NB's in front of him were disqualified or sent to the back of the field.
Also, Matt Schultz NA 1.8 finished 37.939 seconds behind the leader at the finish.
If a well built NA 1.8 with a great driver will do very well under the current rules package, why wasn't any raced at the 2015 Runoffs at Daytona after the rule change to the 47mm plate?
Mic Drop Emoji 
Hello Carbon Racer,
I unfortunately can not speak to why he chose the car he chose to race in the Runoffs. There were top flight NB cars that tested earlier in the 2014 season at Laguna in anticipation of the runoffs, so I feel positive those times got around to the locals so he knew what he had relative to potential competition. I'm sure he had his reasons. He is a smart guy and a fast driver. I too would be curious.
I'm not sure what you are saying about the Matt Shultz car. He finished P2 at the runoffs as the cars that finished in front of him were deemed non-compliant and therefor not usable as bench marks for how other cars compared to them. P2 at the runoffs is P2.
As far as Daytona is concerned, since it was a night race and since I believe the rules said you must run lights, a pop up headlight car could have never stood a chance.
As to why people are not building NA 1.8's, It has been said many many times before here. The NB cars are much easier and cost effective to build to the Nth degree, so if someone were looking to build a car why build a car that requires more effort and is more temperamental than the newer cars. The NA 1.8 is also a car with very limited numbers, so the "masses" would never be supporting big changes. Not so say changes could not be necessary, just saying you only have a small crowd asking for them.
For me this is not just about the Runoffs or the Majors, it is about all the races small and big throughout the country. I don't really care if not one person builds a new 1.6L or NA 1.8L as long as we provide a level playing field for those that are already invested in their cars, whichever model year it happens to be. I believe that we are very very close to proper parity with the current ruleset. Those that already have vehicles built should be just as important as those who are building new one. I promise you at some point in the near future we will be having these exact same conversations about the NC versus NB, so hopefully we can perfect our process for evaluating the performance differences between the model year cars and discuss and possibly make the appropriate changes with fact based information, not emotion and speculation.
My concern here is that I often hear things like "no one" ever does well in a NA 1.8 so therefor it needs help. I am simply showing the someone to refute the "no one" with the appropriate data to back up my claim. Just because someone is not racing a NA 1.8 competitively in any one particular area or race track does not mean that it is not happening somewhere else. We have to look at the entire country.
Earlier in the year a "top flight" NA 1.8L car was identified with a very good driver in an area of the country that it could be compared with a known top flight NB car and driver. There was a plan discussed to test the NA 1.8L versus the NB with data boxes in both cars on a test day. Prior to the test day it was found out that the top flight car in question was significantly over weight and therefor not a "top flight" car and would have been useless for the comparison. The car was being represented as "top flight" best of the best all year.
It is my opinion that the SMAC should not be making changes to cars without some corresponding data to prove the point or issue. I think Todd Lamb might be driving a NA 1.8L in the not to distant future to see how he thinks it does with both feel and a data box to validate the seat of the pants running near other 99-05 cars. Not sure... hopefully it happens and we can get another data point to continue the discussion.
As I have said, I personally believe that the NA 1.8L is a competitive package with an A+ car and A+ driver. I say this based off of my experience with the both Shultz and Drennan NA 1.8's. I recognize my experience is not others experience and vice-versa.
When it comes to the Drennan NA 1.8L that set all the track records, logic would dictate you would have to come to 1 of 2 conclusions:
1.) The car is not compliant and does not represent all NA 1.8L's. (I'm not saying this, just giving a hypothetical)
2.) Mark is such a good driver that his talent is above most others that own NA 1.8's.
Let me be crystal clear with my words here.... I am not implying that there was anything wrong with that car. Mark is a very talented driver who has spent the time and money to have the best of the best equipment and lots and lots and lots of seat time to maximize the use of that equipment. I'm just giving a hypothetical because some want to discount that driver and car combination when it comes to requested changes for the NA 1.8.
What are we going to do? Give the car a little help and then start banning Drennan and others from driving certain model year cars because they are too good? Who gets banned? How many wins do you need in order to be considered too good?
These are just my personal opinions and not anything regarding to or speaking on behalf of the SMAC.
Sean
Sign In
Create Account
I think maybe you should build another NA 1.6 that you had before your 99 NB. Don't worry brother I still want to run with you at Daytona in a couple weeks. Even Jeff himself said to me directly that the motor in that NA 1.8 is a 1 in a 1,000 engine and he has never built a NA 1.8 that strong.
Back to top
Report
