Xav, please don’t remove the ebjs or rack spacers from our rules.
So, how about posting your bump steer numbers/dimensions with and without spacers?
Xav, please don’t remove the ebjs or rack spacers from our rules.
So, how about posting your bump steer numbers/dimensions with and without spacers?
So how about you posting the real reason you are asking me to post that number?
No comment on th ebjs?
The real reason is because a couple years ago I bought a pair of magnetic dial gauges and was going to build a bump steer gauge and never got it finished. Then with completed gauge I was going to bump steer measure my 1.6. Then I was going to space the steering rack and measure again to check for any improvement rather relying on WHAT people said. Your NA 1.8 would be identical. Did you or did you not bump steer measure your NA 1.8?
ebjs, take me out of my misery of not knowing.
When I made the rules 'match' I did so with the mindset of improving the class overall. There are a lot of crossover cars between both organizations and from time to time, you'll get a "SCCA sucks, I'm NASA fo' life" and I've heard vice versa countless times also. By keeping the rules 'within reason' this gives people the ability to choose without a significant cost impact. By doing this, it improves the values of our cars across the spectrum for all. The key is thinking long term and what is reasonably justifiable.
WRT, shims, ball joints, tires, etc. - There were decisions done before me and some that are clearly polar in organizational belief. For those who have adapted to the "NASA way" - (shims & ball joints) it would be wreckless of me to just delete them from the rules if they work for us. However, there were other rules (for instance usage of fasteners, etc), that were menial and should've matched. So.. I made them match.
With tires, we can all agree that:
1. Hoosiers are faster
2. Toyo's last longer
With that being said, I believe that many of us just like the general nature of competition. I've heard someone once tell me they could care less if they were driving on boulders... just as long as everyone else was doing the same thing, they'd be ok with it (clear over exaggeration). Conceptually, it makes sense though. Tires last longer making it more cost effective? Yeah, I'm game. More importantly, Toyo has been absolutely AMAZING to the NASA SM community and the support they give the racers is unprecedented (re: Sebring morning meeting - long story). We are very fortunate to have them and the things they give us they deserve our respect and commitment to branding.
This is definitely the longest post I've ever written =P
cheers,
-xavier
Xavier, anyone who has ever dealt with you in Spec Miata knows that you have the best interests of your customers close to your heart. You are great for the class and great for NASA.
Danny
Danny Steyn Racing | DSR YouTube Channel
Danny Steyn Photography | Adept Studios | Ocean Machinery | OPM Autosports | Rossini Racing Engines | G-Loc Brakes |
2 x SCCA Runoffs Champ | 1 x NASA National Champ | 6 x June Sprints Champ | 10 x ARRC Champ
1 x SCCA Super Sweep | 2 x Triple Crown | 4 x Hoosier Super Tour Points Champ | 6 x Majors Points Champ | 5 x SEDiv Driver of the Year
NASA/SCCA rule sets.
While we do not have the preferred identical rule set, it still should be the goal of both organizations to keep them as close as possible. And if we do that will work. Right now i can get my car legal in both groups with the offset bushing I assume, and the only thing i have to buy when i run NASA is tires. If it gets to much more complicated than tires, then i am afraid you will have lost people. I think we are still good as most of the differences are optional not mandatory, except tires.
Frank
TnT Racing
SCCA Ohio Valley Region
My car was previously NASA. How can I identify if it has extended ball joints or steering rack spacers? There is no NASA in my area and I just assumed the SM rules were identical for both... until now that I read this.
____________________________
When I made the rules 'match' I did so with the mindset of improving the class overall. There are a lot of crossover cars between both organizations and from time to time, you'll get a "SCCA sucks, I'm NASA fo' life" and I've heard vice versa countless times also. By keeping the rules 'within reason' this gives people the ability to choose without a significant cost impact. By doing this, it improves the values of our cars across the spectrum for all. The key is thinking long term and what is reasonably justifiable.
WRT, shims, ball joints, tires, etc. - There were decisions done before me and some that are clearly polar in organizational belief. For those who have adapted to the "NASA way" - (shims & ball joints) it would be wreckless of me to just delete them from the rules if they work for us. However, there were other rules (for instance usage of fasteners, etc), that were menial and should've matched. So.. I made them match.
With tires, we can all agree that:
1. Hoosiers are faster
2. Toyo's last longer
With that being said, I believe that many of us just like the general nature of competition. I've heard someone once tell me they could care less if they were driving on boulders... just as long as everyone else was doing the same thing, they'd be ok with it (clear over exaggeration). Conceptually, it makes sense though. Tires last longer making it more cost effective? Yeah, I'm game. More importantly, Toyo has been absolutely AMAZING to the NASA SM community and the support they give the racers is unprecedented (re: Sebring morning meeting - long story). We are very fortunate to have them and the things they give us they deserve our respect and commitment to branding.
This is definitely the longest post I've ever written =P
cheers,
-xavier
Thanks for the work.
I have nothing but good things to say about the NASA and the Toyo RR. I was very pleasantly surprised with the driveability and consistency of this tire and the Championship event at Sebring.
East Street Auto Parts
Jim@Eaststreet.com
800 700 9080
Couple things that SCCA has changed/adopted that NASA should consider...
1. Eliminate seat expiration and the silly nonsense of a seat back brace for composite seats!
2. SFI belts being allowed for 5 years!
Ron
RAmotorsports
Couple things that SCCA has changed/adopted that NASA should consider...
1. Eliminate seat expiration and the silly nonsense of a seat back brace for composite seats!
2. SFI belts being allowed for 5 years!
That SFI deal was cabashed by SFi.. They changed the date to not valid after, in direct response to SCCA efforts to make them good for 5 years
East Street Auto Parts
Jim@Eaststreet.com
800 700 9080
Beyond the order question(if everything is close to start last 2 steps aren't supper critical)...the NB chassis tend to run on the tight side. Odds are you will end up with a stiffer rear bar(turn in) and a ride height rake with the rear being higher.
Edit...Steve and I were typing at the same time. His is great advise! To add to what he said about theoretical...this also applies to your alignment settings. Sometimes you have to give you in one area to get another(and if this is extreme you have something bent!). Toe, camber, caster in order of importance!
Ron
RAmotorsports
the NB chassis tend to run on the tight side. Odds are you will end up with a stiffer rear bar(turn in) and a ride height rake with the rear being higher.
HMMMM.. never ran my car in either of those conditions
East Street Auto Parts
Jim@Eaststreet.com
800 700 9080
Well...I just know what I see and what some of the set up guys local lean toward...but not every car or driver likes the same thing or drives the same way.
HMMMM.. never ran my car in either of those conditions
Ron
RAmotorsports
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users