242 replies to this topic

[Danica Davison]

Just an observation - NASA and SCCA can work together on shocks. Why not get together on a spec tire?

 

Money and Relationships with the tire companies at an Org wide level.  SCCA "presented by" Hoosier ... NASA "presented by' Toyo Tires. 

[LarryKing]

Yep, I know that the club makes sponsor deals, which benefit me exactly not at all. A club should support it's members not whore them out to corporations.

[Danica Davison]

Yep, I know that the club makes sponsor deals, which benefit me exactly not at all. A club should support it's members not whore them out to corporations.

 

Do this. Run SM instead of SMSE. And then, go to silly races like the ones at Homestead and PBIR and other small regionals ... and finish P1 or P2.  And then ... you too ... will benefit from free tires. 

 

Or, if you really don't like Hoosiers. Run NASA.

[Joe (dad) Jordan]

I really hate to do this, but since I own a 1991 1.6 and a 2003 VVT I feel I need to bring this up.

 

The lower you can go the worse the bumpsteer is on a 1.6, if you go any lower than what we have now we should allow the 1.6's to use the improved geometry of the NB front subframe.

 

One of the 1.6 advantages was the lighter chassis did not work the shocks as hard, so in a battle late in the race the shocks in a 1.6 would not overheat...They would have the heatsoke issue,but the handling would stay more consistent than an NB.

Not much discussion on the call on the design of the new Penske bump stop but I don't think you will want to be going much into this new stop.  From the meeting Penske is going to be providing "Shaker/Pull Test" data for all three SM chassis variants providing recommended ride height recommendations.  This information should provide everyone good information to start out on and hopefully the risks to the "downside".

 

Shaker/Pull test will definitely help, but most pointy end guys will push the envelope

 

 

IMO, it is 1005 needed.  Keeps everyone in the operating range of the shocks.  Keeps the cars looking like Miatas, not Hovercrafts, Keeps people from finding ways to manipulate the inner fenders. Polices the teh stupid from screwing themselves up.  There is NO reason to run lower than we are now, at 4 3/8 at pinch weld you will hit the inner fender with a VERY rigid bump stup binding. With proper shocks and compliant stops, you will slam the inner fenders at the same heights.  

 

Agree 100 percent with Jim on this.  I do believe otherwise we will need to allow the 1.6's to run the front NB subframe with improved bumpsteer or allow the NA's to run the steering shimps to improve bumpsteer like they do in NASA.

[davew]

Agree 100 percent with Jim on this.  I do believe otherwise we will need to allow the 1.6's to run the front NB subframe with improved bumpsteer or allow the NA's to run the steering shimps to improve bumpsteer like they do in NASA.

 

After all the years of 1.6ers whining about the expense of upgrades, now you want the improved subframes. I don't get you guys.

[William Keeling]

After all the years of 1.6ers whining about the expense of upgrades, now you want the improved subframes. I don't get you guys.

I think he was asking for a min ride height so NB subframes would not be need

[Steve Scheifler]

I think he was asking for a min ride height so NB subframes would not be need

And he is after all, ONE guy, even if Dave holds him in such high esteem.

When the alternate tie rod ends were allowed (to reduce bump-steer) they should have been given only to NAs which were the ones at a disadvantage relative to the later design. Instead they were given to all. Made no sense to me, but technically not too late to correct. Bump-steer isn’t the most important suspension difference by any means, but it’s something.

[38bfast]

Ride hight will be monitored by the CRB and SMAC. If there is a issue that needs to be addressed it will be. Lets get the shocks in hand and on cars before we make any conclusions. We would like to avoid a RH rule if possible but if it is needed we will address it. We are in good hands with the teams in place and no one wants any short falls. It would not benefit anyone involved. 

[davew]

And he is after all, ONE guy, even if Dave holds him in such high esteem.

When the alternate tie rod ends were allowed (to reduce bump-steer) they should have been given only to NAs which were the ones at a disadvantage relative to the later design. Instead they were given to all. Made no sense to me, but technically not too late to correct. Bump-steer isn’t the most important suspension difference by any means, but it’s something.

 

Remember, I was very much in favor of allowing the NA to upgrade to the NB subframes etc. 

[Steve Scheifler]

Remember, I was very much in favor of allowing the NA to upgrade to the NB subframes etc.

I know Dave, I was just amused by your reaction to a comment by a single guy as if a poll had just shown a broad reversal on the subject. No harm intended.

[Bench Racer]

I know Dave, I was just amused by your reaction to a comment by a single guy as if a poll had just shown a broad reversal on the subject. No harm intended.

If your not aware, Team Jordan has lifetime road racing experiences and a pair of young hands, well maybe he's aged a couple years since I last saw him. Joe Dad, how's Joey's trip going?

[Ron Alan]

And he is after all, ONE guy, even if Dave holds him in such high esteem.

When the alternate tie rod ends were allowed (to reduce bump-steer) they should have been given only to NAs which were the ones at a disadvantage relative to the later design. Instead they were given to all. Made no sense to me, but technically not too late to correct. Bump-steer isn’t the most important suspension difference by any means, but it’s something.

I may be wrong but didn't the outer tie rod(improved R version)become standard equipment on all cars after like 96?

As someone mentioned...SO SO simple(and end the subframe debate)if SCCA allows the steering rack shims!!! And while you are at it SMAC/CRB...the ELBJ is SO much easier and LESS EXPENSIVE(and accomplishes the same f...king thing!). Beating your head against the wall of common sense is....well....never mind, we have grown used to it sadly.

[Ron Alan]

I understand the concept of being as low as possible...but when you can currently be low enough to have your front tires rub against the chassis...what would be the point of a ride height rule? For anyone wondering...when your tire can find your chassis...there is no benefit!

[Joe (dad) Jordan]

After all the years of 1.6ers whining about the expense of upgrades, now you want the improved subframes. I don't get you guys.

 

Dave,  I don't think I was playing with spec miata's when you brought up the subframe, but I was messing with Firestone Firehawk Miata's and speedvision cup miata's and we were allowed to run the 99 and up subframe and it made a significant improvement in the car.   This was on the Bilsteins and with 600 / 300 springs before spec miata, Del Geneo ran the 700 springs like we have in spec miata. 

 

  I have also run the shims below the steering rack NASA allowed the 1.6's and that also helped, but not as much as the subframe.

 

All I am trying to say is if we do not have a rideheight rule it will help the NB's more than the NA's and I hesitated to bring it up..... but since I've run NB subframes on NA chassis in those pro series I believe I can offer some insight....

[Steve Scheifler]

I may be wrong but didn't the outer tie rod(improved R version)become standard equipment on all cars after like 96?
As someone mentioned...SO SO simple(and end the subframe debate)if SCCA allows the steering rack shims!!! And while you are at it SMAC/CRB...the ELBJ is SO much easier and LESS EXPENSIVE(and accomplishes the same f...king thing!). Beating your head against the wall of common sense is....well....never mind, we have grown used to it sadly.

Not true. The rack addresses bump-steer but does nothing for the basic geometry, AKA angle-of-the-dangle, which impacts roll center which impacts pretty much everything up front. Bump-steer is what people “get” but actually the least of it.

[powerss]

If your not aware, Team Jordan has lifetime road racing experiences and a pair of young hands, well maybe he's aged a couple years since I last saw him. Joe Dad, how's Joey's trip going?

You can follow the story here.......very interesting and dramatic reads.

 

https://www.gashalffull.com/

[Ron Alan]

Not true. The rack addresses bump-steer but does nothing for the basic geometry, AKA angle-of-the-dangle, which impacts roll center which impacts pretty much everything up front. Bump-steer is what people “get” but actually the least of it.

Ok...but shhh...lets just allow the shim and ELBJ in SCCA so we can run our cars optimal in both orgs and not worry about tech!

[Steve Scheifler]

Ok...but shhh...lets just allow the shim and ELBJ in SCCA so we can run our cars optimal in both orgs and not worry about tech!

Works for me.

[Sean - MiataCage]

Ok...but shhh...lets just allow the shim and ELBJ in SCCA so we can run our cars optimal in both orgs and not worry about tech!

 

Send a letter...... Useless conversation otherwise.

[Chris D.]

Overall I'm very happy with this change....especially if it reduces hub wear and is more friendly to the tires.   Bring on the SM8s with reduced wear rates (hopefully) and that will be another plus for the class.