134 replies to this topic

[Jim Drago]

I get the whole "I want to race faster" thing. I just haven't seen any compelling evidence as to why the NAs should be relegated to regionals only. As @Brandon mentioned, there's enough of a challenge getting entries into the class. I'm guessing the development of Spec MX-5 isn't going to help that either.
 
I'm cool with allowing for bigger and better mods and faster racing. Let's keep the parity across platforms (NA - NB) going. 
 
If there is a concern whether the 1.6s and NA8s are competitive enough or should otherwise compete at the Majors/Super Tours/Runoffs, then that should be for those of us who run them to decide.

So you think for less than 10% of the entries the others should be forced to run heavier weights and restrictor plates? I think that alone is a very bad argument. I do worry about the costs as we will add costs to NB cars pulling plates in going through intake and exhaust manifolds. But still feel that catering the rules to cars that are older and represent less than 10% of the entries is not a good strategy.

[Bench Racer]

Jim, I view us as race track acquaintances/friends. Your home division is Midwest Division correct. How may races and Spec Miata's are in your division? Where are the gazillion Midwest Division Spec Miata's from years past, where'd they all go? In past years you and Danny had race cars separate specifically for Spec Miata and STL, and the STL raced faster than the Spec Miata, correct. Please don't segregate the Spec Miata class for your benefit and the 90% (I'd say BS to the 90%) you suggest are all for it. IT'S GOING TO COST WAY MORE MONEY FOR THE YOU/POINTY END FOLKS. And guess what, the sad class trail will be the same as what happened to the Midwest Division cars from years ago.

 

Your home Midwest Division Spec Miata Regional participation 2007, 211 SM, 2010, 82 SM, 2013 18 SM. Hmm, 193 SM disappeared over 6 years. Oh, year 2019 Midwest Division participation 3 SM. The Regional entry numbers for Divisions other than the Northeast and Southeast  have spiraled down the sewer.

 

Seems some people have a desire to make SM their own private class, I agree, let's make it my way. Have two SM classes all with same rules as is today and have Class $$$/over $20k per car and class $/under $20k per car. Simple deal if someone claims to be a under $20k car and constantly beats the crap out of the under $20k cars, said car gets moved to the over $20k cars. I've read on site a couple folks have 99 home build's for $20k. My 1.6 car/hard top, cage, engine, is something over $10k but I'd bet car total is under $15k if I had the nerve to add up the numbers. If the SM speed is not fast enough for your feel good, pick another class, there are plenty of faster SCCA classes.

[racerbeav]

So you think for less than 10% of the entries the others should be forced to run heavier weights and restrictor plates? I think that alone is a very bad argument. I do worry about the costs as we will add costs to NB cars pulling plates in going through intake and exhaust manifolds. But still feel that catering the rules to cars that are older and represent less than 10% of the entries is not a good strategy.

 

Jim, I totally get where you're coming from and certainly want to keep things moving forward in the class where it makes sense.

 

I could get behind dropping weight and pulling restrictor plates on the NB cars as long as reasonable parity is maintained...I know there's quite a bit that I can do to my 1.6 that would get it up to that speed quickly and I would be willing to make that investment. I don't know how it works but I'm certainly open to using my car as a test car for the NA6 platform BOP.

 

I understand the lack of NA cars and what that might represent. I just don't think it's reasonable to prevent those of us with front-running NAs from participating in all of the available SM races.

 

I think I mentioned this earlier, and it's worth saying again...I probably should have gone down the NB path early on but ended up sinking so much money into my 1.6 that I reached a point (tens of thousands of dollars) where it was hard to justify moving over to the NB platform. I don't doubt that I will move to an NB, maybe Spec MX-5 or something else, at some point...just not right now with my car so dialed-in.

 

Again, that should be my (our) choice on whether to run Majors, Super Tours, Runoffs, rather than it being decreed that it's just time to move on to phase out the old cars and not invest in continued BOP.

[Nathan Pring]

Under Jim's proposal there could always be the option of grandfathering existing NA cars with record of national entries within a specified eligibility period. That way you cap future entries but accommodate guys like Kevin who have invested in their 1.6s

[Brandon]

Under Jim's proposal there could always be the option of grandfathering existing NA cars with record of national entries within a specified eligibility period. That way you cap future entries but accommodate guys like Kevin who have invested in their 1.6s

 

Perfectly appropriate proposal but who administers/polices/enforces such a requirement? A volunteer certainly isn't going to be doing it for the fun of it nor could a competitor be expecting perfect and exact details to be maintained year over year by multiple volunteers.

 

And to expect a region putting on a HST/Major to review entries of any 1.6s for their provenance and then have to see a $500+ entry fee be revoked because of it strikes me as an unlikely scenario for a region to pursue.

[gerglmuff2]

literally no one:

Drago: yeah but we should split the biggest, best class in road racing, probably ever, because i want to go ~1 sec a lap faster

[LarryKing]

 

I don't doubt that I will move to an NB, maybe Spec MX-5 or something else, at some point.

Interesting point. Is this entire thread moot? Is it possible that new or returning drivers skip over an upgraded NB SM for the new Spec MX5 class?

[Steve Scheifler]

Perfectly appropriate proposal but who administers/polices/enforces such a requirement? A volunteer certainly isn't going to be doing it for the fun of it nor could a competitor be expecting perfect and exact details to be maintained year over year by multiple volunteers.

And to expect a region putting on a HST/Major to review entries of any 1.6s for their provenance and then have to see a $500+ entry fee be revoked because of it strikes me as an unlikely scenario for a region to pursue.

A discriminatory grandfathering rule doesn’t seem at all appropriate to me, next someone will ask to add a $$ investment threshold exemption for those who spent a lot but haven’t raced much. Save your receipts boys & girls? But more importantly, what’s the point of allowing them to race if they aren’t even remotely competitive, and if they go through BOP development for them why limit who can run??

[Brandon]

A discriminatory grandfathering rule doesn’t seem at all appropriate to me, next someone will ask to add a $$ investment threshold exemption for those who spent a lot but haven’t raced much. Save your receipts boys & girls? But more importantly, what’s the point of allowing them to race if they aren’t even remotely competitive, and if they go through BOP development for them why limit who can run??

 

I miswrote: it's perfectly appropriate to suggest such a proposal

 

That better?

 

[Jim Drago]

literally no one:

Drago: yeah but we should split the biggest, best class in road racing, probably ever, because i want to go ~1 sec a lap faster

Split implies halves

BTW, I have mentioned several times this was talking point.. If I was convinced of this, there would already be a letter in the system.  There is not. 

[Tom Hampton]

Jim-

Its not entirely clear to me what problem you are specifically trying to solve? I've (we've?) all sort of assumed that you are trying to address participation level in the class. I suppose, give the nature of your recommendation, that could be further refined to say "particiapation in SM at HST events." ??  Is that correct? 
 
I guess what I'd like to hear (WITH SOME BASIS in facts), is how this proposal would address THAT problem specifically. 
 
Honestly, if participation at HST events is falling...I'd want to know WHY?  Where are the drivers going?  Why?   Are they leaving the HST, are they leaving the class, are they leaving the SCCA, or are they leaving Racing all-together?   It seems to me that any attempt to address shrinking participation, should be met by identifying the reasons for the withdrawl.  Otherwise, its just a guess on how to fix a guess at to what the problem is. 
 
Is making a ruleset specifically for HST the right thing for the class?  Does HST participation define the health of the class?  If the rule changes improve HST numbers at the expense of non-HST event participation is that a Win or a loss for the class?  2/5/10 years from now, what would success for this idea look like? 

Are people really leaving HST SM racing because they want to drive a lighter car, with 15 more HP? Honestly, I find that hard to believe.   In 10 years here and on SM.com before, I can literally never recall anyone wanting more speed for the class ("themselves", sure).   We've discussed a lot of things wrong with the class in that time, but I NEVER remember a discussion regarding just generally being too slow (and presumably boring).  In the last 3 years, since parity has mostly been settled most conversations have centered around costs.  Build costs, tire costs, entry fees, event durations, $$ per track-hour, tech-costs, etc.  I don't know if that's why people are leaving, and I don't know if our discussions here on MR.COM reflect the larger masses who never come here. 

 

Maybe we can't put the toothpaste back in the tube, but surely we can recognize when we are getting ready to let some more out. 

[Jim Drago]

Jim-

Its not entirely clear to me what problem you are specifically trying to solve? I've (we've?) all sort of assumed that you are trying to address participation level in the class. I suppose, give the nature of your recommendation, that could be further refined to say "particiapation in SM at HST events." ??  Is that correct? 
 
I guess what I'd like to hear (WITH SOME BASIS in facts), is how this proposal would address THAT problem specifically. 
 
Honestly, if participation at HST events is falling...I'd want to know WHY?  Where are the drivers going?  Why?   Are they leaving the HST, are they leaving the class, are they leaving the SCCA, or are they leaving Racing all-together?   It seems to me that any attempt to address shrinking participation, should be met by identifying the reasons for the withdrawl.  Otherwise, its just a guess on how to fix a guess at to what the problem is. 
 
Is making a ruleset specifically for HST the right thing for the class?  Does HST participation define the health of the class?  If the rule changes improve HST numbers at the expense of non-HST event participation is that a Win or a loss for the class?  2/5/10 years from now, what would success for this idea look like? 

Are people really leaving HST SM racing because they want to drive a lighter car, with 15 more HP? Honestly, I find that hard to believe.   In 10 years here and on SM.com before, I can literally never recall anyone wanting more speed for the class ("themselves", sure).   We've discussed a lot of things wrong with the class in that time, but I NEVER remember a discussion regarding just generally being too slow (and presumably boring).  In the last 3 years, since parity has mostly been settled most conversations have centered around costs.  Build costs, tire costs, entry fees, event durations, $$ per track-hour, tech-costs, etc.  I don't know if that's why people are leaving, and I don't know if our discussions here on MR.COM reflect the larger masses who never come here. 

 

Maybe we can't put the toothpaste back in the tube, but surely we can recognize when we are getting ready to let some more out. 

Problem, probably too strong of a word..  Just feels odd to balancing the entire class to cars that aren't really being raced much in Sm anymore and in the Supertour they represent less than 10%. Is that a problem?      Would it be cooler to run all the same looking cars and no plates and lighter weights.. yeah probably would.  Is that the best idea, probably not.   Would it stop all the parity complaints and arguments 95 % of which are baseless?  Yeah, it would  at least for all the NA VS NB cars.. Maybe start a few NB1 V NB2 debates if plates were pulled. 

Enough counter points were brought up that I have no intentions of pushing this.  There will likely be a few pro races next year, we will likely push it there just so it will be different and something to try.  

[Tom Hampton]

Come on now....We haven't had a good parity debate in ages!  I think getting the parity right has probably been bad for your traffic stats here on MR.  We've kinda run out of things to argue about.   

 

Every lengthy thread in recent memory has been about the latest tech shed debacle.  "What fresh hell of a hair are we going to split now?"  Everything has been a "-gate" of one kind or another. 

[Cnj]

Jim-

In 10 years here and on SM.com before, I can literally never recall anyone wanting more speed for the class ("themselves", sure).   We've discussed a lot of things wrong with the class in that time, but I NEVER remember a discussion regarding just generally being too slow (and presumably boring). 

No need to go back 10 years Tom. Some guy named Claude (in this very thread) was going on about it being more fun driving a NB without a restrictor plate and with lighter weight.

To be clear, both Claude and I think it’s definitely more satisfying to drive an uncorked NB and wish we could do that. But I don’t have an agenda to get rid of NA’s. Claude might see it differently.

CNJ

[Brandon]

Problem, probably too strong of a word..  Just feels odd to balancing the entire class to cars that aren't really being raced much in Sm anymore and in the Supertour they represent less than 10%. Is that a problem?      Would it be cooler to run all the same looking cars and no plates and lighter weights.. yeah probably would.  Is that the best idea, probably not.   Would it stop all the parity complaints and arguments 95 % of which are baseless?  Yeah, it would  at least for all the NA VS NB cars.. Maybe start a few NB1 V NB2 debates if plates were pulled. 

Enough counter points were brought up that I have no intentions of pushing this.  There will likely be a few pro races next year, we will likely push it there just so it will be different and something to try.  

 

If you would oblige, may I revise your request/statement of intentions?

 

You wish to change the platform performance baseline from the NA6 to something else and wanting it to be the NB (unrestricted).

 

I wholeheartedly agree with this request feel it should be pursued, and will be writing a letter to request just that. Supporting evidence for this is engine builders are experiencing difficulty finding decent donor cores for engines (much like what the SRF/Ford Kent block was experiencing).

However I will be requesting the baseline be changed to the NA8 instead.

 

I know it could appear to be a continuous upgrade cycle for those who don't have NBs (figure every 4-5 years for example), but unless you can convince the SCCA (and NASA if that's still something we are concerned about) to abandon entirely the NA models, there needs to be a path to participation for all owners within reasonable expense.

 

Permit the NA6 to run the NA8 engine and no plate, with larger brakes and higher weight, and then you've got all 1.8L engines.

Then you can address the further lack of "stock parity" between only three engines instead of four.

Next step would be then to permit the use of an NB1 engine in NAs. Now it's only two engines.

Then off goes the plates if you wanted.

 

Keeping all the respective spec lines coherent does minimize the potential for a FrankenMiata but why couldn't we agree the next step is making the actual tub irrelevant and spec'ing the NB1 powertrain & suspension as minimum running gear?

 

I know, pissing in the wind and all that...
 

[Tom Hampton]

No need to go back 10 years Tom. Some guy named Claude (in this very thread) was going on about it being more fun driving a NB without a restrictor plate and with lighter weight.

To be clear, both Claude and I think it’s definitely more satisfying to drive an uncorked NB and wish we could do that. But I don’t have an agenda to get rid of NA’s. Claude might see it differently.

CNJ

I'll rephrase to add, "... Outside of the current thread."

Besides, Claude sounds pretty shady to me.

[Danny Steyn]

I'll rephrase to add, "... Outside of the current thread."

Besides, Claude sounds pretty shady to me.

 

If you knew Claude like I know Claude..........................

[Bench Racer]

How large is the inventory of NA parts Mazda needs to deplete. 

[racerbeav]

So, is the problem with my 1.6 engine and others like it? I think mine is pretty solid and have little interest in replacing it with a 1.8, especially given the continued investments I've put forth to make it competitive.

 

Why eliminate the NA6 and not just work on balancing the performance? Based on the talk I hear, it's the NA8 that's the real beast on track and perhaps the basis of this entire thread (threat?).

 

I like Tom Hampton's approach in treating this like a business challenge in order minimize conflicts of interest. I'll reiterate/add questions that I use in my work:

1. What problem needs to be solved?
2. For what reasons does this issue need to be addressed?
3. How is the current situation not working?
4. If changes are made, what are the direct and indirect consequences?
5. What happens, both short-term and long-term, if changes are not made?
6. Knowing what we now know, what would (could) we do more of and less of moving forward?

Again, reflecting much of this thread's sentiment: the burning question is: is this a problem that needs to be solved? It's the first time I've heard of it...looking back ~4 years ago when Creighton created SMSE, there was a lot of rumbling here about splintering the class, it being bad for the spirit of SM, etc....kind of like what's being proposed now. I recall someone saying SMSE was just going to be a competition for the "tallest midget" award...

 

Let's continue the business discussion, if needed. Answering the questions above is a good first step.

[Tom Hampton]

If you knew Claude like I know Claude..........................

Nobody knows Claude like that! Not even himself.