July FasTrack posted

[gran racing]

I might be wrong but someone with a vested interest should look at it closely and see. I'll be Dave G. makes a pitch to get the MkIII Golf adjusted upward if this proves to be the case, since it may have benefited form a lower minimum because of the cap when it was moved from ITA.**[/b]

You know, this didn't even cross my mind. Good idea! LOL

[RSTPerformance]

You know, this didn't even cross my mind. Good idea! LOL
[/b]

Dave I will sign the letter as well... but don't think your car wont get added to that list!!!

Raymond

[tnord]

there is very valid data and logic for the 96/7 to run the same restrictor as the 94/5 in SM.

it would be even more valid for them to be the same in IT, since as we all know, ECU rules are effectively open.

you've got your feathers all ruffled over nothing imo Greg. the miata is anything but an overdog. how much hp are you making again? :P

[Joe Harlan]

there is very valid data and logic for the 96/7 to run the same restrictor as the 94/5 in SM.

it would be even more valid for them to be the same in IT, since as we all know, ECU rules are effectively open.

you've got your feathers all ruffled over nothing imo Greg. the miata is anything but an overdog. how much hp are you making again? :P
[/b]

Travis, I may be mistaken here But I don't believe it is just about the car. It is about the process being properly applied to the car (any car) WHile it maybe true that the ECU rules are effectively open the base HP numbers are what is being worked from. If the OBD2 car made more HP stock then that is the number the process should have been worked from if all else is the same. I believe Greg would feel the same way if the Nissan he is driving had the same issue. It is about the integrity of the process and a fair application of it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Travis, I may be mistaken here But I don't believe it is just about the car. It is about the process being properly applied to the car (any car) WHile it maybe true that the ECU rules are effectively open the base HP numbers are what is being worked from. If the OBD2 car made more HP stock then that is the number the process should have been worked from if all else is the same. I believe Greg would feel the same way if the Nissan he is driving had the same issue. It is about the integrity of the process and a fair application of it. [/b]

Joe,

I agree with you from a fundamental standpoint. These car COULD have been seperated. 2370 (minus fudge factor) for the 128hp car and 2460 for the 133hp car. But given the infomation that we have (mechanically identical other than ECU), it was decided to add the 96-97 at the time of its request to the already-classed 94-95. That IS a fair application as the ITAC and CRB saw, as there is NO DIFFERNCE in the cars in IT-trim. It can be argued either way what is the appropriate weight but I belive the application is fair. To have two different weights for identical cars in IT trim doesn't make sense IMHO. I liken it to being able to update/backdate an already 'free' part. Again, you can argue what weight is 'correct' based on your perception but stock dyno data more than supports the lower weight (not that it was considered at the time of classification because it was done at two seperate times).

I don't believe the integrity was breached, just a fair and sensible application of the process given info we had. Obviously some people disagree based on their rules-integrity questions as well as perceived performance potential.

[Greg Amy]

...you've got your feathers all ruffled over nothing imo Greg. the miata is anything but an overdog. how much hp are you making again? :P[/b]

Travis, this really has nothing to do with results. Truly. As I've said before, it's all about the process and its perception. I'm saying the same things I said well before any were competitive, and well before I had the successes I had last year. Nothing's changed in that regard.

HOWEVER, given that, "there is very valid data and logic" illustrating that my mid-2005 predictions on the Miata are coming true. Bob Stretch was by no means a walk at the ARRC (you may recall he finished third); I saw a TON of potential in that car. Watch for future iterations when the package is complete. And, of course, Mr. Bettencourt in his car has walked the field at every track in the Northeast this year - slow, medium, and fast - winning by margins I could only have dreamed of last year, running impressive lap times, either well below or right at lap records, many of them mine, many of those laps faster than I've ever gone. This is his second year of development; I've been working on my car for seven years.

As for the NX power, I'm making about 153 wheel horsepower on average (156 peak on a single pull). However, when I'm allowed to ditch the 65/35 F/R weight bias, McPherson strut suspension, 2500+ pounds, smallish brakes, and front-wheel drive, then we can talk about how I'm making 'too many ponies'...

Again: I AGREE WITH ANDY that on-track performance should not be used for competition adjustments over and above the process, unless the performance is dramatically and significantly heads-and-shoulders above the rest. However, I also insist that everyone be placed on a level field to begin with, something that I've now said for two years has not happened with the Mazda Miata. I use the on-track performance simply as an illustration of this.

Rear-wheel-drive, finely balanced chassis, excellent brakes, excellent handling, small aero package, lightweight, competitive power. Short track handling, medium track compromises, and fast track performance: it's got it all. "You" (collective) truly do not understand - or care to admit publicly - that the Mazda Miata is a car that is greater than the sum of its specs...

But, I feel like I'm pissing against a wall, so I'll quit. "The truth will out", especially if a few of these packages make it to the IT Fest and the ARRC. You'll find out soon enough...

[Knestis]

What Joe said. If the process gets reapplied to the MkIII Golf and it's supposed to be heavier, it should be. I'm NOT going to get in the business of advocating particular treatment for my car. (see also, "Saving Production)

K

[tnord]

Travis, this really has nothing to do with results. Truly. As I've said before, it's all about the process and its perception. I'm saying the same things I said well before any were competitive, and well before I had the successes I had last year. Nothing's changed in that regard.

HOWEVER, given that, "there is very valid data and logic" illustrating that my mid-2005 predictions on the Miata are coming true. Bob Stretch was by no means a walk at the ARRC (you may recall he finished third); I saw a TON of potential in that car. Watch for future iterations when the package is complete. And, of course, Mr. Bettencourt in his car has walked the field at every track in the Northeast this year - slow, medium, and fast - winning by margins I could only have dreamed of last year, running impressive lap times, either well below or right at lap records, many of them mine, many of those laps faster than I've ever gone. This is his second year of development; I've been working on my car for seven years.

[/b]

so it isn't about the results.....but then again, since people are going faster than you did, it is about results? the point about him only having two years of development is all smoke and mirrors, hiding the fact that the car has had who know how many years of development with support from Mazda in SS, and now more development than any car has ever seen in 6 years (especially the last 2) from SM. you are one person greg. it shouldn't surprise you that it's very easy to get an IT miata up to speed very quickly.

Again: I AGREE WITH ANDY that on-track performance should not be used for competition adjustments over and above the process, unless the performance is dramatically and significantly heads-and-shoulders above the rest. However, I also insist that everyone be placed on a level field to begin with, something that I've now said for two years has not happened with the Mazda Miata. I use the on-track performance simply as an illustration of this.
[/b]

andy, how much faster are you than the TOP SMs in the NE?
greg...please elaborate on what "head and shoulders above the rest" performance really means. this seems subjective to me. i'm sure plenty look at 155whp and would say the same thing. i don't necessarily, but a legitimate argument could be presented, especially at a place like RA.

Rear-wheel-drive, finely balanced chassis, excellent brakes, excellent handling, small aero package, lightweight, competitive power. Short track handling, medium track compromises, and fast track performance: it's got it all. "You" (collective) truly do not understand - or care to admit publicly - that the Mazda Miata is a car that is greater than the sum of its specs...
[/b]

subjective. you can't fly the "follow the process 100% of the time exactly as it's written" flag to argue the 96/7 should be on a separate line, but then ignore the process and say the miata is more than the sum of its parts and we should ignore the process and spec it at 2850 or whatever rediculous number you're pushing for.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So Greg, if you were to write a letter today, what would you wish for? Here is what I think you are saying:

1. Seperate the 94/95 and 96/97.

2. Class them at 2370 and 2460 respectively.

3. Develop an adder for cars 'greater than the sum of their parts' and apply it to both

My only issue with this is the double standard. In one breath many cite integrity of the IT rules when questioning the subjective application of 'adders' - and what could be more subjective than #3? How much is enough? Is ANY fair?

The process was followed for the 94-95 car and common sense was applied for the 96-97. If the car ruins ITA, which it won't, PCA's can be invoked.

Oh ya, if Bob Stretch wins the ARRC in his 1.8 Miata, by how much will be acceptable and attributable to his skill, his track knowledge, his prep level, a damn good race, etc. Will the car ever be able to win and not be considered an overdog? I have argued with many people about your car citing those same factors. "It ran through the process and it is what it is" and "The process will never be perfect, the cream will always get to the top" and "All we can do is max out our efforts and driving skill and chase him down"

To the results you posted: 1.6 seconds between you and Bob in Qualifying, Bob came in 4th, not 3rd - and should have been 5th if young Moser didn't break. What was your overall time difference between you and Bob as you "knew the victory was ours and we cruised to the finish while managing the gap we had built up."? And of the races I 'ran away with' - how many were you entered? None.

We are both pissing against the same wall...just opposite sides.

What Joe said. If the process gets reapplied to the MkIII Golf and it's supposed to be heavier, it should be. I'm NOT going to get in the business of advocating particular treatment for my car. (see also, "Saving Production)

K [/b]

It wouldn't. It's where it should be at 2350.

andy, how much faster are you than the TOP SMs in the NE?

[/b]

Depends on the track. 1 second at LRP, 2 seconds at NHIS, and 3 seconds at Pocono.

[Joe Harlan]

Joe,

I agree with you from a fundamental standpoint. These car COULD have been seperated. 2370 (minus fudge factor) for the 128hp car and 2460 for the 133hp car. But given the infomation that we have (mechanically identical other than ECU), it was decided to add the 96-97 at the time of its request to the already-classed 94-95. That IS a fair application as the ITAC and CRB saw, as there is NO DIFFERNCE in the cars in IT-trim. It can be argued either way what is the appropriate weight but I belive the application is fair. To have two different weights for identical cars in IT trim doesn't make sense IMHO. I liken it to being able to update/backdate an already 'free' part. Again, you can argue what weight is 'correct' based on your perception but stock dyno data more than supports the lower weight (not that it was considered at the time of classification because it was done at two seperate times).

I don't believe the integrity was breached, just a fair and sensible application of the process given info we had. Obviously some people disagree based on their rules-integrity questions as well as perceived performance potential.
[/b]

Andy, The fair application would have been to error on the side of the higher HP number which is what would be done in every other case and I believe is the proper application of the rule. I don't have the time in my life to research the 5 hp but you clearly know where the gain came from so why not share?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, The fair application would have been to error on the side of the higher HP number which is what would be done in every other case and I believe is the proper application of the rule. I don't have the time in my life to research the 5 hp but you clearly know where the gain came from some why not share? [/b]

Joe - we already said it. From the OBD-1 to OBD-II ECU swap. The same head, cams, pistons (actually the 94's are said to be better by SM guys) bottom end, TB, intake, injectors, exhaust, etc. EVERYTHING.

Your application is subjective first off, and second, the 94-95 was classed already. We would have had to change the weight we already published on the 94-95. So again, using what we considered to be common sense, we combined them seeing as the would be identical in IT trim.

You may disagree on the common sense piece and that is fair, but this is no anomoly in application or special treatment. If it ever comes up again, I would vote the same way given the info we had. I believe we did it with a Honda in ITA as well but can't remember as there are so many iterations of the dang things.

If you have a problem with the 96-97 being 'light', I can at least see where you stand. But don't you think we would look foolish if they were on different spec lines given the fact they are the same car in IT trim?

I would argue that putting the 94-95 car in at the higher weight would be 'not following the process' because it would be 90 lbs over...for what? Fear?

[tnord]

here's why there's no reason for them NOT to be on the same spec line. argue process weight all you want.

from a letter written to SMAC, and posted on sm.com

Calling all 1996-1997 owners and all competitors interested in increased parity: Please review the letter written to the CRB below. If you agree with it, please write your own to the CRB in support of the 96-97 cars sharing the same restrictor as the 94-95 model. This was emailed to [email protected] today:

CRB:
Thank you for your service to the club, and particularly Spec Miata.

Please review competition results and the rules that restrict airflow in the 1996 and 1997 Spec Miata. When compared with the 1994-1995 Miata, less airflow is allowed at the throttle body for the 1996 and 1997 models which has a dramatic effect on their power curves and is inconsistent with GCR rules that otherwise equalize the 94-95 to the later models.

The later models (96-97) should be allowed to run the same restrictor as the 94-95 models to make them competitive. The proof is in the competition results, but the technical reason lies in the fact that the 96-97 share the SAME computer as 1995 models build after March 1995. Further, the 94-95 originally had lower compression than the late 95, and 96-97 cars. Since 9.0:1 compression is allowed per the GCR and factory specs, 94-95 cars can be brought up to the 96-97 specification, legally.

Specifically:

Starting with the 3/95 start of the ODB-II implementation (VIN 14193) the pistons were changed with a slight dome to increase the compression ratio to an actual 9.0:1. The '94-3/95 pistons were factory rated at 9.0:1 but actually was around 8.8.

I own both a 1996 and an early 1995 car (pre-computer change/compression increase). Both have been dyno'd extensively with several engines. Mazdaspeed supplies the same crate engine to all cars from 1994-1997. The 1996 consistently lags in power to the 94 and 95 cars by approximately 2-3 horsepower, presumably because of the smaller restricted inlet. Most 94-95 cars in SM have been legally modified, or have replaced motors, to meet the factory (and GCR) specification for 9.0 compression, so true differences between the engines 94-97 do not exist.

Please allow the 96-97 Spec Miata to share the 47 mm restrictor with the 94-95 cars, as the current 45 mm restrictor is unfair due to GCR allowed compression increases in the 94-95 and fact that 95-97 cars share ODB-II computers (the 94 ODB-I computer is not slouch either).

Thank you for considering these changes.
[/b]

[Greg Amy]

Look, you guys can attack me all you want. The sole reason I've kept "my mouth shut" on the forums on this issue and tried to keep it in private is because I knew (collective) you would call me out as a hypocrite: "Greg's won and he has a lot of horsepower so he has no credibility for criticizing others". Yah, fine.

I guess it goes the other way, too: "anyone that drives a Miata has no standing to defend this classification", right? Problem is, I see no one but Miata drivers defending it, and if you think I'm the sole person believing this way, well, time to re-think...

Like I said: "the truth will out." You can argue all you want (I simply don't have the time, patient, or fortitude for it any more) but I will not stand by and allow memes to be constantly stated until accepted as fact.

[Joe Harlan]

Joe - we already said it. From the OBD-1 to OBD-II ECU swap. The same head, cams, pistons (actually the 94's are said to be better by SM guys) bottom end, TB, intake, injectors, exhaust, etc. EVERYTHING.

Your application is subjective first off, and second, the 94-95 was classed already. We would have had to change the weight we already published on the 94-95. So again, using what we considered to be common sense, we combined them seeing as the would be identical in IT trim.

You may disagree on the common sense piece and that is fair, but this is no anomoly in application or special treatment. If it ever comes up again, I would vote the same way given the info we had. I believe we did it with a Honda in ITA as well but can't remember as there are so many iterations of the dang things.

If you have a problem with the 96-97 being 'light', I can at least see where you stand. But don't you think we would look foolish if they were on different spec lines given the fact they are the same car in IT trim?

edit: after reading travis's post it would appear the engine internals are not all the same and you gave the early cars a compression boost to add to it....

I would argue that putting the 94-95 car in at the higher weight would be 'not following the process' because it would be 90 lbs over...for what? Fear?
[/b]

Andy here is where you step on yourself, The OBD2 car is a different engine management system than the OBd 1 car so up date back date does not apply. ECU internals are free true but my money says that the early cars are replacing complete boxes and harnesses based on the loophole you provided. In a sense the CRB has given the early car a complete up grade in computer and harness at the early weight. The correct thing to do would be to list them on the same spec line but have a weight for OBD1 and a weight for OBD2. Again if the rules had been followed then the early car could have used an OBD2 Board in there OBD1 ECU case but guess what! the harnesses are different and that would have prevented them from doing so.

edit: From Travis's post it would appear that not all the internals are the same, It looks like you guys gave the early cars a compression boost at the same time and did all that at the lighter weight.....Me thinks the process has been dooped.

[tnord]

Look, you guys can attack me all you want. The sole reason I've kept "my mouth shut" on the forums on this issue and tried to keep it in private is because I knew (collective) you would call me out as a hypocrite: "Greg's won and he has a lot of horsepower so he has no credibility for criticizing others". Yah, fine.
[/b]

you opened the door for that one when you used the "Andy in his 1.8 is faster than me" arguement for adding weight to the car. i don't know much about your car, or even what's it weight is, all i'm saying is that Bob Stretch could probably make the same arguement against your car being an overdog (based on your 15+hp advantage and better aero) that you're making against Andy.

I guess it goes the other way, too: "anyone that drives a Miata has no standing to defend this classification", right? Problem is, I see no one but Miata drivers defending it, and if you think I'm the sole person believing this way, well, time to re-think...

Like I said: "the truth will out." You can argue all you want (I simply don't have the time, patient, or fortitude for it any more) but I will not stand by and allow memes to be constantly stated until accepted as fact.
[/b]

perhaps the miata drivers are defending it because the miata drivers are the ones who know there is NO difference from the 94-97 cars.

[Doc Bro]

I would argue that putting the 94-95 car in at the higher weight would be 'not following the process' because it would be 90 lbs over...for what? Fear?
[/b]

And the Z3 at 135hp and 2600 was not classed out of fear??? God, the car even LOOKS like a Miata!!!

Back to your debate.

R

[Joe Harlan]

you opened the door for that one when you used the "Andy in his 1.8 is faster than me" arguement for adding weight to the car. i don't know much about your car, or even what's it weight is, all i'm saying is that Bob Stretch could probably make the same arguement against your car being an overdog (based on your 15+hp advantage and better aero) that you're making against Andy.
perhaps the miata drivers are defending it because the miata drivers are the ones who know there is NO difference from the 94-97 cars.
[/b]

No difference?

Please review competition results and the rules that restrict airflow in the 1996 and 1997 Spec Miata. When compared with the 1994-1995 Miata, less airflow is allowed at the throttle body for the 1996 and 1997 models which has a dramatic effect on their power curves and is inconsistent with GCR rules that otherwise equalize the 94-95 to the later models.

The later models (96-97) should be allowed to run the same restrictor as the 94-95 models to make them competitive. The proof is in the competition results, but the technical reason lies in the fact that the 96-97 share the SAME computer as 1995 models build after March 1995. Further, the 94-95 originally had lower compression than the late 95, and 96-97 cars. Since 9.0:1 compression is allowed per the GCR and factory specs, 94-95 cars can be brought up to the 96-97 specification, legally. [/b]

May have been legal in SM but not legal in IT.

[tnord]

edit: From Travis's post it would appear that not all the internals are the same, It looks like you guys gave the early cars a compression boost at the same time and did all that at the lighter weight.....Me thinks the process has been dooped.
[/b]

except the post March built 95s had the OBD II and the compression boost making them the same as the 96/7.

apparantly you stopped reading before this part -

Mazdaspeed supplies the same crate engine to all cars from 1994-1997. The 1996 consistently lags in power to the 94 and 95 cars by approximately 2-3 horsepower, presumably because of the smaller restricted inlet. Most 94-95 cars in SM have been legally modified, or have replaced motors, to meet the factory (and GCR) specification for 9.0 compression, so true differences between the engines 94-97 do not exist.
[/b]

[Greg Amy]

...you opened the door for that one when you used the "Andy in his 1.8 is faster than me" arguement for adding weight to the car.[/b]

Travis, "you ain't readin' very well". As I said, I offer those comparisons simply to illustrate that my predictions of 2005 are coming true, not to use as a value for relative competition adjustments. If that's not clear, then I can't make it any more so.

(based on your 15+hp advantage and better aero)[/b]

GawDAMMIT, another one of those stupid Miata memes that always suck me in.

"Better aero"??? Where in the WORLD are you guys getting that the aerodynamics of a Miata are poor and the NX are good? All "you guys" claim the aero on a Miata is poor, yet it's a small, round package, smaller and more aerodynamic than just about anything out there. Have you actually SEEN this size and shape of my car (or its brother, the Sentra SE-R)? You actually think the aerodynamics on my car are "good"?

I suspect "you got this from looking at Road and Track Cd results on the original car, when it was tested using a soft top. Clue: Cd is a relative term, and is not a direct indication of the amount of pounds-force of total aerodynamic drag (what REALLY is important here). And, last I heard, you're allowed to use a hardtop, making it an even nicer aero package.

I'd LOVE to see some data on this supposed Miata "aero" disadvantage.

And the NX better have more than a 15hp advantage, otherwise the Miata is VASTLY mis-classified given all its other advantages.

Any other relative characteristics you'd like to compare, vis-a-vis Miata versus NX2000? If you really want to travel down this road, where shall we start?

perhaps the miata drivers are defending it because the miata drivers are the ones who know there is NO difference from the 94-97 cars.[/b]

"Miata drivers" have a long history of getting in groupthink, creating "common knowledge", and not looking at things objectively.

Like Miata aerodynamics, for example.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Like Miata aerodynamics, for example. [/b]

And your data to support that they are "more aerodynamic than just about anything out there" is where?