IT should really think about welcoming Older SM's....... Without a new class..

[jwasilko]

Good timing as the specpinata folks are talking about where the NC (MX-5) will fit into SM.

http://mazdaracers.com/topic/4506-is...to-spec-miata/

[Dano77]

Oh yeah Lets open this pandoras box.

The simple answer is that a Miata with a 1.6 and a Miata with a 1.8 are both legal cars for IT right now. Build it to the rules that currently exist in IT and your done. OR Leave it in SM trim and run in SM.. Dont see any reason to allow Competition Adjustments for this model car only. Quite frankly this conversation has been had many times, and its getting old. Build it to the Rules in PLACE, or dont run IT! Its that F***** simple

[gpeluso]

Dano77
this weekend I am Running SM and parking my IT car..........your right,it is simple. Haha
Just thought timing was good....

Greg

[Greg Amy]

Where are the conflicts in the regs? Where are the cars not compliant to IT regs now? Put together a detailed proposal to submit to the CRB; if you want to hash it out before submission, post it here.

GA

Edit: I have submitted several times a proposal to allow de-powering of the racks. I've been rejected each time. The general concern centers around two points: that's not the way it has always been done and it would upset the "balance of power". I counter that the first point is irrelevant except in the context of stability, and we have "what we know" for the the second point.

As for the Torsen rear ends of the 1.6s, given lack of availability I would not oppose a line-item allowance to change the pumpkins to '99 to allow the Torsen. But it ain't gonna happen on its own; you need to request it and convince the ITAC to support it to the CRB.

[gpeluso]

Dano77
this weekend I am Running SM and parking my IT car..........your right,it is simple. Haha
Just thought timing was good....

Greg

[Dano77]

Look Im not trying to start a fight. I just dont see a need to change a set of rules or even the philosiphy of the rules to suit a certain car that is prepped to a different set of rules. The IT rule set works as designed. Certain cars have warts. The 1.6 Miata is one of them. I get that.

I also get that without the Miata the club would clearly go broke. I am actually surprised that the SCCA made it this far without the Miata from day one in 1948.

The Miata is eligible in SM,SSM,SM2,STU,STL,SMT,ITE,ITEZ all without a conflict of rules. With minor changes its also in SPU. A few more changes and it goes to EP FP GTL, GT3,GT2. Thats almost 50% of the closed wheel classes, Why do we need to Change an entire rule set to allow it to be Compliant in ITA and ITS as well. Run it as it is, take your chances in IT. IF some one does throw paper,and its non-compliant, take the lumps and move on.

And its way more than a PS rack being de-powered, or a rear diff from a different spec line.

Sorry Greg if I seem pissy, just tired of having this conversation every weekend with some one who thinks their car is being unjustly discriminated against is all.

[Greg Amy]

...just tired of having this conversation every weekend with some one who thinks their car is being unjustly discriminated against is all.

LOL! I hear ya, brother. But you just can't keep pressin' down and pressin' down on the back of the oppressed...it's time for JUSTICE!

[Ed Funk]

If the Miata had never been produced, would SCCA have died? Hell no! People that want to race would race something else. The Miata is the easy button, a ton of development has been done on the car by Flatout, Planet Miata, Kessler, et al. Buy a Miata, rent a Miata...easy. But we sure as he'll don't need more classes for them to run in! Or cater to their every whim.

[Wreckerboy]

As the owner of a 1.6 SSM car I think this is not a good idea. I like the IT rule set and core values because it leads to stability. One of those IT tenets is "warts and all." I built my car for a specific class, just as the IT folks built their cars. If I want to run IT I have to accept all of the IT rules, "warts and all". There is no reason to give me any sort of special dispensation or "exemption." Line item exceptions are the road to Prod.

Rob, who built his car for a specific class in a specific region, and recognizes the "warts and all" that approach brings.

[Knestis]

If the Miata had never been produced, would SCCA have died? Hell no! People that want to race would race something else. The Miata is the easy button, a ton of development has been done on the car by Flatout, Planet Miata, Kessler, et al. Buy a Miata, rent a Miata...easy. But we sure as he'll don't need more classes for them to run in! Or cater to their every whim.

This.

SCCA is good at eating its own young, classing-wise. Pretty much all of the current SM stalwarts - those teams that rent fleets of them - left another class smaller when they departed. Based on what I know from three freaking decades of this game, only the tiniest handful of new racers would have opted to, say, buy a bass boat instead of racing something else, absent SM.

K

[Ron Earp]

I'm not overly concerned one way or the other. I do feel like more classes in the SCCA is not an improvement, but you guys see it differently and that's fine by me.

[gran racing]

Ron, I truly do agree with you that just creating new classes is typically not the answer. I mocked SM2 here a while back when I first heard about it and how of course we needed yet another Miata class. Yet at the same time seeing it's popularity, how people in that group approach it, and then racing in the class a couple of times changed my mind. Keep in mind that many of these drivers gravitate towards the "Spec" nature of racing. Don't think we can ignore that as spec classes are the most popular within SCCA (believe outside of SCCA too).

In the end it's really a balance. More classes isn't always the answer but neither is opening the rules up within an existing category.

Even though I now race a Miata in IT, I'd love to see ways to encourage other makes within the category. I know, nothing can beat a Miata. (One of the biggest reasons for my move is a shop owned by a friend was tired of one-off cars and is arguably one of the several top Miata shops in the country.)

[JeffYoung]

Just me speaking, not the entire ITAC obviously:

1. I would be fine with allowing depowered racks. It always seemed to me to be more of a driver comfort issue, the existing ways to depower a rack (other than a loop) are not illegal but hard if not impossible to detect, and the power gain/loss just isn't that much in my view. Yeah, it may be 2-3 or even 7-8 hp, which matters, but it's not going to create a class killer.

2. I would not be fine allowing the 99 Torsen rear end in any SM.

3. Most of the other allowed stuff (floor modifications to allow seat installation) are either allowed, arguably allowed, or aren't really performance mods.

So, to me, if we allowed the racks, all we are really looking at is the rear end stuff right?

[Greg Amy]

So, to me, if we allowed the racks, all we are really looking at is the rear end stuff right?

...which could be done via a line-item allowance.

But...allow me Devil's Advocate.

The reason SM allows it is because the OE rear end is fragile, not as competitive, and because they're hard to get. In other words, it's a wart that the 1.6L Miata must bear. If we allow it for the gander, then we must consider warts allowances for the goose.

I support it (and other reasonable warts allowances). But, to mix metaphors, just pointing out that potential Pandora's Box.

GA