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

[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

[JeffYoung]

...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

Sorry if I wasn't clear but I would not support the rear end allowance for the 1.6. Plenty of competitive 1.6 ITA Miatas out there that aren't burning up diffs every weekend and more importantly, as you suggest, any line item allowance is problematic from a class philosophy standpoint.

I'd be in favor of allowing depowered racks and taking a look at some of the other SM rules on seat mounts, etc. for incorporation into IT, but not the rear end allowance. That goes too far in my personal opinion.

[Ed Funk]

Pandora's Box has warts?!!

[Chip42]

no, but I think wart remedies come in pandoras boxes.

or is this a case where "there can be only one?"

[Ed Funk]

On a more serious note (from me?), 2-3 HP can be very expensive to acquire. Should it be a gift to those with power steering?

[Greg Amy]

On a more serious note (from me?), 2-3 HP can be very expensive to acquire. Should it be a gift to those with power steering?

Depends on your perspective. Isn't it already a gift to those without? AFAIK, for example, are the power and non-power Miatas on separate spec lines...? What about other cars that came with P/S as an option?

And, does SAE ratings measured with or without power steering if it's standard in all cars? What about if it's optional?

GA

[JeffYoung]

On a more serious note (from me?), 2-3 HP can be very expensive to acquire. Should it be a gift to those with power steering?

It can also be expensive and impossible to prove you've acquired it.

I've got probably 40-50 dyno runs over the last 3 years. 2-3 hp is dyno noise. You get that much variation in results back to back same conditions just minutes apart.