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

[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

[Ed Funk]

If it's optional, you can convert to the manual rack.

[Greg Amy]

Should it be a gift to those with power steering?

If it's optional, you can convert to the manual rack.

You missed my point.

SAE net horsepower -- upon which we base our Improved Touring weights -- is measured with all auxiliary devices installed, including water pump, alternator, power steering pump, etc (old pre-'72 SAE gross was with everything removed, including restrictive exhausts). The question is, for those cars with power steering as an option, how is that number determined? If it's measured with all accessories, then allowing these cars to remove the power steering is a "gift" that cannot be equitably applied, and breaks The Process.

As a direct example, is the Mazda Miata SAE net measured on the base model car, the one without power steering, or the "worst case" scenario, the one with all the auxiliary devices installed? If the latter, then the true "gift" goes to the car that can remove items that were there when the measurement was done.

The vast majority of cars sold within the last two decades have power steering installed as standard. I think we'd be hard-pressed to find too many specific examples where allowing removal across-the-board would place cars in inequitable positions.

GA

[jumbojimbo]

So there are 3 options:

1. No change, they are "screwed" in SM, slowly die out. You'd like to think those drivers would build new SM cars, but they won't, the net result will be lost drivers.
2. Make a new class SM2. They get to run for their own trophy, they feel empowered, they are in a smaller class, but one they like. Potential downside: either they have to run with SM in which case they will always be dealing with slow SM cars (welcome to my world) or they run in another group, doubling my changes of being stuck racing with slow miatas.
3. Roll them into IT. They have a place to run where they are competitive (hmm, is this assured? there is no assurance for any other car it will be competitive). Potential downsides: Slippery slope on rules changes. What if they upset the balance in IT (real or imagined) and scare off existing drivers? Just by the nature of their numbers will they force additional rules changes and 'adjustments'?

Another change if you stick them in IT is that currently they run in a spec class. That's a real change in both philosophy and in race strategy/experience. They like spec, that's why they are there or they'd have built an ITA car. Would they be happy in a multi-car class?

I'm having trouble seeing how SM2 isn't the easy button here and it should always run with SM.

Edit: no kidding, 2-3 HP is a 5% gain.

Double edit: please for the love of god can we change the class names to SM1 for G1 Miatas, SM2 for G2 so that we can more easily add SM3 for later cars? Why can't the faster cars be HIGHER numbers to make adding new classes to the top easier?

[seckerich]

Or you do as all the other IT blood sucking classes have done and allow them to run ITA if they run full SM rules, no pick and choose. They should be a little slower than a full tilt ITA Miata. Production, ST, etc all poach our entries so why not go the other way??

[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.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The Miata example isn't a good one as that car just got a weight adjustment using the 'what we know' theory. The most fair way to do it would be to determine a % gain factor...say 1 or 2% (based on actual research, could be more, could be non-existent based on results) and simply add it to all cars with power steering, and then allow them to remove it.

There is a faction that thinks that average gains in IT are greater than 25%, so maybe allowing this and moving the number to 30% could work.

OR, we could leave it alone because nothing is broken...my vote.

As to SM's...it's not just the pumpkin. It's chassis bracing from 1.8's allowed on 1.6's. It's other stuff too, no GCR in my hand. Again, my issue is that RIGHT NOW, a full prep 1.6 or 1.8 SM does not have the performance envelope of the ITA Miata...so there is no issue allowing them to compete while prepped to the SM rules...but the rub is simple:

What if the SMAC/CRB decides to allow the MX5 in...and tries to balance them all in one class? 1.6's get spec cams and 2 points of compressions, 1.8's get spec cams, 99's lose their restriction....you can't have your class dependent on another classes rules that doesn't care about your class. Work it regionally.

[Ron Earp]

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.

Truth. Checking my hard drive team stang has 67 dyno pulls between the two cars since May 2012. We do statistically analyze our pulls, as well as curve fit them and integrate for area under the curve. We calculate that a couple of percent seems to fall into the noise of the measurement with the noise being comprised of a variety of components.

[Chip42]

2-3hp is 5% change in ITB. that's debated HEAVILY and can be 50#. how much of our lives here and on committee of various incarnations has been spent debating 5% gain or 50# on ITB cars? how much hoopl was raised by 50# on a miata? it might be in the noise of the dyno, and that's part of OUR problem, but it's not noise in the process, it's a major modification to the lower classes and one of the places where the process and its inputs fail the lower hp / wider mixed technology age classes.

re: power steering. I also suppor the change as I feel i screws SOME cars and helps many. but it's not outside fo the philosophy in my oppinion, certainly adds ease of service and keeps people happy because racecar. the problem just becomes a sudden increase, albeit small at the higher ends of development, in all cars now allowed to run depowered. that just moves the curve a bit. I believe ron is correct that you wouldn't notice it at all in ITS+ but I think as you dig into A and easily in B the effects will be more pronounced, though there's also the truth that many cars down at thos elevels never had the PS option anyhow. the part that worries me is when removal of power steering becomes a defacto requirement as opposed to a nicety - like 0.040 over motors are now - there are cars and drivers who benefit from PS and I woudln't want to HURT them in this way. Id vote for allowing depowering though.

I could be convinced that allowing unmodified SM cars into IT a'la SM in ST is OK so long as NA goes to A and NB to S, and that we have some assurances or veto authority over decisions of the SMAC so that they do not change their performance envelope above where it is now and unbalance the allowance in IT. either way, the feeling of getting screwed that jimbo noted is a very likely outcome and I go back to that and a lack of real need to make this allowance when I say I do NOT want it.


keeping the customers happy is a double edged sword. getting car counts up through artificial means and allowing mods, swaps, changes, or updates to keep cars on track (trans gears, rear end housings, power steering, ecus, whatever) has the effect of moving the class further away from the entry level "bolt on and go" origins to something altogether new and more "prod like". I'm all for making it easier and for finding ways to help keep the old cars on track but not when it caries potentially large shifts in the performance envelope. this is why I support many rules in IT that exist to limit the platform, such that a number of other modifications have a reduced effect (cage boundaries is the common example, reducing effectiveness of many suspension parts to small gains over less "pimpy" upgrades).

[gran racing]

I do wonder how those currently racing in ITA would feel about this as well. Many are not so happy about there being so many Miatas already. Add even more... After numbers in IT? Overall goal of IT and how this fits?

From an overall SCCA viewpoint, I still think it's just a matter of where these cars end up and not concern of losing them. We already have the tools built.