IT should really think about welcoming Older SM's....... Without a new class..
- Thread starter gpeluso
- Start date
Dano77
New member
Thats the point, They are running IT and they are noncompliant. In NER you can run an SM in 4 race groups. We made it that way so there was a NON SMish group in between every one. So in NER you can run Group 1,3,5,7 or SM, SM2, STL, ITA.
The issue at hand is not JUST Power Steering. But unfortunatly thats what the world is hung up on today, for this discussion. It was a rear diff the last time this came up. Non-Compliant is NON COMPLIANT..... we dont need to change the rules to fit ONE make of car. Slippery slope and all.
Flyinglizard
New member
1) Can anyone here give a valid reason not to allow depowering the racks? other than " we cant do that? "
2) Does the updated SM diff go faster or just go more often?? More often is the answer. I think that the entire class/group should allow bigger more modern diffs. They wil go slower but race more often. We had the same discussion with a Datsun a little while ago.
It is true that the Miata has plenty of places to play already. The IT ranks could pick up the 1.6 cars with a little thought before they all go to prod/Chump/NASA.
See a market- make a product.
2) Does the updated SM diff go faster or just go more often?? More often is the answer. I think that the entire class/group should allow bigger more modern diffs. They wil go slower but race more often. We had the same discussion with a Datsun a little while ago.
It is true that the Miata has plenty of places to play already. The IT ranks could pick up the 1.6 cars with a little thought before they all go to prod/Chump/NASA.
See a market- make a product.
mike - I know I'm feeding bears here but:
1) depowering rack has the knock-on request to remove the PS pump. I know, crazy talk! anyhow, with that little power sapper removed, the output of the engines is thuss made different from the number we are starting with in the calculations that are generally referred to as "the process". WHAT WE KNOW (tm) is an often used mechanism to adjust the weight of car where the HP output is documented well enough for us to adjust to that number rather than a theoretical gain percentage over stock advertised hp. we do this on a handful of cars but theres a lot of cars we know diddly about in the ITCS so this isn't a practical way to overcome the issue. As stated above, the process is imperfect, but allowances that change that initial hp number and aren't 100% to all cars (some don't have power steering to start with, everything has an exhaust and all of them are restrictive to some degree) "unblance" the output. yes, I know the "noise" of the system is enough to hide this influence.
2) upDated diffs are currently not part of the class philosophy of improving what was found in showrooms of the USA. we allow alternates or modifications to stock units to keep the one wheel peel to a minimum but do nto allow replacments of the pumkins, transaxles, etc... which is what is needed in the case of the 1.6 - 1.8L NA miata diff swap. you are correct, it doesn't make the car go faster, only more often. but it is a significant change from current philosophy and THATS where the line is being drawn. it's a classic case of be careful what you wish for, and all you have to do is look at the current "max build" in IT vs. the letter of the rules and it' seasy to see that "these cast manifolds are cracking, let the guys run headers" turns into "lets send the car to a specialist fabricator to mock up a set of stainless steel 1-off headers based loosely on calculations from one of two software models or straight mathematics then tune the lengths to suit the motor on a dyno. when we're done we'll go back and try a bunch more configurations with different length between stepped primary pipes, relocating collectors, tr-Y and 4-1, mergine both sides of the V, ...." as the popular adage goes, you get the IT you want.
1) depowering rack has the knock-on request to remove the PS pump. I know, crazy talk! anyhow, with that little power sapper removed, the output of the engines is thuss made different from the number we are starting with in the calculations that are generally referred to as "the process". WHAT WE KNOW (tm) is an often used mechanism to adjust the weight of car where the HP output is documented well enough for us to adjust to that number rather than a theoretical gain percentage over stock advertised hp. we do this on a handful of cars but theres a lot of cars we know diddly about in the ITCS so this isn't a practical way to overcome the issue. As stated above, the process is imperfect, but allowances that change that initial hp number and aren't 100% to all cars (some don't have power steering to start with, everything has an exhaust and all of them are restrictive to some degree) "unblance" the output. yes, I know the "noise" of the system is enough to hide this influence.
2) upDated diffs are currently not part of the class philosophy of improving what was found in showrooms of the USA. we allow alternates or modifications to stock units to keep the one wheel peel to a minimum but do nto allow replacments of the pumkins, transaxles, etc... which is what is needed in the case of the 1.6 - 1.8L NA miata diff swap. you are correct, it doesn't make the car go faster, only more often. but it is a significant change from current philosophy and THATS where the line is being drawn. it's a classic case of be careful what you wish for, and all you have to do is look at the current "max build" in IT vs. the letter of the rules and it' seasy to see that "these cast manifolds are cracking, let the guys run headers" turns into "lets send the car to a specialist fabricator to mock up a set of stainless steel 1-off headers based loosely on calculations from one of two software models or straight mathematics then tune the lengths to suit the motor on a dyno. when we're done we'll go back and try a bunch more configurations with different length between stepped primary pipes, relocating collectors, tr-Y and 4-1, mergine both sides of the V, ...." as the popular adage goes, you get the IT you want.
Last edited:
gran racing
Super Moderator
Is this the direction or where IT has reached? They have a place that makes perfect sense for them to run, has been proven at least in some regions to be a success WITHOUT changing multiple rules to IT just to accommodate them... SRF cars are going to be required several updates and eventually will be phased out of that category. Are we desperate enough to go after them too?
gran racing
Super Moderator
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.)
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
New member
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?
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?
...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
New member
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.
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
jumbojimbo
New member
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?
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?
Last edited:
Steve,
I hope you are not being sarcastic.... If not, this is what I think. It just seems to me that participation is not great... And if I am wrong then the attitude should be, How do we create more interest? This past weekend at Pittrace I choose to run my SM because there was only 1 ITR car and 2-3 ITS cars. SM numbers were not great either, 12-13 SM's.... However I had a busy race instead of just riding around by myself ..... I understand this is not true for all regions but do you really think many IT cars are being built this year? I think the key is to make it easy and friendly.
Greg
I hope you are not being sarcastic.... If not, this is what I think. It just seems to me that participation is not great... And if I am wrong then the attitude should be, How do we create more interest? This past weekend at Pittrace I choose to run my SM because there was only 1 ITR car and 2-3 ITS cars. SM numbers were not great either, 12-13 SM's.... However I had a busy race instead of just riding around by myself ..... I understand this is not true for all regions but do you really think many IT cars are being built this year? I think the key is to make it easy and friendly.
Greg
jumbojimbo
New member
Heck, we don't think any IT cars are being built. So you are saying that way to build interest in IT is to allow cars already built to a different ruleset to run in our category? I'm not sure I'm seeing that. If we have a decent turnout of ITA cars, then yeah, maybe SM2 cars are interested because they have something to race against. But if there aren't any ITA cars, then why not just create SM2 and be done with it? And if there aren't any SM2 cars, then why are we even talking about this?
Perception is going to be one big issue allowing SM2 cars into ITA. the SM2 cars are going to think they are slow and being screwed and/or the existing ITA cars are going to think the SM2 cars are fast and they are getting screwed. Best case, one group is going to be unhappy and unmotivated to show up and get smoked (in their mind), worst cast BOTH groups think this.
Perception is going to be one big issue allowing SM2 cars into ITA. the SM2 cars are going to think they are slow and being screwed and/or the existing ITA cars are going to think the SM2 cars are fast and they are getting screwed. Best case, one group is going to be unhappy and unmotivated to show up and get smoked (in their mind), worst cast BOTH groups think this.
Jim,
I guess I'm lost if no IT cars are being built but the attitude is .." We don't need change bcause it could upset the concept that used to bring drivers"... Remember this thread I created was an idea to help.. I think time maybe passing the rule book by.. And that is sad to me. I recently sold my ITS rx7 due to the issue of parts availability... Tranny parts are becoming impossible to get... Many guys are putting miata guts in and no one is saying a thing...this is real. I was buying used tranny parts... That's crazy! I am not talking about crazy aftermarket stuff,but allowances that promote IT.
One weird thing I noticed this weekend was the lack of full built cars. Maybe this is a trend ? Please...... Let the creative people come forward..... Consider ideas..... And for god sakes quit this write a letter stuff.... No need for the SCCA to keep the post office in business .... These forums should be used .... Changes do not need to be on request only.
Greg
I guess I'm lost if no IT cars are being built but the attitude is .." We don't need change bcause it could upset the concept that used to bring drivers"... Remember this thread I created was an idea to help.. I think time maybe passing the rule book by.. And that is sad to me. I recently sold my ITS rx7 due to the issue of parts availability... Tranny parts are becoming impossible to get... Many guys are putting miata guts in and no one is saying a thing...this is real. I was buying used tranny parts... That's crazy! I am not talking about crazy aftermarket stuff,but allowances that promote IT.
One weird thing I noticed this weekend was the lack of full built cars. Maybe this is a trend ? Please...... Let the creative people come forward..... Consider ideas..... And for god sakes quit this write a letter stuff.... No need for the SCCA to keep the post office in business .... These forums should be used .... Changes do not need to be on request only.
Greg