NB Miata in STT

JamesFeinberg · **Posted:** Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:20 am

Todd Breakey wrote:

I completely agree with the NB with open diff being allowed in STS2. It never made much sense to allow the 1.8L NA but not the same thing with a heavier body in.

Where have you seen that they weigh that much more? I've personally weighed a few of both kinds and they aren't nearly as far apart as most people seem to think.

Jim

Todd Breakey · **Posted:** Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:22 am

I actually haven't weighed them. I just assumed (you know what that gets you!!) that with age comes weight. It seems to be the normal progression of things in the car world.

Gwen Habenicht · **Posted:** Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:33 am

Ryan Holton wrote:

scottjohnson wrote:

Gwen Baake wrote:

But, we didn’t change the pax. All cars in Novice, OF, and Tire run with their proper paxed class.

PAX, another fabricated number that you won't find in the rulebook. We can also assign our own values for that.

The point is, it's our club, we set the rules. We could also add classes like "STX2."

We could let the Elise, the NB Miata, the MR2's, Porsche's, S2000's, Z3's, Z4's, Z8's etc all play in that class on street tires. Pretty much a catch-all for 2 seaters on street tires that aren't allowed in STT. All it takes for that to happen is about 5 to 7 people who will run it, a quick vote at a club meeting, etc.

Let's think out of the box. It's easy to point the finger and claim "I-Stock" wannabe, or we can look for trends in our membership and try to address them. There is actually a large national demand for an STX-2 type of class and many regions run one.

Scott

I'm with Scott on this one as well but we would need to see interest IMHO.

Specifically, the non LSD 99+ Miata's not being allowed in STT is SCCA BS IMHO. I just don't see how that would kill the class. A little bit more power and a little bit more weight? Same tires and same suspension as the NA miata's?

Then again, I think the 2nd Gen MR2 ought to be allowed in STT as well :twisted:

While you make a good point regarding addressing the desires of our membership, I’m curious about where this would lead. It’s one thing to “create” a class for OF or TIRE, they are using an established pax. (I know, pax sux-but we use it, so there you are.) If an STX2 class were to be formed, just hypothetically, what would be the criteria, and what pax would you use? I ask because our C5 has long tube headers and has a performance cam. Last year I looked for a class to run it in and couldn’t find anything, except BP, which SCCA has dropped. I’m asking mostly out of curiosity, but if a car like this C5 met the criteria, with the right driver (ok, not me) it would certainly be a strong competitor in such a class.

JamesFeinberg · **Posted:** Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:39 am

Gwen Baake wrote:

I ask because our C5 has long tube headers and has a performance cam. Last year I looked for a class to run it in and couldn’t find anything, except BP, which SCCA has dropped.

Is it not SM2 legal? I've never looked at the rule set but it also might fit into XP? Probably not ideal but it should have a home somewhere.

And even though I'm just a FWD hack, if you guys bring it out and need a co-driver, I'm available.

Jim

Gwen Habenicht · **Posted:** Tue Jun 17, 2008 10:12 am

JamesFeinberg wrote:

Gwen Baake wrote:

I ask because our C5 has long tube headers and has a performance cam. Last year I looked for a class to run it in and couldn’t find anything, except BP, which SCCA has dropped.

Is it not SM2 legal? I've never looked at the rule set but it also might fit into XP? Probably not ideal but it should have a home somewhere.

And even though I'm just a FWD hack, if you guys bring it out and need a co-driver, I'm available.

Jim

Sounds like a plan. I'll check SM2. I don't remember (probably an age thing) if I even thought to look there. We're planning to bring it out to our next non-points event. We just couldn't figure out the logistics of getting it to Sanford for the non points V event.

Scott Johnson · **Posted:** Tue Jun 17, 2008 10:48 am

Gwen Baake wrote:

While you make a good point regarding addressing the desires of our membership, I’m curious about where this would lead. It’s one thing to “create” a class for OF or TIRE, they are using an established pax. (I know, pax sux-but we use it, so there you are.) If an STX2 class were to be formed, just hypothetically, what would be the criteria, and what pax would you use? I ask because our C5 has long tube headers and has a performance cam. Last year I looked for a class to run it in and couldn’t find anything, except BP, which SCCA has dropped. I’m asking mostly out of curiosity, but if a car like this C5 met the criteria, with the right driver (ok, not me) it would certainly be a strong competitor in such a class.

STX2 isn't a new thing, it just isn't a national class yet. I *think* most regions that run STX 2 just use the STX ruleset and apply it to 2 seaters. The cam in the 'vette would make it illegal in *any* "ST" class. The long tube headers would be legal, so long as they are within the rules for modifying the emissions equipment (technically, I think the 'vette would be over displacement for the class too, but if you want to run it on 8" wide wheels and 245 width tires, more power to you!)

Scott

Gwen Habenicht · **Posted:** Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:15 am

scottjohnson wrote:

Gwen Baake wrote:

While you make a good point regarding addressing the desires of our membership, I’m curious about where this would lead. It’s one thing to “create” a class for OF or TIRE, they are using an established pax. (I know, pax sux-but we use it, so there you are.) If an STX2 class were to be formed, just hypothetically, what would be the criteria, and what pax would you use? I ask because our C5 has long tube headers and has a performance cam. Last year I looked for a class to run it in and couldn’t find anything, except BP, which SCCA has dropped. I’m asking mostly out of curiosity, but if a car like this C5 met the criteria, with the right driver (ok, not me) it would certainly be a strong competitor in such a class.

STX2 isn't a new thing, it just isn't a national class yet. I *think* most regions that run STX 2 just use the STX ruleset and apply it to 2 seaters. The cam in the 'vette would make it illegal in *any* "ST" class. The long tube headers would be legal, so long as they are within the rules for modifying the emissions equipment (technically, I think the 'vette would be over displacement for the class too, but if you want to run it on 8" wide wheels and 245 width tires, more power to you!)

Scott

No thanks, not me. I was just curious what the ruleset would be. I'm HS to the end..................................................................................

Which may not be too many years down the road!

Donnie Barnes · **Posted:** Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:20 am

STX2 isn't even a supplemental class, it's just something that someone made up at at least one region runs it.

There will be some interesting ST proposals floating in the next couple months that will address issues like newer Miatas and MR2s and maybe even some other funner cars. But you didn't hear that from me.

Those won't help with immediate needs, but if a club like TH liked the proposals enough to adopt sooner, there's nothing stopping that...

--Donnie

Les Davis · **Joined:** Fri Aug 29, 2003 2:04 pm **Posts:** 2059

Todd Breakey wrote:

I'll take this Wes...

She can run in STT provided that her car doesn't have the Torsen limited slip diff. Unfortunately, rules are rules and are there for a reason.

I'm all for letting the class grow but, if SS wasn't a big class and Graham Jagger showed up in his ASP car, should we let him run SS? I don't think so.

I think Ryan was pretty well aware of the rules when he made the poll, he's just not aware of the history of this debate most likely. And BTW, as basically the only SS competitor last year I would have gladly accepted Graham into the class and welcomed the competition. I would have been happy to whoop his crusty old butt even with his slightly wider wheels and tires. ;-)

However as an AXVP I suppose I should at least pretend I give a crap about the rule book.

Ryan, even if all the competitors in STT were fine with Alex running there, we have the beloved overall PAX (PAX SUX!) list to worry about. Alex running with an STT PAX would probably result in some group of people tragically being moved down one notch on that list. This is the same reason I changed my classing at the last event when Wes reminded me of the STT torsen rule, that and I didn't want to see Wes have an aneurysm cause he's a pretty good guy. ;-)

Besides even with an STT PAX I would have still been DFL in X.

And as others have mentioned, theres that whole slippery slope thing when you let one person bend the rules where do you draw the line? We can't really do it publicly. I see it as a situation where you're better off begging forgiveness than asking for permission. If anyone wanted to do something like this in the future, I'd say keep it on the "down low" and wait for someone to complain. As a person, I'm more of a "rules are made to be broken" type but as an officer I guess I should play by the rules.

On that note, I do at least think that if we must follow rules as a club and as well as a society, its not asking too much to expect the rules to be reasonable. So do any of you folks that are "in the know" know the reasoning behind the NB and torsen exclusions from STT? Is it really just to satisfy some group of whiners? As it doesn't really make that much sense. A fresh properly working viscous isn't really giving up that much to a torsen, and with the suspension rules of the class, there really isn't that much difference between an NB and an NA.

Anyway, I also think an STX2 as well as STU2 classes would be kinda neat and if there was enough interest could see trying to create them. We could guesstimate a reasonable PAX for them. PAX is just a guesstimate anyway and as stated, not in the SCCA rule book. Should I start a poll?

JamesFeinberg · **Posted:** Tue Jun 17, 2008 1:17 pm

Les Davis wrote:

So do any of you folks that are "in the know" know the reasoning behind the NB and torsen exclusions from STT?

I'm not "in the know" but if you actually take the time to think about when the class was created, what was the dominant CS car? NB Miata, perhaps?

It is my understanding that people wanted a place for the older Miatas and CRXs to play on a relatively even playing field similar to STS and thus STS2 was born.

Les Davis wrote:

A fresh properly working viscous isn't really giving up that much to a torsen...

That's funny to me. Part of the leveling of the playing field was to exclude the torsens in the 1.8L cars since they would clearly be dominant over the 1.6L cars. That seemed to work out pretty well. The NB at the time didn't really need an extra place to play where it could potentially dominate at the time.

Les Davis wrote:

Is it really just to satisfy some group of whiners? As it doesn't really make that much sense.

Why would they be whiners? Couldn't you just as easily apply that label to any group that feels slighted by any current rule set?

Les Davis wrote:

...there really isn't that much difference between an NB and an NA.

I think there is enough that everybody would suddenly feel like they needed an NB Miata to compete in STS2. Reality? Assuming they could chase down the CRX's...

Let's face it, no matter how or who comes up with a system of classing, there will always be very few cars that rise to the top in a given class. It does indeed suck that certain cars are excluded from the Touring classes but that sounds like it is being worked on. The only thing we can guarantee is no matter what they decide, there will be a bunch of people feeling like they were left out and will probably blame it on a group of "whiners". Or Triad.

Jim

Ryan Holton · **Posted:** Tue Jun 17, 2008 1:20 pm

JamesFeinberg wrote:

How is that SCCA BS?
Jim

Something that makes sense that has a small vocal minority holding it back that in the end takes an act of God to "fix". See also Club Racing re-org, SP re-org and lord know what else.

All IMHO, Im not even a member of the evil empire anylonger :twisted:

Ninja edit: I'm talking about the open diff NB, the Torsen would dominate.

Aaron Buckley · **Posted:** Tue Jun 17, 2008 1:23 pm

Les Davis wrote:

So do any of you folks that are "in the know" know the reasoning behind the NB and torsen exclusions from STT? Is it really just to satisfy some group of whiners? As it doesn't really make that much sense. A fresh properly working viscous isn't really giving up that much to a torsen, and with the suspension rules of the class, there really isn't that much difference between an NB and an NA.

Les, this was just done to mirror the original STS ruleset, which allowed some cars with viscous based LSD's (like the 240sx), but the large majority were open-diffed cars. No whiners, just being consistent with the existing ruleset.

Now, go ahead and try to find a "fresh" viscous LSD for a 1.6L Miata. They are NLA via Mazda, so finding a low mileage used one is the best bet, and the "newest one" is around 15 years old.

Now, put an NB car without a torsen in the mix and you end up making all of the NA cars almost obsolete for the class, as others have stated. Put a torsen in it and the CRX gets obsoleted and you end up with a much more expensive STS where the Civic Si is about the only thing to have (sans an extremely expensively built 240sx). - AB

JamesFeinberg · **Posted:** Tue Jun 17, 2008 1:23 pm

Ryan Holton wrote:

JamesFeinberg wrote:

How is that SCCA BS?

Something that makes sense that has a small vocal minority holding it back that in the end takes an act of God to "fix".

But fix for who? Another "small vocal minority?"

Jim

Ryan Holton · **Posted:** Tue Jun 17, 2008 1:25 pm

Les Davis wrote:

However as an AXVP I suppose I should at least pretend I give a crap about the rule book.

Walker from Taladega Nights wrote:

Anarchy, Anarchy, Anarchy!!! I don't know what it is, but I want it!!

Ryan Holton · **Posted:** Tue Jun 17, 2008 1:27 pm

Aaron Buckley wrote:

Now, put an NB car without a torsen in the mix and you end up making all of the NA cars almost obsolete for the class

I don't know if you can say that, yet. Has anyone in a NA 1.8 even come close to the NA 1.6's?

How much fast in ST trim is a NB 1.8 vs a NA 1.8? AFAIK, its a little more power and a little more weight for the NB.

THSCC Forums

NB Miata in STT

Who is online