THSCC Forums

Quite possibly. See my post above, how big a difference is there b/w teh NA and NB open diff Miata's?

_________________
02 Focus SVT
STF 9

Since my name was used to start this thread, I would like to go on record saying that
a) I don't know enough to contribute to the discussion in a meaningful way; but
b) the STX2 class sounds interesting to me. Should it be added, I'd run that.
c) Just FYI, my car has no torsen in it and I am not too eager to splurge on it -- but will probably have to if I am stuck with CSP;
d) I prefer to play by the rules, so I am not going to try to run in STT as an "exception" :)

I do appreciate Ryan's starting the poll to see if this was possible, but obviously this is not something that can be done, and I am not insisting :)

IIRC, Rick Cone's NA is a 1.8L and had he not had it wrecked by Mark Davis at Huntsville last year, he would have been even farther along in development. At that event he was just behind Hollis.

Yes, it's hard to say what would happen when it comes to bench racing, but it's painfully clear that in stock form the now CS NB Miata would be the car to have if moved to ES with the NA Miatas, so it becomes easy when taking that assumption to STT. Les has some experience with this when it came to SM2. His NA was well sorted, but when he got into Jeff Eng's NB, he instantly felt like he could drive it harder and faster. - AB

_________________
'14 Toyota Sequoia Platinum 4WD
Super Westerfield Bros - '93 Integra - LeChump Du Jour
STX 93 - Scion FR-S

W3RD

_________________
02 Focus SVT
STF 9

Um, yea. There are a few very fast ones on the west coast and a couple of them have beaten Mr. Hollis on occasion. They just haven't shown up at Nationals. Andy has actually sold his 1.6L Miata recently...

I've driven a couple of decently prepared NA 1.8L cars back-to-back with a decently prepared 1.6L car and I was quicker in the 1.8L cars. That certainly doesn't prove anything but if I were to build an STS2 Miata, I'd start with a 1.8L car.

I honestly don't think either car are quite as quick as a CRX at the moment but it is very close and I also don't think it would take much to push them over the top.



I don't think anybody really knows the answer to that one but from what I've measured, the "little more weight" is in the neighborhood of 25lbs which isn't much. There's usually a bigger variance in driver weight.

As I said before, the NB's not only make more power but they have better gearing than the 1.8L NA's. They are noticeably quicker and they also seem to respond slightly better to bolt-on's from what I've seen. There is a reason all the fast NA CSP guys are running 99+ motors.

I think it's also easy to understate the effect of the subframe geometry change in the NB. Having owned way too many Miatas of all different years and driven even more, it's amazing how much difference it makes modified suspension or not. Check out some "action shots" of a stock but well prepped NA R-package Maita -vs- a sport package NB Maita like the Monroes currently own and it is fairly obvious even outside the car.

Does any of this matter at the local level? Probably not so much. And honestly it doesn't matter much to me what new classes we create or what rules we bend as a club. It just seems like there is always a bunch of hate thrown at the current rule set we *voluntarily* choose to abide by with very little perspective on how they came to be. Or maybe I just feel like playing the devil's advocate this week-- who knows?

If we do decide to allow NB Miatas with torsens into STT, I may bring out the 'ole NB just to see what it might do.

Jim

I guess I can concede that, I was pretty impressed with it.

I suppose the STT exclusions make a lot more sense at the national level perspective where everyone is driving at the ragged edge and even relatively minor differences become major ones at that level. With my "local yocal" mentality and experience things look differently and since I'm too lazy to make my own rule set, we'll just remain stuck with the SCCA rules which fail much of the time when applied at the local level. I suck at teh bench racing and don't care much for it, so I'll just politely bow out of this discussion now.

_________________
'07, '08, '11 Autocross VP
'06, '10 Mike Dishman Cup
'21 MX5, '13 Corvette GS, '92 Corvette 383 c.i. 413whp/390wtq, '03 Expedition

This is the whole point though. We are a *local* club, and probably ought to be catering to the local folks (we do this with the OF class, etc). We can be all uppity and say that "X" class is for those that believe in the national rules and no others. Triad is looking to score only the first 3 runs of their Pro class to make it more nationals-like. If *they* can make up rules to suit their needs, surely *we* can do the same.

The NB Miata (and MR2's, etc) are specifically *excluded* from ST2 in the rulebook. Specific = by name. It's very easy to take the club copy of the rulebook and draw a line through those excluded cars. *Very* easy.

Drawing that line wouldn't suddenly make a Torsen equipped NB Miata legal in ST2 (sorry Jim), the Torsen is illegal by definition (in another rule). The same is true for a LSD equipped Spyder, etc.

Scott

Awesome discussion!

I am really glad that so many points on both sides of the argument are being brought up and I have certainly learned a quiet a bit from reading through them all.

I really like the idea of an STX2 class, my friend (and now club member) Tyler is in the same boat as Alex, he has that Z3 Coupe and would like to run one of the ST classes but is on the excluded list due to engine size. I think an STX2 class would be great! Let the NB Miata, 2nd gen MR2, Z3, Z4 etc in there.

Again as stated earlier we are a local club, and it seems like we have the ability create a new class or amend an existing class as we see fit.

Carry on

_________________
91 Miata STT #28
05 Subaru Impreza RS - The Wife's

My 2 cents…

• IMHO, we use SCCA rules not because we are SCCA, but because it is the smart thing to do. Most people use it and it allows us to travel elsewhere and others to come to our events with rule and classing predictability. So while we “can” do whatever we want, I don’t think we should mess with existing class rules. Any rule system is going to have problems and even if we try to tweak SCCA rules, it is not going to solve the world’s problems, but may work in the other direction.
• I have no problem with creating new classes. TIR, NOV, OF, X, LAD and a new STX2 sound just fine with me. For new non-PAX classes like a STX2, just set a PAX value, define the rules and have at it. But we should avoid I-class issues. New non-PAX classes should be VERY rare.
• Some people may care about PAX results. So regardless of what you think about “PAX sucks”, don’t allow someone to run in the wrong class and then PAX them incorrectly. It is unfair to those who care about their PAX results.
• I think gentleman agreements in classes are fine. Especially those that in effect “slow” the cars by agreeing to disallow mods (the end results is that he cars are still legal for the class). Such as stock class competitors agreeing to run "street" tires. But they run the risk of an outsider (or someone who doesn’t agree with them) showing up on non-street tires and winning. But I don’t agree with gentleman agreements that allow illegal mods that are outside of the class. I would hate to show up at another club and find out that everyone in my class cheats by agreement. Some people are all for allowing people with illegal mods in classes. But they only seem to do it when they think that person is NOT a threat to their finishing position. But when those people start to beat others, then people do start to care and you have created an avoidable bad situation.
• IMHO, bending the rules just encourages cheating. If someone sees the rules being bent for someone else but not them, it may just help them justify (in their own mind) cheating in their own class.

Basically my 914 is going to end up being very close to SM2 rules. It isn’t done yet so I don’t know, but most likely there will be some small something or another that will technically push it out of SM2. I would LOVE to keep it in SM2 as I expect I will have more people to run against. But in reality, I will probably “do as I say” and class the car in XP even if I end up running by myself.

_________________
Richard Casto
1972 Porsche 914
2013 Honda Fit Sport
2015 Honda Fit EX
http://motorsport.zyyz.com
Money can't buy happiness, but somehow it's more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than a Kia.

They aren't changing cars, classes and rules around willy nilly. There are already few SCCA regions that only count the first 3 runs in their "Pro" class: Atlanta and Tennessee just to name a couple. The people running Pro still get to take all their runs. Call me crazy but that doesn't seem like a valid comparison.



Then why not draw the line through the torsen rule as well? Or just do it for the NA 1.8L folks? Wouldn't some 1.8L NA folks with torsens be interested and assuming the NB is a better overall car, wouldn't that be a fair compromise if we keep the NB's torsen free? Although suddenly the NA 1.6L cars don't start looking so hot.

To paraphrase Barbie (and occasionally uttered by Mr. Spratte): Classing is hard! I like shopping...

Jim

Exactly. Whether they are perfect or not doesn't matter. They are good enough, and more importantly they exist in a single definite form available to any competitor. They are regularly reviewed, and ambiguities tested through national appeals process.

Whether they're the best rules or not, they are the best defined rules. That's very important.

It's hard to run a set of local rules that is as consistent. Heck, it's often hard to figure out the definitive version -- remember the discussion last year about Year Long Novice because one of the THSCC web pages still contained a reference to it?

The SCCA is a bureaucratic nightmare run by a mix of people who really care about what they're doing and people who have their own personal agendas. But the very thing that can make SCCA such a pain to have fun in, compared with THSCC, is what makes them good at determining rules. Conflicting personal agendas are what make good rules -- unselfish people agreeing "this is a really good idea" generally do not.

_________________
Martyn Wheeler
AXing Kit's '05 Mazda 3, #29 HStock
(when The Gonzo Symphonic allows)

There is a difference between the two. The SCCA can't change the rules in a class without soliciting member comment, however they *can* add (new) cars to the exclusion lists without member comment. I don't remember anyone getting a chance to comment on the Lotus Elise's exclusion.

I honestly don't know if a car can be *removed* from the list without member comment.

Scott

Eh? A car can be initially classed without member comment, and that classing can change in the first twelve months without member comment. "Classing" includes putting a vehicle on an exclusion list and starts the twelve month ticker. Anything after the 12 months must go out for member comment, including moving something to an exclusion list.

Martyn, I don't agree with you at all on the personal agenda thing. I've now been on the SEB for a year and a half, and I can say with some large amount of certainty that the rules are made MOSTLY in complete void of personal agendas. The advisory committees are generally a bit worse about letting personal agendas drive what they do, but they are also VERY GOOD at keeping them out, and the SEB is the final check on those things.


--Donnie

Maybe I'm being slow but I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. Donnie already clarified the distinction between adding new cars and removing previously excluded cars but I'm still not sure how that applies to Tarheel drawing (semi)random lines in the rule book.

If you are saying there is a difference between removing a rule (or part thereof) -vs- removing a car from the exclusion list, then I'm not sure how your statement of not knowing if a car can be removed without member comment supports that. Especially in light of your statement that we as a club can do whatever we want. A statement I happen to fully agree with. My point was where do we draw the line if we choose to start modifying things as we see fit? And how do we decide what is reasonable?

I'll go out on a limb with my fuzzy memory and further attempt to qualify Triad's potential "rule change" about counting only 3 runs in Pro class. I *think* there is something in the rule book about getting at least 3 "official" runs at an event but it doesn't say anything about counting any more if they are granted. To me, that means that what Triad and some of the other SCCA regions are doing is a perfectly acceptable interpretation of the rule. On the other hand, I could be remembering it incorrectly.

Of course, in the case of Triad, they can do whatever they want since they aren't a SCCA region (just like us) but I really don't see how that supports your original assertion that they are making up rules.

Jim

If we're playing the slippery slope game. . . .

There's more SCCA regions than there are private clubs. I like running the SCCA rules because it makes it easy to run Nationally and Regionally.

If I wanted to run with a club with weird-ass, different classing I'd go NASAcross.



Wait, I'm going to pull you back in. . .
How do they fail much of the time?

_________________
Not spectacular just decent.
I'm not sure what I'm driving.
Maybe an ITR in DS.
Or half-assed STX prepped 330.