September 2013 Fastrack
- Thread starter Greg Amy
- Start date
I find this one quite interesting, given it was never passed through the STAC, despite being noted as "ST Committee"...
Super Touring
ST
1. #11980 (ST Committee) Miata Chassis Definitions
Advise Competitors that the Mazda Miata has different chasses as they relate to ST and engine swaps. (The NA Chassis 1990-1997, the NB Chassis 1999-2000, and the NB Chassis 2001-2005) For example, a Miata running in STL may be a 1999-2000 using a 2001-2005 engine and may use a 1999-2000 intake manifold. However, a 2001-2005 chassis car cannot use a 1999-2000 intake on its engine.
Super Touring
ST
1. #11980 (ST Committee) Miata Chassis Definitions
Advise Competitors that the Mazda Miata has different chasses as they relate to ST and engine swaps. (The NA Chassis 1990-1997, the NB Chassis 1999-2000, and the NB Chassis 2001-2005) For example, a Miata running in STL may be a 1999-2000 using a 2001-2005 engine and may use a 1999-2000 intake manifold. However, a 2001-2005 chassis car cannot use a 1999-2000 intake on its engine.
You can mix-and-match parts within the same car/engine, and you're allowed to use the intake from either the car or the installed engine. - GA
That, and there's absolutely zero basis in the regulations for that "clarification". Regs state "make and model". One can legitimately argue that "Mazda Miata" is one model, however I'd counter that manufacturer chassis designations are more relevant. In that case, I'd consider a "model" the NA, NB, and NC(?) chassis.
But different years within the NB model are considered different cars? Where in the regs does it say that? Or even imply that? Had that been run through the STAC I would have voted against recommending it to the CRB.
Gotta love POOMA rules "clarifications"...protest-worthy, if you ask me. - GA
lateapex911
Super Moderator
So, SOMEBODY, made a specific rule, for a clearly specific reason, tat goes against teh basic precepts and previously used philosophies AND they get the facts wrong???
I'd start by looking at a list of CRB guys who have a non Miata in ST....or have a buddy with the same, sorry to say.
I'd start by looking at a list of CRB guys who have a non Miata in ST....or have a buddy with the same, sorry to say.
yes. and being published means that it's on record for tech protests, CoA processes, etc...
Matt93SE
New member
good to hear the Secret Car Club is alive and well. we've been without a good smoke filled room story here for a while.
You want that, go talk to the Prod and GT guys right now that are ready for the Runoffs town hall meeting with torches and pitchforks. There's a LOT of pissed off people about the BS they're pulling with GTL..
I haven't been paying attention to that side, what's up (short version)?
Flyinglizard
New member
GTL is kinda like B Spec. Maybe 25 cars in the entire country. GTL and Bspec are the most cost and the slowest class. Trying to get any power thru the SIR is a constant PITA . Very time /$ consuming.
Pretty sure that you could run a GTA/TA2 car for the same money. But we have some oldtimers that have spent the money for the micro GT cars and dont like the future picture. Tough sell any direction taken IMHO.
Pretty sure that you could run a GTA/TA2 car for the same money. But we have some oldtimers that have spent the money for the micro GT cars and dont like the future picture. Tough sell any direction taken IMHO.
Matt93SE
New member
You have to compound that story with the history of the situation.. GT4 + GT5 were 'consolidated' into GTL about 4-5 years ago. In order to try to create parity, the fast cars were slowed down, and the slow cars were... slowed down.
Throw in a tanking ecomony and many of these cars were parked due to the huge cost of re-engineering an engine to run with an SIR. It's not as easy as sticking a different size restrictor on and dyno-tuning the thing. Changing the SIR size involves compression changes, head & port design changes, new cam profiles, etc etc etc.
Anyway, long story longer.. GTL is still 'recovering' from the GT4/GT5+ economy hit, and now they find out the entire class is going away?
Compound that with tube frame ex-GTL cars now being run in FP and HP, AND slowing down GT3 (which had nothing to do with this mess), and the board has now messed with 4 classes instead of just one. All of this in the name of fewer number of classes, which doesn't change squat other than the runoffs schedule.
Throw in a tanking ecomony and many of these cars were parked due to the huge cost of re-engineering an engine to run with an SIR. It's not as easy as sticking a different size restrictor on and dyno-tuning the thing. Changing the SIR size involves compression changes, head & port design changes, new cam profiles, etc etc etc.
Anyway, long story longer.. GTL is still 'recovering' from the GT4/GT5+ economy hit, and now they find out the entire class is going away?
Compound that with tube frame ex-GTL cars now being run in FP and HP, AND slowing down GT3 (which had nothing to do with this mess), and the board has now messed with 4 classes instead of just one. All of this in the name of fewer number of classes, which doesn't change squat other than the runoffs schedule.
In the name of not pissing off a few, we piss off the many.
All we need to do is revoke the national class status of any class that comes up short of the minimum participation requirements. The rest will fall naturally into place based on market forces, like, "Dear SCCA, please allow me to race my [whatever] in GT3 with a bigger engine..."
K
All we need to do is revoke the national class status of any class that comes up short of the minimum participation requirements. The rest will fall naturally into place based on market forces, like, "Dear SCCA, please allow me to race my [whatever] in GT3 with a bigger engine..."
K
making less sense - GTL has been at the runoffs every year since it was created from 4 and 5, while GT3 has had participation issues missing the big show a couple of times. obviously, GTL must go.
I read up over the weekend - AKA got my head out of the IT/ST centric blinders.
putting existing tube frame cars into prod, trying to find a way to balance them there, and then disallowing additional examples to be built FOR prod is a massive bag of worms on so many levels. slowing GT3 hurts all involved in a class that hasn't been robust for years. as noted above, SIR changes at that level of development are NOT just a simple bolt on. and likely the GTL cars that "move up" to GT3 will find themselves teething for years and running hand grenades once the dust settles.
I'm all about consolidation and reducing classes - really, I am - but if you're going to blur the lines, you might as well do something BIG and roll prod and GT into one consolidated category. piss off EVERYONE and hope enough stay to make the thing viable moving forward. as is, the likelihood from my perspective is that you piss off some prod and/or existing GTL guys for no obvious benefit, and you take one potentially large class away and hurt one that's on the ropes. EDIT - or, maybe better, push some cars out of national status. yeah. your 1.2L nissan is no longer nationally classed. have fun in SPU (etc) or go buy an SR20. sooner or later, we have to realize that upsetting some guys is better than inconveniencing us all for years to come with mixed class consolidations meant only to prevent pantywadding. if GTL+3 needs to merge, do it, and let the casualties sort themselves out. this sort of thinking is what got the club into this mess in the first place. we can't always have a place for EVERYTHING to race, even if it's something we used to have a place for.
I Just don't see this making very many people satisfied. forget happy, that's not the objective and we all know it, but satisfied with the outcome should be a reasonable expectation for at least the majority of participants, not to mention the officials who have to keep track of the mess.
I read up over the weekend - AKA got my head out of the IT/ST centric blinders.
putting existing tube frame cars into prod, trying to find a way to balance them there, and then disallowing additional examples to be built FOR prod is a massive bag of worms on so many levels. slowing GT3 hurts all involved in a class that hasn't been robust for years. as noted above, SIR changes at that level of development are NOT just a simple bolt on. and likely the GTL cars that "move up" to GT3 will find themselves teething for years and running hand grenades once the dust settles.
I'm all about consolidation and reducing classes - really, I am - but if you're going to blur the lines, you might as well do something BIG and roll prod and GT into one consolidated category. piss off EVERYONE and hope enough stay to make the thing viable moving forward. as is, the likelihood from my perspective is that you piss off some prod and/or existing GTL guys for no obvious benefit, and you take one potentially large class away and hurt one that's on the ropes. EDIT - or, maybe better, push some cars out of national status. yeah. your 1.2L nissan is no longer nationally classed. have fun in SPU (etc) or go buy an SR20. sooner or later, we have to realize that upsetting some guys is better than inconveniencing us all for years to come with mixed class consolidations meant only to prevent pantywadding. if GTL+3 needs to merge, do it, and let the casualties sort themselves out. this sort of thinking is what got the club into this mess in the first place. we can't always have a place for EVERYTHING to race, even if it's something we used to have a place for.
I Just don't see this making very many people satisfied. forget happy, that's not the objective and we all know it, but satisfied with the outcome should be a reasonable expectation for at least the majority of participants, not to mention the officials who have to keep track of the mess.
Last edited:
Bill Miller
New member
What's in the water up in NY Kirk? You're starting to think the SCCA will actually use logic and reason to make a decision!
And Chip, I'll admit that I haven't followed the Runoffs that last couple of years, but has GT3 actually been excluded for any specific years? (Yes, too lazy to look at old results).