Rule#23 - Thumbs up to the board members

[TroyV]

The rule makes sense for ST4.....but I'm not sure it would be ok in any of the higher classes.....so it might not make sense for all of ST. It is hard to say how I'd vote if I were on the BOD. There are good arguements for either position.

Either way, it will not change my plans for my car. The change for me is a matter of spelling cut into vinyl.

...besides.....if it doesn't work out, it'll be fun to watch Dan have to move his Mustang to SPA where it belongs. :p

[DanDarcy]

Troy: I wouldn't move to SP just put my tired old stock 4.6 motor back in.

But this is a tough rule to decide on. I see the Miata point of view, I have owned a couple of them, but the 1990 NA model is lighter than all that came after plus the 1600 NA has smaller brakes and lighter rear end (ratio doesn't matter as gears can be changed in ST along with the posi unit) and may have a slight advantage. Plus 1800 NA motors are more plentiful than 1600 NA motors, but lets look at some other cars. I mentioned the 2000 Mustang Cobra R (a factory race car) but there are so many others. A Porsche 997 Turbo has 500 h.p. yet the Ruf RT12 is available with 650 h.p. in the same 997 chassis and the same Com class. The standard turbo does not have the brakes and suspension meant to handle this extra horse power, are we going to require that if you change the motor you must change the other components so the car will be as safe as possible ? In the case of my Mustang, would it be as safe with 50% more power ? I don't think so.
Bruce Allen pointed out that ST and SP use to be the same class but because of "Rule Creep" the BOD had to start the new class group. This rule change #23 amounts to significant "rule creep", we have the classes that allow engine swaps (SP & P). Maybe we need more SP classes for Miatas
If this rule change #23 were to only apply to the NA Miata, I could support it, but otherwise I feel it sends the ST classes down a slippery slop. We have the SS classes for strictly stock, the ST classes for modified cars with the stock motor that came with the car, SP for street cars where the motor can be modified and changed, and P for all out racing cars. Maybe a SPM class for Miatas in SP group ?
I'm open to suggestions on this , my mind is not made up yet ( I sure would like the extra power in my car) So please lets hear from as many members as possible

[brucesallen]

As you can see from comments above by three Board members, there is a considerable chance that #23 will be rescinded at the next and final club meeting before the new rule book is published. Remember that ST used to be a mild suspension change set of classes.

[breakaway500]

Perhaps the #23 rule proposal could be reworded to specifically allow 90-93 1.6L Miatas to utilize a 1.8L engine swap,and not be an open rule for allowing engine swapping.?

[paultg]

That sounds like a good idea Mark, a compromise that is pretty easily accomplished. I had no idea what this rule meant for the other ST classes (I just live in my little Miata ST4 world!). I feel some of the examples provided here to explain concerns with the rule are "extreme" cases; and would hate to see the true intent of this rule lost over it.

I'm still a bit confused about the concerns and the specific examples as it seems the factory built performance upgraded cars (like the 996 GT3RS, or the 2000 Cobra R) could arrive at an event and be classed against a stock Porsche or Mustang GT of similar age; if I was running one of the less expensive vehicles I'd feel the cars were classed incorrectly, and that they should be re-classified (or that I should be able to have the same power plant and performance options in my own car within the class).

On the other end of this; a common street driven car with a swap like a 1.8L into an early Miata just doesn't belong in SP. When my car was stock I put 15" wheels on it; that moved me to ST4, against fully prepared cars to the extend of the rules (like Troy's and others). I'd hate to think if I just did the 15" rims/tires and a 1.8L swap that I'd have to run in SP.

I'd love to hear from other members (and board members) with their take on this.

Paul G.

[6PAK72]

Dan, If I understand this correctly, one year after my Miata model year, the 1.8L went in, and yet the OEM wheels remained at 14", the radiator stayed as was, the factory suspension was not changed, etc. The front brakes were uprated, but the rears were not. I'm still learning about the Miata, but it seems to me I got far more performance advantage out of the allowable mods for ST4 - uprated tires, shocks, air intake, better pads - than the motor swap would have gotten me. The HP gain is minimal between the 2 engines.

And, I look at the tire/brake/suspension upgrades as a safety-enhancing concept. The first day out with the car fully SS I was not comfortable pushing. Soft, slippery, lots of wallowing on the return rates. After the suspension mods, it is a safer car to drive.

This one is tough because really what should be the determiner, IMHO, is power-to-weight ratio.

Go back to my TR6. The engine and chassis have been extremely uprated, yet it's still 115WHP in 1900lbs. But in SPB, I'm nearly a danger to the WRX crowd at 4200lbs with 360(?)HP. SO it seems that I, and other drivers, would actually be safer and have a more enjoyable time if the TR were classed out of SPB and into ST3, though it's far beyond a "street touring" mod.

The BOD has done a fantastic job at getting us to this point safely, and I certainly defer to those far more experienced than I.

[breakaway500]

How about an SPV class; ....vintage class.

Paul wrote:
"On the other end of this; a common street driven car with a swap like a 1.8L into an early Miata just doesn't belong in SP. When my car was stock I put 15" wheels on it; that moved me to ST4, against fully prepared cars to the extend of the rules (like Troy's and others). I'd hate to think if I just did the 15" rims/tires and a 1.8L swap that I'd have to run in SP."

Very good points,Paul. It seems certain mods are very punatitive,and almost force you to "finish" you car to take advantage of the rules..or not be competitive.

What if every body did their best,and the top 10 fastest times took home the trophies?

If the primary intent of proposal #23 is to allow the 1.8L motor in all NA Miatas,change the wording to that effect. problem solved. (for now..)

[6PAK72]

Dan, this one is for you - Liz wanted to share this as the argument for HP/weight ratio...



She seems so happy driving a 'stang.

[Stynger]

I'd love to hear from other members (and board members) with their take on this.

Paul G.

Paul, as a current board member, my take is the class rules in COM may have worked years ago when very few options were available and most cars had carburetors. Today with current modern cars and infinite mods and motor swap possibility's for a street car, people coming into the club with the wrong mods puts them into an uncompetitive class.
It would be nice to have a points system where we can pick the mods we want for a class. Too many mods and you move up. Putting a wing or a body kit does not necessarily move you up a class. HP to weight could also play a role in classification.
Although this sounds good, it would take a lot of work, and a full year to get it feasible.
Many long time competitors have built their cars to a COM class and would be reluctant to any kind of change.
If the board wasn't behind it from the start, it would be a huge waste of someone's time.

[paultg]

I am dealing with similar situation here at home with our board; we are seeing the need to enforce the 30+ year old condo docs becoming more apparent as we find owners "taking a mile" instead of an inch; while the focus for pasts boards has been prioritized on financial aspects. After 4 years as president we seem to have $$$ concerns resolved, and are Now moving down the list and realizing how outdated some of the document information is. It is very very difficult to correct an issue of maybe a handful of owners and not tick off the other 140 or so owners by rewriting things.

We get people who want us to fine a neighbor because their cat went into a garden they planted, which is on common property (and not allowed).

Just have to go in baby steps and find that compromise. I'm glad to hear there is alot of varying opinions across the board members, can make meetings a bit long and frustrating, but certainly better for the club and members.

The key is input from members, so keep them coming.

Paul G.

[DanDarcy]

The BOD needs more imput on this from the membership --- Please

Paul ; you are correct in that a Cobra R or a 997 GT3 RS could show up and run in the appropriate ST class, but those cars are very rare and seldom are seen at a Com event and when they are they are driven by older colectors who think a 1:45 is a fast lap at NHMS. Yet it is far less expensive to intall a Cobra R motor in a car like mine and you won't lose a ton of money if you hit the wall.Plus a Cobra R motor is not that expensive , the heads loaded are only $1,000 each, the block is the same as a 1999- 2004 Navigator, and most parts are available aftermarket. Installing 450 h.p. in my car would surely make it "less safe". Installing a 1.8 in a 1.6 NA Miata wouldn't make a safety differance. This rule has a lot of meaning depending on how you interpret it and what about "mix and match". Since a Cobra R engine is legal, can I just install the short block and use my legal existing heads and intake ? All parts are legal under the new rule.

[paultg]

This rule has a lot of meaning depending on how you interpret it and what about "mix and match". Since a Cobra R engine is legal, can I just install the short block and use my legal existing heads and intake ? All parts are legal under the new rule.

Dan, certainly an interesting perspective and point. I read the rule as written a completely different way than you are. I think the first sentence pf the added part (and part a) of the rule does not allow the examples you mention. As I read it the engine assembly (and they define that) has to come from a donor car that is legal in the same ST class; so a Lincoln navigator block is not allowed; nor is a bunch of receipts from the Ford Motorsports parts catalog.

How you or I read it is important; more important is how the COM tech inspectors are going to interpret it, enforce it, and more importantly police it.

The BOD needs more input on this from the membership --- Please

Yeah, keep it coming folks. There are alot of folks who have read this (+200 views). We need your input.

1. How do you read the rule and interpret it? (to see if it is written clear to all)
2. What is your stance on the rule for these classes?
3. Is there anything you think should be changed about the rule?

Paul G.

[boltonite]

There is a long COM rules history that predates me but which seems to reflect a general tendancy to resist rules changes. There is an equal tendency (imo) among racers to tweak and modify their car and to want the class rules to permit the tweaks. It may be simplistic, but this is my view of COM car classification as it exists today:

• Showroom Stock -- drive what you brung w/ safety upgrades only, the car is 100% street legal and largely stock.

• Street Touring -- drive what you brung w/ safety and suspension upgrades. In theory, the car is still streetable.

• Street Prepared -- drive what you brung w/ safety, motor and suspension upgrades. In theory, the car is still streetable.

• Prepared -- anything goes.

Generally I'm in favor of any change that promotes competition and helps COM to attract and retain members, but I am also sensitive to the fact that rules changes are disruptive and often fraught with unintended consequences however well intentioned, trivial, or popular. IMO, COM rules are relatively simplistic and easy to police as well as easy to understand. While a points-based system can be much more precise in dealing with mods, these systems are harder to understand, more difficult to implement (computing points can be painstaking) and harder for stewards, tech inspectors, and competitors to police (e.g., HP:Weight demands scales and a dyno for anything other than a stock motor and a Showroom Stock chassis).

Regarding the posts urging members to air their opinions: it is true, the BoD can and does "bend to the Will of the people" (pun intended). However, not all members are active on the forum nor bother to read it; something in the DRIFT or perhaps a ballot question (e.g., "Do you favor a points-based car classification system over the current car classification system: Yes__ No__) would carry more weight -- at least with me -- since it reaches the full membership.

We are a transparent club, we are member-driven, the board may have its faults but it does try to serve >ALL< club members as best it can (which may not be saying much). Concerned members (Paul, Troy, Bueller?): get yourself nominated ASAP to get on the ballot, get enough members to vote for you and join the fun in 2010! You only have to show up for every 3rd or 4th meeting ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDCu4Jj3-xs

FF

[paultg]

Well, sometimes I think I do my best thinking in the shower; haha.

Maybe we can amend the rule and add something like this:

New Rule:
****************************************
Updating and back-dating of components are not allowed in Street Touring (ST), unless specified below. The original engine (or direct replacement) that was manufactured with the car must be used

ADD TO LAST SENTENCE ABOVE: except for cars that meet the engine update/backdate criteria as described in X.12.

ADD SECTION X.12:

12. Cars may update or backdate engine assemblies within its make, model, and chassis code provided that both cars (the engine donor and the engine recipient) share the same ST classification (e.g. ST4). The engine assembly must fit exactly like a direct replacement. NO modification to the chassis, subframe, motor mounts, or any other non-ST compliant modification is allowed, except for those listed below.
a. The "engine assembly" includes the engine, intake and exhaust manifolds, and any part attached to the engine which is related to fueling, ignition, throttle, and idle control.
b. Brackets to adapt throttle bodies and ignition coils may be used provided that they serve no other function.
c. Stock motor mounts from either the donor or recipient must be used.
d. Donor or "new" engine must have the same cylinder count and type of induction (naturally aspirated, turbo charged, supercharged) as the original or "old" engine.
e. Excluding the allowances listed in section X.12, all modifications related to the engine update/backdate must fit within the ST rules.
f. The engine assembly from the donor car shall yield a change in engine horsepower and/or torque of no more than [insert number here] 40 as rated and published by the donor vehicle manufacturer.
****************************************

I'm not sure what a "safe" number is for the BOD on this subject; but an addition like this would help limit the possibilities available to competitors. I think it is also important to understand how this rule co-exists with the other rules within the class; and not just stand-alone. I'm not sure some of the engine swap examples mentioned here to oppose the rule would run correctly, etc. and meet all requirements of the ST rules (aftermarket ECU requirements, wiring harness changes, etc. may be required).

I see this thread is going astray now with the points based system vs. current rules. Not the intent of my original post; but so be it. I'd prefer things to remain somewhat on topic around the Rule #23 change as the points based change is global and much more involved, and this Rule #23 may go away in a few weeks at the next board meeting.

boltonite,
I am hoping to step down from my current Association position and let someone new follow in my footsteps once this year is over (we finish up Nov 1st, 2010). Also hoping to get to some COM NHMS events this year as well (I didn't make any last year). So, maybe next year I'll try to get on the BOD once I get to know more folks and have one less meeting to attend.

Paul G.

[breakaway500]

Why not just say Miatas can use 1.6 or 1.8L Miata engines.