2006 Car classification proposal

[SSNH]

I will be rewiting the proposal and going through all the points calculations after the NHIS results from this weekend are posted, with moving the 1.8L M1 Mazda Miatas and the Nissan Sentra SE-R from the proposed SSC to SSB.

i didn't know the 1.6 miata lobby was so strong.

[kfoote]

Basically, there are going to be two proposals that I submit to the BOD. One as the original intent, and one that would keep SSC/ST4 as a playground for the 1.6L Miatas. The one that would keep the 1.6L Miatas as the dominant, and only, car that runs regularly with COM, would have an addendum of how the classes will change if SSC/ST4 do not meet minimum participation numbers. The big problem is that to really do it correctly, it will affect not just SSB/ST3 and SSC/ST4, but SSA/ST2 and SSGT/ST1 as well.

[SSNH]

Basically, there are going to be two proposals that I submit to the BOD. One as the original intent, and one that would keep SSC/ST4 as a playground for the 1.6L Miatas. The one that would keep the 1.6L Miatas as the dominant, and only, car that runs regularly with COM, would have an addendum of how the classes will change if SSC/ST4 do not meet minimum participation numbers. The big problem is that to really do it correctly, it will affect not just SSB/ST3 and SSC/ST4, but SSA/ST2 and SSGT/ST1 as well.

so one of the rules you are proposing is soley to keep a 13-15 year old car competititve?

i hear all these conversations about how the 1.6 miata is .2s slower than the 1.8 at nhis.

[kfoote]

so one of the rules you are proposing is soley to keep a 13-15 year old car competititve?

i hear all these conversations about how the 1.6 miata is .2s slower than the 1.8 at nhis.

Yes, because there has been very vocal dissent among the people driving the 1.6L Miatas that want their own class to play in even though ST4 and SSC are have two of the 5 classes that have had 5 or fewer unique participants in 2005 (the other 3 being SSA, PB, and FP)

Do I agree with it? Personally, no.
Does the reasearch I have done up to this point support the concept of keeping the 1.6L Miatas essentially in a class by themselves? No.
Will it still end up better than what we have now even if they have their own class? Yes.

[SSNH]

in your proposal, are you going to bump the neon acr from ssc to ssb as well? ...or are the 1.8 miata and 2.0 sentra the only cars being discriminated?

[kfoote]

There will likely be more bumped form SSC to SSB, I am certainly not just limiting it to those two cars. The E36 BMW 318's and 1.9L Z3's, 1999-2001 Honda Civic SI's, Peugeot 505 turbo, and some of the Honda Accords, among others, will likely also be moved.

[BrakeL8r]

i hear all these conversations about how the 1.6 miata is .2s slower than the 1.8 at nhis.

It's more like a couple of seconds depending on the track. Look at the results from the NHIS event last weekend.

--Michael
ST4 Miata #176

[SSNH]

i hear all these conversations about how the 1.6 miata is .2s slower than the 1.8 at nhis.

It's more like a couple of seconds depending on the track. Look at the results from the NHIS event last weekend.

--Michael
ST4 Miata #176

i am just going by what miata drivers were saying last weekend - heard it from three different wheel to wheel miata folks.

[WillM]

so one of the rules you are proposing is soley to keep a 13-15 year old car competititve?

Using that mentality, the same could also be said about a different car if the original rule proposal was accepted. Grouping a 1.6 Sentra in the same class as a Sentra SE-R does not seem right. As proven in SPC many times, a well sorted Miata is no match for a well-sorted SE-R. Both, by the way, are 12-15 year old cars.

Kevin, thanks for the consideration of the current SSC and ST4 classed cars. I do appreciate your thoughts on altering the proposal, but I can't agree with making changes because 'the 1.6 guys have been vocal'. Rule changes should be adopted to achieve fairness and competition for the benefit of the club and its members. Along those lines, if a change must be made, I would choose the rule as you initially proposed it. To group the 1.8 Miatas in the "new" SSB is simply not fair. I would even go a step further and add ALL 1.8 Miatas (except the MazdaSpeed MX-5) into SSC.

It just seems to me - and the other competitors in SSC/ST4 and SSB/ST3, that the current classification (for those classes) is working. Who in these classes is complaining? Why should these classes be rearranged if they are working? Is it impossible to 'fix' the higher classes without changing these?

Earlier in this thread, a point was made that the intent of the rule change is to balance the number of cars that show up to time trial in a given class. If that is the goal, then please consider the following, which is based on this season.

In the classes effected by this rule change, most actually end up having fewer competitors, while one grows by 350%:

Code: Select all

          Cars      Cars    Effect of    # of cars  # of cars  Effect of
Class   in Class  in Class    Class       >1 event   >1 event    Class
         CURRENT    NEW      Changes      Current       NEW     Changes
======  ========  ========  ========     =========  =========  =========
FP         3         3         0              3          3         0
PA         6         6         0              3          3         0
PB         5         5         0              0          0         0
PC         9         9         0              5          5         0
SPA       17        17         0              7          7         0
SPB       13        13         0              9          9         0
SPC       18        18         0              9          9         0
STGT      12        12         0              6          6         0
ST1       16        14        -2              7          5        -2
ST2       16         6       -10             10          6        -4
ST3       18        12        -6             12          6        -6
ST4        5        23       +18              5         17       +12
SSU        7         7         0              4          4         0
SSGT      10         6        -4              2          2         0
SSA        5         5         0              4          0        -4
SSB        9         5        -4              5          5         0
SSC        3        11        +8              1          5        +4

In an effort to show what 'usually' shows up to events, the three columns to the right ignore competitors who have only time trialed once this year. For example, in SSGT, there are 10 competitors, but only 2 have time trialed more than once this season.

With the rule change, the number of ST3 competitors gets cut in half, from 12 to 6. ST4 more than triples from 5 to 17 competitors. SSA goes from 4 cars to 0, and 2 other classes LOSE competitors as well.

Earlier is was said that SSC and ST4 are a waste of class. Given that the new proposal leaves 0 cars in SSA, only 2 cars in SSGT, and only 4 in SSU, (whereas ST4 is 'wasted with 'only' 5) are those classes being wasted? Should they be combined? Does this mean that these competitors want a class of their own? No, No, and absolutely not. To imply any differently would be nothing more than a petty insult to those club members.

Kevin, I know you have the club's best interest in mind, and I thank you for it. The fact that some members (including myself) disagree with a part of your proposal does not mean that we are being self-serving or that we do not appreciate the considerable time and effort you have put into your proposal. That said, I also have the club's best interest in mind and believe we would take a step forward on the upper class structure at the expense of taking a step backward in the lower classes.

We just have a different opinion on how these classes should be constructed, but I welcome the ongoing discussion! :-k

[WillM]

i am just going by what miata drivers were saying last weekend - heard it from three different wheel to wheel miata folks.

The wheel-to-wheel folks have rules to even the playing field. The 1.8 cars are handicapped with throttle restrictors and weight, and the 1.6 cars are allowed to run intakes.

Current ST update/backdate rules in COM make the difference bigger by allowing the 'better' 1.6 rearend (4.3) to be swapped into a 1.8 car (normally 4.1).

[SSNH]

will, i was just trying to make the point that we shouldn't kick cars out of classes just to make one car competitive. that was my understanding from kevin's proposal.

if ssb/st3 and ssc/st4 are to be combined, i don't think cars should be bumped up a class.

i vote on these rule proposals. everyone should contact the board members to discuss changes for which they have an opinion.


side notes:
why is mike cambell's daytona in ssa, not ssb? ...just looking at hp and weight figures.

from what i have seen, a neon acr is faster than a se-r or a miata.

[SSNH]

The wheel-to-wheel folks have rules to even the playing field. The 1.8 cars are handicapped with throttle restrictors and weight, and the 1.6 cars are allowed to run intakes.

the people, and please feel free to chime in folks, were not talking about spec. miata and the restrictions applied. it was an equal trim comparison.

[WillM]

will, i was just trying to make the point that we shouldn't kick cars out of classes just to make one car competitive. that was my understanding from kevin's proposal.

I agree 100% with you there, buddy.

if ssb/st3 and ssc/st4 are to be combined, i don't think cars should be bumped up a class.

Those classes are basically being combined. The proposal is actually a reshuffle of cars. Several cars in a few classes are being 'bumped up'. Looks like the current proposal is for some of the 'higher end' SSB cars (Neon ACR, Sentra SE-R) will stay in SSB. I guess the line has to be drawn somewhere. Like I mentioned above, I would put all Miatas in SSC. It will even further handicap the 1.6 cars, but having a 1.8 Miata in the same class as a Mini Cooper S, Eclipse Turbo, and V6 Fiero isn't right either. Along those lines, it isn't quite right to have a 1.6 Sentra and SE-R in the same class.

i vote on these rule proposals. everyone should contact the board members to discuss changes for which they have an opinion.

Thanks for the heads-up. Is it only board members who vote on rule changes? Are their votes based on what they believe, or are the votes supposed to represent what the members want? For example, I wrote a few rule proposals and got signatures of support from about 20 members on each. How will this info be used?

side notes:
why is mike cambell's daytona in ssa, not ssb? ...just looking at hp and weight figures.

from what i have seen, a neon acr is faster than a se-r or a miata.

Actually, it could be a misprint, but the car class proposal I am looking at has the Daytona in SSC/ST4.

[Stynger]

Thanks for the heads-up. Is it only board members who vote on rule changes? Are their votes based on what they believe, or are the votes supposed to represent what the members want? For example, I wrote a few rule proposals and got signatures of support from about 20 members on each. How will this info be used?

Unless it's a dictatorship, I would hope the BOD would voice the opinions of the club members and work with them steering the club in the direction of the memberships concerns.

[nateh]

i hear all these conversations about how the 1.6 miata is .2s slower than the 1.8 at nhis.

It's more like a couple of seconds depending on the track. Look at the results from the NHIS event last weekend.

--Michael
ST4 Miata #176

Having participated in these conversations, I was curious about the what the reality might be behind the opinions. So I looked up the fastest times I could find for ST3 and ST4 Miatas at all the various tracks. Amazingly enough, the difference really does appear to be only ~0.2 seconds! The average of the differences below is 0.1. If you throw out the 2 extremes (which are also tracks with few times available - Shenendoah and NHIS NO), the difference is 0.2.

- Nate

LIME ROCK
ST3 Stephen Pope 01:10.1 2003
ST4 Mike Carr 01:12.0 2003
MOSPORT
ST3 Gordon Andrade 01:46.4 2005
ST4 Lee Walsh 01:46.9 2004
SUMMIT POINT- Main
ST3 Stephen Pope 01:33.7 2004
ST4 Lee Walsh 01:33.3 2003
SHENANDOAH
ST3 Gordon Andrade 02:05.3 2005
ST4 Stephen Hosker 02:07.5 2005
NHIS NORTH OVAL
ST3 Matthew Daniels 01:29.4 2004
ST4 Stephen Hosker 01:26.4 2004
NHIS SOUTH OVAL
ST3 Stephen Pope 01:21.4 2004
ST4 Lee Walsh 01:20.1 2004
NHIS CHICANE / CHICANE
ST3 Gordon Andrade 01:24.8 2005
ST4 Michael Carr 01:24.6 2005
MT TREMBLANT
ST3 Gordon Andrade 02:05.0 2005
ST4 Will Martins 02:06.8 2005
WATKINS GLEN
ST3 Gordon Andrade 02:27.2 2005
ST4 Will Martins 02:28.2 2005