Jump to content
takjak2

Spec Miata Penske Shocks 2X Value

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, pjt said:

  

 

This is taken out of context relative to Champcar racing.  This is an issue specific to the SCCA Hoosier SM7 tire, which is way faster as a sticker than with *any* HC.  Yes, the Penskes do a better job for this tire; but it's only because the tire itself falls off so badly that they make a difference.  NASA SM runs a more durable tire (Toyo RR) and they barely moved the lap times last season; Bilsteins were absolutely competitive with Penskes.  The tires we run, even the latest and greatest "180tw" miracles, are still a measurable step down the spectrum than RRs; there's no sticker window we're trying to preserve for an 8 hour chump race.  On a Champcar they help turn in a little bit, but they haven't suddenly turned Miatas into missiles.  They still have a too-small fuel tank with no good fuel cell possibilities.

So you wouldn't be opposed to allowing other cars the opportunity to run similar spec shocks? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pjt said:

 

Ecotech Miatas turn fast laps but Miatas have too small a fuel tank for them to be super competitive overall.  Things look great until the last 2 hours of the race and they come in for that extra 5 minute fuel stop.  Particularly on anything >7h.

There's a very fast Camaro that can only run a tad over 1hr that runs in the top 3 overall.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mender said:

This is a serious issue IMHO

 

We saw a fairly significant step up from the $500 cars when BMWs appeared, with Ecotec Miatas being another solid step away from the roots. The recent bunch of cars that were added to the VPi list (Boxsters, 2000+ BMWs, 250+hp Nissans, etc) are the latest jump.

 

The cost to level up that's needed to stay in the Champcar game is getting high.

So are you saying that ChampCar should stay stuck in time and not add cars to the list as each year goes by?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ron_e said:

 

It’s OK, I am sure it will get hit with a 100 point increase.  Oh wait, that only happens to cars that DON’T win races.  

 

Maybe thats why its for sale lol.  Buy low, sell high, or something like that.  I'm no ecologist.  /Green font/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mender said:

So you wouldn't be opposed to allowing other cars the opportunity to run similar spec shocks? 

 

If I thought it had pushed Miata over the edge to be an unfair platform, yes (although, see below, I think VPI adjustment would be more tactical), but I don't think that's the case.

 

Every (competitive) car has things that are "good" and "bad".  Multi-class racing is all about balancing these factors.  As covered above, one of the Miatas greatest disadvantages it its small fuel tank.  Yet, I'm not here saying you need to give Miatas the opportunity to run similar size fuel tanks to the other cars (which as below, this becomes equivalent to).

 

In this case, this is a small incremental upgrade on a part of the car that was already good.  Relatively speaking, Miatas already had great handling under the 2x rule on the Bilsteins; which satisfied the important and less common combination of being (a) valved for racing and (b) non-adjustable (most racing stuff is adjustable, these exist because of a Spec series.).  Moving to Penskes in this case makes something on the car that was already comparatively "good", a little better.  This doesn't meaningfully move the needle, it's a marginal improvement.  It would be a very different story if this was previously a "bad" area for Miatas.  In that case, I'd suspect the VPI would probably just need to be adjusted (fixing the problem locally rather than trying to figure out how to give other cars the same suspension).  Yet, for many of the cars that would love to run Penskes, this is a comparatively "bad"/disadvantaged area and since they don't necessarily have the other the drawbacks of a Miata, turning "bad" to "great" could well be an unfair advantage on those platforms.

 

We run Miatas in both ChampCar and Spec Miata.  We run the Penskes in Spec Miata; we'd like to eventually run them on the ChumpCar as well, but we also don't think they're better enough that we're in any rush to buy another set.  There are several other common-to-all-build parts that we think give us more marginal benefit and should be done first.  This hasn't changed how we think about the platform in a meaningful way.

Edited by pjt
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DEE DEE said:

There's a very fast Camaro that can only run a tad over 1hr that runs in the top 3 overall.

a) Seems like there's some questionable points on the car.

b) On a HP track sure.  Relative to this conversation a Miata would also generally have a hard time on that same track because they cant get anywhere near the same fuel/hp ratios for both VPI and capacity reasons.  There are also handling tracks where there's no way the same Camaro catches up to a Miata running a 40 minute longer stint.  There are also more balanced platforms that could be in the running with both the Miata and the Camaro in both these situations. That's just the way it goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Camaro is also raced by a team that won and lost LeMans in 2019. They are also very capable drivers who have also driven Daytona Prototypes at tbe highest level of racing. There are a lot of plus factors with that team. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DEE DEE said:

So are you saying that ChampCar should stay stuck in time and not add cars to the list as each year goes by?

No,  I'm saying that a gradual approach to approving newer cars would be more reasonable, allowing upgrading in a more predictable and affordable manner. If there was a rule that limited the VPI to cars that are, say, 12 years and older, people would be able to plan ahead. 

That would add new cars every year but limit surprises. 

Edited by mender
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mender said:

No,  I'm saying that a gradual approach to approving newer cars would be more reasonable, allowing upgrading in a more predictable and affordable manner. If there was a rule that limited the VPI to cars that are, say, 12 years and older, people would be able to plan ahead. 

That would add new cars every year but limit surprises. 

 

This.

 

Also, I think Champ Staff need to get over their fear of increasing VPI values on newer cars that do too well.  The new crop of cars at least appear to be a major cause of the speed leap we've seen in the last two years, and allowances have been made to allow older popular platforms to keep up instead of adding points.

 

Somehow we all must overcome the stigma of any car over 500 points as being EC or being automatically uncompetitive so that people won't be so upset when their chosen platform gets a point bump that pushes them over 500.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bill Strong said:

That Camaro is also raced by a team that won and lost LeMans in 2019. They are also very capable drivers who have also driven Daytona Prototypes at tbe highest level of racing. There are a lot of plus factors with that team. 

 

 

There is no reason for you to be defending that teams driving, other than your affiliation with them.

 

there are plenty of amazing drivers and teams in Champcar with no pro accolades on the resume. 

 

 

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Huggy said:

 

 

There is no reason for you to be defending that teams driving, other than your affiliation with them.

 

there are plenty of amazing drivers and teams in Champcar with no pro accolades on the resume. 

 

 

 

 

And fewer instances of contact. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

image.png.92210f62d0d9c8b91fa16ca04a4ab329.png

 

 

Awesome!

 

How many points for a lightweight STEEL flywheel then?

 

If a lightweight steel flywheel is used to replace a dual mass flywheel, is that still zero points?

Edited by KoneKillah
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a single mass flywheel would be lighter than a dual mass flywheel so it should be 0 points.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mender said:

I think a single mass flywheel would be lighter than a dual mass flywheel so it should be 0 points.

 

 

I don't think you understood my question:

 

ACT for example makes the "Prolight" series steel flywheel. It is within 1 lb of an AL flywheel and still 8 or so lbs lighter than OEM for a 1.8 Miata. A product like this is STILL undefined. How many points? 5?

 

And if that is the flywheel that people use to replace their dual mass units, is it still free?

 

Still some work to be done in clarifying this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KoneKillah said:

 

 

I don't think you understood my question:

 

ACT for example makes the "Prolight" series steel flywheel. It is within 1 lb of an AL flywheel and still 8 or so lbs lighter than OEM for a 1.8 Miata. A product like this is STILL undefined. How many points? 5?

 

And if that is the flywheel that people use to replace their dual mass units, is it still free?

 

Still some work to be done in clarifying this.

I was implying that if cars with a dual mass flywheel can go to a single mass flywheel for no points (BMWs for example), other cars should be allowed to similarly reduce the flywheel weight for no points.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mender said:

I was implying that if cars with a dual mass flywheel can go to a single mass flywheel for no points (BMWs for example), other cars should be allowed to similarly reduce the flywheel weight for no points.

 

And I would agree. This is what I submitted:

 

2020-01-21.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2020 at 2:16 PM, mender said:

I was implying that if cars with a dual mass flywheel can go to a single mass flywheel for no points (BMWs for example), other cars should be allowed to similarly reduce the flywheel weight for no points.

For the record, the m20b25 e30 has a cast single mass flywheel. I don’t know in what generation they switched to dual mass. 

Edited by enginerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, enginerd said:

For the record, the m20b25 e30 has a cast single mass flywheel. I don’t know in what generation they switched to dual mass. 

E36 had dual mass. The single mass m20 flywheel you describe is a common "upgrade" that bolts on and is significantly lighter.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, ABR-Glen said:

E36 had dual mass. The single mass m20 flywheel you describe is a common "upgrade" that bolts on and is significantly lighter.

 

That swap also requires the M20 starter, which would be non-OE on the E36 (or E46).  I would assume that should be charged points until the tech desk says otherwise.  Though the precedent has already been set.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Grufton said:

 

That swap also requires the M20 starter, which would be non-OE on the E36 (or E46).  I would assume that should be charged points until the tech desk says otherwise.  Though the precedent has already been set.

If the 3rd Gen F-body can get a free non-OE K-member to run 2-point Ram's horn manifolds then the E36/E46 should be able to run the M20 starter to get free exhaust manifolds. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Snorman said:

If the 3rd Gen F-body can get a free non-OE K-member to run 2-point Ram's horn manifolds then the E36/E46 should be able to run the M20 starter to get free exhaust manifolds. 

 

If those are true then obviously the Mustang must pay 48 points for a fibre glass hood even though it came with one, pay 20 points for a power steering cooler while others get it for free, and cannot run an aluminum flywheel that others get for free.  Miata and BMW can run the larger tank, Honda can inflate theirs.  Oh and the TBird needs a 10 lap penalty because it led by half a lap that one time.  Not green font.  

 

I think I am starting to understand the rules finally.   While I am at it, can someone remind me - back with the original board members were they always EC when they raced?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ron_e said:

 

If those are true then obviously the Mustang must pay 48 points for a fibre glass hood even though it came with one, pay 20 points for a power steering cooler while others get it for free, and cannot run an aluminum flywheel that others get for free.  Miata and BMW can run the larger tank, Honda can inflate theirs.  Oh and the TBird needs a 10 lap penalty because it led by half a lap that one time.  Not green font.  

 

I think I am starting to understand the rules finally.   While I am at it, can someone remind me - back with the original board members were they always EC when they raced?

Miata can run the 12.7 gallon tank instead of the 11.9 gallon tank (.8 gallons, wow) if they are swapped.  And for that we get the point increase to the 1.8 Miatas as a base.  We pay 50 points for that increase so quit whining.  It was old like a year ago.  Put in a petition to get it adjusted and the TAC can look at it.  

Edited by Jer
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Ron_e said:

 

If those are true then obviously the Mustang must pay 48 points for a fibre glass hood even though it came with one, pay 20 points for a power steering cooler while others get it for free, and cannot run an aluminum flywheel that others get for free.  Miata and BMW can run the larger tank, Honda can inflate theirs.  Oh and the TBird needs a 10 lap penalty because it led by half a lap that one time.  Not green font.  

 

I think I am starting to understand the rules finally.   While I am at it, can someone remind me - back with the original board members were they always EC when they raced?

BMWs can’t run a larger tank. This has been explained many times. Restrict your carping to real problems with the series/rules or I will start tuning you out and will probably ignore your valid arguments in the process.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Ron_e said:

 

If those are true then obviously the Mustang must pay 48 points for a fibre glass hood even though it came with one, pay 20 points for a power steering cooler while others get it for free, and cannot run an aluminum flywheel that others get for free.  Miata and BMW can run the larger tank, Honda can inflate theirs.  Oh and the TBird needs a 10 lap penalty because it led by half a lap that one time.  Not green font.  

 

I think I am starting to understand the rules finally.   While I am at it, can someone remind me - back with the original board members were they always EC when they raced?

 

AL Flywheels are now 10 pts. Steel? Who knows. I'm waiting on a response to my ticket.

 

It seems this series is going through some growing pains as people are getting more and more competitive. This would be bad if there wasn't a way to resolve it. IMO the knowledge base is kicking ass at clarifying some of the more obtuse rules. Give it time and things will work out. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...