Jump to content
Chummy

miatas material points for hard tops?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, LuckyKid said:

"aero device"?  Really?   We aren't talking about re-purposing it as a spoiler or splitter.  Its a rear window that had the rear pitch moved up a few inches in nearly the exact position as if I took the OEM hardtop and lifted the back 4".    The rear window is still the rear window, so please don't twist this into something its not.

 

If it's not providing a benefit, then why do it?  It's an aero device, even if it's minimally effective.  If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, then it might just be an aerodynamic duck.

 

Is the rule that one edge of the repurposed lexan must remain in the factory position?  Can I flip my whole rear window while keeping the rearmost edge in factory position?

 

Can I lift the rear of my lexan and use longer trunk mounting bolts to lift the leading edge of the trunk lid to create a fastback?

 

The rule "was" as black and white as can be, and yet here we are.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

"aero device"?  Really?   We aren't talking about re-purposing it as a spoiler or splitter.  Its a rear window that had the rear pitch moved up a few inches in nearly the exact position as if I took the OEM hardtop and lifted the back 4".    The rear window is still the rear window, so please don't twist this into something its not.

C'mon...you guys tinker and adjust just about everything on that car, even to the extent of fabricating rear "mini splitters". If you didn't think the fastback was going to help aero/air flow then you wouldn't have done it. 

The rear window is not "still the rear window". You replaced the rear window with polycarbonate, then relocated, re-sized, etc. to fit the hatchback. You did this to save 10 points of value-add. The issue that many have is not your creativity, it's that Tech allowed you to do this for zero points. 

And BTW...great call on going with the Conti's at Road Atlanta. We wondered how the heck you were so fast in the rain/snow/slop. Now we have to put together a 3rd set of wheels/tires for rain. 😆

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can just plywood up the opening for minimum points increase and use a rearview camera.

There is no rule that you need a rear window, just an interior mirror, even if it is not looking at anything.

 

Can anyone in this thread tell me how much laptime this fastback is worth?

I popped it into the old laptime simulator and even if its a 5% improvement in vehicle Cd over a standard hardtop (pretty optimistic I think) it would be worth 0.1 to 0.3 seconds per lap, which they are taking some points for.

 

All I see here is a cheaper way ($$$ money) of making a miata hardtop and it looks cooler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Grufton said:

 

I've received multiple rulings that aren't yet posted.  Perhaps @Bill Strong has been busy with actual racing and doesn't have the final wording sorted.

 

I took a couple of days off. sorry.
 

give me a few days to catch up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Partsbadger certainly isn’t the first to think of this, I thought about changing the angle on my rear window (look at e30 m3 vs e30 325i) years ago but didn’t because it was clear that this would add points. The difference is that I didn’t then go to tech and ask for a rule exemption to allow me to do it. 

Edited by enginerd
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess after you've had Mike or Jay walk up to you 30 min before green flag and tell you that you need to change or remove something because another member complained (even though it is/was within the rules and tech approved it) you'll start just putting everything in the tech desk like we do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, theman631 said:

I guess after you've had Mike or Jay walk up to you 30 min before green flag and tell you that you need to change or remove something because another member complained (even though it is/was within the rules and tech approved it) you'll start just putting everything in the tech desk like we do.

 

That's what happens when you play fast and loose with the rule set.

 

It's the same when you're on track.  If you're always at 10/10ths, if you put one pinkie toe over the line it can lead to problems.  Same is true for anyone who tries to fly too close to the sun.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Call me Icarus lol.  In a series where a saab, a miata, and a mustang all finish within a few seconds over 7-8 hours, I think that something is right about the rules.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is your turn Sir. You work hard on your car. Think outside the box and......... most import you have some very good drivers and talent. There will be none of that!!!!!! 
 

Understand if you were not winning or.......doing well none of this would be an issue. The slow, unrelenting movement from a builders series were a team or individual is rewarded for innovation such as repurposing materials will be scrutinized until it is removed all together and turn this series into a spec boring series were money and politics dictates. Talented innovative builders are seen as threatening or worse. As cheaters. 
 

It is the same individuals posting the same crap. This series is hemorrhaging teams because of the  “twisting this into something it is not”. 
 

 

I had a chance to see your car at Road America. Well done!!!!! I would have liked to have had the opportunity to race against you. Best of luck with whatever you decide to do. 
 

This is B.S. All of this constant beat down is B.S. 

 

 

4 hours ago, LuckyKid said:

"aero device"?  Really?   We aren't talking about re-purposing it as a spoiler or splitter.  Its a rear window that had the rear pitch moved up a few inches in nearly the exact position as if I took the OEM hardtop and lifted the back 4".    The rear window is still the rear window, so please don't twist this into something its not.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, theman631 said:

Call me Icarus lol.  In a series where a saab, a miata, and a mustang all finish within a few seconds over 7-8 hours, I think that something is right about the rules.

 

Oh, the series is surely doing things right.  The car counts, the diversity, and the closeness of the racing is a testament to that.

 

 

 

If you want an "open" rule book, then you need to be comfortable being reigned in from time to time.  If you want rigid builds with no room for innovation, go back to SCCA.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

It is your turn Sir. You work hard on your car. Think outside the box and......... most import you have some very good drivers and talent. There will be none of that!!!!!! 
 

Understand if you were not winning or.......doing well none of this would be an issue. The slow, unrelenting movement from a builders series were a team or individual is rewarded for innovation such as repurposing materials will be scrutinized until it is removed all together and turn this series into a spec boring series were money and politics dictates. Talented innovative builders are seen as threatening or worse. As cheaters. 
 

It is the same individuals posting the same crap. This series is hemorrhaging teams because of the  “twisting this into something it is not”. 
 

 

I had a chance to see your car at Road America. Well done!!!!! I would have liked to have had the opportunity to race against you. Best of luck with whatever you decide to do. 
 

This is B.S. All of this constant beat down is B.S. 

 

 

 

We are just looking at trying to play by the rules as written.

 

Innovation is key to win in this series however, it comes at a price.  If you are building to the bleeding edge, expect to get smacked down every once in awhile.  

 

This is true from dirt stock car racing to karting to f1.

Edited by wvumtnbkr
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are literally sending pictures and descriptions to tech asking for an official ruling, then doing exactly what was approved.  Does that deserve to get "smacked down"?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LuckyKid said:

We are literally sending pictures and descriptions to tech asking for an official ruling, then doing exactly what was approved.  Does that deserve to get "smacked down"?

No.  It does not.  

 

However, the tech desk stuff is to help hold tech consistent as well.

 

This entire debacle is WAY more about enforcing the bccr than it is about you moving the window a couple of degrees.  I could basically care less about that other than it is black and white in the rules and you received an answer that is TOTALLY not consistent with the bccr.

 

The 2.5 pt hubs was another.  The drop down window net is another.  Etc....

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me continue...  I like what you guys are doing.  Keep it up!

 

I just want the rules enforced as written.

 

If you got permission from tech, that should be the holy grail.   You shouldn't get an answer and then need to change.  That sucks!

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Let me continue...  I like what you guys are doing.  Keep it up!

 

I just want the rules enforced as written.

 

If you got permission from tech, that should be the holy grail.   You shouldn't get an answer and then need to change.  That sucks!

 

Having to change is a pain, but when you go against a black and white, clear as day rule, then it's a risk you take.

 

Everyone makes mistakes, tech included, and the tech desk should help prevent them from happening as often.  And it provides a proof of rulings received for everyone to see so that chances that one team is told it's ok to do something, while another is told it's not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LuckyKid said:

We are literally sending pictures and descriptions to tech asking for an official ruling, then doing exactly what was approved.  Does that deserve to get "smacked down"?

Yeah, the outrage is not at you but tech for changing a black and white rule or giving you a special exemption without board approval or publishing it for all to see.

Edited by morganf
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

We are literally sending pictures and descriptions to tech asking for an official ruling, then doing exactly what was approved.  Does that deserve to get "smacked down"?

I'm actually in support of your innovative use of the hard top but the way the rules are written I can't see how this isn't points. Tech needs to step up and explain how this is allowed and put it in the knowledge base. Moving the top around is free as far as I can see, but the window is pretty black and white, original size and location or it's points. I thank you for resubmitting to the tech desk after the knowledge base was created, we're all just waiting for the written ruling. 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, wvumtnbkr said:

If you got permission from tech, that should be the holy grail.   You shouldn't get an answer and then need to change.  That sucks!

 

So you think 2 points for non-oem manifolds is ok?

 

Tech is not the end all of this series, the rule book is.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, wvumtnbkr said:

No.  It does not.  

 

However, the tech desk stuff is to help hold tech consistent as well.

 

This entire debacle is WAY more about enforcing the bccr than it is about you moving the window a couple of degrees.  I could basically care less about that other than it is black and white in the rules and you received an answer that is TOTALLY not consistent with the bccr.

 

The 2.5 pt hubs was another.  The drop down window net is another.  Etc....


When making a recommendation to tech or the BOD the specific item at hand such as the slight altering of the lexan window location may not be very far outside the written rules, but giving this type of stuff an exemption can often be a slippery slope. As a competitor, it is not a big deal to me that you moved your free lexan window a small amount. As a competitor It would be a big deal if you removed the window and used its materials to make a splitter or wing etc. But as a TAC member, not following the rule exactly as written is a bigger deal and it is being discussed within the TAC. 

1 minute ago, MoparBoyy said:

 

So you think 2 points for non-oem manifolds is ok?

 

Tech is not the end all of this series, the rule book is.

 

I don't think its OK, and was not a fan of this ruling. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, red0 said:

I don't think its OK, and was not a fan of this ruling. 

 

right.  I was pointing out that tech can't be the end all and by-pass the rulebook whenever they feel like it.

  • Like 6

Share this post


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

 

right.  I was pointing out that tech can't be the end all and by-pass the rulebook whenever they feel like it.

 

I'd agree but the rulebook is purposefully short, too short, so much so that a formal tech system had to be implemented to handle a deficient rule book. 

 

If making the rulebook short and hard to change was done so that rules are simple and consistent and then systems are implemented to completely undercut that, what the point?  Just make the rule book a few pages longer.

 

The one that gets me is:

 

4.3.2:  Aerodynamic devices not to exceed width of bodywork (fenders, bumpers, doors) when viewed from above. 

 

Then:

 

The maximum width of a wing or splitter is determined by the OE body shape and not by any bodywork added to the car that makes it appear wider. In your case, you cannot include the new fender flares in your measurement and instead must measure from the OE steel fender dimensions.

I had two staff members get hit by wide wings in 2019 and we will not see a 3rd get hit.

Michael Chisek
CEO

 

 

Why not just add "OEM" to the rulebook ?!?!?  

 

This was an issue in 2019, so its not like this is a new interpretation.  

For us, the rules made us widen our fenders for the 10-2 rule.  Now our bodywork, fenders in particular, is wider when viewed from above. We spend several hundred dollars on a new wider wing.  Then we are told to cut it back down to the size of the other one.   I agree with safety and the new ruling, but PLEASE add it to the rulebook.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LuckyKid said:

 

I'd agree but the rulebook is purposefully short, too short, so much so that a formal tech system had to be implemented to handle a deficient rule book. 

 

If making the rulebook short and hard to change was done so that rules are simple and consistent and then systems are implemented to completely undercut that, what the point?  Just make the rule book a few pages longer.

 

The one that gets me is:

 

4.3.2:  Aerodynamic devices not to exceed width of bodywork (fenders, bumpers, doors) when viewed from above. 

 

Then:

 

The maximum width of a wing or splitter is determined by the OE body shape and not by any bodywork added to the car that makes it appear wider. In your case, you cannot include the new fender flares in your measurement and instead must measure from the OE steel fender dimensions.

I had two staff members get hit by wide wings in 2019 and we will not see a 3rd get hit.

Michael Chisek
CEO

 

 

Why not just add "OEM" to the rulebook ?!?!?  

 

This was an issue in 2019, so its not like this is a new interpretation.  

For us, the rules made us widen our fenders for the 10-2 rule.  Now our bodywork, fenders in particular, is wider when viewed from above. We spend several hundred dollars on a new wider wing.  Then we are told to cut it back down to the size of the other one.   I agree with safety and the new ruling, but PLEASE add it to the rulebook.  

 

Just curious, was it your team that had a team member's head sliced open from their own cars giant wing required a trip to the hospital for stitches? I think I read that happened to a team last year, but I don't remember which team it was. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, red0 said:

 

Just curious, was it your team that had a team member's head sliced open from their own cars giant wing required a trip to the hospital for stitches? I think I read that happened to a team last year, but I don't remember which team it was. 

No hospital trip or stitches, but it was a gnarly gash indeed.  As I stated I do support the "rule", I just don't know why there is so much hesitance to add three letters to the rule book which completely changes the interpretation(IE the dimensions that are actually being enforced). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LuckyKid said:

No hospital trip or stitches, but it was a gnarly gash indeed.  As I stated I do support the "rule", I just don't know why there is so much hesitance to add three letters to the rule book which completely changes the interpretation(IE the dimensions that are actually being enforced). 


OK, yea I thought I remembered it being your team. 

 If you want, I can propose to the TAC that we submit a petition to improve how the rule is written: 
 

4.3.2:  Aerodynamic devices not to exceed width of bodywork (fenders, bumpers, doors) 'as originally manufactured' or 'per manufactures specs' 

You too can write petitions to help clarify rules. 

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSe6a6aMT6_KWLSdK-hSWPHwdR0J5vmz83ObSOvzqWQeHhUGwQ/viewform 

Share this post


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

 

So you think 2 points for non-oem manifolds is ok?

 

Tech is not the end all of this series, the rule book is.

Uh, no.  That's my entire point.

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...