Cal Club Autocross Forums

Steve Lepper wrote:
Okay Ed, here you go. Since I have a little bit of experience in this area, let me share some real-world stock chassis dyno numbers with you. These are all stock class legal cars that I have personally tested... in fact, they were all tested on the same dyno at the same facility, so the numbers are very comparable.

NA Miata (1.6): 109 hp.
NA Miata (1.8): 113 hp. (just like yours.)
NB Miata (VVT): 124 hp.

Okay, so where in E street is a 142 hp Miata? Maybe you are referring to rwhp of a a Mazdaspeed, but then where does your 178 hp number come from?

I will agree with you that the Mazdaspeed in that class was a bad decision, but for those of us out west I doubt it will ever be an issue because our courses are so much faster that they will always have the 2nd/3rd gear handicap. In a part of the country where they race on smaller lots, that could be the car to beat.

It is whatever numbers he could come up with to support his case and make it seem more dramatic. Does it really matter if they are factual or not? Its nothing like the 200hp C4 Corvette disparity (205hp 84' VS 405hp ZR1) that has existed in AS (previously SS) for over a decade.

If you have not had a stock class car obsoleted by an SEB you have not been autocrossing very long. When you have had it happen to the same car twice you are a lost cause. :unimpressed:

Marc Leininger wrote:...managed to look back at all the results for the fore mentioned classes and found that the diminishing number directly correlate with the number of new divers in both STF and in STX driving FRSBRZ's. I also noted that up until 2010 Miata's were getting there arse handed to them by about 2 secs in there own class by CRX's and then they finally managed to beat STC cars by a full second and they repeated this in 2011 by a bigger 1.2 secs but in 2012 they fell back behind the CRX's in STS but only by about half a second. And STS did loose to STC by 1.3 secs or so but then in 2013 STS only lost by less than .2s Thats a smaller gap than 1st to 2nd in STC which was 1.1s, soooo......

I'll agree The FRS/BRZ movement is taking place simultaneously... but knowing many of the STC/STS competitors... they haven't jumped to those cars. It's kinda like saying the Westerners in Sochi for the Olympics aroused the Independence interest in the Ukraine a couple of hundred miles away. There taking place at the same time very close together geographically, both have World spotlights on them, but their independent events.

You can't compare Nats times over the years as you have done. I believe all but one of those years, rain played into one class or the other, on at least one day. Temperatures can also really play a difference in Lincoln too. Though I wasn't there yesterday, it would be like someone from Milwaukee looking at our results and seeing the 6 second spanking STS took from STC, could draw the conclusion they are nothing alike. I think it's fare to say, a Nat champ vs.locals played into that difference, but I'm guessing weather potentially had a bigger impact?

Looking at the classes from a different perspective, one that takes many more runs and conditions into perspective. PAX indexes. Of all of the ST PAX indexes, STS & STC are the two most different from each other. How can one argue at the same time, the classes are the same, and should be combined, and so different they need the biggest spread in index of any of the ST classes. Both can't be true at the same time.

Jason Isley BS RX8 wrote:
It is whatever numbers he could come up with to support his case and make it seem more dramatic. Does it really matter if they are factual or not?

Not sure why you seem to want to resort to a personal attack. I have not attacked anyone. Here are some more numbers I've "come up with" to "support" my previous statement...

From Car and Driver, April 2004, regarding the 2004 Miata Mazdaspeed:
“...But here's the best reason ever to buy one: an IHI ball-bearing turbo blowing seven-and-a-quarter pounds of boost into combustion chambers with fractionally reduced compression ratios (9.5 versus 10.0:1). That gives the Mazdaspeed Miata 178 horsepower—36 more than its tamer sibling...”

Regarding the NB Miata, as documented in Wikipedia...
“...The engine compression ratio was raised from 9.0:1 to 9.5:1 by adding slightly domed pistons; the intake cam was changed to a solid lifter design with a stronger cam; the intake runners in the head were straightened and the intake manifold was mounted higher up. Mazda's Variable Intake Control System was introduced, which effectively gave a long narrow intake manifold at low rpm for better swirl, changing to a short, free-flowing manifold at high rpm for maximum breathing. Power output of the new engine was quoted at 104.4 kW (140.0 bhp) with 116 lbf·ft (157 N·m) of torque.”

These figures and this type of information for ALL MIATAS is published EVERYWHERE. I don't know why you seem to contend that it's made up.

Craig Naylor wrote:stuff

You make some good points about the correlation of the items that I found. I did not invest enough time into recording names and following where they went. I was kinda feeling like this is just going to be a natural course of action for SCCA but your comment about how SCCA pax index gets me thinking. I went back and did a real quick calculation on just our club for a reference as far as the gap between STC and STS and found that last year STS only beat STC in one on the events. The average beating that we took was about 1.4 seconds. I'd still like to think that if person competes against a higher level they will achieve that level. But I suppose 1.4 seconds may just to much.

Maybe they'll let STC and STS put LSD diffs in? or figure out a weight penalty system?

BTW I felt that our club times worked better in this calculation based on my memory of the STC guys running at the Same time as STS, at least to the best of my knowledge.

Marc Leininger wrote:I went back and did a real quick calculation on just our club for a reference as far as the gap between STC and STS and found that last year STS only beat STC in one on the events. The average beating that we took was about 1.4 seconds.

STC should win locally over STS. We have multiple Nationally prep cars, and multiple drivers w/ or who should have National Jackets running STC. With no offense intended to any of my local STS competitors, in STS we have (or had) second tier cars with (IMHO) National level trophy fodder driving them. On a 60 sec course I'm happy to be within 1.5 sec of Jeff, Will, Lugod etc. For me to pull that off in my car (prep) vs. there car (prep), in my book, I out drove them on that day.

Marc Leininger wrote:Maybe they'll let STC and STS put LSD diffs in? or figure out a weight penalty system?

I pray this never happens. It will be a one car class (CRX) then. Before STS2 became... I drove a bone stock CRX w/ a Torsen LSD in STX. We got our you know what handed to us vs. the BMW's at the SD Tour. I was still driving the Integra at the time, and had the opportunity to drive the Integra on Kuhmo's back to back with the CRX on Falcon's (I don't recall the size, they were stuffed in the wheel wells but still STX legal) at a local event in SD also. With no alignment, stock springs/shocks ets, the CRX was several seconds faster than the Integra. The CRX was a slot car, mash the pedal, point where you want to go and don't lift. It pulled itself everywhere you pointed it.

As far as averages goes STC tends to have the more talented drivers\builders than STS. When you have 200 people building and working towards the same goal you tend to figure out how to make a car work. In STS you have 2 different engined Miata's 2 and a Honda. The CRX get the benefit of building off the CIvics, whereas the Miata's don't get that benefit.

SCCA doesn't want to assign weight penalties or anything else specific to Solo cars because the results will always be horribly subjective. You can't exactly strap a data box to every car that shows up and expect the same results.

The whole STC\STS is a cluster f@ck no matter how you look at it. Realistically it doesn't matter though, someone is gonna feel their car is an also ran, and gonna complain to the internet protest committee about it.

My thoughts on the matter, I think both of the classes are screwing things up for people who genuinely want to own modern higher powered cars. You cannot buy a competitive high powered FWD or sedan RWD car in any ST class. The way the rules are structured, you can't make a class that's faster than STS with STS rules but slower than STX. Given that cars will never be as light as they were 25 years ago and tire and rim widths are limited nothing will ever be competitive, and the class will dry up when parts become impossible to find.

Bobby Beyer wrote:the internet protest committee

ROFLOL... I don't think I have seen it worded so well before!!!!

Craig Naylor wrote:

Bobby Beyer wrote:the internet protest committee

ROFLOL... I don't think I have seen it worded so well before!!!!

It's likely more predictable and rational than the one at Nationals, ask me how I know.....

Will Kalman wrote:

Craig Naylor wrote:

Bobby Beyer wrote:the internet protest committee

ROFLOL... I don't think I have seen it worded so well before!!!!

It's likely more predictable and rational than the one at Nationals, ask me how I know.....

See Steve over there sitting with his face in the corner? Go sit with him.

Ed Holley wrote: Not sure why you seem to want to resort to a personal attack. I have not attacked anyone. Here are some more numbers I've "come up with" to "support" my previous statement...

From Car and Driver, April 2004, regarding the 2004 Miata Mazdaspeed:
“...But here's the best reason ever to buy one: an IHI ball-bearing turbo blowing seven-and-a-quarter pounds of boost into combustion chambers with fractionally reduced compression ratios (9.5 versus 10.0:1). That gives the Mazdaspeed Miata 178 horsepower—36 more than its tamer sibling...”

Regarding the NB Miata, as documented in Wikipedia...
“...The engine compression ratio was raised from 9.0:1 to 9.5:1 by adding slightly domed pistons; the intake cam was changed to a solid lifter design with a stronger cam; the intake runners in the head were straightened and the intake manifold was mounted higher up. Mazda's Variable Intake Control System was introduced, which effectively gave a long narrow intake manifold at low rpm for better swirl, changing to a short, free-flowing manifold at high rpm for maximum breathing. Power output of the new engine was quoted at 104.4 kW (140.0 bhp) with 116 lbf·ft (157 N·m) of torque.”

These figures and this type of information for ALL MIATAS is published EVERYWHERE. I don't know why you seem to contend that it's made up.

I think you missed the point... Pulling random HP numbers as a basis of not putting cars together is pointless. Particularly when the one with the big numbers has proven slower than the 99'. There are other existing classifications with much bigger HP disparities than what you are listing.

Will Kalman wrote:

Craig Naylor wrote:

Bobby Beyer wrote:the internet protest committee

ROFLOL... I don't think I have seen it worded so well before!!!!

It's likely more predictable and rational than the one at Nationals, ask me how I know.....

Did you remove your undercoating, or mount the sun visor wrong?

Bobby Beyer wrote:

Will Kalman wrote: It's likely more predictable and rational than the one at Nationals, ask me how I know.....

Did you remove your undercoating, or mount the sun visor wrong?

ST (STS, whatever its called this year, its the one with the 89' and 91' Civic ) is the Spec Miata of Solo, its full of man drama.

Bobby Beyer wrote:

Will Kalman wrote:

Craig Naylor wrote:
ROFLOL... I don't think I have seen it worded so well before!!!!

It's likely more predictable and rational than the one at Nationals, ask me how I know.....

Did you remove your undercoating, or mount the sun visor wrong?

The cat was slightly out of the bag.

KJ Christopher wrote:The cat was slightly out of the bag.

Define Cat.

Define bag.

Steve Ekstrand wrote:Define Cat.

Define bag.

And that's why we can't have nice things