 |
|
Seriously, can we please just do this? If there is some great debate about the roof off being this massive performance advantage (I have the data on a spec miata, almost identical lap times), let the rules read that the car either has to run 25 pounds heavy compared to a hardtop, or run at the same weight but have a 25 pound weight bolted to the top of the rollbar. Wouldn’t this fix the problem?
Either way, its time to bring back the vert. Is there a procedure to get this kickstarted?
for the ignorant among us, who is Natalie, and what is the process for rule changes in spec e30…
Here is what I have sent to Natalie (Black).
Hi Natalie:
I asked this question on the forum, and I was told that e-mailing you was how to get the ball rolling on this issue.
I would like to formally request that Rule 10, Appendix C be modified. It currently reads as follows:
I would propose that it read substantially as follows:
Reasoning:
The only reason that I’m told the convertible was outlawed was because of a perceived benefit of less weight up high. I believe the specific convertible in question might also have had a motor that was healthy. At any rate, convertibles make great sense for at least the following reasons:
There is a good supply of cars, available cheap. Recently, there was talk of merging SpecE30 with Spec3 because of a perceived shortage of donor cars. Without commenting on whether a merger makes sense, this adds a lot more cars to the supply.
The weight penalty I propose will outweigh any performance advantage from not having a top. Also, convertible cars pay a huge aero penalty. I have the data, top on and top off, from my Spec Miata if anyone wants to see it.
You can get far better welds on the upper roll bars without a roof interfering with the welding process. Also, big guys like me can add another inch or two to the cage, so it is also safer.
I would respectfully request that you recommend the rule change above. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Scott McKay
I created a survey to help collect opinions. If there is consensus re. allowing the Vert it will help your case a lot.
I took the survey. The funny part is I don’t have any real plan to build a vert, I have two hardtops, but for the reasons I put forth in my rule change request, the vert needs to come back. If it did, I’d probably start looking for one. At 6 foot 4, I really could use the extra room. I don’t give a care less about whatever stiffer fenders they have or whatever. Verts pay a huge aero penalty. Spec miata guys learned this lesson. I have that data somewhere, also. My 1996 SM ran virtually identical lap times top on and top off, but with top off, the car was 50 pounds lighter. At the same weight, the car with the top on was a good bit faster. I think the aero penalty alone is enough, without any weight being added, but I put the 25 pound kicker in my rule request because I know there are some fanatics out there that are just convinced that a convertible is the superfast way to go because some of the weight up top is removed. In reality, the vert or two that everyone hated I believe just had a healthy engine.
At any rate…
Ranger , good idea on survey, but need more options , or the option to check more than one of your choices
Ie I would vote no on convertibles but if you are going to allow then vote 100lbs
Oh great, That’s a sensible suggestion, bring back the vert but give them 100lb weight penalty…Whats up with comment Harper? Why not just limit the vert to 150hp instead.
Last Jan, prior to selling my sedan, I did a side by side test with The Vert that I had purchased but had not yet driven and the sedan that I ran for the past 2 seasons. Weights were within 20#'s. Tires were the same set going between cars, wheel spacers were identical. HP in the Vert was 161, the Sedan, 160-162. After a baseline session, I started bringing up the pace in both cars. Since I was unfamiliar with the little nuances of the Vert, I spent a few more laps with this car. By Lunchtime I was ready to whip things up…I was basically at my limit with both cars and throughout the remainder of the afternoon I was clearly 2-3/10’s quicker in the sedan that I had 2 season on. That said, the seating position in The Vert was not as exact as in my sedan & I knew I would find a bit more time with The Vert by a seat postion change. Just those little things that once dialed in make a difference.
I still made the choice at the end of that test day to keep The Vert for the 2013 season & sell my sedan. No regrets…Was it a better choice…Hard to say…I finished the 2012 season in 2nd place & 2013 in 3rd, so based on that, I should have kept the sedan.
The point to all of this is that adding extra weight to The Vert is BS…Besides the theoretical advantage but no practical advantage the Vert offers, why are you suggesting a 25 or 100# penalty? What is the penalty based on? Like I have stated in earlier posts about “the unfair advantage of The Vert” It doesn’t exist…Ask me how I know…Because I am about the only driver who has competed a season in both cars…Anyone else out there who has raced at least a season with both cars, speak up.
I would also like to know that if The Vert is so fast, why don’t I hold track records at Sonoma or Thunderhill? It clearly isn’t the fastest car in the field…
Bringing the Vert back was suggested as a cheap alternative to good donor cars that are becoming more difficult & expensive to source.
Ranger, I just looked at your survey, why don’t you have “run straight up” as an option. This entire survey is based on the perception that the Vert has an UNFAIR ADVANTAGE. You should probably track the region from which those are voting from. From those results, I would bet that if the top 10 Norcal guys voted, few if any would think there is actually an unfair advantage to the Vert…A few may comment on my HP numbers, but that is now a moot point in 2014.
There is an option in the survey to run the Vert with no added weight.
I created the survey to help Scott McKay. He didn’t seem to care where the voters were from.
I assume the “why are you suggesting…” is directed at me" WTF man? I’m not suggesting anything. You don’t like the poll, make your own poll. All I did was attempt to gather opinions because it might help McKay with his rule change. Remember when our weight was 1750lbs? It was my rule change request that dropped 50lbs and I cited the SurveyMonkey poll as indicating there was wide support.
In order to do make a poll a person has to dream up a variety of answers that will be reasonably close to what the poll-takers are thinking. Not what I’m thinking, what they’re thinking. I’m entirely neutral on this. I have no dog in this fight.
If the “why are you suggesting…” wasn’t directed at me then I apologize and take it all back. If, among the criticisms, you have suggestions on how to make the poll better, then we could change it.
steve, I am not trying to sound like an asshole, although that happens on lot 
and I understand you are convinced they are equal…doesn’t mean everyone else is…
ie: your statistical sample of one (you) driving both cars, was supposed to be sufficient for the rest of us?
so one driver in one car on one track…oh, ok, that sounds reasonable lets go with it?
a. I don’t know you from adam, good driver, bad driver, budget racer, money is no object etc…
b, no clue what region or track you run in, or where you made this " scientific test"
c. while you seem to feel you are the good test driver (you may be, but again see a.) and the cars were equally prepped, I think we all know there is more than weight, hp and tires involved…seat position, alignment, brakes, comfort in the car, track configuration.etc.etc.etc.
c. while you personally may be convinced the convert is equal, there are others, such as myself who aren’t convinced and don’t want to make everyone with a hard top feel like they now need to go find a shop to weld in the braces the converts have…just more money /expenses to feel like a given car is maxed out to the extent of the rules (certainly a bad thing)…just makes the cost of the entering the series higher, this apparently is not a concern for you but is a concern for new people entering the series and for current series participants who would rather spend that money or other stuff to improve their current car (to me this is the biggest reason to not allow them
d. do we really need the converts…is everyone convinced there is a shortage of cars?
I am simply offering a no vote on converts based on the age old principle of
if it ain’t broke don’t fix it…
[quote=“Steve Ferrario” post=75462]Oh great, That’s a sensible suggestion, bring back the vert but give them 100lb weight penalty…Whats up with comment Harper? Why not just limit the vert to 150hp instead.
Last Jan, prior to selling my sedan, I did a side by side test with The Vert that I had purchased but had not yet driven and the sedan that I ran for the past 2 seasons. Weights were within 20#'s. Tires were the same set going between cars, wheel spacers were identical. HP in the Vert was 161, the Sedan, 160-162. After a baseline session, I started bringing up the pace in both cars. Since I was unfamiliar with the little nuances of the Vert, I spent a few more laps with this car. By Lunchtime I was ready to whip things up…I was basically at my limit with both cars and throughout the remainder of the afternoon I was clearly 2-3/10’s quicker in the sedan that I had 2 season on. That said, the seating position in The Vert was not as exact as in my sedan & I knew I would find a bit more time with The Vert by a seat postion change. Just those little things that once dialed in make a difference.
I still made the choice at the end of that test day to keep The Vert for the 2013 season & sell my sedan. No regrets…Was it a better choice…Hard to say…I finished the 2012 season in 2nd place & 2013 in 3rd, so based on that, I should have kept the sedan.
The point to all of this is that adding extra weight to The Vert is BS…Besides the theoretical advantage but no practical advantage the Vert offers, why are you suggesting a 25 or 100# penalty? What is the penalty based on? Like I have stated in earlier posts about “the unfair advantage of The Vert” It doesn’t exist…Ask me how I know…Because I am about the only driver who has competed a season in both cars…Anyone else out there who has raced at least a season with both cars, speak up.
I would also like to know that if The Vert is so fast, why don’t I hold track records at Sonoma or Thunderhill? It clearly isn’t the fastest car in the field…
Bringing the Vert back was suggested as a cheap alternative to good donor cars that are becoming more difficult & expensive to source.[/quote]
Ranger,
My oversight on not seeing the one option about allowing verts in your pole. Must have been that 3rd glass of Cabernet last night that impaired my vision. I looked at the pole choices this morning & saw the option I was looking for. My apologies.
SE 30 aint broke but there are already 2 verts running in the SE…and if I am going to be DQ’d then I will run GTS and maybe win a hoosier…
Now what if we need one more SE30 to make a field??
If the rule doesn’t change, don’t ask me to help out.
I appreciate Ranger pointing me in the right direction for proposing a rule change, is the deadline tomorrow??
Al
If your Vert already has a logbook then your are “Grandfathered in” and are NOT in jeopardy of being DQ’d. At least that is how I am reading into it.
There’s no hard deadline. Altho most rule change discussions seem to occur late in the year, I think it’s really more of a matter of how about how compelling an argument can be made.
Steve, I don’t think Al’s Vert got a logbook before they got sunsetted.
My vert was a race car but only ran one time trial event before the rule change…and it had a Diesel motor…I should have had the logbook done but did not think it was an issue as there was really no discussion on making the vert illegal, at least as far as I remember…
I just tried to find who gets the rule change proposals, could not find any info…Ranger?
Al
I completed the survey and vote FOR Verts.
One reason that was not on the survey is that “they look cool”
Don
I think verts would be great. Do you think the body is really stiffer when you factor in the rollcage and strut brace? Stiffer that would make a difference? I was about to start on one when they changed the rule, and still have the car. I think it would be a blast to have some out there.
Survey results. 46 responses. Bottom line is that one way or another 67% supported Verts racing with us.
37% do not support Verts racing with us.
37% support Verts w/o added weight.
The rest support but only do so with conditions re. adding weight and allowing Vert stifferners.
Those that support Verts do so because:
62% Running out of shells.
14% Ease of cage install
Those that don’t support Verts don’t because:
68% Plenty shells.
32% Perception will always be an advantage to Verts.
[quote=“Ranger” post=75532]Those that support Verts
62% Running out of shells.
Those that don’t support Verts
68% Plenty shells.[/quote]
Looks good. I think the answer lies in somehow determining who is correct in this argument.