Remove MX5 Global Cup cars from EP

kruck":215d81x7 said:
It is quite easy to look up what Global MX5 Cup did at all of the tracks they attended in 2021, and compare that versus what the EP track records are at those tracks. They're barely faster than a top FP car. Kip's Sebring track record was yes, set in a car that has since received a FPR restrictor. When that was set, it barely beat Ira's 240Z's best lap time, which was still several seconds faster than what a Global MX5 Cup car has ran there.

EP has had a spec line for the 16-19 Global MX5 Cup car since 2019. The only difference between a 2019 MX5 Cup car and a 2022 MX5 Cup car is the addition of the sequential trans. ABS has been there the whole time, as has its stock 182hp engine. It's safe to assume that pretty much any of these that have ran in EP since 2020 have been prepped with that sequential trans, and no one noticed until it actually became legal to its spec line. It's not about class philosophy. It's about allowing a production based car that's prepared to another series, but is otherwise close in scope and how it races and sets a lap-time, an additional place to run/test in SCCA Club Racing. However, that place also doesn't allow it to have the outright ability to set a track record or win the Runoffs on pace ability. Additionally, there are spec line allowances all over Prod that are contrary to the general rules.

I just don't get the outrage. They're multiple seconds off of what a fast EP car would run, and it's not like they get their lap time in some crazy weird fashion that doesn't mesh with how a Prod car runs. To say that because it has a sequential trans as part of its total vehicle package, that you should get one too, is ridiculous. Does that mean you also want to give up the 50-90whp advantage a real EP car has over them, to further complete the total package they have ? Doubtful. Those cars had a 112-113mph trap speed at Sebring, which was the same speed that Kennard's FP car ran, with a bone stock trans. Meanwhile the 2nd place EP finisher ran 121-122mph, and a lap time that was two seconds a lap slower. But the sequential trans is the problem? Keep in mind that if a really good EP car had shown up, it would've ran 3-4 seconds faster than this MX5 Cup did.
Click to expand...


I do get the outrage. It's not just about whether this car and this driver is a real or perceived threat to win in EP.

Sequential transmissions and ABS are, up to this point, inconsistent with the culture and philosophy of Production cars.
I'm not a fan of any classification that relies on another rule set outside the PAC's responsibility - whether that's a blanket allowance to run BS/ITB/ITC cars in HP, or Global MX5 Cup cars in EP.

I DO understand allowing IT cars to run in a Prod class if that car is classified in the Prod rule set there. This is extending a smoother transition path to someone that wants to try, or move to Prod, with a legitimately competitive classification available at the end.

I don't understand diluting one of the most attractive elements of the Prod category -consistency- to create a "place to play" for someone in a car that has a current Pro series available to run in.

Just because no one noticed, or protested the ABS before, or the blatantly illegal sequential transmissions before, has no bearing on whether it is appropriate for the class.

These are healthy classes that should be growing through proactive management by the PAC (which it has done for the past few decades, relative to other classes).

Of course to get a little self contradictory - I actually do think some of that proactive change might be in finding a way to accommodate ABS into the rule set. But this is definitely not the same as that.
 
Just a data point.. up until the 2022 thing, the 201x-2019 MX-5 Global cars were listed as a spec line in EP, STL, and T3.

I believe it should not be in Prod because of the technology and philosophy, and it already has two other places to play in club racing in the same small bore run groups.
 
Category philosophy is a dying (dead?) art.

Life will become a lot easier for racers when the entire organization is converted into bracket racing. Build it was fast as you want to spend! Just don't go faster than "X"!

How do you tell when the org is going that way? Right at the moment when people start defending non-conforming classifications using lap times. After all, ensuring "lap times", not prep levels, is exactly what bracket racing is.

So then maybe we can allow, say, a limited prep tubeframe Viper into EP as long as it's restricted to the point where it won't make EP lap times? Wait, no? What, "philosophy"? I thought we got past that whole thing?!? So we'll reject that one because we don't want that in there and "it's not within the philosophy of the class"?

"I don't think that means what you think it does."

Though kinda nice to have it both ways, I admit.
 
Greg - it seems like you are making one point, and then arguing against it.

Where does the limited prep viper analogy fit? It doesn't. Just like the Global MX5 car doesn't.

Maybe we SHOULD create a bracket class. That might be a unique class offering that would attract a different crop of racers, rather than just shuffling them from IT to Prod to STL to T.

But I don't see how that ties to my ask that we be consistent in what we classify in Prod classes.
 
Abs is already allowed in prod if you are running to ITCS specs.

Alternate transmissions are already allowed, it’s just this car shifts like this | instead of |/|/.

SRF just moved to a SADEV sequential box too, I bet a letter with a weight penalty would get sequential shifters approved as long as they are shifted manually.
 
chois":1ghjkqar said:
Greg - it seems like you are making one point, and then arguing against it.
Click to expand...

I think the point was to illustrate the absurdity of the current rules. there's very little consistency, and seems to be at the whim of whoever's reading the request that week.

do you want a P/W or bracket class structure like Global Time Attack, NASA, WRL, etc? or do you want a max prep rule and it's up to the competitor to spend as much as they want making as much speed as they can within that rule?
 
Ah - now I get it.

Sorry Greg, the brain is running slow this afternoon. Yes. I agree with you that when we defend a classification that doesn't fit the category with lap times, it is a big departure from "the norm".

That said - I'm serious that a bracket or PTW category (that isn't Prod) might be a good way to handle these requests if we are hell bent on always saying yes.
 
chois":2cst8j0a said:
Ah - now I get it.

Sorry Greg, the brain is running slow this afternoon. Yes. I agree with you that when we defend a classification that doesn't fit the category with lap times, it is a big departure from "the norm".

That said - I'm serious that a bracket or PTW category (that isn't Prod) might be a good way to handle these requests if we are hell bent on always saying yes.
Click to expand...
that class is basically called Super Touring. ;) damn near anything goes in that class now.
 
the MX-5 Global cup cars have been allowed since 2018 as the spec line for 2016-2018. The 2019 car had a Sequential transmission, it was added in September 2019 Fastack, and there have been no substantial changes to the car since 2019. It's been classed for over 2 years.

The car is not competitive against top running EP cars and while it isn't strictly within the class philosophy, it does give a chance to get extra EP entries for MX5 cup guys who want track time. The car has 181 HP, a sequential gearbox and 2300+lbs...that is way off the mark for hp/weight. The car runs on slicks and is production based.

We already allow IT cars into production to increase numbers and see if the IT folks would enjoy production racing, they are supposed to follow their ruleset, and I'm guessing there are some races where a top level IT car enters, and beats a "prod" car. These cars can have ABS if in from the factory. So that is already there.

I'd love a sequential gearbox in my car, it's relatively inexpensive compared to my prototype dog box i had built, and would have been way more reliable.

But look at the car. 181 hp, 2475lbs is the required weight per the IMSA rules. So it's got a sequential. That's FP type power to weight at best. The bfg tires aren't that great, and they need to be prepped to those rules....

we allow so much stupid shit already...bugeye sprites with late model fronts or late model sprites with bugeye rears, spitfires with 1500's, VW's with gear sets that never came in the car etc etc etc....dry sumps in L2....it's just another spec line and not one i would bother building if i wanted to win.
 
There's been some great counter- and data points presented here to keep the car in the class. However, I'm writing a letter for moving the car out, for a number of reasons - and I'd respectfully ask those with firm opinions to take a look at some other data points:

First, and most importantly, the lap times this car runs are *very* relevant. By that I mean, using other's suggestion that this car is too fast for FP -- The pole time in FP this year at the runoffs was 1:51.0. Assuming the MX5 is too fast for that class, I can assume the fastest drivers would run in the 1:50.xx range. It doesn't take much to see this car would have qualified 4th or maybe 3rd in EP at the runoffs.

Listen I get that's 2.7 seconds off Kip's time at Sebring, and Jesse's time at Indy, but by allowing this car to stay, you're giving the big middle finger to all of us who have sweated and worked hard on engine programs and suspensions for the last number of years. And for what?

Second, two wrongs don't, and never, will make a right. This car is well beyond production philosophy- even the people who want the car to stay are admitting that. "Other stuff that's already against philosophy exists!" is definitely not a reason to just keep piling on. If the SCCA leaves this car in EP, it pretty much gives up any right to tell a competitor something they want is against class philosophy. It's supposed to matter that the people running the class care about the class.

And finally, if the car's already legal (and more competitive - heck maybe a winner?!) in T3, then why does it also need to run in EP? What good does leaving it in EP do for competitors, the rest of us committed to the class, or even the SCCA? From what I can tell, it appears only to be a place to double dip for these cars.

So, we're giving 1-2 MX5 drivers across the country a place to double dip, so we can disenfranchise 28 of the 31 drivers at the runoffs? People who literally have spent tireless hours perfecting their programs -- too bad for you -- so someone can buy a car that doesn't need any programs can come out and podium?

This car has two national classes now - T3 and STU (right?) - Why does it need a third place to double dip where it "isn't competitive" (I would have been happy with a mid 1:50 at Indy.)

Leaving this car in EP is not a good decision.

EDIT: A quick search of the GCR show this car is already legal in T3 and STL. STU would be legal but the tires would have to change.
 
I pretty much agree with what Bill wrote about class philosophy. I will add as
former prod racer and now in T3 this car also breaks class philosophy in Touring.
The place for this car is STU where it fits as long as its required to run on DOT tires.
 
Do any of you happen to have an engine specifications page that you could copy and send to me. I can't seem to locate it on the manufacturers or car builders website. Yes, it's a sealed engine, but I'd like to know the specs for the Runoffs post race inspection. Only thing I saw is it used a Mazda 181 HP 4 cylinder motor with a special ECU.

See, I have no confidence that this car will be removed from EP. But, I do hope you prove me wrong. However, it is seldom that the barn door gets closed after the horse is out.
 
Aaron, did you actually look at these or did you just copy and send to me? Reason I ask is no where in either does it list any specifications for the motors. Even in T3 it doesn't say the bore and stroke. It does say 2000. But, do they use alternate rods, cams, etc. ? As a tech inspector, this leaves me wondering how well I can defend anything that I may find during an inspection. If it's not printed, then what? Call IMSA?
 
FP Racer":g147orsx said:
Aaron, did you actually look at these or did you just copy and send to me? Reason I ask is no where in either does it list any specifications for the motors. Even in T3 it doesn't say the bore and stroke. It does say 2000. But, do they use alternate rods, cams, etc. ? As a tech inspector, this leaves me wondering how well I can defend anything that I may find during an inspection. If it's not printed, then what? Call IMSA?
Click to expand...

I looked at the rules. It doesn’t have the engine specs which is why I gave you the guys who build the cars. They can answer the questions. From how I read the rules it is a stock unmodified engine so the specs would be from the Mazda service manual.
 
Didn't find B & S on last link, further search: Skyactiv 2.0L engine gave: 83.5 mm bore x 91.2 mm stroke, 1998cc. Haven't a clue about more like: cam timing, rods, pistons, valves..... guess you buy a black box and race it....not like prod. rules.... best to find out what seals look like? Deep pocket/wallet racing?

Did find it odd, that IMSA rules spent more time on onboard cameras and paint, than engine info specs. How times changed.

Bob L.

Saw CR 14:1 ? WOW! stout street stuff for available/legal pump fuels....must have lots of magic in ECU....Sunoco race fuels suggest 112 race gas above 12.5:1.....over 110.....
 
Elva":4nozdopw said:
Didn't find B & S on last link, further search: Skyactiv 2.0L engine gave: 83.5 mm bore x 91.2 mm stroke, 1998cc. Haven't a clue about more like: cam timing, rods, pistons, valves..... guess you buy a black box and race it....not like prod. rules.... best to find out what seals look like? Deep pocket/wallet racing?

Did find it odd, that IMSA rules spent more time on onboard cameras and paint, than engine info specs. How times changed.

Bob L.

Saw CR 14:1 ? WOW! stout street stuff for available/legal pump fuels....must have lots of magic in ECU....Sunoco race fuels suggest 112 race gas above 12.5:1.....over 110.....
Click to expand...


Why would they put it in there when they say it’s a stock motor sealed. Get a 2021 mx5 service manual. The real point is that The rules state it has to be sealed from one of 3 places. If the seals are broken then they are out. If they are running runoffs fuel they are out because the rule set requires vpsm100. Our rules say they have to be 100% compliant to their rules. I mean we can go around this all day, but you need to be looking at what their rules say the car needs to have in order to be compliant.
 
I'd guess the reason Jim asked, was as SCCA tech guy he might need to know? Mixing IMSA Rules with SCCA Prod. rules, using seals in the former, might not have much meaning for SCCA tech guy, in the latter. Appears real lack of clarity, with inclusion to prod ranks.

Agree, no reason to beat it to death, I've no dog in this.....just saying....plus passing along what I saw, to answer his comment.

Bob L.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top