Thanks, Tom, that was very informative. Perhaps the overall answer could
well be "lack of development" (of the racing B). Indeed, as a racer, if
your intention is to have the most fun (i.e. "go fast") for the least
bucks, it seems that the current consensus is the Midget.
For street use, I continue to think the better ride, roomier cockpit, and
more distinctive styling of the B (excepting the Bugeye, here), as well
as its superior stock performance are compelling attributes. But (it goes
without saying) IMO, YMMV...
Tom Speed had this to say:
>I also agree that the discussion as to ultimate performance levels is based
>on discussions of theory and or anecdotal comparisons of particular cars.
>
>After racing in SCCA for 25 years with the majority of the time being in
>either a G Production or F Production MG Midget and capturing 5
>Championships (Regional and Divisional, although sadly never the National
>Championship), I may be qualified to offer the opinion that a properly
>prepared to National competition level MGB should out perform an equally
>properly prepared MG Midget. That is why SCCA has continued to place the MGB
>in E Production and the largest engined Midgets in F Production. SCCA puts
>the cars in the various classes based upon performance potential. The
>remaining E Production MGB drivers would love nothing more than to be
>declassed to F Production. I am unaware of any changes to the classes which
>has both cars lumped together into the same class. As to preparation rules,
>they both work out of the same rulebook. The only exception being that the F
>Production Midget was allowed 9" front rotors with MGB calipers many, many
>years ago and the MGB was allowed 1 3/4" SU's. I can testify that the cost
>to prepare a competitive Midget is considerably less than the cost to
>prepare an MGB.
>
>That is the theory part of it.
>
>The reality is that the MG Midgets continue to race in 3 different SCCA
>classes and continue to develop their technology to the point where at the
>1999 SCCA Runoffs the fastest E Production Midget (Joe HuffakerJr.) is
>within a second in lap times to the fastest E Production cars on the 2.25
>mile Mid-Ohio Race Course where the SCCA National Champions are determined
>each year. One problem is that there are very few E Production MGB's still
>competing. Last October, only two came to Mid-Ohio to compete for the E
>Production Championship. In qualifying, little Joe was faster than both of
>them. In fact, the top three Midgets were all faster than the fastest MGB.
>If you back to 1998, there were 5 MGB's at the Runoffs in E Production,
>which may provide a larger sampling of the competition. Unfortunately, 10 of
>the F Production Midgets (again led by Joe Jr.) were faster than the fastest
>MGB.
>
>So who wins the argument? Theory or results? In the case of amateur road
>racing here in the United States, I would have to vote on the Midgets.
>
>Tom Speed
>12431 Lawyers Road
>Charlotte, North Carolina 28227
>
>Home 704-545-4266
>Office 704-573-1366
>Fax 704-573-3291
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-mgs@autox.team.net [mailto:owner-mgs@autox.team.net]On Behalf Of
>Max Heim
>Sent: Monday, January 10, 2000 9:42 PM
>To: MG List
>Subject: Re: Midgets and Sprites
>
>...just to keep the argument going (boy, how I love to tweak those Midget
>guys)...
>
>; )
>
>OK, then would somebody please explain WHY a Midget is so much faster
>than a B in racing form (as you all seem so convinced)?
>
>Both are unit-body roadsters with similar design, construction,
>suspension, aerodynamics, you name it, with iron 4-cylinder pushrod
>motors in a similar state of tune from the factory.
>
>The B is heavier, wider, longer, with a larger displacement engine. The
>Midget is lighter, narrower, shorter, with various smaller displacement
>engines.
>
>Despite the Midget's advantages of low mass and smaller frontal area, in
>stock form it can't touch a CBB in acceleration or top speed. Not even
>close. Neither did it turn appreciably better skidpad or braking numbers
>in contemporary road tests.
>
>So, given the same racing regulations, if you spent the same amount of
>money on a B and a Midget, how would that make the Midget faster than the
>B? Besides the obvious fact that 14 inch wheels and tires cost more than
>13 inch, and other such factors of size.
>
>If that is your claim, you have to demonstrate that either the A motor
>responds much better to special tuning, or that the handling of the
>Midget responds better to racing modifications; or some other
>asymmetrical process of that sort. (Actually, something of the sort is
>plausible, given the minuscule brakes and general directional instability
>of a stock Midget).
>
>My personal guess, based on the data Mike provided (thanks!), is that
>since the cars are currently lumped into the same racing class (as
>opposed to the old days when they were 2 classes apart), the Midget is
>allowed more liberal modifications and/or a weight allowance, in order to
>make it competitive. It would also seem that this handicap is set a
>little too high for the B -- thus making the Midgets "sandbaggers"!
>
>Now it's Mike's turn to disprove this contention...<g>
>
>
>
>--
>
>Max Heim
>'66 MGB GHN3L76149
>If you're near Mountain View, CA,
>it's the red one with the silver bootlid.
>
>
--
Max Heim
'66 MGB GHN3L76149
If you're near Mountain View, CA,
it's the red one with the silver bootlid.
|