Depending on how old you are, opera coupes reek of nostalgia or they just plain stink. Originally opera coupes were designed so that the rear-seat passengers could sit in the coach with their top hats on (presumably going to the opera). And so the canopies of these coupes were tall and elongated, and they put a tiny window in it so occupants could see out, but prying eyes couldn’t see in.

That’s how the story goes, and the styling endured for many years as the five-window coupe. Even into the ’50s the styling was classy, and despite the funky round porthole window, the Ford Thunderbird charmed.

And then suddenly in the 1970s, American manufacturers embraced opera coupes en masse. To name names: Buick Riviera, Chevy Monte Carlo, Chrysler Cordoba and New Yorker, Dodge Charger, Ford Granada and Thunderbird, Mercury Cougar, and Plymouth Gran Fury, among many others (Wikipedia lists about 80 cars with opera windows).

The styling and details varied from different manufacturers, but they all shared an unmistakeable “she’s my sister and my daughter” resemblance. This collection of recessive genes resulted in cars with flat, elongated roofs covered wholly or partially in plush pleather-vinyl, even though they weren’t convertibles. Inset into the C-pillar of that fakery was a window too small to be useful, often with some kind of meaningless symbol.

European manufacturers didn’t jump on the bandwagon, but you can see some of the influence in various cars from that era. By the 1980s, the nostalgia had worn off, and a more futuristic angular styling took over. Consumers were like deer stuck in front of headlights… as long as they were pop-up headlights. And the opera coupes died out.

Against this obvious trend, and the fact that everyone else had stopped making opera coupes, the dubious team of Chrysler and Maserati brought back stupid and begat the T/C in 1986. They consummated this mistake atop the most soulless milquetoast chassis of any era, the Chrysler K-car. To be fair, the T/C was a convertible, so it wasn’t entirely a styling exercise.

At the time, they probably argued who’s name would go first. 600 million dollars later, I’d wager both manufacturers would like to disassociate their names entirely. I wonder who was responsible for the spoiler?

The T/C was the last of the breed, and thankfully opera coupes haven’t made another comeback. But if you squint, you can kinda see the opera coupe shape in a C5 Z06 (ducking). If you put a tiny window in it (ducking and covering), it’s there.

The C5 Z06 roof came about about because Chevrolet wanted something lighter and more rigid than the fastback, and so they made a fixed-roof coupe (FRC) version of the C5 using the convertible body. The C5 FRC Z06 then became their high performance model, and it’s equal to just about any sports car today. And while the opera coupe hard top has more drag than the slippery C5 fastback, the hardtop has less lift, and with a powerful car like this, reducing lift is more important than reducing drag.

To bring this back to Miatas, my friend Cameron built a custom hard top for his NA race car, and it shares some of the FRC genes. I rather like it, and it gave me some ideas.

Miata Opera Coupe?

I don’t race with NASA, but I find their rules intriguing. The ST/TT rules allow you to change the shape of a convertible top, as long as the top doesn’t extend past the forward edge of the trunk lid. Ergo a fastback convertible would not be legal in this series. However, there’s still plenty of room for improvement and rules bending.

The first thing I’d do is elongate the roof, using the shape of the aerodynamic template. I’d boat-tail the sides, but leave the top rather broad and flat at the trailing edge. Miatas have rounded rooflines and this creates lift and also makes air passing over the roof hit the wing at different angles along the entire length of the wing. A flatter wider trailing edge should feed the wing air at a more consistent angle, and with less turbulence.

The longer roofline would result in a nearly vertical rear window. It’s not intuitive, but the worst angle for a rear window is 30 degrees, and the Miata’s is about that. I’d recess the window to create a box cavity, because that should reduce drag as well.

Finally, just like my fastback, I’d make the B-pillar region narrower in the hips than a standard hard top. This would come with a compromise, because in the rain with the windows up, I’m sure a reverse eddy would suck water into the gap behind the window. But I consider damp shoulders a fair tradeoff for a canopy that’s less of a parachute.

As I put those design considerations from my head onto pencil and paper, a shape emerged. Oh shit, here I go bringing back stupid.

Construction

I’ve built several tops, and for all of them I’d say construction isn’t difficult, but it is time consuming. I can make a functional version in a weekend. To make one that also looks good takes fucking forever. It reminds me of something I heard on a boat building forum: “I’m 90% done with the sanding; I’m half way there.”

I started by using the front bow of the soft top frame, so that I can quickly attach it to any NA/NB Miata. I then took a piece of thin luaun plywood and cut slits in the back half of it, and then shoved this under the soft top frame.

Then I made some forms that would allow the plywood to take shape over the roof, and tacked everything in place with brads. I covered the slits underneath with blue tape, then filled the gaps with thickened epoxy.

With that done, the roof would hold its shape enough to sand down the high spots. I did that, then covered the entire roof with a layer of fiberglass cloth. I wasn’t originally going to fiberglass the inside, but then I decided I was going to make it bomber strong, and glassed it. So it’s essentially a surfboard construction, with a lightweight core and fiberglass all around.

I originally swept the sides of the top all the way to the rear of the trunk, as in the pictures above. However, after closely reading the NASA rules, I cut the sides shorter so that no part of the top was further rearward than the forward part of the trunk lid.

Design Elements

The roof is so strong that I started thinking about it as a stressed member, and it occurred to me that I could bolt the roof into the usual spots (windshield frame, behind the doors, and Frankebolts), but I could also attach it to the Hard Dog rollbar. I sourced some rollbar clamps online, put big T-nuts into the roof, and now the roof bolts down in eight locations. This should provide some rigidity to the chassis, and the reassurance that this top is not coming off unless God wills it.

For all of that strength, it’s about the same weight as an OEM top. A lot of the weight in an OEM top is the greenhouse, which provides amazing visibility. This one does not. The rear-view mirror gives a fairly unobstructed view straight back, but if I turn my head, it’s a big ole blind spot. I may have to fix this with, you guessed it, an opera window.

In the end, I feel like I succeed on all counts, but she ain’t much of a looker. Part of that is it looks like an opera coupe! The other part is I suck. I like making aero, but I hate doing the final stages of bodywork. I have no patience for it. My body has decided it doesn’t either, and developed a sympathetic allergy to Bondo. I always wear a respirator, but if I sand Bondo without covering my skin, I break out in hives wherever it’s exposed.

That’s inconvenient, because at this point I’m 90% finished with this top, and I only have a little Bondo and sanding to do before I have it painted. But now I’m like, someone else please finish this for me!

And then it occurred to me… you know what would be even easier than painting it? I wouldn’t even have to finish sanding! That’s right, vinyl. Cover it with fake leather, just like they did in the ’70s. Fuggin opera coupe.

You don’t see a lot of Miatas with aftermarket roofs, so I thought I’d write an article and put them all in one place. There’s a lot of performance to be gained by changing the top, and yet very few people bother. They’ll throw thousands of dollars into time-attack aero, and then use the OEM hardtop. Why?

My DIY fastback reduced drag by 15% and increased rear downforce by 130%. Another way of thinking of that is it made my 60” wing into a 78” wing. Although more accurately, the fastback didn’t do anything at all, it’s the inefficiency of the OEM hardtop that’s the problem. Flow separations and turbulence of the hardtop effectively made my 60” wing behave as a 48” wing, and increased total car drag from .41 Cd to .48. Yuck.

I hope to inspire people to build their own hardtops, so this article ends with some tops I’ve built, and the different ways I went about it. But before I get to that, give me a minute to review the primary design considerations, and show some tops from the aftermarket.

Before we get into this, note that I recently tested the OEM roof versus the CCP fastback in a wind tunnel, and so if you’re after the data (what’s faster, how much downforce and drag do each make), see my Miata Wind Tunnel Report. You can purchase that for $35, and it includes many more tests than just the different tops. I tested hood and fender vents, splitter diffusers, spill boards, tire spats, a spoiler at three different heights, wings, and many other ways to reduce drag or increase downforce.

Design Considerations

To achieve the lowest drag, the canopy should be a continuous curve, gradually getting steeper over its length. The Ecomodder website has a neat tool called the Aerodynamic Template, which allows you to superimpose this shape over your car. I did that in a previous article, let’s see what that looks like.

A roof this long would be impractical, and you just don’t need to. Tapering to a point is not necessary, as there are diminishing returns after about a 1:1 ratio. Meaning if the roof is 44″ wide, the fastback can be 44″ long. This is often referred to as a Kamm back, and you’ve seen it on cars like a Honda CRX.

On many older cars, the rear window is just about flat, and it’s easier to think of the slope of a roof as a single fixed angle, rather than a continuous curve. This backlight angle should be around 12 degrees maximum, because air doesn’t like to change direction at more than that. It’s not intuitive, but the worst angle is 30 degrees (plus or minus 5). Guess what the backlight angle of a Miata rear window is?

Side taper is basically the same thing as backlight angle, just from either side. Each side should taper at a maximum of 12 degrees, any more than that and flow separations occur unless you use strakes, guide vanes or other tricks. If you think about a car going around a corner in yaw, you can imagine that flow separations will occur along the inside side of the car, and so an angle of less than 12 degrees is probably desirable.

Compromises

Knowing that the top should taper to the trunk at no more than 12 degrees, and the sides should taper inward at the same amount, it gives you something to work with. Unfortunately, there are things on a Miata that make this difficult or at least impractical.

• Visibility – Miatas are short cars, and if you follow the teardrop shape, it won’t be easy to see out of the rear window. You may need to compromise with a steeper backlight angle (more drag), or do something like Honda did with the CRX and Insight, and put a small vertical window on the trunk.
• B-pillar – The width of the canopy at the B pillar needs to cover the gap where the convertible top goes. This increases frontal area, exaggerates the parachute effect with open windows, and complicates the side taper (boat tailing) of the canopy.
• Fuel filler The location of the fuel filler is annoying. If you taper the sides at 12 degrees, the sides go directly over the middle of the fuel filler. If the angle is greater than 12 degrees, air won’t stay attached. If you go outside the fuel door, you’ll have to figure out a new fuel filler location.
• Spoiler – Fastback roofs are longer, and so air stays attached longer, creating more lift. You need to balance that out with a spoiler, or if you also do front aero, a wing.
• Trunk – A Miata’s trunk is lower and wider than ideal for a fastback. If you want a functional hinged trunk, it leads to compromises, such as a steeper backlight angle, and a kink in the side taper.

Coupes and fastbacks

I’ll start by reviewing the Miata coupe, because it’s interesting to see how Mazda addressed these design considerations. Then I’ll take a look at a few fastbacks, a couple alternatives to the OEM hard top, and some tops I’ve built.

Mazda Miata Coupe

Mazda only made 179 of these for the domestic market. I won’t delve too far into this, because Motor Trend did a good write up. But I want to point out a few key details.

First, notice they raised the height of the trunk, it’s taller both at the front and the rear. Raising the trunk allowed them to achieve a better backlight angle. (The BMW E30 M3 did something similar, but much less gracefully.) As a practical matter, a taller trunk also means more trunk space.

From behind you can see that the tapering of the canopy doesn’t run the full length of the car, because the width of the trunk opening. This is a difficult area to design around, but they did a nice job fairing this into the fuel door and trunk.

While this isn’t a fastback, and the top is both wider and shorter than ideal, I really like this coupe. If Mazda made these for our market, I’d own one.

CCP Fastback

These seem to be the most popular fastback, and for good reason – they look great, are readily available, and function better than an OEM hardtop.

If I’m going to nitpick it, I feel like it’s too wide at the B pillar, but that’s always going to be the case because of how wide the convertible top is there. The side taper looks a bit steep, but that’s necessary to duck inside of the fuel filler. The side taper isn’t carried in a straight line, because it has to flare out for the trunk opening.

The backlight angle is too steep as well, but that’s because the trunk is too low. A higher rear deck (like the Mazda Miata coupe) would have been better.

All of these details amount to something that looks more kit-car than OEM. But this is about as well as a fastback can be executed on a street car, given the design elements. Well done CCP.

Renderos Racing Longtail

The longtail looks like a longer CCP. It’s not exactly the same, as I see some differences in the B pillar and the rear window, but the general shape and the way it dodges around the fuel cap look similar. I think I understand what they are trying to do, and I like the execution, but I would do it differently.

When using such a long rear extension, your wing overlap won’t be ideal unless you move the wing rearward, and that may create front balance problems. As is, you’ll probably lose some downforce in the shape of the rear wake, which you could get back by increasing wing angle, but that increases drag, which seems the exact opposite of what this is trying to achieve.

I mean, it’s a damn cool fastback, but I think you could achieve the same drag reduction using a short box cavity. That would not only integrate the sides better, but put wing overlap in the quarter-chord range. That would help extract air from underneath the car, which is especially important for a diffuser.

Hardcore Design Fastback

Panos of Hardcore Design is making new fastbacks in Greece. I’ve seen a couple of his designs, the first looks a bit like the CCP, but the trunk hinge is carried all the way to the roof. I like it better, it’s not only a cleaner look, but better for trunk access. You might also notice that it’s a targa top. So cool!

There’s a very aggressive side taper at the quarter windows, and I suspect there’s some turbulence here, right around the location of the fuel cap. Not much you can do about that without relocating the fuel neck. But the rest looks awesome, and I especially like the shape and size of the spoiler.

Panos was making these to order, and there was a group-buy at one point. Good luck to him, and I hope he can keep the customers that were invariably burned by global shipping during the pandemic.

Lightyear Fastback

The Lightyear fastback is nice looking, with a large trunk opening that breaks cleanly at the rear window. The side taper looks good, and the backlight angle is a bit too steep because they are trying to get the height of the trunk lid the same as stock. It looks very sleek, but needs a spoiler.

3D printed

If you have a 3D printer or know someone who can print stuff for you, you can make a 3D printed fastback. The files will cost you $100, and you’ll need various other parts like fiberglass, epoxy, window seals, Lexan, and the know-how to put all that together. All told you’ll be $400 into it, but it’s the labor that is the killer.

I’d guess there’s at least 100 hours here, with lots of head scratching the small details. Because you’re glassing the topside and not working off a plug, there will be a lot of fairing. As I often say when I’m doing bodywork, “I’m 90% done with the sanding; I’m half way there.”

The top itself looks like a Lightyear, both in the way the trunk line comes to the rear window, and the way the roofline ends before end of the trunk lid.

If you’re considering building one of these, there are lots of details on the Hutchins Racing YouTube channel. If you haven’t worked with fiberglass and epoxy before, you’ll make some mistakes and go through probably twice as much glass and resin as a professional would. Still, this is a worthy project and I may yet build one for a street car.

Monocraft

This is a very rare body kit from Japan, there was one for sale recently in the US, but it might be the only one. This is a full body, not just a roof, and there are trick details all around it.

The roof is quite wide, as is necessary to seal the windows, and they’ve thrown in Opera Coupe style rear quarter windows.

This top shows some of the shortcomings that you need to design around if you want to build your own top. You’ll notice they had to relocate the fuel door, and the trunk does not appear to be functional.

Hardtop Alternatives

There are a couple hardtop alternatives that are similar to OEM and use the stock trunk. They both have the same shortcomings as a standard hardtop being, short, wide, and with less than ideal angles for drag and flow separation.

The price of used OEM hardtops now regularly exceeds $2000, and so there’s definitely room for some alternatives tops, even if there is no performance advantage.

Smoothline

Smoothline makes a replacement top that’s priced economically. The shape isn’t much different than OEM, but there are two rear window options, and the smaller of the two looks pretty cool. Honestly though, one of the best things about the OEM hardtop is visibility, and the smaller window would be a lot like the convertible window. But they also have a vinyl top option, which is like a convertible top pulled tight. Neat.

Based on the dimensions of the Smoothline top, I’d expect it to function very similar to OEM. There’s nothing to be gained aerodynamically here, but it’s visually interesting.

Garage Vary

I like this top. I don’t know what the backlight angle is, but they did their best to reduce it. The top of the rear window is dropped slightly, and they used as much of the rear deck as possible while retaining the stock trunk.

The sides are longer also have a more gradual taper, and I bet there’s less separation on the sides of the canopy. I was inspired to build my own version of this top, which I call the TT, more on that below.

I’m not a fan of vortex generators, because in my testing, they created drag and ruined downforce of the wing. So when I see a picture like the following, I die a little inside. You don’t need vortex generators on a curved surface! However, these vortex generators are fake and do nothing.

But I have to give them a shoutout for putting the rear window vents in the correct spot. I often see window vents at the base of the window, which is a high pressure zone. Placed there, air goes in the cockpit. Placed correctly at the roofline, air is extracted from the cockpit.

Tops I’ve built

I build fiberglass-wood composite boats, and building a hardtop is similar. When I build them, I like to experiment with construction methods, and so they are all a bit different.

Original chop top

I built a chop top on my first Miata. Construction was strips of wood, epoxied together which I covered with vinyl. Look closely and you can see the longitudinal strips of wood underneath the black vinyl.

The rear window was a clear vinyl sheet, grommeted and tied to the rollbar. The top didn’t keep the rain out, but that was OK because I was living in California at the time.

Fastback V1

My first fastback design started as a Treasure Coast (CCP) Chop Top, to which I grafted on a rear canopy made from thin skateboard laminates and fiberglass.

The rear hatch was hinged so I could get to the battery, and the entire top weighed (I think) 14 pounds. The main problems were that the large Lexan windows got dinged for too many points in Champcar, and the whole assembly consisted of too many parts. It was rather complex to put on and off.

Fastback V2

My second version is built on top of the first, creating one solid structure rather than a pivoting trunk. The battery has been relocated to the engine compartment, so there’s no need to get into the trunk now, anyway. The top uses the front bow from a soft top frame, and bolts down to the Frankenbolts in the rear, and so this top can be put on just about a NA Miata in a couple minutes. (NBs have a slightly longer trunk so I don’t think it’ll fit.)

Fabricating this as one piece meant using more fiberglass and metal than V1, and now it weighs about the same as an OEM hard top. But that includes the trunk, and so it’s about 12 lbs lighter than an OEM top/trunk combination. But light weight wasn’t the concern here, it was to simplify, reduce window size, and decrease drag.

Some of those improvements include rounded B-pillars like NASCAR stock cars, a drip edge above the window for rain and to keep air from curling under, a slightly smaller window opening for less air intrusion, and rivnuts in the trunk so that I can quickly attach spoilers of various heights.

I also removed the quarter window on the driver’s side, as it was useless anyway, and reduced the size on the opposite side. The rear window got 1/3 of it taken out. The window size reductions were done in case I ever race Champcar again, who penalize 3 points per square foot of plastic. As it sits now, the top comes in at 22 points, and half of that is the rear window.

<rant>C’mon Champcar, just make any roofline or rear window modifications 10 points, which is the same as other aero mods. This will speed up tech, and it’s just plain silly how many of your cars have no rear windows because of the points penalty.</rant>

Keen eyes will note that Fastback V2 has a lower trunk lid than V1, which is something I complained about on other people’s fastbacks. This is because V2 is designed to work with underbody aero, an area I’ll be testing at some point

Shooting brake (breadvan)

I like hatchbacks for their utility, and as a hunter, I like shooting brakes for their history. I’ve always wanted to build one and sketched up a plan.

After seeing this picture of a Ferrari shooting brake, I wanted to build one for a Lemons theme. We were going to serve pizza out of it during the race.

The construction method was different than the fastbacks, being more like a strip-built canoe. I took a 2×4 and cut it into narrow strips on my table saw, then laid them down longitudinally to create the shape.

I then tacked it in place, filled the gaps with epoxy, and covered the top with fiberglass fabric. The sides were mocked up in cardboard and transferred to plywood.

I completed the top but never raced it because I got Lyme disease and shit all over myself.

Functionally, a top like this should have less lift than a fastback, but it might have more drag due to the larger rear wake. If you mount a wing, the wing stands need to be tall and/or rearward, as there will be interference with the low pressure zone under the wing. This is conjecture; I need to test this one against other tops.

I still have the top and want to race it at least once before I give it away to a Lemons team that wants to run that theme. Or I’ll turn the top into an enormous duct to feed a wing.

Opera coupe

If you don’t know what an opera coupe is, then you’re probably from a later generation than I am. As a kid, I saw these everywhere and they are nostalgic. If you aren’t from my era, you can call them what they are: ugly.

I wanted to build one, not for the look, but to fit some design considerations. The NASA ST/TT rules allow you to change the hardtop on a convertible, but the rules state that the top must end before the trunk begins.

I thought about that and started drawing a top with a roofline that stopped just short of the trunk opening. I swept the sides longer with a gradual taper to the trunk opening. Stepping back I said, shit, this looks like a 70s Supercar. A Pantera, M1, or 512 Boxer had that shape because of a mid engine, but it might work on a Miata, and unlike the Monocraft top, left a functional trunk besides.

I got about 75% finished building it and then realized that some rules-lawyering jerk would say that the sides of the roof extend past the front of the trunk. So this top would be illegal. It would have been cool, tho, kind of like a Lancia Scorpion.

But to be compliant with rules, I cut the sides at the forward trunk opening and found I’d suddenly built an opera coupe.

I have a long write up on this one, and will share that in the future.

TT Top

This roof is my second attempt to bend to the NASA rules, which state the top must end before the trunk begins. The problem with that stipulation is that the backlight angle is going to be about 25-30 degrees.

I measured the angle from my rollbar to the trunk opening, and it’s about 25 degrees. That’s as much as I can reduce the backlight angle, and I’d like to get the angle close to 20 degrees, as it would have a lot less drag.

To reduce the backlight angle, you have to figure out some way to drop the height of the roof or raise the front edge of the trunk. I did both.

I chose to drop the height of the back window by putting a vent at the roofline. My thinking was twofold: 1) the vent would extract air from the cockpit, and 2) the extracted air would then “fill in” the gap to the rear window.

I also created a small gap at the bottom, which should hold a recirculating air bubble there, making a taller transition to the trunk. (I hadn’t filled in the bottom gap in the following pic, I definitely don’t want a vent here!)

I haven’t finished this one yet, as I’m skeptical that it’s worth it. The top is a bit narrower than an OEM hardtop, and the sides should have less turbulence because they are more gradual. I have no idea if the roofline vent will work, because the cabin air is low velocity (and there’s a rollbar in the way), so it may not fill in that rear window region very well.

But it looks interesting, was fun to build, and is a good conversation piece. For someone who is above the pounds per horsepower limit and can spare the .4 lbs/hp penalty that a custom top brings, it might be worth trying.

What else?

If you know of any other aftermarket Miata fastbacks or hardtop alternatives, drop me a comment and tell me about it. If you make your own, I’d love to see it.

I’m hoping to be able to do a lot more testing this year, but hardtops are just one of several things I’m interested in. So if you’re doing a track day or racing at Watkins Glen and want to A/B test one of my tops, contact me, I need the data. I’m about 25 miles away from WGI and can set you up pretty quickly.

I don’t write mainstream automotive content. I’m technical, confrontational, and have no allegiances to manufacturers, organizations, or anyone in the motorsports industry. I drop the occasional Fuck-Bomb, and when I’m feeling really spicy, I might threaten my readers with a dick punch. This doesn’t make me particularly attractive as an automotive journalist. Which is fine because I’m not really a journalist, and writing about car aerodynamics is a fucking hobby.

Why am I telling you this? Because 18 months ago I had an agreement with Hagerty, who said they would syndicate the articles on my Occam’s Racer website. Hagerty wants to sell track insurance and promote events on motorsportsreg.com, so they created a new website aimed at track enthusiasts, and they recruited me to be an integral part of that.

My role was to tighten up the content I’d already written on racing, testing, and aerodynamics, and to create net new material of the same. (TBH, I was once a motorcycle journalist and I was secretly hoping they’d get me back in that game, as well.) I’d be paid handsomely, and get to expense things like tires, fuel, and track days. In preparation for that, I locked down a lot of my website so they could publish my articles as if they were new.

After a year and a half of rewriting and waiting patiently, Hagerty has pulled the plug. They published one of my articles in a “soft launch,” but won’t be syndicating the rest of content.

I didn’t pester them during that year and a half, so I don’t know all of the details on why the deal fell through, but reading between the lines, it seems like upper management regularly fucked with the website team. As they do. This delayed the launch by over a year, during that time there were significant changes in design, strategy, and staffing.

The end result was me without the deal I was promised. I have a signed contract, and a litigious person might go after compensation, but I’m not that guy. I can go right back to doing what I was doing before and be happy with that. And honestly, it was nice to be noticed and appreciated by a real journalist, so I’m thankful.

Which brings me to the other reason the Hagerty deal fell apart, which is that I was recruited by Jack Baruth. In the small pack of automotive journalist who are worth following, he’s my alpha dog. To other automotive journalists he’s not so much pack leader as lone wolf. Jack is an iconoclast. A shit disturber. A ruffian. Obviously he’s my people. Or vice versa?

I was gobsmacked that Jack wrote for Hagerty to begin with. Hagerty’s readership is geriatric white guys buying vintage cars at ridiculous prices; auctions and concourse are their bread and oleo. That Hagerty kept Jack on for so long is surprising, considering that when Jack wrote about air-cooled Porsches, his primary appeal was nailing chicks on the hood of the car.

It wasn’t all raunchy, most of Jack’s writing was spot-on, unbiased automotive journalism. But after too many years of dropping truth bombs on the automotive industry, Hagerty fired Jack. And if I believe what he’s saying in his sig, he’s been blackballed by most of the automotive industry.

When I’d heard about this, I had immediate feelings of solidarity on the order of, “fuck this, I’m going with Jack.” But Jack isn’t bringing me anywhere. In fact I’ve heard nothing from him. Which is not unexpected, he’s got problems of his own.

And when it comes right down to it, I have to look out for myself. I’d like to get paid more than a cup of coffee for an article. A byline writing for an online magazine is still a feather in a cap lacking plumage. And damnit, some of my articles are worth syndicating! But that’s out of my hands.

Which is good news for you, reader, as I have now unlocked the articles on my site. Some of the content will remain password protected because it cost me time and effort to obtain the information. Moreover, some people in the past year and a half have decided that my articles are worth paying for, and so I’ll continue to give them some exclusivity.

You can get the password to all the articles for five bucks, by buying me a cup of coffee virtually, or buying me a beer in person (something hoppy, nothing Belgian). I also take donations if you appreciate highly independent “journalism”, or are just feeling generous.

Even though I’m feeling snubbed, I want to wish Hagerty good luck with their new Imola website, which is aimed squarely at the club-level racers and track enthusiasts I call friends. The website could turn out to be a great resource, even without my involvement. And I have to thank them for the article they printed, and buying me the equivalent of a thousand coffees; it pays for a lot of gas and tires.

I don’t know if Hagerty will print another article of mine in the future, but I’m not waiting on that any longer. I have some great content I’ve been sitting on, including another DIY wing, a bizarre opera coupe top, and several hours of consultations with Mercedes F1 aero engineer Kyle Forster. You can also look forward to more real-world testing in 2023, and now that I seem to have kicked Lyme disease, maybe some race reports.

Lastly, if you’re a Jack Baruth fan, you can help him out by subscribing to Avoidable Contact Forever, which contains everything he wrote for Hagerty, plus lots of new content without fetters. Or filters. I’m going to warn you straight up about the Rodney stories… they are not for everyone.

Addendum: After reading this post, Jack wrote a public apology on his site, and even better, invited me to try his Radical. What he said about the one article of mine that Hagerty printed, I’m hanging onto forever: “It’s brilliant, and it contains more intelligent thought about how to go faster via aero mods than pretty much all of the rest of motoring journalism combined.” So, yeah, that felt pretty fucking good.

This is a departure from my usual articles on Miata aerodynamics and DIY, to pay tribute to a MotoGP rider I’ve been following for several years, Aleix Espargaró.

I first became an Aleix Espargaró fan in 2014. I was only dimly aware of his accomplishments before that time, but it was his teaming up with Colin Edwards that brought Aleix into focus. 

You see, I was really a Colin Edwards fan, starting way back in his AMA days. But it was his 2002 World Superbike title that made him a legend. Troy Bayliss had won the first six races, and won another five straight later in the year. In order to win the title, Colin had to win the last nine races in a row! Against all odds, against a dominant Ducati-Bayliss pairing, Colin did it.

So when Colin moved to MotoGP, I followed closely. His career had its ups and downs (nothing more down than catching fire on the Aprilia Cube), and it wasn’t always easy to be the biggest fan of a racer who never won a MotoGP race. From 2003-2014, Colin got a dozen podiums, but not a single win. 

In 2014 Colin was towards the end of his career and moved to Forward racing, and was getting regularly beaten by his teammate. When that kind of thing happens, you either hate on them for making your idol look bad (ahem, Jorge Lorenzo), or you begin to respect them. I was on the fence of how I felt about Aleix Espargaró. 

It was Colin’s support of Aleix that did it for me. First, loaning him his backup bike when Aleix had stacked both of his, and then a single word from Colin, when he tweeted: “Aleix!” after the Spaniard’s stunning pole position. Seeing Colin’s approval of his teammate, I began to follow Aleix. Of his many underdog accomplishments in 2014, his battle with Danny Pedrosa at Assen was the most memorable. 

Since 2014 I’ve been rooting for Aleix, and it was a lot like rooting for Colin. No wins in MotoGP, year after year. Underperforming bikes, then a factory Suzuki, then moving to Aprilia, it’s been a rocky road.

Many people have questioned why Aleix still had a ride, seeing as he’d never won a race, and you can count the number of podiums he’s had on one hand, without using all your fingers. The fact is, it’s really hard to evaluate a rider who’s not on top-notch machinery, or is developing a new bike.

What most people don’t know is that Aleix has outscored every teammate he’s ever had: Mikka Kalio, Axel Pons, Randy De Puniet, Colin Edwards, Scott Redding, Maverick Vinales, Andrea Iannone, and Bradley Smith. Maverick outscored Aleix in their second season at Suzuki together, and so they are 1-1, but Aleix has the upper hand against everyone else he’s been teamed with, on identical machinery, some of them World Champions. 

When you beat your teammates, they don’t stick around for long, and it’s been a revolving door next to Aleix, with very little consistency or support developing the Aprilia. He’s not one to badmouth a teammate. I can recall many times he’s come to the defense of his partner, spoken highly of their progress, and supported them retraining their rides. But despite Aleix’s excellent record against teammates, he was still winless.

After beating Jimmy Conors in 1980, Vitas Gerulaitis famously quipped “Nobody beats Vitas Gerulaitis 17 times in a row.” That is perhaps the most famous quote in tennis. Yeah? How about getting beaten 199 times in a row? 

Last Sunday, on Aleix’s 200th MotoGP start, he got pole position, set the fastest lap, and won his first GP race. Motorsports is full of great stories, and the comebacks are the best. Colin Edwards in 2002, Nicky Hayden in 2006, and now let’s add Aleix Espargaró in 2022. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves, because it’s a long season, with the closest field in history, but three races in, he leads the world championship. 

As a MotoGP fan, I went from pulling for Colin to Aleix, from one winless rider to another. I’ve spent 19 years supporting the underdog, and my poor wife has had to endure listening to me rooting for the winless for way too long. That’s over now.

I feel like this wasn’t just a win for Aleix, but for everyone still trying to get that first magic first. I’m not alone in recognizing Aleix’s amazing accomplishment. Sports fans across the globe have wished Aleix congratulations. As legendary commentator Nick Harris put it, “There has never been a more popular winner in the 74-year history of Grand Prix racing.”

Enhorabuena Aleix, you had this coming.

If you haven’t read my previous post on Low Speed Wings, I came up with the following design parameters for low-speed:

• Massive chord – Wings don’t perform well at low Reynolds numbers. At the speeds cars travel, the larger the chord, the more efficient a wing is.
• High lift at low Re – I’ve chosen the Selig 1223 RTL airfoil because it has the highest lift. Drag is of no consequence at low speed, and so I can set the wing to maximum angle of 15 degrees.
• Mass centralization – I’m designing this wing for low speed race tracks which are all about quick changes of direction. If you think about it, wings are located in the worst possible position for this; high, wide, and at the polar end of the car. Increasing the chord and making the wing narrower goes hand in hand toward mass centralization.
• Size — I’ll mount the wing by screwing into the ends, and with wing stands in the trunk gutter, that’s a wing that measures 41″ long. I’d like to keep the size under 700 square inches, so that’s a maximum of 16.5″ chord.

Getting the wing profile

1. Start on the Selig 1223 RTL page and click Send to Plotter.
2. Change the Chord to 406mm; this is 16″.
3. Set the pitch to -10 degrees. This is optional, but I like to see a wing with some realistic rake to it.
4. Select the checkbox for Reverse so you can see the wing right side up. Optionally select Camber line.
5. Click Plot.
6. Click Download PDF file.
7. Print it out.

Making the wing

I put the airfoil printout on a piece of plywood and cut it out on a band saw, then replicated that a few more times. If I end up building more, I’d do them all on a router and save myself a bunch of time, but the bandsaw is ok for jobs like this.

I assembled the forms, which are called ribs in airplane construction, and made a couple cross pieces, which are called spars or stringers. The front is a wood dowel screwed into the end ribs. I epoxied all of this together.

I then covered the frame with a thin layer of plywood. I used a single laminate of maple, but any veneer would do. Heck, cardboard might work, this is just to give it shape and hold the glass.

Then I glassed the whole thing with 6oz fabric. I made some mistakes. One is I thought it would be clever to fill the void inside with expanding foam. Well, that really swelled up inside and broke through the plywood, which I had to patch with fiberglass. I made some other small detail mistakes, and if make another, it will be easier and lighter.

Even with some silly mistakes the wing is light. I weighed the wing before fiberglassing and it was exactly 5 lbs. After glassing, filling, and fixing mistakes it weighed a little over 6 lbs. Thats 40% of the weight of an aluminum wing with the same plan area.

End plates

A wing this big should ideally have enormous end plates, but I wanted to keep them under 144 square inches, because some racing rules regulate to that size. I had some scrap street signs 18” wide, so to simplify things, I used that as the main dimension. I set the top of the end plate level with the camber of the wing, to make setting wing angle easier.

For the bottom shape, if I’d made the end plates rectangular, they’d be 8” deep. Instead I put a slight angle on the bottom edge to put more area at the front of the wing, where there’s more negative pressure, and so they are 9.5” at the forward edge and 6.5” at the rear. I rounded the corners to avoid cuts, and they measure somewhere under 144 square inches now.

My local scrap yard sells aluminum street signs for $1 per pound. Most street signs are made out of .064” aluminum, which weighs .9 lbs per square foot. And so the end plates, which are also the wing mounts, add 1.8 lbs to the wing and represent $2 worth of material.

The wing is held up by the end plates, so these need to be super strong. So I screwed them into the sides of the wing with five screws on each side and epoxied them on for good measure.

Gurney flap

All wings should have Gurney flaps, especially low-speed wings. On airplanes the guideline for height is is 1-3% of the chord, with low heights offering better efficiency and taller heights making more lift. On cars you often see larger wickers, and 5-10% is not uncommon.

I bought a piece of angle aluminum which is 3/4″ on one side and 1/2″ on the other. This means I can reverse the wicker, to use either height (which corresponds to roughly 5% and 3% chord). I installed it with screws through the top, since the pressure side of the wing doesn’t matter much.

I found some data on Gurney flaps on the Selig S1223 wing, and you can see they are quite effective.

Flap height	Cl
None	2.25
1.04%	2.36
1.56%	2.34
2.08%	2.43
3.12%	2.46
4.17%	2.52

Finishing details

The total dimensions are 41″ x 16″, or 656 square inches. It weighs 9.2 lbs with end plates and Gurney flap, ready to bolt up. It cost me all of $40 in materials, and probably 8 hours building it, but some of that time was fixing mistakes. I decided to leave it unfinished rather than paint it. I can see all the mistakes I made, and this will serve as a reminder of how not to do it next time.

The end result is a very narrow wing, with an absurdly large chord. It’s definitely unusual looking! So how does it work?

Testing

To test the wing I had my teammate Alyssa Merril A/B test this versus a 64″ 9 Lives Racing wing at New York Safety Track. This was the same day she, Mike, and Chris set Miata track records. Alyssa went .3 seconds faster on the 9 Lives Racing wing, noting that the high speed sections gave more confidence. After digging into the data, the wings were actually very evenly matched except for the fast esses here:

Here’s data from sessions 30 minutes apart, and so fairly similar track conditions. I chose the three fastest laps for each wing, since there was some traffic and other noise in the data. Lateral Gs on top, and the typical speed trace and time graphs on the bottom.

• The Selig wing had less drag and consistently went to a higher top speed than the 9 Lives wing. Not expected.
• The low speed corners, where the Selig was supposed to work better, actually show slower min speeds. Not expected.

So the low-speed wing is actually a low-drag wing? That’s what it looks like. Aero often throws you curve balls, this one is going to take some more investigation. From the wing visualizer tests I did, I know that the Selig wing isn’t benefiting from the undisturbed air at the ends of the wings, and so basically all the air hitting the S1223 is turbulent, and with a standard Miata hardtop roof shape, a wider wing works better. I have a new hardtop that’s designed to reduce turbulence and feed the middle of the wing, but more on that some other time.

Sports Car Club of America (SCCA) has finally gotten into the budget endurance racing game. They are late to the party; 24 Hours of Lemons, American Endurance Racing (AER), Champcar Endurance Series, Lucky Dog Racing (also in Canada), NASA TREC, World Racing League (WRL) and others have been partying in this space for a while.

My brother and I are working on a blog post that compares SCCA Enduro Nationals to all of the other endurance racing organizations, and we’ll publish that on You Suck at Racing sometime in the near future. But I wanted to specifically talk about Miatas, and where they fit into SCCA’s new enduro ruleset.

Classing Rules

The SCCA classing rules are based on your car engine’s displacement, which determines its initial class, fuel capacity, tire width, and race weight. There are four classes, E1 to E4:

	E1	E2	E3	E4
Displacement (liters)	6.2	4.5	2.9	1.9
Fuel (gallons)	20	17	15	14
Tire (width )	295	255	245	225

Your car takes additional modifiers to its displacement for the following:

• Drivetrain – A turbo doubles your displacement, and there are other minor modifiers for transmissions, etc. However, engine swaps and tuning is free.
• Weight – Car weight may adjust the figured displacement up or down .5 liters. If your car is unusually heavy, it will get more displacement; if it’s too light, it gets less.
• Suspension – Adjustable suspension, either valving or height, adds .5 liters displacement. If you have modified suspension pickup points, add 1 liter. I guess that means you take 1.5 liters if you have both, ouch.
• Aero – A splitter or wing adds .25 liters displacement each. Aero is a somewhat grey area, I go into that in more detail.

There’s a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet/calculator to make things easier (download), but you should probably also read the full PDF. The rules are really quite simple once you wrap your head around the fact that it all revolves around displacement. I’ll go into some more details on these, as it relates to Miatas.

Engine

Engine tuning is unlimited, which means a Spec Miata with a stock 1.8 engine is classed the same as a hot-rodded NB2 with cams and ITBs putting out 180 hp. Likewise, engine swaps are open. The rationale is because a more powerful engine burns more fuel, which requires more pit stops, and since fuel tank size is limited, this should make the cars even on speed over the course of a 6-8 hour race. Ahem. If you say so.

Turbos double the displacement, so a 1.4 Fiata is evaluated at 2.8 liters, a 1.6 turbo becomes a 3.2 liter engine, and a Mazdaspeed Miata is 3.6 liters.

Rotary engines are a 250% modifier. Thus, a 1.3 liter RX8 comes in at 3.25 liters and 3250 lbs. That’s a bit unjust for the 238 hp the engine puts out. I would have used the same modifier for both turbo and rotary, which would make the 1.3 into a 2.6, and a race weight of 2600 lbs, which is a lot more realistic than 3250 lbs.

For a Miata, the smart money is on the highest output, lowest displacement, normally aspirated, non-rotary engine you can swap in.

Weight

A car’s minimum weight (which is with a full fuel tank but without the driver) is based on the engine displacement, plus any drivetrain modifications at a rate of 1 lb./cc. In other words, if you have a 2.5 liter car, your race weight is 2500 lbs. There’s a minimum weight cap at 2,000 lbs, so all OE-engine Miatas (1600cc to 2000cc) are going to start at one ton.

Most Miata endurance racers are heavier than 2000 lbs, and so you’ll get some points back for being over the weight limit. You get .1 liter back, for every 50 lbs over the weight, to a maximum of .5 liters. For example, if your Miata weighs 2200 lbs (full tank, no driver), you’ll get .1 liter per 50 lbs, or a total of .4 liters back. Your 1.8 Miata is now a 1.4 liter Miata.

Aerodynamics

Aero also adds to your displacement, you must add .25 liters for a splitter or a wing (each). If you read further into the aero sections, there are some grey areas and unknowns. Section 3 states “The following aerodynamic modifications may be subject to modifiers in the class table” and then lists definitions for airdam, splitter, and wing. Let’s take a look at Section 3 in more detail:

a. Front Air Dam/Spoiler

An air dam is defined as such:

• i. Shall be mounted to the body and may not protrude more than the thickness of the material (0.5” limit) beyond the overall outline of the body when viewed from above, perpendicular to the ground, or aft of the forward most part of the front fender opening.
• ii. Openings are permitted for the purposes of ducting air to the brakes, cooler(s) and radiator(s).
• iii. An undertray may be added. The undertray may close out the area from the leading edge of the bodywork (including the spoiler/air dam) back to the forward most part of the front fender wheel opening.

I understand what an airdam is, what I don’t understand is why they bother to define it? I can’t find a displacement modifier anywhere in the rules or the Excel calculator, which leads me to believe airdams are free. But if that’s the case, why dedicate a section to it and say that airdams “may be subject to modifiers in the class table”?

Many racing rules allow for some variance in angle of the airdam, but SCCA Enduro rules do not. You can’t use your 4.5-degree NASA-legal 9 Lives Racing angled airdam in the SCCA Enduro Nationals.

b. Splitter

The splitter rules seem pretty straightforward, and apparently allow “underbite” style splitters for free.

• i. A splitter (horizontal, single plane aerodynamic device attached to the lower front of the vehicle, protruding forward) may be added to divert air and produce downforce through vertical pressure differential.
• ii. Splitters shall have no vertical deviations and may protrude three (3) inches from the forward points of the front bumper, and be no wider than the outside edge of the front wheels when pointed straight.

Note that a splitter is defined slightly differently in the general rules, but you have to dig to find it. Within section 1.1, Classes; sub-section C, National Class Table; sub-sub-section 5, Adjustments; sub-sub-sub-section C, Aerodynamic: “Front splitter extending beyond the front bumper as viewed from above: Add 0.25L.” If I’m reading this correctly, then this picture below is not a splitter.

c. Rear Wings

Wings are limited to a single-element, 720 square inches. Wings must be completely contained between the rear axle center line, the sides of the vehicle and rear‐most point of the rear bumper as viewed from above. The height of a the wing varies by body type. On a Miata, the wing may not be higher than windshield or hardtop, whichever is higher.

Missing aero???

The intention of the rules is to allow people to build the cars they want, but by not mentioning various popular aero items, it’s confusing. Are they free or are they outright illegal? Where do the following items go?

• Spoiler – A spoiler and a wing are not the same thing. Is a spoiler free, or does it count as a rear wing?
• Canards and vortex generators – Mostly worthless, but some people use them. If your car has them, what happens?
• Underbody – Side skirts, flat bottom, diffuser… are they illegal? If they are legal, is there a maximum size?

Classing Miatas

OK, now that you know the basics of the rules (and gaps in them), let’s class some Miatas.

Because the E3 and E4 classes have a maximum displacement that ends in .9 (1.9 liters and 2.9 liters), and because coilovers and aero are each .5 liters, you’ll see that a that an engine that is a multiple of .5 liters gets screwed (1.5, 2.0, 2.5). It’s better to have an engine with 1.4, 1.9, or 2.4 liters.

1.8 Spec Miata – Class E4

Your average 1.8 Spec Miata weighs about 2200 without the driver. The SCCA Enduro rules have a minimum 2000 lb weight, which means the car is 200 lbs overweight, and so it gets some displacement back. The formula for that is .1 liter for every 50 lbs, and so you get back .4 liters of displacement (2200 lb car – 2000 lb displacement min weight). The car is now evaluated at 1.4 liters (1.8 original – .4 for weight).

You also have to figure in the displacement modifier for shocks. Spec Miata shocks are height adjustable, and so they add .5 liters of displacement. Add that up, 1.4 liters + .5 liters = 1.9 liters. A 1.8 Spec Miata makes it into Class E4 like it was meant for it. (As long as it weighs 2200 lbs or more.)

1.6 Miata with a wing- Class E4

If you start with a 1.6 Miata, you can add a wing. Let’s start the car at 2250 lbs. This could mean adding ballast, but you’re allowed up to 250 lbs, of which only part of that would be necessary. At 2250 lbs, you’d get back the maximum displacement of .5 liters, which brings the car down to 1.1 liters of displacement (1.6 – .5 = 1.1). Now add coilovers (.5) and a wing or splitter (.25) and you’re at 1.85 liters. Personally, I’d take a wing over a splitter. But if spoilers are free, then that might sway things towards a splitter and a spoiler, rather than a wing. The only way you can use coilovers, a wing, and a splitter on a 1.6 Miata is by using non-adjustable shocks, and if you’re going to do that, start with a 1.8.

Aero 1.8 – Class E4

I’m a sucker for aero. If I was going to enter my NA8 endurance racer in the E4 class, I’d fit non-adjustable shocks so I could go all in with aero and use a splitter and wing. I think aero is worth more than the Spec Miata suspension I have on my car right now, maybe if I had Xidas I’d feel differently? I’d get the car to weight in at 2200 lbs, which would get back .4 liters of displacement. To this I’d add the aero, putting the car at 1.9 liters of displacement, right at the class limit.

Unfortunately I wouldn’t be able to use my fastback: “Aftermarket hardtops are permitted, but may not change the aerodynamic profile of the vehicle.” Every other endurance racing series allows fastbacks. Maybe I won’t race with these guys after all.

NC – Class E4 or E3

• E4 – NC Miatas are 2 liters, and thus 2000 lbs, but are probably going to weigh more than 2250 lbs, and so they’d come in at 1.5 liters adjusted for weight. No NC will be on adjustable shocks, because that would put it over 1.9 liters, but one could use a splitter or a wing.
• E3 – Class E3 cuts off at 2.9 liters, and so a NC could use coilovers and either a splitter or a wing, but not both. This is not a very compelling car.

NC with 2.5 swap – E3 or E2

• E3 – The class is based on 2.9 liters, and so a NC with a 2.5 swap starts at 2500 lbs and can’t use coilovers unless it adds weight. Using the standard formula means you have to add 50 lbs. So, 2550 lbs (without driver) and 190 hp-ish without aero. That’s OK, but there are better options.
• E2 – If you put aero and coilovers on it, you could run it in E2. This would be 3.5 liters, and you could then remove 250 lbs to get the maximum benefit (car weighs 2250 lbs) and be at 4.0 liters. This is under the 4.5 liter ceiling, and underperforming in that class.

ND – Class E4 or E3

• E4 – NDs also start at 2 liters and the same 2000 lbs, but if you pared one down to 2050 lbs, it would come in at exactly 1.9 liters adjusted displacement. That’s a car without aero or adjustable suspension, but at that weight, it could be a hugely fun car to drive. At 2125 lb lbs, you could add either a wing or a splitter, but no ND in class E4 can use adjustable suspension, or both a wing and splitter, as that would be over 1.9 liters.
• E3 – Class E3 cuts off at 2.9 liters, and so ND Miatas can use coilovers and one aero item, but can’t use both a wing and splitter.

K24 Miata – Class E3 or E2

• E3 – A much better swap than a 2.5 is .1 liters less, for 2.4, it just fits the classing formula better. If you have a 2.4 liter K-swapped Miata, your minimum weight is 2400 lbs, which would put you into the E3 class right away (meaning a larger 15 gallon fuel tank and 245 tires). The E3 class is capped a 2.9 liters, and so you’d have .5 liters of displacement to “spend”. Likely choices would be coilovers or aero, but you can’t take both.
• E2 – You could also add the full aero kit to coilovers and go into the E2 class. In this case you have .5 liters to spend on weight reduction, and the car could weigh 2150 lbs. That’s a car that sounds like a lot of fun, but it’s .6 liters under the displacement limit.

Turbo 1.6 Miata – Class E2

Forced induction doubles the displacement, and so this would put the car at 3.2 liters, way under the weight value of 3200 lbs (recall that race weight is the same as displacement CCs). That means you’d have to take .5 liters for a weight penalty, bringing the car up to 3.7 liters. Add coilovers and a wing and the car is at 4.45 liters, just barely making it into class E2, which tops out at 4.5 liters. That means you can’t use both a wing and a splitter, you have to choose. Or use a splitter and spoiler, if the spoiler is free. But is it?

Turbo 1.8 Miata – Class E2 or E1

• E2 – Displacement doubled puts the car at 3.6 liters, and at the 3300 lb max weight limit. Add in the .5 liters for being grossly underweight, and you’re at 4.1 liters. This doesn’t leave you with enough points for coilovers, but you can choose a splitter or a wing. Compared to the normally aspirated builds, this one’s a loser.
• E1 – A particularly bad option is to put a full aero car with coilovers into E1. Your car would be at 5.1 liters with coilovers and aero, a full 1.1 liters under the class limit, with nowhere to go. You get 20 gallon fuel tank (where would you put it?) and 295 tires. Good luck with that.

Conclusions

The SCCA Enduro Nationals rules aren’t finalized yet, and things like maximum stint time and minimum pit stop time are as yet undefined. They are missing some aero definitions as well. The first race is in March, and teams need to prepare, so I hope they finalize this soon.

While the classing system is untested, it looks fair (at least within each class), and the rules are at least easier to understand than the SCCA autocross rules (370 pages) or the SCCA road racing rules (1000 pages). Of course all rules need some adjusting after a season, but these seem like an OK start. As an avid endurance racer, it’s great to see more options.

As it goes for Miatas, NA/NB cars have some interesting options in E4. NC Miatas are not particularly good choices. An ND with aero and shocks looks like it would be a solid contender in E3.

Personally, I wished the SCCA allowed convertibles with altered rooflines (fastbacks, shooting brakes, etc) like every other endurance racing series does (as do sprint racing series like GLTC, NASA ST/TT, EMRA, etc.). I could throw my street hardtop on my racecar, and fit non-adjustable suspension, but since I’m already racing in other series, why would I change my car fit into the SCCA’s rulebook? The answer is, I wouldn’t.