563 replies to this topic

[Bench Racer]

No semantics, what year did you start on the SMAC?

 

You spent all that time looking up the changes trying to prove me wrong, you can spend a few more figuring out when I came on. You are retired, isn't that what you old folks do down at the home between naps and Bingo?

 

 I believe it was late 07 as I was on when we lowered the weight on the 1.6 25 lbs and raised the 99 up 25 lbs. It should be easy to find, I really don't remember exact date. 

No semantics would have been. I believe it was late 07.

 

Looking up changes was not required because I have a running log of the changes.

[FTodaro]

There's a guy up our way named Voytek Burdzy. Some of you may have heard of him. He drove a well prepped '94 or '95 SM for about 3 years. He did pretty well in that car. He switched to a '99 just prior to the 2010 Runoffs and then podiumed at the 2011 Runoffs. I have asked him and he has told me that he prefers the '99 and feels it is the faster race car. His former crew Adam has told me the same thing.

o
Tom I noticed since I started eating bran cereal in the mornings that I have bettered my results. I am sure there is a connection.

[Jamz14]

He did but his results are even more impressive since changing cars.  He's a good example of someone who did very well and improved even further once he changed cars.  Certainly a car change alone won't make a winner out of a mid-pack driver.  Car choice of the front drivers really tells the whole story.  Everything else is just opinion.  Mine, yours and everyone else's.  

Exactly! What the frontrunners choose as their weapon of choice is the truth.

[William Keeling]

In time the 99 will die as wiring harnesses and other parts start costing the moon,  I plan to get rich on the engine harnesses I have stockpiled 

[Jim Drago]

No semantics would have been. I believe it was late 07.

 

Looking up changes was not required because I have a running log of the changes.

 

What about being old and Bingo? You had to like that..  

[Sean - MiataCage]

Todd your a heck of a driver, I believe your 1.6 is legal, but, no one other than you is getting that kind of performance out of a 1.6  Is it just you as a driver or what?

Wow..... Think again..... There is something called the West Coast. 

[Tom Sager]

o
Tom I noticed since I started eating bran cereal in the mornings that I have bettered my results. I am sure there is a connection.

I've been drinking Kentucky Bourbon Barrell Ale sine January.  Good stuff.   I'm hopeful that will give me an edge.

[Bench Racer]

IIRC at the NASA nationls at Miller at couple years ago, BIG BIRD with the other Todd driving was doing it's thing pretty good until a hick-up of some sort. Ya all remember BIG BIRD ws a 99, correct.

 

 

Then again IIRC there was a dude showed up in the north west with a 99, and spanked everyone pretty good.

 

 

On the left coast, how many top notch 1.6's do you have and how many top notch 99's do you have?

 

 

The SCCA CRB decided several years ago that the number of cars of each spec line had no value therefore the SCCA doesn't have a clue to counts and neither does Mazda. Oh and I'm sure decisions are made with this non information.

[JRHille]

On the left coast, how many top notch 1.6's do you have and how many top notch 99's do you have?


Oh so there's just more of them over there so they appear to be better...

[Bench Racer]

Oh so there's just more of them over there so they appear to be better...

 

The post point was. 

 

 

IIRC at the NASA nationls at Miller at couple years ago, BIG BIRD with the other Todd driving was doing it's thing pretty good until a hick-up of some sort. Ya all remember BIG BIRD was a 99, correct.

 

 

 

Then again IIRC there was a dude showed up in the north west with a 99, and spanked everyone pretty good.

[Jim Drago]

Here is a graph of the three versions I have on my dyno 90, 99 and 02.  All three cars built here and what I consider extremely good versions. We have better of each, believe what you like.  I have seen better of all versions, these are what I consider to be 9-9.5 on a 1-10 scale engines.  I have seen 1-2 more from EACH, but those are the exception, NOT the rule.  

 

In my opinion ANY car on this sheet on MY dyno is a Runoffs winning combination. On every 99 we sell, I tell my customers to expect between 126-128 on my dyno, IO don't care if that is 110 or 175 on others dynos.   This is an extremely fair sampling of top flight cars spun here.

 

I have no idea of Danny's opinion, but "I" felt that we were as close on power as we have ever been, I think he actually drafted past me as easily or perhaps even easier than I did him. I would say we are within 1/1, but that is my opinion, not sure on his, maybe he will share. 

 

Here ya go. 

Blue 02

purple 99

red 90

 

[Mike Asselta]

Here is a graph of the three versions I have on my dyno 90, 99 and 02.  All three cars built here and what I consider extremely good versions. We have better of each, believe what you like.  I have seen better of all versions, these are what I consider to be 9-9.5 on a 1-10 scale engines.  I have seen 1-2 more from EACH, but those are the exception, NOT the rule.  

 

In my opinion ANY car on this sheet on MY dyno is a Runoffs winning combination. On every 99 we sell, I tell my customers to expect between 126-128 on my dyno, IO don't care if that is 110 or 175 on others dynos.   This is an extremely fair sampling of top flight cars spun here.

 

I have no idea of Danny's opinion, but "I" felt that we were as close on power as we have ever been, I think he actually drafted past me as easily or perhaps even easier than I did him. I would say we are within 1/1, but that is my opinion, not sure on his, maybe he will share. 

 

Here ya go. 

 

Now that's transparency!  Bravo Jim...

 

I had a feeling about that 1.6 you built...that's very nice.

[Charlie Hayes]

very good. 

[Brendan O]

Trying to read graph. Is this correct?

 

90 = 125.41 HP

99 = 126.46 HP

02 = 128.05 HP

[Tom Sager]

Trying to read graph. Is this correct?

 

90 = 125.41 HP

99 = 126.46 HP

02 = 128.05 HP

I believe you've got '99 and '02 flip-flopped. 

[James York]

Trying to read graph. Is this correct?

 

90 = 125.41 HP

99 = 126.46 HP

02 = 128.05 HP

 

No,

 

90 = 125

99 = 128

02 = 126.5

[Jamz14]

It is cool and all that Jim and Danny posted their dyno sheets, but I wouldn't go overboard with the transparency thing. It would be naive to think that this is exactly what is brought to the track. Not saying it isn't, just that it is naive to think that your competitor is showing you everything. I'll show you my superflow sheets showing a pathetic 112 hp, is that being transparent, does it tell the whole story? To their credit Jim and Danny both say about the same thing in regards to this. Don't look at dyno sheets as the whole story. Or even a big part of the story. I look at dyno sheets exactly the same as lap times. I don't care what the actual number is, I care about deltas and incremental improvements while trying to eliminate as many testing variables as possible. If I can always make some minor improvement in HP, torque and laptimes, being on the podium is inevitable. I don't care what the hp and laptime number was of the podium run. It was good enough.

 

Second, even with these numbers, Jim is selecting a platform for a perceived/real advantage. He isn't selecting the NB because it is on par. He sees something in those numbers and something when he drives the NB that tells him that it is the car to have. If he didn't, he would be selecting the 1.6 for the exact same reasons. Plus being cheaper to develop and maintain. Lets not pretend that people might as well toss a dart as to which car to build and drive.  Nothing wrong with this either. We all would do the same thing in hindsight and with different budgets.

[Jim Drago]

Jamz

It is posts like yours that make people like me say why do I even bother.  

 

I tried to stop there, but just couldn't. You don't know me or my intentions, please don't claim that you do. My intentions are to make this class the best possible.  I have nothing left to prove in this class, I have won EVERY race there is to win, EVERY title there is to win.  I don't donate countless hours to this class for the shits and giggles or to gain an advantage. I do it so support the class we all love and to make it better.  The rules and racing are better than ever, despite the opinions of two people that don't even race the cars, not a slam, just reality. David has raced once in last 6-7 years and Pat never. 

 

The sheets I posted are EXACTLY what I said they are or I wouldn't have posted them as such.  Does my car make more than 128 on my dyno, READ MY POST AND FIGURE IT OUT.  But as I suggested in the post, the 1.6I posted makes equally above that as well. Those graphs are what is fully capable versions of each car and will beat or compete against ANY other builders car of that version, PERIOD! You want a better 99 sheet, just ask.  But what I put up there was a very fair and realistic example.  I had that graph saved for a week, but knew it would be a mistake to post as just like all other data points, It is not perceived as a "real" or it is "biased" 

 

Your post regarding the 1.6 is also 100% INCORRECT! It is not the least expensive, IT is the MOST expensive to build properly and that is assuming you are given the donor.. Lots of experts who don't have a clue what they are talking about.

 

For the last time, I don't drive 1.6 car b/c I would be 50+ lbs over weight. If I was at weight, this would have already been a forgone conclusion, if for no other reason than competitive juices and shutting two people up that do a lot of talking, but little driving or preparation. It if cost me 60k, it would be the fastest car on the planet, most should be thankful I am not at weight or I would make it my life's mission.  

[Mike Asselta]

It is cool and all that Jim and Danny posted their dyno sheets, but I wouldn't go overboard with the transparency thing. It would be naive to think that this is exactly what is brought to the track. Not saying it isn't, just that it is naive to think that your competitor is showing you everything. I'll show you my superflow sheets showing a pathetic 112 hp, is that being transparent, does it tell the whole story? To their credit Jim and Danny both say about the same thing in regards to this. Don't look at dyno sheets as the whole story. Or even a big part of the story. I look at dyno sheets exactly the same as lap times. I don't care what the actual number is, I care about deltas and incremental improvements while trying to eliminate as many testing variables as possible. If I can always make some minor improvement in HP, torque and laptimes, being on the podium is inevitable. I don't care what the hp and laptime number was of the podium run. It was good enough.

 

Second, even with these numbers, Jim is selecting a platform for a perceived/real advantage. He isn't selecting the NB because it is on par. He sees something in those numbers and something when he drives the NB that tells him that it is the car to have. If he didn't, he would be selecting the 1.6 for the exact same reasons. Plus being cheaper to develop and maintain. Lets not pretend that people might as well toss a dart as to which car to build and drive.  Nothing wrong with this either. We all would do the same thing in hindsight and with different budgets.

 

Jamz - everybody who posted numbers (me, Danny and Jim) said these were very good numbers, but not the best we've ever seen.  Sure, there are cars out there with more than what we're showing, but they are exceptional, not just very good, and they tend to fall off over time.

 

Also, Jim isn't selecting the 1.6, in part, because it is harder for bigger fellas to make weight in the car, or get the weight where its beneficial.  

 

Finally, just so people don't think I've sold out somehow, the 1.8 NA has more torque than the 1.6, but no better horsepower with the current restrictor.  I'd still take off 25 pounds from the 1.6 and give the 1.8NA a bigger hole....but, again...its racing season so I'm not worried about that right now.  GOT TO DRIVE IT TO GET STREET CRED!

[Jamz14]

Jim,

 

I think you misunderstand my post. I felt my post supported your positions not that it was contracry to them. You bothered because some people on this forum pushed and pushed you. You have been telling them for a long time that dynos don't show the whole pcture. You bothered because of senseless complaining.

 

You would seriously tell a new racer coming into the sport, not just SM but any racing, that what I said wasn't true? That you shouldn't take what competitors say with a grain of salt, take all they say as gospel and that no one will lead you astray whether intentional or not? Wouldn't you be the first to say do your own testing and keep eyes wide open on your competitors?