Jump to content

Photo

Rule change for 1.6 intake?

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
373 replies to this topic

#1
Steve Scheifler

Steve Scheifler

    Veteran Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,816 posts
Apparently the window for rules changes (other than weight/plate adjustments) is already about to close for next year. So any grand schemes for "helping" the 1.6 will be difficult or impossible for another year even if someone comes up with a good idea.

However, I think Saul (Mark) has suggested the simplest and cheapest way to at least reduce the degree to which the 1.6 falls even further behind late in the race. To quote from his post in another topic:

-The 1.6 slows down as a function of high air temperature and heat soak more than the other cars. The 1.6 runs at higher IAT compared to ambient than the other cars. You may notice the 1.6s fall back in hot weather or at the end of races, versus setting blistering qually times in the cold and falling back LESS on cold days.

-The straight intakes are, to some extent, hood-up "dyno queens". With the hood down, they suck hot stagnant air from the master cylinder area. I think the overall efficiency of the EFI and the engine can also be why the 1.6 slows down as it gets hot, but I can't quantify it or prove it.

-A special 1.6 intake to suck cold air would be expensive - but allowing a provision for cold air to be funneled and insulated to the master cylinder/air filter area would be cheap and "DIY-able".


Is there any support for this as an immediate way to at least help the 1.6 maintain what power it does have throughout the race?

What pitfalls do you see, and how would you word it to reduce the ways people could abuse the rule for other gains? For example, could it be as simple as allowing the left front headlight assembly to be replaced with a mesh screen, and maybe add a heat shield between intake and exhaust?
  • pat slattery likes this
Instigator - Made a topic or post that inspired other Broken record - You are starting to sound like a broken record.

#2
38bfast

38bfast

    Veteran Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,113 posts
  • Location:Sterling Heights, MI
  • Region:OVR
  • Car Year:1999
  • Car Number:38
Use the 180 deg elbow intake that puts the air inlet behind the headlamp assembly and remove the indicator lamp below the head light for the 1.6. On the 1.8 alow to drill holes in the stock air box and again remove the indicator lamp. Or alow for a ducted headlamp cover. Cheap, easy and effective. The purest will lose their mind because it is not stock and the rules creep is out of control.
Ralph Provitz
V2 Motorsports

#3
Steve Scheifler

Steve Scheifler

    Veteran Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,816 posts

Yea, I guess a screen in place of the headlight cover would be some work and ugly, but do you think the indicator lamp hole is enough?
Instigator - Made a topic or post that inspired other Broken record - You are starting to sound like a broken record.

#4
38bfast

38bfast

    Veteran Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,113 posts
  • Location:Sterling Heights, MI
  • Region:OVR
  • Car Year:1999
  • Car Number:38
It's gota be close to the same sq in as the opening of the intake.

Best would be a naca duct in the headlamp cover.
Ralph Provitz
V2 Motorsports

#5
38bfast

38bfast

    Veteran Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,113 posts
  • Location:Sterling Heights, MI
  • Region:OVR
  • Car Year:1999
  • Car Number:38
The 1.6 is suffering from a torque deficit. In peak numbers as well as area under the curve. This is purely a function of lower displacement compared to the 99s. Torque is what gets you off the corners. HP is what gets you going on the big end fighting areo. The 1.6 does not have as much of a problem on the big end. It's biggest short coming is getting off a corner. This is compounded when behind a 99 the 1.6 has to check up going in and then lose all drive coming out.

That all said there is not much that can be done to the 1.6 that will make the cars a good match. I my opionon the 1.6 is maxed out within reason of our scope in rules. (The above intake suggestions sould be done regardless). So with not much that can be done with the 1.6 then the 99 and VVT cars would have to come down. The only way to kill the drive off the corner is weight. Plates take from the top end.
  • jdmrrs likes this
Ralph Provitz
V2 Motorsports

#6
38bfast

38bfast

    Veteran Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,113 posts
  • Location:Sterling Heights, MI
  • Region:OVR
  • Car Year:1999
  • Car Number:38
Just to be clear. The is no way to make 4 generations of cars the same. It will never happen. They will always be very track dependent. Perfect parity will never be had. Everyone has to understand this completely.

I do agree that the 1.6 and 1.8 do need some help. But this is all based on cars performance before wistlegate and STR gate.
  • MPR22 and Danica Davison like this
Ralph Provitz
V2 Motorsports

#7
Steve Scheifler

Steve Scheifler

    Veteran Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,816 posts

Can't argue with any of that. There is no cheap & easy way to add what the 1.6 needs most. The closest thing is probably more compression, but that may not be practical with stock pistons and can timing, though I haven't tested it.

In any case, there is no way to get complicated solutions defined and approved this year, but we can do this with enough support.
Instigator - Made a topic or post that inspired other Broken record - You are starting to sound like a broken record.

#8
38bfast

38bfast

    Veteran Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,113 posts
  • Location:Sterling Heights, MI
  • Region:OVR
  • Car Year:1999
  • Car Number:38
Compression will lift the entire curve. Does not fill in the area under the curve. Plus then rods, rod bolts, bearings, pistons would be pressed past oe spec. This could open up a big can of worms. The last thing we want to do is approve something that is going to take the reliability away from the car. Blowing up motors is not cheap.
Ralph Provitz
V2 Motorsports

#9
Steve Scheifler

Steve Scheifler

    Veteran Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,816 posts
Not wanting to debate what we can't do in this topic, but I'm not sure another .5 CR would be a reliability issue and though not exactly what it needs, is better than the few other options.
Instigator - Made a topic or post that inspired other Broken record - You are starting to sound like a broken record.

#10
RWP80000

RWP80000

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 161 posts
  • Location:Phoenix
  • Region:SoPac
  • Car Year:1999
  • Car Number:2

1.6L and 1.8L rods, bolts and bearings are the same.  Pistons are smaller/lighter and would probably stay that way.



#11
38bfast

38bfast

    Veteran Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,113 posts
  • Location:Sterling Heights, MI
  • Region:OVR
  • Car Year:1999
  • Car Number:38
One problem with the 1.6 and 1.8 is the exhaust manifold. Some are very choked down from the factory and some are very nice and flow very well. This plays a big big part in performance. The variance in manifolds is far worse than the heads. To find a good one is not easy and when you do find a good one it comes with a matching price. We found one of the best examples for Justin's 1.6 but it got killed when the car got totaled.

Same applies to the down pipe.

I would propose that a maximum I.D. Would be allowed on the collector and thus allowing it to be modified.

One of the biggest problems with the 1.6 and to some degree the 1.8 is variation in the stock parts. That what makes building the 1.6 so dam hard to build a good one. You have to go hunting for all the "best parts". The NB cars are made with much tighter or better manufacturing process.
Ralph Provitz
V2 Motorsports

#12
ECOBRAP

ECOBRAP

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 405 posts
  • Location:Bay Area, CA
  • Region:Nor Cal
  • Car Year:1999
  • Car Number:59

Lighter wheels?

Lightweight flywheel?

Screw with alternator?

 

........cams? :angel:


-Ecobrap

We have a Winnah! - Won their 1st race... Congratulations! Bona fide - A bonafide Spec Miata driver

#13
38bfast

38bfast

    Veteran Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,113 posts
  • Location:Sterling Heights, MI
  • Region:OVR
  • Car Year:1999
  • Car Number:38
Lighter wheels= lots more money and possible reliability issues if you get cheaper ones.

lighter flywheel. This have been covered several times. Will not help in the speeds we are driving the cars. Waste of money.

Under drive pulleys may help. I don't have any real data to support or not.

Cam increase hp not torque. Maybe cams with adjustable timing but it would take a lot of development to see the results. Lots of development = not feasible to get it to be passed into rule.
Ralph Provitz
V2 Motorsports

#14
ECOBRAP

ECOBRAP

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 405 posts
  • Location:Bay Area, CA
  • Region:Nor Cal
  • Car Year:1999
  • Car Number:59

Lighter wheels= lots more money and possible reliability issues if you get cheaper ones.

lighter flywheel. This have been covered several times. Will not help in the speeds we are driving the cars. Waste of money.

Under drive pulleys may help. I don't have any real data to support or not.

 

Wheels: Kosei K1's are ~$110 a piece, light as hell and very reliable. After selling current wheels this probably isn't that expensive of an option?

 

Flywheel: Thanks for the insight. I haven't been around long enough to see those discussions and am interested in what people came up with.

 

Underdrive pulley: Seems like a solid idea to me, easy 2-3whp but won't address the torque issue.


-Ecobrap

We have a Winnah! - Won their 1st race... Congratulations! Bona fide - A bonafide Spec Miata driver

#15
38bfast

38bfast

    Veteran Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,113 posts
  • Location:Sterling Heights, MI
  • Region:OVR
  • Car Year:1999
  • Car Number:38

Wheels: Kosei K1's are ~$110 a piece, light as hell and very reliable. After selling current wheels this probably isn't that expensive of an option?

Flywheel: Thanks for the insight. I haven't been around long enough to see those discussions and am interested in what people came up with.

Underdrive pulley: Seems like a solid idea to me, easy 2-3whp but won't address the torque issue.

I cracked 2 k1s on my track day Miata. They all went into the dumpster.

The RPF1 is nice but pricy. Same results as the flywheel. Not what the car needs
  • ECOBRAP likes this
Ralph Provitz
V2 Motorsports

#16
38bfast

38bfast

    Veteran Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,113 posts
  • Location:Sterling Heights, MI
  • Region:OVR
  • Car Year:1999
  • Car Number:38
The 1.6 falls short on:
Parts variation
Intake temps
AFM. Adjustability and G forces effecting AF ratios.
Suspension updating.

The above is what makes the car such a pain in the ass to build a good one.

Parts variation could be helped with allowing modifications to the stock parts. We all know how well that is going over.

Intake temps could be easily solved

The F ing AFM is a complete pain in the ass and even at its best tune still sucks bad. I have no answer for that pice of crap.

Suspension came up a few years ago and got shot down in flames by the membership.

This is why most chose not to build a competitive 1.6. If we could take the pain out of the build the car would be more appealing to build / race.

Killer 1.6 have been out there. Very rare and big $. So fix the short comings cost effective and legal would help a lot.
Ralph Provitz
V2 Motorsports

#17
38bfast

38bfast

    Veteran Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,113 posts
  • Location:Sterling Heights, MI
  • Region:OVR
  • Car Year:1999
  • Car Number:38
Just for info you can get what you think is a great tune on the Dyno with a 1.6 but when you data log the AF on tack it can be just nasty due to the G force acting on the flapper door.
Ralph Provitz
V2 Motorsports

#18
Sean - MiataCage

Sean - MiataCage

    Member

  • Moderators
  • 301 posts

I'm not a motor guy so I honestly have no idea if what I am asking is stupid or not...... However, here goes....

 

Piggyback ECU for the 1.6?  Header?


Sean Hedrick - President
www.miatacage.com
360-606-7734
Bona fide - A bonafide Spec Miata driver Sponsor / Advertiser - Site sponsor / advertiser... support these guys!

#19
bmw251

bmw251

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 28 posts
Sean,
I think you are onto something with the header. I would image this would be a simple bolt on and help correct the lack of supply and cracked ones out there. It is also my understanding like the 99 heads.. some flow better than others. I currently have a 99 with a fresh Rossini motor but just yesterday a buddy and I picked up a 1.6 that has been parked for yrs. If you just want to just have fun or want to get into racing this is the best car for the $$$. I can not believe how many in good shape just parked. Our plan is to rent to people going to driver schools and trackday events.....and try and use for enduro's.

Greg

#20
Bruce Wilson

Bruce Wilson

    Gold Member

  • SMembers
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 663 posts
  • Region:Oregon
  • Car Year:1991
  • Car Number:68

The only thing that fixes the 1.6 is more torque!  This was clearly exhibited at the Majors at one of the best 1.6 favored tracks in the country (flat with long straights).  Matt Schultz and my 1.6 took top(ish) qualifying times both sessions but during the race we were picked off one by one until we were at the back of the front group.  Currently, the only way to win in a 1.6 is to qualify on pole and run away on lap 1 (tall order for sure).  Now add some hills and short straights and forget it...

 

ECU's or 1.8 engines swaps are the only answer.  My beautifully built 1.6 is parked until something changes!  Looking forward to renting a Gen3 SRF next year!


  • pat slattery likes this

I have an opinion so I must be right

Series Champ - Won a points based series in a Spec Miata Survivalist - Won 25 Hours at Thunderhill! We have a Winnah! - Won their 1st race... Congratulations! Bona fide - A bonafide Spec Miata driver




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users