207 replies to this topic

[Steve Scheifler]

A few comments:

Agree very much with Danny's last post. Essentially what I tried to say a couple weeks back.

David, I wasn't trying to chase you off, just reminding you and others that the math behind the impact of weight and power differences is way too complex for the back of a bar napkin, at least for us mortals. Failing to realize that leads to dismay and unwarranted hostility towards rules makers, or worse yet, bad rules.

There are people taking the initiative, testing some of the ideas often kicked around. I am not involved, largely because our cars are torn completely down, but I hope to do some meaningful testing as well as the season begins.

I'm back hanging around here after a long absence because we may be getting back into the game. I'm already in full panic mode trying to completely rebuild our two 1.6 cars, hopefully build up a spare 1.6 chassis I've had for years as a backup, and freshen up the VVT for a loaner/rental. So far things are off to a rocky start, but eventually I expect to have at least a pair of well prepared but truly "legal" 1.6s.(many would say you can't have both, but that's the goal, as it has always been). As for plugging in a top driver, well, I don't expect to win the Runoffs regardless of the model year I drive but we managed to be pretty competative at times, so with enough data logging it should be possible to separate the car from the driver and get a better sense of where the 1.6 stands. As a reminder, I've never been all that vocal about the 1.6 being disadvantaged because I felt the rules-stretching by others was the biggest difference and made meaningful direct comparisons impossible. The new camber rules are a big help and I'd like to think that the head rules are a plus overall, and that those still messing with shocks are at least constrained enough that the advantage is less dramatic. ECUs still concern me, especially the VVTs, but still I believe things are better overall.

So I'm looking forward to the 2015 season as an opportunity to get behind the wheel again, and hopefully help to turn the tide for the 1.6, whether that means proving it can be competative or that it truly needs help.

[Ron Alan]

 
BTW how do you think the VVT was recently brought to the forefront? It took a few people in several different camps to commit to the project development. It was time consuming and costly. 4 years ago the VVT was written off.

Undetectable re-map is hard to come by...ok, I read that on the internet

[FTodaro]

Frank can you please explain this sentence for me

 

It took a few people in several different camps to commit to the project development. It was time consuming and costly. 4 years ago the VVT was written off.

 

Chris, as i recall there were early attempts to build the VVT and they were not even close to the 99's that were being built. They would fall flat on there face at 6,000 rpm. That problem still exists but it has been lessened to some extent. Fast forward a few years, builders further developed the 99 and refined their technique. Other allowances were made like fuel pressure regulators and advance timing. The tuning allowed the motor to get closer to the 99. There may be other tweaks, I am not a motor builder, just someone who had the desire and willingness to spend the money to build one, and it took a few attempts. 

 

There were several motor builders at the time who were building them and dyno testing the snot out of them, then track testing.

 

Undetectable re-map is hard to come by...ok, I read that on the internet

 

Ron If someone invests time and money in a platform they must be cheating! I did not and have not heard that this is how the VVT is what it is today, but the things i listed above are. Someone may be doing it but its not my camp.

 

But if this puts your mind at ease, I will make you and anyone who is interested an offer, any time and any place anyone is free to bring a VVT ECU out of a 2001 to me and i will pull mine out and swap. I will keep it in the car or dyno what ever you want as its all stock.

[Cnj]

I'll start by saying that someone droped the ball when the 99 plus cars were included into the class. Talking engines only, with the different 99 head design/intake manifold/compression ratio (compare to the 1.6 head design/compression ratio), the 99 plus engine makes gobs of torque below 5,500 rpm that the 1.6 did not make at the inclusion date and the 1.6 does not have comaprable torque today. The 1.6 races well above 5,500 rpm and it sucks big time below 5,500 rpm. Have you ever had a 1.6 beat your 99 in a drag race below 5,500 rpm? If other folks agree that the 1.6 torque shortfall below 5,500 rpm is the main issue, it'll take more than one little item to make the 1.6 raceable with the 99 plus below 5,500 rpm. Compression, ECU/piggy back, headers, ambiant air at intake, eliminate the so called heat soak issue which 1.6er Bruce Wilson seems to say has been solved in the northwest. Producing the required torque below 5,500 rpm may be an impossible task with the 1.6 head/intake manifold/compression ratio. Hopefully this coming week I'll view some dyno graphs of a 10:1 1.6 ITA car and of a 10:1 1.6 F production car. 
 
EDIT:
Yes, some of the potential improvement items listed are not legal today. Do we want the 1.6 to be capable of racing the 99 plus below 5,500 rpm?

Took my time to respond to this as I was traveling to South Africa to spend Christmas on a sun drenched Zulu beach.
So Bench, I asked my question poorly and what I got was a repeat of your oft stated torque postion. And then got made fun of by Ron -

So let me try again. What do you suggest for the 1.6 within the SMAC/CRB constraints of weight and restrictor changes for 2015?

CNJ

[pat slattery]

The flight away from the 1.6 is not entirely due to it not being competitive.

The 1.6 is the most dificult and expensive to get to a top level. As well as time and money to keep it there. If you want to get to the pointy end its difinatly the path with the most resistance.

The 99 is pushing the easy button. That and Drago lead the way. Monkey see monkey do.

Also rember that there has been some killer 1.6 built. Very rare but have been done. Of those cars they maybe just a tick under the 99s in race conditions. At some tracks over dogs in Q.

Then there is the 1.8. It's almost like Mazda stopped building Miatas from 1994 to 1997.

So if you were in the market for a new car you more than likely push the easy button. Just sayin.

That all being said IMHO the 99s and VVT cars have continued to develop.

Ralph,  your thinking is exactly why the 1.6 never gets any help.  You sound like you have already read Drago's script

[Ron Alan]

Sorry Frank...to much tongue in cheek I guess

 

But since you answered serious i will reply in kind...though since i have no idea what i'm talking about I will ask questions!

 

Since as you stated(and my limited understanding)the VVT stands on its head after 6000rpms...I assume this is based on self control. Nothing to do with the basic motor itself correct? Which would indicate via sensors it goes into some sort of self preservation mode all controlled by electronics. How does one develope this? 

[Glenn]

Chris, as i recall there were early attempts to build the VVT and they were not even close to the 99's that were being built. They would fall flat on there face at 6,000 rpm. That problem still exists but it has been lessened to some extent. Fast forward a few years, builders further developed the 99 and refined their technique. Other allowances were made like fuel pressure regulators and advance timing. The tuning allowed the motor to get closer to the 99. There may be other tweaks, I am not a motor builder, just someone who had the desire and willingness to spend the money to build one, and it took a few attempts. 

 

There were several motor builders at the time who were building them and dyno testing the snot out of them, then track testing.

 

 

Ron If someone invests time and money in a platform they must be cheating! I did not and have not heard that this is how the VVT is what it is today, but the things i listed above are. Someone may be doing it but its not my camp.

 

But if this puts your mind at ease, I will make you and anyone who is interested an offer, any time and any place anyone is free to bring a VVT ECU out of a 2001 to me and i will pull mine out and swap. I will keep it in the car or dyno what ever you want as its all stock.

[FTodaro]

Sorry Frank...to much tongue in cheek I guess

 

But since you answered serious i will reply in kind...though since i have no idea what i'm talking about I will ask questions!

 

Since as you stated(and my limited understanding)the VVT stands on its head after 6000rpms...I assume this is based on self control. Nothing to do with the basic motor itself correct? Which would indicate via sensors it goes into some sort of self preservation mode all controlled by electronics. How does one develope this? 

No worries Ron, i was referring to that in the past and to a lesser extent today the VVT runs out of power if you will at about 6,000 rpm. The example some have used is at a track like Road Atlanta the VVT comes out of turn 7 a tight corner strong before the long straight, but about 3/4 of the way down the back straight the VVT quits pulling and it starts to float a little, its red line is the same as the 99 but the 99 will pull harder that last 1000 rpm and often can pass a VVT car the last 3/4 of that back straight. I am just using this as an example and there are other variables, but it would be vulnerable at that point.