146 replies to this topic

[Bench Racer]

Cnj, on 24 Dec 2014 - 10:36 AM, said:

 Not because I think anyone has produced useable data to support this (posts of torque curves alone for cars of unequal wieght is not useable data), but because I think it would not hurt the class to give 1.6's a small bump in performance and let things play out for a while.

 

However I am bemused at the vociferous complaints on the web site with no quantification of the disadvantage (reciting Runnoffs winners is not data) or unity in proposed solutions.

 

Right now several of you could unite and make the argument for (modest) lower wieght and probably get it approved rapidly.

 

CNJ

Christmass in getting  in the way, Merry Christmass to all. Think about the three items underlined. I shall return.

 

David Dewhurst

 

Hope family under the tree, church and dinner were great.

 

Your point one, take any rpm line under 5,500 rpm and under off Drago's dyno graph for his 1.6 and for his 99 car and compare, weight/pound foot and then convert to pounds. Which car totes more pure weight in pounds relative torque for a given rpm? 

 

Your point two, if you have not read on this site post after post from 1.6er's watching a 99 plus cars as they come out of a corner at equal speeds drive away, then maybe you have selective reading capabilities. < Said with a smile. Folks from Mid Ohio, folks from Road America, folks from Blackhawk Farm, folks on the left coast. I received a pm from a left coaster yesterday saying the same thing after he had qulified his 1.6 P2 for a Majors race. My only bitch has been the lack of torque the 1.6 has below 5,500 rpm. It's been that way since the 99 plus cars were classed.

 

You point three, if you use a weight of 2,200 pounds for a 1.6 car and repeat the excerise from point one with the 99 car at 2,400 pounds, you'll find lightenig the 1.6 car doesn't get it done. By my math with the 1.6 at 2,200 pounds, the 1.6 totes 105 more pounds than the 99 in a straight line drag race. If my math is wrong please correct me. 

 

And when ever reducing weight (which can not be reduced enough to make pound/pound foot similar enough to get the job done) for the 1.6  is talked about the first thing the 99er's start squaking about is, if the car has more torque the 1.6 needs to weigh more. I'm sure no one in the 1.6 world sould squak with a heaver car if the torque under 5,500 rpm was similar usabel to the 99 car. If that torque carried over the 5,500 rpm, no question the 1.6 would need to be brought back as needed. Or the 99 plus cars un-leashed as needed.  

 

 

 

 

 

[steveracer]

I think the 1.6's need a small, low pressure turbo, only way to effectively raise torque. Add option of late mode suspension.

 

Let the 1.8's run unrestricted, weights adjusted for parity.

 

What's an unrestricted '99 make hp/torque wise?

[Cnj]

 

Cnj, on 24 Dec 2014 - 10:36 AM, said:

Christmass in getting  in the way, Merry Christmass to all. Think about the three items underlined. I shall return.

 

David Dewhurst

 

Hope family under the tree, church and dinner were great.

 

Your point one, take any rpm line under 5,500 rpm and under off Drago's dyno graph for his 1.6 and for his 99 car and compare, weight/pound foot and then convert to pounds. Which car totes more pure weight in pounds relative torque for a given rpm? 

 

Your point two, if you have not read on this site post after post from 1.6er's watching a 99 plus cars as they come out of a corner at equal speeds drive away, then maybe you have selective reading capabilities. < Said with a smile. Folks from Mid Ohio, folks from Road America, folks from Blackhawk Farm, folks on the left coast. I received a pm from a left coaster yesterday saying the same thing after he had qulified his 1.6 P2 for a Majors race. My only bitch has been the lack of torque the 1.6 has below 5,500 rpm. It's been that way since the 99 plus cars were classed.

 

You point three, if you use a weight of 2,200 pounds for a 1.6 car and repeat the excerise from point one with the 99 car at 2,400 pounds, you'll find lightenig the 1.6 car doesn't get it done. By my math with the 1.6 at 2,200 pounds, the 1.6 totes 105 more pounds than the 99 in a straight line drag race. If my math is wrong please correct me. 

 

And when ever reducing weight (which can not be reduced enough to make pound/pound foot similar enough to get the job done) for the 1.6  is talked about the first thing the 99er's start squaking about is, if the car has more torque the 1.6 needs to weigh more. I'm sure no one in the 1.6 world sould squak with a heaver car if the torque under 5,500 rpm was similar usabel to the 99 car. If that torque carried over the 5,500 rpm, no question the 1.6 would need to be brought back as needed. Or the 99 plus cars un-leashed as needed.  

 

 

David, the key word in the sentence of mine you quoted is “usable”.  I was not suggesting your torque data was inaccurate; simply that it is not useable (in isolation) for parity assessment/adjustment.  I’m guessing you have over 50 posts on the torque issue (maybe over 100) and I can’t say if its tenacity or obsession but your point of view is abundantly clear.  However I can say that your calculations are useless in determining – well – pretty much anything related to parity adjustments.  It’s technically wrong to calculate a complex dynamic system as if it behaves as a simple linear system (which is what you have done where the vehicle is calculated only under acceleration, only in a straight line and only considering revs under 5500 while ignoring every other dynamic vehicle and environment performance variable).

 

I’m not trying to get into an argument with you (too late ?).  But consider this: calculation tools such as Bosch LapSim and others utilize tremendously complex math on dozens of variables (whole system calculation) to predict some of the results that you are attempting to predict with simple math division on one data set only.  I’m not saying that the torque difference is not significant, simply that your calculations are nothing more than a curiosity and can’t be used to draw a conclusion.  We have a habit on this forum of thinking this physics stuff is simple, but its not.

 

As it relates to reports of 99’s pulling away from 1.6’s at exits of (usually slow) corners - so what - its not news.   I could equally say that 1.6’s out brake 99’s due to lighter weight (I have been punted in the braking zone multiple times by 1.6’s who were not paying attention to the fact I am in a heavier 99 – and I am a late trail braker).  In addition 1.6’s should have a higher minimum speed in every corner due to lighter weight, but you keep insisting that the NA suspension with more bump steer than a 99 has no impact on exit speed.  I don’t understand why it has not occurred to you (and some others) that this, in part, is why the 99 pulls away at some exits.  I often see 1.6’s bouncing around mid corner through apex while I have a nice smooth ride and ease right up on them on exit.  It’s not all about torque.

 

Finally, this is all very interesting, but are you going to burn the next year still arguing about torque – which cannot be changed by SMAC/CRB until the next rules cycle, or are you going to put forward a plan regarding weight and/or plates – which can be implemented.  

 

CNJ

 

[Bench Racer]

Craig, I get the overall picture. IMHJ, make the 1,6 raceable with the 99 plus, it starts with why the 99 plus pulls the 1.6 and you know as well as I it isn't all about the great suspension of the 99 plus. From my limited track time and from many other 1.6er's track time many would be happy if they didn't get left off slow corners or left for whatever other slow on track racing issue. I'm going to investigate MegaSquirt and see what the results would be with my engine as it is now, if positive implement at the dyno for next summer and check on track performance, call it an ITA car. I've read of top 1.6er's getting pulled, that my friend is usable data. Now if the SMAC/CRB decided the only usale data required is the data above 5,500 rpm, great, they did a fine job.

 

If I had more torque down low, my race results wouldn't change one bit.

[Bruce Wilson]

And there you guys go again arguing lap times, and now braking?  Please stop... 

[Cnj]

And there you guys go again arguing lap times, and now braking?  Please stop... 

Mmm.  Bench and I were arguing lap times? 

 

But I'm interested, whats your plan for parity?

 

CNJ

[Bruce Wilson]

My plan?  1.6 is parked until SCCA figures it out.  This year, I'll be racing a Gen-3 and Pro-3.