411 replies to this topic

[pat slattery]

Jim the previous SMAC has done nothing for the 1.6 over the past 4-5 years, if it was such an overdog, you would be driving it, and so would all the other top drivers,  Even Mr. Buras is not running it and stated that it was not a good car for Road America.

[Jim Drago]

Jim the previous SMAC has done nothing for the 1.6 over the past 4-5 years, if it was such an overdog, you would be driving it, and so would all the other top drivers,  Even Mr. Buras is not running it and stated that it was not a good car for Road America.

Don't remember me saying it was an overdog? How many races has Mr Buras won in his VVT car compared to his 1.6 car?
Slowing the other cars down with plates and removing weight from the 1.6 were both done, I don't mind the criticism, but please try and keep the posts accurate.

As far as the 1.6 goes... I really don't care what they do, I have two already, if I need three, I will build another car.

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

If I had deep pockets I would gladly test everything that has been suggested for the 1.6 and see what the best answer would be,but I don't so I'm at the mercy of the bod and smac.

I agree with the fact that the 1.6 has great top end speed and doesn't need any help in that area. It's under 5,500 that it lacks and needs some help. Yes the 1.6 is a great qualifying car and can turn a fast lap but it's not the car to have when your in any kind of traffic. So yes if your out front and can stay out of traffic the car is great,just add a couple of other cars in the mix and it's a sitting duck.

If you look at the other post you will see that there are more 1.6 cars out there then any other year,as per the post ( votes ). Yes they all might be racing Reg. Races only but shouldn't be tossed to the side. Maybe if they start to see the 1.6 doing better at the Majors level they might think about racing some of the Majors. Yes it might not happen in the first year,but if you build it they will come !

So if there is some way we can help it out in the low to mid rpm range ( out of the corners ) and the heat soak problem without adding to the top end we would be golden.
This would at least make the car competitive throughout the race and believe it would stop the complaining.

[James York]

Since being added to the SMAC I have to be careful to not discuss anything out of context. However I am able to discuss my own opinions and observations, so here goes.

 

As I have said before, I personally do not believe that anything will be achieved for the 1.6 with headers or Flywheel. Dewhurst I think you are mistaken. Of course I could be dead wrong abut this.

 

IMO what is needed is compression and or displacement to provide some or all of the missing TQ.

 

And Drago, I see this differently. I think that we almost have to create an overdog situation to stimulate the 1.6NA car owners and new car builders to pursue the 1.6 as a viable competitive car. Thereafter we can dial it back with weight, and or plate. Until we see 1.6's winning majors I do not see anything changing

 

No car year should ever be deliberately put into an "overdog" position.  Placing the 1.6s in such a dominate position to win and/or force all the front runners to build, does nothing for the long term health of the class.  (Some builders might be happy with the idea of new car orders though...)

[James York]

If you look at the other post you will see that there are more 1.6 cars out there then any other year,as per the post ( votes ). Yes they all might be racing Reg. Races only but shouldn't be tossed to the side. Maybe if they start to see the 1.6 doing better at the Majors level they might think about racing some of the Majors. Yes it might not happen in the first year,but if you build it they will come !
 

That pole is no longer valid.  Someone dug it up recently and added or changed a vote.  But the underlying baseline is from 4 years ago.

 

I am not saying the 1.6 still wouldn't get the most votes, but just that the data is not valid any longer.

[ECOBRAP]

I have only experienced heat soak during very hot ~100 degree races at Thunderhill. Either way, I think that is an incredibly simple fix and should be at the top of the agenda considering how many 1.6's seem to be affected by it. How hard would it be to let us run one of the below intakes? Someone in a parity thread mentioned they tried removing their driver's side turn signal and it was a definite improvement in lap time consistency over the course of a race.

 

Turn Signal Intake

 

I believe in this position it would serve more to cool engine bay temps down instead of actually forcing the air into the intake.

[Danny Steyn]

Danny,

 

Is it the role of the SMAC to ensure a level playing field and parity for all models or to stimulate the Spec Miata economy by "bringing out" 1.6 cars due to an overdog situation?  Can someone post the charter for the SMAC? 

 

 

Blake

 

Blake - the SMAC is composed of different individuals, each with their own opinions. I most definitely did NOT express the opinion of SMAC, the viewpoint expressed is MINE ONLY. 

 

And yes, among the SMAC's many goals, number one in its sights, is the goal to ensure the success of the class. Parity is part of that goal.Increasing driver count is also part of that goal

 

To these ends there are many issues raised by many drivers/owners/outsiders that all need to be addressed.  How you get there is anyone's guess!! :-) 

[Mike Collins]

Now that I am no longer on the SMAC...

 

First we froze the rules for three years...Worked great....

 

Second...The 1.6 WILL NEVER BE SUCCESSFUL EVER AGAIN IN SM!!!!!  Its now 25 years old, Mazda does not stock parts...the parts that are available are not all the same.  Its fully eligible for vintage racing..Its simple evolve or parish...

 

Take the 1.6 cars put them in SSM....The original set of rules that SM started with...It works, we have proven it works in DC....

 

Unrestrict the rest of cars (to the extent they are equal)...who in there right mind wants to keep slowing cars down...at the majors level we have VERY robust fields of '99+ cars... speed the cars up, embarrass even more "faster" cars from other classes, get rid of drama and even more people will flock to SM.

[pat slattery]

No car year should ever be deliberately put into an "overdog" position.  Placing the 1.6s in such a dominate position to win and/or force all the front runners to build, does nothing for the long term health of the class.  (Some builders might be happy with the idea of new car orders though...)

James, you can't tell me that the 99 and now the vvt have been is this position for a long, long time

[Bad Rusty]

".......speed the cars up, embarrass even more "faster" cars from other classes, get rid of drama and even more people will flock to SM."

 

I think this is the correct idea for our class.  Let's work on going faster within reasonable $ constraints and competition balance.  If that means the 1.6 needs a header and 1/2 point of compression to keep up then do it.  Those that don't want to spend the time and $ can just have a fun SSM or SM"whatever" to play with.

[pat slattery]

Now that I am no longer on the SMAC...

 

First we froze the rules for three years...Worked great....

 

Second...The 1.6 WILL NEVER BE SUCCESSFUL EVER AGAIN IN SM!!!!!  Its now 25 years old, Mazda does not stock parts...the parts that are available are not all the same.  Its fully eligible for vintage racing..Its simple evolve or parish...

 

Take the 1.6 cars put them in SSM....The original set of rules that SM started with...It works, we have proven it works in DC....

 

Unrestrict the rest of cars (to the extent they are equal)...who in there right mind wants to keep slowing cars down...at the majors level we have VERY robust fields of '99+ cars... speed the cars up, embarrass even more "faster" cars from other classes, get rid of drama and even more people will flock to SM.

Mike, it has been that thinking from the SMAC that has the 1.6 in such a bad position.  I guess the 99 being "only" 16 years old  makes it a late model car.  HAHA. 

[James York]

James, you can't tell me that the 99 and now the vvt have been is this position for a long, long time

 

Why should I argue, your minds never change?  Jim said it before, he proved a point, everyone ignores it.

 

I don't care what year car we are talking about, 99, vvt, etc: No car should ever receive an adjustment of performance to deliberately move it to overdog.  Any year.  

 

I did NOT say the 1.6 could benefit from some, as yet unknown, enhancement to permit it to race more closely with the other cars.

[pat slattery]

The 1.6 can be sped up a lot and than adjust the plate and weight of the rest of the cars.  We, (1.6) can't make the car faster with out rules relief.  the other cars can with plate and weight adjustments

[pat slattery]

James, my mind doesn't change, just like YOURS doesn't.  Nobody said make the3 1.6 an overdog, just make it competitive at the National level

[James York]

James, my mind doesn't change, just like YOURS doesn't.  Nobody said make the3 1.6 an overdog, just make it competitive at the National level

 

Pat, 

 

You are not reading closely.  I responded to Danny post in which he clearly shares his thoughts about the need to create/move the 1.6 to overdog status.  I only said "No car should deliberately be made overdog", in order to disagree with his thoughts.

 

But you selectively took my comment and twisted it to try to make a point that I was against anything of benefit for the 1.6.  

 

You are wrong.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

ok so we make the 1.6 faster and more torqie... Then we uncork the 99-05 and oh whammo the 1.6 is right back to a torqie deficit again...

 

this is such an old beaten to death subject.  I think if I had a 1.6 I would be turning it into a 94-97 car immediately if not sooner.

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

".......speed the cars up, embarrass even more "faster" cars from other classes, get rid of drama and even more people will flock to SM."
 
I think this is the correct idea for our class.  Let's work on going faster within reasonable $ constraints and competition balance.  If that means the 1.6 needs a header and 1/2 point of compression to keep up then do it.  Those that don't want to spend the time and $ can just have a fun SSM or SM"whatever" to play with.

I agree with you on the part about making the cars faster and to quit slowing them down.

If it means letting the 1.6 guys build the crap out of there motors and remove the RP on the NB cars I'm all for it.

I know a guy that has a NA 1.6 car in another class that has it built and it puts out around 170hp so yes the 1.6 can be built to make some hp. That being said how much HP and TQ can a NB car make without the RP ?

If where going to change the class lets go all out and remove the RP on the NB cars and let the NA guys build there motors. Now we can have some real fun !

[Ron Alan]

Slowing the other cars down with plates and removing weight from the 1.6 were both done, 

I've been around since 2010...but I only remember the weight going up in the 1.6? 2265 then 2275 then 2300?

Of course this was done in conjunction with slowing down the 1.8 cars and bringing the weight difference of the 2 from 175lbs to 100lbs. All in an effort to minimize the brakeing and handling differences i'm pretty sure.

 

Fact...There are very few "TOP TIER" drivers who are still trying to win every weekend in their 1.6 car. Most have found it is much easier to be "CONSISTENTLY" fast in the NB chassis. With the same driver...the cars are equally as fast with equal "PREP". The only exception to this is the tracks that high speed and "AERO" are a factor and long hill climb tracks!!! But as many have said, the shorter, slower, twistier tracks will favor the lighter car in its current configuration! But guess what...the best drivers on the East coast show up at these more technical tracks in their NB cars...because everyone else is! And...as many have said...the other factor(and the basic debate here!)is the cars do not "RACE" the same! I'm for a little help for the diehards but if you make it a complete overdog the class goes backwards IMO! 

 

For those who really want to point a finger at how we got here need look no further than SCCA and 5 years at Road America...then Laguna did not help the 1.6 cause at all! Oh yeah...and we are talking about a 25yr old car!!!

 

Cooler air help and a spec header,,,easy and minimal cost for the do it yourselfers!

 

And Thank You Tom Sager for your excellent letter and request! I hope the new SMAC/CRB throw us a bone as well

[pat slattery]

ok so we make the 1.6 faster and more torqie... Then we uncork the 99-05 and oh whammo the 1.6 is right back to a torqie deficit again...

 

this is such an old beaten to death subject.  I think if I had a 1.6 I would be turning it into a 94-97 car immediately if not sooner.

Kyle, if you had a 1.6, why wouldn't you just race that? 
 

[Jim Drago]

Nobody said make the3 1.6 an overdog, just make it competitive at the National level

Since being added to the SMAC I have to be careful to not discuss anything out of context. However I am able to discuss my own opinions and observations, so here goes.
 
As I have said before, I personally do not believe that anything will be achieved for the 1.6 with headers or Flywheel. Dewhurst I think you are mistaken. Of course I could be dead wrong abut this.
 
IMO what is needed is compression and or displacement to provide some or all of the missing TQ.
 
And Drago, I see this differently. I think that we almost have to create an overdog situation to stimulate the 1.6NA car owners and new car builders to pursue the 1.6 as a viable competitive car. Thereafter we can dial it back with weight, and or plate. Until we see 1.6's winning majors I do not see anything changing