268 replies to this topic

[Steve Scheifler]

I understand the natural tendency to think in terms of the front pack at Majors, but better parity for the 1.6 is about much more than whether one could succeed there. How many times have we heard a regional 1.6 driver bemoan the day that their arch nemesis switched to an NB? It's been said, and apparently forgotten, many times that parity matters throughout the field so cars of comparable prep and driver are close. So IF the 1.6 needs help then the decision is not just for someone trying to compete at Majors, it's for everyone.

And though it's also natural to think that someone who can't afford new tires every weekend or isn't able to optimize setup for every track shouldn't worry about the finer details of parity, that's just not for the elite to decide. By that reasoning there is no point in most of the post-race tech because despite the talent in this class, even the best "mistake free" race videos I've seen were FULL of little mistakes that added up to more than any little compliance issues are worth, so until you eliminate those I say shut the F up and drive!

[Todd Green]

How many times have we heard a regional 1.6 driver bemoan the day that their arch nemesis switched to an NB?

 

I can give you an example of a  guy in our region who was a mid-packer in his 99 then bought Dean Thomas' 1.6 and went to winning races.  I can give another example of a guy who went from a 99 to the same 99 , but put in a Rossini motor when the overbore +15 lbs rule came about and all of a sudden picked up a second+ a lap (probably 2 on our 3 mile config.  Sorry too lazy to go look up the exact numbers.).

 

The point being is that there is such a variability in regional car prep that I don't think you can always just look at all the NA -> NB success stories without knowing the full details.

[Steve Scheifler]

I don't disagree, and not relying on any individual stories because my point is that parity is for everyone not just the minority who aspire to win at Majors. We all would prefer that with equal prep and equal driving our cars will be equally competitive, so even if a 1.6 never again competes for a majors win, we should strive for parity or give that up and split the class.

[Cnj]

I don't disagree, and not relying on any individual stories because my point is that parity is for everyone not just the minority who aspire to win at Majors. We all would prefer that with equal prep and equal driving our cars will be equally competitive, so even if a 1.6 never again competes for a majors win, we should strive for parity or give that up and split the class.

Steve, please explain your logic. This is what I interpreted from your last 2 posts.

1. Don't use the front of the pack to determine parity.
2. Do use the middle of the pack to determine parity.

Your argument appears to be that requiring all cars to be top prep and driven by skilled top drivers as a point of reference for parity checks is unfair to the mid pack. Presumably (if the apocryphal stories are accurate) this means that the 1.6 should be given a larger boost than one might give it if only looking at front pack prep. By extension this means that the 1.6 will be an overdog at the front of the pack. Yes?

CNJ

[Tom Scheifler]

No, that is not what I meant. I am saying those guys will spend the money and time required to get the cars as close as possible in preparation. They also have the ability to drive at the front. IMO, they will compete as is, may win, may not. Most likely they will be off compared to where they were with their NB car. We would know how much the car really needs. I think it does need a little. Of course this is all just talk anyway..

OK. I'll put away the tar and feathers.

[38bfast]

It's all Dragos fault. He was one of the first to go down the NB road and do well with it.

[Tom Scheifler]

It's all Dragos fault. He was one of the first to go down the NB road and do well with it.

That's more of a burn-at-the-stake offense

[Steve Scheifler]

Steve, please explain your logic. This is what I interpreted from your last 2 posts.

1. Don't use the front of the pack to determine parity.
2. Do use the middle of the pack to determine parity.

Your argument appears to be that requiring all cars to be top prep and driven by skilled top drivers as a point of reference for parity checks is unfair to the mid pack. Presumably (if the apocryphal stories are accurate) this means that the 1.6 should be given a larger boost than one might give it if only looking at front pack prep. By extension this means that the 1.6 will be an overdog at the front of the pack. Yes?

CNJ

No, no, not what I'm saying at all. My point is that some imply that true 1.6 parity (potential) isn't really important anymore because nobody trying to be at the front wants to build a 1.6, and existing 1.6 owners don't do what it takes to be competitive anyway. A bit simplified but very clearly communicated again and again. You won't see anything in my posts about HOW to determine what, if anything, is needed to achieve parity. I don't know where you got that? What I said was that IF we can improve parity it is not just for front runners, we owe it to everyone whether or not they are less talented or driving a lower prep car. Obviously the only logical benchmarks are well prepped cars.

[38bfast]

Steve and there is the issue. No one wants to do what it takes to get the 1.6 to that top level when they can't achieve the same performance with less time and money building a newer car. Not many would choose to walk uphill when there is a downhill way to the destination

[Steve Scheifler]

Still not my point Ralph. All I'm trying to say is that as long as the cars are in the same class, parity *potential* still needs to be equal. It may be more expensive or more difficult to maintain, but the 1.6 should not be accepted as being at an inherent performance disadvantage just because the top teams and drivers have switched to NBs.

I suspect that a fully prepped 1.6 can turn laps with equally prepped NB's at many tracks, faster at some, though with different strengths and weaknesses. I do also tend to think that even if they can hang with the pack, in the end the NB strengths give them the edge in passing and defending, and crossing the finish line first. In other words, all else being equal I would bet on the NB more often than not. By that measure the 1.6 needs some help, but the only way to make the cars "equal" is to make them the same in everything, and that isn't possible. So we try to balance strengths and weaknesses to keep them close overall, which they are, but I still know that if an NB checks me up a bit entering a corner he can take away my small advantage and pull away with his.

[Mark McCallister]

1.6 driver, technically sold it to racing partner but still co-driving it

99 in driveway ready to be built into NB SM

97 in driveway ready to be traded in on 2016

 

Would like to see on 1.6:

Turn-signal delete both sides, possibly with spec ducting

Allow optional compression bump and slightly restrictive plate package, to knock top end back down, adjust plate size over time as required for BoP

Keep 2275 weight!

 

PS: I've never sprung for a pro motor for the 1.6 and might not spring for the compression bump either, but that would be my choice, I'd like the option.  By the time my driving was ready for more motor, the writing was on the wall that 1.6 development money wasn't smart development money.

[Tom Scheifler]

Tom the only problem with that statement, is that many of the regional racers do not optimize what they have and changing the rules will not change how they approach prep or more importantly how they drive the car.

a few examples. some guys do one alignment a year, will changing these rules help if the set up is off?

I disagree. That's basically saying if a driver is not doing 100% top prep then it's pointless to do any prep. Each item is incremental and it all contributes to better times. Would you skip doing setup just because you're not running optimal tires? Of course not. So why should someone concede parity just because they're not yet at 100% top prep?

I agree that if the perfect parity fix is $5000 there would be far fewer 1.6 cars doing it than if it was $50. That's why it is important to try something like removing the turn indicator(s) first.

[Todd Green]

1.6 folks, my intake air is good through the AFM, it gains 40* F in the plastic tube between the AFM and throttle body. There is a letter in requesting wrapping the plastic tube be made legal.

 

How are you measuring this?  Did you put sensors inside the intake tube in two locations, or are you just measuring air near the throttle body with a thermocouple?  Also why is your AFM horizontal? (http://mazdaracers.c...hurst-cool-air/)

[DrDomm]

I've never owned a 1.6, and have limited mechanical knowledge to make suggestions on improving its performance.

 

But couldn't we use a Regional class as a way to "test" these proposed upgrades.  Find a region with a good mix of quality 1.6's and NB's, give the 1.6's some upgrades, and call the class SMX (or whatever).  Let them run with SM, and see what happens. 

 

Maybe it's been done, maybe it's stupid, but just a thought.

[Tom Scheifler]

But couldn't we use a Regional class as a way to "test" these proposed upgrades. Find a region with a good mix of quality 1.6's and NB's, give the 1.6's some upgrades, and call the class SMX (or whatever). Let them run with SM, and see what happens.

Depends on how long it took. If implemented now for region and go national start of 2016 (assuming it works) would be as long a delay as I'd want.

[Tom Scheifler]

Repost from other thread to support removing turn indicator(s) ...

"heat soak" (high underhood air temperatures, really) has ALWAYS hurt that car, and I don't understand why so many in the 1.6 Union refuse to believe something backed by physics, automotive industry tech papers, and on-track measurement and testing. The 1.6 will always be a parity misfit as long as it is fast early and when ambients temps are cool, and slow late and when amibient temps are hot.

Give the car cool air before pursuing all the complicated, expensive, labor-intensive hard parts. If it isn't being tested on track in consideration of the under-hood temps, then it is just dyno fiction.

The NB Union will whine just because they fear someone might actually make a 1.6 that can win, but tell them to calm down - simply giving the 1.6 cool air won't make it a dominant rocketship - it will just help it be as fast as it is in qualifying and be able to turn its fast lap from start to finish like the NB does. It will make the car much easier to fit in with the others on overall parity.

[cam]

I'm a 1.6 racer.

 

There have been some interesting suggestions on how to help the 1.6.  Cooler air to the AFM will help it not fall over towards the end of a sprint race but will not help the missing torque issue.  Do not think a header will really help the 1.6 much as for as power goes but most aftermarket headers are lighter than the stock manifold and downpipe, it will help cross weights.

 

Since the 1.6 version of fuel injection uses a very restrictive AFM, allow the 1.6 engine to go up a half a point on compression and first standard overbore.  The higher compression will help with torque while the AFM still restricts top end power.  Also allowing hotter cams can boost power, more lift and duration but keep the LCA wide to help torque at 5K RPMs.  If these changes make the 1.6 too powerful, then allow less restrictive plates on the 1.8s.  

 

The 1.6 is also eligible for other classes within both SCCA and NASA. 

[Bench Racer]

Todd, the AFM meter works well that way. Have adjustable FPR. I understand the corner and gravity thing. Thermocouple at filter, AFM and throttle body each position, different run.

 

With the cool air intake posted by Todd/Tom Hampton and an ILLEGALLY WRAPPED plastic air tube form AFM to throttle body, yesterday with ambient air temperature of 90* F the temperature at the throttle body was 117* F. There is a 40* F air temperature increase in same plastic air tube un-wrapped with 85* F ambient. With all the smarts on this site and the engine builders, what is a/your theoretical  power increase percent per each temperature increment of temperature decrease.

 

Those folks that desire a cool air intake, please write a letter requesting wrapping the 1.6 plastic tube be legal.

 

My letter was sent and I will now send an addendum including the yesterdays test data. Ambient air intake alone will not provide maximum temperature reduction.

 

The wrap material was $60.00 and the adhesive spray was $20.00.

 

After completing this data gathering it gets me wondering how many intake tubes are insulated on the inside,

and I'm not talking about only 1.6 intake tubes.

[38bfast]

So 37 total votes on this informal poll. Not saying much for the 1.6 gang feeling this is a important issue.

[Rob Burgoon]

Todd, the AFM meter works well that way. Have adjustable FPR. I understand the corner and gravity thing. Thermocouple at filter, AFM and throttle body each position, different run.

 

With the cool air intake posted by Todd/Tom Hampton and an ILLEGALLY WRAPPED plastic air tube form AFM to throttle body, yesterday with ambient air temperature of 90* F the temperature at the throttle body was 117* F. There is a 40* F air temperature increase in same plastic air tube un-wrapped with 85* F ambient. With all the smarts on this site and the engine builders, what is a/your theoretical  power increase percent per each temperature increment of temperature decrease.

 

Those folks that desire a cool air intake, please write a letter requesting wrapping the 1.6 plastic tube be legal.

 

My letter was sent and I will now send an addendum including the yesterdays test data. Ambient air intake alone will not provide maximum temperature reduction.

 

The wrap material was $60.00 and the adhesive spray was $20.00.

 

After completing this data gathering it gets me wondering how many intake tubes are insulated on the inside,

and I'm not talking about only 1.6 intake tubes.

 

What was the temp at AFM?

 

Your previous test without wrapping, it was 85* outside and what temperature at throttle body?