70 replies to this topic

[LarryKing]

[Ron Alan]

1.6 motors/cars benefit from every little gain...and it takes all those little benefits to add up to a gem! Even the budget guy would be foolish not to implement the recent rule changes if they are at all serious about improving their game. 

 

SSM has its place...thank you Alberto for always reminding us of this! BTW...bring me all those spare headers at the next event and i will gladly take them off your hands!

[Alberto]

Here is what we found on an engine dyno.  Fresh pro motor, chassis dyno's as A+ motor.  Used the same header tested on the same day only down time was grinding the header.

 

 

 

Wow.  That was very unexpected.  Thanks.

 

 

1.6 motors/cars benefit from every little gain...and it takes all those little benefits to add up to a gem! Even the budget guy would be foolish not to implement the recent rule changes if they are at all serious about improving their game. 

 

SSM has its place...thank you Alberto for always reminding us of this! BTW...bring me all those spare headers at the next event and i will gladly take them off your hands! 

 

 

I'm hoarding them for when one cracks during a race weekend.

[Ron Alan]

Wow.  That was very unexpected.  Thanks.

 

 

 

 

I'm hoarding them for when one cracks during a race weekend.

I will always have one for you...guaranteed! 

[Tom Scheifler]

I can't say this thread surprises me. There are those that know what they are doing, and those that don't.

The 1.6 has always benefited from a better flowing exhaust. From parts binning to find a good header, to searching for the ever elusive value pipe, to grinding down the welds and going through a lot of effort to conceal. That wasn't all being done for years just for zero gain (to use a common argument from several in this thread).

Don't accuse the SMAC of placebo changes just because you can't figure it out. If you didn't see any results, check your work.

Lighten up, Francis.
1. He has checked his work and will again.
2. He is trying to compare results with others.
3. He did not accuse the SMAC of anything.

[John Wilding]

We did the upgrades and found the same gains that were posted on the previous page. The car turned it's fastest lap ever and was consistently faster throughout each session, it didn't fall off as bad. I was able to maintain visible distance with the overall winner (5 seconds) and stayed with secondary leading group at Sebring long which wouldn't have been possible in the past. 

 

I appreciate the upgrades from the SMAC and feel the car is better and can turn a faster lap, but if it's going to compete for an overall win in a hyper competitive field it's going to need some more love. Just my thoughts from some recent on track experience. 

[Tom Scheifler]

We did the upgrades and found the same gains that were posted on the previous page. The car turned it's fastest lap ever and was consistently faster throughout each session, it didn't fall off as bad. I was able to maintain visible distance with the overall winner (5 seconds) and stayed with secondary leading group at Sebring long which wouldn't have been possible in the past.

I appreciate the upgrades from the SMAC and feel the car is better and can turn a faster lap, but if it's going to compete for an overall win in a hyper competitive field it's going to need some more love. Just my thoughts from some recent on track experience.

Thanks for the feedback. We'll be trying them on track soon so hopefully we'll be able to report something more positive than the dyno has shown so far.

[MPR22]

We did the upgrades and found the same gains that were posted on the previous page. The car turned it's fastest lap ever and was consistently faster throughout each session, it didn't fall off as bad. I was able to maintain visible distance with the overall winner (5 seconds) and stayed with secondary leading group at Sebring long which wouldn't have been possible in the past. 

 

I appreciate the upgrades from the SMAC and feel the car is better and can turn a faster lap, but if it's going to compete for an overall win in a hyper competitive field it's going to need some more love. Just my thoughts from some recent on track experience. 

but if it's going to compete for an overall win in a hyper competitive field it's going to need some more love

 

???

 

1. More love as in it is not top prep yet?

2. More love as in it needs more help from SMAC? 

3. More love as in it needs a better driver? 

4. More love as in all of the above? 

[John Wilding]

but if it's going to compete for an overall win in a hyper competitive field it's going to need some more love

 

???

 

1. More love as in it is not top prep yet?

2. More love as in it needs more help from SMAC? 

3. More love as in it needs a better driver? 

4. More love as in all of the above? 

 

1. It is top prep to the rules. I can't think of anything else it needs or that I haven't invested in over the past year to make it better.

 

2. This is where I was hinting at - not sure what the answer is though.

 

3. I used to be a good driver and am finding my way again. I used to race a lot in SM back in 2002-2004 and am getting back into it more frequently, of course I still need some work, always will; but I consider myself competitive. I would love to drive a 99 at some point. The car I'm racing is the same car we built brand new in 2002.

 

Here is a link to an in car video where I finished 4th overall behind 2 99's and a first gen 1.8. Two of the drivers that finished ahead of me have won Majors races in the south east or consistently finish at the sharp end of the field. The video shows a good comparison to the different cars at different stages of the race. You'll also note that the main reason I stayed with the lead pack was due to them racing, and me just trying to hang on. 

 

Enjoy the video!

 

[Sean - MiataCage]

Lighten up, Francis.
1. He has checked his work and will again.
2. He is trying to compare results with others.
3. He did not accuse the SMAC of anything.

 

Tom... To be fair, Steve said the following:

 

"But the bad news is that this little gift will do nothing for us against other models.  The last thing we needed was a placebo"

 

When I read this originally, I myself wrote up at least 3 versions of a nastygram back at Steve, but I though better of it, but that does not mean that it is still not offensive for those volunteering their time to do what is best for the class.

 

My heartburn with the comments is that Steve is implying that he is the official arbiter of what changes will do what against other models.  I guess the "us" he was referring to could have been you and him, but the implication is a much larger one.  Maybe I mis-read it I don't know.  I know you are both good guys and also want whats best for this class but it sometimes gets old when people come on these forums and talk about absolutes that are simply not true.  Once car, one race, one dyno, one region is not applicable for the entire SM community.

 

The placebo comment put it over the top for me.  It's a slap in the face to those on the SMAC and those who are volunteering their time to help the SMAC with testing with real world on track results and data.  We do not and will not approve "placebo's" and honestly I think Steve should apologize for that comment.  As we are all aware the internet is often hard to decipher tone and intent so maybe Todd and I mis-read the intent and if I mis-read it, then you have my apologies.

 

We all want the same things and at the end of the day are racing in the best class in the country.

 

Thanks.... Sean

[Tom Scheifler]

Tom... To be fair, Steve said the following:

"But the bad news is that this little gift will do nothing for us against other models. The last thing we needed was a placebo"

When I read this originally, I myself wrote up at least 3 versions of a nastygram back at Steve, but I though better of it, but that does not mean that it is still not offensive for those volunteering their time to do what is best for the class.

My heartburn with the comments is that Steve is implying that he is the official arbiter of what changes will do what against other models. I guess the "us" he was referring to could have been you and him, but the implication is a much larger one. Maybe I mis-read it I don't know. I know you are both good guys and also want whats best for this class but it sometimes gets old when people come on these forums and talk about absolutes that are simply not true. Once car, one race, one dyno, one region is not applicable for the entire SM community.

The placebo comment put it over the top for me. It's a slap in the face to those on the SMAC and those who are volunteering their time to help the SMAC with testing with real world on track results and data. We do not and will not approve "placebo's" and honestly I think Steve should apologize for that comment. As we are all aware the internet is often hard to decipher tone and intent so maybe Todd and I mis-read the intent and if I mis-read it, then you have my apologies.

We all want the same things and at the end of the day are racing in the best class in the country.

Thanks.... Sean

Good point. I have not discussed it with Steve yet but I can see how "placebo" could be very insulting. I don't think he meant it that way but I could have misunderstood. Hopefully he will clarify here.

[MPR22]

1. It is top prep to the rules. I can't think of anything else it needs or that I haven't invested in over the past year to make it better.

 

2. This is where I was hinting at - not sure what the answer is though.

 

3. I used to be a good driver and am finding my way again. I used to race a lot in SM back in 2002-2004 and am getting back into it more frequently, of course I still need some work, always will; but I consider myself competitive. I would love to drive a 99 at some point. The car I'm racing is the same car we built brand new in 2002.

 

Here is a link to an in car video where I finished 4th overall behind 2 99's and a first gen 1.8. Two of the drivers that finished ahead of me have won Majors races in the south east or consistently finish at the sharp end of the field. The video shows a good comparison to the different cars at different stages of the race. You'll also note that the main reason I stayed with the lead pack was due to them racing, and me just trying to hang on. 

 

Enjoy the video!

 

Your car looked every bit the equal of the blue and white car unless someone was pushing you. 

[MPR22]

Good point. I have not discussed it with Steve yet but I can see how "placebo" could be very insulting. I don't think he meant it that way but I could have misunderstood. Hopefully he will clarify here.

pla·ce·bo

pləˈsēbō/

noun

 

1. a harmless pill, medicine, or procedure prescribed more for the psychological benefit to the patient than for any physiological effect.

   "his Aunt Beatrice had been kept alive on sympathy and placebos for thirty years"

   • a substance that has no therapeutic effect, used as a control in testing new drugs.
   • a measure designed merely to calm or please someone.

      

      

      

      

     As carefully as Steve chooses his words its hard to imagine he did not say what he meant.  Of course I carefully chose my words and have to eat a few of them from time to time.  Hopefully the placebo isn't a bitter pill to swallow. 

[Alberto]

Tom... To be fair, Steve said the following:

 

"But the bad news is that this little gift will do nothing for us against other models.  The last thing we needed was a placebo"

 

When I read this originally, I myself wrote up at least 3 versions of a nastygram back at Steve, but I though better of it, but that does not mean that it is still not offensive for those volunteering their time to do what is best for the class.

 

My heartburn with the comments is that Steve is implying that he is the official arbiter of what changes will do what against other models.  I guess the "us" he was referring to could have been you and him, but the implication is a much larger one.  Maybe I mis-read it I don't know.  I know you are both good guys and also want whats best for this class but it sometimes gets old when people come on these forums and talk about absolutes that are simply not true.  Once car, one race, one dyno, one region is not applicable for the entire SM community.

 

The placebo comment put it over the top for me.  It's a slap in the face to those on the SMAC and those who are volunteering their time to help the SMAC with testing with real world on track results and data.  We do not and will not approve "placebo's" and honestly I think Steve should apologize for that comment.  As we are all aware the internet is often hard to decipher tone and intent so maybe Todd and I mis-read the intent and if I mis-read it, then you have my apologies.

 

We all want the same things and at the end of the day are racing in the best class in the country.

 

Thanks.... Sean

 

 

I hope you don't read that deeply into my comments as none of mine have that level of depth or intent.  I definitely respect the work you guys do.

[Johnny D]

No diss on either side of this but I can see a list of things that a driver is or isn't doing that would make his efforts on the a header seem moot.

 

tires, consistent lap times, prep.

 

Less for the pointy end.

J~

[Danica Davison]

MPR...that was me in the blue and white car.  What I noticed in my rear view:

 

1.)  John Wilding drove better than I did this race.  Combination of driver, setup, tires, whatever it may be.

2.)  The 1.6 is definitely stronger than it used to be, he was not getting a push, but I would not say it was equal in the straight line.

3.)  He couldn't get sucked up into the draft to my back bumper like a 99+ would behind me.

4.)  When he passed me in 14 because of a better run out of 13...I passed him back way easier on the straight than I would any 99+.  I think the 1.6 can hang in the draft...but as soon as it was out of it...it fell way back.  Also happened in qual with him behind me...he hung with me for the first half of the session and as soon as I got a little bit more distance from him...he fell back significantly.  I would make the same argument for the 1997 car with Nick malatesta . 

 

Just some observations

[Sean - MiataCage]

I hope you don't read that deeply into my comments as none of mine have that level of depth or intent.  I definitely respect the work you guys do.

 

Thanks......  You know I wouldn't take your words too seriously with a McLovin avatar.  

[Steve Scheifler]

I've got much more to say (no surprise I'm sure) but for now let me apologize for poorly worded comments. The "us" was ABSOLUTELY referring to Tom and I. I tried to be very clear, more than once I think, that the failure to gain any power may be specific to OUR engines/cars. The less power you make for other reasons the less help a little more flow CAPACITY may help. The only absolutes I meant to state were MY results.

The placebo line, which you'll notice was not part of my original post, was not meant to say that this is or was intended to be that. It was purely speculative in the event that my request for more input from others yielded the same results, and even then not meant to imply intent in any way. I had the same concern about the proposed lightening of the stock flywheel and argued accordingly. But yea, poor choice of word from an intent point of view, though as I recall the average SM rules maker doesn't even acknowledge the relevance of "intent". . Please try not to focus only on one poorly chosen word at the expense of an otherwise sincere request for more discussion.

[Jim Drago]

MPR...that was me in the blue and white car.  What I noticed in my rear view:
 
1.)  John Wilding drove better than I did this race.  Combination of driver, setup, tires, whatever it may be.
2.)  The 1.6 is definitely stronger than it used to be, he was not getting a push, but I would not say it was equal in the straight line.
3.)  He couldn't get sucked up into the draft to my back bumper like a 99+ would behind me.
4.)  When he passed me in 14 because of a better run out of 13...I passed him back way easier on the straight than I would any 99+.  I think the 1.6 can hang in the draft...but as soon as it was out of it...it fell way back.  Also happened in qual with him behind me...he hung with me for the first half of the session and as soon as I got a little bit more distance from him...he fell back significantly.  I would make the same argument for the 1997 car with Nick malatesta . 
 
Just some observations

Weird when we had one 16 car winning majors without these changes... "you can't compare one car".. when one car is being beat by guys with good 99's that win majors.. The 1.6 still needs a little love

[38bfast]

It is so easy to misinterpret what is trying to be conveyed in text format only. Lord knows I suck at it.

I personally know Steve and Tom and have great respect for them and their efforts. Sometimes Steve may have a tone of black helicopter to them. But that's just his way.

Steve has the same goal as most of us. A even playing field. He tried something and posted his results of a sample size of one. Then ask for other examples to validate or contradict his experiment. Smart by my gauge. The placebo comment maybe a bit of that black helicopter stuff.

The header allowance will yeald different results on different cars. I have had a engine builder call and tell me he found +5 with the header mod but stated it had to be done smartly. Sean has tested it and seen about 2. I have seen 2-3.5.

Contrary to the belief of some there is not a conspiracy plan against the 1.6.