107 replies to this topic

[Bench Racer]

Rob, you continuously comment about heat soak. Please define heat soak for a NA1.8 and your data to qualify NA1.8 heat soak from on track sessions.

[Rob Burgoon]

Rob, you continuously comment about heat soak. Please define heat soak for a NA1.8 and your data to qualify NA1.8 heat soak from on track sessions.

 

Nah, let's worry about performance for the first few laps and the dyno to start with.  We'll get into that later.  You can start a new thread for that if you'd like.

 

Also, someone else is going to have to write the letters.  I'm not a member of the HOA.

[Rob Burgoon]

Anyone have a 99 vs 01 on the same dyno?

[Bench Racer]

Rob, we race our cars on the race track as you well know. Dyno to tune, race track to prove. Did your NA1.8 ever lay down on the dyno? Way back in the early days of Spec Miata there were always words flying around about the 1.6 laying down on track (and they did) after some number of laps and while I don't recall many suggestions were made why it laid down. One suggestion was because of the chassis/tire/binding. Today it seems reasonable to suggest chassis/tire/binding was not the main issue. Indy cars. F1 cars and others have built in sensors to dyno and everything else on track. NASA did IIRC a GPS Solo gadget testing whatever on track. If NASA and or the SCCA had on track testing capabilities all the guessing would be non existent.

 

Tom Sager, does your NA1.8 lay down after some number of laps if nothing driver related is involved? 

 

Anybody other NA1.8 lay down?

 

Drum roll please, input from Saul. 

[Tom Sager]

Rob, we race our cars on the race track as you well know. Dyno to tune, race track to prove. Did your NA1.8 ever lay down on the dyno? Way back in the early days of Spec Miata there were always words flying around about the 1.6 laying down on track (and they did) after some number of laps and while I don't recall many suggestions were made why it laid down. One suggestion was because of the chassis/tire/binding. Today it seems reasonable to suggest chassis/tire/binding was not the main issue. Indy cars. F1 cars and others have built in sensors to dyno and everything else on track. NASA did IIRC a GPS Solo gadget testing whatever on track. If NASA and or the SCCA had on track testing capabilities all the guessing would be non existent.

 

Tom Sager, does your NA1.8 lay down after some number of laps if nothing driver related is involved? 

 

Anybody other NA1.8 lay down?

 

Drum roll please, input from Saul. 

 

My '95 to the best of my knowledge does not experience any heat related fall-off relative to NB cars as long as the water temp is managed.  However, Rob races in the Southwest and is likely often racing in higher air temps than we usually do up North. 

[Danny Steyn]

Anyone have a 99 vs 01 on the same dyno?

 

I do not have, but Rossini and Sager have both tested 1.8 NA same day, same dyno, with and without plate and the results are very similar, Anywhere from 4- 6HP increase with average being in excess of 5HP. On the Rossini dyno TQ increase was approx 5 ftlbs (did not get the info from Sager, just got the HP curve). While dyno data is helpful to create a starting point, on track data is more useful especially if heat soak is an issue, the data files will show this conclusively just as was evident with the 1.6 NA

[Rob Burgoon]

I do not have, but Rossini and Sager have both tested 1.8 NA same day, same dyno, with and without plate and the results are very similar, Anywhere from 4- 6HP increase with average being in excess of 5HP. On the Rossini dyno TQ increase was approx 5 ftlbs (did not get the info from Sager, just got the HP curve). While dyno data is helpful to create a starting point, on track data is more useful especially if heat soak is an issue, the data files will show this conclusively just as was evident with the 1.6 NA

 

I believe with the way the cars are currently "balanced" the NA8 is inferior to the 99 before any heat soak takes place.  If we had NA8 to 99 dyno data, I suspect it would support that, much like the NA8 vs 01 dyno graph already does.

[Bench Racer]

I believe with the way the cars are currently "balanced" the NA8 is inferior to the 99 before any heat soak takes place.  If we had NA8 to 99 dyno data, I suspect it would support that, much like the NA8 vs 01 dyno graph already does.

Several years ago Danny and Drago posted dyno graphs. Danny a single engine of which I don't remember. Drago posted a single graph with three different engines. A 1.6, 99 and a plus of some year. I'll look tomorrow and post if I find. You then can impose your numbers on same graph for comparison. Or I would believe you could get some dyno graphs from your dyno guy without knowing whose numbers. Maybe ask Drago. All in all Drago is a pretty good dude.  

[Danny Steyn]

Several years ago Danny and Drago posted dyno graphs. Danny a single engine of which I don't remember. Drago posted a single graph with three different engines. A 1.6, 99 and a plus of some year. I'll look tomorrow and post if I find. You then can impose your numbers on same graph for comparison. Or I would believe you could get some dyno graphs from your dyno guy without knowing whose numbers. Maybe ask Drago. All in all Drago is a pretty good dude. 

 

Different day, different dyno - this will not illustrate anything. 

[Rob Burgoon]

Different day, different dyno - this will not illustrate anything. 

 

Be careful with those absolutes.  If I learn the shape of the 99 curve and how it compares to the 01, it's possible I can prove things just with that.

[Bench Racer]

Danny, I understand. I'm going looking for Drago's.

[Bench Racer]

Rob, for whatever value. My 1.6 numbers were similar to the 1.6. Different dyno, different everything. 

 

Posted 3/24/2013, see page 3, post number 51.

 

http://mazdaracers.c...ead-2034/page-3

[CarbonRacer]

Let's see how much I'm blasted from the NB drivers. 

 

Leave the NA 1.8 with the current rules.

 

Reduce the restrictor plate on all NB's by 1 or 2 mm and "Give It A Chance and See What Happens".             

[Rob Burgoon]

Here's the other chart:

 

http://mazdaracers.c...ed-vs-vvt-40mm/

 

my comments on it:

 

"I don't think so.  Consider the rpm after a shift.  Higher gears have closer ratios so it gets worse in lower gears.

 

Looks like 5th gear favors the VVT a lot on tracks that you don't get near the limiter in 5th, 4th favors the VVT, and 3rd favors the VVT a lot.

 

And that's just power.  Not considering heat soak or suspension."

 

 

 

So from the 95 uncorked vs 01 chart, we can see that the NA8 is stronger from 6250 to 6800 (NA8 gets stomped from 6800 6900 though).  Averages about 2 ft*lbs more.

From 4500 to 5900, 15, 10, 5, 5, 4, 3, 2 ft*lbs.  Averages to about 6 ft*lbs more for the 01.  Significant advantage to the 01 overall, even with the 25 lbs I think.

 

Now comparing the 99 to the 01 on Jim D's chart:  4 ft*lbs average advantage to the 99 from 6k to 6900.

4500 to 5900, the 01 has an average 3 ft*lbs advantage.  Advantage to the 01, especially in 5th.  May need to add more weight to the 01.

 

 

Let's put it all together to gauge where the 95 would fare against the 99.  If the NA8 has 2 ft lbs on the 01, it's likely about 2 ft lbs behind the 99 (4-2=2) from 6250 to 6800 (NA8 still gets stomped from 6800 6900).  Down low, if the NA8 is 6 ft*lbs behind the 01, it's likely about 3 ftlbs behind the 99. (6-3=3).

 

So compared to the 99, I'm calculating a 2 ft*lbs deficit from 6250 to 6800, and a 3 ftlbs deficit from 4500-5900

 

NA8 loses everywhere, has worse suspension geometry, and runs at the same weight.

[Rob Burgoon]

A 3% difference in dyno output due to weather will only change a 3ft*lb difference by 0.1ft*lbs.

 

Tell me again why this data is useless Danny

[Danny Steyn]

A 3% difference in dyno output due to weather will only change a 3ft*lb difference by 0.1ft*lbs.

 

Tell me again why this data is useless Danny

 

Do not see your question Rob

[-P-]

A 3% difference in dyno output due to weather will only change a 3ft*lb difference by 0.1ft*lbs.

 

Tell me again why this data is useless Danny

 

Wouldn't a 3% difference be the difference in the total output, not difference between?

[Rob Burgoon]

Wouldn't a 3% difference be the difference in the total output, not difference between?

Sure, but we aren't comparing total output are we? We are measuring distance from the 01 curve, not the total output. That way if one dyno reads 3% high, it doesnt ruin the comparison since we have an 01 running on each dyno.

Read up on error propagation and uncertainty in measurements if you want more.

 

Edit: in this case the difference between the dyno numbers is about 15%, so 3ft pounds difference might be more like 2.55ftlbs.  Pretty much means that the deltas on the NA8 vs 01 should be 15% larger.  So results are pretty much the same.

[Rob Burgoon]

Loud crickets out here...

[Bench Racer]

My chirping was complete when the 1.6 received the bones. Info I  posted here is to support your parity chirping.