58 replies to this topic

[Jamz14]

Well it's mid season and the forum is a bit slow right now so I thought I would check in on how the NA 1.8 BOP change analysis is going?

Did the changes improve the car, increase its competitiveness, cause a change in the number on the podium? Anything? Many have abandoned the car out west, how goes it in the east?

[BNaumann]

Cefalo does pretty good.

[Jamz14]

Cefalo does pretty good.

Is that one spot on an otherwise empty scattergram?

[38bfast]

96/97 seem to do better with a flatter fuel curve. That’s what Marc is running.

[Jamz14]

Last night I spent some time trying to locate results for Marc. I found some. But not enough to warrant using his results as "evidence" that the changes paid off. Not saying they don't exist, only that the results I was able to find in the timeframe I looked couldn't be used to show an improvement made in the car.

So I kinda feel that I was promised that the impact of the last changes would be tracked and looked at , and if warranted, the weight that was added would be removed. Seems like wishful thinking that it is being tracked and looked at and that we are saddled with the weight.

SMAC?

[Jim Drago]

Truthfully not enough people running them to make a change in either direction imo...

Mark is one of the very few that competes in majors and super tours and his car is very competitive as classed.  FWIW.. from my drivers seat and using common sense, his NA 1.8 is BETTER than any NB 1.8 I have seen him race. One would have to think that a guy that easily builds 25 cars a year would build himself an NB car if he felt he was at a disadvantage? Don't you agree? 

[Ron Alan]

Here is a one car/man non-scientific analysis. My 95 has been run this year by several top drivers around the same group of drivers and cars it always has. It has done no better or worse this season than the past several seasons.

 

I've had 2 different motors in the car since the change. The first was the last crate motor Mazda sold about 4/5 years ago(put in brand new last race of 2017). It made 121/116 restricted which was acceptable at 2350lbs...but certainly didn't drive away from anyone. When the rule change came out and I removed the plate...the car made 122/116...not what I expected and frankly with the 50lbs it went backwards!

 

I had another back-up motor that had been in my shed for 2 years...at the request of a very fast local racer to drive my car I decided to put in this motor to see if I could find some more power. Long story short it ripped! Unfortunately the motor lost oil pressure at the end of its first weekend...it was repaired but came back to me making good power but not what it had It sits around 125/116 now. Driving the same weight as the 99 and slightly less than the VVT...and a much less desirable curve...it has competed but not because of power. In this one case it has gone backwards every so slightly with the additional weight.

 

BUT...I have seen and heard of motors making 127/130hp with better torque...those numbers at 2400lbs should make the NA1.8 be right there with the best cars in the country. For perspective, I have seen a lot of cars on our local 2 dyno-jets...a top 99 will be in the 126-128 range while the VVT is in the 124-126. The best 1.6 cars are 122-124hp.

 

Bottom line from what I have seen...best case scenario...the NA1.8 stayed the same(paper power showed promise but on track results weren't obvious). Worst case it went backwards slightly. In theory it should have gotten a slight bump but it is just not showing up in the results...and even on the west coast, there are only a few competitive guys driving them. If I could reproduce the AFR graph of a VVT or even a 99...then we would be talking a different story for the 94-95 cars. I have no experience with the 96-97 ECU but have always heard it is better across the board.

[Parity]

I have raced against Marc in his current NA as well as previous NB's and this car is more dominant than any NB he's run. He did set out with a purpose to build a competitive NA and IMO mission accomplished.

[Jamz14]

Whether Marc is running better or not isn't the point. I looked at 8 to 10 majors results last night. Didn't see him on most. Did see him listed in a SE majors at the beginning of the year. Yes he was second and on the podium, but a second back from first.

Yes Jim it makes sense that no one is paying attention because no one is running them. But that same justification could be used for not messing with the spec in the first place.

Marcs results are not enough to say much. Him driving it better than any of his nb doesn't mean much. He'll I drive the NA better than the nb with the changes. That only tells us that both him and I prefer the NA chassis over the nb.

If no one is driving them, then it won't hurt anyone for SMAC to pull off the weight they added right? Make sense?

[Jamz14]

Jim, if i guy that is building that many cars is choosing the na 1.8 over the nb, it begs the question why no one else is. What does he know that everyone else doesn't? I don't know.

I just fall back to my original point when you guys did this. What empirical analysis are you guys going to use to evaluate what you did? Decide that before doing anything and then stick to it. Don't do it without a plan to evaluate. Make sense?

[Ron Alan]

Hmmm...maybe like shocks next season...we have the choice to run the old or the new rule for the NA1.8? I might go back to the 47mm and 2350?? Only good thing about the weight is it allows any renter I have to make weight in my car!

[Jamz14]

Agreed Ron. Put aside for a moment whether the change was good or bad. The point is what is the empirical process for determining if it is good or bad? Once that is firm and established, then these parity issues become much easier to manage and potentially more important, it gives people a mechanism to fend of criticism from pricks like me.

[Jim Drago]

Jim, if i guy that is building that many cars is choosing the na 1.8 over the nb, it begs the question why no one else is. What does he know that everyone else doesn't? I don't know.

I just fall back to my original point when you guys did this. What empirical analysis are you guys going to use to evaluate what you did? Decide that before doing anything and then stick to it. Don't do it without a plan to evaluate. Make sense?

James

Considering Mark is now on the SMAC. I am sure they will ask his opinion.  Mark never won a majors or a super tour in an NB, been driving as long or longer than me..  With this NA car, he has been competitive and won a few majors with it.  Any help you are hoping for or weight reduction is likely NOT coming.  Then you takes Rons data, I think he left out a few wins i saw with Weaver, Haldeman running the car very competitively at Sonoma the first time out there and byRon's own admission his car is still off a little from where its should be. Taking that info, Just my opinion, but  any weight reduction help you are hoping for or weight reduction is likely NOT coming.

[tylerbrown]

Ugh, just kill off the ugly, old NAs and make them run vintage/chumpcar. Then we can pull the plates on the cool, slick NBs and really go faster!

[Bench Racer]

[Jamz14]

Jim agreed. Still didn't address my main point of what the empirical process to know is. Which is a question that is relevant to all cars and one likely that most people will have to face at some point. So yeah I get it that there is no help coming for my favorite car. One day there will be nb drivers wanting exactly what I want. A reasonable up front analysis of changes made to a car that isn't driven by those that made the change.

[Jamz14]

Btw, that no changes are coming is why many/some have moved on and sold the dogs.

[Parity]

Empirical evidence requires designed experiments and we're not likely to get that. Marc's a very experienced driver who's driven NA's before and well as NB's. He set out to fully exploit the changes and build a competitive NA and has been more competitive than previous so I think he is a good example of what's possible. Emperical? No. But a seasoned driver competing better on a new platform says something. 

 

It's been suggested racers don't take full advantage of rule changes and therefore you can't really determine it's potential impact. IMO this is where the hung juries emerge.

[Paul44]

Tyler, Isn't your NB legal in T4 with no plate?  You already have that place to pull the plate and go fast.

[Jim Drago]

Jim agreed. Still didn't address my main point of what the empirical process to know is. Which is a question that is relevant to all cars and one likely that most people will have to face at some point. So yeah I get it that there is no help coming for my favorite car. One day there will be nb drivers wanting exactly what I want. A reasonable up front analysis of changes made to a car that isn't driven by those that made the change.

James

There is no empirical and completely transparent process that you seek. Just a bunch of guys using all the data they have available, results and years of experience to make what changes they feel are in the best interest of a class they are all very passionate about. I feel you are wanting some one to admit this? If so, there you go.