Informal Poll: Does the 1.6 need help? How?

Steve, you're spot on with some of your insight. There's a couple things I'd like to comment on:
...

Thanks for the follow-up Jason, but a few comments in return: (Note: I use “terminal velocity” knowing that it more correctly describes the max speed in free-fall due to gravity. )

You said:
“For example, at high speed where a car is aero limited, it's actually weight that matters little, and power that primarily determines acceleration.
...
To summarize, at low speeds, power to weight ratio dominates the acceleration rate. At high speeds, power to drag ratio dominates the acceleration rate. “

I said:(Speaking of variables on the highest velocity straights)
“Aero drag is certainly the greatest potential factor at those speeds...
Generally speaking, with cars of relatively low power, aero is likely the biggest variable at higher speeds (above about 85, certainly by 5th gear) and power/weight more important at lower speeds.”

I see no basic difference in the meaning of our statements, do you? But, I think my point about relative importance of aero vs power at those speeds is also accurate.

“As we approach terminal velocity a few HP makes very little difference, the drag is just too great. Any clear advantage in terminal velocity is almost entirely aero.”

I say this because of course the “value” of a single HP diminishes dramatically as speed increases AND as torque multiplication decreases with each gear. On the one hand, all else being equal then sure, an extra few HP is (by definition) the only difference so it’s really important, but in absolute terms +2hp will have little impact on acceleration as you approach terminal velocity or in TV itself because of course drag increases at the square of velocity and the gearing sucks. So, the faster we go the more likely I am to prefer a very small aero advantage over a small power advantage at that moment. So my point as relating to your data where you indicated aero was set the same for both, was that the ACTUAL aero differences were likely to have more impact at the highest speeds than is the known small power difference, potentially rendering the comparison graph less accurate at the very speeds being discussed at the moment.

Do you disagree with any of that?

As for the rest from there down, I think we are in total agreement. Each car has strengths and weaknesses which come into play under different conditions. One you didn’t mention but of course know and is clear in the data is the higher RPM shift points for the 1.6, which is the only thing that keeps it close. Because “low end torque” has for many years dominated these parity discussions (an absolute obsession for one individual in particular!!) I always make a point of noting that having an acceleration edge early on a straight is better than having it at the end. Besides helping you “get a run” on the guy ahead or break the draft of the guy behind, or win that sprint to the finish line, you get to use those extra MPH a little longer. In almost every way it makes “racing” easier even if the ultimate lap time is identical. Anyone who has driven a 1.6 very long has probably had the experience of being checked up by an NB, intentionally or not, and watched them pull away out of the corner. It requires a little different mindset to stay close and keep the pressure on without getting balked.

And I think we agree on all the pros & cons of real vs simulation data. My only point there is that it’s much easier to test the impact of changes to the SAME car than to compare the “absolute potential” of two, even very similar, cars because when they are SO close even the smallest difference not accounted for with your inputs can distort the results and conclusions.

I think that covers it. Other than perhaps a slight difference in the relative importance of a couple HP vs aero at or near terminal velocity, is there any light between us at all?

Prefacing this with the fact that I have little or no experience, didn’t even drive on a track until I was 50 and completed comp school less than a year ago, I’d still like to add my two cents as a 1.6 driver. I agree with Jim and Ron that there aren’t going to be any new competitive NA’s built unless they get a bump that clearly makes them superior.

As it stands today, I believe a top prepped 1.6 is close enough to compete at many tracks, but there are few left in competitive driver’s hands, so the results may not show it. What the 1.6 represents today is a relatively low cost entry point for us beginners or anyone who will only run a few races here and there. I see that as a good thing, at least in NASA. Of course, this is coming from someone who is 3 to 6 seconds off the leaders pace, and I doubt 30% of that is the car’s fault. To make a proper parity adjustment to the 1.6, you would need at least a couple of top shelf drivers, 1.6s and NBs, and then test at a variety of tracks with several possible fixes. Is anyone really going to put in that effort at this stage in the game just to create an “equal” 1.6, if that is even possible? I say let the 1.6 die it’s slow natural death.

I’ll just keep having fun wrenching on and driving my 1.6, and with another few thousand laps I might just get to mid-pack. Of course, by that time I’ll have probably worn out my Haag motor and will have to buy a 99.

The main point i was making was the perfect issue that VIR presents WRT the 1.6.   Long back straight.  The 5th gear shift takes place right at the crest of the hill.  Exactly when the 1.6 is the most venerable.  I have reviewed all kinds of data last year for the 4 events I raced in at VIR in 2018.  Along with other car data from NB's  Even with a buddy.drafting.. Best top speed on back straight is 117.3 MPH.....   Thats with help..  Not random help.   Planned help....   

 

Alone, if you nail... I mean nail oak tree ... meaning also carrying enough speed through oak tree...  and don't have a head wind, with tires over inflated, air scoops closed on vents, cool weather etc, etc..   You can hit 115 give or take .2 MPH.

 

Given the same conditions on NB alone...  117.. NP... I am open to anyone that has other data to show me otherwise.  In fact.. Please show me this top secret, NB crushing NA that is the folk lore of legends... Like a magical golden miata..  I really don't need to see stuff from 2012.  That data is no longer relevant. 

 

Yes.  the same data shows me eating NB's on turn 1-6..  Really equal or better in 3rd gear range.  Up the S's... actually better also..  But it does not make up for what you loose on the back and front straight.   Furthermore...  i am laying data on data...  not head to head..  God forbid you get pushed to the inside on one of those turns and have to rely on torque to pull out..  If I were in a NB... I would never allow a 1.6 on my outside..  Thats just racing.. No way a 1.6 can recover on a tight entry without rolling out...  IMO

 

To be clear.  I am not here arguing with SMAC.  And my point is not to solicit the board with this.  Just asking...   did we really help out the issue with the last bones provided?    It did little to nothing with the results.  Yes..  I heard the points that Lewis Hamilton has not decided to drive a 1.6 so we may never know.. 

 

To say that no effort has been expending in getting the car to a TOP PREP status.    I would submit my time and receipts to anyone.  I suppose it's possible i am missing snake oil on something...  Trying to secure some of those unicorn axles from rock auto also..  

 

The fact is.  When I look at the data..  I see significant gaps on how a 1.6 can compete on anything with a 5th gear change.. plus..   put a hill in there at the 5th gear change...  forget it..  done.    But i get it.   I don't have 20 years in this SM fight and i don't know anything..  I say the heck with it.  Just banish the 1.6's to regional only like ITA or something.. Hey.. I am fine with that..   But.. if you going to keep allowing them to compete than maybe it's worth the time to evaluate an additional adjustment.  Whats the risk?   A 1.6 make a podium?  Vegas will take that line any day..   More 1.6's enter and pay to race..  Isn't that good for our club?   .   Anyways..  It was just dialogue folks.. that's all it is.  ..   I would like to see a lightweight flywheel BTW.  I think it would be the difference needed..  I volunteer to put on my car... anyways. See you larrys on the track. I will Probably be renting an NB though.....  

The main point i was making was the perfect issue that VIR presents WRT the 1.6.   Long back straight.  The 5th gear shift takes place right at the crest of the hill.  Exactly when the 1.6 is the most venerable.  I have reviewed all kinds of data last year for the 4 events I raced in at VIR in 2018.  Along with other car data from NB's  Even with a buddy.drafting.. Best top speed on back straight is 117.3 MPH.....   Thats with help..  Not random help.   Planned help....   

 

Alone, if you nail... I mean nail oak tree ... meaning also carrying enough speed through oak tree...  and don't have a head wind, with tires over inflated, air scoops closed on vents, cool weather etc, etc..   You can hit 115 give or take .2 MPH.

 

Given the same conditions on NB alone...  117.. NP... I am open to anyone that has other data to show me otherwise.  In fact.. Please show me this top secret, NB crushing NA that is the folk lore of legends... Like a magical golden miata..  I really don't need to see stuff from 2012.  That data is no longer relevant. 

 

Yes.  the same data shows me eating NB's on turn 1-6..  Really equal or better in 3rd gear range.  Up the S's... actually better also..  But it does not make up for what you loose on the back and front straight.   Furthermore...  i am laying data on data...  not head to head..  God forbid you get pushed to the inside on one of those turns and have to rely on torque to pull out..  If I were in a NB... I would never allow a 1.6 on my outside..  Thats just racing.. No way a 1.6 can recover on a tight entry without rolling out...  IMO

 

To be clear.  I am not here arguing with SMAC.  And my point is not to solicit the board with this.  Just asking...   did we really help out the issue with the last bones provided?    It did little to nothing with the results.  Yes..  I heard the points that Lewis Hamilton has not decided to drive a 1.6 so we may never know.. 

 

To say that no effort has been expending in getting the car to a TOP PREP status.    I would submit my time and receipts to anyone.  I suppose it's possible i am missing snake oil on something...  Trying to secure some of those unicorn axles from rock auto also..  

 

The fact is.  When I look at the data..  I see significant gaps on how a 1.6 can compete on anything with a 5th gear change.. plus..   put a hill in there at the 5th gear change...  forget it..  done.    But i get it.   I don't have 20 years in this SM fight and i don't know anything..  I say the heck with it.  Just banish the 1.6's to regional only like ITA or something.. Hey.. I am fine with that..   But.. if you going to keep allowing them to compete than maybe it's worth the time to evaluate an additional adjustment.  Whats the risk?   A 1.6 make a podium?  Vegas will take that line any day..   More 1.6's enter and pay to race..  Isn't that good for our club?   .   Anyways..  It was just dialogue folks.. that's all it is.  ..   I would like to see a lightweight flywheel BTW.  I think it would be the difference needed..  I volunteer to put on my car... anyways. See you larrys on the track. I will Probably be renting an NB though.....  

short answer is... If VIR is not the best suited for your car.. Dont race that track or realize that is the case at that track. The CRB/SMAC has not and will not make track specific adjustments even at the track where the runoffs are being held.  I was on the CRB for 7 years and this is a common request. We never once addressed parity at a single track. 

 

You say you kill the NB cars from 1-6. I am going to assume this is not just your superior ability? It is partly the 150-185 lb weight break? So the car is better in some spots on the track... if we then we address the weak points you mentioned which seem accurate even though an extremely small sample from an extremely small part of the class at this point.. What happens to the car if we make changes to address your problem areas? It is now lighter and as fast or faster than the NB in every spot on the track?   Do you see my point?  It has to be a give and take, no one car can be better in every circumstance,  the cars will never be the "same' 

as we all keep saying, if its top end speed where the 1.6 gets eaten alive (and i agree) without making the 1.6 an overdog out of the twisty bits, the solution is to reduce drag, not add torque or power. suggested options: obscure the front wheels more, drill some speed holes in the rear bumper, or allow cutting/trimming of the rear bumper lip. 

 

 

More 1.6's enter and pay to race..  Isn't that good for our club? 

 

This is a key point. As I make my schedule for 2019 I'm always first to cut tracks like Road America because I know I won't be competitive. I highly doubt NB owners ever have a thought like that cross their mind.

 

Sonoma was probably our last and only hope of seeing if a 1.6L could stick to P1...

Pat, I don't remember the 1.6 data Jesse Prather generated for Mazda MotorSports but as I think I remember, I'll take a header.

 

Jim Drago (Todd Buras) you remember the year your car ran the June Sprints, what top speeds did it reach from T3-T5, T8-T12 and T14- HILL-T1? Shucks with a great spacer between the seat and steering wheel the 1.6 hung with the pointy end dogs. Hey, I'm not saying it's the car to have, it's just a fact it's the car some of us have.

Looking at the low RPM torque the 99 plus cars have compare to the 1.6 should tell the story. They may not need to shift because of a track situation and if they do need to shift they pull a stump and beat a 1.6 to the next gear. 

 

Pat if you were to search this site under Advanced Auto Sports, you'd find they a year or so ago built a brand new 1.6 and tested it against there top 99 plus car same driver, same day, same weather and there wasn't a whole bunch to talk about when it came to lap times.

 

Speed Engineer I see you lurking, 1.6 thoughts? 

The test done by Advanced was great. I was racing that weekend and it was a nice thing to see. However, do remember that this test took place at Blackhawk, which is probably one of the best 1.6L tracks out there.

Pat Mcg, I won’t respond to each point in detail but I will mention a few things.

From our experience the top end isn’t an issue when running in a draft. The NBs have a better shot at making a draft assisted pass but we could hang with pretty much anyone from behind. That’s still advantage NB but it sounds like you are having trouble keeping pace above 100 even drafting? Is so then something is wrong. In fact, with the higher redline for the 1.6 that brief time between their shift and ours is the rare chance to suck up closer in their draft, or start the pass as we did repeatedly at Road Atlanta.

But if top-end speed is your main goal, what’s the point of a lighter flywheel? It’s a little help in lower gears where the car is actually accelerating briskly but dwindling in 3rd, negligible in 4th and completely irrelevant in 5th. Of course if a long straight starts in lower gears then the benefit of building speed sooner adds up, but it will make zero difference in your 4-5 shift scenario and will even soften the little surge you get from the stored energy when first reengaging the clutch. Climbing a hill in upper gears also reduces the benefit of a light flywheel. You may be pushing the pedal through the floor wishing for more torque, but less rotating mass isn’t really the same thing.

For a meaningful improvement in acceleration approaching terminal velocity you need more *real* power at the RPM in question, or better aero.

The test done by Advanced was great. I was racing that weekend and it was a nice thing to see. However, do remember that this test took place at Blackhawk, which is probably one of the best 1.6L tracks out there.

If you backtrack search the site, you'll find the test data was from 2 or 3 tracks.

 

 

Whats the risk?   A 1.6 make a podium?  Vegas will take that line any day..   More 1.6's enter and pay to race..  Isn't that good for our club?   .    See you larrys on the track. I will Probably be renting an NB though.....  

 

Btw.. we have heard the "X" will get the 1.6's out of the garages and on the track since about 2009... There have been several changes with that goal in mind including their own class at the ARRC..  few if any additional cars came out of the garages after any of these changes. 

 

What are we going to if you don't finish any better in an NB ?      

 

This is all in fun....

Btw.. we have heard the "X" will get the 1.6's out of the garages and on the track since about 2009... There have been several changes with that goal in mind including their own class at the ARRC..  few if any additional cars came out of the garages after any of these changes. 

 

What are we going to if you don't finish any better in an NB ?      

 

This is all in fun....

it might not seem that way from the super tour perspective, but i think from the divisional level you'd get some disagreement that helping the 1.6 hasnt gotten more folks out. this is also a key reason why pushing the 1.6 into ITA is probably a bad plan. sure, nationally not much would change, but at the local level, it would split another class, and be a whole nother PITA to everyone to deal with. 

this happens in a lot of motorsports, but taking a national versus local view of things, is often different. sometimes what seems like a minor rules change at the national level has a much larger impact on the local level as far as removing barriers to entry and continued participation. it may not seem like much, but those bones help a lot of folks who sit on an edge. when solo went from stock class, which allowed hoosiers on other-wise basically stock cars, to 200tw tires and street class, nationally almost nothing changed in terms of participation. but locally, every region saw huge upticks in participation, because you no longer had to change tires to compete, you could drive your street car to an event, do well, and drive it home. the national level guys didn't care cause they trailered anyway, but the local guys, could now compete favorably without the PITA of trailering. and its the grass roots racers who keep the wheels on the club, and pay the track dues. throwing some bones to cheap cars in order to help the divisions on participation is not a bad idea. and from a builders perspective, growing the pie for parts, motors, etc etc is always a good plan, even if your not cracking out runoffs winning 1.6s any time soon. 

I want to build a new 1.6 because I think they can be competitive. The hard part is finding a donor 1.6 that isn’t rusted out with 200k miles and costs less than an NB in better condition.

Tyler, took a quick look and here's one with 103k miles including hardtop for $4,100.00. Minus $1,500.00 for hardtop is a $2,600.00. It's in San Jose, California. 

https://classics.aut...miata/100763832

Or buy Bench Racer's 1.6.  Last I knew it didn't have Penskes but was otherwise up to date.

 

Paul Gilbert

I want to build a new 1.6 because I think they can be competitive. The hard part is finding a donor 1.6 that isn’t rusted out with 200k miles and costs less than an NB in better condition.

Did you watch the Sonoma Runoffs? It's competitive, but the margin for error is so much lower than an NB it will probably end up being a frustrating experience.

NA 1.8

Did you watch the Sonoma Runoffs? It's competitive, but the margin for error is so much lower than an NB it will probably end up being a frustrating experience.

 

Having watched the Sonoma Runnoffs from the grass at T2 near the flagging station, I'd say the 1.6 is NOT competitive.  He had to work twice as hard as the NBs behind him to keep P2 (or was it P3 already...) and not make any mistakes or suffer heat soak or let his tires get too hot.  The field of the next 4 or 5 NBs were on his bumper the entire race until finally the P3 NB was able to get a nose inside at T2 and he got freight trained.

 

Once an NB passed the 1.6, they were gone.  Once the NBs got passed the 1.6, driver talent opened gaps between them.  

 

Coming out of T2, the 1.6 was regularly challenged by the NBs behind him to get to T3.

NA 1.8

 

Meaning the answer to the question of "Do the 1.6s need help?" is the "NA8"?

Having watched the Sonoma Runnoffs from the grass at T2 near the flagging station, I'd say the 1.6 is NOT competitive.  He had to work twice as hard as the NBs behind him to keep P2 (or was it P3 already...) and not make any mistakes or suffer heat soak or let his tires get too hot.  The field of the next 4 or 5 NBs were on his bumper the entire race until finally the P3 NB was able to get a nose inside at T2 and he got freight trained.

 

Once an NB passed the 1.6, they were gone.  Once the NBs got passed the 1.6, driver talent opened gaps between them.  

 

Coming out of T2, the 1.6 was regularly challenged by the NBs behind him to get to T3.

 

From watching the video it seemed to me that it was competitive for the first few laps. After that it looked like the car fell off hard. Maybe having to overdrive the 1.6 to stay ahead over heated the tires, maybe it was heat soak who knows.

 

I would think that a 1.6 should have reduced tire wear thanks to the lower weight, but then again others have told me that our Miata's are not even capable of properly heating an SM7 simply because it's too much tire for the car.

 

At least it was fun to watch!