possible new engine rules in Fastrak
#21
Posted 07-23-2011 11:21 AM
-bw
I have an opinion so I must be right
#22
Posted 07-23-2011 11:24 AM
wheel
#23
Posted 07-25-2011 12:00 AM
My initial reaction is > fudge No.
My reasons:
1. I can get a 1.6 for $500 off craigslist or a JDM importer (Atarco for example).
2. I have seen absolutely no evidence of lack of 1.6 motors or parts. Prove it if you can.
3. $3,500 for a crate motor ain't bad and I'm sure the quality is excellent. In my brief time in SM, I've seen and read of more than a few "PRO" motors blow up w/ not much use.
4. I suspect that building the motor would cost about as much as a crate motor. I remember reading ad nauseum on the old site about how building a motor was much more expensive than buying a crate.
If they want to make engine rules changes, they should switch to a spec sealed engine package like other spec series IMO. IT is a builder's class. SM is a Spec class.
#24
Posted 07-25-2011 07:28 AM
My comments from the other thread on the topic:
Alberto
I am missing the logic train on the argument you are putting forth. I don't see how any of your four bullet points affect the question at hand (allowing overboring)
A sealed Spec Miata engine is a completely different consideration, and one that I beleive we should seriously be considering before the cost of the arms war destroys the popularity of the class.
Just my $0.02
Danny
Danny Steyn Racing | DSR YouTube Channel
Danny Steyn Photography | Adept Studios | Ocean Machinery | OPM Autosports | Rossini Racing Engines | G-Loc Brakes |
2 x SCCA Runoffs Champ | 1 x NASA National Champ | 6 x June Sprints Champ | 10 x ARRC Champ
1 x SCCA Super Sweep | 2 x Triple Crown | 4 x Hoosier Super Tour Points Champ | 6 x Majors Points Champ | 5 x SEDiv Driver of the Year
#25
Posted 07-25-2011 10:20 AM
Standard vs +10 pistons and rings are available from Mazda at the same price.
So when rebuilding an engine, there will be no price difference. In the long run, this will be a cost savings, because many blocks are worn beyond the rebuild tolerances allowed. This will save money for the budget racer who does not want to search for a usable block from craiglist or a JDM importer or a junkyard (sorry, automotive recycler)
A no extra charge hone plus same price pistons plus same price rings = No Additonal cost. Versus Alberto's claim of $500 from craigsliest.
Yes, some people will exploit the 0.77 potential horsepower increase. But these are the same people who rebuild their engines twice a year. And buy tires everyweekend. And have data......etc, etc etc
I do not feel this is an issue of rules creep or a cost increase concern.
I am 100% in favor with no weight penalty.
Allowing the 1.6 to go 30 over is a totally seperate issue and is not currently being discussed, to my knowledge.
Dave
Dave Wheeler
Advanced Autosports, the nations most complete Spec Miata shop
Author, Spec Miata Constructors Guide, version 1 and 2.0
Building Championship winning cars since 1995
4 time Central Division Spec Miata Champion car builder 2012-2013-2014-2017
Back to Back June Sprints Spec Miata 1-2 finishes 2016 and 2017
5 time June Sprints winner in Mazda's
6 Time Northern Conference Champion Car Builder
2014 SCCA Majors National point Champion car builder
2014 SCCA Runoffs winner, T4 (Bender)
2014 Central Division Champion, ITS (Wheeler)
2013 Thunderhill 25 hour winning crew chief
2007 June Sprints winner, (GT1, Mohrhauser)
Over 200 race wins and counting.
www.advanced-autosports.com
dave@advanced-autosports.com
608-313-1230
#26
Posted 07-25-2011 10:25 AM
My comments from the other thread on the topic:
Alberto...
I'll give the reasoning behind it if I can under each of your bullets.
My reasons:
1. I can get a 1.6 for $500 off craigslist or a JDM importer (Atarco for example).
What do you do when the bore on your supposed 30k Japanese engine or salvage or street car engine that you just bought for $500.00 is too large for a decent rebuild That is the case in 75% of all the 1.6 blocks over 100k. I would bet 95% are over 100k at this point, despite what they "say" they are. get a car fax and match vin plate on oil pan and see for yourself.
2. I have seen absolutely no evidence of lack of 1.6 motors or parts. Prove it if you can.
Ask most of the engine builders, I know we see as many Miatas, probably more than anyone in the country and rarely do we get 1.6 engines in less than 125k. The problem is not as bad i the 1.8 or 99's, but it is absolutely problem with the oldest cars that happen to be 1.6's
3. $3,500 for a crate motor ain't bad and I'm sure the quality is excellent. In my brief time in SM, I've seen and read of more than a few "PRO" motors blow up w/ not much use.
Do a little research on crate motors, you will find many of them blow up as well. All these engines can and will blow up, we stress the heck out of them. More often than not it is a tuning or assembly issue.
4. I suspect that building the motor would cost about as much as a crate motor. I remember reading ad nauseum on the old site about how building a motor was much more expensive than buying a crate.
It is.
If they want to make engine rules changes, they should switch to a spec sealed engine package like other spec series IMO. IT is a builder's class. SM is a Spec class.
Sm is spec, not sealed. take a look at the SF thread on sealed engines from a month ago where one car had like 8-10 hp on the field and no one knew how or why. In a sealed engine class ( which the ship has long sailed in SM by the way) Those who prep cars will have the same advantage or more IMO. This has been discussed for years as well
Jim
East Street Auto Parts
Jim@Eaststreet.com
800 700 9080
#27
Posted 07-25-2011 10:32 AM
Will some throw more money at another potential HP gain...of course. But I see the benefit far out weighing the downside. We have a great head on our car with a stock bottom end...when we are ready to have the bottom end worked on it will be great to know with almost 100% certainty that we wont have to spend the extra money to find another block assuming there are no holes in the side of ours
As for weight...just doesn't seem realistic to enforce.
For those opposed, how about this...since its no secret that a lot of the big dollars is being thrown at the NB cars, make this only legal for NA cars
Ron
RAmotorsports
#28
Posted 07-25-2011 10:53 AM
Lets not lose site of the thought process here. Potential cost savings for the majority who join this class and the ability to reuse a perfectly good block(not $3500 for a crate) that may have minor issues. Times are a little tight with smaller budgets all around...I'm all for any little things that have the potential to keep people involved.
Will some throw more money at another potential HP gain...of course. But I see the benefit far out weighing the downside. We have a great head on our car with a stock bottom end...when we are ready to have the bottom end worked on it will be great to know with almost 100% certainty that we wont have to spend the extra money to find another block assuming there are no holes in the side of ours
As for weight...just doesn't seem realistic to enforce.
For those opposed, how about this...since its no secret that a lot of the big dollars is being thrown at the NB cars, make this only legal for NA cars
Not a chance
Pat
#29
Posted 07-25-2011 11:03 AM
K. Webb
Powered by East Street Racing (Best engines in Spec Miata)
Driver coach, Spec Miata Prep shop, Spec Miata Setup
2016 Hard Charger award passing 12 cars runoffs 2016 Mid Ohio
2016 P3 RUNOFFS OVER 40 DIVISION LOL!
2015 First consolation prize Northern Conference Majors Title Pageant
2015 Winner Circus Cat Majors Road America
2015 Winner BlackHawk Majors crash fest
My Signature is still not as long as Danny boy's
#30
Posted 07-25-2011 12:48 PM
I keep seeing that number tossed around but I don't where it comes from. Can anyone help me there?A 10 thou bore is nothing. Let's say .77 hp.
Here's my question from the other thread. It is a genuine question. I am under the ASSumption that there is less than a 1:1 relationship between increased displacement and increased power if everything else is kept the same. Right? Wrong?
I'll expose my ignorance here, but the weight penalty seems to be just that - a penalty.
All other things being equal, displacement and the resulting power produced is not a 1:1 equation, is it? If the displacement increases by 0.65% (if my maths are correct), the power gain would be ~0.5% just based on volumetric increase? What about the offset of larger (just barely heavier?) pistons?
I'd hate for this allowance to be made in an effort to help the budget guys, then have them legitimately complain about a 20 lb (~0.08%) weight penalty.
Steve DeVinney
Retired mediocre driver
#31
Posted 07-25-2011 01:17 PM
I keep seeing that number tossed around but I don't where it comes from. Can anyone help me there?
Here's my question from the other thread. It is a genuine question. I am under the ASSumption that there is less than a 1:1 relationship between increased displacement and increased power if everything else is kept the same. Right? Wrong?
Steve
I did the math on 130 hp, it was .77 by volume. No idea if it is a 1:1, it is a best guess, feel very confident it would be very hard to gain anything measurable. By volume, it would be less gain in a 1.6 making 123. ( You see we are trying to slow the 1.6 down by legally giving the 99 another 1/4 HP)
East Street Auto Parts
Jim@Eaststreet.com
800 700 9080
#32
Posted 07-25-2011 01:17 PM
I keep seeing that number tossed around but I don't where it comes from. Can anyone help me there?
Here's my question from the other thread. It is a genuine question. I am under the ASSumption that there is less than a 1:1 relationship between increased displacement and increased power if everything else is kept the same. Right? Wrong?
The number came from dyno pulls from Drago. And I'd reckon that was under a high state of tune, under the best possible circumstances. IOW, like all the top runners do but not like the rank and file do. Knowing that HP is a product of torque, and increased displacement can achieve a performance advantage. However, if one increases the displacement without a companion increase or offset in static compression ratio there may not be that great of a performance advantage, if any.
#33
Posted 07-25-2011 01:25 PM
As for weight...just doesn't seem realistic to enforce.
For those opposed, how about this...since its no secret that a lot of the big dollars is being thrown at the NB cars, make this only legal for NA cars
Ron
How do you enforce over bores now? How about illegal rings? pistons? illegal valves and valve jobs? lightened cranks? There are a lot cheaper and easier ways to cheat if that is someones motive. There is a rule, if you break it you are illegal, At most races it will NEVER be checked. So why not just go .040 over and 11:1 if that is the mentality? I still believe that MOST want to abide by the rules, push them maybe, but not cheat. Running the overbore without the weight is intentionally cheating!
As for being a 1.6 only. This is primarily to benefit the 1.6 owners, eventually the 1.8 cars as well. But if it were a 1.6 only change, it would be perceived as a comp adjustment WHICH IT IS NOT and the 100 flaming posts would read, Why does the 1.6 guy always have to spend the money, why not just put a restrictor plate on the other cars. How it was presented was well thought out before putting it out for input.
We wanted to insure their was no performance advantage,no implied necessity to change, no way it could be interpreted as a comp adjustment and lastly it was a way to contain costs.
Jim
East Street Auto Parts
Jim@Eaststreet.com
800 700 9080
#34
Posted 07-25-2011 01:38 PM
The number came from dyno pulls from Drago.
I did the math on 130 hp, it was .77 by volume.
Steve DeVinney
Retired mediocre driver
#35
Posted 07-25-2011 02:05 PM
-tch
Build: www.tomhampton.info
video: vimeo.com/tomhampton
Support: X-Factor Racing
I didn't lose, I just got outspent!
#36
Posted 07-25-2011 02:19 PM
#37
Posted 07-25-2011 02:27 PM
Jim
East Street Auto Parts
Jim@Eaststreet.com
800 700 9080
#38
Posted 07-25-2011 02:44 PM
I would guess 1+1=2 in this case I took highest legal numbers I have heard and that's what I used to do math.
East Street Auto Parts
Jim@Eaststreet.com
800 700 9080
#39
Posted 07-25-2011 02:52 PM
That makes complete sense. By the same token, I'd like to have a better feel for whether there is a performance DISadvantage due to the weight penalty.We wanted to insure their was no performance advantage,no implied necessity to change, no way it could be interpreted as a comp adjustment and lastly it was a way to contain costs.
Are 0.010-over pistons the exact same weight as standard? Logic tells me they would be 0.6% heavier since they fit a hole 0.6% bigger. If that's true, how much of the gain in displacement is offset by losses in reciprocating mass?
Granted, the estimated 0.77 hp gain is well within the 'noise' but it will become the standard for the pointy end. The flip side, IMHO, is if we put a weight penalty on it to discourage that practice, it doesn't help the parity wars. Besides, what a nightmare for tech. 2 chassis, three displacements, five generations of ECU/engine combo... Then we have to have 2 different weights for each?
For simple minds like mine, this gets confusing!
Steve DeVinney
Retired mediocre driver
#40
Posted 07-25-2011 02:54 PM
You see we are trying to slow the 1.6 down by legally giving the 99 another 1/4 HP)
I knew it!
http://www.olsinvestfinancial.com
http://www.alsinfo.org
http://www.weekendwarriorracing.com
Alan Olson
SSM Driver Rep
WDCR SCCA
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users