563 replies to this topic

[William Bonsell]

Anyone have any Idea if a 14 inch tire and wheel would make a difference for the 1.6 regarding torque

It would no doubt help a bit digging out of a 2nd or 3rd gear corner, but you'd get killed on the top end. That's why auto crossers will downsize wheels.

[Johnny D]

It would no doubt help a bit digging out of a 2nd or 3rd gear corner, but you'd get killed on the top end. That's why auto crossers will downsize wheels.

Well there you have it, get a tire that acts like a drag race tire.

Short and fat a slower speed and taller and skinny at faster speeds.

When you make one, I get a cut.

J~

[LarryKing]

Little known fact: SRF actually stands for Socialist Racer Ford (because all the cars are the same, unlike some other so-called "spec" classes that have multiple generations of cars).

 

Henry would be proud.

[Bench Racer]

Below 5200 hundred anywhere in a Miata is why there are multiple gears. The issue with the 1.6 is the amount of time and money it takes too have a "good" one. I have personally built both cars in the last 3 years and I promise you my current 99 cost considerably less too build. Contrary too popular vote but 100% true. Food for thought I have 17 1.6 intakes and paid over 300$ for an impossible too find value down pipe. 99's are just easier because the restrictor plate makes all parts bin flow testing and Dyno work useless.

Chris has posted one of the nemesis of the 1.6.

 

As Tom stated, taller differential gears or smaller diameter tires robs Peter to pay Paul.

 

In round numbers the plus cars have 13% more torque at 4,500 rpm than the 1.6 cars when looking at, pounds/foot pound. 

 

In round numbers the plus cars have 3% more torque at 5,200 rpm than the 1.6 cars when looking at, pounds/foot pound.

 

Chris and the motor builders/dyno folks know the issues. Forget the SCCA rules for the moment and let's talk improving the 1.6 torque towards the plus cars.

[Jim Drago]

Here are the issues faced by the SMAC and ultimately the CRB.

 

In order for us to make the changes that even 25% of the 1.6 owners feel they need to compete. Most that could or want to win would all be moving to a 1.6 and very quickly as it would absolutely dominate.  It is unfortunate as they are readily available, but they take time, money and effort to get to compete at the top level ( just like all other versions). But most get into the car for 10 k, never thinking they would have to put another 15k into the car to be competitive. That is the reality.  Having everyone change back and forth in cars in this class is not a good thing.( it was not a good thing when all went to the 99's either, that was before my time, you can search and see that I was the only one in 07 or so saying that the 99 did have an advantage and asked it adjusted down while driving that car)  The current rush to 01+ cars is also very concerning and we are monitoring closely.   When the rules came out, everyone screamed the NA 1.8 would be the car to have. Now two years later, most claim that is likely the weakest version of the four.

 

Jim

[davew]

I pushed for the following when I was on the SMAC and still think it is the right direction for the class to go.

 

Allow all NA cars to up-date to the NB subframes, control arms and uprights. Allow the same track width on all cars.

 

Allow 1.6 cars to up date to NA 1.8 engine. May use the 1.6 ECU and wiring in its entirety or swap EVERYTHING from a 1.8 car. No Hybrids! Also requires up date to 1.8 brakes.

 

Let the 1.6 engine cars die off naturally. By either conversion to a 1.8 engine, transfering to a version of SSM or just through retirement. Not eliminate them, but stop trying to make a 1990 model year equal with a 2005 model year.

 

Now we have 2 body styles with the same engine displacement, clutch, trans, driveshaft, diff, suspension, brakes...... At this point we can start bringing the engine performance up on the NA car while leaving the NB as is. Implimentation would take a couple years, so people could plan any changes.

 

Is this the perfect way to go. Probably not. But it is my best suggestion.

 

Dave

[AW33COM]

Allow all NA cars to up-date to the NB subframes, control arms and uprights. Allow the same track width on all cars.

 

Allow 1.6 cars to up date to NA 1.8 engine. May use the 1.6 ECU and
wiring in its entirety or swap EVERYTHING from a 1.8 car. No Hybrids!
Also requires up date to 1.8 brakes.

 

This would accomplish nothing, lose entries, and make me leave SM for good.   I prefer to be a mid packer (at best) as oppose to change everything.  Stability should be high on a list if you want to keep any class growing. 

 

On second thought it would accomplish one thing, grow SSM in the cost of SM, so maybe not the worst idea ever.

[Bruce Wilson]

If Spec Racer Ford can do this successfully (they're on their second time around with a new engine), why can't we?  Will a couple people fall out?  probably, but what's best for the class may not be good for everyone. 

 

Maybe we didn't say MAY CHANGE or ALLOW loud enough or often enough.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

This would accomplish nothing, lose entries, and make me leave SM for good.   I prefer to be a mid packer (at best) as oppose to change everything.  Stability should be high on a list if you want to keep any class growing. 

 

On second thought it would accomplish one thing, grow SSM in the cost of SM, so maybe not the worst idea ever.

 

So... what your saying you would leave a class you are already unhappy in...  Not sure you ever had anything possitive to say about sm??? why not race IT? seems like that would suit your goals much better IMO

[Caveman-kwebb99]

This partity debate will quiet significantly when Pat build his son a 99 and dewharts family dropps him off at Old folks home and they limit his internet use

 

Dont even hear that lunitic jamz bitching about a 94 car anymore, maybe he found out it wasnt the car after all...

[LarryKing]

Now we have 2 body styles with the same engine displacement, clutch, trans, driveshaft, diff, suspension, brakes......

 

At least until the 2006+ cars get added to SM.

[davew]

Schabi, read the first word "ALLOW". I did not say require. And the option of running in a version of SSM would still be available.

 

So you want every 1.6 car to remain as a midpack car? Then why do we have a 10 page parity thread every 6 months?

 

The problem the SMAC/CRB/BoD has is trying to equalize a 15 year swing of cars. This would be easy if we only had 1.6 or only 99s. But we don't. Equalizing NA1.8 to NB1.8 is an acheivable goal. Just as we did with 1.6 to 1.8 many years ago. My theory allows 1.6 cars to gradually up date to the new/improved versions and makes for an easier equivalancy factor when you only deal with 2 designs.

 

We have 2 options in my opinion. Make the early cars faster or make the NBs slower. The NBs are already slowed down a lot from factory with a very small plate and in many cases 100 pounds of ballast. The amount of added weight and plate to make the NB car an underdog would be over the top in my opinion. Any potential improvement to the 1.6 (and NA 1.8 to a lesser degree) is going to cost money. There is just no way around it. No matter what adjustment is made (cam, header, diff, flywheel... pick your personal favorite version).

 

The SMAC has for years tried to bring the performance of the 1.6 up in a quest for parity. The masses have always wrote letters to stop any proposal. You can not have the staus quo and change at the same time.

 

Dave

[Glenn]

At least until the 2006+ cars get added to SM.

They already have a class......

[Jamz14]

Dont even hear that lunitic jamz bitching about a 94 car anymore, maybe he found out it wasnt the car after all...

It was the 97 I was bitching about......... it wasn't the car. The 97 is the car to have. If only the engine bay would clean up as nicely as the car Jim just posted pictures on.

[davew]

At least until the 2006+ cars get added to SM.

 

I don't think that is possible in any fair way.

[LarryKing]

Funny, I seem to remember the same thing being said about the NB.

[davew]

Funny, I seem to remember the same thing being said about the NB.

 

I am sure it was, but the 06 is a completely different car. It is not an evolution of a 05, rather it is a complete redo from a clean sheet of paper. Nothing interchanges between an 05 and an 06. It is like trying to compare to a Buick.

 

There is an idea, lets do Spec LeSabre!!!!

 

Dave

[LarryKing]

What generation of LeSabre?

[AW33COM]

Dave, I perfectly understood your post, but let's be honest here, the goal is to phase out 1.6.  That is exactly what your "ALLOW" option will do.  How many fun/regional stock 1.6 cars will want to do the update?  Maybe 10% at best.  It makes sense to sell, and buy the "proper" car at that point. 

 

More, no one new will want to enter SM in a 1.6, because you will have to buy 2 cars in order to build one.   To be honest swapping 1.6 into a competitive 1.8 will cost almost us much as building brand new competitive car.  So you are cutting yourself off at the bottom end, and you are gaining very little somewhere else (making few guys that own 1.6 cars and want to swap to 1.8 happy, or unhappy if their 1.6 motor just cost them $5000).   

 

It is less harm to leave everything the way it is.  A slightly inferior 1.6 cars should be left the way it is for the talented drivers, or those who want to have fun with some remote chance to be competitive. 

 

Andrzej

[pat slattery]

Somebody created this mess, and it wasn't the 1.6 or 1.8 racers, now it's time to fix the problem IMHO.  Everyone in this class should feel like they are getting a fair shake and I don't believe many 1.6/1.8 car owners feel this way.