563 replies to this topic

[Caveman-kwebb99]

They already have a class......

Your calling somethign Collins is racing in Classy?

[Bench Racer]

Dave, my response is not aimed at you. I'm using your words because they are there. Feel free to reply.

 

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.

 

Lets take smal steps for talking.
 

 

Equalizing NA1.8 to NB1.8 is an acheivable goal.

 

Lets talk it through, listing the steps.

Just as we did with 1.6 to 1.8 many years ago.

 

Let's talk it through improving the torque to the "plus" cars.  Leave the suspension mods out of the conversation.

We have 2 options in my opinion. Make the early cars faster or make the NBs slower.

 

The big drivers all ready fit. No need to slow the NB's down. Unless the 1.6 torque can not reach required goals.

Any potential improvement to the 1.6 (and NA 1.8 to a lesser degree) is going to cost money.

 

Understand, nothing in life is free and neither is building a new car from scratch while taking a BIG loss on an existing car sale.

 

 

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.

 

This ^ is not true.....  I and others in written letters requested to gain or free up some torque. I continue on that thought if the torque can be improved to the "plus" cars level. Please don't say this is a Spec class and that we can't improve the torque. That ship sailed years ago.

 

Come on motor builders, transparency, you know how to free up and or improve the 1.6 torque.     The 1.6 drivers (as Danny has stated and which anyone can view looking at the Dyno graph) must stay on the pipe because they do not have gobs of torque under 5,500 rpm.

 

Spec Class entrie numbers for the 2013 Runoffs do not show a Spec Class

 

46, 00/99 cars, 75%  

 

8, 94/97 cars 13%

 

4, 01/05 cars 7%

 

3, 90/93 cars 5%

 

 

EDIT:

 

Jim, % are good, spec line numbers were not correct.
 

 

 

[Mike Collins]

Your calling somethign Collins is racing in Classy?

Hey that's Klassy with a "K"...at lest get it right

[Caveman-kwebb99]

thanks fr spelling lessins!

[Jim Drago]

Equalizing NA1.8 to NB1.8 is an acheivable goal.
 
Lets talk it through, listing the steps.

Just as we did with 1.6 to 1.8 many years ago.
 

Spec Class entrie numbers for the 2013 Runoffs do not show a Spec Class
 
46, 99 cars, 75%
 
8, 94/97 cars 13%
 
4, 00/05 cars 7%
 
3, 90/93 cars 5%

 

 

Two things...

I am not sure you are correct in "what we think" we had back in the day. If we dropped the 99+ out of the equation today and had only NA cars, we would have the exact same TQ debate between the 1.6 and NA 1.8.  We had very few developed cars then, most that were moderately developed were 1.6 cars, not 1.8 cars. Then the Pro series started and the 1.8 cars started to become more and more prevalent and winning, even dominant. Remember both Coellos. in 96/97 cars, Daniels and Buras in 94/95 cars.  

 

Didn't look at the Runoffs entries, but 00 is same as 99, not 01+. I know at least my car is an 00, so that skews your numbers further

 

[MPR22]

Spec Class entrie numbers for the 2013 Runoffs do not show a Spec Class

 

46, 99 cars, 75%

 

8, 94/97 cars 13%

 

4, 00/05 cars 7%

 

3, 90/93 cars 5%

 

 

By my weird logic it appears the 1.6 cars are almost completely phased out,  why should the SCCA start making changes to class that is becoming more homogeneous?  All pro built 99s have PARITY.  Parity is the topic of this thread, right? 

 

 

 

If you can't afford to light it on fire and push it off a cliff then don't build a race car.  What does the residual value of race car have to do with how the class should be shaped in the future (this comes from a guy that owns a 1.6).  

 

But in order to make David happy here are 

 

Ways to increase torque in the 1.6.

 

Increase compression (domed pistons, decked heads below current min, exhaust headers, stroked engines)

Perceived torque increases (lighten crank, lighten flywheel, lighten drive shaft (not sure that is possible) lighten diff (not possible) reduce min weight on car ( too many big boys)  

 

Maybe change cam profile, but the 1.6 is too dumb of a ignition system to take true advantage of this. 

[pat slattery]

Damn MPR22,  the 1.6 wasn't the minority car in the class, we are now. That only happened when the 99 car was allowed.  I can still remember the quote  " the 99 car will not come in as an overdog".  The rules makers have made the 1.6 as the car not to have.  There are plenty of good drivers and good 1.6 cars out there, you don't have to own a 99 to be a good driver.

[James York]

Jim,

 

Since we all want to be even here, tell the CRB I want 100 lbs off my car and a larger restrictor plate.  It won't be fair that I am handicapped compared to a 1.6L with their torque boost next year.

 

Oh nevermind, what am I thinking?  We want to make the 1.6 car have an advantaged everywhere  on all performance measures so we can drive up 20 year old used Miata sales.  I got it now.

[davew]

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

 

I know I have no desire to eliminate 1.6 cars. I own 3 of them. And I do not believe anyone else has that GOAL. My only intention is to allow the current 1.6 cars a path to competitiveness. If you are happy with the current situation, don't change anything. But there seems to be a lot of drivers with an emotional attachment to their 1.6 cars.

 

Buying all new 99 suspension parts,  and a junkyard 1.8 to scavenge the parts off, should be about $2500 in parts. Add $5k for a pro build and you now have no excuses to too be competitive and you get to keep the car you currently have.

 

I doubt this would ever get approved. What I would love to see is a real high end 1.6 built by one of the top teams. Then see it driven by a top driver. Then we can see where parity actually is.

 

 

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. 

 

If by "mess" you mean 1999+ cars, then you can blame SCCA Pro Racing and Mazda. It was that combo back in the old pro series days that allowed the 99+ cars into the equation. And you can not blame the 99+ drivers either, as competitors they decided which of the available options was the best, in their minds, and have invested time and treasure into developing the best car possible (for them). If you choose a different route, don't blame others for your decision.

 

I also know of very few top drivers who are still driving the same car that they drove 5 years ago. Danny Steyn has built several, Voytek is on #4 in 6 years. Elivan has a new car this year. There will always be development. 

 

This thread is about parity. It seems to me the vocal 1.6 owners want parity at others expense. If you have suggestions, speak up. I don't see 99's going away, so offer up some logical ideas and see what happens. I did and look what happened ;-))

 

Dave

[Jim Drago]

I can still remember the quote  " the 99 car will not come in as an overdog".

Truth be told, IT WAS NOT brought in as an overdog at that point in time and development levels. I think it was 2500 lbs and with a 43 mm restrictor in pro. ( before my time, just stating facts)

[MPR22]

Damn MPR22,  the 1.6 wasn't the minority car in the class, we are now. That only happened when the 99 car was allowed.  I can still remember the quote  " the 99 car will not come in as an overdog".  The rules makers have made the 1.6 as the car not to have.  There are plenty of good drivers and good 1.6 cars out there, you don't have to own a 99 to be a good driver.

Pat, 

 

I was only commenting on David's original premise about parity in SM.  We are closer now than ever since the 99 "cat" got out of the bag.  Lets make the class as good as we can given the limitations that we have today.  I own a 1.6, I believe I can compete at the front in my 1.6, but it is too much money and brain damage for me to do so, so I drive a 99 most of the time.  I have almost 20k invested in my 1.6, I don't want to loose that money but I don't see the light at the end of the tunnel trying to please all of the old school 1.6 drivers when the 99 is quickly becoming the majority in the class.  I offered torque upgrade options for David, which ones should we allow?  Allow just a little bit and I will be back in my 1.6 kicking some 99 ass.  Will that be good for the class,  as most of the new blood just built a 99? 

[chris haldeman]

Mpr22 ... Send me your 1.6 and a check for 7500$ and when I send it back it will be the only car you want too race!!!! I am dying too build another 1.6 drive line for somebody. Sadly the 1.6 cars just are not getting any work done around here

[Rob Burgoon]

Pick a year, declare the rest to be purposefully uncompetitive and be done with it.  Spec achieved.

[MPR22]

Mpr22 ... Send me your 1.6 and a check for 7500$ and when I send it back it will be the only car you want too race!!!! I am dying too build another 1.6 drive line for somebody. Sadly the 1.6 cars just are not getting any work done around here

How much will it cost me to have you tune it at every race. I know you have the portable dyno so it is feasible to have the best running 1.6 at each race provided I bring oodles of space electronic parts.

[Stix37867]

After reading through this and past threads, the general consensus is that the 1.6 is a competitive car with the right amount of money and time. Unfortunetly, that same amount of time and money can get you a very competitive 99' so no one bothers with it. Part of that time and money is spent on the dyno testing multiple intakes and exhaust manifolds. This is just one example of why no one bothers with the 1.6 and obviously there are many others. All this is done to maximize performance since every little bit counts and there is no restrictor plate.

 

If this is truly all that needs to be done to get to the pointy end, it seems like this shouldn't be that difficult of an issue to solve. Simply reduce the cost per horsepower. Since the 1.6 has had an open intake rule, I would leave that alone, but we can do something about the need to spend pointless money on exhaust manifolds. Why not ALLOW the 1.6 to replace the exhaust manifold? I would suggest requiring only one option to avoid crazy costs in development to get out of hand. Racing Beat makes a header that would work great and costs only about $90/HP per Racing Beat's testing (I picked Racing Beat as they support the Mazda community well). I do feel, and hope, that we would gain more than them since we can modify the intake and fuel so we can tune it appropriately. Once proper testing is done, it will probably be too powerful which is actually a good thing. We can then add a restrictor like all the other models already use. This would eliminate the need to do any further spending on getting every last tenth of a horsepower. If after this more power is needed, spec a lightened flywheel and proceed again with a restrictor plate.

 

I feel a restrictor is key to controlling costs on motor builds. Looking at the costs of pro motors for the 1.8 (NA and NB), $5-6k is not too bad considering the lifespan and reliability. The fact that they are all limited by the restrictor plates keeps these costs down. Eliminate the restrictors and you'd see a jump in pricing and a decrease in lifespan.

 

Our goal is be to make the 1.6 a little more competitive rather than an overdog. Giving it too much horsepower followed by the restrictor plate would help achieve this. This would make fine tuning each model much easier since we'd have both restrictor size and weight to work with.

 

I'm sure no one will like this suggestion so feel free to rip it apart....

[Bench Racer]

J. Drago, I errored in the spec lines, not the percentages. I also don't beleive I made any comment about what was thought back in the day. You sell motors, how about some positive input for the 1.6 motor.

 

Dave Wheeler, how about some positive input for the 1.6 motor.

 

M. Ross, thanks for you increased torque thoughts.

 

C. Haldeman offers up a driveline for $7,500. Let's talk at the Runoffs.

 

D. Schroeder thank you for thinking outside the box. 

 

Those with their old car thoughts, how about some positive thoughts for your class.

 

I'm not a motor builder, BUT if the 1.6 hurdles of less torque under 5,500 rpm and the required picky parts were solved we'd be home free and maybe even require a restriction of some sort. If I as a 1.6 owner can have only one of the two items mentioned, I'll take more torque under 5,500 rpm. Dyno time is not an issue for me as a 1.6 owner but I don't buy into the picky parts crap. 

 

As always, Have Fun

David Dewhurst

 

ps:

Yes, it's understood some people think the 99 plus suspension is required.

[Jim Drago]

J. Drago, I errored in the spec lines, not the percentages. I also don't beleive I made any comment about what was thought back in the day. You sell motors, how about some positive input for the 1.6 motor.

Ok on spec line..
I do Sm motors.. outside SM engines, less testing I don't know how to accomplish what your asking.
My best guess would be .040 over and 10.5-11:1 compression, then dyno and see what you get. Maybe through a set of stock cams in FP engine and test. May be real close to a 99? Will definitely add Tq, but HP as well. May need to change cam profile as well? Then add restrictor and weight to adjust to 99? BTW, this adds more expense to a car that is already the most expensive car to build. If we make EXACTLY equal hypothetically, why wouldn't you build the 99 that costs less and still has better suspension?

Then we do the same to 94/97 adjust plate/weight, then adjust 99 up to that car.. also change fuel rules for SM as 10.5-11:0 wont run on pump gas.

I think any change is just the first domino in a long, long line.

[Bench Racer]

I think any change is just the first domino in a long, long line.

Yes, there is potential for the domino, BUT if we don't talk we loose all the 1.6's which I presume are still very large numbers.

 

From the left coast talk they have large numbers of 1.6's. Yet they are today staying out of this thread.     Maybe after the 2014 Runoffs they'll be more active/concerned for their 1.6's.

 

To bad we can't track the spec line that podiums. I know a guy that wrote a letter on the subject.

[Tom Sager]

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

I think these are sound ideas from Dave.  If a 1.6 owner makes the engine swap to a 1.8 at the time a rebuild is needed, the added cost is pretty minimal.  If the suspension change is perceived to be too expensive and might create a "haves and have nots" situation among NA competitors, then just give the NA cars a small weight break due to the older suspension.  Getting an NA 1.8 to equal power with a '99 is not any harder than a larger restrictor plate.  The health of this class will be best when entry level competitors can begin with inexpensive cars and the rules provide an easier path than they do today to field a more competitive car.  

[Johnny D]

I don't know why people look at the runoffs turn outs and then talk parity.

If you read Danny's post you'd know you bring your best weapon.

 

Yes in a perfect world we'd have 33.3% for every class but guess what..

 

Also I hope you've read/done everything Sean posted.

You just can't say it's not fair when you're not there yet.

 

And IMO this is more a track dependent East cost issue.

J~