563 replies to this topic

[Kyle Freiheit]

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.

I am actually for 1.8 swaps but that being said.... its really not that hard to get a 1.6 the same Peak HP but more torque.

 

Spec a tuned but sealed ecu. This is representative of a stock 1.6 with a Megasquirt ecu(forget the actual numbers, just compare the difference)

[Ron Alan]

Be careful what you wish for!!

 

I find it so ironic that after a yo-mans effort by NASA and SCCA to come together with a real time effort and get 4 different flavors of cars as equal as possible 2 years ago...that a small minority can raise such a clamor and act like nothing was every done???  Given the same level of car prep and driver skill...You will get a different winner every race at a track that doesn't favor one particular car. 5 years at Road America hasn't helped calm any of the misinformation out there.

 

IMO...short of splitting the 1.6 into its own class, trying to increase its torque and HP(and other suspension changes) to meet that of an unrestricted 1.8 is asking for something completely unachievable. I say this with all due respect to those who are much smarter than I and have been around a long time. Within a year the 1.8 owners will be bitching how hard it is to get that 142 HP and 125ft lbs of torque to compete at the top level because half the heads that are out there flow like sh*t, the intake butterflys keep sticking open, you cant get a golf ball through the chunk of iron they call an exhaust manifold and because they arent making anymore crate motors  it is to expensive to buy a decent core because Drago has bought them all and is hoarding them for his "Team" Actually he has them all in storage waiting for the next parity debate...in the meantime he an Ademir are back in there 1.6's because making HP with the new compression rules, fuel, cams, headers and mapping is like taking Candy from a baby.

 

It has been said here many times but worth repeating...the RP is keeping the cost of racing SM down!! Eliminating them and trying to bring up HP would be a disaster!

 

Is it the end of this year that the Parity rules can be adjusted if deemed necessary? 

[FTodaro]

Ron it's my understanding that last years Change was going to remain unchanged for three years. That is important also as people made choices and built cars in reliance of that statement that they could count on that rule set.

I agree with the statement there appears to be a small, very small vocal group of people who want change.

I think it is just as bad for a class to make annual changes.

The current rules I think most, not all, but most believe are as close as they ever have. But that is just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[Jim Drago]

Be careful what you wish for!!
 
the RP is keeping the cost of racing SM down!! Eliminating them and trying to bring up HP would be a disaster!

If you think some have a slight HP advantage in 99 vs 99, you really wouldn't want to see that difference less plates

[LarryKing]

Yo man, let's be real.

 

The 1999 Miata is 15 model years old. Practically vintage. The time to incorporate the 2006+ into SM is now! (Mazda hasn't sold NB MX5s for 9 years)

 

Of course you can't expect to be competitive in an old 99, but we all know that top drivers get new cars every couple years and if you want to run at the front you have to be willing to spend money.

 

Don't worry though, you can still have fun with your 99 at regional events. The great thing about this class is you can always find a race anywhere in the field.

[Mike Collins]

I love this debate every 6 months. Ever read the SM5 rules? All the problems in SM solved in SM5 and you get to drive a modern car.

[Bench Racer]

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.

 

 Forget the SCCA rules for the moment and let's talk improving the 1.6 torque towards the plus cars.

Please focus on and compare torque only below 5,200 rpm. Total car/driver/gear weight divided by foot pounds of torque is an equalizer.

 

Fact is, racing above 5,200 rpm doesn't always happen.

 

Knowledgeable studious racers can not call this parity.

[steveracer]

Yo man, let's be real.

 

The 1999 Miata is 15 model years old. Practically vintage. The time to incorporate the 2006+ into SM is now! (Mazda hasn't sold NB MX5s for 9 years)

 

Of course you can't expect to be competitive in an old 99, but we all know that top drivers get new cars every couple years and if you want to run at the front you have to be willing to spend money.

 

Don't worry though, you can still have fun with your 99 at regional events. The great thing about this class is you can always find a race anywhere in the field.

NICE!!

[Ron Alan]

If you think some have a slight HP advantage in 99 vs 99, you really wouldn't want to see that difference less plates

I know you got my point...

 

Please focus on and compare torque only below 5,200 rpm. Total car/driver/gear weight divided by foot pounds of torque is an equalizer.

 

Fact is, racing above 5,200 rpm doesn't always happen.

 

Knowledgeable studious racers can not call this parity.

David...if you have already posted YOUR EXACT torque solution, I apologize for missing it...can you post it again?  Will it be possible to make this change without changing the overall HP/Weight ratio in the 1.6? Do you also propose changing the rev limiter in the 1.8 cars so they can at least be equal to the 1.6 at the top shift points? Actually never mind on that last question...short shifting puts us in a great torque range  

 

We do have 2014 left on the current performance adjustments correct? To bad, because the 1.6 could really be made an overdog for Laguna and make a lot of West Coasters happy! As it stands, the East Coasters will have a small chance still    

[Jim Drago]

here is a hypothetical...


We could start with pulling the plates completely on the NA 1.8, have that be the standard at XXXX weight

Then we could allow the 1.6 to bore .040 over, up the compression to 10:1 and add a header, add 1.8 brakes also at XXXX weight

Then have 99/05 at xxxx weight with whatever plate necessary..

When all is said and done, all 1.6 owners would have to buy new engines,headers and brakes. After three more seasons of tweaks and parity debates,angry 1.6 owners who just spent a lot of $$, we would find ourselves where are now, VERY CLOSE.



Or we could just leave things as they are and adjust with plates and weights if and when needed.

[Jamz14]

I'm really confused.

[Johnny D]

I'm really confused.

Yes, but did you care to enlighten us in one page or less ???

 

Or did you want to start this back up again in 6 months???   

J~

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Lol I love that post

[Jamz14]

Johnny,

 

If it isn't apparent why someone would be confused on why there is even an active parity thread going on then they haven't been reading. They haven't been listening to what the people on the SMAC and CRB have been saying when it comes to parity for the year I have been on here. It will start back up in 6 months no matter what shakes out of this conversation so I am not taking any blame for that.

 

There you go, 1 paragraph.............doh doh doh doh doh,,,,,,now there is two paragraphs.

[Bench Racer]

David...if you have already posted YOUR EXACT torque solution, I apologize for missing it...can you post it again?  

 

 

 

To bad, because the 1.6 could really be made an overdog for Laguna and make a lot of West Coasters happy! As it stands, the East Coasters will have a small chance still    

 

Ron, my focus remains very narrow. 1.6 torque under 5,200 rpm. I'm attempting to open dialog on getting the 1.6 torque under 5,200 rpm on equal ground with the "plus" cars. Who wins the straight line race under 5,200 rpm a 1.6 or 99 plus.

 

Second point, don't let that left coast crow squak quite so loud.

 

I'm really confused.

Their making their point.

 

 

Kyle's post may be part of the solution for the 1.6 torque improvement under 5,200 rpm. Ron, what are your thoughts on this?

[MPR22]

If we somehow give the 1.6 equal torque do we get to require they switch to the inferior and heavier Torsen diff?

[Parity]

looks like this is pretty much resolved. Can we move on to driver parity?

[Caveman-kwebb99]

[Craig Berry]

you must have been in the dorm watching MTV video countdown like I was! Feel sorry for those that are not in touch with 20 year old classics like that!

[Bench Racer]

If we somehow give the 1.6 equal torque do we get to require they switch to the inferior and heavier Torsen diff?