563 replies to this topic

[Pete Maerz]

Here is my letter to the CRB to propose addressing parity. Ultimately I think more drastic measures have to be made to make the cars truly equal, but this is a request to do something now. In my mind, using the engine performance data to balance the cars would be making lemonade out of lemons. Perhaps this is the SCCA's plan already in which case that's great. I think we need throw away some of the preconceived notions of current performance balance and let the empirical data speak for itself, especially in light of the recent compliance problems.

 

 

Dear CRB,

First, I’d like to applaud the club for taking action in response to the cases of non-compliant Spec Miata cylinder heads at the runoffs. The level of effort and dedication by SCCA, Mazda, and supporting expert participants is not lost on this member. Please do not let the negative reactions of vocal members dissuade the club from taking action in the future in the interests of fair and competitive racing.

 

I am writing to propose that the CRB leverage the club’s recent independent engine testing data to make a fresh, clean-sheet assessment of parity among the different versions of cars. Please discard all currently established weights and restrictor plate sizes, and use the empirical data from the engine testing as the basis to balance the cars as close as possible today. Perhaps engage resources from SCCA Pro racing for unbiased consultation. I assume that the CRB has established methods for balancing cars of different output level that considers the effects of aerodynamic and mechanical drag of vehicles at varying speed and cornering loads. If the current rule provisions are adequate then the results of this exercise will support it.

 

Thank you for your dedication to the club and consideration in this proposal.

 

Pete Maerz

#349994

[Steve Scheifler]

I think you overestimate the number of engines in their tests and what they will learn from them. I suspect you also overestimate the sophistication of their typical equalization methodology. That's not a slam on them, it is a tough and largely thankless job which they seem to do fairly well all considered, but probably not typically at the level you suggest.

Hopefully they will surprise me.

[Johnny D]

Hey, you found the thread from last year, basically the one with a million post that happens every year

DD leading the charge for 1.6's needing help. I think we've worn him down some, he seems tired.

 

Once again we've thrown out a ton of mod's.

 

IDK, will see what happpens this year, all the best.

 

J~

[James York]

I think you overestimate the number of engines in their tests and what they will learn from them. I suspect you also overestimate the sophistication of their typical equalization methodology. That's not a slam on them, it is a tough and largely thankless job which they seem to do fairly well all considered, but probably not typically at the level you suggest.

Hopefully they will surprise me.

 

He searches for utopia.  Won't happen and doesn't exist.

 

If people want identical, its either SRF or specify one model for SM and be done with it.

[Bench Racer]

Pete, thank you for doing something positive.   Now, how about the other 1.6er's get out of the shadow of big brother (shadow being the torque curve of the 99 plus cars), they'll do nothing for you and your 1.6. If some of you don't understand the value of torque, remember the on track times when you come out of a corner equal speed with a 99 plus car and they walk you down the straight, TORQUE, not 99 suspension parts. 

 

 

 DD leading the charge for 1.6's needing help. I think we've worn him down some, he seems tired.

J~

 

 I suspect you also overestimate the sophistication of their typical equalization methodology.

 

Hopefully they will surprise me.

 

He searches for utopia.  Won't happen and doesn't exist.

 

You know what they say if you do nothing you get nothing.       If we could get them to pay attention, that'd be a start.

I suspect they used their sophisticated equalization methodology from utopia during years 2006 through 2012 when they changed the 1.6 weight 5 (five) times.

 

If CR from utopia increased the 1.6 torque similar to the 99 plus cars there is this thing called plate and or weight to reel the 1.6 back to parity. 1.6er's think outside the box and write a simple clean short letter.

 

Within this thread, I'm not screwing up Steve's thread. 

 

David Dewhurst

[Johnny D]

You know what they say 

 

David Dewhurst

 

If you can't beat them, join them.

J~

[Jim Drago]

Moved all the BS from other thread here..

Any 1.6s in your picks?

Haven't picked a 1.6 car since 2006 other than Todd in his 1.6.. But when he dominated in 2012.. there were lots of reasons and excuses that others couldn't even compete    ( same as now ) 

there were lots of reasons and excuses that others couldn't even compete    ( same as now ) 

Which car wins the drag race starting in second gear and shifting as required to 6,000 rpm, theee Drago/Buras 1.6 or a Majors driver in a 99? No side stepping, the answer is the 1.6 or the 99.

[Jim Drago]

Which car wins the drag race starting in second gear and shifting as required to 6,000 rpm, theee Drago/Buras 1.6 or a Majors driver in a 99? No side stepping, the answer is the 1.6 or the 99.
[/quote]

As I stated in an earlier post the 2012 June Sprints race was a fantastic race by the front five. I watched from T5 bleechers also viewing T14 & up the hills. Never knew who would be what position at either track location or how long the position would be held.

I was just trying to preempt another Bench-rant, but I knew it was futile.
[/quote]
Steve, you posted the 1.6 coment, Jim needs no support from you, and you and your 1.6 will never get any support from him.

Which car wins the drag race starting in second gear and shifting as required to 6,000 rpm, theee Drago/Buras 1.6 or a Majors driver in a 99? No side stepping, the answer is the 1.6 or the 99.
[/quote]
 
Jim, answer the drag ^ race question (no side stepping), 1.6 or 99.

[Tom Sager]

Bench, at what temperature, humidity, barometric pressure and altitude?  

[Jim Drago]

So bench.. I am not that busy today.. So I will humor you...

Why would I ever answer your questions without side stepping when you have never done so in 10+ years?

You answer this one as it is almost as relevant..
Who wins the drag race from 6500-7200?
And why in the world would shifting be required here? "starting in second gear and shifting as required to 6,000 rpm" I think I have found your problem. I will give you a hint, when in second, don't shift before 6000 rpm, don't shift at 6000 rpm.. shift at 7100-7200 RPM.

[Bench Racer]

 

Bench, at what temperature, humidity, barometric pressure and altitude?

Tom, am in total understanding of air density. If the drag race were side by side or were measure by the SCCA black boxs from a few years ago, I'd hope both cars adjusted accordingly. It's going to take a bunch more than cool intake air to get the 1.6 torque below 5,500 rpm where the torque needs to be. 

[Tom Sager]

 

Tom, am in total understanding of air density. If the drag race were side by side or were measure by the SCCA black boxs from a few years ago, I'd hope both cars adjusted accordingly. It's going to take a bunch more than cool intake air to get the 1.6 torque below 5,500 rpm where the torque needs to be. 

Actually I wasn't being serious.     

[Bench Racer]

So bench.. I am not that busy today.. So I will humor you...

You answer this one as it is almost as relevant..
Who wins the drag race from 6500-7200?
And why in the world would shifting be required here? "starting in second gear and shifting as required to 6,000 rpm" I think I have found your problem. I will give you a hint, when in second, don't shift before 6000 rpm, don't shift at 6000 rpm.. shift at 7100-7200 RPM.

That's a fantastic answer, I'll store all that extra torque gained above 5,500 rpm in the torque storage tank and use it the next time there's a race condition below 5,500 rpm. Hmmm, never thought of that before. I could put some factual numbers out for you again, but to what good, I and others have posted the numbers in the past. If you gave a damn as a CRB member you should have read posted numbers. Go beat up on the other drivers and enginers better than me that posted numbers. If you forget who posted the numbers, search within this thread. If your truley honest, take the torque numbers for both the 1.6 and the 99 at 4,000 rpm and tell me which car is accelerating more weight in terms of weight/pound foot and then convert to prue weight in pounds. Or plug the numbers into that fantastic simulation software the SMAC/CRB used for parity.
 

[Jim Drago]

That's a fantastic answer, I'll store all that extra torque gained above 5,500 rpm in the torque storage tank and use it the next time there's a race condition below 5,500 rpm. Hmmm, never thought of that before. I could put some factual numbers out for you again, but to what good, I and others have posted the numbers in the past. If you gave a damn as a CRB member you should have read posted numbers. Go beat up on the other drivers and enginers better than me that posted numbers. If you forget who posted the numbers, search within this thread. If your truley honest, take the torque numbers for both the 1.6 and the 99 at 4,000 rpm and tell me which car is accelerating more weight in terms of weight/pound foot and then convert to prue weight in pounds. Or plug the numbers into that fantastic simulation software the SMAC/CRB used for parity.
 

I know you are, but what am I I'm bubble gum and you're glue... Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks on you

[Ron Alan]

I think Jim is liking his new position...don't you David?

[KW78]

I am really not sure why we need a SMAC.  I simply used yahoo answers to answer the parity question put forth with a simple query.  This is what they said....

 

 

 

 

Cars & Transportation Other - Cars & Transportation

Next

How can downshift increase speed?

ive heard in a standard car you can downshift inorder to increase speed. i understand how in a lower speed you can accelerate fast, but if you downshift for example from 5th to 4th gear, wont the car slow down and defeat the purpose of accelerating. i need help understanding

 

1 following

14 answers

 

 

 

Answers

Relevance

 

Best Answer:  If you downshift and hit the gas, it'll increase speed - otherwise it slows the car down (the motor speeds up, though as it tries to compensate for the higher gear ratio)

 

eric h · 7 years ago

0

Thumbs up

1

Thumbs down

Comment

 

Imagine that you want to quickly speed up but you are already in a high gear. If you downshift a gear, it will be easier to speed up when you step on the gas. Just like when riding a bicycle...it is easier to start off in a lower gear, then upshift to a higher gear so that you aren't peddling super fast and going nowhere. And once you are cruising if you want to speed up, you can shift down a bit and it is easier on your legs to speed up.

Acceleration has to do with the torque of the motor matching the proper gear. Ever try to start off in third or fourth gear? Almost impossible because the torque is not matching . But once the car gets moving, it is easy to get into third or fourth and still accelerate.

Have you ever driven an automatic and while going 30 or 40 or maybe even 70 then floor the gas? You'll notice that the transmission automatically downshifts...it's the same thing that you want to do when driving a stickshift.

 

Steve M · 7 years ago

 

 

[Steve Scheifler]

Hilarious! Pretty much par for that and others like Ask.com.

[Bench Racer]

I think Jim is liking his new position...don't you David?

Yup, it's his story and he's sticking to it. I understand it was 8* in Menphis last evening, would have been a hell of a time to do some 1.6 dyno runs.     Road America would be great for power today, -5*, track temp, not so good.

 

Ron, your NA1.8 red line is 7,000 rpm, correct, next time your at slower rpm's store some in the rpm tank and use them as required to get above 7,000 rpm. 

[Tom Sager]

Yup, it's his story and he's sticking to it. I understand it was 8* in Menphis last evening, would have been a hell of a time to do some 1.6 dyno runs.      Road America would be great for power today, -5*, track temp, not so good.

 

Ron, your NA1.8 red line is 7,000 rpm, correct, next time your at slower rpm's store some in the rpm tank and use them as required to get above 7,000 rpm. 

NA1.8 rev limiter is at 6900 so just when the 1.6 is at full song and really hitting its' stride, the NA1.8 driver has to lift off the gas, depress the clutch, shift to the next gear and then resume acceleration at a slower rate.  

 

Here's a tribute to the NA1.8.

 

[Jim Drago]

I understand it was 8* in Menphis last evening

it is colder than $#%^&* here today!