563 replies to this topic

[Steve Scheifler]

Roger Cadell analyzed yhe DL1 data that first year and a summary was posted here. As I recall, inconclusive with strengths and weaknesses for each, but without more context such as traffic, drafting etc it would be. They are close enough that you would need a lot of data with more details so you can filter out anomalies, and even then any given segment might be just 0.1 or less different in "potential" but collectively be decisive. Simple fact is that we are demanding MUCH more closely matched cars than ANY other non-spec class, and the overall difference is pretty close to the noise.

[Johnny D]

Roger Cadell analyzed yhe DL1 data that first year and a summary was posted here. As I recall, inconclusive with strengths and weaknesses for each, but without more context such as traffic, drafting etc it would be. They are close enough that you would need a lot of data with more details so you can filter out anomalies, and even then any given segment might be just 0.1 or less different in "potential" but collectively be decisive. Simple fact is that we are demanding MUCH more closely matched cars than ANY other non-spec class, and the overall difference is pretty close to the noise.

Shhh, if you keep posting stuff like this, David will have nothing to post about.

 

Well, maybe not.

J~

[Johnny D]

https://www.youtube....h?v=kntzQiaFzOQ

J~

[ECOBRAP]

If there is a relevant parity meeting coming up, can we discuss weight/plate adjustments? The conversation already seems headed in that direction.

 

A weight reduction will help the 1.6 and I would be satisfied with 2260 (I can dream) or 2275... how do I go about justifying and pushing for that change?

 

Best,

Matt

[Steve Scheifler]

And, no weight penalty for the first overbore size (0.010). These things are getting ancient and freshening the block should be assumed. Then allow the next overbore with the current weight penalty (or 10lbs, which is more reasonable for the 1.6).

[Johnny D]

And, no weight penalty for the first overbore size (0.010). These things are getting ancient and freshening the block should be assumed. Then allow the next overbore with the current weight penalty (or 10lbs, which is more reasonable for the 1.6).

You're learning, grasshopper.  Letter sent ??

 

Matt, you can't reduce for the fat guys, LOL.

 

J~

[ECOBRAP]

You're learning, grasshopper.  Letter sent ??

 

Matt, you can't reduce for the fat guys, LOL.

 

J~

 

 

Making the 1.6 more competitive + inspiring weight loss = win win. Let's make it 2250 

[Johnny D]

It's all good but... if your car prep isn't top prep and you're knocking on the door of a win from driver skill, why ??
 
Maybe more difficult farther east, I'd guess.
 
I guess we can make it easy for you ^, is that what you want ??
 
It's all big picture.

A winner, regionally, nationally, runoffs, or championship, should feel he/she won with only 110+% effort and with his/her skin of the teeth and luck to made it happen.
Which makes it's all the sweeter.
Just my opinion.
J~

[ECOBRAP]

It's all good but... if your car prep isn't top prep and you're knocking on the door of a win from driver skill, why ??
 
Maybe more difficult farther east, I'd guess.
 
I guess we can make it easy for you ^, is that what you want ??
 
It's all big picture.

A winner, regionally, nationally, runoffs, or championship, should feel he/she won with only 110+% effort and with his/her skin of the teeth and luck to made it happen.
Which makes it's all the sweeter.
Just my opinion.
J~

 

I drove the ***** off the car at NASA Nationals and was 5/10ths off pace. The only thing not tip top about the car was the motor - down about 3hp from where it should be - and I don't think getting that back will give me half a second. However, we will find out come March  

 

Also, keep in mind we are talking about Sonoma. Let me drop 25-40lbs and with a fresh motor there's a good chance I'll have an advantage there, but I will still be disadvantaged at Thunderhill with its new torquey back section, and of course Laguna with the hills.

 

And yes, if I am struggling in the Northwest, it must be even worse for the guys out East :/

 

Being constructive, what data could we actually use (aside from race results) to justify a weight drop for the 1.6?

[Bench Racer]

No disrespect Ron. the 1.6 shortfall is torque below 5,500 rpm. What does 25 pounds do for that issue?  Since 2006 the 1.6 weight has been changed five (5) times from 2,300 pounds back a fourth to 2,275 pounds.  Many places the 1.6 can race as long as it's constantly above 5,500 rpm (pick your own number). It's screwed to the porch below 5,500 rpm. How can any race org that deals in a Spec class think thay have the world by the a$$ when they play with 25 pounds that is useful above 5,500 rpm and be so friking blind to the torque disparity below 5,500 pound. Is one of the tools in their shed, who cares about torque below 5,500 rpm????

 

There is a reason the 99 + get so small down a straight when everone is below 5,500 rpm.  

[Steve Scheifler]

Not blind, or deaf by the way, but no one yet has offered a solution to what everyone would know even if you never mentioned it. What's the cliche? Everyone bitches about the weather but nobody does anything about it. But at least we have a few things that might mitigate the issue somewhat, and weight is a better proxy than you give credit because it is what
torque moves and has effectively zero impact as you approach terminal velocity. Mind you I dislike the large weight discrepancy because it makes the cars less the same in other ways if more equivalent overall. But a 1.8 transplant is not the answer for the masses even if a few people would do it because they can. That should be more obvious than the torque issue itself. I suggest that you give that up and instead help to work on suggestions that are less than perfect but actually have a chance of helping.

[Bench Racer]

Not blind, or deaf by the way, but no one yet has offered a solution to what everyone would know even if you never mentioned it. What's the cliche? Everyone bitches about the weather but nobody does anything about it. But at least we have a few things that might mitigate the issue somewhat, and weight is a better proxy than you give credit because it is what
torque moves and has effectively zero impact as you approach terminal velocity. Mind you I dislike the large weight discrepancy because it makes the cars less the same in other ways if more equivalent overall. But a 1.8 transplant is not the answer for the masses even if a few people would do it because they can. That should be more obvious than the torque issue itself. I suggest that you give that up and instead help to work on suggestions that are less than perfect but actually have a chance of helping.

 i started a thread with the intent of 1.6 supporters show up and be accountable. second phase would have been to settle/agree on would allow the 1.6 to play heads up at all encountered rpm's during a race. several people pi$$ed in my shoes including you. for myself, i really don't care what happens to the 1.6 spec miata if it's part of the class or not. Look at the weight numbers or anything else and please show me tangeable proof that the 1.6 can play heads up with the 99 plus. i'll make another comment, to make the 1.6 play heads up, it will require something from outside the box. no crap about don't go below 5,500 rpms. quite enough for you?

 

Paul, your lurking.   

[Jim Drago]

Maybe someone should send in a letter requesting :

1)Allow 1.6 cars to go to 10.0 compression( can be done easily and relatively inexpensively by decking head only) If need be, lower min head thickness to achieve.

2)Remove the 15 lb weight penalty for overbore(1.6 only) since most all are overbores at this point.

[Steve Scheifler]

I've never pissed in your shoes David, but I won't pretend your ideas are the solution if I don't believe it. Wasn't it you who said I tell it like I see it? I thought that was a compliment.

If you aren't getting the response you were looking for it may be for two reasons. 1) your laser focus on a transplant option that isn't popular leaves most doubtful that you would be happy with anything else, so why play your game. 2) there just aren't any simple answers. Just because a bunch of people mention something like lighter flywheels or 10:1 CR doesn't make it work. A combination of several things would certainly help, but collectively they are not cheap or easy and even if passed blind, how many people will do them without some quantitative evidence that they succeed?

All I'm suggesting is that you direct your energy more productively.

[Steve Scheifler]

Maybe someone should send in a letter requesting :

1)Allow 1.6 cars to go to 10.0 compression( can be done easily and relatively inexpensively by decking head only) If need be, lower min head thickness to achieve.

2)Remove the 15 lb weight penalty for overbore(1.6 only) since most all are overbores at this point.

That's a start, and yes, min head thickness would need to be lowered.

With regards to the need for a letter, I still take issue with the idea that it should be required. Surely the SMAC and other ACs have offered ideas that originated with them, or that they heard/read from others and agreed with. Just because this forum is not the official means to introduce requests does not mean the SMAC is unable to pick up suggestions from it. Seems to me that is exactly their purpose, keep a finger on the pulse of the class. Surely a majority of people asking for something here should carry more weight than one or two letters, at least to get the SMAC considering a proposal. Times have changed folks. If you need formal submission, save that for the feedback phase after a rule is detailed and tentative.

[James York]

If there is a relevant parity meeting coming up, can we discuss weight/plate adjustments? The conversation already seems headed in that direction.

 

A weight reduction will help the 1.6 and I would be satisfied with 2260 (I can dream) or 2275... how do I go about justifying and pushing for that change?

 

Best,

Matt

 

Matt,

 

If you are an SCCA member, go to this website:

 

http://crbscca.com/

 

and submit your info, with your request and an supporting evidence you may have.  I am sure you can also just say you support a weight decrease for the 1.6 Miata to help increase its competitiveness which will also be considered since its your opinion.

 

If you are not an SCCA member and just NASA, I have no idea.  Maybe send an email to Mueller?  I have no idea how NASA formulates rules.

[Jim Drago]

That's a start, and yes, min head thickness would need to be lowered.

With regards to the need for a letter, I still take issue with the idea that it should be required. Surely the SMAC and other ACs have offered ideas that originated with them, or that they heard/read from others and agreed with. Just because this forum is not the official means to introduce requests does not mean the SMAC is unable to pick up suggestions from it. Seems to me that is exactly their purpose, keep a finger on the pulse of the class. Surely a majority of people asking for something here should carry more weight than one or two letters, at least to get the SMAC considering a proposal. Time have changed folks. If you need formal submission, save that for the feedback phase after a rule is detailed and tentative.

The SMAC absolutely has a good idea of what is going on. But the process is the letter system. This would be a "Rules Change", less letters, a rules change will not be made mid year.

[steveracer]

Since nobody liked my turbo idea, how about a stroker crank?

 

What's possible?

[James York]

That's a start, and yes, min head thickness would need to be lowered.

With regards to the need for a letter, I still take issue with the idea that it should be required. Surely the SMAC and other ACs have offered ideas that originated with them, or that they heard/read from others and agreed with. Just because this forum is not the official means to introduce requests does not mean the SMAC is unable to pick up suggestions from it. Seems to me that is exactly their purpose, keep a finger on the pulse of the class. Surely a majority of people asking for something here should carry more weight than one or two letters, at least to get the SMAC considering a proposal. Time have changed folks. If you need formal submission, save that for the feedback phase after a rule is detailed and tentative.

 

Steve,

 

I agree and disagree.  While I agree times have changed and this forum (and maybe others) are a good avenue to pick up the mood of the SM community, it is still just a forum.  And if people feel so strongly about an idea here, so much so they at times resort to insults of others or groups, can't they make the effort to actually submit a letter via the SCCA website?  

 

I know I submitted 5 or 6 in the past 2 months around the head rules and what I thought was the path that suited the membership best.  It mattered to me, so I made the effort.  5 minutes on the website is probably way less time and effort than what some are putting forth here.

 

It might distinguish the trollers from the people that really are interested in the best in SM.

[Bench Racer]

Steve, your on the correct track to help/mitigate the 1.6 issue if thats what you want to do. IMHJ, what the 1.6 requres will be an out of the box deal to play heads up. I believe the hepl/mitigate that I read about will not allow the 1.6 to play heads up. A bit of over bore, a bit of compression, a bit of ambient air, highly doughtful. Lots of people are talking about torque, but not where the torque is the shortfall. By the way, have you ever openly stated what you believe the 1.6 issue is? And when you say torque, please specify where the torque is the shortfall.

 

I don't dissagree with you that the SMAC/CRB should be all over this 1.6 shortfall without letters. There was a time (and maybe they still do for some classes) when the the red flag was raised at the Runoffs for cars with competition issues and the CRB got involved.