563 replies to this topic

[Cnj]

I really do understand others understand how to read the dyno graphs. I really do understand how some may believe some weight reduction of the 1.6 will cure the the issue to get meaningful weight/pound foot below 5,500 rpm. My 1.6 could race at 2,200 pounds (with driver) and it would not mean stink to the weight/pound foot short fall untill 5,000 rpm. I really do believe a 99 would be to no benefit with me as the spacer. I really do understand the insignifant items from within the box collectively will not improve the torque below 5,500 rpm (had to insert the rpm one more time) for the 1.6 to play heads up. I really do understand to improve the torque signiffantly where needed the idea will come from outside the box (current rules). I really do understand if the torque were improve something may need to be unleashed for parity, open up the 99 plus RP. I really do beleive when some insignifant items from within the box are allowed, after implementation, folks will be asking for more and will be told to go fly a kite. I really do understand short of the BoD nothing will occure during the year 2015. I really do understand a fully built 1.6 ITA car (can not de-shroud or plunge cut) which is much more open engine wise than the 1.6 Spec Miata does not gain signifiant torque, below you know where. If you know of an ITA 1.6 Miata that increases signifianlty you know where, please provid contact.
Now, how about all of you that are all in for the class, do something positive for the 1.6 and you may even be able to open up your RP a bit. Oh, and by all means please be open with your 1.6 engine knowledge and post how to improve the torque where needed along with the torque value at what rpm.
Saul will show up shortly to jerk me straight, which is ok by me.

For goodness sake Bench, you STILL have not presented a solution!

After hundreds of posts on this subject (not just by you), would you consider that perhaps the 1.6 simply is not equipped to match the 99plus in the torque department? And perhaps you might consider that there is no hidden secret to the torque issue below 5,500 and so perhaps - just maybe - the 1.6 could benefit from some of the incremental solutions that have been proposed by very smart people on this forum (Saul, Steve, Ralph and Drago have all made suggestions). If you keep slamming every idea as not solving your torque hole issue to your satisfaction, then expect to stay in a descending spiral of forum irrelevance. On the flip side if you would shift your tenacious allegiance to implementation of the known and doable to help the 1.6, the 99 guys like me would soon be complaining that 1.6's are way too fast

CNJ

[tburas56]

At the Majors race today, Four SM cars had SCCA Solo data in the cars. What will it reveal?

 

Buras 01

????   99

Nick M. 94

???   90

 

For parity sake...

[Jamz14]

At the Majors race today, Four SM cars had SCCA Solo data in the cars. What will it reveal?

 

Buras 01

????   99

Nick M. 94

???   90

 

For parity sake...

Not much. Only two of those cars are OBDII so you are limited to Speed, G traces, and GPS (even though these 4 channels provide a ton of individual information). And all driven by different drivers instead of single driver providing data from all platforms, with all cars probably setup differently and by different people.

 

4 data points with no baseline consistency...... not much.

[Steve Scheifler]

Exactly. In fact, may do more harm than good. As with the DL1 data from Road America it will be easy to say that there is no clear overdog, so things must be fine. This is totally different than when they compare data from very different cars with clear strengths and weaknesses in the pro classes, then make large adjustments from race to race.

[Bruce Wilson]

Gentlemen...

 

Forget your data, and dyno charts.  The only data that counts is results!  And FORGET proposals, because none of them are worth a sh!t.  The top 1.6 driver in the country and I had a chat yesterday to determine if anything CAN be done, and our conclusion was probably not...  If the SMAC/CRB doesn't want to take a chance on the 1.6 because it is too old, then that's their (major) mistake...  Oh by the way Jim, the 99 will be vintage eligible in a few years too, so what's your point?  This is not about me and my stupid overbuilt 1.6 that sits in the garage awaiting a chance to win again, or about any existing 1.6 mid pack driver, this is about the Miata, the best production race car ever built.  The clubs just need to do the right thing and take a chance.  So what if the 1.6 is an overdog for half a season until it can be adjusted with weight or plate.  Will the world come to a freaking end?  Do something, give it 9.9:1, give it overbore, give it lighter flywheel,  at least two of those are cheap enough for the masses, do all 3...  Just do something and see what happens.  It's the right thing to do!!

 

PS, retiring the 1.6 when they still constitute the majority of SM is probably the silliest thing I've ever heard in racing.

[Jim Drago]

Gentlemen...

 

Forget your data, and dyno charts.  The only data that counts is results!  And FORGET proposals, because none of them are worth a sh!t.  The top 1.6 driver in the country and I had a chat yesterday to determine if anything CAN be done, and our conclusion was probably not...  If the SMAC/CRB doesn't want to take a chance on the 1.6 because it is too old, then that's their (major) mistake...  Oh by the way Jim, the 99 will be vintage eligible in a few years too, so what's your point?  This is not about me and my stupid overbuilt 1.6 that sits in the garage awaiting a chance to win again, or about any existing 1.6 mid pack driver, this is about the Miata, the best production race car ever built.  The clubs just need to do the right thing and take a chance.  So what if the 1.6 is an overdog for half a season until it can be adjusted with weight or plate.  Will the world come to a freaking end?  Do something, give it 9.9:1, give it overbore, give it lighter flywheel,  at least two of those are cheap enough for the masses, do all 3...  Just do something and see what happens.  It's the right thing to do!!

 

PS, retiring the 1.6 when they still constitute the majority of SM is probably the silliest thing I've ever heard in racing.

 

Bruce

 I dont subscribe to results theory at all.  The cars should be "close" or whatever word we want to use that is politically correct for today.  If we believe we have that and  EVERY SINGLE race is won by the any one version of the cars, especially when it is the majority of the cars being raced. I have no issue with it. The results are all but meaningless. If we feel the parity is off, that is another discussion and I can agree with that, but not based on results. Why dont we just do rewards weights? That would solve the problem in the socialistic society you propose

 

Just because more 1.6 kits were sold does not mean they are they are majority BTW. The 1.6 would be the best car at 9.9-10.0, even more so with .030-.040. However, I am fine with allowing both. I am on record advocating it. I think the flywheel is all but a waste of time, but fine with allowing reduced flywheel weights. That will be enough to encourage people to start building them again. Then when the fast guys start building 35k plus 1.6 cars and winning, we can slow them back down or speed up the NB cars. Seems pretty silly to me to force people into the "vintage" version car, but that is another story.  In 5-10 years the 99-05 could and should start falling out of favor as we move to the MX5.  I dont agree with racing the modern day equivalent of bug eye sprites.

 

BUT.. BUT.. Even is we do all of this, We still have not addressed teh TQ disparity under 5500   This problem will still be there.  Busting DD chops a little, but really doesnt change much here. 

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

I agree Jim,let us build the 1.6 and let them run and see how they do. Then if it is a big diff.then we can adjust the NB plates and weights during the year. That can be a win win for everybody seeing the only thing you can do during the year is weight and plates. And it would be cheap for the NB cars, what does a RP cost $50 to 150 ? This way everyone will be able to go faster.

I love the way an NA cars feels over the heavy feeling of the NB cars.

My question is how much faster a lap is an ita 1.6 over a spec miata 1.6 ?

If we where aloud to build it to that standards would the NB cars be competitive with or without plates ?

Just asking because I don't know the answer !

[Jim Drago]

Ok so we change the rules to allow the 1.6 cars to have a clear advantage, so guys who feel the rules are wrong or need adjusting can be happy. We then encourage front runners to build new 1.6 cars to be competive.. Then sped up the nb cars or slow the NA cars? That seems like a viscous circle doesnt it?

I'm still in favor of changes, really not needed.. But tired of hearing about it. I will support whatever you guys want.. It still wont be enough

I will just build whatever is best for me. I do believe however that intentionally making anyone car "best" intentionally is a very bad idea. 

 

Maybe allow all the changes and no new 1.6 builds? That way front runners dont get in, invest time and money and show how good the 1.6 can be? Ah, that wont work either as we will buy used ones and go back through them. 

[ECOBRAP]

Let us drop 25-40lbs for 2015 and you won't hear me complain for the rest of the year.

 

-Matt

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

Jim,the only reason I'm asking is ?

How much are the RP restricting the NB cars ?

Wouldn't the NB guys like to get rid of the RP and go faster ?

I'm in no way trying to get any of the cars to be an overdog just trying to make it closer then it is now and for all of us to be happy. I don't care if the 1.6 is a dinosaur or not. There are plenty of cheap NA cars out there to go around and plenty of guys that still love the car and want to play on a equal playing field. Plus I believe there are plenty of new guys that would love to join the class but can't afford a 20 to 30 k car to be competitive. Plus they don't want to just get a cheap car to race it for a year and try to sell it the following to get a competitive car.

Don't worry if the 1.6 is competitive it won't bring the prices of the 99+ cars down it will only bring the prices of the NA cars up !

[James York]

This might be worth looking at again to think about the magnitude of adjustment that may be needed:

 

[Bruce Wilson]

Jim, of course you disagree which is why the problem exists.  Results are results.  The flaw in your past logic is that you were trying to apply the ruleset to who you currently “think” is a front runner.  Forget that, there are many fast karters on the way to kicking both your and my butts…  This has nothing to do with reward weights it only has to do with the ability of a capable driver to win in a 1.6 car, whether that’s you or some up and coming fast shoe.  It’s all about results.  

[Bruce Wilson]

This might be worth looking at again to think about the magnitude of adjustment that may be needed:

 

 

The ONLY way to win in a 1.6 is flag to flag James.  That should be no surprise, since the laptimes should be better.  The issue is passing.  So your solution is simple, just get the pole and make it to t-1 before everyone else and parity is achieved?

 

but I do agree that the needed adjustment is minor, it's just a hard adjustment to achieve...

[James York]

I thought I saw passing in this video both ways....  I don't know my eyes are old.

 

AND my words were along the lines of "the magnitude" of an adjustment needed, not that no adjustment was needed.  Please don't skew my message or misdirect its meaning.

[Bruce Wilson]

I added the second statement to my post before your retort.  Not trying to skew anything, just trying to educate.

[Jim Drago]

  The "perceived" flaw in your past logic is that you were trying to apply the ruleset to who you currently “think” is a front runner.  Forget that, there are many fast karters on the way to kicking both your and my butts…  This has nothing to do with reward weights it only has to do with the ability of a capable driver to win in a 1.6 car, whether that’s you or some up and coming fast shoe.  It’s all about results.  

I fixed that for you!  

So until a 1.6 is winning regularly, regardless of prep and quality of driver, we have a parity issue. Got it! Now I understand.

 

Who is is racing a 1.6 now that "should be winning" regularly at majors, has a car prepped to the same level as the undeserving current front runners in their over dog cars?

[James York]

 

 

Who is is racing a 1.6 now that "should be winning" regularly at majors, has a car prepped to the same level as the undeserving current front runners in their over dog cars?

 

Yes, share please.  Inquiring minds wish to know.  Lets name names.

[Bruce Wilson]

I fixed that for you!

So until a 1.6 is winning regularly, regardless of prep and quality of driver, we have a parity issue. Got it! Now I understand.

 

Who is is racing a 1.6 now that "should be winning" regularly at majors, has a car prepped to the same level as the undeserving current front runners in their over dog cars?

What???  Did I really say that Jim?  Where?

 

Sutherland

Linse

Schultz

Schrader

Charlie??

Even Sean could win a Majors!  sorry baby, I love you too!  

 

Just go look at past West coast Majors results...

yes, they drove 99s this year (except Linse), because duh...  But we have a big fleet of top prepped ($35k+) 1.6s to chose from at any time.  And I think it's safe to say all of us would rather be driving the 1.6s. 

 

But again, why are you focusing on your "perceived" front runner list of who YOU think is fast and not the class as a whole.  Shortsightedness is the problem of the past and I hope it's not a problem of the future.

 

Way too much rationalization about past decisions going on here.  I'm out for a while...

[ECOBRAP]

I fixed that for you!

So until a 1.6 is winning regularly, regardless of prep and quality of driver, we have a parity issue. Got it! Now I understand.

 

Who is is racing a 1.6 now that "should be winning" regularly at majors, has a car prepped to the same level as the undeserving current front runners in their over dog cars?

 

Yes, share please.  Inquiring minds wish to know.  Lets name names.

 

 

How about we phrase the question differently. How many people are willing to dump $30k into a 1.6?

 

Funnily enough, they both have the same answer! ZERO. If the 1.6 was competitive in the current rule set, someone would build one. Simple as that.

[James York]

How about we phrase the question differently. How many people are willing to dump $30k into a 1.6?

 

Funnily enough, they both have the same answer! ZERO. If the 1.6 was competitive in the current rule set, someone would build one. Simple as that.

 

It's only simple as that if the 1.6 is a clear outright favorite.  Otherwise, who wants to deal with the idiosyncrasies of the 1.6?  If you aren't aware of those, you can search the forums.  It takes more work to keep a 1.6 in top form, so all else being equal, why punish yourself if starting out and spending $30K+.

 

I'll admit it, the 99+ is the lazy man's path to top competitive SM, at least for me.