563 replies to this topic

[Ron Alan]

Mr. Steyn, I owe you an apology. Your polite reply illustrates how little I know about you, but by all indications you are a gentleman.

 

All work and no play makes Moose a very dull boy.

 

When does Buras make the donuts? (Seriously, does he ever bring samples to the track?)

  Respect!

[pat slattery]

Here is a graph of the three versions I have on my dyno 90, 99 and 02.  All three cars built here and what I consider extremely good versions. We have better of each, believe what you like.  I have seen better of all versions, these are what I consider to be 9-9.5 on a 1-10 scale engines.  I have seen 1-2 more from EACH, but those are the exception, NOT the rule.  

 

In my opinion ANY car on this sheet on MY dyno is a Runoffs winning combination. On every 99 we sell, I tell my customers to expect between 126-128 on my dyno, IO don't care if that is 110 or 175 on others dynos.   This is an extremely fair sampling of top flight cars spun here.

 

I have no idea of Danny's opinion, but "I" felt that we were as close on power as we have ever been, I think he actually drafted past me as easily or perhaps even easier than I did him. I would say we are within 1/1, but that is my opinion, not sure on his, maybe he will share. 

 

Here ya go. 

Blue 02

purple 99

red 90

 

 

If you use these graphs to figure torque or HP to weight figures, one can easily see the disparity the 1.6 has at the slow corners that require exit speeds in the mid 4000 rpm range.  My calculations show  that at 4000 rpm's the 1.6 would have to weigh 1500 lbs to equal the torque to wt that the 99 has.  4000 rpms is a little under normal but 4500 happens frequently and at 4500 the 1.6 would have to weigh 1900 lbs to have the same torque to wt as the 99.  At 5000 rpm's it is 2225 lbs.

 

That is why the 1.6 gets yanked coming off the slow corners. at the top end, the 99 and the 1.6 are equal in hp to weight from 5500 to 6500 and only after the 6500 mark does the 1.6 have a slight edge. 

 

You obviously can't lower the 1.6 to those weight numbers, than it would be an overdog on the top end, but something needs to happen to give the 1.6 some torque or torque needs to be removed from the 99.

 

 

 

pat

[chris haldeman]

Below 5200 hundred anywhere in a Miata is why there are multiple gears. Roger Caddell made a post awhile back showing his data research on the subject. The issue with the 1.6 is the amount of time and money it takes too have a "good" one. I have personally built both cars in the last 3 years and I promise you my current 99 cost considerably less too build. Contrary too popular vote but 100% true. Food for thought I have 17 1.6 intakes and paid over 300$ for an impossible too find value down pipe. 99's are just easier because the restrictor plate makes all parts bin flow testing and Dyno work useless.

[chris haldeman]

Just so you know where I'm coming from I love the 1.6 cars they are super fun too drive!!! And are considerably easier on tires,brakes,and tranny's I just can't afford too keep one at the front

[steveracer]

We should start by allowing(not requiring) the later model front subframe and suspension on the early model cars...thereby eliminating ONE area of disparity!

[Ron Alan]

We should start by allowing(not requiring) the later model front subframe and suspension on the early model cars...thereby eliminating ONE area of disparity!

I remember the first time i read about this, I believe it was Drago or someone with his knowledge that said there is no significant performance advantage here?? Has something changed?

[chris haldeman]

Define performance gain?? The cars will simply have better geometry mainly less bump steer. Aka easier too drive fast lap after lap. Fastest lap will not change but consistency will. This change was voted on and shot down because 1.6 owners didn't have any money or desire too improve there cars as a group. Many did but????

[JRHille]

It's a lot easier to run consistently in the '99.  After driving a 1.6 for 3 years, I think maybe 1 race I had the fastest lap on the last lap. At Mid Ohio first race with the 99 I was able to do that. Maybe it was just a fluke, but it was "easier" to put down consistent laps. What Chris said about the suspension I can see, but also probably torque to get you out of little mistakes. 

It also seems a lot of 1.6 cars fall off more significantly power-wise throughout a race...

A good qualifying machine, but the 99 races better IMO

1.6 just needs more low end grunt...

[Parity]

This discussion always seems to focus on the 1.6 and '99 leaving the 1.8 NA as the red headed stepchild. I'd like to see more comparisons between NA and NB 1.8s.

[38bfast]

To me the 96/97 is the car to have. The fuel curve is far better than any other variant. HP/ TQ is close to the 99s. The 50 lbs less makes a big difference in handling and overall grip. The car handling is much like the 1.6 with its nimble feel. The 99s feel numb in comparison.

Slightly more to build than a 99 but cheaper than a 1.6.

It would not be my choice for Road America but for most outer tracks I believe it would be the car to have.

There has been very few 96/97 built so they have been flying under the radar for a long time now.

[Jim Drago]

I remember the first time i read about this, I believe it was Drago or someone with his knowledge that said there is no significant performance advantage here?? Has something changed?

For the record, that is NOT what I said. What Haldeman posted is basically what I said. faster laps no, more consistent and easier to turn the same lap, yes. It was shot down by BOD as many 1.6 owners opposed because they thought of it as "parity" adjustment, meaning adding speed. The thought process was they were not get out handled. IMO, this is a dead deal as it was one of the very few things passed by CRB and shot down by the BOD.

[steveracer]

Stupid M#$%%F%%$$SS can't see the world beyond their eyelids.

 

Still getting out run by the same people, and will continue to.

 

More consistent laps = better finishes.

 

The ones who poopoo'd allowing(not requiring) the update contributed to the continued decline of their (and my) beloved 1.6's by decreeing that ALL NA cars must stay the same instead of giving us 1 foot on equal ground./Rant off.

[Bench Racer]

As an example, please tell me again after the later subframe and suspension is implemented in a 1.6 how the 1.6 wins drag races out of 2nd gear or slow 3nd gear corners?

 

Texas example, COTA 2nd gear corners.

[steveracer]

Obviously it's not going to help with torque.

 

What it will do is make the cars easier to drive MORE consistently throughout the race, meaning fewer mistakes. Fewer mistakes means less lost time/distance to the car directly ahead/behind you.

 

It seems pretty unanimous that the 99's are easier to drive fast, right?

 

 

 What Haldeman posted is basically what I said. faster laps no, more consistent and easier to turn the same lap, yes.

 

In my mind, it's not drastically different than updating the shock hats to the 99 style. Did you argue as strongly against them? All they did was make the car easier to drive by giving us some more shock travel before hitting the stops. Why are you so vehemently against some better steering geometry?

 

AND, all along the wording was ALLOW, not REQUIRE, meaning that if you don't want to make the change you don't have to. Some of us would like to have that choice.

 

All of you naysayers are just fueling the movement of racers out of NA's into NB's.

 

Today, 8 of 11 SM's in the classifieds are NA's, Wonder where those drivers are going?

 

I really like my 1.6 car, and am usually at or near the pointy end of the NA crowd, but feel I am handicapped. I'd much rather spend $600.00 to update my car than $15K to build another. I resent that your fear prevents me from doing that.

[Bench Racer]

Obviously it's not going to help with torque.

 

 

In my mind, it's not drastically different than updating the shock hats to the 99 style. Did you argue as strongly against them? All they did was make the car easier to drive by giving us some more shock travel before hitting the stops.

 

Why are you so vehemently against some better steering geometry?

 

 

 

All of you naysayers are just fueling the movement of racers out of NA's into NB's.

 

 

I resent that your fear prevents me from doing that.

IMHJ, lack of torque is the main issue for the 1.6.

 

Did you know the shock bodies will jam inside/bottom out as there jaming inside the FatCat isolator?

 

I am not vehemently against any thing other than the fact that the 1.6 does not have torque equal to the 99 plus cars.

 

And you yayers are going to control those selling 99 for their move to ??? 2001's how?

 

I have no fear, I do have understanding.

 

Have Fun

David

[pat slattery]

Below 5200 hundred anywhere in a Miata is why there are multiple gears. Roger Caddell made a post awhile back showing his data research on the subject. The issue with the 1.6 is the amount of time and money it takes too have a "good" one. I have personally built both cars in the last 3 years and I promise you my current 99 cost considerably less too build. Contrary too popular vote but 100% true. Food for thought I have 17 1.6 intakes and paid over 300$ for an impossible too find value down pipe. 99's are just easier because the restrictor plate makes all parts bin flow testing and Dyno work useless.

 

Chris, not always possible, take MIS speedway where the left turn onto the  long straight, it's such a sharp slow turn, our 1.6 was at 4200 rpm's in second gear!  Mid Oh, at the keyhole is 4500 coming off that turn, if you down shift your shifting again in the middle of the turn.  This happens at lots of different tracks. 

[Tom Sager]

To me the 96/97 is the car to have. The fuel curve is far better than any other variant. HP/ TQ is close to the 99s. The 50 lbs less makes a big difference in handling and overall grip. The car handling is much like the 1.6 with its nimble feel. The 99s feel numb in comparison.

Slightly more to build than a 99 but cheaper than a 1.6.

It would not be my choice for Road America but for most outer tracks I believe it would be the car to have.

There has been very few 96/97 built so they have been flying under the radar for a long time now.

The '96 - '96 is certainly better than a '94 - '95 in terms of fuel management. It's better below about 5300 RPM but above that they're pretty much the same as far as what I have seen.  At most tracks that I run on, the amount of time spent below 5300 in the '95 with foot on throttle is about 10% - 15% of a lap which is enough to make a difference compared to a '96.  You might have more experience with this than me so any further explanation is definitely appreciated.  The '94 - '95 suffer similarly to the 1.6 coming off lower RPM corners as it's so darned lean that it is at a big torque disadvantage compared to the NB cars.  

 

As for the suspension, the feel of the NA and NB cars is definitely different.  I'd describe the feel of the NB cars as more stable easier to drive at the limit compared to the NA.   I agree that the best way to solve this would be to allow the newer suspension on the older cars  Seems as though that ship sailed once as mentioned.  No reason it can't be considered again.  If the competitor cost to implement is perceived as too high, then a weight adjustment is probably the next best thing and we have that now to some extent but we're using weight in the rules to compensate for both lower power and lesser suspension.  The question is how much of a weight difference and what effect does is have?  So what is the newer chassis worth in terms of parity and weight?  I see it this way.  If NB competitors were allowed to backdate to the older suspension, how much weight reduction would be necessary before a majority of them would make that choice (taking the money out of the equation)?  At 20 pounds I think very few would choose the NA suspension.  At a 40 pound reduction I think most would make that choice so for me the answer to me is somewhere in between.   If we could get all the cars on more similar power or the same suspension, setting weight would be easier. Right now the 1.6 enjoys a low enough weight to have a positive impact on handling, acceleration and braking.  Not enough to overcome the power gap with the NB cars in certain racing situations but 100 pounds lighter is meaningful.  The 1.8 cars at a 50 pounds difference have very similar acceleration to a 1.6 (a little more grunt down low and a little less up top) which I think explains why the '94 - '97's are nearing extinction.  

 

As a class we've certainly learned a lot about the strengths and weaknesses of each of the cars.  The good news is that if we have the will as racing organizations to continue to refine the rules, it should be easy to do.  It only takes a determination and a sense or urgency on the part of a few people to get it done.    

[chris haldeman]

Chris, not always possible, take MIS speedway where the left turn onto the long straight, it's such a sharp slow turn, our 1.6 was at 4200 rpm's in second gear! Mid Oh, at the keyhole is 4500 coming off that turn, if you down shift your shifting again in the middle of the turn. This happens at lots of different tracks.

Yea I understand that. Only thing you can do there is keep up mid corner speed and hope not too get parked

[steveracer]

IMHJ, lack of torque is the main issue for the 1.6.

 

Did you know the shock bodies will jam inside/bottom out as there jaming inside the FatCat isolator?

 

I am not vehemently against any thing other than the fact that the 1.6 does not have torque equal to the 99 plus cars.

 

And you yayers are going to control those selling 99 for their move to ??? 2001's how?

 

I have no fear, I do have understanding.

 

Have Fun

David

 

Thanks David, I try to have fun in everything I do.

 

I realize the 99's have more torque, the 1.6's have better top end. Not a perfectly even trade, but a trade-off for sure.

 

What does torque have to do with suspension geometry? IMHO, the 99's have 2 advantages, suspension AND torque. I'd like to lessen that to only 1. I don't understand why that's such an issue for some people.

 

We can't have more torque, so I don't want the suspension either seems ridiculously asinine to me.

 

BTW, between 2nd gear turn 11 and turn 12 at COTA, I was able to run down many 99's.

[steveracer]

As for the suspension, the feel of the NA and NB cars is definitely different.  I'd describe the feel of the NB cars as more stable easier to drive at the limit compared to the NA.   I agree that the best way to solve this would be to allow the newer suspension on the older cars  Seems as though that ship sailed once as mentioned.  No reason it can't be considered again.    If we could get all the cars on more similar power or the same suspension, setting weight would be easier.

 

As a class we've certainly learned a lot about the strengths and weaknesses of each of the cars.  The good news is that if we have the will as racing organizations to continue to refine the rules, it should be easy to do.  It only takes a determination and a sense or urgency on the part of a few people to get it done.    

Well said.