262 replies to this topic

[john mueller]

Dang, Thx.  The Video paid off!

 

Kinda, but not really....

 

I was approached by OG Racing late Saturday to figure it out but I had to wait until results were final to calculate who gained the most spots.  Regardless, congrats and BTW I think you set the fasted SM lap of the event with a 2:19.359.

[JRHille]

Also, for what it's worth, probably not much, some cars got on the dyno much hotter than others.

It was an awesome event and a lot of fun minus the carnage in the qualifying race. The northwest guys were all very nice and helpful. (And fast as hell)
NASA kept the fun in the weekend with dinner parties and the karting tournament which some ran in the pouring rain. My shoes are still wet!

[Duane Polsley]

From the sounds of it, looks like Sammy missed an opportunity.

 

Just sayin

[Bench Racer]

John Mueller, appreciate the event Dyno info.

 

Still a couple things I can't wrap my mind around. Will talk over at the Runoffs with some engine/Dyno men with more knowledge than me.

 

What type Dyno was used?

[john mueller]

F

 

John Mueller, appreciate the event Dyno info.

 

Still a couple things I can't wrap my mind around. Will talk over at the Runoffs with some engine/Dyno men with more knowledge than me.

 

What type Dyno was used?

 

Dynojet some mobile verity.

[Ron Alan]

From the sounds of it, looks like Sammy missed an opportunity.
 
Just sayin

One thing they did check was shocks

[Todd Green]

Okay,

 

AVE OF 1.6 DYNO PULLS OF CARS TECH'ed DURING THE EVENT: 115.9hp ;  104.41tq

The 1.6's were -1.3hp and -2.8tq lower than the average of all, yet won both qualifying races and the championship race.

HP Delta (highest to lowest): 3.7hp

TQ Delta: 3.9tq

 

I'm curious as to why you've emphasized that that the 1.6's had the lowest HP/TQ?  That's the way it should be; otherwise why are 1.6's getting a 100 lbs advantage vs the 99's? (Can't imagine it is due to brake and minor suspension geometry differences.)

 

Also curious on the deltas, were any of them overbores?  I noticed a few in the paddock, but don't know if they made it to the dyno.  That would also skew the numbers (in theory).

 

Again, not criticizing, just a data geek and am curious.

[dfuser]

Realistically the 99's would be at a dis-advantage.  I have an overbore so my minimum weight is 2415, and my dyno was 119.8 hp and 106 on tq.  The 1.6 being 115 lbs lighter and with only a few hp and lbs of tq down on power a much better car to race.  Thought?

 

Maybe someone can make sense of this: http://en.wikipedia....to-weight_ratio

[Bench Racer]

Open attachment below and scroll to post number 51. Shown are overlay torque and horsepower dyno graphs/plots/curves for a 1.6, a 99 and an 02. All else being equal, if you do car weight/torque foot pounds ratios at 4,500 rpm, 5,200 rpm and 6,000 rpm you'll see that at higher rpm the car weight per foot pound of torque becomes much closer varifying IMHJ why at the Nationals at MMP 1.6's fell back at the beginning of the straight and came on strong at the far end of the straight.

http://mazdaracers.c...ead-2034/page-3

[Ken SM94]

A little late to the party here... 

 

Congratulations to my good friend Matt!  He said after the warm-up before the big race that his car was the best he ever had.  If you know Matt, that's saying something.  That guy never stops tweaking on that car, but after the warm-up he just sat down and waited - it was kinda weird actually.  :^)

 

 

I also thought the Oregonians could have worked together for the first 35 minutes so kudos to Matt who made some bold moves and drove away.  I was surprised when Sean pulled out on Ken early but it made it a much more interesting race for TV.    It made me want to revisit the team racing thread and note that it hasn't made its way to Utah yet! 

 

My car was junk for the race.  I tried a different set of tires in the warm-up but decided on the same tires that got me the win the day before.  It was a bad choice and I could tell after the first couple laps I didn't have a competitive car, and it got worse from there.  Sean was all over me and being pressured from behind.  I don't think I would have waited as long as he did to give up on trying to help. Thanks for trying Sean! :^)

 

I understand NASA's thought process on tech, but think the top cars needed to be torn down.  Not because I think anyone was cheating, but because it let's everyone know that things get checked and they got beat by a legal car.  I was prepared to take my car home in a box if I were on the podium.  That's the way a championship race should be.

 

All in all I think NASA ran a great, fun event.  I really like the qual, qual/race, race format.

 

Thanks again NASA!

[Terrell Garrett]

Ken,

 

Since you did win the day before and since you had a top car you do qualify for tear-down.  Randy and I will be at your house 8:00 am on Saturday to begin.  We should be done by 5:00 pm or six beers later, whichever is first.  Of course, in exchange for this premium service, we expect you to provide the beer.  Sierra Nevada is my choice.  Randy will probably be happy with a blowtorch and a can of lawnmower variety!

 

Terrell

 

PS -  I think the "bad tire" argument is worn out due to my personal overusage of it this year.

[Terrell Garrett]

Just talked to Randy.  He said he's taking the engine and will give you his.  I'll trade diffs and undercarriage.

[Randy Thieme]

I need to put the waffle head on first...

[Todd Green]

The 1.6 being 115 lbs lighter and with only a few hp and lbs of tq down on power a much better car to race.  Thought?

Thoughts are that you have to look at area under the curve, not just peak numbers. See Jim's dyno comparison that he posted of arguably the best of breed examples of each car:

 

http://mazdaracers.c...ge-3#entry44476

 

Though it would seem that the dyno comparisons at MMP weren't exactly the same ratios.

 

My main thought is that it is a shame that the NASA Nats and SCCA Runoffs are so close together.  This all but eliminates people running both (except for a crazy few.)  It'd be great to have all the top SCCA guys run Nats and the top NASA guys run Runoffs.  Especially next year when the Runoffs is at Laguna Seca.  Miller would be on the way for most people towing in.  (Other than West coasters of course.)

[Jamz14]

Thoughts are that you have to look at area under the curve, not just peak numbers. See Jim's dyno comparison that he posted of arguably the best of breed examples of each car:

 

Not all the breeds. No NA 1.8 numbers.

[Todd Green]

Not all the breeds. No NA 1.8 numbers.

1.8's are just half-breeds.   I meant for all the cars that showed up at Nats.  I don't think we had any 1.8's.  Certainly none on the dyno.

[Bench Racer]

While were discussing torque and horsepower I'll throw some 1.6 and 99 torque numbers into the mix. These car weight/foot pound of torque numbers come directly from the Drago dyno graph, which from this side of the world are commonly viewed numbers. I converted these numbers to pounds. Then I by hand marked these pound numbers onto a copy of the Drago Dyno graph at a point where the torque line crosses the rpm line. At some rpm's the 1.6 has a larger load in pounds and at some rpm's the 99 has the larger load in pounds.

 

RPM          3,500          4,000          4,500          5,000          5,500          6,000          6,500          7,000

 

1999                                                                                                        +25             +45             +43

1.6            + 151          + 350           + 243         + 83            + 4

 

With everthing else being equal, after attaching these pound load numbers to rpm's it's galaringly truthful to what we view with a 1.6 and a 99. Let's not say we never race below 5,000 rpm because we do, just as we race at 6,000rpm and above.

 

I do have my asbestos suite on.     

[pat slattery]

Many time on many tracks, the rpms are below 5000 for a 1.6    At  MIS the turn was so sharp entering the back straight, we were at 4200 rpm in Second gear. We flat out got yanked 4-6 cars lengths before getting to the straight part of the turn.

[Todd Green]

That might explain why 1.6's do well at MMP.  Here's a histogram of my RPMs.  We're almost never below 5K.  (Blue is at Nats while I had issues with the car.  Orange is from a race earlier in the year without issues.)  Edit: These are clean laps with no drafting etc.  99 can and will overslow you in the corners which paints a bit of a different story and explains why it is easy to go "fast" in a 1.6, but hard to race sometimes.  Trying to correlate data with video to find laps behind a fast 99 is more work than I care to do.

 

[Ron Alan]

While were discussing torque and horsepower I'll throw some 1.6 and 99 torque numbers into the mix. These car weight/foot pound of torque numbers come directly from the Drago dyno graph, which from this side of the world are commonly viewed numbers. I converted these numbers to pounds. Then I by hand marked these pound numbers onto a copy of the Drago Dyno graph at a point where the torque line crosses the rpm line. At some rpm's the 1.6 has a larger load in pounds and at some rpm's the 99 has the larger load in pounds.

 

RPM          3,500          4,000          4,500          5,000          5,500          6,000          6,500          7,000

 

1999                                                                                                        +25             +45             +43

1.6            + 151          + 350           + 243         + 83            + 4

 

With everthing else being equal, after attaching these pound load numbers to rpm's it's galaringly truthful to what we view with a 1.6 and a 99. Let's not say we never race below 5,000 rpm because we do, just as we race at 6,000rpm and above.

 

I do have my asbestos suite on.     

from a mile away   DD...post this in another thread that it fits in...I have some things i want to throw out!