199 replies to this topic

[pat slattery]

Dave the earlier figures were factoring Torque to weight  into that.

[Jim Drago]

When classifying cars in touring and SS. We start with a formula and a multiplier.  If we use that same equation in SM, you see it fits well. No that is ABSOLUTTELY NOT THE ONLY THING WE LOOK AT !

 

Why am I am bothering? Who knows. Just answering Pats question.

 

A few will always see what they want to see.  This formula is basic and may oversimplify, but it works well as it takes HP and TQ into account equally. It does not take in account the shape of TQ curve. I am sure someone could come up with a far more complex formula that would work even better using the full RPM range.  But this works pretty well and has for years and works well in SM now for those with fully prepped cars. 

 

Here ya go

 

peak Hp + peak Tq / 2 = PN ( power number) 

 

You can divide the weight by this number if you like or use 19.5 as a multplier  to come up with the weight

 

99/00  128.05+118.74 /2 = 123.40      123.40 x 19.5= 2406

01/05   126.46+122.38/2 =124.42        124.42 x 19.5=2426

90/93   125.41+110.91/2 = 118.16       118.16x19.5= 2304

94/97    125.00+116 =  120.5               120.5 x 19.5 = 2349   ( not on graph, best estimation)

 

 

using 19.45 multiplier( so 99/00 is at raced weight)

 

99/00    2400

01/05    2419

90/93    2298

94/97    2344

[dfuser]

which brings me back to my point, create a 1.6 SM class

[AW33COM]

delete

[Bench Racer]

Devils advocate here:

 

The theory is that the lighter weight allows higher corner speeds and quicker acceleration to make up for the lack of torque.

 

Dave

Being the Devil, may I suggest that theory is great stuff as long as it's backed up with logical principles. Has anyone studied the on track data (corner and acceleration, G forces and time) proving their theorys? And please don't just say yes because it's an answer. Post the data so all can view.

 

If we have a perfect combination of a 1.6 car/driver and a perfect 99 car/driver and they both drive a perfect race where the race rpm's get's below 5,000 rpm's two times per lap on a two mile track I'd say the 1.6 has all it can do to catch back up each lap because of it's supposed capability to corner faster.  Now if we have the same scenario where the torque curves are more equal, the car weights accordingly, we have a real race on our hands and the Devil shuts up.

 

But, no, we can't attempt to even the torque curves because, the 1.6 development stoped 5 years ago. BS flag.  Or did legal developmet of the 1.6 reach it's peak.

[AW33COM]

Jim you're wrong. Your theory is not close to be correct, and your equation takes wrong parameters to establish parity. 

You concentrate on peak power and peak toque.  We do not race at peaks all the time (only a fraction).

 

More, your equation uses torque to calculate something.  You, as possibly the best engine builder for SM in the country should know that torque on it's own is almost meaningless.  The only correct way to compare car to car is to use horsepower to the wheels.  Instead focusing on peaks and using unfair equations stuck at one RPM interval, let's average out the Power to Weight Ratios every 500 RPM interval from 4000 to 7000 RPM:

 

1.6

        RPM    HP    Weight   P/W Ratio
        4000    70      2300      32.85714286
        4500    88      2300      26.13636364
        5000    104    2300      22.11538462
        5500    115    2300      20
        6000    121    2300     19.00826446
        6500    125    2300     18.4
        7000    122    2300     18.85245902
               
                                AVG     22.48137351

99

       RPM    HP    Weight   P/W Ratio
       4000    85      2400    28.23529412
       4500    101    2400    23.76237624
       5000    113    2400    21.23893805
       5500    121    2400    19.83471074
       6000    126    2400    19.04761905
       6500    127    2400    18.8976378
       7000    124    2400    19.35483871
                                             
                              AVG   21.48163067
 

 

Summary:  99SM has a power to weight ratio of 21.48 and 1.6 has a power to weight ratio of 22.48.

1.6 has nothing on 99, no matter what the skill set.

 

1.6 Proper Weight:  2272

99 Weight:  2400

 

My calculation is not even close to perfection, but it's better than what you used (I'm assuming this is what SCCA used).  Given enough data I can get this formula as close to perfection as possible.  Then we could have a race.   Right now we're puffing smoke by saying 1.6 cars are 5 years behind in development.  1.6 cars are 5 years behind in proper parity calc and assigning correct weights. 

 

Please note, I wasn't complaining.  All I wanted is to show that parity does not really exist, because no know knows the right numbers.  This can be fixed by creating a general formula that SCCA and other clubs could use to equal out engine performance across cars. 

[Bench Racer]

I don't disagree one bit with AW33COM. Even tho he states "that torque on it's own is almost meaningless", yes and no. Without torque we have no horsepower. Also some posts ago when it was suggested that one reduce the car, weight/torque to pounds at a specific rpm and compare the 1.6 and 99, it was a simple process to show pure load per specific rpm. One may do the same with, car weight/horsepower to pounds. 

Oop's forgot, look at the 1.6 and 99 horsepower/weight difference below 5,000 rpm in the AW33COM P/W ratios.

 

In engineering terms:

 

Horsepower + torque/2 = Power Number

 

The polite way to say this is, that folks is not correctly mathematically reducing a fraction.

[James York]

Weight, or shall we say lack thereof, manifest itself in other tangible advantages.  So don't put all your parity eggs in the single minded power/weight thought.....

[Bench Racer]

Weight, or shall we say lack thereof, manifest itself in other tangible advantages.  So don't put all your parity eggs in the single minded power/weight thought.....

Please, as Drago said in the past within this thread, post your parity stuff in a parity thread. This thread is about 1.6 and 99 torque below 5,500 rpm.

[chris haldeman]

I will accept the 1.6 challenge and build a new fully prepped 90 model and campaign it next season. All donations can be sent too PayPal address mollychris28@aol.com any help will be greatly appreciated and I will share anything I find will all who donate.

[AW33COM]

So don't put all your parity eggs in the single minded power/weight thought.....

Looks like I got the numbers right

[James York]

Looks like I got the numbers right

You believe my comments supports that thought?  Interesting glasses.

 

Do you think Car A with an average power to weight ratio of 20:1 which weighs 1000 lbs total is equal to Car B with an average power to weight ratio also of 20:1 but weight 2000 lbs total?

[Jim Drago]

Jim you're wrong. Your theory is not close to be correct, and your equation takes wrong parameters to establish parity. 
You concentrate on peak power and peak toque.  We do not race at peaks all the time (only a fraction).

Thank you for explaining that to me, I will sleep much better tonight now that you explained all of this stuff to me, to think I have only been worrying about peaks for all these years  

 

You some how just cruised right passed the first sentence in my post.. I will paste again below so you actually read it this time. 

 

When classifying cars in touring and SS. We start with a formula and a multiplier.  If we use that same equation in SM, you see it fits well. No, that is ABSOLUTTELY NOT THE ONLY THING WE LOOK AT !

 

 

The post never said this is how we came up with the weights/plates in SM, Just showing a basic formula that we use to average the Tq and Hp in SS and Touring and how just plugging the SM data on the sheets and the weights tends to agree.  I think I went further to say a much better formula could be used based on RPM. But when classing cars in SS and Touring we do not have the benefit of thousands of dyno sheets etc to have this info. So we use peaks to simply and adjust further from there. 

[AW33COM]

No, that is ABSOLUTTELY NOT THE ONLY THING WE LOOK AT !

So can you or someone tell me what exactly you look at and how you make the decision in the SM world? I would not bother you, but you posted the peaks formula and I simply showed that is not close enough, so now I'm wondering what else

 

And one more thing, if power to weight ratio is not the only thing how come the numbers from the equation equal the weights in the GCR? lol

 

I read your post carefully and I agree you said RPM based formula could be better, and I'm not blaming you for anything.    Sorry for poking you about this, but there is no one else. 

[Jim Drago]

I will accept the 1.6 challenge and build a new fully prepped 90 model and campaign it next season.

Why? I did this at my expense already. Todds car beat EVERY competitive 99 car on the planet, won at Road America, (the track a 1.6 could not compete at ) It proved nothing. So doing it again will prove even less.

Oh yeah, Tq under 5000 ( I needed it to be relevant)

[Tom Sager]

Yeah and power to weight doesn't tell the story either since as speed increases, weight advantage has a diminishing effect on acceleration advantage and aero drag has an increased effect on acceleration.  Smart people can calculate it but at 75MPH+ the weight differences in the cars doesn't have much impact (advantage or disadvantage) in terms of acceleration but you need a lot of data and math to figure it out.  You need the whole dyno curve, gear ratios, frontal area, drag coefficieant, weight and maybe something I'm forgetting.  I've been through this exercise using real Miata data with the help of a brilliant engineer.  Can't duplicate it easily now (for a couple reasons) but the bottom line is we do not have acceleration parity in SM as it sits now or in recent years. But and there is a really big BUT (no to be confused with big butt), we race in a straight line and also around corners so a power only discussion is not completely relevant.  The chassis difference in the NA and NB car remains a difficult variable to equalize but there is a meaningful difference there as well.  3 variables (power, weight and suspension) are not easy to balance to near perfection.      

[Bench Racer]

Todds car beat EVERY competitive 99 car on the planet, won at Road America, (the track a 1.6 could not compete at ) It proved nothing. So doing it again will prove even less.

Oh yeah, Tq under 5000 ( I needed it to be relevant)

Jim, I really don't like doing this to someone as great as you.

 

As I said in the Runoffs lunch tent meeting, at the 2012 June Sprints, if you and one of your team mates don't take yourselves out and if Long didn't get a DQ Todd is not on the podium. I know, ya got to be there to be there. Even Todd has posted referencing the negative of the 1.6 and Road America. Not dissing you Todd.

 

Dude, what happens every time a 99 slows a 1.6 below 5,000 rpm or some other track incident slows a 1.6 below 5,000 rpm, did ya take that into account in your forumla.     David, forget about that $hit, it only happens in the real world.

[Jim Drago]

You are one of the few people that has not agreed at worst that Todds car was more than competitive in that video. I believe even Pat has conceded to that. Call it an anomoly or whatever you like, but don't just blatantly disregard it and rewrite your own version of history.

I think I rememeber you saying it wasnt possible, you gave me your word that would put an end to this non sense if it happened. I think you even conceded publicly here somewhere.. Six months later, here we are again.
 
 
This is also your own version of history.. 
As I said in the Runoffs lunch tent meeting, at the 2012 June Sprints, if you and one of your team mates don't take yourselves out and if Long didn't get a DQ Todd is not on the podium. 
 
First we were 1,2,3 until the lapper crashes in the kink.. So you can't have it both ways. Long was not even in the race at this point. 
Second, that race was far from over,  We all (Berry,Drago and Buras)to this day all still believe we were about to win that race less that lap car crash.  So at worst Buras finishes third or we all crash in Canada corner and long wins. But as I said, long was 2 -3 seconds back at that point and easily out of the race less the crash in kink.  So at worst Todd was 10-12 seconds ahead of the field and on the podium one way or another.
 
You post things like " Dude, what happens every time a 99 slows a 1.6 below 5,000 rpm or some other track incident slows a 1.6 below 5,000 rpm" like you have just cured cancer and no one has ever thought of this before

Here is what happens. A decent ( not even good)driver knows that is one of the weaknesses of his car and plans around it. He doesnt panic and try to stay glued to a 99+ at corner entry. Only a complete idiot in a 1.6 would drive up to the bumper of a 99+ car in the turn. We are on for the most part the same suspension and tires, yet the 99 is heavier, it will corner slower. This is not news.

I am faster than most in 99+'s in the corners as well and they would check me up too if did the same. They would slow my corner exit and thus check me up the next straight. I often find myself lifting or braking early in corners when behind other 99's as well. I try to time my exit to the corner without being obstructed, so to maximize my exit speed and pass easily up the next straight with a combinationof exit speed and draft.

Now here is the two dollar question for you..

Use your race craft to combat the opposite? With the 38 mm plate, the 99+ dies mid way up the straight. Short of blocking a good 1.6 into the wall, they will draft past easily, enter the next corner unobstructed and use their pace to get away. Provided the 1.6 driver isn't so clueless as to run into the 99 at turn in or apex. Believe it or not, the monkey in the seat is still by far the biggest variable. not the Tq under 5000 rpm ( see, used it again)

I'm done for awhile, there are already too many EOE's in here, you don't need another. So go ahead an get your last lick in and I will leave it to you. Have fun.  

[Ron Alan]

THE END!

[Sean - MiataCage]

I will accept the 1.6 challenge and build a new fully prepped 90 model and campaign it next season. All donations can be sent too PayPal address mollychris28@aol.com any help will be greatly appreciated and I will share anything I find will all who donate.

 

 

Why? I did this at my expense already. Todds car beat EVERY competitive 99 car on the planet, won at Road America, (the track a 1.6 could not compete at ) It proved nothing. So doing it again will prove even less.

Oh yeah, Tq under 5000 ( I needed it to be relevant)

 

Um...... I'm pretty sure that my 1.6's won every race at the NASA championships last month.... We have consistently beaten a lot of the CA top prep 99's at Laguna, Sears, T-Hill and other West Coast tracks over the last 5 years, and we have won the 25 Hours of Thunderhill twice in a 1.6L so I guess once I figure out how to build a 1.6L then it will be an over dog?  I'm confused.......  Believe it or not, there is a West Coast and if I recall correctly we have at least 2 SCCA National Champions from out here.