199 replies to this topic

[chris haldeman]

My home built 1.6 completely built by me having never even seen a spec Miata. Driven by me in my 3rd race ever. All corner exits are below 5000rpm. Car infront of me from 2nd lap on is a pro built no expense spared 99 powered by a very well known engine builder. Total cost too build car was 13,500 and 200 hrs of my time
http://youtu.be/78ZGcbJYWXk

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

This makes me laugh !

The reason I say this is, a lot of you 99 guys take this personally and are so quick to deny the fact that at most tracks it is the car to have. I will say open your FN eyes and look at the facts. You guys are doing more complaining then the guys with the 1.6 and if you are that worryed of the 1.6 get any help your not that good of a driver. The fact is look at most of the good drivers that have been in this class and what they used to drive (1.6 ). They then moved on to 99,00,01 etc.... And why did they do this, because the 1.6 IS NOT the car to have. Yes the 1.6 might be good on flat smooth flowing tracks but there are only a few of those around the US.

Just look at the runoffs,how many 1.6 cars were in the field ? There is your answer case closed. They are only good at a couple of tracks and NONE of the top guys are driving a 1.6 I'm not trying to get anything changed because I'm going to build a new car and I don't want the rules to change because I will be just waiting my money. Keep fighting 99 guys because next season I will be on your side !

[chris haldeman]

laugh if you like but maybe this will make it less funny.that video was 2010 Saturday at texas motor speedway my fastest race lap was 1:41.842  in 2011 I went back with 11 weekends more race experience in a 25000 plus 99 with drago power and turned a best lap on Saturday of 1:41.848 even more too the point the race was won by the same person both years

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

laugh if you like but maybe this will make it less funny.that video was 2010 Saturday at texas motor speedway my fastest race lap was 1:41.842 in 2011 I went back with 11 weekends more race experience in a 25000 plus 99 with drago power and turned a best lap on Saturday of 1:41.848 even more too the point the race was won by the same person both years

Chris,your video makes my point flat and smooth flowing tracks the cars are equal !
Slow corners and corners with any up hills the 99 is better and kills the 1.6.

[chris haldeman]

Pretty big off peak power climb out of last corner onto banking. And I sucked really bad back then lol

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

Yes I do agree the 1.6 does have some good top end but on tight tracks it does no good .

[Brian Ghidinelli]

The fact is look at most of the good drivers that have been in this class and what they used to drive (1.6 ). They then moved on to 99,00,01 etc.... And why did they do this, because the 1.6 IS NOT the car to have. Yes the 1.6 might be good on flat smooth flowing tracks but there are only a few of those around the US.

 

People switching chassis on its own (or people picking a car in order to win one race at one track...) is not evidence of anything.  If the cars are 100% equal, NOBODY picks the chassis that is 7-10 years older and harder to keep in tune. Nobody doing a new build chooses a 1.6 car unless they have some investment that keeps them there (parts, knowledge, nostalgia, love of pop-up headlights, etc).

 

Let's stay focused on quantifiable, addressable issues like the curve under 5500rpm.

[Jim Drago]

Yes I do agree the 1.6 does have some good top end but on tight tracks it does no good .

Daytona! Its coming!

[James York]

..... I'm going to build a new car and I don't want the rules to change because I will be just waiting my money. Keep fighting 99 guys because next season I will be on your side !

Don't be disappointed when you don't move up the grid... unless of course your 1.6L is a tired terd and it needed to be overhauled anyway.

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

Let me ask you a simple question for a 1.6 owner. If you were a 1.6 owner and had under let's say 120hp would you buy a new motor,new suspension,ecu, etc..... or sell and put the 10k into a 99 or newer ?

Oh that's right it is an old model and well under developed but worth putting the money into it because its still competitive,am I right ?

Just wanted to know before I waist my money because I'm a little confused. A 1.6 can win the runoffs with a 128hp,a cheated up ecu,great setup,new tires,tons of dyno time (set timing and a/f ratios for every track) and a unbelievable driver is this correct ?

Man,if this is correct I can't see why more people aren't running them,what am I missing ?

Just keep in mind I'm just asking simple questions and having some fun with this so try not to get to upset guys !

[Jim Drago]

Dewhurst must be vacation or something?  This thing has gone into yet another parity post, try and funnel that stuff into the parity thread and leave this for the Tq under 5500.

[James York]

Let me ask you a simple question for a 1.6 owner. If you were a 1.6 owner and had under let's say 120hp would you buy a new motor,new suspension,ecu, etc..... or sell and put the 10k into a 99 or newer ?

Oh that's right it is an old model and well under developed but worth putting the money into it because its still competitive,am I right ?

Just wanted to know before I waist my money because I'm a little confused. A 1.6 can win the runoffs with a 128hp,a cheated up ecu,great setup,new tires,tons of dyno time (set timing and a/f ratios for every track) and a unbelievable driver is this correct ?

Man,if this is correct I can't see why more people aren't running them,what am I missing ?

Just keep in mind I'm just asking simple questions and having some fun with this so try not to get to upset guys !

 

It's all about the torque under 5500 rpm.  You didn't get that?

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

Dewhurst must be vacation or something?  This thing has gone into yet another parity post, try and funnel that stuff into the parity thread and leave this for the Tq under 5500.

My bad Jim, I had a couple of drinks and thought this was kind of the same thing. If you can you can move my post to the correct spot.

[Jim Drago]

NP , but we can always continue the fun over there

[Bench Racer]

 

 

Let's stay focused on quantifiable, addressable issues like the curve under 5500rpm.

 

 

 

Dewhurst must be vacation or something?  

 

, try and funnel that stuff into the parity thread and leave this for the Tq under 5500.

I'm back. 

Let's try this again. Were no-where so far.

Let's take the "reasons we can't do things" blinders off  including the cost and make the torque for all spec lines more equal under 5,500 rpm or 5252 it that trips your trigger. The torque is more equal above 5,500 rpm, which is not difficult to figure out why. Many of Kuch's friends have stated, 1.6er's use your racecraft to over come the torque being less-equal below 5,500 rpm (allowed by the rules makers). Sure, for whatever reason race below 5,500 rpm "?" times per lap and use the remainder of the lap to catch back up. These same Kuch friends have indicated they can live with their torque under 5,500 rpm (allowed by the rules makers). hale, the 1.6er's could also live with torque below 5,500 rpm more equal to Kuch's friends. If the torque were more equal below 5,500 rpm this thread would not exist. Also if the torque were more equal below 5,500 rpm there would be one less issue within the "P" threads. Today when equalization of different SMCS spec lines are considered the first items that surface are torque, horsepower and weight. It dosen't matter if one looks at the Drago dyno tq/hp graph or an OEM dyno tq/hp graph one visualizes the same less-equal torque below 5,500 rpm's. It's a given that we race below 5,500 rpm therefore why did the rules makers throw the baby (1.6) out with the bath water (torque difference). 

 

Remember, blinders off brainstorming is what were doing. If it costs a gazillion dollars to bring the 1.6 torque below 5,500 rpm to be more equal to Kuch's friends torque, why not make the torque more equal in another fashion. Hint, hint, please remember Kuch's friends aren't concerned about the unequal torque of the 1.6 below 5,500 rpm's.

[Jim Drago]

Still no letter asking for anything for the 1.6 cars. So there was nothing to talk about

[James York]

I'm back. 

Let's try this again. Were no-where so far.

Let's take the "reasons we can't do things" blinders off  including the cost and make the torque for all spec lines more equal under 5,500 rpm or 5252 it that trips your trigger. The torque is more equal above 5,500 rpm, which is not difficult to figure out why. Many of Kuch's friends have stated, 1.6er's use your racecraft to over come the torque being less-equal below 5,500 rpm (allowed by the rules makers). Sure, for whatever reason race below 5,500 rpm "?" times per lap and use the remainder of the lap to catch back up. These same Kuch friends have indicated they can live with their torque under 5,500 rpm (allowed by the rules makers). hale, the 1.6er's could also live with torque below 5,500 rpm more equal to Kuch's friends. If the torque were more equal below 5,500 rpm this thread would not exist. Also if the torque were more equal below 5,500 rpm there would be one less issue within the "P" threads. Today when equalization of different SMCS spec lines are considered the first items that surface are torque, horsepower and weight. It dosen't matter if one looks at the Drago dyno tq/hp graph or an OEM dyno tq/hp graph one visualizes the same less-equal torque below 5,500 rpm's. It's a given that we race below 5,500 rpm therefore why did the rules makers throw the baby (1.6) out with the bath water (torque difference). 

 

Remember, blinders off brainstorming is what were doing. If it costs a gazillion dollars to bring the 1.6 torque below 5,500 rpm to be more equal to Kuch's friends torque, why not make the torque more equal in another fashion. Hint, hint, please remember Kuch's friends aren't concerned about the unequal torque of the 1.6 below 5,500 rpm's.

Okay, let's do this again.  Why don't you do some leg work to actually come up with a proposal yourself and what the costs would be.  The motors builders here don't see the same issue as you so why should they expend any effort to fix YOUR problem.

 

Go talk to a few of the hundreds of motor builders out there and get a feel for what can be done.  Present a solution, cost and write your letter.  I am sure if its viable, people won't have an issue with helping the torque and slapping weight on the 1.6L.  But constantly posting the same message over and over, is not going to get you anything or anywhere.  Get the 1.6 vocal few together and go solve your problem.

[Ron Alan]

Okay, let's do this again.  Why don't you do some leg work to actually come up with a proposal yourself and what the costs would be.  The motors builders here don't see the same issue as you so why should they expend any effort to fix YOUR problem.
 
Go talk to a few of the hundreds of motor builders out there and get a feel for what can be done.  Present a solution, cost and write your letter.  I am sure if its viable, people won't have an issue with helping the torque and slapping weight on the 1.6L.  But constantly posting the same message over and over, is not going to get you anything or anywhere.  Get the 1.6 vocal few together and go solve your problem.

Spoken like a true blooded 99 driver Still can't help you DD...got my own battle to fight with the underdog NA 1.8...waiting for Jamz to draft a letter that I can sign

[Bench Racer]

The motors builders here don't see the same issue as you so why should they expend any effort to fix YOUR problem.

 

 

Go talk to a few of the hundreds of motor builders out there and get a feel for what can be done.  

 

Present a solution, cost and write your letter.

If I were in the motor business, I wouldn't see an issue either.

 

"A few hundreds of motor builders". Really..... 

 

At the moment I have a letter in about something else. With me as the spacer, equal torque is not the issue.   The issue seems to be that the frequency of racing below 5,500 rpm's is considerable less than the frequency racing above 5,500 rpm's and the parity thought is, so what. There is info from suppliers to the Spec Miata world implying that the torque below 5,500 rpm could be made closer between the 1.6 and newer engines. Or should I say, made closer between the newer engines and teh 1.6.  I'm thinking after the 2014 Runoffs is the correect time to send the letter.

 

Ron, do a separate letter, letter count to the SMAC/CRB is the same as site count to jim.

[Jim Drago]

Ron, do a separate letter, letter count to the SMAC/CRB is the same as site count to jim.

I dont even know what that means, but I'm sure it isnt a compliment.

As a CRB member, I can say the SMAC did not ask for any parity adjustements for the 2014 season, no letters were sent to teh SMAC/CRB in the last 18 months asking for competition adjustments for the 1.6 car.