535 replies to this topic

[Tom Sager]

I urge the SMAC and CRB to be cautious. Right now the masses are still upset about Whistlegate and about STR gate. Get the new rule for the STR out into the wild and let us absorb it, BEFORE you do any additional car equalization DO NOT IMMEDIATELY go a ne release and untested and undiscussed rules change to the masses. We are still wounded. We need to heal before we can absorb another injury..

 

I don't see whistle-gate or STR-gate as reasons to delay competition adjustments that are frankly overdue in some cases.  3 separate issues IMO.  Seems to me that the whistler test procedure is pretty easily solved.  On the STR, my guess is that we should expect a very minor revision to head prep rules which means little or no performance difference and probably equal among all the different model year cars.  I don't see either of these items changing the performance balance of the class except that some individual cars (which may have been further over the line) may slow down a bit.  Competition adjustments have been on the table for probably a year.  That needs to be addressed now and not doing so would be a dis-service to the class.  

[Jim Drago]

Weight and plates is something I think the CRB can implement at anytime during the season if we need an adjustment.  Those are simple changes.  For me, the club needs to quickly decide:
 
1)  What rule change, if any, around the blending of the plunge cut
2)  What compensation, if any, to the 1.6 to improve its performance
3)  What compensation, if any, to the NA 1.8 
 
Since 1 and 2 might require significant work, the SMAC and CRB need to resolve that as quick as possible to allow racers time to get their cars in line.  If 3 is just a plate change, that is second priority.
 
Any weight or plate changes to the 99+ could be a see as we go into 2015, or when more time is at hand to get additional data.

This^

[Karl]

99 as the benchmark????  Look at Jim's dyno chart again.  Getting the 1600 UP to that level will be tough.  

[Tom Sager]

What's next for the VVT cars?  Cam timing-gate and intake manifold-gate?  

[Caveman-kwebb99]

99 as the benchmark????  Look at Jim's dyno chart again.  Getting the 1600 UP to that level will be tough.  

 

It shoudl never be at that level, it runs at lighter wieght has different differential, and different subframes, 

 

It mnight be tough but we have plenty of bright people to figure this one out.  I dont know enough about the 1.6 to really say.  but increase performace and if you need to put a RP in that car as well.  I am sure if there is a will there is a way, hell even put on  man on the moon and proved the earth wasnt flat.

[FTodaro]

99 as the benchmark????  Look at Jim's dyno chart again.  Getting the 1600 UP to that level will be tough.  

Karl i am glad your back. been a long time.

 

It may be difficult to get most of the 99's up to Jim's numbers. I really do not know what other guys dyno sheets look like but i would think its safe to say your looking at the high end of the scale. Lets put an eaststreet 1.6 up there for comparison

[Karl]

Kyle....You need to have some history on the plung cut, but to quickly answer your question (and I gave these details in Mike's Topic in "Rule...." I think I still have the last post there) allow any kind of port work be it machine or by hand to a distance of 12 mm below the valve SEATS in the 1600 and 9 mm below the valve SEATS in the 1800s.  I'm taking the 12 and 9 mm numbers from the current rules package and memory.

 

Steve S....I do not agree that allowing this will help the shops more than people like you (who I still believe make up most of this class).  I have built quite a few and have no problem sharing all I know.  If you see no replies from others who either directly or indirectly know this stuff then you can be pretty sure I gave you good info.  

 

Allowing the SSR (or STR if you prefer) modification is the cheapest way to level the field between the pro motors and the home built/local machine shop motors.  All you want is smooth to the touch from valve seat into straight section in the port.  Take too much away and you go backward.  Big ports do not make power contrary to what most of the WWW tells you.  A flow bench works with a constant pressure differential, motors produce dynamic pressure differentials.

 

Dave W.... the LIGHTENED OE flywheel was nixed by Mazda, a light "spend more money" flywheel was nixed by the community.  Figure out a way to get Mazda on board with the "cut the rear ring off" the OE flywheel and you have something you can give the 1600s

 

1600 Rule Addition: Allow removal of the rear ring on the OE flywheel. Minimum weight xx.x

 

My "French" speaking friend.....we had 1.5 finishers crossing the line each SECOND over a 15 minute stretch.  I wasn't in that group, but I can imagine it was a blast.  I ran so slowly I had the energy to sprint the final 100 meters and passed a handful of not quite so equally unfit folks.

 

MPR22... 10.5 CR in a 1600?????  Can't get there without new valve seats and turning the motor into an interference motor (using the OE pistons).  There is also too much rod stretch with existing negative deck height to use a thinner head gasket.  We were already hitting the head in current SM trim.

 

Alex....really?????  They still have not allowed welding the header on the OUTSIDE.  This should have been allowed years ago.  We did it on a regular basis.  There's a rule idea:

 

1600 Rule Addition:  Allow OE header to be welded where tubes meet flanges and each other and allow removal of welding in the flow areas at the four joints where the tubes meet the head flange and the one joint where the collector tube meets the down pipe flange.   

 

Marc....7400 RPM?????  Even though the tach says 7200, I recall my data told me that it was actually 7050.  You can get a higher rev limit by simply welding a different crystal into the ECU, but in the 1600 this is a waste of time unless you give it much more torque or allow it to breath better up top.

 

History of the plunge cut coming......

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Kyle....You need to have some history on the plung cut, but to quickly answer your question (and I gave these details in Mike's Topic in "Rule...." I think I still have the last post there) allow any kind of port work be it machine or by hand to a distance of 12 mm below the valve SEATS in the 1600 and 9 mm below the valve SEATS in the 1800s.  I'm taking the 12 and 9 mm numbers from the current rules package and memory.

 

 

Karl, this is where you have me confused buddy.

 

are you introducing re plung cutting for the 1.6 now?  Wasn't it already allowed as was re plung cutting of the 99 heads?

 

If your taking those numbers from current rule set that means its already been alowed correct, so please help me understand what your saying here?  Please remember I am a caveman!

 

it also seems to me you have no problem with the blending that was done at the runoffs? am I correct in that assumption?

[Karl]

Plung Cut history as I remember it.

 

Back in the day, if you read the 1600 manual well, you found quite a few things that were allowed and some of these things were used by SS shops to make more power.  Perhaps the source of Steve S's frustration.  I will say that I did write the SCCA and asked them to right a better rules package or people like me would find an unfair advantage.  The ignored me and the rest is history.  So, I found out that the 1600s heads suffered horribly from casting irregularities.  The ports were irregular and did not flow alike and the combustion chambers were all over the place in terms of displacement,  The manual, however, gave me a way to fix this since at the time I was led to believe that removing the valve seats was a no-no.  I wrote a speadsheet and figured out how much to remove from each CC to get them matches (my Newen could easily cut the seats to tolerances less than 0.001") and then used the manual's suggestion to add shims under the valve springs to get the pressure back up to OE levels.  This was considered cheating by some.  I also did the same to the 99 heads (which don't come with a comprehensive manual) using the same logic.  That lead to a DQ and subsequent overrule at appeal at Topeka and perhaps added to the problems I had with Jim (just to give you newer guys a bit of history).

 

So, Jim saw to it that the shims would no longer be allowed and I had to get creative and go the new valve seat route which actually helped HP numbers and more importantly...........

REQUIRED THAT I PLUNGE CUT a transition between the slightly smaller diameter seats and the ports.  To do this I designed a cutting tool to fit my Newen.  It was designed to roughly match the plunge cut that was made at the factory "so nobody would know" shhhhhhh!!!!!!  I also went a bit deeper than the OE cut, again using the NEWEN to get all of the depths the same.  I then bead blasted the head (BEFORE I cut the seats) to take away the shiny new cut and bingo, ultimately better matched flow and I could stand the valves up and get my spring pressure back without the shims.  That was my effective FU and thanks for forcing me to make our motors even faster.  I'm still not sure that the stiffer (effectively) valve springs are the way to go, but with good HLAs, floating the valves might open the lifters and cause the torque to suffer.  It might be a good idea on the bucket lifter motors though, but now I'm getting sidetracked.  

 

Looking back I SUSPECT the plunge cut rule came in because I was not the only one doing this and it was easy to sell the logic.  Back to my tangents..... 

 

 

The problem you have with a curved tool, especially in a 1600 with more material to cut on the short side, is that you can make your flow worse.  Not as much the case on the NBs (just look at the pictures that have been posted .  In order to overcome this, you need to manually go in and straighten the "backward" curve on the short side, or as some have done, to my horror, use a straight cutter and screw up the looks of the long side.  You can manually fix the short side with a small round file and as you pass tech a few times you will blend more and more, leaving just enough to feel the edge.

[Karl]

Did that help Kyle or do you still need more?

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Ok, I think I understand...     

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Karl, one thing I donjt understand, 

 

if someone is big they cannot be one of the best drivers? you do know we only race for 40 minutes maximum right? Even an elephant can run for 40 minutes I think...

[Jim Drago]

Plung Cut history as I remember it.
 
Back in the day, if you read the 1600 manual well, you found quite a few things that were allowed and some of these things were used by SS shops to make more power.  Perhaps the source of Steve S's frustration.  I will say that I did write the SCCA and asked them to right a better rules package or people like me would find an unfair advantage.  The ignored me and the rest is history.  So, I found out that the 1600s heads suffered horribly from casting irregularities.  The ports were irregular and did not flow alike and the combustion chambers were all over the place in terms of displacement,  The manual, however, gave me a way to fix this since at the time I was led to believe that removing the valve seats was a no-no.  I wrote a speadsheet and figured out how much to remove from each CC to get them matches (my Newen could easily cut the seats to tolerances less than 0.001") and then used the manual's suggestion to add shims under the valve springs to get the pressure back up to OE levels.  This was considered cheating by some.  I also did the same to the 99 heads (which don't come with a comprehensive manual) using the same logic.  That lead to a DQ and subsequent overrule at appeal at Topeka and perhaps added to the problems I had with Jim (just to give you newer guys a bit of history).
 
So, Jim saw to it that the shims would no longer be allowed and I had to get creative and go the new valve seat route which actually helped HP numbers and more importantly...........
REQUIRED THAT I PLUNGE CUT a transition between the slightly smaller diameter seats and the ports.  To do this I designed a cutting tool to fit my Newen.  It was designed to roughly match the plunge cut that was made at the factory "so nobody would know" shhhhhhh!!!!!!  I also went a bit deeper than the OE cut, again using the NEWEN to get all of the depths the same.  I then bead blasted the head (BEFORE I cut the seats) to take away the shiny new cut and bingo, ultimately better matched flow and I could stand the valves up and get my spring pressure back without the shims.  That was my effective FU and thanks for forcing me to make our motors even faster.  I'm still not sure that the stiffer (effectively) valve springs are the way to go, but with good HLAs, floating the valves might open the lifters and cause the torque to suffer.  It might be a good idea on the bucket lifter motors though, but now I'm getting sidetracked.  
 
Looking back I SUSPECT the plunge cut rule came in because I was not the only one doing this and it was easy to sell the logic.  Back to my tangents..... 
 
 
The problem you have with a curved tool, especially in a 1600 with more material to cut on the short side, is that you can make your flow worse.  Not as much the case on the NBs (just look at the pictures that have been posted .  In order to overcome this, you need to manually go in and straighten the "backward" curve on the short side, or as some have done, to my horror, use a straight cutter and screw up the looks of the long side.  You can manually fix the short side with a small round file and as you pass tech a few times you will blend more and more, leaving just enough to feel the edge.

In typical fashion a little revisionist history...

The shims were never legal,nothing to do with me or rules I was involved in. You got them through on appeal.. As in many COA's, the people on them often might not be the best to make these decisions. ( We need a technical court, but that is another topic altogether)

Should they have been legal is not the same as were they legal BTW... If you remember, I was not on the CRB then. So I did not get anything made illegal BTW. However when I was on the CRB and was asked to rewrite the cylinder head rules after 2009 Runoffs. YOU and several other engine builders were privy to them, I asked all for input on them including you. All of you made suggestions and corrections and added input. If I remember correctly, it was at your asking we changed the 1.6 plunge to 12mm as you saw some past the 9 mm in your inventory.

If you have an email as you stated asking for specific changes to the SSR rule and specifications that would have clarified the outcome of the 2014 Runoffs debacle as you stated in another post, please forward it to me. Quite frankly I don't think such an email exists. It is easy to have all the answers now.

BTW, I didn't miss you, not even a little bit
I also deleted your post with all the personal BS in it. You are welcome to repost the facts and not personal BS. It is apparent to all that we don't like each other, no reason to air that out here.
Jim

[Karl]

 
.040 is a bad idea at this point.  It means ANOTHER set of new pistons and UNLESS you allow a flat top piston and the subsequent higher CR you just get more screaming.  Now, if you want to say that a first over aftermarket piston and ring set will be allowed in 2016, I'm with you.  This does three things.
1-Allows people to build and test slowly
2-No need to rebore the block if already at first over
3-Allows those already at first over to reuse their "relaxed" second rings (assuming we are bright enough to spec a piston that has the same second ring thickness)
 
Here is something that I have not seen here.  Maybe you guys don't know that Mazda made a bunch of OBD2 1600s.  There are a couple problems with the 1600 that have been referred to here.
 
1-Drops power through the race.  Two reasons as I see it.
    a-Heat soak
    b-The front thermistor tells the ECU that the motor is too hot and pulls timing.  EASY FIX: Allow 1600s to disconnect the front thermistor (it grounds when it reaches about 205F)
 
2-Hard to keep tuned.
 
Consider testing the MAS from the 1800s on the 1600.  In Europe both displacements use the same MAS.  Might require a harness and ECU change as well, but it's cheap compared to other solutions I've seen here (assuming junkyard supply).  Note that I HATE having to spend money to keep up with OTHER models, but I see this as a long term money and aggravation saver (no more AFM tuning session to session).

[Steve Scheifler]

In typical fashion a little revisionist history...

The shims were never legal,nothing to do with me or rules I was involved in. ...
Jim

Pet peeve alert!!

They are clearly prescribed in the 1.6 factory engine service manual, so they absolutely WERE legal until the rule against was written. IMNSHO

The rule may have seemed a good idea in light of Karl's fiddling, but as you say that's a different argument and needs to be revisited. This was a case of dinking the little guy to stop someone from doing something, but backfired.

BTW, I don't recall any rule that would have allowed Karl to install non-OEM 1.6 seats anyway, and seems to me Mazda does not sell them. Or was that just guides? Been too many years.

[James York]

Pet peeve alert!!

They are clearly prescribed in the 1.6 factory engine service manual, so they absolutely WERE legal until the rule against was written. IMNSHO

 

 

The motor that was busted was a 99 which, if I recall, does not have a engine manual indicating to use such a procedure.  It was just "applied" logic (right or wrong) from another engine manual.

[Danny Steyn]

I don't see whistle-gate or STR-gate as reasons to delay competition adjustments that are frankly overdue in some cases.  3 separate issues IMO.  Seems to me that the whistler test procedure is pretty easily solved.  On the STR, my guess is that we should expect a very minor revision to head prep rules which means little or no performance difference and probably equal among all the different model year cars.  I don't see either of these items changing the performance balance of the class except that some individual cars (which may have been further over the line) may slow down a bit.  Competition adjustments have been on the table for probably a year.  That needs to be addressed now and not doing so would be a dis-service to the class.

Tom - I am on you side. I absolutely believe that some sort of equalization is required. But I would rather see it done with some real data to back up the direction we take. Instituting something just to make a January 1 cutoff and getting it wrong, will do MORE DISSERVICE to the class IMO. I would rather see a change discussed openly with data to corroborate BEFORE It is introduced, NOT AFTER. Some of the changes proposed I heard of are tantamount to taking 4-5 HP away from some existing cars, as our preliminary results have shown. But are our tests right????? Are their tests right. Who is doing the testing??? IMO These are things that should be transparent before changes are made.

I would rather have changes delayed until the point we know they are right. Making the wrong change and then having to make further considerations later would undermine the already fragile situation even further. Confidence in the class is a paramount component of what make it attractive.

Just one man's opinion. Flame suit one. Have at it!

[Jamz14]

Well I have read all of the posts for the last few weeks and I haven't seen that much talking about the 94 - 97 NA cars. I think I'm the last guy in Florida to be running a 97 NA car that can finish in the top 15 consistently with all of the BIG BOY 99 + cars when they race in Florida so I don't suck as a driver. Honestly I don't think I will ever podium at a big race with my 97 car.

 

Here are my observations and I will use Daytona as an example since I have raced mainly Florida tracks for the last 4 years. I have raced two different 97 cars and both had the same results at Daytona multiple laps over and over again.

 

Example #1: I am pushing a 99 car to catch another 99 car 5 - 10 car lengths ahead. As soon as the two 99's touch bumpers they both walk away from me by 10 car lengths or more before Turn 1 and I am the 3rd car in the draft in 5th gear.

 

Example #2: I am faster through the back straight bus stop and I gain 5 - 10 car lengths on a good 99 car. When I go into 5th gear the closing rate is very fast and I just lost all of the gap and they go right around me with nobody pushing them. If the order is reversed with the 99 in front of me with a 5 - 10 car length gap I cannot close the gap.

 

These scenarios have happened to me so many times with many different cars and drivers I have lost count. I'm not on here asking for anything for the 94 - 97 NA cars I just wanted to talk about my observations and whatever the rules are is the way I will race because at the current time I cannot build a 99 + car.

I run a 97. I do not agree at all that the 94-97 is less prone to heat issues as stated by someone else. I have heat issues and everyone in the know that I have talked to about the 97 agrees that the car has heat issues.

[Karl]

It's not an endurance thing Kyle.  Ask Button and Webber how many other F1 guys are really fit and they will tell you that a bunch are lazy, they were just born with the talent and didn't need to work at it.  Fair to compare F1 to our little pond? Not really, and perhaps late, but I have a feeling a younger trimmer set of podiums would give us more credibility and would inspire the big boys who are getting older and will start feeling the effects of the weight more to get in shape.  Slam me if you like, but it's in "the overweights'" best interest to drop the extra pounds and they all know it.  I know it's really hard for some, but I sometimes wonder if they look beyond their own noses and understand what they might be telling a younger generation.

 

I doubt I will ever race in the US again, but like Steve S, this class was a part of my life and the MX5 continues to be a part of my life.  I also have faith in humanity, including you Mr "Not even a little bit" (and that really wasn't necessary)

 

I like the idea of a TECH COURT.  My twist: Add me to the tech shed (I have no racing or business interest anymore) and I will not only tech the parts but I will also publish the findings.  Work for you???

 

It's possible I wrote that email to Mike but I'm pretty sure you got a copy too.  I definitely talked to Mike about the need to spec the WAY the plunge cut was going to be machined including using the valve stem as the ONLY axis of rotation.  Yes, I did suggest the 12 mm plunge for the 1600s, I thought I made that clear.  I can't remember if I I had already gone down that far or not, but there are lots of untouched 1600 heads out there that can be checked.  OE is certainly more than 9 mm in some cases.  Steve S might even know off the top of his head.

 

Someone please pull out a 1600 manual and post a picture of the page that describes shimming the valve springs.  I'm about 6000 miles away from mine at the moment.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Karl buddy, I kinda like having some over weight drivers in SM, some them even make me feel skinny.  Yeah I know I shouldnt eat that extra piece of Lasagna or drink all that high kalory beer that Lamb turned me on to. But racing is not the only thing I want to enjoy in life.

 

Being fit and trim was fine in the skirt chasing days but I wasnt a very happy person back then.

 

When they really  mess this class up and I feel the need to leave, and drive a DP car for a few seasons I will get on the bike to get back in shape, but for now lets just have a little fun.