535 replies to this topic

[Jim Drago]

I imagine lots of this talk will be irrelevant after the "meeting" plans are announced. All of these changes hinge on this decision

[FTodaro]

I sure hope they make a good decision and not cost the class unnecessary attrition do to the cost to run legally, and no viable options to comply.

[Alberto]

I imagine lots of this talk will be irrelevant after the "meeting" plans are announced. All of these changes hinge on this decision

 

Has anyone bugged the meeting room yet?

That would make cool reality TV.

[Chris Ashcraft]

let me start by saying as a 2 year newbie...I absolutely love this class and chose it because of the high number count, great people and reasonable cost to enter the field. I read and listened when i joined 2 years ago and have run my 92 completely bare minimum, junk yard engine, no fat cat, kept the VLSD in it just to get seat time. but know it is time to upgrade and am waiting on these rules to decide what to do..upgrade the 92 with an engine fat cats and an lsd...or throw it all away and start over.

 

I would just like to see a package that i can be reasonably competitive in my 92'..If the rules were to stay the same as of today i would start a build of an 01' and just keep the 92 considering i probably wont be able to sell the 92' there have been 4-5 NA go up for sale since the runoff debacle occurred just on this site (coincidence maybe)

 

 

[Caveman-kwebb99]

let me start by saying as a 2 year newbie...I absolutely love this class and chose it because of the high number count, great people and reasonable cost to enter the field. I read and listened when i joined 2 years ago and have run my 92 completely bare minimum, junk yard engine, no fat cat, kept the VLSD in it just to get seat time. but know it is time to upgrade and am waiting on these rules to decide what to do..upgrade the 92 with an engine fat cats and an lsd...or throw it all away and start over.

 

I would just like to see a package that i can be reasonably competitive in my 92'..If the rules were to stay the same as of today i would start a build of an 01' and just keep the 92 considering i probably wont be able to sell the 92' there have been 4-5 NA go up for sale since the runoff debacle occurred just on this site (coincidence maybe)

 

So why an 01 and not an 00?

[Steve Scheifler]

Chris, if your goal for the next season or two is "reasonably competitive" then you can certainly get there with the 1.6 even under current rules for a tiny fraction of the cost to build new. Fat Cats and LSD first and learn to get the most out of those. Unless your engine is unusually low that will get the car closer than you might be yet. If you don't have a data system and someone to share with, that is absolutely next. Learning to set the car up well and make minor tweaks at the track is next, and then maybe worry about the engine. That may sound condescending but unless you are really quick already there is much more time to be found in a well balanced car and good driving than there is in even 20hp (which you probably won't get).

[Tom Sager]

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. 

Can't speak for your tests or for the committees at work but I doubt anyone in the process on the NASA or SCCA side thinks that any of the cars need to be adjusted +/- 4 or 5 horsepower nor will they recommend that.   I also doubt any weight changes over 25 pounds are considered.    

[Ron Alan]

 .  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)
 
 

My guess is this is not limited to the 1.6? Would it be fair to say this occurs in all models? And would it be fair to say if it is an EASY fix, it is not already being done? And if so...can it be teched easily? Not being a mechanic(except when i'm forced to!)or an EE, i've often wondered about this...as we've all seen what happens on the dyno when our motors get hot. So if we can "trick" the motor into thinking it is cool...we can effectively maintain power at all temps? Obviously i'm not talking about running so hot to damage or any power loss from just being hot...but intended power loss via the ECU not to hurt the motor.

[Todd Green]

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.

 

Again, show me where else in the rules we cater to the lowest common denominator?  You want to "enjoy life" and be overweight, have at it.  Just don't tell me I have to bolt in 80 lbs of ballast for your lifestyle.  IMO, 190 lbs for a driver is more than reasonable and would cover the upper end of the normal weight range (BMI) for even tall drivers.

[Jim Drago]

Again, show me where else in the rules we cater to the lowest common denominator? 

 

Catering to the 1.6?

[pat slattery]

Come on Jim, you owe yourself a PM for that remark

[Chris Ashcraft]

So why an 01 and not an 00?

 

Since i mainly run Mid-O, from what i have read the 01' might be the car to have there...of course depending on what happens with the rules..

 

Chris, if your goal for the next season or two is "reasonably competitive" then you can certainly get there with the 1.6 even under current rules for a tiny fraction of the cost to build new. Fat Cats and LSD first and learn to get the most out of those. Unless your engine is unusually low that will get the car closer than you might be yet. If you don't have a data system and someone to share with, that is absolutely next. Learning to set the car up well and make minor tweaks at the track is next, and then maybe worry about the engine. That may sound condescending but unless you are really quick already there is much more time to be found in a well balanced car and good driving than there is in even 20hp (which you probably won't get)

"reasonably competitive" is of course subjective...i would like to think running mid 1:46 at Mid-O when the leader is running 1:44 is pretty good for what i am driving. i would like to of course be right there are the front but i have some seat time left before i get there. but i would like to get in the high 1:44's..The engine is gonna have to get an overhaul this winter no matter what i do..leak down with close to 12% across and oil pressure was getting pretty low. 

 

But i definitely agree that there is more time to be had in upgrading the current car and learning those minor tweaks.

 

I am the first to admit that i have a lot to learn..but for me that is part of the fun

[Johnny D]

I finish 13th Sat, visiting from CA, 1st time out to Mid O, with the BIG help of Kyle coaching.

Ya, 99 and Mid o setup, but going over the data after every time on track, got me were I got. (<--I ant got no good English)

Just saying,

J~

[Karl]

<<I am the first to admit that i have a lot to learn..but for me that is part of the fun>>

 

That put such a big smile on my face.  Please be vocal and ask ask ask.  Can I plant a few seeds for you to consider as you move along?

 

-Why spend ?$1500? to buy and install an LSD from Mazda, or install a Torsen from an 1800?

Is it wheel spin out of the corners?  If so, think about why that happens and what other less expensive solutions there might be.  I'm also curious to know how many folks consider the OE 1600 diffs to be fragile.  I'm going somewhere with this clearly, so please play along.

 

-You will probably also need a wideband O2 sensor if you don't have one with a display in the car for real-time feedback.  They cost about $300, but consider the impact of spending that money on a system to replace the AFM.  

 

Good luck and I hope you feel as though you will be able to stay in your 1600.

 

[Karl]

Ron, 

 

It's really easy and frankly simple to get by tech if you have no problem playing that way.  I prefer the make it legal approach. Give this some thought and bounce it around with your guys and see if you can get it through.

 

The top radiator tube goes to the head where the thermostat is also located.  A sensor is in the top of that housing with a one wire connector going to it.  Pull that out and the ECU will not be able to use that signal to retard the timing.  You can play with it on the dyno if you like.  Pull the wire and connect it to a good ground point and you can tell all of us how much HP was lost.

 

The 1600 used to make the most power when the water temp reached 195F but before the intake was heat soaked.  As I recall the power was still there at 215F (with the sensor disconnected), but it has been a while.

 

Here is something else to consider that has been discussed before.  Oil coolers and or modified HLAs or solid lifters for the NAs.  

 

An oil cooler would have the most impact on the 1600 and NA 1800 since they use HLAs rather than the shimmed lifters in the NBs.  I had a little trick for that too.  Clearly cheating but when I developed it, I did not know that Mazda was reselling SBI HLAs (or SBI and Mazda got them from the same place), and, cheap as I am, I did not want to pay $15 for a new lifter.  SBI sold them for about $5.  

 

If you take the lifter apart and remove the little ball and spring and the oil, you can collapse the lifter.  Re-install it and measure the gap between the base circle of the cam and the top of the lifter.  I had little shims made that i installed in the plunger which allowed me to set the gap the same way as you would on the NB motors.  Leaving the spring out kept the lifter from pumping up and holding the valve open IF there was valve float.  Clearly in violation of the rules, but it was a really inexpensive way to take the HLAs out of the NA v NB equalization equation.  We did ask for solid lifters in the NAs but didn't get it.  No idea if they are now allowed.  If not, it's one way to reduce 1600 costs and improve NA power drop off.  If you hear lifter clatter after a session you probably also noticed a power degradation.      

 

Think cheap and effective and you should get enough on board to get it through.  If you run into resistance, question the reason(s) and don't settle for "thank you for your input"  

 

Jim has already suggested closer to ITA rules for the 1600, so your chances are much better now than they were ten years ago.  Cheap and effective.   

[Todd Green]

Catering to the 1.6?

Clearly not, since no one at the top is driving them on the National (err Majors/Runoffs) scene.  But if you look at my comments on that, I said it isn't worthwhile catering to the 1.6 because it will accomplish nothing (as far as total class participation numbers go.)  Now, care to address my point?

[Jim Daniels - FIG]

Sealed MX5 2.0 motors in all cars. 3 year plan to phase them in. Folks smarter than me set weights.

[Jim Drago]

Now, care to address my point?

You asked "show me where else in the rules we cater to the lowest common denominator?' I answered? I don't even know what to address?

The 1.6 is the lowest common denominator and we have catered to it slowing the other cars down in the past and possibly again in the future. that isn't an opinion. It is the slowest car why we have plates etc. So by definition.. we are catering to LCD?

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Again, show me where else in the rules we cater to the lowest common denominator?  You want to "enjoy life" and be overweight, have at it.  Just don't tell me I have to bolt in 80 lbs of ballast for your lifestyle.  IMO, 190 lbs for a driver is more than reasonable and would cover the upper end of the normal weight range (BMI) for even tall drivers

 

 

Dont be a hater!  I got some big love for ya!

 

[pat slattery]

You asked "show me where else in the rules we cater to the lowest common denominator?' I answered? I don't even know what to address?

The 1.6 is the lowest common denominator and we have catered to it slowing the other cars down in the past and possibly again in the future. that isn't an opinion. It is the slowest car why we have plates etc. So by definition.. we are catering to LCD?

We didn't have 99-whatever back in the day , and someone allowed the rules to creep to make the 1.6 the dog it is Jim.  That is total BS