535 replies to this topic

[Jim Drago]

Flywheels are a waste of time. IMO

[MPR22]

Flywheel weight always comes up in these discussions but I wonder whether the people in favor of lighter ones for the 1.6 understand how and to what degree a few pounds will impact performance under various confitions. So rather than simply debating it in broad terms let's examine exactly what problem it would address and how. I would like to ask those in favor of such a rule change to give specific examples of circumstances where they think it would make a meaningful difference. Please describe the track and corner, approximate speeds and RPM if possible.

I'll do one better, I am willing to run a modified 1.6 next year against my 01 logging data.  I can run the 1.6 in STL with an (scca) exemption and run the 01 in SM.  Eagles Canyon is a great track to test the mods, it has slow mid gear hills that kill the 1.6.  TWS slightly favors the 99, until the track gets greasy on Sundays.  MSR Houston is almost a dead push anytime of year, the 1.6 Mazda Comp diff makes a huge difference getting out of some slower corners and in the carousel.  Don't know how it will fare at NOLA

 

Same driver, two different cars.  I can even flip flop which car i race in SM and STL between Saturday and Sunday if the SCCA doesn't mind me driving a cheated up 1.6 in SM.  

[Steve Scheifler]

That's fine for additional data, but not necessarily better. There is plenty of math involved and it is more easily confirmed on the (right) dyno than on the track. So I want to hear about scenarios where people think it would help. In your example at Eagles Canyon, in what gear and what RPM do you start up these hills?

[Jaime Florence]

I know this will likely be shot down by many and it would probably cause some follow up work to ensure parity...but

1.6 : Open porting in the head. Allow cam timing.

NA 1.8 : Allow cam timing. No restrictor plate.

'99 - '00 : Allow cam timing. No restrictor place, correct weight for parity.

VVT : No restrictor place, correct weight for parity.

NC : Not yet...but in 3-4 years.

Add some speed to the current SM cars (and let 'me breath) in preparation for NC cars coming in 3-4 years from now. And make sure the parity with the NC cars is right so we don't have big under/over dog conditions.

[Jaime Florence]

Oops.

[MPR22]

That's fine for additional data, but not necessarily better. There is plenty of math involved and it is more easily confirmed on the (right) dyno than on the track. So I want to hear about scenarios where people think it would help. In your example at Eagles Canyon, in what gear and what RPM do you start up these hills?

if i recall correctly the bad one is 3rd gear about 4500.  Not saying the flywheel is the only answer, it is just very cheap help.  I have run a light flywheel in a 1.6 and it does help at slower speeds hole shots in second gear, it seems to loose its effectiveness the faster the speed and higher in the rpm range you climb.  before everyone gets there pantys in a wad, it was a chump car not an SM.

[Steve Scheifler]

Your observation about when it was less help is the most critical issue. My single biggest concern with it is that the rules makers will approve that because so many people ask for it and then say "you got your flywheel now shut up and drive" and it will become all the more difficult to get more meaningful adjustments.

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

Lets just have a second wave in our races. This would be the cheapest for everyone. We did it with motorcycles and never had a problem and it won't cost anyone anything. One weekend you have the 99+ cars in the first wave on Sat. Then on Sun. Start all the other cars in the first wave and the 99+ in the second wave. So what I'm saying is we have 2 diff. Classes in one scoring them separate.

[Steve Scheifler]

That amounts to demoting the early cars to "regional" status with IT classes etc. with no place in the "majors" or Runoffs. It seems inevitable, but is this the time?

On the other hand, assuming that national car counts are still the primary criteria for Runoffs participation, 1.6 fans might be wise to back a split and then start showing up in huge numbers. The NB cars would not be in jeopardy so the NAs would be more likely to takie a seat away from some other struggling class, but they could easily win their own spot in the big races.

[MPR22]

Your observation about when it was less help is the most critical issue. My single biggest concern with it is that the rules makers will approve that because so many people ask for it and then say "you got your flywheel now shut up and drive" and it will become all the more difficult to get more meaningful adjustments.

That was only one part, I think the compression ratio uptick is more critical. Something to to give it more oomph.

[steveracer]

This may not be popular with the 1.6 crowd but I think we should up the compression ratio and allow an 11 lb flywheel. That will make them much more raceable. Slowing the top speed of the NBs will only help them on high speed long straight tracks.

NA 1.8 take out 15 lbs and add 300 rpm, not sure how we do thie latter.

99 leave the same, it is the standard all others should be adjusted to.

01'up jury is out. How many of those wins this year were with cheated up compression ratio heads? I suspect too many to make a judgement at this point. Give them another year of racing, there are plenty about there in hands of capable drivers.

NCs have their own class stay out of SM!

This!

 

I like my car, I'd like to keep racing it instead of giving it away for next to nothing so I can build the next car of the moment. Or be relegated to a regional only vintage BS class. 

Seems almost like racism...

[Steve Scheifler]

Pop Quiz: All else being equal, gear, RPM, distance, etc., in which of these cases will a lighter flywheel benefit the 1.6 most?

Up a steep hill
On level ground
Down a steep hill

[Tom Hampton]

No load. Down a steep hill.

Or rather, when the load created by the flywheel is the greatest percentage if the load.

[Bench Racer]

2015 Rule Proposals

Proposal 1. Inclusion class vision for year 2015 based on spec line.

There would be four, maybe five, maybe six classes in the future within Spec Miata with all cars racing within the same race group as they do now. Each class has a finisher from 1st to last. If a 1990/1993 has a desire to race within a newer year spec line class he/she requests to do so before their first annual race, logbook is noted and the car stays within the chosen newer year spec line class for all races within that annual. No reversing a spec line class car to a lesser year spec line class. So a couple more trophies. Add a trophy fee to the entry fee as was done with the tech fee. Before the chuckles start, let's not forget which goose laid the Golden Egg.

Four or more spec line classes within Spec Miata:

1990/1993 SMA

1995/1997 SMB

1999/2000 SMC

2001/2005 SMD

Newer spec line SME

SMA through SME classes is very doable and inclusionary for all Spec Miata race car owners. Or break up the spec lines for the best inclusionary classes. When the SMA cars fade away, so be it. It's a natural progression without the big kids saying, you 1.6, cheap a$$ under prepared, always bitching about parity need to go away. Any issues can be straightened out before the get-go.

David Dewhurst

 

No one comments (yes, I know Michael said no debate. Others started the debate.) about this ^ proposal, why does this not work? The only issue I view, it's different and would upset the balanced minds of the rulers within the SCCA. If a 1.6 or other class wants to race within any upward class, change the SMA to SM? where you want to race. No muss, no fuss, change a $1.00 decal. The, send them regional, less is better mentality is SOOOOOOOOOOOOO wrong for a club. The big kids are constantly saying, everything is the best it's ever been between all spec line cars. Then why screw with go fast, go slow goodies? Doesn't the SCCA have, production classes within a class and doesn't Touring have classes within a class.

 

With Steve's and others lighter flywheel and other speed them up items comments, how about an on track torque measuring system which per my reading/understanding is a better tool for measuring equality between spec lines. Data from, all gears, all engine RPM's, all trace configurations. What not to like??? 

[Danny Steyn]

Here are my $0.02c and I mean to provoke debate - sorry for the thread hijack.

 

Personally I would love to see more of the 1.6's and NA 1.8's come out and race. If for a moment any of us with money thought that we could win with one of them, we would be building them to the current level of prep that we do with our '99's and VVT's. The fact that NONE of us are even contemplating the build tells us that they are not competitive with the current rules package. And the opinion that is being floated that the top 1.6's in the current rules package will win Daytona has very little credence in my book. It is only once we see several of the top 10 spots being taken by 1.6's that we can consider that we have parity. 

 

THe 1.6's we supposed to come out in force at the Laguna Seca Runoffs and were conspicuously absent, that is more ammo for the argument

 

I am personally in favor of granting some power/ torque to these cars, even if it means that in the short term they become the overdog and wipe the floor with us '99 and VVT drivers. Only when we see a decent percentage of cars coming out, or new cars being built, can we accept that we have some sort of parity. 

[Cnj]

Bench,

I imagine that no one is responding to your idea to split the current single class up into 5-6 classes for two reasons:

1. Its a crazy idea. (I could list the reasons but won't).
2. Getting into a debate with you is like wrestling with a pig in mud. Pretty soon you realize the pig enjoys it and can do it endlessly

CNJ

[Cnj]

Here are my $0.02c and I mean to provoke debate - sorry for the thread hijack.
 
Personally I would love to see more of the 1.6's and NA 1.8's come out and race. If for a moment any of us with money thought that we could win with one of them, we would be building them to the current level of prep that we do with our '99's and VVT's. The fact that NONE of us are even contemplating the build tells us that they are not competitive with the current rules package. And the opinion that is being floated that the top 1.6's in the current rules package will win Daytona has very little credence in my book. It is only once we see several of the top 10 spots being taken by 1.6's that we can consider that we have parity. 
 
THe 1.6's we supposed to come out in force at the Laguna Seca Runoffs and were conspicuously absent, that is more ammo for the argument
 
I am personally in favor of granting some power/ torque to these cars, even if it means that in the short term they become the overdog and wipe the floor with us '99 and VVT drivers. Only when we see a decent percentage of cars coming out, or new cars being built, can we accept that we have some sort of parity.

Danny,

I'm not sure I buy that the only reasons people are not building 1.6's is because they don't think they are competitive. I was one of the early builders of a 99 and my reasons were more prosaic than trying to build a fast car. I simply did not want to build on a 20 (plus) year old base. I have been through multiple weight changes (up to 2475 at one point) and all the other adjustments to the car. At various times I have seen my car as an underdog and overdog. Right now it seems as close as anything I have every seen to the previous versions, and the data appears to support this. I can't speak to the VVT as it has not been around enough.

However....

If there is to be some further adjustment, we should consider what elements we have to play with.

1. Suspension geometry/behavior
2. Engine (power/torque)
3. Weight

All debate would (obviously) be moot if we were in cars of identical handling capability, identical weight and identical power/torque capability. Thus if I were king, I would work on the following to get closer to this goal:

1. Allow the NA models to adopt the same suspension as the NB. This was of course promoted previously and turned down vociferously by some in the NA crowd who did not want to spend any money. I continue to see this as short sighted. Without identical suspension parts we start the equalization process with a limp. The cost is modest.

2. Lower weight on the 1.8 and NB's. Probably no more than 25-35 pounds and not the same for each. The goal is to get the cars closer together in weight so that they will handle more similarly (braking, turn in, etc) and this will promote closer racing.

3. Implement smaller plates on the 99 and up to further reduce the engine output. I acknowledge that I am not sure at what point we might create problems with excessive air restrictions.

As a side note, let's ask SCCA to get us off the Hoosiers. I love driving on them, makes me feel like a hero, but they are beating up our cars and the evidence indicates that the mazda hubs just can't take the punishment.

CNJ

[FTodaro]

Danny,

I'm not sure I buy that the only reasons people are not building 1.6's is because they don't think they are competitive. I was one of the early builders of a 99 and my reasons were more prosaic than trying to build a fast car. I simply did not want to build on a 20 (plus) year old base. I have been through multiple weight changes (up to 2475 at one point) and all the other adjustments to the car. At various times I have seen my car as an underdog and overdog. Right now it seems as close as anything I have every seen to the previous versions, and the data appears to support this. I can't speak to the VVT as it has not been around enough.

However....

If there is to be some further adjustment, we should consider what elements we have to play with.

1. Suspension geometry/behavior
2. Engine (power/torque)
3. Weight

All debate would (obviously) be moot if we were in cars of identical handling capability, identical weight and identical power/torque capability. Thus if I were king, I would work on the following to get closer to this goal:

1. Allow the NA models to adopt the same suspension as the NB. This was of course promoted previously and turned down vociferously by some in the NA crowd who did not want to spend any money. I continue to see this as short sighted. Without identical suspension parts we start the equalization process with a limp. The cost is modest.

2. Lower weight on the 1.8 and NB's. Probably no more than 25-35 pounds and not the same for each. The goal is to get the cars closer together in weight so that they will handle more similarly (braking, turn in, etc) and this will promote closer racing.

3. Implement smaller plates on the 99 and up to further reduce the engine output. I acknowledge that I am not sure at what point we might create problems with excessive air restrictions.

As a side note, let's ask SCCA to get us off the Hoosiers. I love driving on them, makes me feel like a hero, but they are beating up our cars and the evidence indicates that the mazda hubs just can't take the punishment.

CNJ

I agree with your point that i think there are several reasons that people decide not to  build 1.6 cars, one of them is they are not as easy to drive.

 

I would also point out on the parity debate, parity depends on the type of track, in my opinion. but i would agree that the TQ disparity is an issue but i think if they do motor fix to bring up the Tq. you need to adjust the wt up as well or it will be an over-dog.

 

How is that for no debate.

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

Here are my $0.02c and I mean to provoke debate - sorry for the thread hijack.

Personally I would love to see more of the 1.6's and NA 1.8's come out and race. If for a moment any of us with money thought that we could win with one of them, we would be building them to the current level of prep that we do with our '99's and VVT's. The fact that NONE of us are even contemplating the build tells us that they are not competitive with the current rules package. And the opinion that is being floated that the top 1.6's in the current rules package will win Daytona has very little credence in my book. It is only once we see several of the top 10 spots being taken by 1.6's that we can consider that we have parity.

THe 1.6's we supposed to come out in force at the Laguna Seca Runoffs and were conspicuously absent, that is more ammo for the argument



I am personally in favor of granting some power/ torque to these cars, even if it means that in the short term they become the overdog and wipe the floor with us '99 and VVT drivers. Only when we see a decent percentage of cars coming out, or new cars being built, can we accept that we have some sort of parity.

I agree 100% with you Danny !

Frank, that is fine get the TQ curve the same as the 99+ cars and I would gladly take on more weight !
You guys keep talking about Murdock and how fast his 1.6 is but that is only 1 car out of 1000 out there and he lives on that track.
If the cars are equal there would be a lot more 1.6s and 1.8 at the track then there is now. Plus just look at the classifieds if they were equal how come there is 10 1.6 and 1.8 for every 99+ car on there? And why such a price diff. If they are equal ?
I know I and plenty of other guys would show up to more races if I had a snowball chance in hell. Trust me if I could afford it I would gladly give my car away and build I new one,but I can't. I don't know about you but it gets old racing the same guys and small fields. I would love to get back to the average weekend have 25-50 car fields instead of a 10-15 car field. Trust me get the cars closer then what we have now and see how much the class grows. Everyone could see a profit from this,SCCA,Mazda,and all the car builders. I can't see why any manufacture or business limiting themselves to a few years of cars when they can make money off all the years. I don't care if it's a 15-20 year. Old car if you can make money off of it why wouldn't you? Trust me it's a win win for everyone !

[Jim Drago]

I will ask the same question I always ask...

If in a perfect world if we made these cars as even as possible without drastic changes why would anyone chose to build the 1.6 or even the 1.8 at this point? The NB car is newer car with suspension upgrades over the na car and the cost to build one is the same or less at this point.

The only reason would be if at a clear advantage. I also don't buy that all these 1.6 and 1.8 cars are siting in garages just waiting to start running 6 plus weekends a year when the parity favors them. You remember when all were congratulating NASA on getting the rules "right" where we finally favored the 1.6 and all these cars would start racing again ? They never showed.. Remember Arrc SM2 again.. 1.6 cars not showing bc of the rules... Again it failed as none came out. When a good one does come, everyone calls him a cheater.

The majority are clearly NB cars racing regionally and the majors at this point. If we truly feel slanting the rules to favor the NA cars at this point would bring more people out.. I could at least entertain this position.. But this has not proved to work, so all we would be doing is penalize the competitors who are actually racing and paying the enter fees etc.

As far as us and the 1.6, I can openly tell you that our intention is to at the very least to test the hell out of the 1.6 at Daytona. BSI took Todd's 1.6 to the tub and it is coming back to me in about 6 weeks. We will run whatever is fastest at Daytona. The 7200 rpm rev limiter and talks of smaller plates on nb cars will make it a very attractive package there.