535 replies to this topic

[Steve Scheifler]

I think he means free-hand removal, not just the plunge, but to the same depth limit. As with the original rule the idea is to makes 1.6 heads more consistent, but in reality it would likely introduce bigger difference than we have now because only someone with access to a flow bench, skill in porting, and a pile of heads will get the best result.

[pat slattery]

There are two styles of transmissions all are same gearing and all are 5 speed but the boxes look different in those early na cars.

You can also run either in your car without modifications

[Ron Alan]

At Fontana this year(I assume its similar to Daytona  ), there were several early chassis cars with good drivers. Mark can correct me if I'm wrong but all the gains he could make on the infield were lost on the high bank if he did not have a partner. I dont think the aero advantage the NB chassis seems to have can be changed on these type of tracks. Even with the 200rpm advantage of the 1.6, will be of no benefit if it cant get there without help. Above 110mph I dont think anyone can discount the difference that occurs when the NA and NB are running alone. 

 

That said...the guys who figure out which combination(NA/NB/NB2-pushing or pulling) of 2 top prepped cars works best TOGETHER will be on top next year  (maybe i should include the NC?? )

 

Want to really mess with the crowd and plans...allow no pushing or drafting in 2015  NASCAR did it!  

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Ron that is typical of any roval, you can make gains on iinfield in any car and not be able to hold on to that  gain if the ones chasing you are drafting the oval.

 

I finished p3 at MIS majors 2 seasons ago, I was runnign alone making my gains on the infield only to watch them disapear on the oval as p1-p2 were drafting the oval every lap.  I got close at one time on the infield but got taken off into the grass by a lapper.  Had I caught them I had somethign for them but its a tough tough task to beat a good two car draft  on any oval and you will never do it at Daytona which uses 3/4 of the nascar oval.

[Ron Alan]

You made my point Kyle. But there is a 2 car combination that will work best! Bottom line is you can't help the NA with aero by itself...I think?

[Caveman-kwebb99]

that may be. but a 1.6 with a 01 behind it would be pretty damn ideal IMO... 

[Todd Green]

Why isn't racing seen as a fit man's sport, or better asked, why are we not rewarding the really fit guys?  Hey, when I hit 40, the bowls of ice cream had to leave the diet and I'm happy to say that yesterday's half marathon was done 15 minutes faster than the one I did two years ago.  Still way off the pace I want, but we're getting there.  Too bad lbs seem to come with wisdom for most.  

 

^^ This!  If I could make one rule change, it'd be to go back to the original weights for the class.  It isn't my problem if you are overweight and don't want to get in shape(*).  Just like it isn't your problem if you want to buy stickers, do setup work, test-n-tune days, put your car on the dyno, etc. before every race and I don't/can't do the same.  Stop punishing me for your lack of commitment to yourself (which frankly is way more important than all the time and energy you are spending on your car as far as your health and longevity are concerned.)  Of course it isn't realistic that this rule will ever change.

 

> Light flywheel best?

 

Downhill.  A lighter flywheel's advantage is due to inertial gains.  It will accelerate faster downhill, hence the greater gain.  That's is why 2nd gear (in addition to the greater mechanical advantage of the gearing) buys you more than 3rd. etc.  WRT where it'd help most at MMP: there are two 2nd gear turns where you are between 6,000 and 6,400 RPMs.  Both follow with an upshift to 3rd (and one has a shift to 4th).  (One other 3rd gear corner at ~4600 that leads onto a long straight.)  Relatively flat track.

 

> DD's multiple classes

 

Horrible idea.  Just two of the many reasons why: 1) The whole point of SM is large fields.  Now you'd be back to small fields and what do you do when all of a sudden you have a SMA car running between two SMC cars?  Racing out of class sucks for all involved. 2) It'd totally hose contingency for smaller regions.  One of the big benefits of running Toyos in NASA was the promise that the contingency would go deep into the field...as long as you had large fields.  Not going to happen with 4+ classes.

 

> What would it take to get 1.6's back out?

 

I hate to say it, but Jim is probably right.  Why would you run a 1.6 all else being equal?  Who wouldn't want to be in a newer car if it cost the same to build?  Why would you want to turn a 1.6 into a pseudo NB?  It isn't like NB chassis are all that expensive when you compare it to the budget for a full year of  (serious) racing and/or the cost of doing a conversion. It'd also not be right to make the 1.6 an overdog to just get them back out.  All that would happen is that all the top drivers would stop running their 99/01's and switch to 1.6's.  The 1.6's may or may not come back out and if they did and dominated, we'd have all the 99/01's bitching up a storm and would stop coming out.  (The 1.8's would still be red-headed stepchildren and relegated to the corner with no dessert ).  What would we have accomplished?  Nothing.  You also have to look from a practical standpoint of how much longer will Mazda support the 1.6?  I already have parts I can no longer get (via Mazdaspeed or elsewhere.)  It is only going to get worse.  IMO, energy would be better spent on the future of the class (NC's and ND's) rather than worrying about the past.

 

> torque on track

 

NASA already uses TraqMates to check performance.  Cheap, simple, and it's the same damn thing we use to check our own performance (though brands may vary.)

 

 

 

 

* Perhaps you are in the very small percentage of people who do work out, eat well, etc. and just happen to have a 200+ lbs body.  Well life isn't fair.   It's just annoying that we choose to use the lowest common denominator for one aspect of our rules and the highest common denominator for just about every other aspect.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

I think we need to go back the good old days when I started in 2010, we were 2050 and had a bigger hole in our RP... I would go for that tomorrow 

[Tom Sager]

So is there anyone from the 1.6 camp that will post what rule adjustments they want for 2015?  I think you have to confine the suggestion to weight and plate adjustments only.  Anything else will likely require a longer period of evaluation and probably should be submitted by a group to both NASA and SCCA.  

[sean]

NA 1.8 bigger plate. Leave everything else the same.

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

I think we should give the 1.8 guys a diff. RP or adjust weight to help them out.

I think the 1.6 guys need help in the TQ area to help out of the corners.

Leave the rest of the cars as is.

I hate the mind set of trying to slow the rest of the group for 1 or 2 gen cars. Hell we all want to go faster not slower !

Just my opinion !

[Bench Racer]

 

> DD's multiple classes

 

Horrible idea.  Just two of the many reasons why: 1) The whole point of SM is large fields.  Now you'd be back to small fields and what do you do when all of a sudden you have a SMA car running between two SMC cars?  Racing out of class sucks for all involved. 2) It'd totally hose contingency for smaller regions.  One of the big benefits of running Toyos in NASA was the promise that the contingency would go deep into the field...as long as you had large fields.  Not going to happen with 4+ classes.

 

Thank you for including some positive info.

 

> What would it take to get 1.6's back out?

 

If there were no new 1.6's built and some inhancements were given to the 1.6 that they could equally play with teh 99 plus below 5,000 RPM that would be one hell of a start.

 

> torque on track

 

NASA already uses TraqMates to check performance.  Cheap, simple, and it's the same damn thing we use to check our own performance (though brands may vary.)

 

Thank you for the torque comment. I had read that a Greg IIRC tested some stuff a couple/few years ago that did not provide factual info as desired. Does the TraqMate GPS provide accecptable, accuracy and repeatability?

 

* Perhaps you are in the very small percentage of people who do work out, eat well, etc. and just happen to have a 200+ lbs body.  Well life isn't fair.   It's just annoying that we choose to use the lowest common denominator for one aspect of our rules and the highest common denominator for just about every other aspect.

 

Totally understand what your saying, have lost  21 pounds since license physical early March.

 

So is there anyone from the 1.6 camp that will post what rule adjustments they want for 2015?  I think you have to confine the suggestion to weight and plate adjustments only.  Anything else will likely require a longer period of evaluation and probably should be submitted by a group to both NASA and SCCA.  

Tom, I would like to beleive the engine builders could throw down some torque enhancements below 5,000 RPM for the 1.6 right now. I could make a list, but the engine builders would be doing a much more knowledgeable list. And if the peek and top end went out of bounds, add some fat. Down low is where the 1.6 needs the get up and go.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

I think we should give the 1.8 guys a diff. RP or adjust weight to help them out.

I think the 1.6 guys need help in the TQ area to help out of the corners.

Leave the rest of the cars as is.

I hate the mind set of trying to slow the rest of the group for 1 or 2 gen cars. Hell we all want to go faster not slower !

Just my opinion !

 

I also think we should make a rule that 1.6 guys can remove all stereo equipment from their cars in order to be able to go faster off the corners.

[davew]

Based on every previous time this was offered up, the 1.6 community does not want to do anything that will cost them money. They only want to slow the other cars, not make themselves faster. They turned down the $300 subframe upgrade by using fuzzy math to come up with $3000 costs. they turned down the flywheel years ago. They also complain they can not make weight, so lowering the minimum wieght goes against their thought process.

 

Just my experience from when I was on the SMAC and we offered help to the NA cars

 

Dave

[Steve Scheifler]

Bench, Adding "fat" mostly impacts acceleration down low the same as torque. At higher speeds the weight is less of an issue than aero, so if the concern is that the improved 1.6 legs are too long then you need a restrictor not pounds.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

in my 40+ years of life experience DaveW you can never satisfy the unsatisfiable...  

[Bench Racer]

Maybe your SMAC time was before I showed up,  all tho I dought it.

Based on every previous time this was offered up, the 1.6 community does not want to do anything that will cost them money. From onen 1.6er, not true. They only want to slow the other cars, not make themselves faster. Only if the 1.6 cannot have the torque raised below 5,000 RPM. They turned down the $300 subframe upgrade by using fuzzy math to come up with $3000 costs. IMHJ, doing the subfram does nothing in the torque department where the real shortage in P is. they turned down the flywheel years ago. From one 1.6er, not true.  They also complain they can not make weight, so lowering the minimum wieght goes against their thought process. This 1.6er's car with a gallon of gas and cool suite full weighs 2,020 pounds. With driver and gear ballast eight is required.

 

Just my experience from when I was on the SMAC and we offered help to the NA cars Do not disagree with your statement for other 1.6er's.

 

Dave

[FTodaro]

Based on every previous time this was offered up, the 1.6 community does not want to do anything that will cost them money. They only want to slow the other cars, not make themselves faster. They turned down the $300 subframe upgrade by using fuzzy math to come up with $3000 costs. they turned down the flywheel years ago. They also complain they can not make weight, so lowering the minimum wieght goes against their thought process.

 

Just my experience from when I was on the SMAC and we offered help to the NA cars

 

Dave

Dave having been there, how do these decisions get made? Does the CRB listen to those who what change, discuss and then vote? Gather data? Report to higher authority?

Let the vocal minority set the tone?

Maybe its me, but i thought the parity debate this past year till a few weeks ago was pretty quite? Relatively speaking.

[Tom Sager]

Tom, I would like to beleive the engine builders could throw down some torque enhancements below 5,000 RPM for the 1.6 right now. I could make a list, but the engine builders would be doing a much more knowledgeable list. And if the peek and top end went out of bounds, add some fat. Down low is where the 1.6 needs the get up and go.

 

Here's what doesn't work.  Waiting until the end of the year and then throwing around a bunch of ideas on how to increase power while bitching and moaning.  My suggestions to the 1.6 camp are:

 

1.  Get organized, get several people involved with the same goals

2.  Decide if you want more power at the expense of more weight

3.  Decide if you want an option for updated suspension at the expense of more weight

4.  Come up with set of ideas that will solve whatever you're trying to solve

5.  Get outside expertise as needed

6.  Submit the request in a timely fashion (early enough in the year to be evaluated) and let the decision makers know in advance that this is coming

7.  Follow up on the request 

 

Without this, weight and plate adjustments are easier to evaluate and revise and there is progress that can be made right there.  

[Bench Racer]

Bench, Adding "fat" mostly impacts acceleration down low the same as torque. At higher speeds the weight is less of an issue than aero, so if the concern is that the improved 1.6 legs are too long then you need a restrictor not pounds.

Steve, ok, so we need to spruce up the torque below 5,000 RPM and were good to go. 1.6 works well at the higher RPM's and one can play evenly, agree?  Some years back I sent a letter asking fo rmore torque for the 1.6. Didn't detail anything because those on the SMAC and the CRB know better how to get there than me. IIRC the response may have been, thank you for your input.