535 replies to this topic

[Caveman-kwebb99]

this maybe crazy and off base, but when you write into the CRB to ask for something shouldnt you know how to get what your asking for?

 

If I ask for more torq, shouldnt I know how much I am asking for and by which means we would like to have that happen?

 

I dont think the CRB's job is to go do all kinds of testing to find the answers they should take data from your independant testing and look it over and if it makes good sense for the class then maybe they do some testing and come to a conclusion.

 

If the CRB started testing on every subject they get a letter on they couldnt hold down their day jobs.  

[pat slattery]

1.6 stay the same, just go back to the NASA rules from 3 years ago, that was fairly close, I could live with it, even though a 99 kicked butt at Mid Ohio.

[pat slattery]

I agree with Jim, if I was building a new car I would also build a 99 and Up.  But there are hundreds that have 1.6 cars and are not interested in building  new cars. 

[Todd Green]

Bench Racer, on 27 Oct 2014 - 6:34 PM, said:

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?

 

I use Race Techology's DL-1, so I cannot comment on TM, but one would have to assume they are pretty similar as far as GPS+accelerometers go.  Mine is generally within a couple of hundredths of the transponder's times.  (I would imagine the difference is between where I think the timing loop is, and where it actually is under the surface of the track.  I just use the satellite map feature and draw the track marker over the start/finish line.)  So yes it tracks acceleration very accurately.  If you mean can you then use the software to provide meaningful hp/trq numbers?  Dunno.  Their built in formulas are way off, but that isn't how you use them.  You use them to compare cars and look for outliers and for this purpose they should be really accurate/precise.

 

P.S. The way you are replying within quoted text totally messes up the forum's 'quote' option to reply.  I had to manually edit this post to get your text in.

[Johnny D]

davew, on 27 Oct 2014 - 6:37 PM, said:

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

 

True, I get a lot of "It's cool I can get one for $8K, change the oil and sell if I want for the same in a couple years"

J~

[Alberto]

davew, on 27 Oct 2014 - 6:37 PM, said:

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

 

 

I'd spend a couple of bucks to gain some torque.  Would make driving my 1.6 easier.  However, I'm not a Miata expert so have no clue what parts would accomplish that.  Header?  Flywheel?  1.8 swap?  

 

I don't know how the $300 subframe would help this scenario.  The hardest part of racing the 1.6 NA is the lack of torque.  I have not experienced any issues with bumpsteer or whatever else the subframes would purportedly net me.  There aren't many NBs being parted on the local CL so not sure how I'd get my hands on a set of subframes and control arms for that price.  On the other hand, I can buy an entire NA for under a few hundred $ - $1k once a month or so.   

 

There's a reason the front runners were running a 2001+ car at Laguna - torque.  The straights are uphill and you exit most corners low in the RPM range.  The 1.6 gets slaughtered comparatively.  I don't understand how rules will fix that disparity.  The 99-00 seems to provide a better balance of torque and higher RPM power than the 01+ car from what I've seen on dyno sheets so it's a better compromise for a wide range of tracks.  

 

 

All of the above is kinda irrelevant anyway.  Racing a 1.6 against an NB in a Nationals race is like pissing in the wind; bringing a knife to a gun fight; <insert your favorite saying here>.  1.6 cars are Regional racing only cars.  

[Alberto]

Tom Sager, on 27 Oct 2014 - 6:05 PM, said:

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.  

 

As mentioned above, at this point most drivers in the 1.6 camp are regional racers and don't really care about racing Nationals.  If I had a recommendation to make, I'd make it but that is not my area of expertise.  Since rules are written focusing on National level racing, you find too many people w/ 1.6 commenting since none of them race Nationals.  Whether intentional or not, my perception is that the people making the rules don't really seem to care about Regional racers.  No disrespect intended.  It just doesn't seem to be a factor in the decision making process if/when the rules are focused at getting parity at the level where everyone is willing to spend bucket loads of money to achieve theoretical parity.

 

Parity might be close right now but the 1.6 is still the underdog.  It'll never have the torque to be truly on parity.  If it could, you might see them at Nationals races but realistically you won't.  I speculate it's cheaper and easier to build a Nationally competitive NB car than an NA car.

 

 

 

On another note, None of this would address the issue at the Runoffs.  I think one of the issues to be addressed is the ability to check one's compliance pro-actively rather than only after a protest at the last race of the year.  Either by someone providing a tool or someone having a local inspector check their parts and consult an advisory committee.  Seems like such a shame that so many people invested so much time and money over the year only to be foiled at the end.  If I were going to race Nationals, I'd be pro active about getting my stuff checked.  I wouldn't want to risk spending that much money and time to risk a DQ

[steveracer]

I seem to recall many of us wanting a lighter flywheel years ago, and it getting poo-pooed by the SMAC/CRB.

 

Unfortunately, when we were discussing the suspension upgrade, those who didn't want it were able to out letter write those who did. Short-sighted IMO.

 

Anyway, I'd like to see a lighter flywheel for the 1.6. It's a relatively cheap and easy change compared to compression, stand alone ECU, etc that we wont get anyway.

[Johnny D]

Just saying, making the statement to be clear, correct me if I'm wrong...

 

The rules are set based on a top driver, with very little devopement needed and a top car from each, NA, NB, etc with no developement needed.

Basicly "maxed out"

 

Because if you and/or your car needs development and the rules changed to your favor and then you get the devolpment, you may be ahead.

 

Just something to think about.

J~

[Steve Scheifler]

Please stop asking for a lighter flywheel. 😒 It will have a marginal effect in 2nd gear, less in 3rd, zip in 4th, and still less anytime you are climbing even a small hill. No matter how cheap it is, it would be nothing more than an ineffective pacifier at many tracks and reduce any slim chance of meaningful changes.

[steveracer]

What then?

[Johnny D]

Don't discourage partispation. The input is good.

None of these suggestion may happen and the rules stay the same, IDK.

J~

[davew]

IIRC, the proposal for a light flywheel was 50-50 for-against and voted down by the SMAC and CRB

 

IIRC, the proposal for allowing upgraded suspension was 80-20 against allowing the upgrade. Although the SMAC was virtually unanimous in favor, we followed the official voting. If your car handles better and you can corner 3mph faster, you will lower your lap time by about 1 second. With no other changes. Maybe you don't need torque, just corner speed????

 

Dave

[Steve Scheifler]

👍 I'm all about participation and input, but some of my input is intended to nudge things in a good direction, or at least away from a bad one. I understand why so many people bring up lighter flywheels, they can be great for things like drag racing and autocrossing where the engine is in low gears and accelerates quickly. But when the issue is raised it is important to point out the limitations before a flood of letters are written by well meaning people without all the facts.

[Alberto]

davew, on 27 Oct 2014 - 9:44 PM, said:

IIRC, the proposal for a light flywheel was 50-50 for-against and voted down by the SMAC and CRB

 

IIRC, the proposal for allowing upgraded suspension was 80-20 against allowing the upgrade. Although the SMAC was virtually unanimous in favor, we followed the official voting. If your car handles better and you can corner 3mph faster, you will lower your lap time by about 1 second. With no other changes. Maybe you don't need torque, just corner speed????

 

Dave

 

 

Ahhh, I see...  Myself, I would definitely benefit more from torque.  That is an obvious deficit in the cars I race against.  I don't notice the corner speed being as much of an issue.

[Johnny D]

davew, on 27 Oct 2014 - 9:44 PM, said:

IIRC, the proposal for a light flywheel was 50-50 for-against and voted down by the SMAC and CRB

 

 

 

Ya Steve !!!

 

 

Just trying to keep an open mind.

J~

[Steve Scheifler]

And that after I did all I could to kill it last time! I'm obviously not very convincing when I exercise tact. 😕

[Johnny D]

Steve Scheifler, on 27 Oct 2014 - 9:54 PM, said:

And that after I did all I could to kill it last time! I'm obviously not very convincing when I exercise tact.

 

Just for the record since you're right in the middle of this.

 

You own a SM, you have a current lic, and you raced this year and will race next year ??

 

Just asking.

J~

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

davew, on 27 Oct 2014 - 9:44 PM, said:

IIRC, the proposal for a light flywheel was 50-50 for-against and voted down by the SMAC and CRB
 
IIRC, the proposal for allowing upgraded suspension was 80-20 against allowing the upgrade. Although the SMAC was virtually unanimous in favor, we followed the official voting. If your car handles better and you can corner 3mph faster, you will lower your lap time by about 1 second. With no other changes. Maybe you don't need torque, just corner speed????
 
Dave

Dave,what good is an extra 3mph corner speed in a corner with traffic none!
That is the problem,the 1.6 is fine by its self but when in traffic sucks. When Todd ran the 1.6 in the runoffs you can plain as day see we're the 1.6 is bad. He was in the top 5 and the only reason he was there for awhile was because he was pushed down every straight. If he didn't have help he would have never finished in the top 10 and he is one of the best out there. So how much more data or proof do they need ?

[Adax]

B(Kuch)Kucera45, on 27 Oct 2014 - 10:10 PM, said:

Dave,what good is an extra 3mph corner speed in a corner with traffic none!
That is the problem,the 1.6 is fine by its self but when in traffic sucks. When Todd ran the 1.6 in the runoffs you can plain as day see we're the 1.6 is bad. He was in the top 5 and the only reason he was there for awhile was because he was pushed down every straight. If he didn't have help he would have never finished in the top 10 and he is one of the best out there. So how much more data or proof do they need ?

 

+1

 

The 1.6 is already faster in the corners.

 

I drove a 1.6 in the SE reasonably competitively for 6 years and to have any hope of staying in the '99's draft, I had to gap the leading car exactly on corner entry so that I was on his (her) bumper when we both went flat at exit. Nearly impossible for me at lest to get this right lap after lap. Enter on a '99's bumper and you lose the 1.6 cornering advantage and get left in the drag race on the next straight. I was the lone 1.6 under the OPM tent for the last couple of year so I've looked at a lot of '99 data. When comparing TBL laps with well driven '99's I was consistently 2 mph faster in every turn but would still finish mid-pack.  Whether the inability to do it lap after lap was due to poor race craft or car is debatable but after 6 years I threw in the towel.

 

1.6 needs torque between 4 - 6 K RPM. Flywheel will not work for reasons above. Cam?