373 replies to this topic

[Bruce Wilson]

Pat, I think the comments of the past is that better drivers build 99s.  But I agree some folks are confused about the difference between those two concepts.

[Sean - MiataCage]

Making a specific class for the 1.6's is a slap in the face to the history of this class and just plain laziness.  

 

There are several sanctioning bodies who have figured out how to maintain parity between multiple cars and manufacturers.  The ONLY reason that the 1.6L hasn't gotten any love in the past is because the powers that be didn't care about it.  They all moved on to 99-05's and really didn't care.  I'm telling you, for the future of this class the 1.6L needs to be addressed and addressed immediately.  Scrap the no rule changes for the 1.6L and use this season to make adjustments to get it back in the game.  As long as there are 1.6's that get rented and driven then there will be more cars of all years being built which will keep the class growing and attracting new people.  1.8L Motor swaps/upgrades is also not the answer...... Its ridiculous.  The time, expense and workload involved is an insult. 

There are too many 1.6L cars that are sitting and now with the shenanigans on the other cars, I keep hearing more and more people say they are just going to park their car.  Not good for SCCA or even NASA for that matter.  

 

Quit trying to fracture the class into multiple smaller classes..... If you are the 99-05 guys that are ok with the class fracturing now, just remember you will be on the short end of that stick in the very near future as newer model cars come into the equation.  Do you not want to race as many cars as possible on a level playing field?

 

Steve.... I like everything you are doing and saying for the class, but none of my 1.6L cars have the issues you speak of relative to the 1.6 falling off after time, so let's please not make that gospel without some science from multiple sources behind it.  I'm happy to discuss our cars offline if you wish.

 

Everyone who is racing for a National Championship abandoned the 1.6L a while ago.  So.... It won't threaten any of them one bit to give the 1.6L a header.  It may not make up the difference, but I can guarantee you doing nothing won't make up that difference either, and it's certainly not going to make a 1.6L faster than a NB.

 

So... Give the 1.6L an open header and lets start there and see what happens.

 

Steve.... Why can't we unfreeze the rules for the 1.6L for 2015 and use it as a development year?  No one in their right mind right now would say the 1.6L car is capable of winning at ANY track with top flight drivers in NB's in attendance.  Let's pull our heads out of the sand and fix this.

 

Sean

[38bfast]

Oh now you want Heads that come out of the sand. Does that mean stock heads? 

[38bfast]

Sean I as well have two 1.6 cars that I support that fall off after two laps. Very clear in data. 

[Sean - MiataCage]

Oh now you want Heads that come out of the sand. Does that mean stock heads? 

Define Stock....... 

[Sean - MiataCage]

Sean I as well have two 1.6 cars that I support that fall off after two laps. Very clear in data. 

Maybe we should talk, because we simply don't see that in either sprint race format or endurance format. 

[Sean - MiataCage]

Sean I as well have two 1.6 cars that I support that fall off after two laps. Very clear in data. 

How many plunge cuts do you have?  Are they left handed cuts or right handed?

[pat slattery]

Our 1.6 car falls off for whatever reason, about midway thru a race for a few laps, then it will come back to laying down some good laps again.

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

Maybe we should talk, because we simply don't see that in either sprint race format or endurance format.

Sean they definitely drop off when it's 80deg. Or hotter.

If you would like to talk to someone about this I have the perfect person for you. He was one of the kings in a 1.6 and has done probably more R and D and dyno time then anyone I could think of Mark ( SaulSpeedWell ).

Pat I think it comes back because of the lower fuel weight but not sure !

[Johnny D]

Did you guys see this in the Download section up top ^^^

 

http://mazdaracers.c...t-presentation/

 

J~

[Bruce Wilson]

I used to have a motor that fell off but I assumed it was because it was old.  My current motor never has that problem.  We also found over time that piston clearance was an issue when people started decking.  Cars would dyno with top numbers then lay down on the track.  But none of the top 1.6s in the NW currently have this problem.

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

I used to have a motor that fell off but I assumed it was because it was old.  My current motor never has that problem.  We also found over time that piston clearance was an issue when people started shaving.  Cars would dyno with top numbers then lay down on the track.  But none of the top 1.6s in the NW currently have this problem.

I'm not going to disagree if you found the problem but may I ask what it was ?

So what your saying is the piston was to large and when it got hot it would lose power,is this correct ?
And what do mean shaving, what are you shaving ?

Last question is where do you get your engines and are they legal ?

[Bruce Wilson]

I'm not going to disagree if you found the problem but may I ask what it was ?

So what your saying is the piston was to large and when it got hot it would lose power,is this correct ?
And what do mean shaving, what are you shaving ?

Last question is where do you get your engines and are they legal ?

Sorry I fixed my post, I meant to say decking the block.

 

I'm not sure why my junkyard motor would lay down, so that is still a bit of a mystery to me.  

 

Yes, piston would grow slightly and cause power loss.  We're confident with that one, as it killed a few important seasons for some top racers.

 

Engines up here are mostly from Haag and Loynings, and yes they are legal  I remember Charbonneau coming to town and saying what he thought we were doing, but I had not clue what he was talking about... We try to be as squeaky clean as possible.  It's a tight group, so you can get ostracized pretty quickly.

[Bench Racer]

I understand, rules, rules and more non parity rules.

 

How simpler without question to gain torque for the NA 1.6 chasis than, we keep the 1.6 throttle body and slip in a 99 engine. Takes care of the missing torque, right now. Add the appropriate weight and let's continue racing a litle more up and up. I like that a whole lot better that slipping the 1.6 engine in a 99 chassis.

[Jim Drago]

 

 I remember Charbonneau coming to town and saying what he thought we were doing, but I had not clue what he was talking about... 

 

 

Don't worry about it, he didn't know what he was talking about either

[jdmrrs]

Light weight flywheels aren't real power and the header guys only claim 2 lb-ft, so rather than force a redevelopment of 1.6 motors in order to keep car counts very healthy go to the old standby - weight.  Since tire size, rear-end and trans ratios and max ECU rpm are identical or similar, the predictor of acceleration is the area under the torque curve.  Using dyno sheets posted here and elsewhere the weight differential 1.6 vs. 1.8-'99  should be around 200#.  Add the common sense, no cost, intake ducting and a (partial) sense of equity will be restored and 1.6 car count should be stabilized.

[MPR22]

Light weight flywheels aren't real power and the header guys only claim 2 lb-ft, so rather than force a redevelopment of 1.6 motors in order to keep car counts very healthy go to the old standby - weight.  Since tire size, rear-end and trans ratios and max ECU rpm are identical or similar, the predictor of acceleration is the area under the torque curve.  Using dyno sheets posted here and elsewhere the weight differential 1.6 vs. 1.8-'99  should be around 200#.  Add the common sense, no cost, intake ducting and a (partial) sense of equity will be restored and 1.6 car count should be stabilized

 

200 lbs of weight difference would make the 1.6 a huge overdog.  The car has a superior differential that never gets added to the + side of the 1.6 equation.  Add the header, add a .5 CR and race at same weight.  Test that for a year and see where it is.  I would be happy to be  test mule in my 1.6 with those mods.    

[ECOBRAP]

Light weight flywheels aren't real power and the header guys only claim 2 lb-ft, so rather than force a redevelopment of 1.6 motors in order to keep car counts very healthy go to the old standby - weight.  Since tire size, rear-end and trans ratios and max ECU rpm are identical or similar, the predictor of acceleration is the area under the torque curve.  Using dyno sheets posted here and elsewhere the weight differential 1.6 vs. 1.8-'99  should be around 200#.  Add the common sense, no cost, intake ducting and a (partial) sense of equity will be restored and 1.6 car count should be stabilized.

Count me in... we need to try some things for next year. I will sure take a header if they offer us one, 2lb-ft is noticeable especially when we barely make 100. The intake ducting is a great idea; I don't see any problems with letting us try it out for a season to see if and what results it will provide.

 

Some people are complaining about additional costs that would be associated with giving the 1.6 more goodies, but I don't think any of the suggestions in this thread are an issue, header included. I guarantee anything we try will be a LOT less than upgrading to a 1.8 (a competitive upgrade would cost me $10,000 at a bare minimum). I find it extremely disappointing that every time I discuss my results with people, I have to tell them fourth place is great "for a 1.6". Every chassis and engine combination should have a shot at winning, and it is unacceptable that the first 1.6 in the 2014 runoffs finished in what, 30th place?! (before str-gate dq's)

 

 

200 lbs of weight difference would make the 1.6 a huge overdog.  The car has a superior differential that never gets added to the + side of the 1.6 equation.  Add the header, add a .5 CR and race at same weight.  Test that for a year and see where it is.  I would be happy to be  test mule in my 1.6 with those mods.    

 

Yes, I agree that the diff should be taken into consideration. I think this can be addressed with weight? Have someone hop on a dyno using both diffs, and see what difference in whp there is.  As for CR, I don't know enough about it to give my opinion. What are the negatives associated with it?

[Bench Racer]

 

Some people are complaining about additional costs that would be associated with giving the 1.6 more goodies, but I don't think any of the suggestions in this thread are an issue, header included.

 

I find it extremely disappointing that every time I discuss my results with people, I have to tell them fourth place is great "for a 1.6". Every chassis and engine combination should have a shot at winning, and it is unacceptable that the first 1.6 in the 2014 runoffs finished in what, 30th place?! (before str-gate dq's)

 

I guarantee anything we try will be a LOT less than upgrading to a 1.8 (a competitive upgrade would cost me $10,000 at a bare minimum).

 

Yes, I agree that the diff should be taken into consideration. I think this can be addressed with weight?

 

Have someone hop on a dyno using both diffs, and see what difference in whp there is.  

 

As for CR, I don't know enough about it to give my opinion. What are the negatives associated with it?

I understand your a young gun, with no disrespect, finding your way

 

Your point one, I agree 100%. Can I start my 99 engine install in my NA 1.6 chassis today? 

 

Your point two above, have you ever viewed a 1.6 over lay on a 99 dyno sheet with torque and hp?

 

Your point three above, help me out with this $10,000.00 competitive upgrade.

 

Your point four, no facts but will guess the dyno difference between a MazdaComp LS and a Torsen will be dyno noise. Nothing sigifigant other than a couple pound of static weight.  The CRB gave the 1.6 25 pounds a couple years ago just for grins because it was winning way to many races. < Said for a laugh or two.

 

Your point five, best guess, .5 CR would make the 1.6 an overdog at top rpm's and not be enough at lower rpm's to gain torque required. Ya know how those 99's leave you off the slower corners. That my friend is called torque.

 

 

[ECOBRAP]

"I understand your a young gun, with no disrespect, finding your way"

If there was a spec miata guide for dummies, I would be reading it. This doesn't exist, so I have to learn from responses to my uneducated posts on this forum, so no harm taken. 

 

"Your point one, I agree 100%. Can I start my 99 engine install in my NA 1.6 chassis today? "

Forgot that was mentioned in this thread lol. I was referring to headers, underdrive pulleys, and possibly even cams.

 

"Your point two above, have you ever viewed a 1.6 over lay on a 99 dyno sheet with torque and hp?"

No, but I am aware of peak differences. I usually see a 5hp difference and think this is addressed with the 100lb weight difference? Torque is something like a 15 ft-lb variation, and I understand this is the issue at hand.

 

"Your point three above, help me out with this $10,000.00 competitive upgrade."

The most I have seen a fast 1.6 sell for is $16,000. A fast 1.8 will easily sell for $10,000 north of that?

 

"Your point four, no facts but will guess the dyno difference between a MazdaComp LS and a Torsen will be dyno noise. Nothing sigifigant other than a couple pound of static weight."

I agree, my Mazdacomp exploded this year so I swapped to a Torsen. There was a noticeable difference in the feel of the car, but I didn't notice a difference in speed. I just threw the dyno comparison in out of curiosity.

 

"Your point five, best guess, .5 CR would make the 1.6 an overdog at top rpm's and not be enough at lower rpm's to gain torque required. Ya know how those 99's leave you off the slower corners. That my friend is called torque."

I was asking more in terms of reliability, any negative effects? And yes I am fully aware of what torque looks like, I regularly get a first class seat watching 1.8's dance into the sunset after exiting a hairpin, or dare I say we approach a hill