373 replies to this topic

[James York]

Sean,

 

I know you directed your reply to Steve but here is some comments anyway, hoping to add some thoughts.

 

Regarding the 3 year freeze:  I believe this is over and was a temporary thing to prevent moving things around every year in order to get some good data from races.  I think this issue is resolved for you.  I believe this expired end of this year.

 

I am all for doing something to help equalize the 1.6L.  Like you, I am not a motor person so I can't offer anything meaningful with data to back it up.  But I think the rules process in the SCCA would be for someone to propose a rule modification into the CRB and then the SMAC picks it up and reviews, etc....

 

Perhaps, if enough people petitioned the CRB also, the club could ask the SMAC for a recommendation to help 1.6L torque.  I am not sure how that would work in a volunteer setting.

 

In my opinion, one of the biggest hangups is no one with the knowledge/resources/money to "test" what can be done to help the 1.6L has the initiative to do so.  For the most part top drivers/teams have moved away from the 1.6 so it serves them no purpose.

 

In my experience, unless a cause has a champion/sponsor with a dog in the hunt, nothing significant will happen.  Posting on internet forums won't do anything.  Someone has to take ownership.  (or get assigned it somehow....)

[Steve Scheifler]

Sean, great input, except perhaps the BS part. But I think perhaps I failed to be clear. What I mean is that there are endless debates about parity and countless ideas thown around, ranging from simple and logical to outrageous and outlandish, but all good in that the more we toss out there for at least initial consideration the better. BUT, that goes on year after year and as far as I can tell during all that time nobody has organized the 1.6 owners to separate the wheat from the chaff, do some R&D and testing, and form a plan so that before now some concrete "meaningful" recommendations could be proposed and have significant support already in place. That's how things get done.

So I picked a bit on David (he knows I love him!) because he was here when I left and still here when I returned, but the tune hasn't changed much. Bellyaching online is fun and can even be productive, but only if it is followed up with a little organized effort, and I don't see any.

Edit: I see James types faster than I do, but it appears we are on the same page!

[Bruce Wilson]

Steve,

 

Again, I fail to see why this is the responsibility falls on the drivers of the cars that still constitutes the masses of this class.

 

As a member of SCCA, I expect the leaders (SMAC and CRB) to do their job and address the problem and ask us for input along the way.  That IS the rules making process as outlined by the SCCA.  What I've observed the over the last several years is the leaders giving one good try and then giving up because it was too hard to get consensus, and then go on building their businesses around the NB platform.  Sorry to be so frank, but right or wrong, that's exactly how I feel.  Yes I understand its hard to do, but expecting the NA owners to upgrade to the 99 over time was, and still is, a flawed approach.

[Steve Scheifler]

Bruce, I don't entirely disagree, but I think the vast majority of rules changes begin with specific written requests from racers with supporting facts and data that can be verified. I don't think it is the SMAC's role to build a 1.6 and test the benefits of a header, ECU, more compression, lighter flywheel, cams, or any of the "bolt on torgue equalizer" ideas people constantly recirculate. By contrast they have made countless changes to things requiring less R&D testing such as diff ratios & retrofits, R type ends,etc, and offered big changes like upgrading to NB suspensions. But this is a tougher nut to crack and most ideas will not address the problem people think they are trying to solve, so I think it is on us to do more of the work or we will get nothing, or worse, an ineffective bandaid.

[Johnny D]

Bruce, really? Racers have been cheating up their cars for years leading the way and SCCA/NASA rules to make it legal follow.

 

So does SCCA/NASA want to play offense or defense ?

 

So everyone cheating up their 1.6's should start doing the rule proposal, IMO.

And some engine builders too.

J~

[Bench Racer]

Steve, you always bring light to the 1.6 issue.

Sean, great thoughts.

Bruce, always a 1.6 supporter.

Jim Creighton, could you get a copy of the 1.6, 10:1 dyno graph and post within this thread.

No disrespect to anyone. I'm not an engine builder.............. IMHJ, many of the fly by night ideas will take us no-where. Many of these fly by night ideas have been written to the CRB with the standard response, thank you for your input. Spending development dollars on many of these fly by night ideas would be the same as throwing good money down a dark bottomless hole. On the other hand, as I read the STL rule, one could install a 1999 1.8 engine in a NA chassis, race at 2340 2430 pounds (thank you Jim) side by side with Spec Miatas cross racing in STL to make the parity point issue crystal clear. Hey, those in control (SMAC/CRB/BoD) had/have all those great ideas to bring the 1.6 to parity with the 99 plus cars by implementing 99 suspension parts into the NA chassis to which I say, BULL $hit. For real parity let's put the real parity issue, the 99 engine into the NA chassis. I know someone with a 1.6 Spec Miata donor car.

 

David Dewhurst

[Jim Drago]

Steve, you always bring light to the 1.6 issue.

Sean, great thoughts.

Bruce, always a 1.6 supporter.

Jim Creighton, could you get a copy of the 1.6, 10:1 dyno graph and post within this thread.

On the other hand, as I read the STL rule, one could install a 1999 1.8 engine in a NA chassis, race at 2340 pounds side by side with Spec Miatas cross racing in STL to make the parity point issue crystal clear. 

David Dewhurst

You better read a little closer..  it is no where near 2340

[ECOBRAP]

I agree with Sean, they just need to TRY things in 2015. Danny Steyn mentioned it earlier - parity is not addressed until there is a mix of each chassis and motor combo in the top finishers at EVERY track. You can use all the data you want, but most of it goes out the window under racing conditions and will have to be adjusted anyways, so let's get started.

 

Another issue is that 1.8's have the ability to become faster or slower (plate or weight adjustments) while the 1.6 is strung out and can't be made faster in its current form. Let's give it the mechanical ABILITY to become an overdog, using increased CR or header, then bring it back down with the usual means of plate or weight. This will make parity adjustments easier, particularly by speeding up the 1.6 instead of slowing down the 1.8.

 

Also, I'm not sure why no one responded to my idea for track dependent weight requirements for the 1.6. If it's stupid or flawed, just tell me, because I still think it's a plausible suggestion.  If we make the 1.6 faster, it will be an overdog at some tracks and an underdog at others. So why not have the 1.6 meet different weight requirements at different tracks? For example, have us stay at 2300lbs at Sonoma where we don't need the help, but let us take 40 pounds out at torque/aero dependent tracks like Laguna or Daytona? This is cheap, easy, and flexible enough to be adjusted DURING a race weekend. I'd love to get some thoughts on this idea! 

[James York]

I agree with Sean, they just need to TRY things in 2015. Danny Steyn mentioned it earlier - parity is not addressed until there is a mix of each chassis and motor combo in the top finishers at EVERY track. You can use all the data you want, but most of it goes out the window under racing conditions and will have to be adjusted anyways, so let's get started.

 

Another issue is that 1.8's have the ability to become faster or slower (plate or weight adjustments) while the 1.6 is strung out and can't be made faster in its current form. Let's give it the mechanical ABILITY to become an overdog, using increased CR or header, then bring it back down with the usual means of plate or weight. This will make parity adjustments easier, particularly by speeding up the 1.6 instead of slowing down the 1.8.

 

Also, I'm not sure why no one responded to my idea for track dependent weight requirements for the 1.6. If it's stupid or flawed, just tell me, because I still think it's a plausible suggestion.  If we make the 1.6 faster, it will be an overdog at some tracks and an underdog at others. So why not have the 1.6 meet different weight requirements at different tracks? For example, have us stay at 2300lbs at Sonoma where we don't need the help, but let us take 40 pounds out at torque/aero dependent tracks like Laguna or Daytona? This is cheap, easy, and flexible enough to be adjusted DURING a race weekend. I'd love to get some thoughts on this idea! 

Topgear,

 

I will take a stab at offering an opinion while not saying anything won't work.  Disclaimer, I can't speak to your tracks or your participant pool of cars/drivers.

 

First, in our division, if we adjusted the cars to have 1.6 cars place proportionally in the finished based on entries, they would be huge overdogs.  The reason is, in my opinion, the more experience drivers in my area, with the developed race programs drive 99s.  So of course it skews data.  (Note, I am not saying the 1.6 doesn't need a little help, I am only commenting it shouldn't be expected to distribute statistically on a bell curve via affirmative action). 

 

Regarding track dependent weight, that may work but would have to be set in the GCR.  I have no idea if this is allowed in the SCCA or not.  I don't believe adjusting weight during a weekend would be permitted, or at least i would say that idea is not workable.  Because you are trying to force fit results based on a totally unreliable data set (what type of cars and drivers showed up).  Not everyone should be able to podium, if car and talent is below par.

[Bench Racer]

You better read a little closer..  it is no where near 2340

I deserved that ^ for reading the 2012 GCR which specified 2340 pounds. No big deal, 2430 it will be and then there should be no whinning from the anti crowd. Oh, the anti crowd could care less because the car is in the STL class.

 

TopGear, I bounced the different weight around a couple years ago on this site in an attempt for 1.6 communication aimed at Road America for the Runoffs. It got poo-pooed real bad. Keep your ideas flowing.  

[ECOBRAP]

Thanks for the responses. Yeah I can definitely see variability in driver talent (and car preparation) being a big issue for basing changes on race results. Not quite sure how to address this, unless you have a fast driver in a well built 1.6 race at every track in the US (I volunteer   ).

 

Jokes aside, the weight adjustments would be made according to the fastest 1.6 at any given race weekend. Sure, you might have some average drivers and cars up front for the first few races, but soon enough a fast 1.6 driver and car will show up and demolish the field, then the weights will be adjusted again to accommodate for that fastest 1.6 driver/car combo. So in the long run, over the course of a year, I think it could work.

[J. Mizer]

I deserved that ^ for reading the 2012 GCR which specified 2340 pounds. No big deal, 2430 it will be and then there should be no whinning from the anti crowd. Oh, the anti crowd could care less because the car is in the STL class.

 

TopGear, I bounced the different weight around a couple years ago on this site in an attempt for 1.6 communication aimed at Road America for the Runoffs. It got poo-pooed real bad. Keep your ideas flowing.  

 

2430 isn't correct either for a 1.8 STL car.

[Jim Drago]

I deserved that ^ for reading the 2012 GCR which specified 2340 pounds. No big deal, 2430 it will be and then there should be no whinning from the anti crowd. Oh, the anti crowd could care less because the car is in the STL class.

 

TopGear, I bounced the different weight around a couple years ago on this site in an attempt for 1.6 communication aimed at Road America for the Runoffs. It got poo-pooed real bad. Keep your ideas flowing.  

base weight 1850 x 1.35 = 2497.5

rwd adder 5.5%    = 137.36

race weight 2635 ( and yes that is too #$%^ heavy)

[Mike Babcock]

Thanks for the responses. Yeah I can definitely see variability in driver talent (and car preparation) being a big issue for basing changes on race results. Not quite sure how to address this, unless you have a fast driver in a well built 1.6 race at every track in the US (I volunteer   ).

 

Jokes aside, the weight adjustments would be made according to the fastest 1.6 at any given race weekend. Sure, you might have some average drivers and cars up front for the first few races, but soon enough a fast 1.6 driver and car will show up and demolish the field, then the weights will be adjusted again to accommodate for that fastest 1.6 driver/car combo. So in the long run, over the course of a year, I think it could work.

 

I like the concept, and was thinking something along the same lines... but more at a regional/divisional level.  So, a set of tracks in a geographical area would carry a certain weight for each type of car.  But let's say we did it by track...

 

Q1.  What happens when a track has several different configurations?  (e.g. Buttonwillow)

 

Q2.  How often would adjustments be made, and who is going to own that work?

 

Q3.  What parameters should be used to make the adjustments?  Qualifying laps?  Race laps?  Both?  FTOD?  Fastest guy/gal in each type of car, or top X in each?  

 

Q4.  What are all the possible ways one could game this system, and what should be done to plug those holes?

 

Again... I like the concept.  But it's a complicated beast that would require an awful lot of thought and effort up front... as well as ongoing maintenance post-implementation.  I'd love for the folks at MyLaps to come up with some analytics to help facilitate this sort of thing.  Certainly a wealth of data there that could help quantify (or dispel) some claims.

[Bench Racer]

base weight 1850 x 1.35 = 2497.5

rwd adder 5.5%    = 137.36

race weight 2635 ( and yes that is too #$%^ heavy)

Thanks, at 2430 pounds it was all to easy. At 2635 pounds, it's #$%^.  Would have been fun experiment. May as well write a letter for the 99 engine in the NA chassis.

[Bruce Wilson]

Bruce, always a 1.6 supporter.

 

 

You betcha, the best production racecar ever.  The 911 comes in a close second...

 

If you ever put one gallon of fuel in and ripped out a really good flyer without all that extra weight that never was meant to be in a Miata.

If you felt the real slip angle all the way through a fast turn with a real LSD under you.

If you like banging the curbs and still being fast without feeling the mechanical herky-jerk of a Torsen.

 

I've not liked any 99 I've ever driven.  The 1.6 is for skilled drivers who like to balance on the edge of the blade.  The only reason most of my friends built 99s, was to be competitive, not because they wanted to throw a bunch of money at a 15 year old car when they already had a well developed 20 year old car with all new parts.  I know of a few REALLY nice 1.6s sitting in garages gathering dust right now!  It's time for a renaissance!

[John Wilding]

I like what you are saying Bruce. My little 1.6 is a great car and it kills me that it's not competitive anymore, when it used to be a front running car in the early days. I'll help and participate in anything to get the car closer to the front. 

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

You betcha, the best production racecar ever.  The 911 comes in a close second...
 
If you ever put one gallon of fuel in and ripped out a really good flyer without all that extra weight that never was meant to be in a Miata.
If you felt the real slip angle all the way through a fast turn with a real LSD under you.
If you like banging the curbs and still being fast without feeling the mechanical herky-jerk of a Torsen.
 
I've not liked any 99 I've ever driven.  The 1.6 is for skilled drivers who like to balance on the edge of the blade.  The only reason most of my friends built 99s, was to be competitive, not because they wanted to throw a bunch of money at a 15 year old car when they already had a well developed 20 year old car with all new parts.  I know of a few REALLY nice 1.6s sitting in garages gathering dust right now!  It's time for a renaissance!

I agree with you Bruce,there is a lot of good cars and great drivers out there that are sitting around because of the rules we have in place now. This class has also lost a lot of great drivers because of all of these issues. I just hope with everything going on this year there will be some changes and some of them will be back.

I love my car and love to drive on the edge,don't get me wrong I did like driving a 99 and a 01 but my 1.6 is a lot more fun !

Like a couple of people said before,we tried changing the rules a few years back for the 1.6 guys but it made no diff and they didn't return. Well guess what,help the guys that still show up now it's not a lost cause. I'm not saying make it a overdog just get them a little closer on the bottom end and we will be happy.

One of the main problems are there is none of the big dogs running a 1.6 and most of the 1.6 guys don't have deep pockets to do the testing that needs to be done to figure it out. So I think we should be able to try some cheap things like a cool air intake and lighter weight to start and if it's to much we can adjust with weight during the year.

Just thinking out loud !

[Jim Drago]

I agree with you Bruce,there is a lot of good cars and great drivers out there that are sitting around because of the rules we have in place now. 

Please list these great drivers that are sitting out because of the rules?   Are we getting Alonso in the 1.6 when we get the rules "right', he apparently hasn't signed yet, he might be waiting for these changes?  

[Blake Clements]

I had a 1.6 push me down the back straight at Road Atlanta.  There are fast, compliant 1.6 cars out there still racing.

 

But don't let facts get in the way of a good story or anything.....