373 replies to this topic

[ECOBRAP]

Lol ok this isn't going anywhere, at least I can say I tried. I'll just hear the bad news in a week or so and make my 2015 plans accordingly.

 

[Bench Racer]

I'm more interested in who's Bench talking to named Todd.

But I digress.

J~

Johnny, if you opened the link and read a sentence or two of the post by Jim Drago you would have read that the video belongs to Todd Buras, or if you didn't read any of the post and only opened and watched the video you would have viewed Buras on the windshield. It was a Drago preped 1.6 Spec Miata pro driven by Todd Buras at the 2012 SCCA June Sprints.

 

Quite surprised no comments from anyone who watched the video.

[Johnny D]

Oh, so your talking to the guy in the video. The meds are on the nightstand, just take one for now. 

 

Did he say anything spooky back to you or do you need to play it backwards or something ?

 

Ok, public disclaimer and all, I get it.

J~

[Johnny D]

Come on, 12 pages, 7k views, we almost got it figured out. Just one more suggestion and will have it. Just one more

J~

[Tom Hampton]

Kill the NB, kill the 1.8NA.  1.6 or nothing. 

 

"Death to all who oppose us!"

[Johnny D]

 

J~

[Tom Hampton]

wrong movie.

[Johnny D]

Sorry.
J~

[Tom Hampton]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsYJm9j2OEQ

[Bench Racer]

Interesting. So help me understand how you would propose to make it Spec.  Or are you just venting and don't actualy have a proposal? I'm intrigued.
CNJ

You didn't ask me. Here are two potential ways to bring the 1.6 NA chassis to racing heads up with the 99 plus chassis. Allow the 1.6 close/similar torque below 5,500 rpm. Starting with raising the compressio ratio at 10:1. Many of the little dink and donk sugestions will not get the job done, IMHJ. Please remember I'm no engine builder. To the nay sayers, I understand with better 1.6 torque below 5,500 rpm's the hp on the top end likely would be an overdog. Instead of ripping a proposal apart at the get-go, let's get there and then restrict as required. Keeping in mind as has been spoken many times Spec Miata is not a spec class, I agree, it's a "P" class at best. The next way to bring NA chassis to heads up racing to the 99 plus chassis is to drop a 99 engine in the NA chassis. Hey, many of our leaders wanted we the 1.6 owners to use the 99 suspension, I'd rather drop a 99 engine in and I know the end results during the next drag race. Again to the nay-sayers, park the attitude, let's get it done, worry about the overdog when it's an overdog. Let's get more folks enjoying their racing. 

 

I'll also be willing to offer that when Spec Miata started as a regional only class for year 2000, no one thought for one second that in 2006 Spec Miata would have grown to VIS and VVT engines. Sometimes the newer engine has out grown the potential of the older engine capabilities.  

 

David Dewhurst

 

EDIT:

Johnny, it's all figured out, drop a 99 engine in the NA chassis.

[Johnny D]

https://www.youtube....h?v=sxuq2lOagdQ
j~

[Johnny D]

Well Bench, what are you going to talk about then ??

J~

[James York]

Lol ok this isn't going anywhere, at least I can say I tried. I'll just hear the bad news in a week or so and make my 2015 plans accordingly.

 

You just have to remember.  Posting here, does ZERO to solving anything except get responses, good or bad to ideas.  But nothing will ever happen based on internet forum rumblings.  

[Tom Hampton]

You just have to remember.  Posting here, does ZERO to solving anything except get responses, good or bad to ideas.  But nothing will ever happen based on internet forum rumblings.  

Thank you.

 

I almost got sucked into posting a serious reply.

 

Whew!  disaster avoided.

[James York]

Thank you.

 

I almost got sucked into posting a serious reply.

 

Whew!  disaster avoided.

Well it's friendly banter about this and that.  But if people want change, just posting here probably won't get it done.

 

Have I ever posted I want a bigger RP...  Can I pull out my old 45mm?  The good ole days.

[SaulSpeedwell]

You didn't ask me. Here are two potential ways to bring the 1.6 NA chassis to racing heads up with the 99 plus chassis. Allow the 1.6 close/similar torque below 5,500 rpm. Starting with raising the compressio ratio at 10:1. Many of the little dink and donk sugestions will not get the job done, IMHJ. Please remember I'm no engine builder. To the nay sayers, I understand with better 1.6 torque below 5,500 rpm's the hp on the top end likely would be an overdog. Instead of ripping a proposal apart at the get-go, let's get there and then restrict as required. Keeping in mind as has been spoken many times Spec Miata is not a spec class, I agree, it's a "P" class at best. The next way to bring NA chassis to heads up racing to the 99 plus chassis is to drop a 99 engine in the NA chassis. Hey, many of our leaders wanted we the 1.6 owners to use the 99 suspension, I'd rather drop a 99 engine in and I know the end results during the next drag race. Again to the nay-sayers, park the attitude, let's get it done, worry about the overdog when it's an overdog. Let's get more folks enjoying their racing. 

 

I'll also be willing to offer that when Spec Miata started as a regional only class for year 2000, no one thought for one second that in 2006 Spec Miata would have grown to VIS and VVT engines. Sometimes the newer engine has out grown the potential of the older engine capabilities.  

 

David Dewhurst

 

EDIT:

Johnny, it's all figured out, drop a 99 engine in the NA chassis.

 

Bench,

 

I love you, man, but have you calculated what that CR will actually get you (~1.5% max, by my math)?  If you were in charge and had to be accountable for the rule change, would you REALLY write in a rule that requires everyone to take their head off and have it machined, just for 1.5%?  And do you realize that "stock" 1.6s with large-ish combustion chambers ALREADY crash the pistons into the heads, just when being brought up to the current GCR CR limit?  Have you estimated what the cost and effort is of dropping a 1.8 longblock into a 1.6? $7K?  Plus a bunch of intake/exhaust fab, dyno tuning, and nobody really knows if the EFI can keep up with an extra 200 ccs?  And  we already know the 1.6 intake tract is a "restrictor plate"?

 

I love the 1.6.  I very unhappily and bugrudgingly switched from a 1.6 I loved to a '99 "tractor" in late 2007, when it seemed clear to me that the 1.6 was being left for dead.  Even today, I still I wish the '99 was just NOW being added to the class, and only as a woeful underdog.  But ... having said that ....the 1.6 Owner's Union is its own worst enemy. 

 

Get together ....decide what you want ... UNIFY ... and then send in 20-50 letters all asking for the same thing - not 20 letters each asking asking for a different thing.  Waste no time, no words, and no Internet posts on things that simply aren't going to happen.  Brainstorming is cool and all, but if all you have are ideas and no data or math or experience backing it up, then it is just another distraction that can be used to say "Look, the 1.6 guys THEMSELVES don't know what they want!"

 

Put yourself in the SMAC/CRB's shoes.  It's gotta be cheap, and it has to make sense.  Otherwise, they'll just stick with minor weight and RP adjustments.  Maybe you'll get 25 lbs net?  And the Butterbeans will complain if it is a -25lbs off the 1.6 instead of a +25lbs on everything else?

 

If I imagine myself having a 1.6 right now, there is no way I vote for dropping a '99 engine in or some of the other ideas that I know won't help (flywheels, cams, etc.) .  I'd be hoping for a 4% gain for less than $1000, and I'd take 2% if it was all the SMAC gave me. 

 

I'd love +0.010" over and +0.5CR, but I would be smart enough to know not to waste effort on something the SMAC can say that 900 silent 1.6 owners don't want the expense of.

 

Easiest answer:  Get a '99 and a 1.6 on a dyno.  Prove to the SMAC that the 1.6 SUCKS with the hood down.  Prove that the hood-up dyno data they've been using all along is misleading and misrepresentative of the on-track reality.  If you think my cold air induction idea is a red herring I made up for the fun of it, then ask for weight and RP.  But whatever you do, go into this armed with data, and go in as a unified front!

 

Good luck,

 

MB

[Tom Hampton]

Bench,

I love you, man, but have you calculated what that CR will actually get you (~1.5% max, by my math)? If you were in charge and had to be accountable for the rule change, would you REALLY write in a rule that requires everyone to take their head off and have it machined, just for 1.5%? And do you realize that "stock" 1.6s with large-ish combustion chambers ALREADY crash the pistons into the heads, just when being brought up to the current GCR CR limit? Have you estimated what the cost and effort is of dropping a 1.8 longblock into a 1.6? $7K? Plus a bunch of intake/exhaust fab, dyno tuning, and nobody really knows if the EFI can keep up with an extra 200 ccs? And we already know the 1.6 intake tract is a "restrictor plate"?

I love the 1.6. I very unhappily and bugrudgingly switched from a 1.6 I loved to a '99 "tractor" in late 2007, when it seemed clear to me that the 1.6 was being left for dead. Even today, I still I wish the '99 was just NOW being added to the class, and only as a woeful underdog. But ... having said that ....the 1.6 Owner's Union is its own worst enemy.

Get together ....decide what you want ... UNIFY ... and then send in 20-50 letters all asking for the same thing - not 20 letters each asking asking for a different thing. Waste no time, no words, and no Internet posts on things that simply aren't going to happen. Brainstorming is cool and all, but if all you have are ideas and no data or math or experience backing it up, then it is just another distraction that can be used to say "Look, the 1.6 guys THEMSELVES don't know what they want!"

Put yourself in the SMAC/CRB's shoes. It's gotta be cheap, and it has to make sense. Otherwise, they'll just stick with minor weight and RP adjustments. Maybe you'll get 25 lbs net? And the Butterbeans will complain if it is a -25lbs off the 1.6 instead of a +25lbs on everything else?

If I imagine myself having a 1.6 right now, there is no way I vote for dropping a '99 engine in or some of the other ideas that I know won't help (flywheels, cams, etc.) . I'd be hoping for a 4% gain for less than $1000, and I'd take 2% if it was all the SMAC gave me.

I'd love +0.010" over and +0.5CR, but I would be smart enough to know not to waste effort on something the SMAC can say that 900 silent 1.6 owners don't want the expense of.

Easiest answer: Get a '99 and a 1.6 on a dyno. Prove to the SMAC that the 1.6 SUCKS with the hood down. Prove that the hood-up dyno data they've been using all along is misleading and misrepresentative of the on-track reality. If you think my cold air induction idea is a red herring I made up for the fun of it, then ask for weight and RP. But whatever you do, go into this armed with data, and go in as a unified front!

Good luck,

MB

MBPPS

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

Johnny, if you opened the link and read a sentence or two of the post by Jim Drago you would have read that the video belongs to Todd Buras, or if you didn't read any of the post and only opened and watched the video you would have viewed Buras on the windshield. It was a Drago preped 1.6 Spec Miata pro driven by Todd Buras at the 2012 SCCA June Sprints.
 
Quite surprised no comments from anyone who watched the video.

That is one fast and probably the best prepped 1.6 driven by one of the best and I seen plenty of attempted passes and never got it done,sorry Todd. That is only one example and if he couldn't get it done I don't think anyone else would have either. Congrats on the win though.

Now let me ask you,if he was in a 99+ would he have walked away from everyone else ?

Just wondering what others might think, I believe he would have done a lot more passing.

[Johnny D]

Saul you're right, but who is better than you to do this ??

 

We already have .010 over in the rules, B6Z2-11-SB0C.

 

I really don't see a difference in doing .010 than .05 in machining $$, etc ??

 

So .05 over, 10.1 compression, headers, cold air intake, piggy back ECU Combo ??

 

I really don't care if it's the overdog, we can adjust from there, but if we don't ever get out of the hole, how do we get there???

 

Different class, only in the majors, I don't care, but make the call, show the numbers and present it, please.

 

Assuming SCCA/NASA/MAZDA doesn't come up with something wonderful

J~

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

Bench,

I love you, man, but have you calculated what that CR will actually get you (~1.5% max, by my math)? If you were in charge and had to be accountable for the rule change, would you REALLY write in a rule that requires everyone to take their head off and have it machined, just for 1.5%? And do you realize that "stock" 1.6s with large-ish combustion chambers ALREADY crash the pistons into the heads, just when being brought up to the current GCR CR limit? Have you estimated what the cost and effort is of dropping a 1.8 longblock into a 1.6? $7K? Plus a bunch of intake/exhaust fab, dyno tuning, and nobody really knows if the EFI can keep up with an extra 200 ccs? And we already know the 1.6 intake tract is a "restrictor plate"?

I love the 1.6. I very unhappily and bugrudgingly switched from a 1.6 I loved to a '99 "tractor" in late 2007, when it seemed clear to me that the 1.6 was being left for dead. Even today, I still I wish the '99 was just NOW being added to the class, and only as a woeful underdog. But ... having said that ....the 1.6 Owner's Union is its own worst enemy.

Get together ....decide what you want ... UNIFY ... and then send in 20-50 letters all asking for the same thing - not 20 letters each asking asking for a different thing. Waste no time, no words, and no Internet posts on things that simply aren't going to happen. Brainstorming is cool and all, but if all you have are ideas and no data or math or experience backing it up, then it is just another distraction that can be used to say "Look, the 1.6 guys THEMSELVES don't know what they want!"

Put yourself in the SMAC/CRB's shoes. It's gotta be cheap, and it has to make sense. Otherwise, they'll just stick with minor weight and RP adjustments. Maybe you'll get 25 lbs net? And the Butterbeans will complain if it is a -25lbs off the 1.6 instead of a +25lbs on everything else?

If I imagine myself having a 1.6 right now, there is no way I vote for dropping a '99 engine in or some of the other ideas that I know won't help (flywheels, cams, etc.) . I'd be hoping for a 4% gain for less than $1000, and I'd take 2% if it was all the SMAC gave me.

I'd love +0.010" over and +0.5CR, but I would be smart enough to know not to waste effort on something the SMAC can say that 900 silent 1.6 owners don't want the expense of.

Easiest answer: Get a '99 and a 1.6 on a dyno. Prove to the SMAC that the 1.6 SUCKS with the hood down. Prove that the hood-up dyno data they've been using all along is misleading and misrepresentative of the on-track reality. If you think my cold air induction idea is a red herring I made up for the fun of it, then ask for weight and RP. But whatever you do, go into this armed with data, and go in as a unified front!

Good luck,

MB

Hey Mark,figure out what we need and I'll let you run my car anytime you want for free ! lol

I'll even let you set it up anyway you want ! Lmao !!!!