373 replies to this topic

[Brandon]

I'm afraid that it won't be the same...ahem..."sober".

 

I was only 15 the first time I watched it...thought it was the shit.

I still think it's a pioneer in storytelling 25 years later.

 

Then again, I watch a lot of animated primetime shows (Simpsons, Family Guy, South Park, American Dad, Bob's Burgers, Archer) and even those that are now canceled (Ugly Americans, The Cleveland Show, Drawn Together).  And I still love the classic Looney Tunes cartoons...

 

Hmm...upon some self-reflection it leads me to believe I may be a 10 year old in a middle-aged man's body!

 

Is that why I like doing silly things with cars?

Anyone got a creeper I could lay down on for some psych therapy?

[Tom Hampton]

 

Hmm...upon some self-reflection it leads me to believe I may be a 10 year old in a middle-aged man's body!

 

 

 

Um....you aren't alone in that regard.  Well....I might consider myself a mature 13 years old.  Hehe...girls....fire! hehe.

[Brandon]

Um....you aren't alone in that regard.  Well....I might consider myself a mature 13 years old.  Hehe...girls....fire! hehe.

 

[steveracer]

Still 14 here, started driving at 14 too.

[Johnny D]

Seriously.. 
 
No parity adjustments have been sent up to the CRB for approval.  So none were discussed.
The SMAC has not recommended any parity adjustments as they are waiting for the results from the test of the "super" committee. 
 
As most know, the BOD has the SMAC/CRB on a rules season the last 3 years or so. Meaning less weights and plates, no rules changes can be made mid year. All rules changes need to be approved by the CRB on their meeting immediately following the Runoffs to get in the book fro the following season. 
 
 At this point of the year, only plates/weights can be adjusted by the SMAC/CRB. Anything else has to come from BOD level or with special BOD approval. 
 
If the upcoming tests show something outside the normal is needed to make parity adjustments, I would feel the BOD would support it, but only time will tell there. 
Jim.

Can we now get a date for results from the Super Committee, SCCA/NASA/MAZDA update, next step ???

https://www.youtube....h?v=nrUVJd4i5Xw

J~

[Jim Drago]

Can we now get a date for results from the Super Committee, SCCA/NASA/MAZDA update, next step ???

https://www.youtube....h?v=nrUVJd4i5Xw

J~

I wouldnt hold my breath while waiting for these results... 

[svvs]

I was only 15 the first time I watched it...thought it was the shit.

I still think it's a pioneer in storytelling 25 years later.

 

Then again, I watch a lot of animated primetime shows (Simpsons, Family Guy, South Park, American Dad, Bob's Burgers, Archer) and even those that are now canceled (Ugly Americans, The Cleveland Show, Drawn Together).  And I still love the classic Looney Tunes cartoons...

 

Hmm...upon some self-reflection it leads me to believe I may be a 10 year old in a middle-aged man's body!

 

Is that why I like doing silly things with cars?

Anyone got a creeper I could lay down on for some psych therapy?

that's it, drawn together quotes at the holiday party tomorrow.

 

-Vick

[Brandon]

"...worst linguistic enemy..."
https://www.youtube....h?v=_np_WdF5NpA

[Ken SM94]

A little late to the game here....

 

We ran the same 1.6 in the NASA 25 hour two years in a row (and won) that had the head shaved roughly .040" to gain .5 in compression.  There is absolutely no reason to avoid this solution for reliability issues.  This is a $100 (plus labor) fix.  

 

Shave the head and allow the weight to be removed from the flywheel and I think we would have what we want on the cheap. 

[SaulSpeedwell]

A little late to the game here....

 

We ran the same 1.6 in the NASA 25 hour two years in a row (and won) that had the head shaved roughly .040" to gain .05 in compression.  There is absolutely no reason to avoid this solution for reliability issues.  This is a $100 (plus labor) fix.  

 

Shave the head and allow the weight to be removed from the flywheel and I think we would have what we want on the cheap. 

 

I literally have no dog in the hunt, and I'm not trying to be argumentative .. I promise I'm not ... and I WOULD love to see the 1.6 be stronger ... but have you calculated what 0.05 in CR (I think you probably meant 0.5 CR?) and a bit off the flywheel is actually worth?

 

Going from 9:1 to 10:1 CR would be +1.7% efficiency gain theoretical.  So +0.5 CR for the 1.6 would be +0.8% for most 1.6s? 

 

A way-lighter-than-any-stock-flywheel (13 lbs) would be <0.5HP in 5th gear, and less than 1.5HP in 3rd.  So a lightened stock flywheel would be <1HP across the board.

 

But 100F of intake air temp is 7%, and 50F is 3.5 % ....???

 

If I have the math screwed up, someone please tell me - seriously.  I've been corrected on here before!

 

I don't have some crazy CAI-selling business model in the works here .... this is literally what I would ask for if I was a 1.6 owner.  (Short of asking for a 2.0L, LOL)

[Ken SM94]

SaulSpeedwell, you are correct. I meant to say .5 increase in compression (9.9:1)

 

Not sure about the math. In the real world it was worth 2-3 hp.  I think you are pretty close on the flywheel gains.

 

I threw this out there without much data because I doubt anything will get passed without testing.

 

The 1.6 really took a hit when we went to the larger diameter Hoosier.  I think the 1.6 was better on the Toyo's.

[38bfast]

Saul what's your proposal for cool air inlet on the 1.6

[Jason J Ball]

Why should we just be limited to a single adjustment to get us there? Lets get the cold air intake, bump compression, lighten the flywheel, add a header, and piggyback ECU. Then we can adjust with weight and plate from there. I have an intake, and flywheel sitting in my garage (Cold Air ~$150, flywheel ~$350, head shave ~$100) . We can source a decent header for ~$500 as well as a Megasquirt with AFM delete for ~$800. So for less than ~$2000 most of us could get very competitive drive-train wise. And of course you would not "have" to do any of these. I'd say a $2000 investment to get the 1.6l back in the fold is much easier to swallow than $15k to build a decent 99+ new car. 

[MPR22]

Why should we just be limited to a single adjustment to get us there? Lets get the cold air intake, bump compression, lighten the flywheel, add a header, and piggyback ECU. Then we can adjust with weight and plate from there. I have an intake, and flywheel sitting in my garage (Cold Air ~$150, flywheel ~$350, head shave ~$100) . We can source a decent header for ~$500 as well as a Megasquirt with AFM delete for ~$800. So for less than ~$2000 most of us could get very competitive drive-train wise. And of course you would not "have" to do any of these. I'd say a $2000 investment to get the 1.6l back in the fold is much easier to swallow than $15k to build a decent 99+ new car.

With those changes the 99 could run with no plate and might still be at a disadvantage. You basically asked for a mild 1.6 STL build.

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

Why should we just be limited to a single adjustment to get us there? Lets get the cold air intake, bump compression, lighten the flywheel, add a header, and piggyback ECU. Then we can adjust with weight and plate from there. I have an intake, and flywheel sitting in my garage (Cold Air ~$150, flywheel ~$350, head shave ~$100) . We can source a decent header for ~$500 as well as a Megasquirt with AFM delete for ~$800. So for less than ~$2000 most of us could get very competitive drive-train wise. And of course you would not "have" to do any of these. I'd say a $2000 investment to get the 1.6l back in the fold is much easier to swallow than $15k to build a decent 99+ new car.

Jason, I understand what your saying but trying to get 4 new things added to the 1.6 without any data to back it up is impossible.

I believe they would have a hard time argueing with letting us add a intake and drop some weight for this year and see how it plays out.and If we still need some more add to it the following year.

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

I don't need my car to be an overdog I just want it to be competitive !

[Brandon]

I said this in another 1.6L thread, but the fact that there are 1.6L owners willing to spend money is a good thing.

Whether the scope of that spend gets into significant internal changes or add-ons is still up for debate and analysis.

 

And as Butch notes, getting X, Y, Z approved without any basis/data to reinforce their approval & implementation is not going to be a worthwhile use of time.

[Bench Racer]

Because I'm mature, crotchety and don't keep good notes on some things such as my air intake, IIRC thermocouple probe temp end of june 2014 maximum air intake was 90*.

 

Let's talk about what the 1.6 drivetrain requires.

 

IMHJ, the 1.6 requires torque below 5,500 rpm just to catch up with the 99 plus. It will require more than a dink and donk to fill that torque gap. If the torque can be improved below 5,500 rpm without impacting the torque above 5,500 rpm that would be ideal. Possible??? 

 

Many talk about the 1.6 lack of torque, where do you want the torque?

 

EDIT:

The word Spec in Spec Miata was let out of the box when the 99 plus was allowed in. I mean, I know the 1.6 continues to be the class killer, the weight has been dinked and donked 5 times in increments of 15 to 25 pounds.

[LarryKing]

Butch?

[Diller]

I'm new in the SM group and I run an NA 1.8 so I don't have a dog in this fight but I like the idea of everybody being equal.

 

My question is what exactly does SCCA/NASA need to see, as far as data goes, to make any major rule changes outside of weight/plates? Dyno numbers, race results with experimental parts, traqmate/datalogger data?

 

I keep reading that no decisions will be made without data, but what criteria does the data need to meet in order to be a valid report card. This is also good information should anybody else want to submit for a rule change and not want to have wasted efforts.