373 replies to this topic

[Bench Racer]

Todd, viewed when you originally posted. No disrespect in the following comments.

 

When comparing your histogram (presume Drago's 1.6 engine) and Drago's 1.6 dyno graph, your 1.6 is spending approx 20% time below 5,500 rpm and 5,500 rpm is where the 1.6 torque starts falling off in a hurry. All that time below 5,500 rpm and short torque compared to the 99 and 02 is track distance that needs to be regained. To anyone, how can the 1.6 race heads up under these histogram conditions?

 

Texans, please note, I didn't use the word. 

[jdmrrs]

The right way to do this is take the dyno curves, for each engine type, add-up the torque produced at 4500, 5000, 5500, 6000, 6500 & 7000 rpm and adjust the weights until the ratio is equal. The noise about cornering and braking vs. weight is mostly irrelevant for these cars/brakes/weights/tires.

A longer version of this was recently submitted to the appropriate SCCA committees.

 

Basically, if you can't easily (or convincingly) change the the torque characteristic of the 1.6, change the weight that the available torque is trying to accelerate.

[MPR22]

Todd, viewed when you originally posted. No disrespect in the following comments.

 

When comparing your histogram (presume Drago's 1.6 engine) and Drago's 1.6 dyno graph, your 1.6 is spending approx 20% time below 5,500 rpm and 5,500 rpm is where the 1.6 torque starts falling off in a hurry. All that time below 5,500 rpm and short torque compared to the 99 and 02 is track distance that needs to be regained. To anyone, how can the 1.6 race heads up under these histogram conditions?

 

Texans, please note, I didn't use the word. 

David, 

 

You know i think the 1.6 needs help but it seems to be one of those problems that has so many variables that it is easier to ignore.  Raced with 1.6's last week, I wasn't on my A game drove a little to DE for a race, however the 1.6's were right there not only on lap time but raceability.  It can be so track dependent.  The 1.6 does well at TWS, MSRH, Cresson, but not at Eagles Canyon, COTA and many other tracks across the country.  I suspect the 01 will do the same, perform well at some tracks and be an underdog at others.  The 99 is the swiss army knives of Miatas, it can do well at any track.  Don't have any solutions but I am willing to be a test dummy for changes.   

[Bench Racer]

 Don't have any solutions but I am willing to be a test dummy for changes.   

Please remember, I have dibs on installing a 99 engine in a 1.6 at required weight. Doing the engine change skips all the baloney of trial and error, does it work or does it not work.

 

SMAC, CRB and BoD, It'd be called the KISS principle and we 1.6 racers could race heads up with the other spec lines way more offten. As some say, eazy peazy.

[Ron Alan]

Regionals aren't that good of an indicator Ron.  Sorry I know you have a lot of fast drivers now days

 

My comment(without explanation...sorry))reflects the last 3 years of the current rules. This includes your posse and a lot of top socal guys.

 

Majors...same drivers. Runoffs...you got me there(no Sonoma yet!)

 

Winners at Sonoma and year car(what i can remember)...most of these had a mix of cars and the same talent(very deep in a few cases)

 

Sutherland(4?)...1.6

Drennan(a lot!)...94/01

Loustaunau...1.6/95

Hayes...1.6/99

Skeer...99

Ghidinelli...99

Bickers...1.6

 

We are both on the same page. 1.6 car can be a weapon at certain tracks. It is not adequate at others. In the last round of "parity" adjustments it got 25lbs(2275-2300). I realize there was a big effort to put the cars closer in minimum weight...this at a minimum should be given back. Both the weight/size of the Hoosier and RR tires have moved it backwards as well...not sure what can be done there? Ok,ok...torque! The cooler air(intake relocate) doesnt help power...but helps maintain for sure. Heat soak DOES occur...why in some and not others would be great to figure out. I would give anything to have the 7200rpm rev limiter of a 1.6...and the power it makes right to that point! What can you do about aero? Not much?

 

Bottom line that so many need to remember...we are not doing time trials...we are racing! And many have figured out what works best to keep ahead of that equally prepped car behind them! That and many just dont want to drive a 25 year old car(and cant...NB is more forgiving). Age comment said...if the electrical issues continue rapidly as the NB ages...it may live a much shorter life than the NA!!

 

To keep numbers up(if that is any part of the goal here)it would seem the NA CARS have to be given something. For sure it is still a starter car for so many on the west coast! Come on people...we need to get Bruces garage queen out and into the danger zone

[MPR22]

Please remember, I have dibs on installing a 99 engine in a 1.6 at required weight. Doing the engine change skips all the baloney of trial and error, does it work or does it not work.

 

SMAC, CRB and BoD, It'd be called the KISS principle and we 1.6 racers could race heads up with the other spec lines way more offten. As some say, eazy peazy.

The entire drive train would need to be replaced, I suspect you would want the suspension changes as well.  Poof a 99 with pop headlights.  

[Ron Alan]

The entire drive train would need to be replaced, I suspect you would want the suspension changes as well.  Poof a 99 with pop headlights.  

Everyone to the Exocet chassis!! If you are going to go for it lets do it all the way!

 

David...with all due respect, I do not love my NA chassis that much. But offering up the absurd to make sure the 1.6 gets something meaningful works in my book!

[Bruce Wilson]

The entire drive train would need to be replaced, I suspect you would want the suspension changes as well.  Poof a 99 with pop headlights.  

 

No, only the engine (and a few other sundries) and the wiring harness needs to be replace.  The harness is the biggest challenge.

 

Again, the rest of the car is perfect (if one knows how to drive).  No model is more fun than driving a 1.6!!!  One of the reasons I'm not building a 99.

[Tom Sager]

No, only the engine (and a few other sundries) and the wiring harness needs to be replace.  The harness is the biggest challenge.

 

Again, the rest of the car is perfect (if one knows how to drive).  No model is more fun than driving a 1.6!!!  One of the reasons I'm not building a 99.

 

You might not like the NA chassis as much if you had to race it at 2400 pounds.

[Bench Racer]

You might not like the NA chassis as much if you had to race it at 2400 pounds.

Ya but, the NA handles so poorly wouldn't you cut some slack with the 2400 pounds. Seems many want to sack the 1.6 for whatever reasons. Tom, dump a 99 in your 94 chassis, done deal, go race heads up. Let it be proven, then start the negative $hit. If the 1.6er's wanted to cut some high end torque off the 99 plus cars to balance out for what the 1.6 does not have at lower rpm's you'd all get your undies all knoted up. Lighten up a bit, you'll have more fun. If I wanted to be negative, could some mapping be completed to reduce some of the 99 plus torque below 5,500 rpm's?

Guys, I've been looking at the requirements (more to study/learn) to drop a 99 in a 1.6 and one thing that is not required is the 99 wiring harness, also I don't beleive the engine knows what's attached behind it. It hasen't sunk in yet how the solenoid for the short path butterflys would be operated.
 

[MPR22]

No, only the engine (and a few other sundries) and the wiring harness needs to be replace.  The harness is the biggest challenge.

 

Again, the rest of the car is perfect (if one knows how to drive).  No model is more fun than driving a 1.6!!!  One of the reasons I'm not building a 99.

The diff would need to be changed, two reasons.  1) the 1.6 diff may not handle the extra torque and 2) it would be an unfair advantage having a true limited slip.  

 

And i agree with you the 1.6 is much more fun to drive. 

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

Please post a histogram of what track you spend any sort of time at those RPM ranges.  (Leaving the pits and the formation/cool down laps don't count. )  Here is my 1.6 at MMP (look at the orange results):
 
http://mazdaracers.c...e-13#entry52189

Todd,there is one track I can think of and it's Nelson Ledges. The whole track is wide open except T13 where it dips down a little and then back up ( right hander ). Now you have a choice of going threw in 2nd or 3rd gear. If you go threw in 2nd you have to shift right before you exit the corner into 3rd. Now the problem there is it is hard to shift ( find ) 3rd because the chassis is twisted so much and 3rd gear is not where it should be. Now I go threw in 3rd and I'm coming out around 4000 rpm,now the problem with this is it takes the motor forever to get back in the sweet zone. I know it only one track but I was just giving you an example.

Now I don't care who you are your going to get one idiot that is going to get you to check up during a race and thats what kills the 1.6. Unless your in the lead the whole race. Now it might not drop you to 4000 rpm but it will be close. I believe the dead zone ( flat ) no pull low TQ is between 4000 and 6000 on the 1.6 and if they could find us a little help in that area I would be happy. I do believe the 1.6 is good on the top end it just sucks when you get stuck in a corner with a slower guy or in lap traffic.

I believe the 1.6 is probably the most fun to drive and teach you the most car control out of any other year car. Just my opinion !

[pat slattery]

I know they have put the parity adjustments for the 1.6 on hold for three years now, we don't need to wait any longer. 

 

the NC's have had there way for the last 5 to 6 runoffs, quit bitching that the 1.6 might be a favorite as the next runoff venue, and lets get some real parity

[Bench Racer]

^ I agree 100%. I'm now studied enough to get myself in some real troble by installing a 99 VIS engine in my NA chassis. NA ECU, a bit of sensor bits changes, CAS changes, alternator changes, TB changes, AFM/tube changes, VIS solenoid changes,  header change, motor mount change, flywheel rearward no changes and a 99 engine. Ask a question and I'll answer or find an answer. How about it equal 

opportunity racers, do you support my converted 1.6 car being the test car? Shucks this car may be way beyond my capabilities and I'll need to find a capable spacer for betwen the seat and steering wheel. Even with a stock head, torque is proven to be a great improvement, no guessing, trial and error or assumptions.

Hmmm, maybe I'll write a letter to the CRB.

David Dewhurst

[Ryan Wellman]

sounds like a lot of trouble to swap a 99 engine into a NA chassis without any benefit over a NB chassis.  Why would you put yourself through this?  Let's stick to simple changes for the 1.6 like header, ECU, intake, weight, and/or even cams.  These are all "bolt on" upgrades with no major R&D required.  Even a larger overbore would not be too costly if the engine is being refreshed.

 

Are these items actually being discussed within NASA, SCCA and being considered for change for 2015, or is it just us debating this topic amongst ourselves?

[Johnny D]

 just us debating this topic amongst ourselves?

 

IMO, Cheap entertainment. So is the Petition. I'm assuming the TWS meeting when over like a ton a bricks too.

 

You saw the last (3rd) letter? it's in the Latest from SCCA thread, but like on page 3.

 

Will see, rules in Dec ??

I hope for the best but I don't have my hopes up, it took years to get us to this point in parity and with heads, camber, more weights, more $$, NCRC looks real good right now.

J~

[James York]

 

 

Are these items actually being discussed within NASA, SCCA and being considered for change for 2015, or is it just us debating this topic amongst ourselves?

You guys are just talking the the wall.........

[James York]

. I'm assuming the TWS meeting when over like a ton a bricks too.

 

 

 

 

 

You assume wrong.  We got everything we wanted from our meeting with our BOD rep.  He was very helpful.

[Johnny D]

J~

[MPR22]

sounds like a lot of trouble to swap a 99 engine into a NA chassis without any benefit over a NB chassis.  Why would you put yourself through this?  Let's stick to simple changes for the 1.6 like header, ECU, intake, weight, and/or even cams.  These are all "bolt on" upgrades with no major R&D required.  Even a larger overbore would not be too costly if the engine is being refreshed.
 
Are these items actually being discussed within NASA, SCCA and being considered for change for 2015, or is it just us debating this topic amongst ourselves?

Mostly we are baiting, with ourselves.