373 replies to this topic

[Johnny D]

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

 

Understanding what was going on before, during the last press release ??

Or some kind of regional/TWS rule set?

The 2nd was the assumption.

Sounded like you guys were rounding up the troops.

J~

[James York]

Understanding what was going on before, during the last press release ??

Or some kind of regional/TWS rule set?

The 2nd was the assumption.

Sounded like you guys were rounding up the troops.

J~

 

We were informed of the rule making process, how to present our voice and what we needed to do so he can represent us accordingly at the big pow wow coming up.  

 

From here its in the hands of the elected reps.

 

Depending on the outcome of course will then influence what everyone does with their individual race choices in 2015.  But we had no discussion around an SCCA regional only class using an alternative ruleset.

[Johnny D]

So you wrote a letter expressing how happy you are with all that's going on ? 

 

Pleae stop smoking crack, please remove head from a$$. etc, etc.

J~

[James York]

So you wrote a letter expressing how happy you are with all that's going on ? 

 

J~

 

We all wrote letters to various people with our thoughts and suggestions, yes.

[Johnny D]

That was what was explained to you in the meeting ?

J~

[James York]

We were informed of the rule making process, how to present our voice and what we needed to do so he can represent us accordingly at the big pow wow coming up.  

 

From here its in the hands of the elected reps.

 

Depending on the outcome of course will then influence what everyone does with their individual race choices in 2015.  But we had no discussion around an SCCA regional only class using an alternative ruleset.

 

Read line 1.

[Johnny D]

Ya got it.

Just a little surprised you didn't know that already, but that's cool.

Have a good one.

J~

[James York]

Ya got it.

Just a little surprised you didn't know that already, but that's cool.

Have a good one.

J~

 

You are not understanding what I am trying to say.  It was not about submitting input to just the CRB....  But nevermind, you aren't really interested anyway.

[Johnny D]

Talk to me James.

You spoke with Daniel R Helman ?

Are you collecting data or something ?

J~

[Bench Racer]

Ryan, I know what the end results of implementing a 99 engine in an NA chassis will be relative to torque. All the other improvements for 1.6 torque that continuoulsy gets suggested is total guess work and speculation. Have you viewed any info anyplace that will get the 1.6 engine 120 pound foot of torque from 4,500 rpm to 5,500 rpm similar to the 99/02??? < That is the major issue. The 1.6 requires torque below 5,500 rpm. As far as the suspension changes, they will do nothing for the lack of torque below 5,500 rpm. I'd spend my money implementing a 99 engine and I'm sure I'd be happy with the results. If I thought for 1 (one) second the incorporated 99 suspension would bring the 1.6 towards the front, I'd be selling that thought. A lot of gas has been passed over the years by those that suggest and make the rules if you have not caught on.

 

Have Fun

David Dewhurst  

 

ps:

I sent my CRB letters.  

[Ron Alan]

Ryan, I know what the end results of implementing a 99 engine in an NA chassis will be relative to torque. All the other improvements for 1.6 torque that continuoulsy gets suggested is total guess work and speculation. Have you viewed any info anyplace that will get the 1.6 engine 120 pound foot of torque from 4,500 rpm to 5,500 rpm similar to the 99/02??? < That is the major issue. The 1.6 requires torque below 5,500 rpm. As far as the suspension changes, they will do nothing for the lack of torque below 5,500 rpm. I'd spend my money implementing a 99 engine and I'm sure I'd be happy with the results. If I thought for 1 (one) second the incorporated 99 suspension would bring the 1.6 towards the front, I'd be selling that thought. A lot of gas has been passed over the years by those that suggest and make the rules if you have not caught on.

 

Have Fun

David Dewhurst  

 

ps:

I sent my CRB letters.  

My first thought was you wanted to do this so we could all run unrestricted  But now it would seem this is your only hope for torque...I get it. dont forget to run your restrictor and lower your rev-limiter!

 

 

10 to 1 will help torque correct? But you'll also need to run a stock air box to slow things down a little at the top...or a RP??

[FTodaro]

If I were a 1.6 guy, and I wanted a rule change, and I wanted to closely match the HP ant TQ of a 99, I would get a group of you to get with a motor builder with a dyno and ask him to do some testing with Pistons,headers ect. To get the results your looking for based on data and then make your case based on reliable data.

[bmw251]

Frank,

Mr. Drago is an engine builder and it seems that he feels the 1.6 should get something. I hope I have been reading the post correctly. The rule makers should rely on experts .... Crazy to me that a bunch of guys need to spend thousands of dollars to accomplish your suggestion . What is they do it and the SCCA doesn't listen? I am really getting confused on how things change. Especially if the petition is ignored.

Greg

[Bench Racer]

Ron, I get it with weight/restrictor.

[Jim Drago]

I have no idea what adjustments are coming if any. Any changes are apparently coming after these tests are completed.  

 

I just want to point out that weight/ plate changes can be made at ANY time, although it I nice to start the year on the same rule, this can be addressed any time. However, anything outside weight and plates is considered a rules change.  Rules changes can only be made on a yearly basis. Anything not approved by the CRB at our 12/11 meeting will not be in the rules for 2015 less a change in BOD current policy. Perhaps any adjustments coming by the panel will be supersede the current BOD policy? I don't know. 

[Johnny D]

If I were a 1.6 guy, and I wanted a rule change, and I wanted to closely match the HP ant TQ of a 99, I would get a group of you to get with a motor builder with a dyno and ask him to do some testing with Pistons,headers ect. To get the results your looking for based on data and then make your case based on reliable data.

 

I spoke with one person here on the left coast that was going to do that very thing out of his pocket.

 

But with the rule change or in flux he's totally not going to do it now.

J~

[SaulSpeedwell]

I skimmed this thread, and have some further thoughts:

 

1.  I promise you, I guarantee you, that "colder" air will increase torque and power.  All airbox and charge air cooler (intercooler) design is aimed at exploiting the Physics of trying to keep the air as cold (and thus as dense and oxygen-rich) as possible.  Until and unless you have a car sucking truly "ambient" air, there are gains to be had there.  Will those gains be ENOUGH?  Probably not, but it should help the car not lay down.  Does the 1.6 have "heat soak" issues beyond intake air temperature?  I'm suspicious it does, but my dyno testing doesn't confirm that.  As long as I kept intake air and coolant temps steady, I could do pulls until I wore out the car.  On track the car would get slower, assuming the handling was the same.  And after a red flag?    Absolute dead meat. 

 

2.  Dyno data IS real data, but it isn't track data.  Anyone that hasn't already, should see for themselves what happens to the dyno data when you close the hood.

 

3.  I have TONS of data on the 99+ intake air and inlet pressure on the track.  The stock airbox sucks "cold"(ish), "high pressure"(ish) air from the left front wheel house.  (Speed tip:  You should be running at least the front portion of the left front inner fender liner, as this what is funneling that air up into the airbox area).  On an 80 degree day, a 99 will leave the pits at 115-120 depending on how much excessive warm-up   you did on grid.  In short order, the car will be running about 10 degrees over ambient.  Driven in anger with some traffic, about 20 degrees over ambient.  Unfortunately, I don't have any IAT data on the 1.6.  But I have every reason to believe the 1.6 has a problem with sucking hotter and hotter air, on a car that is impossible to keep lean enough AFRs as it is. 

 

3.  38bfast/Ralph has a good idea with the elbow intake and making a cold air provision in the headlight bucket area.  My best "hood down" intake was a custom elmbox intake I collaborated on with Karl Z/ART back in the day.  It was like a Racing Beat, but custom.  But this is an expensive alternative?

 

An alternative I'm imagining is "fencing in" the straight intakes everyone has.  Fold some sheetmetal, put on some weather stripping to seal it all from the engine bay, and then run ducting or elbows from the wheelhouse.

 

I know it will help - I just don't know how much. 

[LarryKing]

'Saul', what are your thoughts about ducting an airbox/insulator to the left base of the windshield? A 'cowl-induction' so to speak.

[RWP80000]

Here is an alternative approach to making the 1.6L more competitive with the 1.8L cars;

 Let the 1.6L cars run the 6 speed transmission.

 

This would be using a readily available, direct bolt in, stock Mazda part which should be in reasonable supply and is not currently being destroyed in racing as are the five speeds.  Such a swap would allow for a same day back to back comparison but needs to be evaluated under actual race conditions over a range of varying track layouts.

 

The 6 speed provides an average torque multiplication factor of 22.4%  through the first four gears. The 5th/4th gears, being direct drive, are therefore "equal" in torque multiplication.  The "overdrive" gear comparison (6th vs 5th) has a +3.6% torque multiplication factor in favor  the 6 speed.

 

This approach brings the effective torque values in the lower gears inline with the 1.8L and gives them the ability to better match their torque curve to race situations with the additional gear selection thereby enhancing their "racecraft" for dealing with the oft described issue of being "checked up".

 

If it were found to be too much of an advantage then the standard weight and restrictor plate options are available for fine tuneing.

 

Tabular data used in this proposal is listed in file attached.

 

Attached Files

•  6 Speed vs 5 Speed Transmission Analysis for 1.6L.htm   62.43KB   20 downloads

[Jim Drago]

One STRONG down side is that trans is a @#$$%^&!  I built one for my STL car and took it out after 1-2 sessions as I could not race it at all and installed an Sm 5 spd. I thought I left the engine on the track at least 10-15 times in 2 sessions as the gates are so close.. often 1-3-5 was complete guess.. same for 2-4-6..  Maybe those who drive in street cars can comment.. but I would guarantee 4-5x more missed shifts than with the 5 speed

Jim