373 replies to this topic

[ECOBRAP]

Something has to be done to give 1.6's a shot at winning races and championships, even if it is temporary or experimental. First of all, I think the intake ducting is a no-brainer; it should address the fall-off some people are experiencing. 1.6's need to be able to set consistent lap times to move forward with parity adjustments. The Randall Cowl Intake would be my suggestion based on forum reviews.

 

Now for my craziest idea yet, but first a disclaimer. Please focus on this idea as a concept, any numbers given are ball-park estimates (if that) and would be properly decided by people far more experienced and knowledgeable than myself. Here it is:

 

Track Dependent Weight Requirements for 1.6

 

My 1.6 can be a 2300lb weapon at a track like Sonoma. If I take the same car to Laguna I get destroyed up the hills, while on the east coast I would get left for dead on high speed tracks. My suggestion revolves around lowering the weight requirement for the 1.6 at torque and aero dependent tracks. This could be done by giving every track a rating from 1 to 5 that specifies the legal weight for a 1.6. The track's rating would be adjusted based on race results and lap times until 1.6's and 1.8's are well mixed. Here is an example of how the system would work, again please focus on the concept rather than the random numbers/tracks I chose.

 

1-2300lbs (Sonoma)

2-2290lbs

3-2280lbs (Laguna)

4-2270lbs

5-2260lbs (Daytona)

 

I am fully aware that the real issue at hand is torque, but it doesn't seem like anyone is going to come up with a solution for 2015. I am proposing this idea as a temporary experiment until real data can be acquired and used to create a long-lasting solution. I am also aware that with this idea, 1.6's will be faster in some places on track, and 1.8's faster in others - this is already the case now. That is why I suggested that track rating adjustments should be made based on race results and lap times. This concept is so flexible that it could be adjusted during a race-weekend, and is no-cost and simply involves adding or removing weight. Just an idea of mine, I'd love to get some thoughts on it. 

 

Best,

Matt

[Steve Scheifler]

...

Ironically, I met a a friend and fellow engineer from MI last night, who is new to racing with a 1.6 (Matt Johnson's old car), and it turns out he has IAT instrumented. With the typical "straight metal intake", he said he was seeing 60 DEGREES OVER AMBIENT in his 1.6! That's in Michigan. That is easily double what my experience and data with the 99 was. He has said he could send me the data, but I literally don't have a dog in this hunt and I have a backlog of other things to do.

If someone from the SMAC or the 1.6 Owner's Union would like the data, I can help put you in touch with him. If I had a 1.6, I would be asking for a provision for a "cold air intake". I believe it will add a little power, solve the "laying down" problem, and then you can get back to making weight/plate parity adjustments. I'd love to "add torque" to the 1.6, but I don't see how to do it cheaply or easily.

Back in the Regionals-Only days, someone out NORPAC/West Coast way supposedly ran an intake past a narrow radiator and right into the mouth of the car. I think it was protested, deemed a no-no, and that's when the radiator rule got changed. I was about to do the same thing myself when I heard the "bad news".

On the other hand, if $peedy McFrontrunner wanted to, I believe he could already make a "cold air intake" within the existing rules. Bend some intercooler-type pipe and get it down and out of the engine bay into a direct line of cold air somewhere.

I've looked and I assume others have, but tough to find a place other than under the car where you are close to the exhaust and run into ground clearance issue. And if you managed, how long before it it outlawed?

I did track intake temps in the 1.6 a few times, including at Road America. I don't have my notes but they came up well above ambient during the first 10 minutes or so then leveled off. I don't recall it being as much as 60 degrees on a warm day, but I remember thinking it was very significant and somewhere between hood-up and hood-down when on the dyno.

[Bruce Wilson]

Mark and Steve, I applaud your efforts, but before we go solving the laying down problem, let's make sure we agree that it exists.

 

Here's my lap times from the July Majors in Portland.

02:31.3 01:34.4 01:33.0 01:32.6 01:33.8 01:32.5 01:34.3 01:32.1 01:31.7 01:32.3 01:32.8 01:32.6 01:32.6 01:33.4 01:32.2 01:32.7

 

Ambient temps were ~90 degrees.  Fast lap was 9.  Lap 15 was only .5 slower, but it was also .4 faster than lap 4.

 

Similarly, Matt Schultz data shows fast lap was lap 9 @ 1:31.895 and lap 18 was 1:32.001.

 

Would love to see data from others who see a drop off.

 

Yeah, the half-sized offset radiator trick was a good try, but it didn't last long

[Keith Andrews]

Mark and Steve, I applaud your efforts, but before we go solving the laying down problem, let's make sure we agree that it exists.

 

Here's my lap times from the July Majors in Portland.

02:31.3 01:34.4 01:33.0 01:32.6 01:33.8 01:32.5 01:34.3 01:32.1 01:31.7 01:32.3 01:32.8 01:32.6 01:32.6 01:33.4 01:32.2 01:32.7

 

Ambient temps were ~90 degrees.  Fast lap was 9.  Lap 15 was only .5 slower, but it was also .4 faster than lap 4.

 

Similarly, Matt Schultz data shows fast lap was lap 9 @ 1:31.895 and lap 18 was 1:32.001.

 

Would love to see data from others who see a drop off.

 

Yeah, the half-sized offset radiator trick was a good try, but it didn't last long

 

Who built those engines and heads.  What tech was done to them post race?

[davidb]

Nothing to be gained with intake cam pulley?

[Kevin B]

Regarding the Road Atlanta ITA ARRC record from 2010, I'm pretty certain Price's car for that was the 1.8 (94/95) they maxed out and it was before the weight minimum was reset to the 2460 # now in play.  (If I understand correctly, his car/driving was a factor in that rebalance effort.

[Bench Racer]

^ Thanks

[Bruce Wilson]

Who built those engines and heads.  What tech was done to them post race?

Mine was built by Mike Haag and Matt builds his own engines and the one he was racing was torn down by NASA when he won last year's Championship.  

 

Also Jordan Wand had fast lap of the race in a 1.6 on lap 6 with similar spread across the 18 lap race.  His engine was built by Loynings.  All tech was done on 99s because the 1.6s finished too far back!!!

[davidb]

More on adjustable cam pulley: I've played with this, and although I only have Trackmate data, screwing with advance/ retard on OEM cams sure seems to suggest that there is a significant trade off between torque and top end.

[Bench Racer]

Went hunting for 1.6 compression increase info. One man, one engine.

GrassRootsMotorSports thread
Kendall_Jones Reader
Feb. 17, 2011 7:51 a.m.
As long as you didnt need a broad torque curve I'd say integral cams would get you there. One of the 1.6L SCCA engines I worked over (10:1 compression, stock head, stock crank, race pistons) put about 150HP to the rear wheels on a mild tune. Unfortunately it was like a switch - at 5K there was less than 100HP; but from 5K to 8500 it was like a rocket.

 

Anyone have any other compression data to share?
 

[Steve Scheifler]

Bruce, I don't put much stock in lap times, especially in a race. If you are running with someone then you are often taking an offensive or defensive line, drafting, etc. Even running mostly alone you can pick up a draft from a passing or lapped car, have tires come in or go away, etc.

Our point is that without any doubt whatsoever, all else being equal warmer intake air results in less (tuned) power. Also without any doubt whatsoever the 1.6 is at a disadvantage with regard to pulling in ambient outside air. So it seems like a no-brainer to allow simple and hard to abuse changes wich will at least partly remedy that problem. We can debate all manner of ways to help the 1.6, but let's start by getting the cheap, easy obvious stuff done and then see where we are.

[Bruce Wilson]

Fair enough Steve.  Again, I applaud your efforts 

[Bench Racer]

 So it seems like a no-brainer to allow simple and hard to abuse changes wich will at least partly remedy that problem. We can debate all manner of ways to help the 1.6, but let's start by getting the cheap, easy obvious stuff done and then see where we are.

I am 100 plus % in aggreement the 1.6 needs torque increase below 5,500 rpm.

 

With no disrespect, why would we want to get involved in this easy obvious stuff without real torque numbers to support the item being proposed/requested??? If the cheap easy stuff does not get some signafiant torque from 4,000 rpm through 5,500 rpm, what's the use in sending letters. The requirement is a torque gain of 20 lb ft @ 4,000 rpm, 20 lb ft @ 4,500 rpm and a 10 lb ft at 5,000 rpm. Later the SMAC/CRB response could well be, we gave them what they asked for, are they never satisfied. Weight watchers, I understand. 

 

We've (1.6er's) all read the past, we offered them 99 suspension stuff and they didn't want that stuff. We offered them whatever and they didn't want it. Their to cheap to improve their game. They don't know how to prep a car. Old hat to some 1.6er's.

 

All said with a large

[Keith Andrews]

Mine was built by Mike Haag and Matt builds his own engines and the one he was racing was torn down by NASA when he won last year's Championship.  

 

Also Jordan Wand had fast lap of the race in a 1.6 on lap 6 with similar spread across the 18 lap race.  His engine was built by Loynings.  All tech was done on 99s because the 1.6s finished too far back!!!

 

I thought that last years NASA Championship relied primarily on dyno numbers with little invasive inspection.  My point is, were they subject to the inspection done at this years runoffs ie.  CC'd for compression ratio and STR inspection?

 

Regardless, Mike Haag, Loynings and Matt are the guys who likely know what to do.  They are the guys who know what is inside those engine.  They know how to make them go.  They also may be familiar enough with the rules to know if what they are doing is legal.

 

There is a vast difference between internet legal and legal to the GCR.

 

1.6's also have a moving goal right now with regard to the head rule, parity is even more uncertain. 

[pat slattery]

David, I want something for the 1.6, but, if you got 20 more foot pounds of torque , surely that would also correspond to a big increase in top end hp making the 1.6 a big overdog. Np one is going to go for that.  If they give the 1.6 af few more on the bottom end and maybe 1 or 2 on the top the 1.6 could be competitive IMHO

[Tom Sager]

Our point is that without any doubt whatsoever, all else being equal warmer intake air results in less (tuned) power. Also without any doubt whatsoever the 1.6 is at a disadvantage with regard to pulling in ambient outside air. So it seems like a no-brainer to allow simple and hard to abuse changes wich will at least partly remedy that problem. We can debate all manner of ways to help the 1.6, but let's start by getting the cheap, easy obvious stuff done and then see where we are.

Hard to believe that the only cars/drivers that get to use a non-standard air-box now are the ones bitchin about their intake air temp   . Maybe ya'll should just go back to a stock airbox like the rest of us.     

[Bench Racer]

Hard to believe that the only cars/drivers that get to use a non-standard air-box now are the ones bitchin about their intake air temp   . Maybe ya'll should just go back to a stock airbox like the rest of us.     

Maybe ya'll should reduce your torque below 5,500 rpm.   That was overlooked when yer 99 plus cars was classed.

[Tom Sager]

Maybe ya'll should reduce your torque below 5,500 rpm.   That was overlooked when yer 99 plus cars was classed.

Ya know Dave, higher corner exit speed means a better spot on the torque curve.  Have you tried that?  

[Bench Racer]

Maybe ya'll should reduce your torque below 5,500 rpm.   That was overlooked when yer 99 plus cars was classed.

 

Ya know Dave, higher corner exit speed means a better spot on the torque curve.  Have you tried that?  

I woud guess, your response is an indicator you don't want to reduce your torque below 5,500 rpm.

 

Time for me quit interfearing with Steve's thread.

 

Pat, listen up, Drago's bound to get your 1.6 some torque and or start selling the 99 suspension stuff to improve your 1.6 corner exit speed.

[SaulSpeedwell]

Mark and Steve, I applaud your efforts, but before we go solving the laying down problem, let's make sure we agree that it exists.

 

Here's my lap times from the July Majors in Portland.

02:31.3 01:34.4 01:33.0 01:32.6 01:33.8 01:32.5 01:34.3 01:32.1 01:31.7 01:32.3 01:32.8 01:32.6 01:32.6 01:33.4 01:32.2 01:32.7

 

Ambient temps were ~90 degrees.  Fast lap was 9.  Lap 15 was only .5 slower, but it was also .4 faster than lap 4.

 

Similarly, Matt Schultz data shows fast lap was lap 9 @ 1:31.895 and lap 18 was 1:32.001.

 

Would love to see data from others who see a drop off.

 

Yeah, the half-sized offset radiator trick was a good try, but it didn't last long

 

I don't have my data handy or anything to read it with, but Internet Consensus-building aside, there was and is no doubt in my mind or my data that my best 1.6 lap would come in lap 2 or 3 in qually, lap 3-7 in the race, and I was VERY hard-pressed to EVER end the race as fast as I started.  If a friend I trust is telling me he is running 60 degrees above ambient versus +20-30 for the '99, and that comports with my personal experience, it's hard for me to ignore the Physics and my own experience versus one listing of race lap times.

 

Hille is always reminding me of some Mid O qualifying record I don't even remember setting, but with my 1.6 I never warmed up on grid, and went out with light fuel load and high tire pressures because I knew if I didn't get it done by lap 2 or 3 I was dead meat unless some helpful out-of-class garden shed Golf or Civic appeared before me and gave me a tow down the backstraight.  The Evil Empire assumed I was rolling out to the track hot and avoiding the false grid because I was running Nuclear Oxygenated Air Filters or some such thing, but my real goal was to roll onto the track with minimal IAT and heat soak.  I didn't invent it in my head, it was a way of life, and that was with custom one-off intakes (both striaght and curved) designed to mitigate the "laydown".

 

If it was <50 degrees out in Spring or Fall, it was no big deal because the car was real good even if it still layed down a bit -  but all the races that really mattereed were 80+ degree Summer and Fall days. 

 

With the '99, it was always expected I could finish the race as fast or faster than I started unless I was checked out and loafing.

 

I quite literally have no dog in the hunt - but if I were the SMAC and reading this thread, I would conclude that the 1.6 Owner's Union needs to get together and decide what they want.  "We" are all over the board with some terrible ideas, some expensive ideas, and many that are both.  Transmission changes, longblock changes, ECU changes, I just don't see how any of that EVER happens.  Read what Wheeler said - the SMAC is convinced, and probably rightfully so, that the 1.6 Owner's Union isn't in favor of anything "expensive".  So, if you guys can band together and make a cohesive request for what you want, it better be "cheap":  And hopefully you have data on your side.

 

If I DID have a dog in the hunt, I could generate the hood-up and hood-down dyno data, and the roadgoing intake air data in one night. I could even use a street car with a straight intake.  One night's investment is all it would take.  Hell, Slattery has paid two 99's worth of entry fees and towing trying to convince us the 1.6 needs help!!!

 

I'm ultra "Pro-1.6" and if I was on the SMAC I would have a REAL tough time approving anything that was >$1000 for <3HP or ft-lbs.  Making the 1.6 an overdog won't be good for the class, in my opinion.