373 replies to this topic

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

The sad part about this hole issue is, we won't know what the 1.6 will need ( intake,less weight,ect.....) until the head rules are final and by that time it will be to late. The only thing we will be able to do is take some weight out of the car,so it will be another year down to drain for the 1.6.

Just thinking out loud !

[38bfast]

Kuch any outcome from stock to full CNC ported heads will not help the 1.6 / 1.8. Stock heads IMHO would be the worse thing for them compared to 99-05

[38bfast]

What Saul said. Agree what you want, test it then send it up the ladder.

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

Kuch any outcome from stock to full CNC ported heads will not help the 1.6 / 1.8. Stock heads IMHO would be the worse thing for them compared to 99-05

That's what I'm talking about Ralph,if we have to go back to stock heads we are screwed worse then it is now !

[Bruce Wilson]

What Saul said. Agree what you want, test it then send it up the ladder.

 

Nah, if the SCCA/NASA doesn't want 1.6s, there's other things to do.  The onus is on the clubs.  SMAC/CRB, shouldn't trust just anyone's data anyway.

[Pete Maerz]

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

While I realize this was said as a joke, it hits on the crux of the 1.6 torque problem that may not be apparent to everyone. Take for instance a typical medium to high speed (3rd-4th gear) corner where the preferred driving method in a Spec Miata is to brake in a straight line, turn-in, then floor the throttle all the way through the corner. If you look at the data you will see that the car's highest cornering speed is at turn-in and the lowest is at track out. So despite being at full throttle, the car is losing speed through the corner because the drag associated with tires at slip angles relative to the vehicle direction exceeds the maximum thrust of the engine.

 

The same applies to high speed "non event" (aka no braking, no lift) corners. Turn 12 at NJMP thunderbolt comes to mind. These cars lose speed from turning despite being at full throttle.

 

It's these cases where the 1.6 loses out in the "power to weight" equation. In fact, in cases where the car is decelerating because drag exceeds thrust, additional weight will actually help the car preserve speed.

 

Pete Maerz

 

Disclaimer: I've only looked at 1.6 data. I suspect 1.8's suffer the thing to a lesser extent. If 1.8 cars do not exhibit this behavior then our problem is bigger than I thought.

[James York]

......... If you look at the data you will see that the car's highest cornering speed is at turn-in and the lowest is at track out. So despite being at full throttle, the car is losing speed through the corner because the drag associated with tires at slip angles relative to the vehicle direction exceeds the maximum thrust of the engine.

 

........

Pete Maerz

 

 

 

You got me curious, because this statement seemed unusual.  So I went back to my years of 1.6 data and reviewed many tracks and corner speeds and NOT once do i have this sort of data trace.  My speed is usually the fastest at track out (sometime its faster at turn in depending on type of corner), and the slowest at the apex, or at the point I am rotating the car the quickest.

 

In my 99, my slowest speed usually is earlier in the cornering (different drive style), but again fastest at track out.

 

If your speed is slowest at trackout, something is wrong...

[Johnny D]

I just wanted to point out that if any of the SMAC/CRB/BoD says stock heads, they are ignorant, no disrespect.

The head can still be shaved, giving higher compression then a stock/junkyard head, which cost $ to do, which will still be done, thus making it more competitive than stock.

 

Also I had mention pages ago a spoke with someone about spending his own $ to figure out what needs to be done, but not now with the head in flux.

I believe he said he was going to meet with someone to design a new cam.

 

So, Saul, Mark, whoever, is this feasible in solving the problem ??

J~

[Steve Scheifler]

In theory you could design a cam profile including cam timing that favors torque over HP, but I'm not sure you could get a combination that acheived the goal. It just is not easy to bolt on much torque without also adding high-end power, so you end up needing a restrictor plate or start opening up the 1.8s. Spec cams would be a place to start the R&D but it just isn't in line with what the club is saying about their goals for the class.

[Johnny D]

That's one other point. I think there's a misconnect/disconnect in the class rules to what the class is or should be.

 

Parity is very high importance to me, or why would we be talking about this, but no mention in the rules.

 

I would suggest the class rules/statement be adjusted with this in mind, still doing everything in ones power to keep it low cost, but explain there will be costs to keep parity or being competitive. I think one reading this, new to class, would find this attractive and willing to spend the $ or at least know about coming in.

J~

[Steve Scheifler]

David, I think you just don't get it. Your logic about not getting a placebo is how I view things like a couple pounds off the flywheel. But losing power is a problem no matter what else is done, it might be something we can at least improve practically for free, and could be approved quickly. Yet you ask why I would get involved with it??? Your relentless pursuit of an imaginary silver bullet is partly responsible for the fact that after a three year freeze there still was not one meaningfull recommendation for real improvements.

[LarryKing]

The solution to parity is so obvious I'm surprised no one has mentioned it yet. Let the 1.6s keep their pro heads and make the 99+ run a stock head.

 

Seriously, I think a poster on another thread syed it best...

 

 

stop drinking sugary Lake ways said on water teepee black of me are successor instead I saw trains jus energy drinks flavored coffees and martinis.

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

I say we lower the weight and try the intake system that SaulSpeedWell said and we can go from there. Simple and cheap and easy to reverse if it's to much.

[SaulSpeedwell]

If your speed is slowest at trackout, something is wrong...

 

So, here's a story ... about the Nelson Carousel.  We used to coast and feather-throttle in there and ride a high entry line and generally screw around with "slow in/fast out" trying to maximize "exit speed". 

 

And then, after several years and tons of data ... we figured out that no matter how you went into the Carousel, you pretty much came out at the same speed.  The "scrub" of the corner was high enough that you weren't gaining anything by coming in all clean and nice.  The car wasn't "accelerating" after apex, so you might as well rage to the apex as tight and ragefully as you can?  I remember the day we were looking at data from a session dedicated to how to take that corner ... and we looked at each other and said ... "It isn't about the exit speed ... it's about spending as little time in the Carousel as possible!"  (Hindsight "Duh!"?)

 

So we started RAGING INTO the corner sort-of-tight and scrubbing speed with the front end.  We threw out "slow in/fast out" and settled on "lowest segment time" or "fast in/fast through/let the exit speed be what its gonna be".  Segment times fell dramatically.  We had been bullshitting oursleves that 1 mph of exit speed got "carried all the way down the straight".  We were even bullshitting ourselves that "slow in" was giving us 1mph more exit speed.  The car wouldn't accelerate until we unwound the steering wheel, so any imagined gains in "exit speed" due to cornering were bogus.

 

And then we learned the Mid Ohio keyhole was the same way.  Laptimes fell some more by raging the entry and using "fast in/fast through".

 

Maybe "slow in/fast out" works in some corners ... maybe it works on Vipers and Mustangs or in the rain ... but with SMs, it seems like "Fast In, Through, AND Out" is the way to fly.

 

Just my $0.02, it may not be true everywhere or for everyone ....

[Steve Scheifler]

Agreed. It often isn't as simple as the text books and clichés suggest. And for long corners I would add that it's worth a look at distance traveled. I can show you plenty of cases where the car with the lower speed had the shorter sector time simply because it traveled less total distance. Very basic data analysis (meaning few if any add-on sensors) can teach you a ton about turning fast laps. I mention that because it seems many people are intimidated by data collection and end up with nothing, but a good basic GPS-based system today is a huge benefit without any additional inputs, if you learn it and use it.

[James York]

So, here's a story ... about the Nelson Carousel.  We used to coast and feather-throttle in there and ride a high entry line and generally screw around with "slow in/fast out" trying to maximize "exit speed". 

 

And then, after several years and tons of data ... we figured out that no matter how you went into the Carousel, you pretty much came out at the same speed.  The "scrub" of the corner was high enough that you weren't gaining anything by coming in all clean and nice.  The car wasn't "accelerating" after apex, so you might as well rage to the apex as tight and ragefully as you can?  I remember the day we were looking at data from a session dedicated to how to take that corner ... and we looked at each other and said ... "It isn't about the exit speed ... it's about spending as little time in the Carousel as possible!"  (Hindsight "Duh!"?)

 

So we started RAGING INTO the corner sort-of-tight and scrubbing speed with the front end.  We threw out "slow in/fast out" and settled on "lowest segment time" or "fast in/fast through/let the exit speed be what its gonna be".  Segment times fell dramatically.  We had been bullshitting oursleves that 1 mph of exit speed got "carried all the way down the straight".  We were even bullshitting ourselves that "slow in" was giving us 1mph more exit speed.  The car wouldn't accelerate until we unwound the steering wheel, so any imagined gains in "exit speed" due to cornering were bogus.

 

And then we learned the Mid Ohio keyhole was the same way.  Laptimes fell some more by raging the entry and using "fast in/fast through".

 

Maybe "slow in/fast out" works in some corners ... maybe it works on Vipers and Mustangs or in the rain ... but with SMs, it seems like "Fast In, Through, AND Out" is the way to fly.

 

Just my $0.02, it may not be true everywhere or for everyone ....

 

I wanted to just share my data that tell me that if I am on the loud pedal enough in my 1.6, I never experienced loss of speed due to scrub in a flat corner.  If I was flat on it, the car was accelerating.  When I indicated something didn't sound right, my comment was targetted at a particular motor or setup being the culprit.  No intention to debate corner philosophy and DE lines

[SaulSpeedwell]

I wasn't trying to disagree or debate, your comment just reminded me of our self-realization that we had been "doing it wrong".  Both of those corners are fairly low on the tach, so torque is low and scrub is high.  Like I said ... other corners at other places, maybe my "story" is a red herring ...

 

[Jim Creighton]

Just bump the compression ratio allowed for the 1.6 up to 10.0

 

I've seen living proof that will get the 1.6 real close. 

 

 

[Bruce Wilson]

I say we lower the weight and try the intake system that SaulSpeedWell said and we can go from there. Simple and cheap and easy to reverse if it's to much.

But that's the problem.  What is too much? 1.6s on the pole every time?? yet still no wins... that will just piss everyone off.

[Sean - MiataCage]

Your relentless pursuit of an imaginary silver bullet is partly responsible for the fact that after a three year freeze there still was not one meaningfull recommendation for real improvements.

Um.... I really like you Steve and appreciate what you are doing for us, bit I have to call Bullshit on this statement.

 

Just because the folks at SCCA won't consider something or feel it's too hard does not make it not a "meaningful recommendation".  I would think that we all now agree the rule making process was flawed or at least influenced, so it seems we need to start over and try some new things.  I have said before and I will say it again.....

 

The number one thing that needs to be passed IMMEDIATELY is a waiver of the 3 year requirement for not changing the rules for the 1.6L only.  Most seem to agree and I think we have enough data to prove the car needs help that we MUST get rid of this silly rule and use this year as a testing year to try and come up with some solutions for the 1.6L.  Why can't this be done?  What needs to happen in order to make this happen.  I would like to think Mazda would support this.  I'm meeting with them today and will bring it up and ask them to support it.  There are several pro sanctioning bodies that can get parity handled on multiple manufacturers, engine displacements and differing amounts of cylinders, so I would think we could fix this.

 

As far as "meaningful recommendations" here are a few of mine that have been brought up in the past.

 

1. Defeat the variable intake system on the 99-05.  If I recall correctly this could eliminate the lower end torque advantage for the 1.8L and brings the torque numbers in line with the 1.6L. I realize no one in a 99-05 will want this, but maybe we trade this for the restrictor plate.  Don't know but it needs to be considered and tested.  Cost is minimal at best to the competitor.

 

2. Piggyback computers for the 1.6L.  The 01+ VVT cars can't be checked for computers, so why not just open up the computer for the 1.6L?  It may work, it may not, but we will never know if we don't try it.  I'm tired of hearing theoretical reasons why it won't work, lets just try it and see.  A prime example of this is the car that makes a great dyno number but doesn't race well.  It could be argued that the HP number should make it race well, but in reality it just doesn't.  Lets stick a piggyback in a few cars throughout the country and race them and see how they do. 

 

3. Header - I'm not a motor guy, but I know with V8's there are different headers made (long tube/short tube) specifically to change the torque numbers produced.  Why not do some R&D and try this.

 

Getting the 1.6L help is like getting the current congress to agree on anything.  It's political and there are 10 reasons why NOT to do something for every reason to do something.  I'm honestly tired of hearing why everything won't work.  Lets just freaking try something and ditch this stupid 3 year rule change issue and so some testing.

 

To quote Tommy Boy.....  "You can get a good look at a T-Bone if you stick you head up a bulls ass, but wouldn't you rather just take the butchers word for it?"  I think in this case the Butchers have been caught influencing the rules and being in a contradictory position.  In this case I think it's time we stick the head up the bulls ass and see for ourselves exactly what the improvements deliver.  Not on a dyno or spreadsheet, but on track during a race.

 

Fix the 3 year rule change issue and let's move forward with some testing.  At the end of the day this is our club and they need to listen to us if we truly feel there needs to be some changes.  Unfortunately the next change if we don't fix the 1.6L thing is to separate the class which will further dilute entries and car counts. 

 

Sorry for my frustration, but this really shouldn't be this difficult.  Let just do something instead of continuing to just talk about it.  I don't know the process well enough to understand how to move it forward.

 

Steve.... Can you outline what would be required to eliminate the 3 year deal for the 1.6's?  Who needs to approve it?  What is the process?

 

Thanks.... Sean