207 replies to this topic

[Brian Ghidinelli]

Was looking for something else recently and stumbled across a video i had forgotten about. This is Brian Ghidinelli in his 99(2013)chasing Ken Sutherland(gray 1.6) and Elliot Skeer(yellow 99). Once Ken gets the lead, Elliot and Brian have no problem maintaing the pace in the draft...but neither have the ability to make a pass under power. You can see coming out of 11 with equal speed the 1.6 and 1.8 accelerate together. At red line shift the 1.6 drops to around 5200rpm(pretty equal speed in 2nd/3rd gear)...I see the torque difference kick in in 4th gear. It is much more noticable going uphill! Basically you dont see much of it here.  I would say these are 3 "Top" prepped cars and drivers! Whats interesting to know about this is Brian 1 month earlier pretty much stomped Ken in the dry at Laguna...not even close!

 

 

Hard to compare track to track since drivers and setups vary.  The thing you need to factor in is that drag increases with the square of speed so be careful about correlating torque advantage and speed when we're using the draft. 

 

Not everyone holds it flat going up into 2 either.

[Bench Racer]

Steve, I may be as full of $hit as a christmas turkey. My belief is that if it is possible for the 1.6 to have sufficent torque below 5,500 rpm to drag race with the 99 plus, that torque would follow over 5,500 rpm and the 1.6 would be an overdog above 5,500 rpm.

 

Where do you believe the 1.6 short fall/falls are?

 

Personally for me it wouldn't matter if I had a 99 engine in my NA chassis, the spacer between the seat and the steering wheel does not get the job done.

[Danny Steyn]

My issue with the 1.6/1.8 NA situation is this

1. I personally think that the 1.6 and 1.8 NA drivers have received a raw deal and that your cars are not competitive with the 99’s and VVT NB cars.
2. I personally want the performance of the 1.6 and 1.8NA’s to be equalized with the 99’s and VVT NB cars, firstly with the hope of increasing field sizes, and secondly, to stop the incessant whining.
3. I do not own a 1.6 or 1.8 NA so I have NO vested interest in pursuing this, other than expressing a desire to see it done
4. The 1.6 and 1.8 NA drivers and car owners that should have some vested interest in pursuing a solution, simply cannot get together on what they want, and thus all discussions go round and round discussing flywheels, compression, weight, plate, and more.
5. No one is doing any testing to verify anything, so there are no definitive answers at all.
6. No leader has stepped up to take this on, organize the movement, and do the work required. (Steve Scheifler is a close as it gets)
7. So the discussion ends up becoming a circular whiny complaint ….we don’t like what we have, we don’t know what we want to make it better, but we are unhappy.
8. This continuous venting, whining, complaining, etc, especially by Dewhurst (who I consider a friend), without pulling together any constructive action, is actually DAMAGING your position, as you are distancing any potential allies you might have had.  Myself included.
9. Bottom Line – if you don’t like it, do something about it. So guys get it together, make this happen.

 

I hope this is taken in the spirit that it is meant…. Although I am sure I am delusional 

[pat slattery]

Does any 1.6 owner have a cold air intake setup they would like to donate for testing, I will do  the testing on my car and take care of the dyno.  How is that for a start Danny

[davew]

I am going to go a step farther than my friend Mr Steyn. Someone from the 1.6 camp needs to step up and build a top flight 100%, $30,000 car. Then go testing with a top tier driver. Then show up at enough big races to get an accurate reading of what the down side is to the 1.6. Data must be compiled and then have the data looked at by someone like Roger Cadell. Untill someone does this, all we are doing is guessing at what to fix. The last good 1.6 car/driver combo was Todd Buras and he won the Sprints.

 

Pat, dyno testing is almost worthless. You need data from a 30 minute race to get accurate info. 5 pulls on the chassis dyno will not give the same info.

 

Davey Dew, get your buddy Larry to stop playing with pointy cars and build a 1.6 SM. He has the talent required. But he needs a talented car also.

 

Mr Steyn, keep telling it like it is. Your heart is in the right place and you type better than I do. We will miss not seeing you in Florida this year.

 

Dave

[pat slattery]

Dave, I have to disagree, how many are going to build a $30000.00  1.6 cars under the rules that are in place now.  If dyno testing is useless, than what is the SCCA doing with the super secret testing that they are doing right now.  Dyno testing is better than anything else that we have at our disposable short of everyone building 30k underdogs.

 

Pat

[davew]

SCCA is dyno comparing plunge cut versus no plunge versus deburr etc all on the same year head.

 

What you want is a heat soak issue comparison which can not be done on a dyno. Only on the track.

 

Unfortunately we will never know if a $30k 1.6 can do if no one builds it

 

Dave

[Ron Alan]

Hard to compare track to track since drivers and setups vary.  The thing you need to factor in is that drag increases with the square of speed so be careful about correlating torque advantage and speed when we're using the draft. 

 

Not everyone holds it flat going up into 2 either.

We are on the same page...which is why I wrote what i did on a previous post. Its a game of give and take. Your video is a good example of a 1.6 car holding its own. Unless of course you want to admit you sucked that weekend Pretty sure that weekend you, Ken and Elliot each won and took all the podium spots!

[FTodaro]

One thing is for sure, in order to move the needle with this class your going to have to come up with a plan, something more than getting on this site and complaining that the rules are not fair. Everyone is good about identifying the problems, tq, heat soak, different suspension ect. but someone has to grab the bull by the horns and rally your troops.

 

I am not as generous as Danny, i think the 1.6 issue is track dependent, so someone like me would need to see some proof to be convinced. 

 

Dave Wheeler's point is well taken and is the ideal approach to get it spot on, but you can shoot for something less than perfect. I would start with some testing for sure. I would get a group willing to spend the time and money to invest in the project.

 

BTW how do you think the VVT was recently brought to the forefront? It took a few people in several different camps to commit to the project development. It was time consuming and costly. 4 years ago the VVT was written off.

[Bench Racer]

Here is something for the 1.6er's to think about. The 1.6 engine started life as a 1.1, got bored out to the 1.6  and was turbocharged in the Mazda 323 GTX. for year 1985 before the engine was thrown into the Miata. Didn't require to special of an intake or head as long as air was forced in. And the turbo engine was 9.0:1.

 

I'll make it easier for Steve and the 1.6er's, see ya. I will be reading to see what the 1.6er's decide they need and where they need it.

 

[Chris Ashcraft]

Frank can you please explain this sentence for me

 

It took a few people in several different camps to commit to the project development. It was time consuming and costly. 4 years ago the VVT was written off.

 

I can understand to a point that there is some development in a VVT car, but as a SPEC class there is only so many things to really develop, is not like you are changing cams, piston weight, or changing compression, changing suspension spring rates. and so on.  In develping the VVT, you followed the rules to build an engine, and then what... play with fuel and spark...all the suspension is the same. 

 

I think no one built one because the price of a used one was still to expensive, and now the are not.

 

The bottome line is a 1.6 will never have the torque curve a 99+ year car will have because of the Variable intake manifold. Unless we start changing cams, computers and timing, then it will need a restrictor plate and then we are back to square 1

 

If i am completely off beat please someone explain this to me, i am new to this and am learning.. My 1.6 will be for sale after the 2015 season regardless 

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

I am going to go a step farther than my friend Mr Steyn. Someone from the 1.6 camp needs to step up and build a top flight 100%, $30,000 car. Then go testing with a top tier driver. Then show up at enough big races to get an accurate reading of what the down side is to the 1.6. Data must be compiled and then have the data looked at by someone like Roger Cadell. Untill someone does this, all we are doing is guessing at what to fix. The last good 1.6 car/driver combo was Todd Buras and he won the Sprints.
 
Pat, dyno testing is almost worthless. You need data from a 30 minute race to get accurate info. 5 pulls on the chassis dyno will not give the same info.
 
Davey Dew, get your buddy Larry to stop playing with pointy cars and build a 1.6 SM. He has the talent required. But he needs a talented car also.


 
Mr Steyn, keep telling it like it is. Your heart is in the right place and you type better than I do. We will miss not seeing you in Florida this year.
 
Dave

Dave,there are plenty of $25,000 1.6 out there, they only cost $8,000 now !

The 1.6 has been out there longer then any other model so there should be plenty of data out there to use without us having to spend money to get what we need done.

I'm tired of argueing over this, so I will say you guys win. I will run my car this year until it sells and will be building a 99 and hope to get it out before the end of the year.

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

Another thing, how many of you guys on this sight have a 1.6 and sold it to buy a 99+ car ?

More then you know and why is that ?

It's not because it takes a lot of money to keep it at a top level prepped car,it's because it's no longer competitive period.
If it was still competitive there would be plenty of top guys running them period. End of discussion !!!

[Tom Sager]

My issue with the 1.6/1.8 NA situation is this

1. I personally think that the 1.6 and 1.8 NA drivers have received a raw deal and that your cars are not competitive with the 99’s and VVT NB cars.
2. I personally want the performance of the 1.6 and 1.8NA’s to be equalized with the 99’s and VVT NB cars, firstly with the hope of increasing field sizes, and secondly, to stop the incessant whining.
3. I do not own a 1.6 or 1.8 NA so I have NO vested interest in pursuing this, other than expressing a desire to see it done
4. The 1.6 and 1.8 NA drivers and car owners that should have some vested interest in pursuing a solution, simply cannot get together on what they want, and thus all discussions go round and round discussing flywheels, compression, weight, plate, and more.
5. No one is doing any testing to verify anything, so there are no definitive answers at all.
6. No leader has stepped up to take this on, organize the movement, and do the work required. (Steve Scheifler is a close as it gets)
7. So the discussion ends up becoming a circular whiny complaint ….we don’t like what we have, we don’t know what we want to make it better, but we are unhappy.
8. This continuous venting, whining, complaining, etc, especially by Dewhurst (who I consider a friend), without pulling together any constructive action, is actually DAMAGING your position, as you are distancing any potential allies you might have had.  Myself included.
9. Bottom Line – if you don’t like it, do something about it. So guys get it together, make this happen.

 

I hope this is taken in the spirit that it is meant…. Although I am sure I am delusional 

Hey Danny, I get the spirit in which this was written. I can't speak for the 1.6 camp but formal requests from 1.8ers have been made which haven't necessarily been posted on this site.  Data has been submitted.  Some requests were made nearly 18 months ago which are still awaiting reply and action. There's less whining about these cars because there is no longer a crowd to whine. These cars are now on the endangered species list kinda like redheads.  

[38bfast]

The flight away from the 1.6 is not entirely due to it not being competitive.

The 1.6 is the most dificult and expensive to get to a top level. As well as time and money to keep it there. If you want to get to the pointy end its difinatly the path with the most resistance.

The 99 is pushing the easy button. That and Drago lead the way. Monkey see monkey do.

Also rember that there has been some killer 1.6 built. Very rare but have been done. Of those cars they maybe just a tick under the 99s in race conditions. At some tracks over dogs in Q.

Then there is the 1.8. It's almost like Mazda stopped building Miatas from 1994 to 1997.

So if you were in the market for a new car you more than likely push the easy button. Just sayin.

That all being said IMHO the 99s and VVT cars have continued to develop.

[bmw251]

Does development include... Adjustable timing wheel, adj air/fuel reg...... rules to defeat cheater computers have benefited the 99+ cars..
Is that fair to say? I honestly think the Hoosier also has bigger benefits to the 99+. When the RA1 was in play the 99 was heavier and the tire was smaller which could lead to more possible fall off during a longer race in hot temperatures. Call me crazy but the tire itself is a problem to parity.

Greg

[Johnny D]

All that Ralph said is true but..

 

Just a counter point...

 

In some case people having 99+ car may still be mid packers.

 

If you don't know the track. Entering, exiting, little tricks you learn over time or with data or coaching.

If you make mistakes during a race, at a corner, miss shifts.

If you can't run at the limit for a whole race, and that limit is pretty high.

If you're learning racecraft, spotting a situation, reading the traffic, racing nose to tail, drafting, side by side through a turn, making a pass.

 

Budget may play a part.

Entry fees, Hotel, gas to the track, food, tires, tuning, adjusting, maintenance, maybe a blown engine or tranny.

Can you do a full season, with some end of the year events. Test days, HPDE, another club?

 

Is this for you,

maybe taking time off work.

Loading up, getting there, unloading, racing, maybe some issues, loading, getting home, unloading after a long weekend.

 

Better to rent and arrive and drive?

Is SSM a better option, bang for the buck.

 

Getting your feet wet in a 1.6 isn't bad and is a great tool.

Just what Ralph said is true.

J~

[38bfast]

So what are the pros of the 1.6?
They are without question the most fun to drive. Very sprited.
Light and nimble.
Lots available and cheap to get in.
A lot of people own them and would like to bring them into the game if there is hope.
They have legs on the top end
Higher rev limit
Used pars are dirt cheap.
The head lights flip up and down to wave at the corner workers
They are the cars that started the class.
No ugly airbag hole in the dash.
Easier on wheel bearings
Great coner speed
Great car to learn in.
You are looked at as a hero is you win a race.
More rewarding when driven well.
They will be able to double dip in vintage racing.

[ECOBRAP]

In my eyes, there are three pathways for parity here:

 

1. NA 1.6, NA 1.8, NB 1.8, VVT 1.8. These are four different cars, all with different characteristics. With this, there will obviously be overdogs and underdogs at each racetrack. This approach would require each type to be an overdog at 25% of tracks, both regionally and nationally. Near impossible to suggest adjustments... and stupid.

 

2. Track dependent parity restrictions. Give every type of car an equal shot at winning a race at every track. Near impossible to suggest adjustments.

 

3. Identical HP/TQ/WT/Handling across all types. Give every type of car an equal shot at winning a race at every track. Near impossible to suggest adjustments.

 

 

Like I said, all of these are immensely difficult to carry out which is why we don't really know what to ask for. Numbers one and two would require some of the most intensive calculations of the 21st century, by analyzing every track with HP/TQ/WT figures to predict laptimes by a perfect driver... good luck with that. Number three is almost equally far fetched, but likely our best option. Our biggest differentiation right now is the 10% lack of torque for the 1.6, and I think that should be our first goal.

 

Unfortunately, I'm nowhere near experienced or educated enough to solve that problem, but I do think that gearing is the most viable solution.

 

edit: Number one is also an option, but you will never get an equal dispersion of over/underdogs. The reason we expected something to be done is because 1.6's are not overdogs at any track nationwide.

[Johnny D]

So you'll never know until you send in a letter (that's SCCA)

How the camber bushings started, right?

 

Make a point, try to back it up with facts, give them something to really think about, cost, parity, would the class do it, like it, etc.

Could be voluntary. Get the car count up ??

The worst you'll get is "thank you for your comments the rule are fine as written"

 

As for track dependent track, there may be something there, but there needs to be feedback after SMAC/CRB suggest it or asks for feedback in Fastrack. (only from a letter) Do people want to be changing weights or RP's for each track, their changing setups, so...maybe with a chance to win.

 

This of course would be easier if the 1.6 had some help so the cars had room to adjust.

 

Then you get the whining from those who lost.

 

This may go over better regionally and could be easier for the SM director to grab the best drivers/car in region and go run at each track,

But takes time, a little $, and people willing to do it. Or the SMD knows the regional guys aren't going to make the change so maybe it's the Major guys ??

 

I would and I'd bet so would Mazda love to see a Daytona Runoffs, multiple lead changes from each model year during the whole race.

J~