146 replies to this topic

[ner88]

Yes, the NC will be coming, its evolution.

 

specific reason, they out number the NAs that care :-(

[ner88]

Jason, the move was much cheaper!

I loved my 1.6 have owned several along with a few 99's, the 1.6 is much more fun to drive.

Up north we had SM2 and my car was very competitive but after moving south and no SM2 in the future, it was time to move on.

 

All the modifications you talk about will not be accepted as it's not in keeping with the class philosophy.

[LarryKing]

 

it's not in keeping with the class philosophy.

 

Haaaaaa! CLASSIC!!!

 

ner88pps

[Bench Racer]

https://www.youtube....h?v=10N2qQu_nGM

[ECOBRAP]

Every time I have ran the numbers between upgrading to a 1.8 or properly building my 1.6, the 1.8 is $6k more expensive at the least. I would love to see some justification on how the 1.8 is cheaper.

[Jason J Ball]

All the modifications you talk about will not be accepted as it's not in keeping with the class philosophy.

 

So now the class philosophy is buy/build a 99+ car for ~$30k, don't spend ~$1-2K to keep an older  car competitive! Love it!!!

[James York]

Because ALL one-six drivers race ONLY 4 weekends a year.

 

It's a commonly known fact.

 

It applies to ANY car and ANY class.

 

I applied it to 1.6 drivers really in error, but MOST of the 1.6 driver/owners bitching constantly do not race actively, put the effort forth and do not have a fully prepped car.  Believe what you want about that possiblity.  Perhaps suggesting some logical fact driven improvement ideas to help your car would do more good for the 1.6 than your typical commentary.

[James York]

James,

 

How is that not pertinent to parity. Its the slow march of SM towards 99+ only. What were the top 9 at the runoffs again??? 

 

I say it is not pertinent to parity discussion because you wouldn't make a rule change if the podium was say totally captured by, using your words and illustrating my point, by cheated 95s.  I think adjustments to parity are based on fully prepped legal cars.  That is all I am saying.  Non-compliant cars were found and finishing positions changed.

 

And I am sure the top 9 best drivers placed in the top positions in the Runoffs.  With or without the varying degrees of non-compliant heads with STR work.

[James York]

All the smac needs to do is look at the last 3 years of runoffs and see where the 1.6s have finished and there is your answer.
Then it should be up to them to make the changes needed to get closer parity not us. That is the big show and that's the one that matters the most.

 

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that the 1.6 could use an adjustment to enhance performance.

 

I believe the issue at hand, it what rule change (adjustment) is needed to get the balance better.

[Bench Racer]

[davew]

Dave, make sure your graphs are actual comparisons of our apple to a DIY apple.

 

Does the base line graph have: tuned airflow meter, good air filter/intake, adjustable fuel pressure, timing advanced, proper SCCA spec Miata valve job, what exhaust?

 

Without all the facts, all you are doing is pi$$1ng into the wind. Which gets your shoes wet.

 

I'll say it again, if you have accurate data from a 100% built 1.6 Spec Miata to compare to a 100% built 99 Spec Miata on the racetrack, then we can talk. Without accurate data your shoes just get wetter.

 

dave

[SaulSpeedwell]

Worth repeating again...Road America killed the 1.6...be it intentional or not. Laguna threw gas on the fire! Daytona???

 

The 1.6 ain't bad at Road America!  RA isn't really a "torque track", except a couple of places.

 

Everyone thinks Mid Ohio is a "handling track", but for SM, Mid Ohio is a TORQUE track.  Keyhole, Carousel, Turn 1 (uphill), it's all very low on the tach for an SM.  The overall histogram of RPM at Mid Ohio is LOW.  With few passing zones and plenty of "parking lot" corners, all the 1.6 is good for at Mid O is qualifying!  (Unless you can see your breath at racetime, then you might be OK!)

 

Mid Ohio will be awful for the 1.6 and lovely for whatever car has the most torque in the high 5s/low 6s on the tach

[Ron Alan]

The 1.6 ain't bad at Road America! RA isn't really a "torque track", except a couple of places.

Everyone thinks Mid Ohio is a "handling track", but for SM, Mid Ohio is a TORQUE track. Keyhole, Carousel, Turn 1 (uphill), it's all very low on the tach for an SM. The overall histogram of RPM at Mid Ohio is LOW. With few passing zones and plenty of "parking lot" corners, all the 1.6 is good for at Mid O is qualifying! (Unless you can see your breath at racetime, then you might be OK!)

Mid Ohio will be awful for the 1.6 and lovely for whatever car has the most torque in the high 5s/low 6s on the tach

Regarding RA...
My thinking was more along the ability to get from 100mph to 120mph...aero, torque and power combo. If I'm way off...happy to be corrected!

[Cnj]

I don't "feel" disadvantaged, I "am" disadvantaged. Anyone who drives an NA car in this class is disadvantaged. And if you think I called all NB owners Cheaters, that's fine with me. Just tell me how the current situation (rules changes to head machining and compression testing) came about! Let me summarize for you, some folks found that by keeping the valve cover on during compression testing the readings came back lower and pushed the compression up until it read to spec knowing full well they were gaining actual compression over spec, and some other folks (maybe the same) took the plunge cut and then massaged the STR a little, and then someone else massaged it a little more, etc... And here we are today with a revised testing plan on compression testing and an allowance for massaging the STR that was clearly not allowed before. Some folks cheated and now that cheat is allowed within the rules, its now a fact for all SM. But its very small you say, a cheat, is a cheat, is a cheat no matter how you sugar coat it. All I was advocating was what the rest of us feel is happening, cheaters get rewarded with now legal cheats. So let the NA crowd join in the FUN and do the same thing since we aren't going to get help any other way.

Jason, last month I was beaten to the finish line by a 1.6 who was later found to have illegal fuel. By your logic that would make all 1.6 drivers cheaters.

Your verbiage then suggests that I think a small cheat is not a cheat. How do you know what I think? For the record I think the rules are the rules. And I have broken them every time I bump drafted someone in an SCCA race. How about you, ever bump draft (cheat)? If we are going to call every broken rule a cheat them lets be consistent.

Incidently no compression ratio rule was changed to accommodate cars found to be cheating compression and the Runnoffs STR illegals would (according to Wheels best knowledge) still be illegal under the clarified rule. A better example to support your case of cheats being made legal is the new camber rule (a good rule in my opinion) but this was clearly an equal opportunity cheat for every year.

For the record I am sympathetic to the cause and would be fine with seeing the 1.6's get a minor performance improvement. Not because I think anyone has produced useable data to support this (posts of torque curves alone for cars of unequal wieght is not useable data), but because I think it would not hurt the class to give 1.6's a small bump in performance and let things play out for a while. However I am bemused at the vociferous complaints on the web site with no quantification of the disadvantage (reciting Runnoffs winners is not data) or unity in proposed solutions. Right now several of you could unite and make the argument for (modest) lower wieght and probably get it approved rapidly. Tell you what, come up with a reasonable number and I will write a letter to support it. Or the vociferous 1.6 posters could continue going round in circles and lose another year. And blame NB drivers for it.

CNJ

[Bench Racer]

 Not because I think anyone has produced useable data to support this (posts of torque curves alone for cars of unequal wieght is not useable data), but because I think it would not hurt the class to give 1.6's a small bump in performance and let things play out for a while.

 

However I am bemused at the vociferous complaints on the web site with no quantification of the disadvantage (reciting Runnoffs winners is not data) or unity in proposed solutions.

 

Right now several of you could unite and make the argument for (modest) lower wieght and probably get it approved rapidly.

 

CNJ

Christmass in getting  in the way, Merry Christmass to all. Think about the three items underlined. I shall return.

 

David Dewhurst

[Cnj]

Merry Christmas David.

CNJ

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

I asked Santa for some TQ so I'm good I don't know about you guys !

Merry Christmas everyone !!!!!

[Jason J Ball]

Jason, last month I was beaten to the finish line by a 1.6 who was later found to have illegal fuel. By your logic that would make all 1.6 drivers cheaters.

Your verbiage then suggests that I think a small cheat is not a cheat. How do you know what I think? For the record I think the rules are the rules. And I have broken them every time I bump drafted someone in an SCCA race. How about you, ever bump draft (cheat)? If we are going to call every broken rule a cheat them lets be consistent.

Incidently no compression ratio rule was changed to accommodate cars found to be cheating compression and the Runnoffs STR illegals would (according to Wheels best knowledge) still be illegal under the clarified rule. A better example to support your case of cheats being made legal is the new camber rule (a good rule in my opinion) but this was clearly an equal opportunity cheat for every year.

For the record I am sympathetic to the cause and would be fine with seeing the 1.6's get a minor performance improvement. Not because I think anyone has produced useable data to support this (posts of torque curves alone for cars of unequal wieght is not useable data), but because I think it would not hurt the class to give 1.6's a small bump in performance and let things play out for a while. However I am bemused at the vociferous complaints on the web site with no quantification of the disadvantage (reciting Runnoffs winners is not data) or unity in proposed solutions. Right now several of you could unite and make the argument for (modest) lower wieght and probably get it approved rapidly. Tell you what, come up with a reasonable number and I will write a letter to support it. Or the vociferous 1.6 posters could continue going round in circles and lose another year. And blame NB drivers for it.

CNJ

That's good +1 for the 1.6l. I have and do beat a few NB's in NASA MID Atlantic. Finishing 8th out of 25 cars isn't bad. I'll concede the nut behind my 1.6l wheel needs more practice. I do not adjust setup at the track other than tire pressures. My car could use a Comp Diff (on top of my list of upgrades for this yr) and radiator (never had overheating issues), but my build is no slouch. Total tub up build, made 117hp before I had the headwork done last summer. FPR and Wideband 02 logged with my Traqmate which I adjust for conditions. Torque is my cars biggest issue, 101.8 ft-lbs max, closest dyno to me now is in Charlotte (3hrs away) since Long Road Racing stopped offering services. My torque definitely improved with the headwork, how much IDK! They bumped our weight 3yrs ago to try a close the weight gap, it needs to go back down, it only moved the 1.6l farther back. There are very few 1.6l in the last 3 yrs that could run at the front. Maybe its a function of everyone saw the forest for the trees and jumped ship to a newer ride. And I disagree with you the runoffs winners is not data, if they could win with a top prepped 1.6l, it would be at the front of every field, because it is faster through most corners. So, we will have parity we a 1.6l is on the podium of every event, that is true parity. Not here or there 1 outlyer on specific tracks. Yes there are some tracks that do have a single 1.6l in the mix at the front, but those are what you call aberrations in data.

 

When you switched to the 1.8l did you instantly move up the field several spots because it was easier to tune and drive? I've been looking for a good deal on an 01+ to build a new car, but I can't sell my current car for enough to make the move. And I refuse to give it away. 

[Waterboy]

That's good +1 for the 1.6l. I have and do beat a few NB's in NASA MID Atlantic. Finishing 8th out of 25 cars isn't bad. I'll concede the nut behind my 1.6l wheel needs more practice. I do not adjust setup at the track other than tire pressures. My car could use a Comp Diff (on top of my list of upgrades for this yr) and radiator (never had overheating issues), but my build is no slouch. Total tub up build, made 117hp before I had the headwork done last summer. FPR and Wideband 02 logged with my Traqmate which I adjust for conditions. Torque is my cars biggest issue, 101.8 ft-lbs max, closest dyno to me now is in Charlotte (3hrs away) since Long Road Racing stopped offering services. My torque definitely improved with the headwork, how much IDK! They bumped our weight 3yrs ago to try a close the weight gap, it needs to go back down, it only moved the 1.6l farther back. There are very few 1.6l in the last 3 yrs that could run at the front. Maybe its a function of everyone saw the forest for the trees and jumped ship to a newer ride. And I disagree with you the runoffs winners is not data, if they could win with a top prepped 1.6l, it would be at the front of every field, because it is faster through most corners. So, we will have parity we a 1.6l is on the podium of every event, that is true parity. Not here or there 1 outlyer on specific tracks. Yes there are some tracks that do have a single 1.6l in the mix at the front, but those are what you call aberrations in data.

When you switched to the 1.8l did you instantly move up the field several spots because it was easier to tune and drive? I've been looking for a good deal on an 01+ to build a new car, but I can't sell my current car for enough to make the move. And I refuse to give it away.

A 1.6 won the SCCA mid Atlantic championship this year, as well as most other years. And the SCCA mid Atlantic series had closer/tougher competition than nasa.

[Cnj]

That's good +1 for the 1.6l. I have and do beat a few NB's in NASA MID Atlantic. Finishing 8th out of 25 cars isn't bad. I'll concede the nut behind my 1.6l wheel needs more practice. I do not adjust setup at the track other than tire pressures. My car could use a Comp Diff (on top of my list of upgrades for this yr) and radiator (never had overheating issues), but my build is no slouch. Total tub up build, made 117hp before I had the headwork done last summer. FPR and Wideband 02 logged with my Traqmate which I adjust for conditions. Torque is my cars biggest issue, 101.8 ft-lbs max, closest dyno to me now is in Charlotte (3hrs away) since Long Road Racing stopped offering services. My torque definitely improved with the headwork, how much IDK! They bumped our weight 3yrs ago to try a close the weight gap, it needs to go back down, it only moved the 1.6l farther back. There are very few 1.6l in the last 3 yrs that could run at the front. Maybe its a function of everyone saw the forest for the trees and jumped ship to a newer ride. And I disagree with you the runoffs winners is not data, if they could win with a top prepped 1.6l, it would be at the front of every field, because it is faster through most corners. So, we will have parity we a 1.6l is on the podium of every event, that is true parity. Not here or there 1 outlyer on specific tracks. Yes there are some tracks that do have a single 1.6l in the mix at the front, but those are what you call aberrations in data.
 
When you switched to the 1.8l did you instantly move up the field several spots because it was easier to tune and drive? I've been looking for a good deal on an 01+ to build a new car, but I can't sell my current car for enough to make the move. And I refuse to give it away.

Jason - first of all hope you are having a great Christmas day.

Based on my experience racing decent/good 1.6's (which I consider apocryphal and not definitive data), I could see the 1.6's getting enough weight loss to pick up perhaps 0.2s on a 3 mile circuit - thus 2 seconds in a typical race. Any more advantage than this and they will totally dominate if well prepared and driven. I understand fully that the concern for 1.6 drivers is more than just lap time. I also know that a weight loss won't help some drivers who are already at the weight limit, but the options for changes (in the short term) are weight and plates. I don't support making my 99 drink through a (yet) smaller straw, so weight loss it is.

Respectfully, it appears your 1.6 would get stomped on by a really well prepared 1.6 based on the numbers you have listed (of course dynos vary). Incidently, I have always owned a 99, although I have driven 1.6's on several occasions. My position in the field improved after I spent money on the car, track time and some coaching. Or maybe I just have a big motor with lots of torque

CNJ.