146 replies to this topic

[James York]

My perception is that parity among 1.6s would have been upset.  Would turn into a bit of wallet racing among the 1.6 crowd IMO.  Those with $ would upgrade and gain whatever potential benefit was involved.  That change alone is still unlikely to get the 1.6 up to par with the 99.

So you are willing to accept zero unless you think it totally meets your expectation of putting a 1.6 on par with a 99.  Interesting philosophy.  There is a bunch of optional expenses with varying degree of impact that drivers elect to use or not.

 

Isn't the SM class wallet racing anyway in some sense?  How often do you test and put on fresh tires compared to others.  More, less......

 

I didn't think there was any wallet racers left in the 1.6 anyhow from what I read.  They all bought and moved on to 99s+.

[Jim Drago]

 
I'm sorry Brandon but I'm against any suspension parts and it not because I don't want to spend money,

 

REAL SIMPLE!!

Don't put them on! Many of the 1.6 "experts" also shit canned that proposal and that resistance had the BOD vote it down, so no one was permitted because of a vocal few. Makes sense to me   Perhaps there is more than one issue that needs addressing or can be helped?  this doesn't need to be an either or deal. Why would you dismiss a better part(s) to be allowed to be put on your car that is on other cars that you compete against you? This is cutting off your noses to spite your face. 

[Johnny D]

Did the bushing that gave more camber get approved ?

How much closer does that get them now ?

J~

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

REAL SIMPLE!!
Don't put them on! Many of the 1.6 "experts" also shit canned that deal and that made it where no one was permitted. Perhaps there is more than one issue that needs addressing?  It isn't an all or nothing. If a better part exists and would be allowed to be put on your car, why in the world would you be opposed?

I understand Jim. I'm never against anyone choice of trying it I'm just saying I wouldnt spend my money on as I feel it wouldn't benefit me. Now I never voted against it and the guys that did decided the same thing or they where cheap ( I Dont know witch ).

I feel that at a national level they should be mandated to run the parts. now if they don't want to they can always run regionals and making it optional to help them guys save some money !

[Alberto]

So you are willing to accept zero unless you think it totally meets your expectation of putting a 1.6 on par with a 99.  Interesting philosophy.  There is a bunch of optional expenses with varying degree of impact that drivers elect to use or not.

 

Isn't the SM class wallet racing anyway in some sense?  How often do you test and put on fresh tires compared to others.  More, less......

 

I didn't think there was any wallet racers left in the 1.6 anyhow from what I read.  They all bought and moved on to 99s+.

 

My "philosophy" is as follows - If you are going to create a rule to allow me to improve my car, make the improvement worth the cost involved.   

 

Do you have any data that would quantify the improvement in lap times by allowing the NB suspension parts?  At the time, there was no data.  4 years ago when the rule proposal was made, the full on migration to the NB chassis was still picking up steam.  

 

I could be blind to the benefit but a compelling case to allow it was never made.

 

 

You guys do have a point on it being optional though.

[Johnny D]

That's what killing me here. Everything is optional.

 

If the rule says you can take off .010 off, it's optional, run stock if you want.

So why not say take .05 off (whatever is the correct number) if it helps you get parity.

 

And I don't see the difference to take .010 or .050 off, where's the cost, your still taking something off ?

 

But when all is said and done, was it worth it to make an apple into an orange, or just go get an orange?

Carry on,

J~

[Bench Racer]

REAL SIMPLE!!

Don't put them on! Many of the 1.6 "experts" also shit canned that proposal and that resistance had the BOD vote it down, so no one was permitted because of a vocal few. Makes sense to me   Perhaps there is more than one issue that needs addressing or can be helped?  this doesn't need to be an either or deal. Why would you dismiss a better part(s) to be allowed to be put on your car that is on other cars that you compete against you? This is cutting off your noses to spite your face. 

Excuses!!! I may have lipped off on this site about the 99 suspension parts on a 1.6, don't remember writting a letter.

And the "experts" that proposed the 99 suspension parts never did validate how the 1.6 with suspension parts would compete with the 99 plus in the torque department below 5,500 rpm. And please don't start the, we never race below 5,500 rpm. Did anyone on the SMAC/CRB ever on this site float the idea of dropping the 99 engine in the NA chassis.

 

This stuff is all said with a     

[1.6 Montana]

I have never met anyone on here so I hopefully won't offend and have no background to even start.

I didn't even know about the suspension discussion and humbly submit that it's benefits seem marginal..... however appreciated.

Back to the discussion.....Torque is the answer
And I think again, most 1.6ers (including myself) would pay 2-3k or more for REAL numbers. If it puts down more power we will sign up and pay!

Build it and they will come!

Once again I'm new here and don't have any back ground or technical savvy, is torque that hard to come by???

[Jim Drago]

Excuses!!! I may have lipped off on this site about the 99 suspension parts on a 1.6, don't remember writting a letter.

And the "experts" that proposed the 99 suspension parts never did validate how the 1.6 with suspension parts would compete with the 99 plus in the torque department below 5,500 rpm. And please don't start the, we never race below 5,500 rpm. Did anyone on the SMAC/CRB ever on this site float the idea of dropping the 99 engine in the NA chassis.

 

This stuff is all said with a     

You had recently finished your car and had bought all new subframes for the 1.6 from Mazda and were not happy about it and opposed it( yes letter sent) with the same comments as above. It was NOT proposed as a competition adjustment. Never an answer for the TQ, never proposed as one.  

[Bench Racer]

You had recently finished your car and had bought all new subframes for the 1.6 from Mazda and were not happy about it and opposed it with the same comments as above. It was NOT proposed as a competition adjustment. Never an answer for the TQ, never proposed as one.  

You would be correct about the sub-frames, that I had just spent $7-$800.00 on them. And control arms and, and, and for an NA chassis.

[LarryKing]

TOP TEN THINGS NB OWNERS SAY TO NA OWNERS

 

10. Spec Miata is not a spec class

9. All racing is "wallet racing" and there's no such thing as a "low cost" class

8. People cheated a lot more in the "old days"

7. You can always run SSM or ITA or SRF

6. Sealed drivetrains won't work

5. Parity is track dependent

4. There are plenty of competitive 1.6s on the west coast

3. There are no "top build" 1.6 cars

2. You can always find a race in the back of the pack

 

And the number one thing NB owners say to NA owners:

If you're not willing to strip your car to the tub and replace the frames, suspension, brakes, steering, the entire drivetrain and the wiring harness to theoretically be competitive, well then, you have no room to complain.

[Qik Nip]

Second NA run over ten + years

Current car is a 1990 1.6

Steward motor w / plunge cut head

Exhaust manifold / down pipe picked from dozens flow tested

Fat Cat bump stops

Adjustable pressure regulator

75 lbs ballast

Chin spoiler

Freshened suspension

Hundreds spent on dyno tuning

More hundreds spent corner balkancing and set up

Countless hours spend accumulating data to enhance performance

Bottom line: Everything legal has been done and 99's still jerk my bones exiting corners.

 

Maybe the answer is to let NA's run the plunge cut heads and take no weight penalty.

Rick

[Bruce Wilson]

There are LOTS of top build 1.6 cars around here.  There are some that would even trump the best top builder 99 cars.  Frame-jig built cages, all new parts, CF seats, full DAQ, tub painted, powder coated suspensions, etc, etc.

[LarryKing]

 

There are LOTS of top build 1.6 cars around here. There are some that would even trump the best top builder 99 cars. Frame-jig built cages, all new parts, CF seats, full DAQ, tub painted, powder coated suspensions, etc, etc.

 

They must have sat-out this year's Runoffs.

[Bruce Wilson]

Of course, why would anyone who thought they had a chance based on driving skills take a 1.6 to Laguna?  People do own multiple cars and sponsors help when they can.  There's several really nice cars parked, that's for sure.

[LarryKing]

 

Of course, why would anyone who thought they had a chance based on driving skills take a 1.6 to Laguna?

 

Now I'm confused as I've been assured that parity has never been closer.

 

Equally odd because Mazda/LS is a "one-six track"

[Jim Drago]

Best Answer

Of course, why would anyone who thought they had a chance based on driving skills take a 1.6 to Laguna?  People do own multiple cars and sponsors help when they can.  There's several really nice cars parked, that's for sure.

After racing in STL at Laguna, I disagree! I didn't feel that way headed there though. If I went there again tomorrow, I would be racing my STL with a 1.6 engine, not the 1.8. the additional weight KILLED the car.  I think a good 1.6 SM carrying 100 lbs less weight should have been a good choice, perhaps over looked? Probably tested, these are just my thoughts after the STL race  

[ECOBRAP]

After racing in STL at Laguna, I disagree! I didn't feel that way headed there though. If I went there again tomorrow, I would be racing my STL with a 1.6 engine, not the 1.8. the additional weight KILLED the car.  I think a good 1.6 SM carrying 100 lbs less weight should have been a good choice, perhaps over looked? Probably tested, these are just my thoughts after the STL race 

 

 

Unfortunately the 1.6 gets destroyed without the torque to get up the hills, Coming out of T6 onto the Rahal Straight we are at the bottom of fourth gear and get stuck doing 84mph, and won't accelerate until we crest the hill. Same goes for the front straight, we hit the bottom of fourth as we approach the start/finish and will get pulled by a 1.8 until we get over the hill. Also, staying in the third over the corkscrew looses a bit of time for us without that torque.

 

edit: we do haul ass out of T4 though :]

[Bench Racer]

 If I went there again tomorrow, I would be racing my STL with a 1.6 engine, not the 1.8. the additional weight KILLED the car.  I think a good 1.6 SM carrying 100 lbs less weight should have been a good choice, perhaps over looked?

 

TopGear ^

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ron Alan]

Equally odd because Mazda/LS is a "one-six track"

And you got this info where?

Jim's comment is strictly a STL built car...I don't think this is SM related at all.