146 replies to this topic

[Bruce Wilson]

1.6 might be good in time trials but we are talking racing here, no?

[LarryKing]

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

 

And you got this info where?

 

Wasn't that being said before the 2014 Runoff - that the one-sixes would be a factor - that MLS was a "good" track for them? I know I read that on this site, pretty sure more than one person theorized that.

 

Imagine my surprise when I didn't see a whole herd of one-sixes at the front of the field.

[Bench Racer]

Wasn't that being said before the 2014 Runoff - that the one-sixes would be a factor - that MLS was a "good" track for them? I know I read that on this site, pretty sure more than one person theorized that.
 
Imagine my surprise when I didn't see a whole herd of one-sixes at the front of the field.

We  agree, not that anyone gives a $hit, but someone I know very well predicted come 2014 runoffs time the 99 plus cars would take over at the Runoffs. > 

[Jim Drago]

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.

 

Jims comments were actually related.. not saying I can't be wrong though

Pre runoffs.. I never thought 1.6 would be a good option for Laguna... Post Runoffs, I am not so sure someone didn't miss a really good opportunity.  You know what they say about "opinions"  everyone has one and I can be wrong like everyone else, but post Laguna, I don't think so.  

[Ron Alan]

Ok...I will back up a little. The 1.6 has won at Laguna much more than it has lost in the last 4 years. Main reason is the best drivers and most of the top drivers have been in them. Until this year, locally the 99 was only driven by a few and the early NA cars had no drivers in them(1 exception). Then Brian G came back out last year with his 99 and opened the eyes of some of the best West coast drivers.

As Bruce said...alone, the 1.6 is right there with a light load of gas and before it gets heat soaked(in some cases). But in race conditions(speaking Laguna here)it is not the car to race from behind. And in front, it's only a matter of time for a similar prepped 1.8 car and driver to walk by up the hill. Once behind, the 1.6 car will not get back by(again I'm assuming equal drivers and prep with no mistakes)and will loose a little each lap between 5-8.

I think what you may be remembering David and Denny is that the 1.6 car has dominated the West coast for years...no reason for anyone to change because they were winning! Suddenly those drivers got beat(again, Laguna)and it became obvious why. Regionally it didn't matter but suddenly the big show was coming and like RA...most realized what weapon to bring. If the 1.6 was the weapon to have, Drennan, Hayes, Jordan, Sutherland,Schrader, and many others would have come in them.

I don't know the STL rules but if there is a huge weight difference between a fully prepped 1.6 and a 1.8 then I get What you are saying.

[Jim Drago]

I don't know the STL rules but if there is a huge weight difference between a fully prepped 1.6 and a 1.8 then I get What you are saying.

about 355 lbs but we get about 10-15 more hp:(

[LarryKing]

So there IS parity in SM. (as long as we are comparing a '99 to a '99)

[Ron Alan]

about 355 lbs but we get about 10-15 more hp:(

Yikes...3 teenagers!

[Bench Racer]

Yikes...3 teenagers!

No way three left coast beach teenagers come in at 355 total. Midwest, you bet they do.

 

Ron, my point/prediction a year before the 2014 Runoffs was, they'll (the pointy end 1.6er's) learn in a hurry once a pointy end 99 shows up. My comments are nothing more or nothing less.

[1.6 Montana]

"Just to note, if you would like to have the rules changed for any one year of car, I.e 1.6 cold air intake. Please get your ducks in a row. Get member suport and documentation and testing to support your request. Do not expect the SMAC to do your research and testing for your request. An example would be just don't write a letter saying the 1.6 should get a header and that's it. Name the brand or brands of header and include data from a relibale source validating your request. Then campaign with your fellow competitors to support your request. Again rember that we will not be able to make rule changes till 2016. But now is a great time to get started.

Contrary to popular belief the SMAC does want parity with all years. We belive that you should be able to win with what every flavor you chose to race. No BS."

This tells me we should try and agree on a path??

As hard as it was for the STR debate.... I know it won't be easy but we gotta start somewhere.

Is it a bolt on piece or is it a mod??

Just a question to get folks who are smarter than I to weigh in!!

1.6er

[38bfast]

The 1.6 and 1.8 gang has been bitching for years. But that is all that has happened. if you want change you are going to have to do your homework. Asking for adjustment without validation is not going to cut it. Ball is in your court.

[Andy Mitchell]

Was there an organized lobby (with testing) asking for those offset front end bushings? I think they are a great idea, but it sure didn't seem to me that there was the sort of organized effort associated with that change that you are say has to be behind any future parity adjustment.

 

Just sayin' . I'm not even a SCCA member!

[James York]

Was there an organized lobby (with testing) asking for those offset front end bushings? I think they are a great idea, but it sure didn't seem to me that there was the sort of organized effort associated with that change that you are say has to be behind any future parity adjustment.

 

Just sayin' . I'm not even a SCCA member!

No.  But somebody wrote in with the idea and it impacts all cars equally.  Not even the same orange as an adjustment to make the car parity different.

[Bench Racer]

The 1.6 and 1.8 gang has been bitching for years. But that is all that has happened. if you want change you are going to have to do your homework. Asking for adjustment without validation is not going to cut it. Ball is in your court.

 

"Just to note, if you would like to have the rules changed for any one year of car, I.e 1.6 cold air intake. Please get your ducks in a row. Get member suport and documentation and testing to support your request. Do not expect the SMAC to do your research and testing for your request. An example would be just don't write a letter saying the 1.6 should get a header and that's it. Name the brand or brands of header and include data from a relibale source validating your request. Then campaign with your fellow competitors to support your request. Again rember that we will not be able to make rule changes till 2016. But now is a great time to get started.

Contrary to popular belief the SMAC does want parity with all years. We belive that you should be able to win with what every flavor you chose to race. No BS."

This tells me we should try and agree on a path??

As hard as it was for the STR debate.... I know it won't be easy but we gotta start somewhere.

Is it a bolt on piece or is it a mod??

Just a question to get folks who are smarter than I to weigh in!!

1.6er

1.6 Montana, your post indicates your on the SCCA SMAC. Who are you?

 

1.6er's, these two posts ^ tell how to deliver our written letter request/requests to the SCCA CRB/SMAC. My whole point of this thread was to get the 1.6er's on board. Thust me, there are 1.6er's that read and post that have not indicated the own/drive a 1.6. For starters, we each need to each post (or if talking through pm's or e-mail works better, lets do it) one or more potential improvements/short falls of the 1.6, brakes, suspension, areo, ECU, torque, horsepower or whatever we beleive is an issue that keeps the 1.6 from racing heads up with the 99 plus cars. 

  

The number one issue I view is the lack of torque the 1.6 has below 5,500 rpm compared to the 99 plus cars. Why do I say, lack of torque, how many drag races below 5,500 rpm have you in your 1.6 won against a 99 plus car? When I compare the weight in pounds/pound foot converted to pure pounds of the1.6 to the 99 car, the 1.6 must accelerate considerable more weight in pounds. More details on the converted numbers and potential process to improve coming at a future date. 

 

David Dewhurst

SCCA 250772

[Cnj]

Bench,

1.6 Montana was quoting (see quote marks) an earlier post which I believe was from Ralph.

CNJ

[Bench Racer]

Bench,

1.6 Montana was quoting (see quote marks) an earlier post which I believe was from Ralph.

CNJ

Sorry, missed them.

[Chris Ashcraft]

Chris Ashcraft

Owner/driver of a NA 1.6

Scca #454590

 

Maybe we could do a group chat or a web based group meeting for the NA 1.6 and get a group of people on board to summit something for review.

[1.6 Montana]

Dave,

CNJ is correct I was quoting an earlier post. I just couldn't figure out how to reply to a post from another thread??

I am your typical 1.6er or who doesn't get a chance to race that often. I'm not saying that I would race a ton more if my car was more competitive; however, it would be an incentive to get to the track more often when time allowed (in my personal situation) and obviously really help those who compete consistently.

Dave, if you're the one who started this thread then you're the reason I'm here. I felt like I needed to get involved and share my voice as a fellow 1.6 driver. I agree that torque is the issue but don't have enough experience or technical prowess to come up with a great solution. I do however feel that a bolt on solution of some sort would be the easiest and best. (Header, flywheel??)

If we do need a "united voice" then let's throw out some more suggestions, come to a conclusion/consensus and send off a petition or letter or whatever else might be useful.

Again, thank you for getting the ball rolling!

Andy

SCCA
352911

[Johnny D]

Was there an organized lobby (with testing) asking for those offset front end bushings? I think they are a great idea, but it sure didn't seem to me that there was the sort of organized effort associated with that change that you are say has to be behind any future parity adjustment.
 
Just sayin' . I'm not even a SCCA member!

I don't know what was the chicken or the egg 1st with the request, but it was brought up about guys getting more camber than possible, leading to bent parts and those that had them and knowing where you may be able to get them. Then it turned to how to catch them in tech, fixtures, alignment stations in tech. Seemed a bit much.

 

The SMAC, all the way up to the top, has to make difficult choices all the time for betterment of the class to keep it fair, try not to rule creep, keep cost down, etc.

My guess after review the cheapest, fairest, keep the class a equal as possible, because it would happen was to go to the bushing.

J~

[Mike Babcock]

Mike Babcock

Owner/Operator of an NA 1.6

SCCA - 412959

NASA - 109603

 

"Be careful what you wish for"... isn't that how the saying goes?  There's no doubt in my mind that the 1.6 is at a disadvantage.  While I'd love to see all the lap data and dyno data crunched into some tangible proof... I realized that I need look no further than the average market value difference between the NA 1.6 and the NB.  Basically you can have a 1.6 for half the money.  Additionally, if the 1.6 were a real contender, the guys with substantial racing budgets would show up to the races with one of each car in the tractor trailer rig.  I've not yet seen that actually happen.

 

Having said that... earlier this year, I watched Joey Jordan wax a field of damn good drivers in his 1.6 at the Inde Majors.  Yes, that's likely more of a 1.6 track... but he managed to place very well at other venues in that same car.  I've heard/read similar stories of very good drivers in well-prepped 1.6 cars finishing on the podium, and winning races.  Hate to admit it, but it appears that it can be done.

 

I would love to put a shiney new header and light weight flywheel on my car... but so would Joey.  And then he'd go smoke all the NB's out there, and then THEY'D start a revolution to drop weight and RP's... and get Jennifer Lawrence to be their Mocking Jay, and bla bla blaaa.... never ends.  

 

So... what's the real problem?  Lack of torque?  Outdated suspension bits?  How about simply... the undervaluation of the 1.6 cars?  I mean, if I could trade out of my 1.6 today, for an equally-well prepped '99... and if all other 1.6 owners could do the same... would this thread even exist?  

 

Personally, I think the biggest problem with the 1.6 is the inconsistency with engine performance.  It's much more vulnerable to the external variables (air temp, humidity, et al) than the 1.8.  So in order to make it go fast enough... you gotta be both really lucky and really good.  In an NB, I think you could do well most of the time if you were just really good.

 

I think solving the heat-soak issue would be a step in the right direction.  I also think dumping the AFM would go a long way toward that goal.  If we can get consistent performance out of the 1.6... similar to the 1.8, then we can monitor and go from there.