390 replies to this topic

[Tom Scheifler]

+1 for NOT creating a separate 1.6 class.

And I agree with others who would be willing to spend 5-10K on my 1.6 once I felt it was the primary reason I could not win a major.

[Erik Hardy]

I agree with you with the caveat of "right now".  However, the question wasn't phrased as such.  So....presuppose a time when no one is faster in your car than you are.  You are at the limit and finishing in the top 3-5 every race.  You are the highest placing 1.6L in every race you enter.  Now...you learn through your own data gathering or the data of others you trust...that your 1.6L is just a tick off from the cars that are on the podium. 

 

What would you spend? 

 

I'm with Stephanie....in the 5k range.  Other than the fact that I really like how the 1.6L drives....above $5k and I'd have to weigh the options for a new tub. 

 

But, if I'm spending money this way, I still want the car to be a 1.6L at the end of the process.   If all I'm doing is dropping in a VVT, updating the suspension, and adding weight....then its just a bug-eyed VVT and no longer a 1.6L. 

 

I would have to have a very honest conversation with myself; Am I doing this for a career change or am I doing it to enjoy racing and the atmosphere that surrounds the track? 

 

If I truly am the best at the wheel (lets be honest here and consider how rare that is), then at that point I would be chasing tenths and I wouldn't fight the fight and build the most competitive car I could. I wouldn't put 5k into my current car, I would sell the car for 7k, take that 5k and build a 12k 99 or VVT. I wouldn't fight the fight. I believe the difference in parity in equally prepped cars is tenths, and if that's what I needed to make a career change then I would consider it.

 

However, that is suggesting I'm going to make leaps and bounds and become a professional racing driver. I am so far away from that statement that it is ridiculous. Unless if something happens financially, its not even an option to invest that much into single digit horsepower gains, I cringe just thinking about it. I'm here to enjoy the sport and am doing my best to drag it out for many years to come. 

 

If its not for a career change and just a hobby, I don't see the need to have a very expensive trophy at the end of the day. I flat spotted my only sm7 tires at NCM during an off, which means I will be skipping mid-ohio in a couple weeks. I have to be careful where money goes, and I suspect that is the point of the class. To be able to run competitively with a limited budget and the rules allow for that to happen very well. Make sense? We all have different budgets and goals in mind, so I'm sure that skews things.

[Blake Thompson]

yeah but still.

[davew]

Can we agree that the 99 and VVT cars are about as equal as we are going to get them.

 

Thank You

 

Can we agree that the simple bolt on things like a light flywheel or a header is NOT the answer the 1.6ers want.

 

Thank You

 

Can we agree that we (SCCA/NASA? other groups) are not going to slow down the NB cars.

 

Thank You

 

So how do we make the NA cars as close as possible to the NB? That is the $64,000 question.

 

First, put them on the same suspension components. New would cost $2000 in parts, but used parts are available and the job could be done for under $1000 parts and labor. Now all years drive the same. More like a spec class.

 

Torque is pretty closely related to engine size. Not directly, but within our logical limits, that is the big deal. So let's specificly allow the 1.6 chassis to run a NA1.8 engine. If doing this at the time you are rebuilding your current motor, the additional expense is minimal. Now regulate the NA cars based on engine size rather than year of manufacture. Now play with weight and plate on the NA1.8 to achieve parity with the 99/VVT cars.

 

For under $10k a 1.6 could be updated to NB suspension and NA1.8 power. Make some minor weight and plate adjustments and everyone should be happy. For those on a budget, run the 1.6 and have fun, just admit that some model year will always be prefered over another year. Somebody has to be the best and somebody has to be the worst.

 

I have been saying this for many years. Nobody listens when I break the record.

dave

[Blake Thompson]

Why did the NB suspension proposal die?  I was all about that.

 

I think we're in a position where I can legally "convert" my car to NA8 already.  If I were allowed to upgrade to all NB1 suspension and drivetrain components while taking the NB1 min weight penalty the only difference between the cars is that flimsy old NA chassis and the rudimentary aerodynamics.

[38bfast]

Up here in the north it been a long time since I have seen a real effort made running a 1.6. When I say real effort I am taking about what the front runners are doing to win currently. For the most part I see a very causal attempt being made in the 1.6 cars. Most that are that serious about winning don't go the 1.6 path due to it takes the most effort to achieve the same result. The last serous effort I have seen in a 1.6 up here was Bennett. So it makes it very hard to judge parity when we don't see the best of the best out there. 

[Johnny D]

So to go back to page 4 with Brandon

"meaningful and supported recommendations from 1.6 owners following the 3-year rules freeze is ???

 

That's ok, I'm cool ??

J~

[Pat Ross]

I have to agree with Drago (darn it)!

 

Look at the top 10 qualifiers at the largest attended Majors races.  You will see that those at the top travel, frequently up to 750-800 miles to participate in these premier events and to compete against the best drivers in the class.  Examples:  Sebring, Nola, Road Atlanta, Road America, etc.  It takes a lot of money to truck the cars to these events, and if Mike were not among the top 10 at these events I doubt if we would spend the money necessary. 

 

I believe you will find that those at the top of the field take a spare car, or at least spare engines, transmissions, rear diffs, etc. because when you blow an engine or damage the suspension beyond repair during test day or qualifying, you have spent several thousand dollars and don't even get to compete.  How many 1.6NA drivers can afford this level of commitment?

 

Mike and I have found that to be at the pointy end you must race frequently, and to race frequently against tough competition so that you hone your skills.   

 

Lucky for Mike, he an I both enjoy doing this "racing gig" together.  Even though I am 76 year old, I have put full time retirement on the back burner so that we can have fun together. 

 

I fully understand the frustration of those that have other obligations and cannot spend as much on racing as they would like.  I have been in that same boat at various times in my life. 

 

To those who would spend $7-10k on their 1.6NA to make it competitive, I say sell it for $8-10k to someone new as an entry level car and buy a 2-3 year old NB.  You will then have a good platform for competing and you can work on your driving.

 

Pat

[Tom Scheifler]

So it makes it very hard to judge parity when we don't see the best of the best out there.

So ... ?

[Jim Drago]

Can we agree that the 99 and VVT cars are about as equal as we are going to get them.

 

Thank You

 

Can we agree that the simple bolt on things like a light flywheel or a header is NOT the answer the 1.6ers want.

 

Thank You

 

Can we agree that we (SCCA/NASA? other groups) are not going to slow down the NB cars.

 

Thank You

 

So how do we make the NA cars as close as possible to the NB? That is the $64,000 question.

 

First, put them on the same suspension components. New would cost $2000 in parts, but used parts are available and the job could be done for under $1000 parts and labor. Now all years drive the same. More like a spec class.

 

Torque is pretty closely related to engine size. Not directly, but within our logical limits, that is the big deal. So let's specificly allow the 1.6 chassis to run a NA1.8 engine. If doing this at the time you are rebuilding your current motor, the additional expense is minimal. Now regulate the NA cars based on engine size rather than year of manufacture. Now play with weight and plate on the NA1.8 to achieve parity with the 99/VVT cars.

 

For under $10k a 1.6 could be updated to NB suspension and NA1.8 power. Make some minor weight and plate adjustments and everyone should be happy. For those on a budget, run the 1.6 and have fun, just admit that some model year will always be prefered over another year. Somebody has to be the best and somebody has to be the worst.

 

I have been saying this for many years. Nobody listens when I break the record.

dave

We started this how many years ago...  The 1.6 brigade didn't want it then.. doubt they will now.. 

 

I'll go one further and say pull the plate or put a larger plate on NA 1.8 cars until it makes slightly more HP(1-2) than the 99 and it will make slightly less TQ(1-2).. then run all cars at 2400, same suspension.. case solved all for about 10,000 or less

 

that gives NA guys who really want an avenue to compete at majors and dont want to buy a new car a realistic path.. It also allows those who dont want to change, run what they have been. 

[davew]

We started this how many years ago...  The 1.6 brigade didn't want it then.. doubt they will now.. 

 

I'll go one further and say pull the plate or put a larger plate on NA 1.8 cars until it makes slightly more HP(1-2) than the 99 and it will make slightly less TQ(1-2).. then run all cars at 2400, same suspension.. case solved all for about 10,000 or less

 

that gives NA guys who really want an avenue to compete at majors and dont want to buy a new car a realistic path.. It also allows those who dont want to change, run what they have been. 

 

The problem is that there is no $500 magic bullet. Which is what the 1.6 brigade (I like that term) want. I will admit that I would love a $500 magic bullet, but I live in reality where nobody has found it, yet. Unicorns may exist, but nobody has found one of those either.

 

The 1.6 would still be legal to race. Still competitively in the right hands at the right track. Keep the entry level price point to continue to bring in new drivers to the class.

 

Do not speed up the 99/VVT cars. Keep them as a maximum benchmark. Keep the current reliability intact.

 

Stop talking about bringing the NC car into SM. Even at 2700 pounds it would completely dominate SM and turn our little world upside down. They fit nicely in T4.

 

dave

[Brandon]

Let me open another can of worms that is sure to draw out serious venom...... Flame suit on in preparation.

 

As someone who doesn't balk at spending what I need to spend to compete at the front of the class, here is a question for the 1.6 / 1.8 NA crowd, the same crowd that I personally feels does need some help:-

 

How much would you think is an acceptable amount to spend to bring your car up to parity with the 99/VVT cars?

 

For parity would you be prepared to spend $500, $1,000, $5,000, $10,000??????

 

Should we eliminate over-bores from our research, should we eliminate engine swaps???

 

What we have tried so far, the simple bolt-on stuff has failed to add any TQ at all

 

Easy for me for 2015 - $7000+ as I'm building a new engine and doing everything I can to pull weight out (I'm a chunk - but not giving up my donuts & chocolate chip cookies!) including sanding to bare metal (how many layers of paint on this thing?!?) to reshoot it and lay-on vinyl to make the color scheme.  In addition to going over every nook & cranny that could hold goobers/rocks/debris, bending things back (think the pinch welds underneath) and up & around the subframes where things tend to hide.  

 

Granted I'm coming from a "soft" crate motor (now with 5 of MY seasons on it - seller indicated there were a few miles/sessions on it already) making on Planet Miata's dyno around 117-119 I believe.

 

So we'll see what that gets me for 2015!

[Justin Casey]

It's all about money. I came into this class because its "the most competitive budget racing" .

 

That being said, budget and competitiveness has gone out the window after racing nearly two full seasons w/ my 1.6.

 

I haven't been around here long so I doubt people will listen but here's my $0.02.

 

Splitting the class would not be a good idea. Fewer cars in one class = less competition/ less fun.

NB owners dont want any more parity because they're justifying the serious cash spent on building their cars. Gotta pay to play mentality.

NA owners want more parity because as a spec class, everyone should be fairly close in laptimes. We're close but let's get closer.

 

During this season, between racing NASA Nor-Cal and the few Teen Mazda Challenge races down south (Auto Club Speedway & Buttonwillow) I have only seen one 1.6 win one race and that was Nick Sommers down in Buttonwillwow. Most, if not all have been won with NB's with the rest being NA 1.8's. 

 

IMO, allowing the NA 1.6's to have the following will allow for more parity

1) Allow an intake duct on driver's side turn signal

2) Reduce overall weight of NA 1.6's from 2275 to 2250 (-25 lbs)

 

#1 is justified because it's a common issue for the 1.6 engine's heat soak easily and lose power over longer races (maintaining intake temp effeciency).

 

#2 is justified b/c of first hand example. 

-NB car w/ Pro motor putting down 126hp/122 tq, Power to weight ratio: (126hp/2400lbs)= 0.0525

-My 1.6 Haag motor putting down 117hp/105tq, Power to weight ratio currently (117hp/2275lbs)= 0.05142857 (~0.0514)    (0.0011 Current Difference)

W/ 20lb reduction (117hp/2250lbs)= 0.052      (W/ proposed weight, difference of ~0.0005)

 

Torque to weight reference:

-NB: 122/2400 = 0.05083

-NA 105/2275 =0.04615

-Proposed NA 105/2250 = 0.04666--> Difference of  0.00417

 

The above two solutions are relatively inexpensive and I think would be beneficial towards achieving better parity. TIA for feedback/responses.

Alright, I'll crawl back into my cave now....

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

Boy I love all this parity talk !

Well I don't want to make this long so here goes. I went to Mid-O in the intention of racing the majors last month and only made it through the test and tune on Thursday because of a trans issue. Now I know my car is not a top prepped car and still has an open diff in it but still makes decent hp and I was able to get down to a flat 1:44 now I'm not the best in qualifying and can usually drop 1/2 to 1 sec off my lap times during a race. I guess that's not bad for not racing at all last year and it has been 2 years since I was at Mid-O.

That being said I have decided to join the club and build a new car for next year. I can't and won't sit around till we figure this all out,it's taking way to long. This is taking way to much fun out of the class for me and this is coming from a guy that has plenty of Regional and National wins under my belt along with 3 NeOhio championships.

The way I feel is make it 2 separate classes a NA class and a NB class run them together and score them separately. Easy fix this way everyone can still run together and SCCA or NASA doesn't have to come up with any new classes. This way everyone can run a regional or a majors without thinking there an underdog. You can have separate rules and this would be CHEAP for everyone.

You have to look at this like a new guy thinking about joining are class. When most of us started are goal was to become one of those fast guys and one day stand on the podium. If we kill off all of these NA cars the class with start to get even smaller. You leave no option but to buy a 20 to 30k car and a lot of new guys can't afford that. So I hope everyone is thinking about that !

So let's try and keep it simple,easy and cheap for the new guys so we can keep this class growing !

[Bench Racer]

Like has been said in the past, bullies tend to keep normal folks from posting.

 

Justin, your 2 cents is good stuff, stick around.

 

Drago, do or did you and Buras have under 100* F air at your air intake filter?

Drago, do or did you and Buras have memory shock travel gauges?

If you answer is no to either, you don't/didn't have a complete 1.6 build.

 

 

Danny, $5,000.00 plus depending plus depending on if what I considered real data convinced me of the items worth. 99 suspension will not allow the 1.6 see the light at the end of the tunnel.

 

Frank, what difference does it make if rules are changed and one or one hundred 1.6's enter Majors. There are 99 plus cars doing Regionals.

 

Blake says the 6 speed is a dumb idea and Drago "Likes".

Drago posted the close gate shift selection is a bitch, but he thought the principle idea of the 6 speed was good.

Blake and Drago, put away the attitudes and list the negative issues for all 1.6er's to understand. Rob, I'm investigating the potential of the 6 speed with a straight face, please help Blake and Drago with the negative issues of the 6 speed. If you guys didn't talk shit (without backing it up) maybe other 1.6er's would take part.

 

Here's a question for those who suggested the previously talked about bolt on items have no value towards improving torque for the 1.6, I take it that none of you care if a 1.6er  bolts them on his all ready pretty capable 1.6 car.

 

Sam Henry quote after the Kansas Majors race this past weekend. SpringFileld Dyno Sam who races Spec Miata, Rally Miata and at Kansas a F production class Miata.

 

"What a fun weekend, I know I didn't win, but it was possible, and that makes it like that one good golf shot."

 

^ That 99 +er's is the light at the end of the tunnel the 1.6er's would like to see.

 

And because of his program and money spent, don't again take this again to the $$$$ level.

[Rob Burgoon]

Ok sorry, that wasn't really fair.  Let's look at the 6 speed.

 

What I don't like about the 6 speed idea:

 

$100 junkyard transmission becomes what, $600 for a harder to find junkyard 6 speed?  (granted, amortized it's not a big deal)

Shifting in different places than everyone else.

I'm not convinced that gear ratio changes really buy you much.  A rear end ratio change just means you have it for some straights and lose it in others.  Maybe the closer ratios will help you find your torque.

 

Here's how to get me to buy in:

 

Take your 1.6 dyno graph, mark the min RPM for 2nd through 5th of 5 speed, then do the same for the 6 speed.  Plot some points for torque output vs mph from 20-120mph for each transmission.  Then compare it to the NA 1.8 or something.

 

 

I still think you guys are better off with compression ratio and spending for a higher octane mix and/or ECU and/or flapdoor delete, but please prove me wrong.

[Bench Racer]

Rob, ^ that is a post of value. For me it's not about being right or wrong, we all do both.

Understand the 6 speed cost and attempting to resolve the get it in the correct gate issue. $700.00 to $1,500.00 and $400.00 for a MiataRoadster true short shifter, a true short shifter being with the fulcrum positioned higher in the turret.

 

Looking for more detailed valued plus or minus input folks. 

[Tom Sager]

The 6 speed would probably help but makes the cars less "the same".  Less "the same" is not good.  

 

So there are some cheap mods that add peak HP and some torque.   What happens if you put a header on a 1.6, add some adjustable timing cam gears and add half a point of compression?  Will the car then make 130-135HP?  If so add a restrictor plate and see what you get for torque and HP.  Has anyone ever tried anything like this?  The cam gears and a couple of headers wouldn't take a lot of effort to try.  We know restrictor plates rob peak HP and have less of an effect on torque.  Seems to me that setting up the car to make more HP than needed and then restricting it has a good chance of delivering the desired effect.  Not all that hard to test.  

 

That and addressing the PITA AFM and heat issue might not be all that expensive.  

[Rob Burgoon]

Rob, ^ that is a post of value. For me it's not about being right or wrong, we all do both.

Understand the 6 speed cost and attempting to resolve the get it in the correct gate issue. $700.00 to $1,500.00 and $400.00 for a MiataRoadster true short shifter, a true short shifter being with the fulcrum positioned higher in the turret.

 

Looking for more detailed valued plus or minus input folks. 

 

Can you make that chart?

[Jim Drago]

Like has been said in the past, bullies tend to keep normal folks from posting.

I will play along... So when I give my opinion and it differs from yours, I am a bully. Now I understand. Urgh!

 

Drago, do or did you and Buras have under 100* F air at your air intake filter?
Drago, do or did you and Buras have memory shock travel gauges?
If you answer is no to either, you don't/didn't have a complete 1.6 build.

We did have air temp under 100, water temps well under 180 in ALL conditions. No shock travel gauges.. So by your standards we were(still are) not full prep, yet still won many races and have five National championships in cars we built, none had shock travel gauges and non set up with a water level, but we seem to do pretty well without either  
 

 

Blake says the 6 speed is a dumb idea and Drago "Likes".
Drago posted the close gate shift selection is a bitch, but he thought the principle idea of the 6 speed was good.
Blake and Drago, put away the attitudes and list the issues for all 1.6er's to understand. Rob, I'm investigating the potential of the 6 speed with a straight face, please help Blake and Drago with the negative issues of the 6 speed. If you guys didn't talk shit (without backing it up) maybe other 1.6er's would take part.

Dave it seems your pissing match with Blake is bigger than with most... Please leave me out of it. I back up or can back everything I say or post. Not sure which part of I have raced that trans and you have not is unclear? I spent the money and time, had trans built completely and remmed spent about 2500 doing so. I still pulled it in two sessions as it was(is) a complete piece of shit and absolutely undriveable. The issues? It was a random gear selector... I would go to 4th, sometimes it was 2nd, sometimes sixth but rarely 4th... Same for all the odd gears. I over revved about 25 times in one session, many times when shifting so slowly I could not possible be in the wrong gear, Wrong again! I can't be anymore clear. It sucks, it is a piece of shit! So you can either believe me or assume I am lying to hold you and the 1.6 back. Perhaps you feel I am such a hack I just couldn't handle it. It is all but impossible to drive on a race track. If you would like to try one. I will send you one at no charge and you can borrow and try it for yourself. You pay the shipping and report back. But please don't accuse me of spreading BS when I have spent the time and money and tested the trans in question and you haven't. That is not the way I roll.  I said I agreed with your idea in principle and I do, but this transmission is not an option for our class and a very bad idea, I can assure you. Don't take it personal as it is not personal.. Your idea in principle addresses some of the concerns, but in reality the box we are talking about is not a viable option. A six speed that is driveable would be a possible positive solution. 
 

Sam Henry quote after the Kansas Majors race this past weekend. SpringFileld Dyno Sam who races Spec Miata, Rally Miata and at Kansas a F production class Miata.
 
"What a fun weekend, I know I didn't win, but it was possible, and that makes it like that one good golf shot."
 
^ That 99 +er's is the light at the end of the tunnel the 1.6er's would like to see.

For the record Sam has not raced in Sm in five years.


I have no issue with you disagreeing with my opinion. But I am not trying to bully anyone. I gave you a 100% sure fire answer to parity in our class for under 10k...( that is my opinion) You don't want to hear it as it is not in your personal best interest.. For that I am a bully?? Please poke holes in the theory below.. That is my best efforts to achieve "parity". I feel my method below will be faster and far less costly in the long run as all this testing, trial and error etc. That method has not and will not work. This is not a 1500-2500 a year solution. Not for the type of parity we are asking for. As many have said, lap time is not parity.. We have that now, in all other classes, it would be case closed. We want better, what I am suggesting gets dam near equality, anything less than this wont work, not to the extent we are looking for. The solution below addresses all cars and gets parity across the board instantaneously. The only real difference at this point would be sheet metal.

All NA cars can run NA 1.8 specs@ 2400 lbs with say a 49-51 MM plate to get to 1-2 better on HP and 1-2 less on TQ compared to top 99 cars
Allow all cars to run NB suspension
Leave 99 alone
leave VVT alone
Leave the 1.6 cars who dont wish to change alone.