390 replies to this topic

[Jim Drago]

In other news.. The 1.6 SM is now officially Vintage eligble

[Bench Racer]

Hear ye, hear ye, East Street continues to sell vintage engines.    

 

[space]

I'm in favor of large classes, period.  Trying to have a 1.6 only class in the region I'm in wouldn't be good for the 1.6's or SM as a whole.

 

~10 years ago I built my 1.6L SM.  At that time, there were not very many NB cars out there, and for where I was at financially, it made sense for me to build the 1.6L.  Looking back I should have at least built a 1.8L NA, but life goes on.  I joined SM because I wanted to run in a large group and not spend all weekend wrenching.  Who the hell wants to race with 2 other cars all weekend?  Fast forward to 2015...

 

I'll be the first to admit my car is not as good as it could be and that there is still more car than driver.  I'm not a terrible driver and can hussel the snot out of my car, just being realistic that there is room to improve the car and driver still.  That being said, it is frustrating to have NB guys in the way in corners, running inconsistent, crappy lines, only to have them pass me in the long straights like I'm sitting on the curb.  What I'm torn on, is how much $ to put into the car.  It is a 25 year old car, BUT and NB is 15 years old, same spot where I was when I built my 1.6.  With all the NA cars out there, I don't know if building a NB and passing the NA issue onto someone else is the right idea.  I also think we're wasting our time with talking/b!tching about adding one or two parts and thinking the NA cars will magically be the same as a NB car.  They are different cars!  They will never be exactly the same regardless of weight/restrictors/etc.

 

I do like the idea of a complete engine, harness, ECU, and rear end though.  Even if it wouldn't make the NA the same as an NB, I think it would get us regional guys running close enough to each other take away most of the b!tching everyone is doing.  Cheap?  Nope!  But nothing about racing is.  And you can find wrecked NB cars pretty cheap, you'd be surprised.  If you're one of these guys running 6 race weekends a year and complaining about how much this swap would cost, stay home for 2 or 3 weekends.  Anything short of swapping the whole engine, etc. will just cause b!tching from people year after year.  What about Runoffs??  Anyone who wants to be at the top of the field of a group as large as SM is going to spend some money, this engine swap isn't for them, a less antique car and fatter pockets are.

 

If you're really serious about being the best of the best, and being able to prove that at Runoffs, you need to toss your NA and build a NB.  It's clear and clear can be.  If you want to have fun with the sport and run regionals, an NA car is fine, we just need to figure out a big change to do once to get everyone closer.  I like the engine swap, others may have other ideas.  One or two parts is a waste of everyone's time.

[Steve Scheifler]

As I said, I'm not ready for this, yet, but it is time to be debating it. What I find interesting is that people dead set against the idea often make the best arguments for it. Just two examples, there are others.

I'm in favor of large classes, period. Trying to have a 1.6 only class in the region I'm in wouldn't be good for the 1.6's or SM as a whole.
...
I do like the idea of a complete engine, harness, ECU, and rear end though. Even if it wouldn't make the NA the same as an NB, I think it would get us regional guys running close enough to each other take away most of the b!tching everyone is doing.
...
If you're really serious about being the best of the best, and being able to prove that at Runoffs, you need to toss your NA and build a NB. It's clear and clear can be.
...

If this became a reality...
The majors and Runoffs would be all but not effected in terms of entries or finishing positions.

...
The 1.6 should fade away IMO. We should stop adjusting for it and let the class move forward. The next deal will be the 06 Plus cars and all the 99-05 guys will slowly transition to the NC car.

...
The only parity solution, that will not piss people off with the end on track results is to allow 94/05 engine in the 90-93 car, which I probably would never allow if I were on the CRB as it comes with lots of headaches.

What seems to be overlooked about the idea to allow 1.8 transplants is that the next step would be to remove/rebalance the restrictor plates. The transplant is optional, but you are totally screwed if you don't, and that would definitely be the end of the 1.6, or the beginning of a new class.

[Jim Drago]

What seems to be overlooked about the idea to allow 1.8 transplants is that the next step would be to remove/rebalance the restrictor plates.

 

 

I like the idea of giving the NA 1.8 "x" ( 48mm - none) plate that gives the NA car very similar HP/TQ curves as the 99-00 car, then adjust the weight of the NA 1.8 to that of the 99/00 or say 15-25 lbs less than 99/00 cars.  

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

Just let us go old school with a 671 blower and that should do the trick ! Lol

[Tom Sager]

I like the idea of giving the NA 1.8 "x" ( 48mm - none) plate that gives the NA car very similar HP/TQ curves as the 99-00 car, then adjust the weight of the NA 1.8 to say 25 lbs less than 99/00 cars.  

Well with that common sense approach (and only a slight edit on my part) you should apply for a spot on the SMAC or the CRB.  

[Caveman-kwebb99]

I am fine with a 1.6 only field as long as the 99 and 01+ are still allowed to race in it  

[TJKearney]

SM2 in New England and NeDiv is getting more and more popular.  Enough-so in fact that SSM is pretty much dead in all but WDC.  I'm sure with the latest round of 1.6 marginalizing that 2015 will only increase its numbers.

[Steve Scheifler]

...
I'm sure with the latest round of 1.6 marginalizing that 2015 will only increase its numbers.

I must have missed that, unless you mean the lack of meaningful and supported recommendations from 1.6 owners following the 3-year rules freeze.

[TJKearney]

When was the last time a 99' owner needed to improve/change his/her car due to an advantage (perceived or otherwise) a 1.6 car had over it?

[PatrickCleary]

It's been implied in this thread that the largest difference between the fast NBs and the slow NAs is less the car and more the drivers. I've never driven well prepped versions of either on track, so I can't comment on the cars or adjustments that need to be made. However, maybe it's worth thinking about the drivers as well.

 

One of the things that drew me to this site is the dedication to setup, and the willingness to share (some) of what makes people fast. I'm a terribly slow track day driver in a very tired NA8. While one day it'll be time for chassis development (in an entirely different car I suspect) but for now I'm focusing on driver development. Looking around here I've found some great advice. Links on working with data, information on more reading, the SM setup information, and the race note book threads are all ones that stick out in my memory. I've also seen poor prep strategies pointed out, meaning that they're still out there. I don't know how you pass this information along to people that are dead sure that the reason their slower is that Jim secretly hid an LS7 under his hood, but maybe it's a place to look to bring slower drivers up to speed and decrease the frustration with a slow NA.

 

So far all I've done is strip down the car and add a data system to it. My goal this year is to find consistency and speed in the car. I think I'll leave it like that for the year and see what I can find in the driver (and maybe document it all).

[Jim Drago]

It's been implied in this thread that the largest difference between the fast NBs and the slow NAs is less the car and more the drivers. I've never driven well prepped versions of either on track, so I can't comment on the cars or adjustments that need to be made. However, maybe it's worth thinking about the drivers as well.

 

One of the things that drew me to this site is the dedication to setup, and the willingness to share (some) of what makes people fast. I'm a terribly slow track day driver in a very tired NA8. While one day it'll be time for chassis development (in an entirely different car I suspect) but for now I'm focusing on driver development. Looking around here I've found some great advice. Links on working with data, information on more reading, the SM setup information, and the race note book threads are all ones that stick out in my memory. I've also seen poor prep strategies pointed out, meaning that they're still out there. I don't know how you pass this information along to people that are dead sure that the reason their slower is that Jim secretly hid an LS7 under his hood, but maybe it's a place to look to bring slower drivers up to speed and decrease the frustration with a slow NA.

 

So far all I've done is strip down the car and add a data system to it. My goal this year is to find consistency and speed in the car. I think I'll leave it like that for the year and see what I can find in the driver (and maybe document it all).

It was an LS6

[Tom Sager]

When was the last time a 99' owner needed to improve/change his/her car due to an advantage (perceived or otherwise) a 1.6 car had over it?

About 10 years ago when the 1.6 was classified in SM and the '99 was begging to get in.  

[Ron Alan]

Patrick...sent you a PM last week. Looks like you have not read or have them blocked fyi...

[Brandon]

I must have missed that, unless you mean the lack of meaningful and supported recommendations from 1.6 owners following the 3-year rules freeze.

 

AMEN!  

I know I'm reviving a potentially dead thread with a comment but here's my $.02 from a SMAC member's perspective (and I don't believe I'm giving anything away here):

 

We asked about offering the 1.6s 'something' via a WDYT (what do you think) to gauge responsiveness towards "anything" with regards to the 1.6.

Our options ranged from allowing a 20-over bore, header, "waffle intake" (a CAI essentially), or a bump in compression were in the cards.  What we received back were (practically) crickets when it came to 1.6 supporters!

 

IOW, a truly underwhelming level of support from those who would be receiving these changes while detractors of the suggestion(s) were voicing all manner of concerns about upsetting the balance of the class.

 

What this boils down to is if the 1.6 cars end up 'falling away' there is no one more to blame than those owners of the cars not participating in the process of ensuring parity.

Yes it looks like a SMAC member calling out "all 1.6 owners" but there is only so much we (SMAC) can do for you if we don't have support from the membership/participants.

 

This is me talking (and there has been zero discussion about this in any "official capacity" anywhere other than in my own head and with other SM competitors here in the NE): there will come a time when we (SMAC and/or competitors) relegate the 1.6 as being ineffectual as an SM competitor and shift the baseline to the NA1.8 instead.  How the process is done I imagine will be up for input, provided there's support for pursuing this course of action from the requisite parties.  To me it doesn't sound any more insurmountable than what was done when SRR (Spec Racer Renault) went to SRF all these years ago...why reinvent the wheel (apologies to Wheeler - Jim & Dave)?

[Johnny D]

NASA NorCal Region has adopted this class.

 

So regular race, but the 1.6's are running SM and the 1.6L class. I'm not sure what the contingency's are.

J~

[FTodaro]

Two points to the topic

 

1. if it is decided to phase out the 1.6 it would be a better first step  to just give them a separate class to run in so there is some place to call home.

2. if the day should come that a decision was made to phase them out. a long horizon of time should be used such as example: a 5 year window of notice that After 1/12020 no more 1.6

 

gives people plenty of notice and time to plan accordingly.

 

If it ever were to happen, it would make the parity issues much easier to manage. But i have no dog in this fight.

[Tom Hampton]

AMEN!  

I know I'm reviving a potentially dead thread with a comment but here's my $.02 from a SMAC member's perspective (and I don't believe I'm giving anything away here):

 

We asked about offering the 1.6s 'something' via a WDYT (what do you think) to gauge responsiveness towards "anything" with regards to the 1.6.

Our options ranged from allowing a 20-over bore, header, "waffle intake" (a CAI essentially), or a bump in compression were in the cards.  What we received back were (practically) crickets when it came to 1.6 supporters!

 

IOW, a truly underwhelming level of support from those who would be receiving these changes while detractors of the suggestion(s) were voicing all manner of concerns about upsetting the balance of the class.

 

What this boils down to is if the 1.6 cars end up 'falling away' there is no one more to blame than those owners of the cars not participating in the process of ensuring parity.

Yes it looks like a SMAC member calling out "all 1.6 owners" but there is only so much we (SMAC) can do for you if we don't have support from the membership/participants.

 

This is me talking (and there has been zero discussion about this in any "official capacity" anywhere other than in my own head and with other SM competitors here in the NE): there will come a time when we (SMAC and/or competitors) relegate the 1.6 as being ineffectual as an SM competitor and shift the baseline to the NA1.8 instead.  How the process is done I imagine will be up for input, provided there's support for pursuing this course of action from the requisite parties.  To me it doesn't sound any more insurmountable than what was done when SRR (Spec Racer Renault) went to SRF all these years ago...why reinvent the wheel (apologies to Wheeler - Jim & Dave)?

 

Brandon-

 

I'm sure you mean well, and have the good of the class at heart...but, I find this post and attitude asinine and self-serving.  Since you are on the SMAC you should know better, And you should realize that while you are on the SMAC, speaking in public CANNOT be disclaimed as "my own personal opinion, not endorsed by the SMAC".  There is no such thing as "off the record."  

 

I have neither the knowlege nor resources to determine what (or if) the 1.6 needs something.  So, my lack of a letter is not indicative of a lack of interest, rather a lack of knowlege.  I don't want a hand-out.  I want to KNOW that the 1.6 is at a disadvantage, and to be given an appropriate competition adjustment to put me at parity...IF IT IS FOUND TO BE WARRANTED.  What should I do, send a letter every month saying, "don't forget the 1.6, sure would like to see some data from the SMAC and the super committee.  Yep, I'm stil here."  Seriously.

 

What ever happened to the super SM committee and all the testing that they were going to do?  Where are those results?  How much adjustment does that suggest is needed?  <----- dripping in sarcasm, for the impaired.  

 

Frankly I think it is YOUR (THE SMAC) job to tell US that there needs to be an adjustment, and what that is.  Gather the data, analyze it, and tell us what the results are, and what your recommendations are.  Include the pros and cons of each possibility, and give us some hard facts (HP/Tq, lap times, corner speeds, acceleration rates, etc).  Gather whatever experts you need to gather.  But, stop blaming the class for not knowing what to do.

 

I don't want a random adjustment that may or may not give me an advantage or put me at a disadvantage.  If I'm at a disadvantage, I want to know by how much, and I want to know what rule adjustment is going to do to fix it, and by how much.  

 

If all you are going to do is throw out random ideas without having any knowlege of the actual benefit (or harm), and then you are going to "call out" the 1.6 owners for not speaking up....THEN I AM CALLING YOU OUT FOR COPPING OUT on your responsibility to the class.  Do your job, don't expect me to do it for you. 

 

Frankly the governing bodies, and SM super committee operate with so much aloofness, and secrecy that it just pisses me off to think about.  So, I just focus on going out and racing and having a good time.  But, if you are going to start pointing fingers I'm going to point 10 right back at all of YOU. 

[Johnny D]

I not sure I want to unwind your panties but.

 

If he's our rep, isn't it good to know where he stands?

Or a comment like this may be the writing on the wall?

 

Best for the class, not for just one (1.6, 1.8, NB, etc.)

 

And the last couple guys had no personal interest.

J~