390 replies to this topic

[Tom Hampton]

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~

1. Unwind my panties? you won't.  I'm generally pretty light hearted on here, and don't let many of my professional attitudes come through.  SM is my fun time, and I don't have much interest in taking it all that seriously in this public forum.  However, I expect someone in a position of influence to use actual judgement (you know with fun things like facts), and exercise what little grey matter they may have before opening their damn mouth.  

 

2.  Good to know where he stands/writing on the wall?  Hmmm...after a fashion.  But, I find the basis for it to be lacking in substance---and fundamentally to be a cheap cop out.  He (they all) took on the job of serving on the SMAC.  No one said it would be easy, and sending out a WDYT letter does not constitute actual work.  Nor does posting the above cheap-shot.  Coming on here in a public forum and saying, "you didn't answer, so you must not care" is well....I have serveral derogatory comments in mind.  I'm a Chief Engineer, if one of my engineers came to me and said, "I asked Jim for his idea and he didn't have any, so I don't know what to do."  I'd tell that engineer the same thing:  "I didn't give the job to Jim, I gave it to you.  Just because he didn't have any suggestions doesn't mean you don't have to solve the problem.  I told you to figure it out, so go do it.  Do some research, read a book, learn about it and solve the problem.  If it was easy they wouldn't pay us to do it."    

 

3.  Best for the class? always, But, if that is going to be determined by a "lack of response" on a poorly framed question (aka the WDYT request) that's egregious.  

 

4.  Personal interest?  I said self-serving.  I did not suggest he had a financial interest---though you may have interpreted it as that.  My usage of the term is, "making himself feel better about his position."    Even if I did mean "financial interest", and even if I conceded (I'm not) that previous members were ethically tainted...that doesn't mean everyone else gets a pass.  History is not an excuse. 

[Johnny D]

But now you can write a letter, run for SMAC next year or a few other things other then being fat, dumb and happy thinking he's doing a good job.

Assuming you don't think his grey matter is doing that well.

J~

[Bench Racer]

Let's briefly look at the rule happenings over the last 5 years. The 99 plus crowd cheated and received rule changes. The only rule change that comes to mind for the other crowd is screwing around with the weight. Check out how many of the other crowd has entered the 2015 Majors events. That weight reduction rule changed worked real well.   If the other crowd's car is so friking great how come when the SCCA Runoffs were announced for the left coast the left coaster's wasted no time building 99 plus cars. The SMAC knows full well the other crowd's car has a shortfall. I would need to look at the SMAC roster, but at the moment I could name 3 SMAC folks that know the other crowd's shortfall. I can't talk about the other crowd's shortfall cause I may receive another broken record badge. I had a list of 9 items not including the Mega Squirt on my list categorized by approximate  cost to gain. Threw the friking list out a couple weeks ago because writing letters is the same as pissing into the wind. At best one would get a "thank you for your input".

 

Folks posting potential improvements for the other crowd on an open site is also pissing in the wind. Certain factions of the 99 plus crowd intimidate the crap out of many of the other crowd.

 

Why in the hell did I bother doing this post. Solving the issue the other crowd has is as simple as keeping the rpm's always under the curve. Oh and use a professional driver.

 

Crap, I almost forgot there was a study done in 2009 IIRC at Road America and the study IIRC found no issues working against the other crowds car.

 

 

 

Mr. Ross, my fire breather other crowd engine never see intake air above 100* at the filter.

[Tom Sager]

To me it would be a shame if collaboratively the SMAC and some of the competitors in 1.6 cars didn't come up with a package of tested changes (through collaboration) for the car that could be put into place next year.  After this past winter it would seem that there was a renewed interest on the part of the club to address the topic and back then there was "plenty of time" for 2016.  It's nearly July 1st and time is growing short fella's. Those that want something done would help themselves tremendously IMO if they got organized and gave the committee some ideas to consider or explore.  If competitors don't provide much input then the committee and the other boards could easily conclude that there isn't much interest in supporting the older 1.6 cars.  

[Bench Racer]

 If competitors don't provide much input then the committee and the other boards could easily conclude that there isn't much interest in supporting the older 1.6 cars.  

Tom, not picking on you. There have been other times when folks wrote letters and received at best the big ol, thank you for your input.

 

If I were on the SMAC (I don't know the rules the SMAC must work within) I would politic a couple other SMAC's or maybe the entire SMAC and write a request which would do the economical best for the other crowd and get some of their cars entered in Majors events. If the SMAC is to efficient with a new rule or two let it be known at the get-go that the lead will come out in a big hurry.

 

Until we have more cars than a race group can handle we don't have enough cars. 

[Jim Drago]

Let's briefly look at the rule happenings over the last 5 years. The 99 plus crowd cheated and received rule changes. The only rule change that comes to mind for the other crowd is screwing around with the weight. Check out how many of the other crowd has entered the 2015 Majors events. That weight reduction rule changed worked real well.   If the other crowd's car is so friking great how come when the SCCA Runoffs were announced for the left coast the left coaster's wasted no time building 99 plus cars. The SMAC knows full well the other crowd's car has a shortfall. I would need to look at the SMAC roster, but at the moment I could name 3 SMAC folks that know the other crowd's shortfall. I can't talk about the other crowd's shortfall cause I may receive another broken record badge. I had a list of 9 items not including the Mega Squirt on my list categorized by approximate  cost to gain. Threw the friking list out a couple weeks ago because writing letters is the same as pissing into the wind. At best one would get a "thank you for your input".
 
Folks posting potential improvements for the other crowd on an open site is also pissing in the wind. Certain factions of the 99 plus crowd intimidate the crap out of many of the other crowd.
 
Why in the hell did I bother doing this post. Solving the issue the other crowd has is as simple as keeping the rpm's always under the curve. Oh and use a professional driver.
 
Crap, I almost forgot there was a study done in 2009 IIRC at Road America and the study IIRC found no issues working against the other crowds car.
 

 
 
Mr. Ross, my fire breather other crowd engine never see intake air above 100* at the filter.

Sorry, I am reading the same bla bla that I have for years.

You guys can keep complaining and/or making excuses or you can try and come up with something..

If owned owned a 1.6 miata...
I would get a group of 20 or so of you guys together, all put in a little money and test a few things.. Then as a committee submit a letter with data backing what you would like to see.

Against my better judgement.. I will test a few things for you guys at no charge as I have a good 1.6 here, several good NB cars and a dyno.

But someone else needs to take the lead... I have put in my time

[Johnny D]

Oh what a underhanded thing Brandon did bringing this up.

 

I'm with you Tom and think Brandon said that as well.

Not enough interest leads to no changes.

 

Dave I don't think it's that complicated.

You would have to make your "recipe" for a 1.6 to be competitive and bring to the track.

 

Example let Todd in it and play with Danny at RA.

Show how much it costs, etc.

 

I think in some cases it would cost more than just doing a NB but hey, whatever. Just speculating.

J~

[ECOBRAP]

see edit

[Tom Sager]

Tom, not picking on you. There have been other times when folks wrote letters and received at best the big ol, thank you for your input.

 

 

That was then, this is now.  If the opportunity now is not seized, the future will become then again.  

[Bench Racer]

After sleeping on my post that was here over night, I deleted the post.

 

SMAC, you overall understand the 1.6 engine issue, feed the 1.6 a bone and maybe the NA 1.8 needs a scrap also. 

 

Have Fun

[FTodaro]

I Think Brandon was trying to send a message to the 1.6 guys, like Tom S. said, its July and if you want something done you better get on it. However as many have said, if you do not get a group together do a little testing to give credibility to the changes then the NON 1.6 guys are not going to buy in.

 

the 1.6 got a 25lb reduction the VVT got a 25lb increase. I would want to see what else is proposed for all years but some of us are convinced that this is track dependent issue.

 

Out of the box i think they should fix the 1.6 heat soak issue what ever fix that would be i would support, beyond that it would be nice to see some science behind the changes.

 

Lets see, we went 5 months without discussing this, we must have been distracted by racing.

[wreckerboy]

"Underwhelming support"?

Where was this WDYT annoucement made? This is the first I'm hearing of it.

[38bfast]

The SMAC Is always ready to read recommendations for the 1.6. There seems to be some traction for removing the turn signal. I believe it would help but we don't have any data to support the change. I have been pleading for it for months. Lots of promises but no data to date. 

 

We have looked at data for engine changes but in all cases it raised the big end of the power curve with little or no effect on the lower end of the power band where the 1.6 is weak. 

 

The SMAC has also seen many 1.6s that are showing up to races displaying 2300 Lbs min. Many are not even aware of the 25Lb bone they got this year. 

[Bruce Wilson]

rationalization is a great thing

[Bench Racer]

Starting backasswards, my stickers show 2,275 and weight is required to get there.

 

Searching back through 1.6 threads Rich posted (post, Rule Change For 1.6, page 6, post 119, RWP80000, Rich Powers, one of the guys whose knowledge I respect) an interesting post referencing the 1.6 using the 6 speed Mazda transmission and data to support increase in  torque compared to the 99 plus using the 5 speed. There was a negative comment referencing it's short gates and finding wrong gears going up and down. Forgetting the wrong gear issue, should this be looked at further. Someone else posted a negative comment referencing street use. Rick has a 6 speed for street use and it works well per his use and 2 cents. Looked at 6 speed used cost which seems to be in the $700.00 to $1,400.00 range, add money for rebuild. Are there thoughts to reduce/eliminate the wrong gear issue. Please leave the negative comments about adding weight to an improved 1.6 until a rule is changed and posted in FasTrack.

 

My legal today intake temp at filter is below 100* F. A coupe weeks ago when at the track from memory for practice and qualifying the temp was 90* ish. Someone else drove the car during the race with no feed back. Will report back after next weekends double at the Farm. I have written torque letters in the past to no avail, thank you for your input. I don't write letters anymore. My car today has more talent than the owner/driver.

 

David Dewhurst

[Danny Steyn]

So here I go again, stepping into a dogfight with nothing to gain other than getting egg on my face.

 

I don’t own a 1.6, but I personally believe that the 1.6’s need some help, same too with the NA 1.8. My opinion, not that of any group.

 

So sitting on the SMAC, something that we do, after hours, with no compensation, and certainly in my case with ZERO vested interest, we respond to letters, introduce ideas, and bounce around discussions, all with the intent of hopefully ensuring that the Spec Miata class is a buoyant attractive class for you, myself and others to spend our dollars and race.

 

So with that being said, Brandon, myself and many others before us, have plenty of experience of a lot of complaining, a lot of off-the-wall suggestions, but very little in the way of sound ideas coming forward that have group support.

 

Just as Ralph says above, ALL the stuff that the SMAC and super committee tested, did not achieve ANY results that made sense. Everything we tested added HP at the top and did not add any TQ down below. And most are expensive to implement with little or no benefit.

 

So here we are, 6 months later, trying to come up with alternative things to test.

 

But surely some of you with 1.6’s, the guys who feel handicapped, should be getting together, just as JD and others have said, and do some brainstorming / testing of your own. You have the cars, you know them better than we do, and chances are if you get all of you on the same page, maybe you can come up with some results that help us improve the parity.

 

How about getting a few guys together showing up at a test day, and doing two back to back sessions, recording data, and seeing if removing the turn signal and directing cold air to the air box has any positive effect. And if so, come up with some data backed answers that help drive the discussion

 

• Does it improve HP / and or TQ, and if so by how much?
• Does it reduce late run heat soak?
• Does it make tuning the AF ration any easier
• And does any of this improve the competitiveness of the car, or is this a wild goose chase too?
• Has the 25lbs helped at all? Has anyone run data back to back to quantify what it has yielded? If so can you share the results with us

 

With all respect to Hampton, Dewhurst, Sager and others, I know you want this to happen, so please lend a hand. Honestly, if you are waiting for someone like me to organize a 1.6 to do the testing for you, on my own time, (and yes I work 90 hour work weeks) then please don’t complain if this takes some time.

 

We, the members of the SMAC, are working on it, but when everything that we have done so far has failed, our appetite for investing even more of our time to pursue this diminishes with every failure, especially when we note that none of the affected drivers are doing anything to move any alternative suggestions forward.

 

This is not an attack on anyone, this is just human nature ….. in other words if you want something to happen, then you have to be prepared to make it happen yourself, or at least lend a helping hand.

 

FLAME SUIT ON.

[Jim Drago]

So Danny, Are you basically wanting people to get off their ass and actually do something rather than just get on here and complain?          

 

 

I agree with the six speed in principle, but in reality that would be horrendous mistake.  I built one for my STL car and it is VERY difficult to drive and I feel I am as qualified or more so than 90 % of all who would be using it. I pulled it after two sessions. Many have had the same experience. Plain and simply, this is/would be a mistake. Better ratios that you mis shift 3-4 times a lap is not going to help anyone. If you get a group together and would like to test, I will let you borrow one to prove the point. 

[LarryKing]

The 1.6 didn't slow down. The NBs, which were an underdog when first added to SM, kept getting faster.

I think it's time for the 1.6 to be its own class.

[Steve Scheifler]

Ralph, Danny, normally I would expect myself to be one of the people gathering data, and I still hope to, but at the moment we've got all we can handle to keep our cars race worthy and get them to the track.

Meanwhile, if others have tested a variety of things then why not post specific tests, results and conclusions so we don't needlessly duplicate them?

If we really want the 1.6 to be more like the other cars then the most likely approach is to add power in ways that do benefit torque then restrict the intake to limit peak power. I'm not advocating that, but IF the goal is to make them more similar then that's probably the only practical solution. If we knew more about tests with compression, cams, headers, etc. then we might be able to estimate whether any of them could work combined with a restrictor.

The cooler intake request is a separate issue, but similar in that the goal is to make the1.6 a bit more like the 1.8s in terms of stable intake air temps. Unfortunately, even if we had data logging set up for that, the suggestion to gather it during test sessions brings up a new gripe of mine. SCCA divisional races no longer HAVE practice sessions and often don't have a Friday test day. AND, the entry fees keep going up. It looks to me as though the club is in a death spiral in some regions. They keep reducing our track time to sell off sessions to other things like PDX, CRE, whatever, and sometimes outside groups, and they keep raising the rates to offset declining participation. So someone just getting started, or coming back after a long absence, is forced to hit the track in qualifying mode without an opportunity to scrub tires, bed brakes, figure out pressures and setup, or learn a new track. It's beyond ridiculous. This is supposed to be proper racing not an oversized autocross. Sorry, perhaps I'll start a new topic for that rant if anyone will join me in protest, but it also makes this kind of testing more difficult.

[ECOBRAP]

After this weekend I changed my mind, the 25lb weight drop helped but still isn't enough. Definitely worth looking into options (again) to bring it up to speed.