390 replies to this topic

[Blake Thompson]

it might be zip ties.  I have a lot of zip ties on my car.

[Bench Racer]

it might be zip ties.  I have a lot of zip ties on my car.

 

Little things do add up. Must be aware of additions, they add weight in a hurry.  First time car was on scales it weighed 2020 pounds with stuff mentioned previously.

[Jim Drago]

Maybe you think you're a better driver than those guys and it shouldn't be close...which is why the/your 1.6 needs more help?

Funny and true at the same time.. I see variations of this all the time. ( I dont know those involved here), but I have seen this same scenario for years and always thought it was pretty funny. Evidently, many think they are 2 seconds faster than the rest and only the car is holding them back.

[Jim Drago]

Back to the 6 speed manual transmission potentially in the 1.6. Has anyone used the transmission on track with modifications beyond OEM shifters? Jim Drago and Ron Allan, were your experience with OEM shifter levers?
 
Anyone else with Miata 6 speed manual transmission experience, good bad or otherwise?

I have not

[davew]

I have not built a complete 1.6 powered car in several years.  Since my new NB cars are better than my 3 year old NB cars, I would assume the same for the early cars.

 

What makes a 100% car IMHO:

 

Pro built motor less than 10 weekends old

Pro built trans

Driveshaft with no bind

serviced drivetrain

Fresh bushings with known straight suspension components

Newer shocks, within a couple years

Serviced brakes with all the details

Quality roll cage. I like mine but there are many builders around the country that provide a quality product

Rotisserie build or something close to it

Lots of dyno time

service or replacement of all accessories: Injectors, fuel pump, water pump starter, alternator etc.

Meets minimum weight with driver, as raced.

Scaled/alligned every weekend

Top tier driver, I say top 20% of any Major field. That's top 10 at June Sprints, Top 3 at typical Majors.

No one track wonders. I am fast enough at Blackhawk but suck everywhere else.

Proper testing program. Development of allignment settings to driver preference

Excellent tires.

 

Somebody send me a donor and $25k and I will build it. Then let's spend a summer developing the car. that's another $2500 per weekend for 10 races. Then let's go race the Dragos/Steyns/Buras's/Berry's of the SM world. At an assortment of tracks. Now we will know for sure what can be done.

 

Once we know how much the 1.6 car is defficient, then we can start to test assorted fixes/upgrades. Whatever they may be.

 

dave

[LarryKing]

I know of many 1.6s that have done everything on the list above. (depending on how you define "service drivetrain". How do you define "service drivetrain"?)

[Jim Drago]

I know of many 1.6s that have done everything on the list above. (depending on how you define "service drivetrain". How do you define "service drivetrain"?)

How about we require whoever wins national points title in 2015 campaign a 1.6 for all of 2016. Danny don't you agree that would be a good idea

In all seriousness, not trying to debate this. But if we had an imaginary perfect solution here at least 75 % of those complaining would still complain until the 1.6 cars won 40-50% of all the races.

[Bruce Wilson]

I have not built a complete 1.6 powered car in several years.  Since my new NB cars are better than my 3 year old NB cars, I would assume the same for the early cars.

 

What makes a 100% car IMHO:

 

Pro built motor less than 10 weekends old

Pro built trans

Driveshaft with no bind

serviced drivetrain

Fresh bushings with known straight suspension components

Newer shocks, within a couple years

Serviced brakes with all the details

Quality roll cage. I like mine but there are many builders around the country that provide a quality product

Rotisserie build or something close to it

Lots of dyno time

service or replacement of all accessories: Injectors, fuel pump, water pump starter, alternator etc.

Meets minimum weight with driver, as raced.

Scaled/alligned every weekend

Top tier driver, I say top 20% of any Major field. That's top 10 at June Sprints, Top 3 at typical Majors.

No one track wonders. I am fast enough at Blackhawk but suck everywhere else.

Proper testing program. Development of allignment settings to driver preference

Excellent tires.

 

Somebody send me a donor and $25k and I will build it. Then let's spend a summer developing the car. that's another $2500 per weekend for 10 races. Then let's go race the Dragos/Steyns/Buras's/Berry's of the SM world. At an assortment of tracks. Now we will know for sure what can be done.

 

Once we know how much the 1.6 car is defficient, then we can start to test assorted fixes/upgrades. Whatever they may be.

 

Now we're getting somewhere.

 

Should have been done before.

 

By the way a good handful of those cars already exist in the NW.  Add to you list use of cage jig to optimize bumpstop clearance on all 4 corners.  Mine is 1/16" wiggle from corner to opposite corner

[Blake Thompson]

I know of many 1.6s that have done everything on the list above. (depending on how you define "service drivetrain". How do you define "service drivetrain"?)

 

If they give you a list of the specifications to meet and everyone is on the same level playing field you understand the deltas between drivers will still be greater than .1-1s?  The mystery and magic of SM is discovering an edge and keeping your mouth shut about it.

I have no doubt that the 18 cars that placed in front of me at the June Sprints last week would handedly defeat me in a 1.6 of their choice.  They'd probably do so with me driving their respective cars, to be frank.  I have no delusions.

[ECOBRAP]

How can you say this Matt?  I'm not saying a compliant 1.6 doesn't need help but your results from this weekend certainly don't support your statement.  You had nose-to-tail battles in all three races this weekend with a '94 and a '99. 

 

Saturday - you finished barely ahead of a 1.8 (.8 second gap) and a 99 (1.4 second gap) and had fast lap on both of them by .2 and .3, respectively.

Sunday 1 - you finished .3 behind the 1.8 and .1 ahead of the 99.  Fast laps were within .3

Sunday 2 - again, nose-to-tail all race long with the 1.8 and fast lap within .1

 

Maybe you think you're a better driver than those guys and it shouldn't be close...which is why the/your 1.6 needs more help?

 

Unlisted video so only those with the link can view it. Assuming the same corner exit speed, a car in front will be traveling slightly faster than the one behind, and cause the gap to stretch on acceleration and shrink under braking (we all know this). That being said, I didn't experience much of that last weekend as you will see in the video. I witnessed this every lap and it was quite frustrating to say the least, so grumpy me took to the forums, and I apologize for my short and unjustified statement, but hopefully the video will address my perspective, especially the last of the three clips. The same situation could be seen between T4-T5 and T6-T7 whenever there is a shift or low rpm zone, just reinforcing what we already know is the problem, torque.

 

For reference, my car makes good but not unusual numbers (usually 117/104, although this past weekend we saw 119/105 on an agreeably high reading dyno).

 

As myself and many others have stated before, this is a track dependent issue... the car set a track record at Buttonwillow the weekend before and was fully capable of winning a race there.

 

In response to your final judgmental and insulting statement, proving you don't know anything about me as a person, I am happy to switch cars with you next month at the NASA Championships

 

[Johnny D]

Maybe you think you're a better driver than those guys and it shouldn't be close...which is why the/your 1.6 needs more help?

I'm with Mark ^^
J~

[Mark Drennan]

Unlisted video so only those with the link can view it. Assuming the same corner exit speed, a car in front will be traveling slightly faster than the one behind, and cause the gap to stretch on acceleration and shrink under braking (we all know this). That being said, I didn't experience much of that last weekend as you will see in the video. I witnessed this every lap and it was quite frustrating to say the least, so grumpy me took to the forums, and I apologize for my short and unjustified statement, but hopefully the video will address my perspective, especially the last of the three clips. The same situation could be seen between T4-T5 and T6-T7 whenever there is a shift or low rpm zone, just reinforcing what we already know is the problem, torque.

 

For reference, my car makes good but not unusual numbers (usually 117/104, although this past weekend we saw 119/105 on an agreeably high reading dyno).

 

As myself and many others have stated before, this is a track dependent issue... the car set a track record at Buttonwillow the weekend before and was fully capable of winning a race there.

 

In response to your final judgmental and insulting statement, proving you don't know anything about me as a person, I am happy to switch cars with you next month at the NASA Championships

 

 

Again, based on the close racing/results and as you admit - no justification for the position in your post - what other judgement was I supposed to have?  Maybe it's more accurate to say my statement proves that there's a difference between your perception and the impression I've gotten over the last year of knowing you.

 

You've cherry picked clips that highlight the weakness of the 1.6.  How about showing the sections where the 1.6 has the advantage from being so much lighter (T1, T2, T3/3a, T6, braking zone of T7, T8/8a, T10, braking zone for T11)?  All in all, lap after lap, and race after race you were all about as evenly matched as different model years can get.  And why should the Buttonwillow track record holder get more help? 

[ECOBRAP]

Again, based on the close racing/results and as you admit - no justification for the position in your post - what other judgement was I supposed to have?  Maybe it's more accurate to say my statement proves that there's a difference between your perception and the perception I've gotten over the last year of knowing you.

 

You've cherry picked clips that highlight the weakness of the 1.6.  How about showing the sections where the 1.6 has the advantage from being so much lighter (T1, T2, T3/3a, T6, braking zone of T7, T8/8a, T10, braking zone for T11)?  All in all, lap after lap, and race after race you were all about as evenly matched as different model years can get.  And why should the Buttonwillow track record holder get more help? 

 

Good point re Buttonwillow, to which I reiterate my track dependency comment. At the beginning of the year I proposed track dependent weight/plate requirements (you may not have seen these posts), but it didn't take me long to realize that was going to be immensely hard to implement... unless we have an SM stig or computer program that can set optimal lap times in 4 top prep cars at every track. Jokes aside it is very difficult, but not impossible.

 

And yes, lighter car = better handling and braking... I regularly see an advantage in some corners, and adapt (drop back 5 yards) to take advantage of it, but torque always seems to counter any run I might be able to get. I will likely post the full video sometime later so you can see non selective data.

 

IMO the primary advantage of the 1.6 right now is tire wear. I seem to be able to push the car for longer than any of the 1.8's, but our sprint races aren't quite long enough to take full advantage of it. A championship race might be? (+20min)

[Bad Rusty]

 

In response to your final judgmental and insulting statement, proving you don't know anything about me as a person, I am happy to switch cars with you next month at the NASA Championships

 

 

And he'd still beat you

[Bad Rusty]

Again, based on the close racing/results and as you admit - no justification for the position in your post - what other judgement was I supposed to have?  Maybe it's more accurate to say my statement proves that there's a difference between your perception and the impression I've gotten over the last year of knowing you.

 

You've cherry picked clips that highlight the weakness of the 1.6.  How about showing the sections where the 1.6 has the advantage from being so much lighter (T1, T2, T3/3a, T6, braking zone of T7, T8/8a, T10, braking zone for T11)?  All in all, lap after lap, and race after race you were all about as evenly matched as different model years can get.  And why should the Buttonwillow track record holder get more help? 

Come on Mark, the only car you're missing is a 1.6, ORDER one!

[Tom Sager]

Good point re Buttonwillow, to which I reiterate my track dependency comment. At the beginning of the year I proposed track dependent weight/plate requirements (you may not have seen these posts), but it didn't take me long to realize that was going to be immensely hard to implement... unless we have an SM stig or computer program that can set optimal lap times in 4 top prep cars at every track. Jokes aside it is very difficult, but not impossible.

 

And yes, lighter car = better handling and braking... I regularly see an advantage in some corners, and adapt (drop back 5 yards) to take advantage of it, but torque always seems to counter any run I might be able to get. I will likely post the full video sometime later so you can see non selective data.

 

IMO the primary advantage of the 1.6 right now is tire wear. I seem to be able to push the car for longer than any of the 1.8's, but our sprint races aren't quite long enough to take full advantage of it. A championship race might be (+20min)

Which gets us back to the age-old debate about the differences in the cars.  So as a 1.6 competitor, do you want your car to make more tq/hp and are you willing to give away the corner/brake/tire wear advantage in exchange?  If yes, is that so you can "race" better with the more powerful cars? 

[ECOBRAP]

And he'd still beat you

[MPR22]

Little things do add up. Must be aware of additions, they add weight in a hurry.  First time car was on scales it weighed 2020 pounds with stuff mentioned previously.

I agree with David. Depending on cage the 1.6 should weigh 2020 if properly prepped. Mine has a Miatacage and weighs 2020 just as David's did before he picked up 20 lbs of dust, dirt and rubber racing the car. West Coast guys are the master 1.6 builders they can chime in on their "base" weights. Should not be more than 2040.

Those of you with more weight have more work to do. Use the 2 lb GCR to help you remove the 40-50 extra lbs your car is carrying around.

[Bench Racer]

 Mine has a Miatacage and weighs 2020 just as David's did before he picked up 20 lbs of dust, dirt and rubber racing the car.

Naw, as anal as you all know I am, it isn't dust, dirt and rubber. I have always secured car to trailer via the front and rear right side OEM tow brackets. I added the left front OEM tow bracket so I can flat tow to Dyno shop. OEM bracket equals HEAVY. Added a psi sensor for water and one for oil low psi, along with wire, brackets and tie wraps. Added a couple more pieces of roll cage tube pad to make an aggressive tech happy. Most likely more little additions that went into the 20 pound gain. Original weight was with Toyo RA1's, now has Hoosier SM6's. Need to check weight of each tire, some weight is likely there on the Hoosier tires??? Rims are the same TD 1.2.

 

On another note, the car count for the Divisional Double this weekend at the Farm is sickly at 106 cars total.

Sat. 8 Spec Miata (1) 1.6, (2) 1.8, (3) 99 (1) 2000     Sun. same cars 

 

Sat. 5 Spec Miata Tire (1) 1.6, (3) 99, (1) 2000         Sun. same cars

 

Not to worry about a separate class for 1.6's. Also no ITA, ITB or ITC cars.

 

If this lowish car count doesn't pick up REALL FAST, not to worry about any more Double Divisional in this area.  Very Sad situation and I understand it's a week after the Sprints. Would guess without counting the aftermath of the Sprints has minimal to do with the low Double car count. The Double a month or so ago was similar. There is another Double end of Aug.

[Blake Thompson]

 

 

If this lowish car count doesn't pick up REALL FAST, not to worry about any more Double Divisional in this area.  Very Sad situation and I understand it's a week after the Sprints. Would guess without counting the aftermath of the Sprints has minimal to do with the low Double car count. The Double a month or so ago was similar. There is another Double end of Aug.

 

council is also in a bad way, the chick insists SCCA is doing fine.  I think we're losing big time to a very healthy LeMons community.