97 replies to this topic

[Tom Sager]

I do not race NASA.

 

Where is the expected performance increase by lowering the weight 25 pounds?

I would say that the 25 pound decrease will help the car at nearly every point of every track, wouldn't you?

[ECOBRAP]

I would agree that the torque problem is not solved, but it is inarguable that less weight = lower lap time. It will give us slightly better acceleration, grip, braking, tire wear, and motivation for a healthier diet   . Before we come to any conclusions, let's just see what happens! Specifically, keep an eye on the NASA TMC in the West. We have very fast drivers in every type of SM at every type of track. Going to be a good year!

[Bench Racer]

I would say that the 25 pound decrease will help the car at nearly every point of every track, wouldn't you?

You would be correct, it would be the magnitude of help approved will show nothing. Issue not solved. It'll take more to solve the issue. But, not to worry, the issue will be monitored/tracked/whatever.

 

We were at 2275 pounds for year 2011 and they were on the podium across the United States.

Please, lets no go down the usual, driver, performance, prep list.

[Tom Sager]

You would be correct, it would be the magnitude of help approved will show nothing. Issue not solved. It'll take more to solve the issue. But, not to worry, the issue will be monitored/tracked/whatever.

 

We were at 2275 pounds for year 2011 and they were on the podium across the United States.

Please, lets no go down the usual, driver, performance, prep list.

Given the lack of any proven and tested modifications to solve your torque issue, I see this as a great response to 1.6 competitors.  Take advantage of the lighter weight until another alternative is proposed and available.  

[Pat Ross]

Bench,

 

If the 1.6 gets the torque up to the same as the '99 under 5500 rpm we will insist that the NA1.6 weigh at least 2400 pounds.  It will then handle like a pig.  Be careful what you wish for.

 

Pat

[Dave D.]

Why penalize the VVT when the '99-2000 still make more power?? Where has the VVT been so dominant that it needs to be reigned in by weight?? I did not notice many VVTs at the pointy end of the field of Runoffs,NASA Championship,etc... I don't accept the recent win in Fla. as the car in question may have some funny business going on with it's 1s and 0s................

[Bench Racer]

Pat, because of the ever changing head technology since the 1.6 (which breathed well at one time, it had a turbo) the 1.6 head/intake will never breath enough to equal the 99 torque below 5,500 rpm. I don't look at the issue one sided, YES, I understand the weight. Then on the other hand, I understand the 99 can be built to 2,100 pounds, plus 250 pound driver/gear. Maybe we could meet in the middle at 2350 pounds.  Win, win.

[john mueller]

Why penalize the VVT when the '99-2000 still make more power?? Where has the VVT been so dominant that it needs to be reigned in by weight?? I did not notice many VVTs at the pointy end of the field of Runoffs,NASA Championship,etc... I don't accept the recent win in Fla. as the car in question may have some funny business going on with it's 1s and 0s................

 

I'll reiterate that these are recommendations from a SMAC call that I was not invited to attend.  I do not know SMACs process to arrive at these weight changes were but NASA agrees with them.

 

• ​For NASA the 1.6 weight decrease is a fine tuning of the current rules that hopefully will help.  We'll have to see how much.
• The 01+ increase is to basically cover for unforeseen development that is guaranteed to arrive, if it hasn't already.

 

I personally agree with both of these and feel it is the right action considering SCCA's process makes big swings of the bat a 2016 exercise.  I applaud SMAC on these.

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

I'm glad Nasa did something for the 1.6 and hope that scca will at least do the same !

[john mueller]

I'm glad Nasa did something for the 1.6 and hope that scca will at least do the same !

 

They will.  This was SMAC's idea and their recommendation.  So I expect it to happen.

NASA can just move faster on this sort of stuff, that's all.

[Rob Burgoon]

[Dave D.]

 

• The 01+ increase is to basically cover for unforeseen development that is guaranteed to arrive, if it hasn't already.

 

That is a ridiculous statement.................That's like saying "we're putting you in prison because you have two hands and can/may kill someone someday"

To actually impose penalties before any demonstration of unfair performance advantage is just wrong.

[ECOBRAP]

 

 

[Dave D.]

Seriously,John,where did you see the VVT outgunning the 99-00? If that was just a recommendation from the SMAC,NASA didn't have to implement it. we do,after all, not have to deal with the politics and formal governing SCCA has. If it wasn't broken, why "fix" it?

       I'm upset as I am just regretfully finishing up a new VVT build. I was pushed into the VVT as I was told it would be the car to have soon. However all I have seen so far is that the supposed low to mid range torque advantage still can't overcome the fact that the '99-00 has more overall power,especially top end due to the '99-00 having a better intake and the VVT having the VCTS chokepoint. Now I feel this will just be a self -fulfilling prophecy as VVT owners HAVE to get the ECU work done to exploit the VVT that didn't give what what was hoped for. If you wanted to get the 1.6 more competitive, then either give the weight to '99-05, or if you are intent to just give the VVT weight, then take away the 99-00's AFPR to help the VVT keep up on the top end...............

 

NASA, where if it 'aint broke,we'll fix it 'til it is......................

[Jim Drago]

They will.  This was SMAC's idea and their recommendation.  So I expect it to happen.

NASA can just move faster on this sort of stuff, that's all.

Perhaps while sitting in on their calls and coming up with joint decisions, you should keep the information confidential and announce at the same time especially since the SMAC is not supposed to comment on their recommendations? Just my    from the retired guy

[Steve Scheifler]

Pat, because of the ever changing head technology since the 1.6 (which breathed well at one time, it had a turbo) the 1.6 head/intake will never breath enough to equal the 99 torque below 5,500 rpm...

It doesn't work that way. Low-end torque is not limited by flow "potential", it is limited by velocity. Too much flow for too little demand = fall on your face. If you open up head and exhaust for higher CFM it will likely gain at the top end but lose below 5500. Think about how variable intake runners work.

[Ron Alan]

Why penalize the VVT when the '99-2000 still make more power?? Where has the VVT been so dominant that it needs to be reigned in by weight?? I did not notice many VVTs at the pointy end of the field of Runoffs,NASA Championship,etc... I don't accept the recent win in Fla. as the car in question may have some funny business going on with it's 1s and 0s................

 

Seriously,John,where did you see the VVT outgunning the 99-00? If that was just a recommendation from the SMAC,NASA didn't have to implement it. we do,after all, not have to deal with the politics and formal governing SCCA has. If it wasn't broken, why "fix" it?

       I'm upset as I am just regretfully finishing up a new VVT build. I was pushed into the VVT as I was told it would be the car to have soon. However all I have seen so far is that the supposed low to mid range torque advantage still can't overcome the fact that the '99-00 has more overall power,especially top end due to the '99-00 having a better intake and the VVT having the VCTS chokepoint. Now I feel this will just be a self -fulfilling prophecy as VVT owners HAVE to get the ECU work done to exploit the VVT that didn't give what what was hoped for. If you wanted to get the 1.6 more competitive, then either give the weight to '99-05, or if you are intent to just give the VVT weight, then take away the 99-00's AFPR to help the VVT keep up on the top end...............

 

NASA, where if it 'aint broke,we'll fix it 'til it is......................

I'm going to assume you just looked at results on line and did not actually follow the SCCA Runoffs at Laguna? Prior to the official results the unoffcial results were VVT cars 1-2-3. Just one race...but you asked!

 

No doubt the VVT motor is being figured out. The torque numbers are impressive(sorry DD!). The fact that Jim Drago is going to NOLA in a VVT car tells you all you need to know!

[Bench Racer]

It doesn't work that way. Low-end torque is not limited by flow "potential", it is limited by velocity. Too much flow for too little demand = fall on your face. If you open up head and exhaust for higher CFM it will likely gain at the top end but lose below 5500. Think about how variable intake runners work.

 

I understand how the VIS, long/short runners function. I understand how the VVT functions, I understand the intake is at a steeper angle. I also made a comment referencing the ever changing head technology since the 1.6 intake/heads were designed.

 

25 pounds less, measurable.  

 

Nuff comments on this thread, I don't do NASA.
 

[FTodaro]

 

 

• The 01+ increase is to basically cover for unforeseen development that is guaranteed to arrive, if it hasn't already.

 

I am not complaining about the change for the VVT Nasa 2015 SCCA 2025, but you have to admit that is a new criteria for competition adjustment. 

 

In an SCCA event giving my 1.6 buddies a 50 lb swing from last year will show up IMO.

[Dave D.]

Thanks Ron,

   I guess I wasn't looking deeper into SCCA stuff past the Runoffs/Fla Majors results as I have no intentions of running SCCA( I am a NASA NE staff member,so to go away for more race weekends,my wife would leave me!!). We ( Northest Region) don't have many VVTs running with us so it is unfamiliar territory for me. I raced a 1.6 for 6 years and sold it to race a GT car for the last 6. However the money and especially the time involved in the care and feeding of a tube chassis car was getting to be too much. I was going to build a new 1.6 as that was/is most familiar and comfortable to me but was convinced not to and go with the latest/greatest car for the more secure long term investment. However I have only seen the '99-2000 as the more popular car and the results and videos seem to show that they still have an edge over the VVT.