411 replies to this topic

[davew]

Adding these 10 pages of bandwidth to the other 100's of pages, and we really have not solved anything.

 

I feel we have 2 mutually uncompatable issues being discussed. cost containment and parity.

 

Although, I may not be the leader of the gang that has driven the price of Spec Miata through the roof, I am a member of the gang. I wish it was not $30k+ to build a fresh full blown car. But that is the current world we live in. I disagree, that a 1.6 is more costly to build. The cage is the same. The suspension is the same. The trans is the same. The safety gear is the same. Engine rebuild is the same. The only real difference is the dyno tuning. All my front guys (and even some not front runners) want their car on the dyno every weekend. So even that price is pretty close to the same.

 

So how do we contain the cost of racing a Spec Miata. I would start by eliminating the ever increasing number of specially remanufactured parts and short lived engines. Whether it be special grease, trick spindles or blue printed whatevers. The Advanced drivers have done pretty darn good the last few years with the $6/tube grease, Raybestos rebuilt brake calipers, SKF wheel bearings (repacked but with their original bearings) that are all available to anyone. And Stewart engines (no blown engines in 3 years). Certain suppliers have promoted the fact that you have to use all this expensive stuff in order to compete. When the truth is, they are just lining their pockets with your money. Do these things make a difference with 2 equally prepped cars and equally talented drivers? Yes, but one screwed up corner will hurt even more. Bring the percieved cost of the average competitors racing down and you will have more participants

 

So what should we do? Bring down the costs of motors. Every engine builder spends way toooooo much time worrying about minute details that gain minute power. All this minutia adds up to big labor costs, which get passed on to the consumer. It also shortens engine life. Hopefully the recent past will help stop the arms race. Stop changing the rules. Both the printed rules and the "tech shed legal" rules. Make some simple rules that make sense and make sure we all follow the rules. Remember those cylinder heads did not modify themselves. Remember rule #1, even if you will never get caught. Remember why most of us are racing, FUN

 

Smaller and harder tires in theory would save money. But it would take real world testing. And probably won't happen

 

How do we achieve parity; Any comparisons need to be done between 100% built cars that are recently built. Trying to compare a newly built 99 to a 10 year old 1.6 is like comparing apples to prunes. It is just not accurate. Again, we would need to do real world testing, by multiple teams/drivers/tracks. Not just dyno numbers. Since we have no fresh 1.6 cars, someone will need to foot the bill. You can not expect Jim, or Tom, or Meathead or myself to foot that bill. So who out there is willing to put up the cash? SCCA? NASA? Mazda? Von Charbs? In any form of racing, you have a trickle down effect. The big succesfull teams sell their outdated equipment to the smaller/independent teams. This will always happen. It happens in NASCAR, IndyCar, IMSA and Formula Ford. Very rarely will the small independent guy beet the big guy.

 

I believe that we currently have very close parity (100% for NB, 98% for NA). What should we do? I have not changed my mind in several years. Allow everybody to run the same suspension components. Allow 1.6 to install 1.8NA engines. Then balance the NA and NB 1.8s with plate/weight. I do not see a reason to unilaterally remove restrictors. That would open an even bigger arms race and add huge expense to everyone. Thus hurting overall participation. Let the 1.6 continue to compete just as it is. Or, with minor, almost zero cost, adjustments. Cams, headers etc. are not the answer in my opinion.

 

I really do not believe there are that many 1.6ers sitting on the sidelines, simply because of a percieved engine parity problem. Rather, they are sitting on the sideline because of a dollar parity issue. Others in the sport are spending more dollars than they are willing/capable of spending. Unfortunately Spec Miata has grown past our "entry level" roots.

 

My personal opinion is that Mr Steyn will be a huge help to the SMAC. You will not find a bigger cheerleader for Spec Miata than Danny. He is honest and works for the betterment of all, even if it hurts him personally. His technical expertise may not be the greatest, but he makes up for it in many other ways.

 

Spec Miata is not broke. But the constant bickering about parity and the continuing issue of non compliant parts, is giving us all a bad image. We all need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. Ease back on the reterick. Remember we are all friends. Remember racing is supposed to be fun

 

We all learned all the important stuff in first grade; Don't pick on girls, 1 plus 1 equals 2, be nice to each other, follow the rules and don't eat yellow snow.

 

dave

[James York]

Valid points Mr York, and if you're asking 1/3 to 1/2 of the current participants to re-invest in a new(er) car why would you suggest a model that is already 16 years old?

 

If we're ripping off bandaids then let's include everyone in that pain and make the NC chassis the spec.

 

Whatever the membership wants works for me.   The never ending cycle has to be put away.

[pat slattery]

Danny,

 

I would agree, that the NA drivers on this forum express feelings that they must move to a 99+ to be competitive.  I personally can't say this is true for every driver, nor can I honestly say I have first hand facts since I have never discussed this topic with 1.6 drivers in person.

 

The only anecdotal evidence i can say, is that I have not attended a Majors race myself where a 1.6 car or driver was prepped enough to be expected to win...  in my opinion.  My driving has not been prepped enough either.

How in the heck do you know how much prep is in there cars, I couldn't tell you the amount of prep just looking at the car.

[Danny Steyn]

Great Post Dave - and thanks for the support

[Brian129]

I have a question about trying to achieve parity. It's not specific to the 1.6, but it affects the 1.6 the most, because the MFG of the 1.6 is the least consistent, in parts.

Do you design the rules for the top prep car or the average prep car?

If you design the rules for the car that is average prep, not spending the money to flow parts match parts and spend 3 times more than it costs to build later models, with better parts, you leave the door open for the money teams to do that and build an over dog.

If you design the rules around the top prep car, matched everything, dynoed to the hilt, then you are going to pass on no benefit, to 90 % of the cars who's owners will not prep to the level needed to make the car competitive, under the rule set?

Which is part of the issue IMO.

 

I'm trying to understand. 

 

So we have a car we know benefits from the flow matching, and perfect tuning. 

Which in turn is what is making this hard to develop, and pushing a large gap between the best prep, and home prep cars.  

The reason for this is dyno time and effort finding magic parts that happen to flow better (heads, headers, maybe intake manifolds,  whatever it be) as well as a system that is known to fall out of best tune with minor changes in condition. 

why is this not prevalent on all the NA1.8 cars?

so they do not run exactly the same control system as the 1.6,  but 94-95 is still similar(minus the stupid AFM).

But for flow,  the 1.8 does run a restrictor,  which would mean that is the restriction in the system,  not a header/head.....

So, by adding the restriction to the system,  don't you remove the flow matching, and therefor shrink the gap between a top prep and standard prep car?  

I know a lot of the difference for most regional cars are owners not willing to take advantage of all the upgrades available,  but even if one was to buy everything the flow matching and dyno tuning is key to making everything work. 

 

This still does not solve the AFM which is a big factor.  

 

It seems the reason for the hesitation to give the 1.6 more is based on those few TOP prep cars being able to over perform if the mid prep cars are brought up to speed more.  Wouldn't closing the gap help all involved?  

[Danny Steyn]

Danny,

 

I would agree, that the NA drivers on this forum express feelings that they must move to a 99+ to be competitive.  I personally can't say this is true for every driver, nor can I honestly say I have first hand facts since I have never discussed this topic with 1.6 drivers in person.

 

The only anecdotal evidence i can say, is that I have not attended a Majors race myself where a 1.6 car or driver was prepped enough to be expected to win...  in my opinion.  My driving has not been prepped enough either.

 

James - I like you buddy, but you are better than your post above!

 

It is not anecdotal evidence you want. You want real world evidence. And the real world evidence is shouting from the rooftopsIf the 1.6 was competitive they would be campaigned, and they are NOT. Yes in my opinion, EVERY 1.6 driver feels COMPELLED to build a 99 or VVT car in order to compete with the front runners. So is this a good situation for the class?

[davew]

Danny, I disagree. Until we have scientific proof that a newly built and sorted 99 is x% better than a newly built and sorted 1.6, we are only dealing with anecdotal evidence. Maybe everybody prefers plastic headlights over barn doors!!!!!

 

Someone above stated the 1.6 has not had any development for years. I agree. But who should bear the expense of developing the 1.6? Should the 99ers be penalized for developing their car and not someone elses.

 

Trying to get 5 very different cars to be equal is impossible. Trying to get them equivalent is what we should be striving for. 10,000 pennies is not equal to a hundred dollar bill. They have equivalent buying power.

 

dave

[Bench Racer]

Danny Steyn, I'll take you 24/7 as a stand up guy.

 

James York, please see post #33 by Wheel this thread for, Advisory Committee Responsibilities.

 

Michael Ross, MegaSquirt is not all that costly in the 1.6 picture. I'll say it again, on a 80* day I have 90* intake air temp. I may do MegaSquirt and run F production to prove a point to myself. 

 

To those of you suggesting a little bit of help, what is a little bit of help and at what rpm range do you want a little bit of help.

 

To those of you suggesting a 15-25 pound weight break, what is this weight break going to accomplish and at what rpm range. The 1.6 weight has floped from 2300 pounds over the years to 2275 pounds and back to 2300 pounds. Accomplishment, zip, zero, nothing. It didn't do a thing at top rpm and if anyone thinks it did any good below 5,500 rpm I've got a news flash for you.

 

Dave Wheeler, head technology was one thing for the 1.6 in year 1988 and head technology is quite another thing for the 99 plus heads in years 1999 forward. As you should know the 1.6 head dose not breath nearly like the 99 plus heads. The friken 1.6 had a turbo on it when it was in the 1988/1989 323GTX. Oh ya with forced air, it could breath very well.

 

Michael Novak, thank you for you input with your todays thread. How do you think folks feel that just procured a 1.6 or someone new reading this site feel. For my 2 cents, I don't think the 1.6 is going anyplace any time soon.

[davew]

Davey DAVEY davey Dew, it is not so much head technology as it is something very simple. Displacement. And we all know there is no replacement for displacement.  There is no disagreement that the 1.6 makes less torque than the 1.8. The disagreement is what modifications to the rules are needed to make them equivalent. Instead of beating the dead horse, make some quantifiable suggestions. i.e. Adding a header to my car, with no other changes increased torque by x% and here are the dyno sheets. Or reducing weight by x pounds decreased my lap time by x seconds. Then others can verify your results.

 

To all the 1.6ers out there, Davey Dew, Pat and lurkers. What is your threshold for expense. Are you willing to spend $20k to make your $10,000 car compete with a $30k 99? Or is the number $2000 (about the price of milling the head and doing a valve job with gaskets and paid labor)? Or is free better (my unproven idea of removing the turn signal lense and dropping the weight)? Or does it need to be a negative effect on the 99ers (more weight, more plate, less something else)? Tell the SMAC what you want.

 

When I was on the SMAC, our intention was to look out for the best interests of the class participants as a whole. We may not have been perfect but we tried really hard. The SMAC also has to be a filter between the competitors and the CRB/BoD. Weeding out the noise and emotion. So write your letters with constructive ideas. Just saying "help the 1.6" does no good. Provide a method and some proof and maybe it will happen.

 

This forum has been nothing but negativity since before the Runoffs. Between Whistlegate, STRgate and the never ending parity complaints it is really getting old. When something good happens, Mazda leads the 24 hours, Bender wins a big award, it gets a few comments. But as soon as we (and I include myself) have a chance to go negative, we have 10 pages on multiple threads. If you where new to road racing and trying to decide what class fit your program the best, and you read pages of negativity, would you pick SM as the class to race. Let's all stop hitting the dead horse, do some constructive research and put all the 'gates behind us. I truely like most of the people in this class, even Davey Dew whose chops I love to bust. But let's all stop acting like the spoiled children we are. And remember why we do this. Because it is FUN. Right Charbs!!!!!

 

dave

[Pat Ross]

Bench,

 

It is my guess that most, not all, of the people that have NA 1.6 did not build them but bought them for $8-12k.  If they sold them for $6k to a newby they would lose $2-6K.  When a new build '99 or VVT cost $25-30k to build and I sell it after 2 years for $18-20k I lose $5-10k.  By now I would wager that most of those driving the NA1.6 did not spend as much as Michael spent ($18k) building our first Spec Miata, a NA1.6. 

 

On this forum I frequently see a newby come on this forum and ask what is the best value and most suggest that they buy and existing Spec Miata because it is cheaper and they need to spend some time racing to determine if they are really interested.  I would argue that having low priced NA1.6s available for new comers is actually beneficial to the class.  It allows new comers to experience racing at a very reasonable rate, but anyone should know you get what you pay for, and a $8k SM is not going to run at the front no matter how good a driver you are.

 

Pat

[Bench Racer]

Dave, my previous post was exactly pointed to those that state, the 1.6 needs a little bit of help. What do they mean by a little bit of help. If I were an engine builder and in the detailed know about engines I would be clamering on this site and to the SMAC/CRB exactly what the 1.6 required with factual data to support my request.

MegaSquirt $800.00, plus dyno time to map and tune??? I can look at proven numbers and see what the MegaSquirt wiil bring to the table, may need a leash for top end. With the MegaSquirt, throw the AFM out and there could be a couple 1.6 issues solved.

 

Pat, don't disagree the cost effective way to enter SM racing is with a 1.6. I'm here to tell you my self built (other than cage, engine, diff) Spec Miata wasn't built for $10.000.00 and I'm never going to total the cost for my build because I don't really care to know.   

[Pat Ross]

Bench,

 

I feel the same way about the 2001 BMW I am building.  I know that I have about $25k in the engine alone.  So, no, I don't want to know (and sure don't want my wife to know) how much I will end up spending.

 

Pat

[Blake Clements]

Dave Wheeler,

 

I couldn't agree with you more.

[Jim Drago]

Davey DAVEY davey Dew, it is not so much head technology as it is something very simple. Displacement. And we all know there is no replacement for displacement.  There is no disagreement that the 1.6 makes less torque than the 1.8. The disagreement is what modifications to the rules are needed to make them equivalent. Instead of beating the dead horse, make some quantifiable suggestions. i.e. Adding a header to my car, with no other changes increased torque by x% and here are the dyno sheets. Or reducing weight by x pounds decreased my lap time by x seconds. Then others can verify your results.
 
To all the 1.6ers out there, Davey Dew, Pat and lurkers. What is your threshold for expense. Are you willing to spend $20k to make your $10,000 car compete with a $30k 99? Or is the number $2000 (about the price of milling the head and doing a valve job with gaskets and paid labor)? Or is free better (my unproven idea of removing the turn signal lense and dropping the weight)? Or does it need to be a negative effect on the 99ers (more weight, more plate, less something else)? Tell the SMAC what you want.
 
When I was on the SMAC, our intention was to look out for the best interests of the class participants as a whole. We may not have been perfect but we tried really hard. The SMAC also has to be a filter between the competitors and the CRB/BoD. Weeding out the noise and emotion. So write your letters with constructive ideas. Just saying "help the 1.6" does no good. Provide a method and some proof and maybe it will happen.
 
This forum has been nothing but negativity since before the Runoffs. Between Whistlegate, STRgate and the never ending parity complaints it is really getting old. When something good happens, Mazda leads the 24 hours, Bender wins a big award, it gets a few comments. But as soon as we (and I include myself) have a chance to go negative, we have 10 pages on multiple threads. If you where new to road racing and trying to decide what class fit your program the best, and you read pages of negativity, would you pick SM as the class to race. Let's all stop hitting the dead horse, do some constructive research and put all the 'gates behind us. I truely like most of the people in this class, even Davey Dew whose chops I love to bust. But let's all stop acting like the spoiled children we are. And remember why we do this. Because it is FUN. Right Charbs!!!!!
 
dave

+1

[38bfast]

IMHO I think the objective is very simple. If you build whatever vintage car it should have the potential to win as any other option. I belive that the 1.8,99 and VVT cars are all there under the current rules. They are also the easiest to adjust. IMO the 1.6 is just a bit off not due to its ability to put down a fast lap but to string a race worth of fast laps together. This is the challange.

[James York]

James - I like you buddy, but you are better than your post above!

It is not anecdotal evidence you want. You want real world evidence. And the real world evidence is shouting from the rooftopsIf the 1.6 was competitive they would be campaigned, and they are NOT. Yes in my opinion, EVERY 1.6 driver feels COMPELLED to build a 99 or VVT car in order to compete with the front runners. So is this a good situation for the class?

Danny

I only said I have anecdotal evidence because I personally don't have factual data to agree or disagree with your opinion around 1.6 performance. I don't agree that just because they aren't campaigned means they are not competitive. But that is just my opinion and I understand yours differs. I am good with that.

I will agree that it is not good for the class if a well driven top prep 1.6 has no possibility to win. Just also consider if 1 shows up, odds don't favor it. But how do you go about changing that? Make the performance so attractive front runners swap and win with it, or over dog it so much somebody that is probably 10 th best wins. Your motive is well intentioned I just don't see a good way to make it happen.

Thanks for taking your time replying and sharing your thoughts. I think I have a good feeling of what you think needs to be done.

[James York]

How in the heck do you know how much prep is in there cars, I couldn't tell you the amount of prep just looking at the car.

Pat,

I don't know about you, but I didn't just fall off the turnip truck.

I know my competion that I face. I do my homework before, during and after the race. There is not that many drivers in SM at any one event.

[Ron Alan]

Although, I may not be the leader of the gang that has driven the price of Spec Miata through the roof, I am a member of the gang. I wish it was not $30k+ to build a fresh full blown car. But that is the current world we live in. I disagree, that a 1.6 is more costly to build. The cage is the same. The suspension is the same. The trans is the same. The safety gear is the same. Engine rebuild is the same. The only real difference is the dyno tuning. All my front guys (and even some not front runners) want their car on the dyno every weekend. So even that price is pretty close to the same.
 
So how do we contain the cost of racing a Spec Miata. I would start by eliminating the ever increasing number of specially remanufactured parts and short lived engines. Whether it be special grease, trick spindles or blue printed whatevers. The Advanced drivers have done pretty darn good the last few years with the $6/tube grease, Raybestos rebuilt brake calipers, SKF wheel bearings (repacked but with their original bearings) that are all available to anyone. And Stewart engines (no blown engines in 3 years). Certain suppliers have promoted the fact that you have to use all this expensive stuff in order to compete. When the truth is, they are just lining their pockets with your money. Do these things make a difference with 2 equally prepped cars and equally talented drivers? Yes, but one screwed up corner will hurt even more. Bring the percieved cost of the average competitors racing down and you will have more participants
 
So what should we do? Bring down the costs of motors. Every engine builder spends way toooooo much time worrying about minute details that gain minute power. All this minutia adds up to big labor costs, which get passed on to the consumer. It also shortens engine life. Hopefully the recent past will help stop the arms race. Stop changing the rules. Both the printed rules and the "tech shed legal" rules. Make some simple rules that make sense and make sure we all follow the rules. Remember those cylinder heads did not modify themselves. Remember rule #1, even if you will never get caught. Remember why most of us are racing, FUN
 
 
 
We all learned all the important stuff in first grade; Don't pick on girls, 1 plus 1 equals 2, be nice to each other, follow the rules and don't eat yellow snow.
 
dave

You are on fire today Mr. Wheeler! Bravo...
 
To his "cost" ideas I quoted I to would like to offer hope to all those who just dont have the option of buying a $30k build. Dont worry...if you have the skills you can still do pretty dam well with a much less expensive car! I have one of those $10k builds/buys. I did not have the funds for a new motor so I left the original 60k bottom end in and paid $1200 for a new head. This got me 10hp...117/113 in a 95 in 2011 with the FPR added. Since then I have only replaced the front hubs and rear hubs once. Still have the original shocks I bought in 2010(did SD2 in 2012). I replace fluids once a year(4/5 weekends)and oil about every 4 hours. Though my motor eats/leaks oil about 1/2-1 quart a weekend...kind of self changing  After 4 years...the motor just made 121/114.5....WHY??? I have done nothing to it???
Because there was a chance it was going to get torn down at Sonoma I took some measurements before the weekend. Main objective was to whistle with VC off...and it was fine. But what blew me away was the compression was within 5 across the board and the leakdown was 3% on all cylinders...after 4 years of racing??? So it did get torn down and now I need to do something. But what? Well, I'm putting that bottom end back in until it dies! The spring keepers are 20 thou shorter than new so I'm going to go ahead and do the head.
 
My point behind this is dont always fall into the hype or feel at a disadvantage because of what money can buy...as Dave said, it's really not always necessary to have the latest and greatest. You will know when it is the car holding you back...and unless you are a total track whore this will take a couple years of seat time and clean door to door racing!

[Ron Alan]

I'm pretty sure we have some real world data out there by some very good drivers that maybe the SMAC can tap into. I wouldnt expect them to come on here and share actual data but maybe just what it was like after driving top prepped 1.6 cars(8 years?) to jump into their new 99's the last couple years? I know at their home tracks they should have tons of comparison and maybe even a little at Laguna. 

 

Ken? I know Will wont bother here but maybe Sean can speak for them?

 

Preemptively I do know one thing they will say...Hoosier tires! I believe the first year of the 3 year rules freeze was when the Hoosier was the National tire. This was also the year the 1.6 was bumped up tp 2300lb...the combination hurt!

 

PERCEPTION has been mentioned...5 years at Road America did this with a drum roll! This did more to kill the 1.6(perception)than any rules parity issues. The car cant win there...therefor, the casual observer thinks it cant win anywhere?

[Danny Steyn]

Danny

I only said I have anecdotal evidence because I personally don't have factual data to agree or disagree with your opinion around 1.6 performance. I don't agree that just because they aren't campaigned means they are not competitive. But that is just my opinion and I understand yours differs. I am good with that.

I will agree that it is not good for the class if a well driven top prep 1.6 has no possibility to win. Just also consider if 1 shows up, odds don't favor it. But how do you go about changing that? Make the performance so attractive front runners swap and win with it, or over dog it so much somebody that is probably 10 th best wins. Your motive is well intentioned I just don't see a good way to make it happen.

Thanks for taking your time replying and sharing your thoughts. I think I have a good feeling of what you think needs to be done.

 

Thanks James - much appreciated, but in response to you and to Dave Wheeler above who disagrees with me, the simple proof is in the pudding (in this case the number of top drivers electing to compete with each version of the Miata) .

 

If drivers felt that they had an EQUAL chance of winning in ANY vintage, one would expect to see a representative cross section of vehicle versions appearing at the front of the class.

 

However if drivers, being the Type A competitive personalities that they are, felt that any one year of vehicle gave an advantage, they would build that car. And that is what is happening today, and what happened some years back. Drivers have abandoned platforms when they felt that another platform would give them an advantage. I remember when the first drivers tried out the VVT car but could not get it to compete, they abandoned them, but when we noticed them start winning races, a LOT of VVT cars suddenly started being developed, and here we are. The numbers speak for themselves

 

IMO the 1.6NA and 1.8 NA cars need help

Drago or someone else with access to the info, please can you let us know how many cars of each version were supplied to USA. That would be very helpful