411 replies to this topic

[LarryKing]

 

 The 1.6er has 6 bad corners under his belt

 

Why didn't you say so earlier? Hell, give me a six corner lead at the start and call it done.

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

Very well said, let me add another 2 cents
 
Many years ago, I was told marriage is not a 50-50 proposition. Both parties must put in 100% effort. In Spec Miata racing, the competition is so close that it take a 100% car and a 100% driver.
 
In my opinion, a 100% prepped and 100% legal 99-2000 would be 100%, A VVT would be 99.5%, a 1.6 would be 97% and the NA 1.8 at 95%. We are not talking big differences here. by contrast in most other classes a 10% difference would be acceptable.
 
If the typical track has 10 turns, and a race is 20 laps, each corner is 0.5%. SO the VVT driver has already screwed up 1 corner before the race even starts. The 1.6er has 6 bad corners under his belt. That is less than one lap difference. Remember we are comparing you(and me for that matter) to the Steyn, Voytek Drago etc. of our world. Start adding up your driving mistakes. Miss the apex by a foot, brake too late and lock 'em up, get held up by a backmarker, get passed at the wrong point by the leader. All of this adds up much faster than the inherent small difference between equally built and prepped cars.
 
What we are discussing is very minor to most classes. Spec Miata has such close competition that even minutia is important. Thus the dreaded $30+k build cost. I would bet there is more data expense in the SM field than the entire other 7 race groups. We really are looking for perfection, and close enough is just not close enough for anyone who feels they are in the under 100% car.
 
The point of discention is not what year needs help. It is how and how much.
 
dave

Great perspective Dave !

This is one of the reasons I posted my video. It is one of the flattest tracks in the NE area and a wide open track except for one or two corners make it an equal playing field for all the cars. If you seen the video you can see how the NB pulled out of the corner better then my NA and how my NA started to catch up at the end of the straight. It's not much of a big diff but there is one a small one. This is why I agree that the NA needs nothing on top end and something small for the lower end.

I for one am not mad about the rules because they are very close now. They just need a little more tweeking and they would be perfect. I am still greatful for all the hard work that the smac and board have done to get were we are now and want to thank them for that. In no way am I saying I could do a better job then they have done. I'm just trying to say some of my opinions on this subject and I'm in noway an expert on the subject. So keep up the great work guys !

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

Why didn't you say so earlier? Hell, give me a six corner lead at the start and call it done.

Lmao !!!!!

[MPR22]

Why didn't you say so earlier? Hell, give me a six corner lead at the start and call it done.

I think you misinterpreted that a little bit.  Not six actual corners, 6 mistakes.  So more like 1.8 to 3 seconds depending on how bad he is defining his mistakes.  My typical  mistake is 0.3 seconds.  

[Jim Drago]

I think you misinterpreted that a little bit.  Not six actual corners, 6 mistakes.  So more like 1.8 to 3 seconds depending on how bad he is defining his mistakes.  My typical  mistake is 0.3 seconds.  

I think he got it

[Jamz14]

Very well said, let me add another 2 cents

 

Many years ago, I was told marriage is not a 50-50 proposition. Both parties must put in 100% effort. In Spec Miata racing, the competition is so close that it take a 100% car and a 100% driver.

 

In my opinion, a 100% prepped and 100% legal 99-2000 would be 100%, A VVT would be 99.5%, a 1.6 would be 97% and the NA 1.8 at 95%. We are not talking big differences here. by contrast in most other classes a 10% difference would be acceptable.

 

If the typical track has 10 turns, and a race is 20 laps, each corner is 0.5%. SO the VVT driver has already screwed up 1 corner before the race even starts. The 1.6er has 6 bad corners under his belt. That is less than one lap difference. Remember we are comparing you(and me for that matter) to the Steyn, Voytek Drago etc. of our world. Start adding up your driving mistakes. Miss the apex by a foot, brake too late and lock 'em up, get held up by a backmarker, get passed at the wrong point by the leader. All of this adds up much faster than the inherent small difference between equally built and prepped cars.

 

What we are discussing is very minor to most classes. Spec Miata has such close competition that even minutia is important. Thus the dreaded $30+k build cost. I would bet there is more data expense in the SM field than the entire other 7 race groups. We really are looking for perfection, and close enough is just not close enough for anyone who feels they are in the under 100% car.

 

The point of discention is not what year needs help. It is how and how much.

 

dave

Oh I have been waiting for this post!!!! So we have spent countless hours debating the 1.6 parity issue. Almost no time has been spent on the NA 1.8 . But here you have an experienced and reputable shop stating that the NA 1.8 is the car with the least parity.

 

I can understand that as a NA 1.8 owner it is my job to provide the needed argument and data to request a change. It is not Wheelers or Dragos or Fowlers or Tileys. However I believe that each of these shops knows what the NA 1.8 needs. So I am asking for help. I am not asking you to do the work for me. But maybe you can help an amateur mechanic where I should be looking. If you truly want parity, this should not be a sensitive question.

 

So the question is; why is the NA 1.8 at 95% of where the 99 is Dave? In your opinion, what would make the NA 1.8 on par? If the 1.6 is 97% and it needs potentially a little help, would it not follow that the NA 1.8 being at 95% needs more help?

 

Again, no one is asking you to do my work. I have a 97, a modicum of wrenching talent, and a will to do the needed data collection and testing. But I don't know where to begin and how to make a case that would be acceptable by SMAC, BOD, NASA, ETC.

[FTodaro]

Does someone have the statistics of how may drivers in SM registered and raced at least once in 2014 and what year car they have. Would that statistic be out there?

Then breakout by regional/majors.

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

Oh I have been waiting for this post!!!! So we have spent countless hours debating the 1.6 parity issue. Almost no time has been spent on the NA 1.8 . But here you have an experienced and reputable shop stating that the NA 1.8 is the car with the least parity.

I can understand that as a NA 1.8 owner it is my job to provide the needed argument and data to request a change. It is not Wheelers or Dragos or Fowlers or Tileys. However I believe that each of these shops knows what the NA 1.8 needs. So I am asking for help. I am not asking you to do the work for me. But maybe you can help an amateur mechanic where I should be looking. If you truly want parity, this should not be a sensitive question.

So the question is; why is the NA 1.8 at 95% of where the 99 is Dave? In your opinion, what would make the NA 1.8 on par? If the 1.6 is 97% and it needs potentially a little help, would it not follow that the NA 1.8 being at 95% needs more help?

Again, no one is asking you to do my work. I have a 97, a modicum of wrenching talent, and a will to do the needed data collection and testing. But I don't know where to begin and how to make a case that would be acceptable by SMAC, BOD, NASA, ETC.

Oh now you done did it, you had to go there !!!

Your car is an easy fix with a plate or weight adjustment at very little cost.

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

As of now I'm not talking to Jim anymore, I sent him a pm and he didn't even read it yet !

I guess you don't love me anymore !

I'm sorry I didn't get you anything for valentines day,I'll make it up to you next year !

[davew]

Oh now you done did it, you had to go there !!!

Your car is an easy fix with a plate or weight adjustment at very little cost.

 

My opinion, If we lower the weight on the 1.6, we should lower the weight on the NA1.8 the same amount. Plus it is easy to adjust with plate.

 

The 1.6 only has weight to work with. Everything else becomes a performance mod that requires more in depth research. But the 1.6 needs to be done first.

[Steve Scheifler]

Need to identify where the NA 1.8 needs help. If it is torque (surely not compated to the 1.6) then weight is fine, but if it needs to run out better then a larger plate.

[Ron Alan]

Oh now you done did it, you had to go there !!!

Your car is an easy fix with a plate or weight adjustment at very little cost.

shhhh! 47,47,47,47,47,47,47,47mm! Dont want to upset the 1.6ers!

[Pat Ross]

As has been said on here many times, the best and cheapest way to get into SM is to buy a used NA1.6, spend time and money on seat time, decide whether you enjoy racing enough to sacrifice other things to be able to afford the addiction, then choose your weapon.

 

Mike's 1st SM was a NA1.6 that we built and cost about $18k.  We could have bought a used one cheaper, but we wanted to know exactly what it took to build one and what all went into it.  Things like the Torsen rear end, the Fat Cats, the racing radiator, etc.  Once we decided that racing was something that Michael and I really enjoyed, we decided to build a 99NB. 

 

We still have the NA, but if we had sold it for $9k, the '99NB would have cost us less than 10k for the upgrade.  That doesn't include "sweat equity".  My point is that Kuch said he might be willing to pay $2-8k to update the NA1.6 to make it more competitive.  My question is, why not spend that amount and go to a more updated platform. 

 

We need cheap NA1.6 for people to enter the class to determine if they like it.  If changes are made to the NA1.6 to make them more competitive will everyone with an older NA1.6 now think that their car is worth $18-20k and price them at that?  If so, where do the new people begin.

 

Pat 

[Jim Drago]

As of now I'm not talking to Jim anymore, I sent him a pm and he didn't even read it yet !

I guess you don't love me anymore !

I'm sorry I didn't get you anything for valentines day,I'll make it up to you next year !

I read it.. just didnt respond to it

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

I read it.. just didnt respond to it

Damn !

[Chris D.]

Newbie here, I hope to see some of you guys at Waterford this year, in my 1.6. It'll be a learning season for me, so hopefully won't be affected by all of this talk, however it is a bit discouraging for my competitive self. That said, I don't see why this couldn't be easily fixed with weight and or intake bigger restrictors.

Welcome!   Don't worry about the 1.6 at Waterford.  It has been competitive over the years there.  See you out there this summer!

[Sean - MiataCage]

We still have the NA, but if we had sold it for $9k, the '99NB would have cost us less than 10k for the upgrade.  That doesn't include "sweat equity".  My point is that Kuch said he might be willing to pay $2-8k to update the NA1.6 to make it more competitive.  My question is, why not spend that amount and go to a more updated platform. 

 

We need cheap NA1.6 for people to enter the class to determine if they like it.  If changes are made to the NA1.6 to make them more competitive will everyone with an older NA1.6 now think that their car is worth $18-20k and price them at that?  If so, where do the new people begin.

 

Pat 

 

Why not make the cars more equal to eliminate the need for an upgrade and that way people can pick their poison.  I will say it again.... If you let the 1.6L get put out to pasture then it will be the start of a downward cycle of getting rid of cars (99/00 will be next) and thus making SM more expensive to race overall as you will have to keep upgrading your car.  

 

Your 18-20K number doesn't even cover the deposit that several builders back east require to build a top flight 99-05 and those deposits only represent 50% of the build.  The flip side of this which is where I think we are now is that people don't want to spend 9k or 10k for a car that they know is NOT competitive.  If the cars were capable of hanging with or beating the 99-05's it would put value back in the price of the 1.6 cars for sure, but I think that's ok.  People I talk to are NOT picking other vehicles because they have cheaper price of entry they are choosing a different vehicle all together because of the perception of being in equal cars and being able to win.

 

Not directing this at you Pat in any way, but I don't understand why we can't just add some weight.  Lead is cheap and we know it worked in the past.  Add 50lbs to the 99-05 cars and let them have the larger restrictor.  The restrictor doesn't really do much to the torque anyway so when they got downsized and lost the weight it was a victory for those cars and don't think for a second that the powers that be that asked for it didn't know that.

 

Make the car with the better torque number (and system) work harder to come off the corner, that will make the cars closer.  These 1.6's are going to end up getting compression all because of 50lbs of weight.  Seems like a backwards way of engineering a solution to a problem.  Go with the cheapest and easiest, test it and make adjustments as needed.

 

Lead is cheap.....

 

Somebody who is Pro 99/00 give me a good reason why we can't just add weight or defeat the dual intake runner to eliminate the lower torque producing path.  Simple, cheap and easy.

 

Part of the problem here also is that a lot of information is getting leaked that was not supposed to get out yet.  As I understood it the plan was for the 3 groups to do some testing on the dyno and on the race track to determine what changes equated to what HP numbers and on track performance and then it was supposed to be compiled and put out for input from SCCA to narrow down the process.  Now all we have is a platform for the vocal majority to continue to give reasons why things won't work before any testing can even be done.

 

SCCA screwed it up in my opinion.  Do the testing first, then ask for input on a couple of potential solutions not just ask for opinions that have no testing, accuracy or data to support the position.

 

Sean

[Jim Drago]

Damn !

answered Mary!

[Steve Scheifler]

Sean has some points there. I'm certainly "guilty" of saying what likely won't work (lighter flywheel, header, etc.) or won't be good for the majority of 1.6 owners (1.8 transplant), and I won't appologize for that. But floating a few untested ideas is not helpful and if we scratch everything else off the list for one reason or another then it's back to weight or other ways to offset torque. Mostly free at that, even if politically difficult.

[Fastfrog27]

Once again, I read these post and it seems everyone jumps to conclusions. I don't believe anyone with a 1.6 is looking for it to be an overdog.


The common concenses seems that the 1.6 needs a little help, so let's make a minor adjustment, any adjustment at this point. Weight or an intake, let's just move forward. The real reason that everyone with a 1.6 has had such animosity is that rules were frozen for 3 years while the NB cars were still developing.

Ralph, I'll be sending a letter shortly. Still can't believe Novak wants the NA cars to die!!

B Spencer