411 replies to this topic

[Tom Sager]

Very good post Sean.  I for one and with no disrespect toward SCCA or NASA leadership feel that whatever testing they might do is mostly a waste of time.  We have 3 years of data in terms of entries, results and the choice of car by those who are most heavily invested in competition.  These big metrics speak for themselves and are better data than any small sample of testing will provide.  Why go back to "lab tests" when we have real world results.  Every member on the SMAC both outgoing and incoming (as well as many competitors) has/have a good handle on what 2mm or 25 pounds does and frankly the committee individually or the group could come up with a good fix in 15 minutes.  Let the small group do their job with the input they already have and plan to revisit parity twice a year (once in-season and once off-season).  Let's avoid analysis paralysis.   

[Fastfrog27]

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

[Fastfrog27]

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.

[Fastfrog27]

Glad to hear we have another 1.6er in the ranks at Waterford!! You'll do just fine with the 1.6, I've battled and won many of time against the 99s and VVTs. You just need to be completely on your game! As my man Ralph has said, Waterford is the great equalizer.

You'll also find plenty of people that can help with setup and advice. It's a great place to learn and if you got moxie you'll do quite well.

B Spencer

[Ron Alan]

Very good post Sean.  I for one and with no disrespect toward SCCA or NASA leadership feel that whatever testing they might do is mostly a waste of time.  We have 3 years of data in terms of entries, results and the choice of car by those who are most heavily invested in competition.  These big metrics speak for themselves and are better data than any small sample of testing will provide.  Why go back to "lab tests" when we have real world results.  Every member on the SMAC both outgoing and incoming (as well as many competitors) has/have a good handle on what 2mm or 25 pounds does and frankly the committee individually or the group could come up with a good fix in 15 minutes.  Let the small group do their job with the input they already have and plan to revisit parity twice a year (once in-season and once off-season).  Let's avoid analysis paralysis.   

Doesn't it seem so simple to those of us who are on the sidelines? SCCA I understand why the process is so painfully drawn out...but NASA(conversations between a few people)I would think could just snap its fingers? It has in the past...maybe they dont feel either of the NA cars need help?

[FTodaro]

Very good post Sean.  I for one and with no disrespect toward SCCA or NASA leadership feel that whatever testing they might do is mostly a waste of time.  We have 3 years of data in terms of entries, results and the choice of car by those who are most heavily invested in competition.  These big metrics speak for themselves and are better data than any small sample of testing will provide.  Why go back to "lab tests" when we have real world results.  Every member on the SMAC both outgoing and incoming (as well as many competitors) has/have a good handle on what 2mm or 25 pounds does and frankly the committee individually or the group could come up with a good fix in 15 minutes.  Let the small group do their job with the input they already have and plan to revisit parity twice a year (once in-season and once off-season).  Let's avoid analysis paralysis.   

Tom the problem is the rest of the class who's car is not being benefited by parity changes will likely complain that changes are made in a vacuum and not tested. Do you remember the banter in headgate where some were saying that the STR blend was a significant game changer, with no real data to back up that statement?

 

However having said that it is true that it will take a long time to collect data and no matter what these poor bastards do, they will never get consensus.

 

If i was on the SAMC  i would look at this as a 12 month project, i would start today right out of the box with allowing the fix of allowing the left turn signal mod or what ever other practical change to be made to the cold air intake. I would also reduce its wt by 25lbs.

 

Continue on with the evaluation, as those two changes will help but figure out how much more may be needed. That is a safe first step, and moves the process forward but the door is still open for further changes.

[Michael Novak]

Glad to hear we have another 1.6er in the ranks at Waterford!! You'll do just fine with the 1.6, I've battled and won many of time against the 99s and VVTs. You just need to be completely on your game! As my man Ralph has said, Waterford is the great equalizer.
You'll also find plenty of people that can help with setup and advice. It's a great place to learn and if you got moxie you'll do quite well.
B Spencer

Bob,

Two things. I didn't say I want the 1.6 to die I just don't want it given some large changes. As you say in your own words, you have won against everything-----isn't that parity? Weight and RP are easy, but once you start letting people do machine work or buy expensive parts, they are VERY hard to take away


Also I was only talking about Majors racing, not all. Beyond Shawn Slattery everyone has already moved to the NB.

[Fastfrog27]

Bob,

Two things. I didn't say I want the 1.6 to die I just don't want it given some large changes. As you say in your own words, you have won against everything-----isn't that parity? Weight and RP are easy, but once you start letting people do machine work or buy expensive parts, they are VERY hard to take away


Also I was only talking about Majors racing, not all. Beyond Shawn Slattery everyone has already moved to the NB.

[Fastfrog27]

Mike,

Good to hear from you, hope all is well.

It sounds like we're on a similar page with regards to not making any car an overdog. The parity is close but no doubt could be tighter. I think 25lbs and an intake is what the 1.6 needs. I don't think that's asking a ton here. I just simply want to see some course of action to make a tangible change
.
Over the years, you have gotten faster and faster. A testament to both your driving skills but also the development of the VVT. I always liked a challenge but I have to be perfect just to hang with you now.

I know that most of this discussion is only about national racing but the simple fact is that all the top drivers in the country also race regionally. In many cases the regional guys might not have the same budget as the big fish but I can assure you they have the same passion to win a race!! The regional guys are impacted by the same rules.

If a few changes are made, I will get out to a major or two.

[deyan]

Glad to hear we have another 1.6er in the ranks at Waterford!! You'll do just fine with the 1.6, I've battled and won many of time against the 99s and VVTs. You just need to be completely on your game! As my man Ralph has said, Waterford is the great equalizer.

You'll also find plenty of people that can help with setup and advice. It's a great place to learn and if you got moxie you'll do quite well.

B Spencer

 

Cheers, if all goes to plan, I'll see ya guys in few months! I figure Waterford is a good equalizer. 

[Tom Sager]

Tom the problem is the rest of the class who's car is not being benefited by parity changes will likely complain that changes are made in a vacuum and not tested. Do you remember the banter in headgate where some were saying that the STR blend was a significant game changer, with no real data to back up that statement?

 

However having said that it is true that it will take a long time to collect data and no matter what these poor bastards do, they will never get consensus.

 

If i was on the SAMC  i would look at this as a 12 month project, i would start today right out of the box with allowing the fix of allowing the left turn signal mod or what ever other practical change to be made to the cold air intake. I would also reduce its wt by 25lbs.

 

Continue on with the evaluation, as those two changes will help but figure out how much more may be needed. That is a safe first step, and moves the process forward but the door is still open for further changes.

I'm talking strictly weight/plate changes for quick decisions.  You're right some of the other ideas do need further exploration.  We could take a little weight off the 1.6 tomorrow.  

[Jim Drago]

Who knew we had so many experts in this class 

[Bench Racer]

How about one of the class experts explain exactly the gains benefited from the left parking light ambient air intake and the reduction of 25 pounds. Don't just say, this and that here and there, provide you proof.

 

Everything else considered equal I did some displacement Dave (Wheeler) numbers. Looking at .047 over bore (max allowed for production car class) (todays .010 overbore doesn't mean squat to the 1.6 issue) and 10:1 compression ratio the torque continues to suck below 4,500 rpm but looks better at 4,500 rpm and above. If someone feels I made errors, I will not be offended with your corrections.

[davew]

Dave, just to make sure we understand. When I threw the parking light idea into the fire, I said I did not know if it would work or if I even liked the idea. Just put out an idea for discussion.

 

I will assume your calculations are correct. Going to a 0.040" over bore + compression, is going to cost every competitor, who wishes to do it, about $4000. At a minimum. $7 to 10k sounds more reasonable for a non-do it yourselfer. Is that the direction we want to go? Pat, you just bought a new Tiley motor, how would you feel if in a swipe of the pen your new motor is made obsolete? What about your typical midpacker with 1.6? Just because an idea solves the problem, does not make it a good idea.

 

These are the consequences that the rules makers have to take into consideration. What makes sense for the class as a whole over the long run.

 

dave

[Bench Racer]

Dave, likewise the bore/compression is a discussion point. I sure as hell didn't want to talk cost either way because that's a distraction when BlueSkying.

[Sean - MiataCage]

I'm going to take a page from Dewhurst and keep saying things over and over and over.

 

Lead is cheap........  Make the car with better torque work harder off the corner.

 

Sean

[Jim Drago]

How about one of the class experts explain exactly the gains benefited from the left parking light ambient air intake and the reduction of 25 pounds. Don't just say, this and that here and there, provide you proof.

 

Everything else considered equal I did some displacement Dave (Wheeler) numbers. Looking at .047 over bore (max allowed for production car class) (todays .010 overbore doesn't mean squat to the 1.6 issue) and 10:1 compression ratio the torque continues to suck below 4,500 rpm but looks better at 4,500 rpm and above. If someone feels I made errors, I will not be offended with your corrections.

I'm not one of the experts... You guys seem to have all the answers, or at least no shortage in suggestions. Some of these smart people better check that marker light deal... That looks cool and I hope they pass it and you all use it  Before I asked for everything under the kitchen sink.. I would test something and stop pulling your facts from the internet 

 

The cars are not 1/10 as far off as many of the 1.6 brigade claim, most are pandering for anything they can get. It is unfortunate part of our system and the way it works.. Comments like anyone can fix this in 10 minutes is just non sense. First the degree of the "problem goes from a 1 to 11 on a 1-10 scale depending on who you ask. 25 lbs up or down is ABSOLUTELY not a problem, it is fine tuning beyond common sense.   Asking for 10 lb changes etc is even more silly.  All SMAC past and present have done 100% what they felt was accurate. Every rule set we have had since 2006 have been VERY close and better than 99.9% of all the internet expert solutions. There are good people on SMAC now, I have little faith in the top secret testing group and I will leave it at that.  

 The sky is not falling, we need small adjustments and they will be made..  

Jim

[MPR22]

I'm going to take a page from Dewhurst and keep saying things over and over and over.

 

Lead is cheap........  Make the car with better torque work harder off the corner.

 

Sean

Its even cheaper to take the lead out.  

[Sean - MiataCage]

Its even cheaper to take the lead out.  

 

Let me guess..... Your a 99/00 car.

[MPR22]

Dave, just to make sure we understand. When I threw the parking light idea into the fire, I said I did not know if it would work or if I even liked the idea. Just put out an idea for discussion.

 

I will assume your calculations are correct. Going to a 0.040" over bore + compression, is going to cost every competitor, who wishes to do it, about $4000. At a minimum. $7 to 10k sounds more reasonable for a non-do it yourselfer. Is that the direction we want to go? Pat, you just bought a new Tiley motor, how would you feel if in a swipe of the pen your new motor is made obsolete? What about your typical midpacker with 1.6? Just because an idea solves the problem, does not make it a good idea.

 

These are the consequences that the rules makers have to take into consideration. What makes sense for the class as a whole over the long run.

 

dave

Dave, in order for the "vent" to work it will need some form of additional opening at the hood.  Without a place for the air to go, it won't go into the engine bay and back out taking the warm air with it.