411 replies to this topic

[Jim Drago]

I have a new pc and the "quote" tab does not function, new pc ???, site issue?
 
I also can not copy and past???
 
Ralph, is the result of the SCCA equation for parity, HP+torque/weight the magic "power number"?
 
For my non-engine builder 2 cents, MegaSquirt, intake and exhaust will raise the torque under 5,500 rpm where the 1.6 falls short. If with these items the 1.6 becomes an overdog, back it up one way or another. I understand MegaSquirt may be considered outside the box. So have some of the other made legal items been outside the box.
 
If 2 out of 3 of the suggested options within post #7 make the 1.6 an overdog, please provide what at which rpm. and the rpm range.

It is not a site issue..

Where we race the cars, from s/f to s/f
I will be putting my money where my mouth is, so we will see

[38bfast]

frome what we have seen to this point ( testing is still ongoing) that anything you give the 1.6 raises the power curve. If the power incresses over the entire curve the car will become a over dog. But if we kill the power on the top end with a plate we are getting closer to the objective desired. Currently we have data that shows a 1.6 can produce more peak HP than any other example of other years under the current rules. But it is very peeky power all coming in at the very top end. So if you look at the area under the power curve this is where the car falls short. Also rember that the car is so much lighter which is the same as adding torque. From the data we have we can see the car can use a bit more advantage. Not as much as some would belive.

Beech yes that equation leads to the power factor number. If we went by that simple equation the 1.6 would be getting weight and a plate as it is right now.

Calculating the area under the curve is a much more accurate way.

[Dave McAnaney]

Regarding the potential changes that are being considered to increase the 1.6l torque (compression ratio, oversized pistons, and exhaust header) - these are just ideas that have been discussed in the past and are by no means an all-inclusive list or a guarantee that any of these would ultimately be implemented.  We definitely want to minimize the changes (and cost) and not make the 1.6l an overdog.  If you have any ideas beyond the 3 listed, please send them in.

[FTodaro]

frome what we have seen to this point ( testing is still ongoing) that anything you give the 1.6 raises the power curve. If the power incresses over the entire curve the car will become a over dog. But if we kill the power on the top end with a plate we are getting closer to the objective desired. Currently we have data that shows a 1.6 can produce more peak HP than any other example of other years under the current rules. But it is very peeky power all coming in at the very top end. So if you look at the area under the power curve this is where the car falls short. Also rember that the car is so much lighter which is the same as adding torque. From the data we have we can see the car can use a bit more advantage. Not as much as some would belive.

Beech yes that equation leads to the power factor number. If we went by that simple equation the 1.6 would be getting weight and a plate as it is right now.

Calculating the area under the curve is a much more accurate way.

I am just trying to figure out how bad I am going to get my ass kicked by the local 1.6 boys at mid O when you guys are done playing your 50 shades of parity with the 1.6.

 

Does the Data your looking at take into account the short tracks from the long track. Not Picking on you Ralph but you have first hand knowledge that there are some fast 1.6 cars now at Mid O. I am wondering if it will be possible to win a race against them next year.

 

If the 1.6 is going to get a bump up and the 99 and 01+ is going the other way with wt. there is no way IMO that they will be competitive with the 1.6 at Mid O. You will be seeing lots1.6's built for the runoffs in 16.

[FTodaro]

Some more data points.

 

2013

I held the SCCA club course record for about 12hrs to be captured on Sunday by Murdick (1.6)

 

2014

1.6 has club course record until 10/2014 and it was only .200 of a second off of the record.

 

My point, at Mid O the 1.6 is competitive on this short track. Just keep that in mind when you are going to be bringing everyone to this track in 16 to compete.

 

Bench how did i do?

[ECOBRAP]

I am just trying to figure out how bad I am going to get my ass kicked by the local 1.6 boys at mid O when you guys are done playing your 50 shades of parity with the 1.6.

 

Does the Data your looking at take into account the short tracks from the long track. Not Picking on you Ralph but you have first hand knowledge that there are some fast 1.6 cars now at Mid O. I am wondering if it will be possible to win a race against them next year.

 

If the 1.6 is going to get a bump up and the 99 and 01+ is going the other way with wt. there is no way IMO that they will be competitive with the 1.6 at Mid O. You will be seeing lots1.6's built for the runoffs in 16.

 

 

Lol, yeah we definitely can't make the 1.6 an overdog at 20%  of the tracks in the country. It's only fair if the 1.8 is an overdog at every track like it is now. 

 

Jokes aside, I am unfamiliar with this process. It says March prelims but I thought all rules (aside from weight/plate) are off the table until 2016 in SCCA? Hopefully someone can clarify for noobs like me, thanks.

[38bfast]

Member input has been requested by the SMAC and CRB. Your club is listening. Pros and cons.

Frank trust me I am very In tune with the performance of the 1.6 at mid-o

I have said it many times I would want to qualify a 1.6 and race a 99 or VVT car. I have a pile of data on all years from that track. There is no denying that a 1.6 can turn a fast lap. The problem lies in how raceable it is. I have watched you close up a big gap as the race has run on. On the other hand I have watched Hille in his 1.6 run away and hide. On the flip side we have seen Drago crush the field last year. I belive the new tires favor the newer cars at Mid-O. Hille has won a lot of races with his 1.6 and his 99.

Bottom line is its very close with a ever so slight of an edge to the 99 and VVT cars in a race situation.

[38bfast]

Lol, yeah we definitely can't make the 1.6 an overdog at 20%  of the tracks in the country. It's only fair if the 1.8 is an overdog at every track like it is now. 
 
Jokes aside, I am unfamiliar with this process. It says March prelims but I thought all rules (aside from weight/plate) are off the table until 2016 in SCCA? Hopefully someone can clarify for noobs like me, thanks.

Mid year rule changes can be made but have to be approved by the BOD. The BOD would prefer mid year changes not to happen. But exceptions can be made if they feel the need. Generally it is somthing the advisory committees and the CRB tends to avoid.

So bottom line is it can happen it's just not the norm.

[ECOBRAP]

Mid year rule changes can be made but have to be approved by the BOD. The BOD would prefer mid year changes not to happen. But exceptions can be made if they feel the need. Generally it is somthing the advisory committees and the CRB tends to avoid.

So bottom line is it can happen it's just not the norm.

 

Thanks for the info. 9.9 CR would be awesome but I am picking up my new motor this week with 9.4 CR lol, therefore I am biased towards headers...

[Danny Steyn]

Since being added to the SMAC I have to be careful to not discuss anything out of context. However I am able to discuss my own opinions and observations, so here goes.

 

As I have said before, I personally do not believe that anything will be achieved for the 1.6 with headers or Flywheel. Dewhurst I think you are mistaken. Of course I could be dead wrong abut this.

 

IMO what is needed is compression and or displacement to provide some or all of the missing TQ.

 

And Drago, I see this differently. I think that we almost have to create an overdog situation to stimulate the 1.6NA car owners and new car builders to pursue the 1.6 as a viable competitive car. Thereafter we can dial it back with weight, and or plate. Until we see 1.6's winning majors I do not see anything changing

[38bfast]

Just from my lack of memory when was the last time we have seen a 1.6 win a national / majors? I know it has happened on the west coast. How about the east coast?

[Blake Clements]

Danny,

 

Is it the role of the SMAC to ensure a level playing field and parity for all models or to stimulate the Spec Miata economy by "bringing out" 1.6 cars due to an overdog situation?  Can someone post the charter for the SMAC? 

 

Ralph,

 

I did not win a Majors, but I did win a NASA Regional in a 1.6 against a field of top prep 99's last season.  How's that for facts Mr. Dewhurst?

 

Blake

[wheel]

Advisory Committee Responsibilities:  Planning and preparing rules, specifications and standards for specific Club Racing programs.  The Advisory Committees review member input and recommend potential actions to the Club Racing Board.  The Club Racing Board may appoint additional Advisory Committees as necessary to undertake specific studies or projects.  Expenses associated with such appointments must be pre-approved by the Club Racing Board and the Director of Club Racing.  

 

In the case of parity for SM, letters have been submitted asking for various parity adjustments.  It is the job, of the SMAC, to review the letters and determine what they think if the proper course of action.  Whether that results in adjustments, or not, is up to the vote of the SMAC members and then up to the CRB.  Rule changes then go to the BoD.  For weight and plate adjustments, the CRB is the final word before implementation.   

[Jim Creighton]

Danny is correct. Until the 1.6 starts winning, very few are going to spend $$ to make more noise with a 1.6.  Once this happens, more will come out. Even a compression ratio increase and a .020 over bore might not be enough. Give them both of these and the header. Put a wheel man like one of the Todd's or Fowler in one and see what it can do. If it does too much, a mid size kid riding in the passenger floor board can be added.

 

Otherwise, just throw in the towel and make it another class.

[MPR22]

Just from my lack of memory when was the last time we have seen a 1.6 win a national / majors? I know it has happened on the west coast. How about the east coast?

Buras June Sprints.

[Bench Racer]

EDIT:

Mr. Clements, this was typed before you posted

 

Ralph, Krispy Kream a couple years ago at the June Sprints. He hung with the top 4 until whatever and took the win. Shaw Slattery won at a Blackhawk National a few years ago. I put zero faith in the magic power number, apples + oranges/grape fruit = nothing. 

 

Danny, I do not believe header and flywheel will get it done.

 

Being that improving torque is a SMAC stated goal for the 1.6, where does the SMAC and others believe the torque is a shortfall? A target is always a nice place to start. I've stated my 2 cents worth in the past, under 5,500 rpm.

 

What ever get's the 1.6 on track is good for the class. And if the 1.6er's can clearly see parity they will be on track.

 

Being I've been mentioned way to many times within this thread, I'm going to become very quite.

[Jim Drago]

Danny is correct. Until the 1.6 starts winning, very few are going to spend $$ to make more noise with a 1.6.  Once this happens, more will come out. Even a compression ratio increase and a .020 over bore might not be enough. Give them both of these and the header. Put a wheel man like one of the Todd's or Fowler in one and see what it can do. If it does too much, a mid size kid riding in the passenger floor board can be added.

And Drago, I see this differently. I think that we almost have to create an overdog situation to stimulate the 1.6NA car owners and new car builders to pursue the 1.6 as a viable competitive car. Thereafter we can dial it back with weight, and or plate. Until we see 1.6's winning majors I do not see anything changing

 
This is a very socialistic approach. Just like socialism, it wont work.
 
We seem to have a very short memory in regard to the 1.6 car.  I spent my money and my time, put a very good driver in a very good 1.6 car and dominated most of the 2012 season under the CURRENT rules.
 
-Did any new 1.6 cars show up? No
-Did any of the "supposed" parked 1.6 cars come back out to play when we proved their cars were competitive? NO!
-Did it prove anything to the doubters? No
 
yo-yoing the cars and classes, artificially trying to stimulate a single car in hopes to bring people back is a TERRIBLE idea.  Intentionally putting a car in an overdog situation is contrary to what the members of the SMAC are supposed to do, but what do I know
 
All you are about to accomplish is have new guys such as me, you and 10 other top flight guys/teams to build a new car for a 1 year window creating the COTY problem all over again.

[FTodaro]

 

 I see this differently. I think that we almost have to create an overdog situation to stimulate the 1.6NA car owners and new car builders to pursue the 1.6 as a viable competitive car. Thereafter we can dial it back with weight, and or plate. Until we see 1.6's winning majors I do not see anything changing

I guess i would need to know what you mean my "we almost" have to make it an overdog.

 

They are already competitive at some tracks. The best you can hope for is making it relatively equal, with the number of variables at play there is a lot of guessing going on.

 

Ralph: if you fix the heat soak issue that goes away.

[pat slattery]

I think a cold air intake would help the 1.6 car, loads, maybe not a big increase in torque, but the car, is very sensitive to heat, and turning.  I have had our car just shut down for a couple of laps in the middle of the race and drop off by 2 seconds for several laps, and then return to normal lap times once Ecu stopped pulling the timing.  This should be a fairly cheap improvement. 

There is not much you can do to the 1.6 with out spending big bucks, we have no restrictor, the weight could be lowered, but we would need some allowance to remove material on the car to lose 50 lbs or so.

Weight reduction would also be a cheap improvement

 

pat

[Jim Drago]

Being that improving torque is a SMAC stated goal for the 1.6, where does the SMAC and others believe the torque is a shortfall? A target is always a nice place to start. I've stated my 2 cents worth in the past, under 5,500 rpm.

The only thing that makes this better.. Is a developed set of cam shafts and probably adjustable cam gears. Ironically, that is not on any of the lists of what to do. This will take some testing and development, but it seems like we now have an "expert" panel. That is what they should be testing instead of measuring procedures done by hand down to .010 of an inch and trying to use the GCR in anyway possible to keep competitors cylinder heads