411 replies to this topic

[Bench Racer]

Kuch, help me out a bit, please define your two points below. Pat also talks about heat soak or something very similar.

 

1.6 only needs only a little help

 

Also needs help with heat soak

[steveracer]

You can have one of them at the end of this coming weekend. Very close too the same deal we already have

Really?!?

 

We'll talk later, busy this afternoon.

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

Kuch, help me out a bit, please define your two points below. Pat also talks about heat soak or something very similar.
 
1.6 only needs only a little help
 
Also needs help with heat soak

Like I said before we don't need any top end speed as I believe the 1.6 is totally fine on top end. It's out of the corners or stuck in traffic were the 1.6 lacks it's performance.

As far as the heat soaking I'm talking about is half way through a race the 1.6 will lay down and some times will return later in the race or sometimes not at all. This only happens on hot days but seems to be fine on cooler 60 deg days. If we can come up with a simple fix for these two problems I think it could be a winner and everyone could be happy. This way where not adding any weight to the NB cars and if it becomes to much for the 1.6 we can adjust the NB cars by a simple cheep weight or plate adjustment.

[davew]

Not sure I completely agree with my own statement. But what about:

 

Allow NA cars to remove the drivers side turn signal assembly

Lower weight on NA cars 25 pounds

Allow removal of factory door beams. This is already allowed in other classes. If you already have ballast, no need to do this. If you can't get to the new weight, this would be a way to get there.

 

Total cost: ZERO

 

Dave

[pat slattery]

Not sure I completely agree with my own statement. But what about:

 

Allow NA cars to remove the drivers side turn signal assembly

Lower weight on NA cars 25 pounds

Allow removal of factory door beams. This is already allowed in other classes. If you already have ballast, no need to do this. If you can't get to the new weight, this would be a way to get there.

 

Total cost: ZERO

 

Dave

KISS

[Bench Racer]

You could put a thermocouple (multi meter with temperature included for $30.00) drill thermocouple hole in intake tube and multi meter attached to dash. Also plumb a fuel pressure gauge outside windshield and watch fuel psi.

[forestdweller37]

Spec Miata
1. #14724 (Tom Sager) Request for competition adjustment
In SM, Mazda MX-5/Miata (94-97), change the restrictor as follows:
45mm 47mm
 

Does this mean I can go back to the 2005 vintage plate that came with my car or do I have to buy a new one?

-Chris

[Tom Sager]

Not sure I completely agree with my own statement. But what about:

 

Allow NA cars to remove the drivers side turn signal assembly

Lower weight on NA cars 25 pounds

Allow removal of factory door beams. This is already allowed in other classes. If you already have ballast, no need to do this. If you can't get to the new weight, this would be a way to get there.

 

Total cost: ZERO

 

Dave

Really like this post and also the "out" you left yourself .  

[Steve Scheifler]

For the record, I'm not proposing compression plus cams. My point is that if you really want to address the most talked about problem through engine modifications, they would be the most likely combination to make that possible, an then you could open up the 1.8s (slightly) to better match top end. But I don't believe that the average 1.6 owner would be up for it.

I'd like to get a decent header to eliminate issues with the stock ones, but in terms of addressing the lack of toque, that's a bad choice. Anyone who thinks otherwise without hard test data to prove it probably doesn't understand internal combustion engines.

I have never said that the 1.6 is a signifiant underdog overall, if at all, and haven't asked endlessly for help. But to those people SCREAMING with such absolute certainty that the 1.6 needs NO help and asking for hard data to prove otherwise, I ask this. Where is YOUR hard data that makes YOU so damn certain?? Seriously. I've yet to hear any more real facts from you guys than I do from DD, less in fact, and yet you clearly take the arrogant stance that you are inherently right until proven wrong. That alone is enough to sway some people to the other side.

Jim, I've been away for a long time so I have no idea what Burras did in 2012 but to me it sounds like mostly useless anecdotal evidence like everything else. Exactly what races at what tracks, against what cars and what drivers? How did lap times compare in qualifying and throughout the race? Where's the video? The data? And the engine was prepped to what standard? If it wasn't 100% by the rules compliant, did it benefit more from things like STR work than a "comparably" prepped 1.8 with restrictor? Where would that leave it today?

The 1.6 is still dominate in some places? That's what we heard about parts of the west coast until recently, and where they for the Runoffs? And of the track records they still hold, at what kind of track and when were they set? What were the rules when they were set and how were the cars prepped relative to what would pass a serious tear-down today? Track records alone mean almost nothing. Heck, we may still hold a couple ourselves.

I don't know if the 1.6 really needs help these days if all cars were truly compliant (like that could ever happen!), and I don't believe any of you really know either. But the certainty of your unsupported declarations may not be enough any more. Momentum has shifted and you are being put in the position of proving it IS competitive if you want to prevent all the dire predictions.

And here's a question for all you regular front runners who seem to so easily dismiss the 1.6 as "close enough" for a has-been irrelevant PIA car for back-markers. If you knew up front that you will show up every race with a mere 2 hp 2 lb-ft disadvantage against the other top 10-15 drivers, how would you feel? How long would you keep spending the time and money if a bunch of those kept beating you? Now tell me that you can honestly say that you know for certain a legal 1.6 can be more competative than a 99+ which is down just 2&2. Then show me evidence that is any more convincing than what you so easily blast when it comes from someone on the other side.

I do NOT want the 1.6 to be an over-dog. Unfortunately it will never be "equal" to the 1.8s because it is fundamentally different, but I do want it to be equivalent on average at many tracks. It may very well be there now if everyone played by the rules, which means we will be at some disadvantage regardless. But I have seen less real evidence that it is than to the contrary, so stop with all the hostile and superior attitudes and back up your tiresome front-runner rhetoric with some facts.

End rant, for now.

[LarryKing]

 

Allow removal of factory door beams.

 

Aren't NA door beams spot welded to the door skin? I'm having trouble visualizing this procedure.

[James York]

Steve,

 

All valid points.  The issue to me is no "average" SM racer exactly knows what any of the proposed allowances put forth by the SCCA will exactly do. I don't like at all the idea of commenting on a proposed performance change without the club informing me of exactly what the impact will be.  How can I make an educated choice?  (And without facts, everyone tends just to migrate their position to their "camps")

 

I would love someone to find a magic box to give the 1.6 so that a top prep car's dyno plot would overlay exactly with a 99 (I guess this is the SCCA benchmark?).  But I don't believe in unicorns either...

 

So, without the club (or someone) telling me what the proposed changes will do to a 1.6, or the magic box, all I have to go on is anecdotal evidence unfortunately.   And that evidence I have seen against full prep 1.6s either first hand, or in videos in which I know the players, the car years are super close now (excluding the 94-97 as I have not seen enough of those racing to form an opinion).

 

It sure would be nice for someone to factually document what each potential performance enhancement would do so a data driven comment could be delivered to the club.

[Danny Steyn]

Steve - thank you for your post. You have always been direct and to the point. 

[Jim Drago]

For the record, I'm not proposing compression plus cams. My point is that if you really want to address the most talked about problem through engine modifications, they would be the most likely combination to make that possible, an then you could open up the 1.8s (slightly) to better match top end. But I don't believe that the average 1.6 owner would be up for it.

I'd like to get a decent header to eliminate issues with the stock ones, but in terms of addressing the lack of toque, that's a bad choice. Anyone who thinks otherwise without hard test data to prove it probably doesn't understand internal combustion engines.

I have never said that the 1.6 is a significant underdog overall, if at all, and haven't asked endlessly for help. But to those people SCREAMING with such absolute certainty that the 1.6 needs NO help and asking for hard data to prove otherwise, I ask this. Where is YOUR hard data that makes YOU so damn certain?? Seriously. I've yet to hear any more real facts from you guys than I do from DD, less in fact, and yet you clearly take the arrogant stance that you are inherently right until proven wrong. That alone is enough to sway some people to the other side.
[/quote]

I don't feel I am one of the ones screaming. However if I am :)There will never be a "right". We can only get 'close" which I think we have now. Could the 1.6 cars use something, sure they could. However most proposals have been way overkill. Do they really need something? I think that is up for debate and cases can be made on both sides.
 

Jim, I've been away for a long time so I have no idea what Burras did in 2012 but to me it sounds like mostly useless anecdotal evidence like everything else. Exactly what races at what tracks, against what cars and what drivers? How did lap times compare in qualifying and throughout the race? Where's the video? The data? And the engine was prepped to what standard? If it wasn't 100% by the rules compliant, did it benefit more from things like STR work than a "comparably" prepped 1.8 with restrictor? Where would that leave it today?
[/quote]

The car was prepped like all our cars( all racing around it in video), the STR edge was broken, it should pass the new rule. We will have no problem duplicating the car with the new rule and actually expecting a 1-2 hp gain in performance as that engine was built in 2010-2011. The competition he raced was as good as any, google 2012 Sebring, Homestead results and the fields are there. The Sprints video is up, you view for yourself and see if the car needs help. as others have stated..
 

And here's a question for all you regular front runners who seem to so easily dismiss the 1.6 as "close enough" for a has-been irrelevant PIA car for back-markers. If you knew up front that you will show up every race with a mere 2 hp 2 lb-ft disadvantage against the other top 10-15 drivers, how would you feel? How long would you keep spending the time and money if a bunch of those kept beating you? Now tell me that you can honestly say that you know for certain a legal 1.6 can be more competative than a 99+ which is down just 2&2. Then show me evidence that is any more convincing than what you so easily blast when it comes from someone on the other side.[/quote]

I spent the entire 2010 season in this position, probably worse off. We worked our asses off and got back and have been on top since. It was not fun, but we spent and worked until we got there. We didn't ask for rules help as we were behind the same version car. The issue is 1.6 guys are losing to NB guys and the easy answer is the cars are at a disadvantage, which may or may not be true, but that is the first place many are falling back to. Which i why we did Todds car. My hopes were that other 1.6 cars would see a car competing, they would have to look within first. It didn't work. The easy button is always the first choice.

My official position on the 1.6 is to give it something in small steps to get it to where both NA and NB drivers feel a properly built( both a little unhappy is usually accurate), prepped, set up and driven car can compete for the wins. Making any car intentionally an overdog, especially the 1.6 is a VERY BAD idea. Regardless of the 100 different stories of how and why we got here. We are here now and the class is primarily ( those racing) a NB oriented class. Many have already transitioned to the NB car. Creating the COTY scenario AGAIN is bad in every way. It breeds animosity, frustration and costs all of us money. Small steps, small changes. I will argue with anyone who claims the current rules are way off, just not true.
 

 

 

[davew]

Aren't NA door beams spot welded to the door skin? I'm having trouble visualizing this procedure.

 

The door beams are welded into the door where the inner structure meets the outer skin. The beam is not welded to the door skin in any visible place. Only some black glue to stop vibration.

 

Back in the old days (pre 2005) you could legally remove the door beams. They come out in 10 minutes with a cutoff wheel.

 

Dave

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

Unfortunately a cool air intake or removal of the left front turn signal assembly will not show up on a dyno so this would be an on track test of a before and after laps.

A header or any bolt on part will show on a dyno and also will need to be tested with an actual test during a race to see how it does in traffic.

I would be glad to do some testing at some reg.races this summer to see how lap times react to some of these parts. I will just let them know I'm testing these before the race and not dq me for testing them out. I can run consistent lap times at Mid-O and Nelson Ledges to get actual results from these bolt on parts. Yes I know my car is not a top level prepped car but should be able to get some positive results because of my consistence at these two tracks in the 1.6.

At Mid-O I can consistently run within a 1/2 to 1 sec. Of the track record and at Nelson's I can run consistent low 1:17 so should be pretty accurate.

Ps not bad for only 115hp and 102 ft of TQ and an open rear end !

[SpecCanuck]

I wonder what it would be like to race the NA with the SM class moving to a harder, narrower Hoosier. Easier on the bearings and suspension and would require some finesse on the NBs part to use their slight torque advantage.

[James York]

Unfortunately a cool air intake or removal of the left front turn signal assembly will not show up on a dyno so this would be an on track test of a before and after laps.

A header or any bolt on part will show on a dyno and also will need to be tested with an actual test during a race to see how it does in traffic.

I would be glad to do some testing at some reg.races this summer to see how lap times react to some of these parts. I will just let them know I'm testing these before the race and not dq me for testing them out. I can run consistent lap times at Mid-O and Nelson Ledges to get actual results from these bolt on parts. Yes I know my car is not a top level prepped car but should be able to get some positive results because of my consistence at these two tracks in the 1.6.

At Mid-O I can consistently run within a 1/2 to 1 sec. Of the track record and at Nelson's I can run consistent low 1:17 so should be pretty accurate.

Ps not bad for only 115hp and 102 ft of TQ and an open rear end !

 

Kuch,

 

Not to pick on you, but in no way is that a scientifically valid test.  Your driving (mine, or probably anyone here) will have more statistical variation than the magnitude of the change the 1.6 needs or you are trying to measure.  Couple that human factor, with any temperature shifts, rubbering in of the track, tire condition plus probably a dozen other uncontrolled variables I don't even know, and I would consider any results as not valid. 

[James York]

I wonder what it would be like to race the NA with the SM class moving to a harder, narrower Hoosier. Easier on the bearings and suspension and would require some finesse on the NBs part to use their slight torque advantage.

 

That's the RA-1 days.  Those days the NB could run the tires off the car due to the weight differences and would proceed to fall back in the pack or fly off the road.  Also set up and driver ability were more important as the tires didn't make people into heroes as easily as the Hoosiers do.

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

Kuch,
 
Not to pick on you, but in no way is that a scientifically valid test.  Your driving (mine, or probably anyone here) will have more statistical variation than the magnitude of the change the 1.6 needs or you are trying to measure.  Couple that human factor, with any temperature shifts, rubbering in of the track, tire condition plus probably a dozen other uncontrolled variables I don't even know, and I would consider any results as not valid.

This wouldn't be factual information as much as an example of what affect these parts could have on the car.

[Bench Racer]

Because year 2012 continues to be the year of the 1.6, please help me out. Within is no disrespect towards Todd.

 

Will anyone please give a time during the Todd's June Sprints win where Todd passed a car after lap 1, T1 without an on track incident or when Todd got inside Craig heading for T12 (IIRC, this race) where Craig let it go because Craig in my words knew he could re-pas Todd at will. Also Todd did not back up his June Sprints win at the 2012 Runoffs. 2012 June Sprints tech???    

 

GEAT win Todd.    

 

My letter will contain torque info where 1.6 torque is required and why the stated torque is required. I believe the SMAC knows this info. My torque info will be for the 1.6 at 2300 pounds. My crystal ball (not an engine builder) does not tell me how to gain the torque where required. If a knowledgeable person passed on the info how to obtain the required torque at the correct rpm, I'd be happy to include that info for a totally defined request. To me it's as easy as pound foot per rpm at 500 rpm increments from 3,000 rpm through 5,500 rpm. Please don't suggest racing under 5,000 rpm doesn't matter because then my suggestion is, maybe the 99 plus cars should have their torque gutted below 5,000 rpm.

 

1.6er's the SMAC is asking for support to increase the 1.6 torque, don't allow yourselves to be sucked into the 99 plus rhetoric. < This is not me trying to be harsh, it's what I read in your posts.