411 replies to this topic

[MPR22]

Anyone trying to get some help for the 1.6 might use the small steps approach.

 

Sending 50 letters to the SMAC or CRB with 50 different ideas will get nothing.  Sending 50 letters asking for items that make an engine rebuild with new pistons and compression changes legal will most likely get 200 letters written against the proposed changes.  Sending 50 letters with Dave W's no cost changes will likely be the ticket, you may even get 200 letters because it is a low cost step in the right direction.  The weight portion could be implemented almost immediately and the turn signal could be done within a month or two if I understand the GCR.   If these mods don't prove to make the 1.6 more competitive additional small steps can be suggested and implemented.  At least you will have hundreds of 1.6s running the mods this year and additional real data can be collected.  

[Tom Sager]

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.

Dave, if there was a "Mr. Consistency" award given here, you're be a perennial winner.  

[Danny Steyn]

Once again I am expressing my personal opinion. As far as I know there are two groups working on parity for the 1.6 / 1.8 NA cars, with the ultimate agenda of increasing car counts.

 

I believe one group is being driven by the SCCA and the other by the SMAC, of which I am a member. I cannot comment on either group's agenda or procedure.

 

As I mentioned in my original post which seemed to stir the pot somewhat, I do not think anything will change to bring out mothballed 1.6 cars, or create the desire to build new 1.6 cars, until such time as we see 1.6 cars competing heads up at Majors events around the country, and winning their fare share of races. Right now the 99's and VVT's dominate. 

 

I know I can NOT compete heads up in an NA car, and as far as I have seen in the Majors races, no top driver is competing in a NA 1.6 o 1.8. That tells you everything you need to know. Also I do not believe that the performance of one car makes a viable sample size. There need to be multiple NA cars winning for anything to change.

 

Does anything need to change? It's pretty obvious that there are many STRONGLY held opinions on this........ So should we only listen to one side of the conversation? 

 

Why should we NOT try and correct this situation? How will this mess up our class? Reasonable minds want to know. 

[Bench Racer]

My 1.6 with 1 gallon of fuel and cool suite water is 2,020 pounds and with my body weight/race gear I could race at 2,250 pounds. I have 90* intake air on an 80* ambient temp day. IIRC, the NA door bars weigh 9 pounds each side.

 

Tom, you were consistent and received what you asked for, therefore being consistent I would call, a good thing.

 

Hey, if the 1.6 had the necessary torque, my car with me driving wouldn't take any podiums.  

[Jim Drago]

 

Once again I am expressing my personal opinion. As far as I know there are two groups working on parity for the 1.6 / 1.8 NA cars, with the ultimate agenda of increasing car counts.

 

I believe one group is being driven by the SCCA and the other by the SMAC, of which I am a member. I cannot comment on either group's agenda or procedure.

 

As I mentioned in my original post which seemed to stir the pot somewhat, I do not think anything will change to bring out mothballed 1.6 cars, or create the desire to build new 1.6 cars, until such time as we see 1.6 cars competing heads up at Majors events around the country, and winning their fare share of races. Right now the 99's and VVT's dominate. 

 

I know I can NOT compete heads up in an NA car, and as far as I have seen in the Majors races, no top driver is competing in a NA 1.6 o 1.8. That tells you everything you need to know. Also I do not believe that the performance of one car makes a viable sample size. There need to be multiple NA cars winning for anything to change.

 

Does anything need to change? It's pretty obvious that there are many STRONGLY held opinions on this........ So should we only listen to one side of the conversation? 

 

Why should we NOT try and correct this situation? How will this mess up our class? Reasonable minds want to know. 

 

 

 

You have two versions of sm, under what circumstances would you build a 1.6?  

1)current rules

2)where you felt it the car was classed "fairly" and  gave you no advantage or disadvantage over one of your other two current cars?

3) It provided a slight advantage at most tracks, especially if one was Daytona?

4) It provided a clear advantage at most tracks

 

 

I might build under option three, but most likely would hold out for option 4. That is our problem

Jim

[James York]

 

Once again I am expressing my personal opinion. As far as I know there are two groups working on parity for the 1.6 / 1.8 NA cars, with the ultimate agenda of increasing car counts.

 

I believe one group is being driven by the SCCA and the other by the SMAC, of which I am a member. I cannot comment on either group's agenda or procedure.

 

 

 

Danny,

 

Didn't you just state their agenda....  car counts.  What am I obviously missing?

 

 

 

As I mentioned in my original post which seemed to stir the pot somewhat, I do not think anything will change to bring out mothballed 1.6 cars, or create the desire to build new 1.6 cars, until such time as we see 1.6 cars competing heads up at Majors events around the country, and winning their fare share of races. Right now the 99's and VVT's dominate. 

 

 

 

In response to this, I'll bite.  What is fair share in your view?  If looking at top drivers and cars around the country, and 1 out of every 100 is a 1.6, would you expect more than a 1% win rate?  Do you think it's "better" to manipulate the percentage by affirmative action and why?

 

I am not arguing against providing the 1.6 something, although I can't say what, to promote effective low rpm torque.  However, I am totally against intentionally skewing car balance in order to propel 1.6 to a greater percentage of victories.  I would hope the club does not see that enhancing the 1.6 cars performance upward such that "lesser examples of quality" win or essentially force the hand of the front runners financially capable to build another round of cars.  I don't see how that help SM be healthy.  What's wrong if no one ever builds another top flight 1.6?  Detroit doesn't build carburetors anymore either, but cars still run good.

 

The rules themselves and how they equate to performance never should drive anyone to pick a particular year.

[Steve Scheifler]

Danny, I've heard that the first step is admitting you have a problem. :-)

Jim, you have not been a screamer but you have often been quite adamant and unequivocal. As for Buras, if that's your evidence then you should gather the details and present them, not just tell people to go look it up. And although I'm too long out of touch with the respective development curves to have a firm opinion on current parity, IF the 1.6 and NA 1.8 really can't quite compete at most tracks, then I do think that should be resolved. Not to the point of over-dog armageddon, but if one group should get a SLIGHT edge it should be the one that's more difficult to drive at the limit consistently.

My own best data point: When our 1.6s were still fresh and competative we did a test day and took along the VVT I had just bought. That car was far from top prep and had never turned a really competative lap at Gateway. Several of us drove it that day and went faster than we did in our own 1.6s. Too many possible variables to draw definite conclusions but it got our attention. And that was before VVTs got fast. But of course, our 1.6 cars were genuinely rules compliant so I guess you could say they were not top prep.

I wish I had unlimited time and money, I'd spend it doing something more worthwhile than settling this debate!

[MPR22]

Once again I am expressing my personal opinion. As far as I know there are two groups working on parity for the 1.6 / 1.8 NA cars, with the ultimate agenda of increasing car counts.
 
I believe one group is being driven by the SCCA and the other by the SMAC, of which I am a member. I cannot comment on either group's agenda or procedure.
 
As I mentioned in my original post which seemed to stir the pot somewhat, I do not think anything will change to bring out mothballed 1.6 cars, or create the desire to build new 1.6 cars, until such time as we see 1.6 cars competing heads up at Majors events around the country, and winning their fare share of races. Right now the 99's and VVT's dominate.

 

If you overdog the 1.6 all you will do is make the fast guys build them and mothball the 99s and VVTs.  An average driver should never be able to win a Majors race.  It seems like you are pandering, YES I SAID PANDERING, to the 1.6 owners of today that can't or won't builder an NB.  Can we make them race better?  Yes.  Should they be given a proportionate share of the podium spots at Majors, NO Freaking Way.  The best drivers should win and if you use the socialist approach to artificially dictate ratios of what year car should win then you have done this class a disservice and you will run off people that have committed to run a series with a stable rule set. I would  say a majority of new cars in the class are NBs.  Now you want to create the COTY again so the same guys who are on the podium today will outspend and just build a 1.6.  They will still win and then what have you achieved.  [/size][/background]
 
If your goal is car counts, find a way to limit the amount of tires we use in a weekend.  Tires and transport are my greatest costs in the course of the year by far!

[tferranti]

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 !

 

No disrespect but listening to a guy complain about a 1.6 who openly states that he doesn't utilize one of the biggest advantages of the 1.6 is absurd.  I have won in a 1.6, NA 1.8, and I will soon try my luck in a 99 so I do have some experience in each car.  I will promise you that I wouldn't dare show up to a race in a 1.6 without the comp diff. 

[Pat Ross]

Why are so many '99-'02 Spec Miata's being built and no new NA's (1.6 or 1.8)?  Its because the cost of a new '99 new build is essentially the same as a new build NA.  The last '99 I bought I paid less than $1500 for the car.  It already had a Torsen rear end with the correct gear ratio.  Yes, it needed a new engine, but we would install a new engine in either the '99 or the NA. 

 

By the time you buy a Torsen to install in the NA, the price of the NB is actually cheaper than the NA, so why would we build a new NA.  Our VVT with less than 100,000 miles cost $3500 with a running engine (rebuildable). 

 

I believe that you will find that anyone running near the front builds a new car every year or at least every other year because of the wear and tear of racing (shocks, bushings, brake calipers, fuel pumps, transmissions).  I completely agree with Michael that the cost of tires, entry fees, and travel is significant.  We spend close to $1000 just for tires every race weekend.

 

Playing at the front in any sport costs money.  In golf its club memberships, clubs, lessons, etc.  Without these you can be an everyday duffer and enjoy yourself, but you won't be club champion with your old 1985 steel shafted Pings and Persimmon driver, so don't fool yourself into thinking you can.   Nor will you be able to convince the rest of the club members that they should go back to what you are using just because you don't want to, or can't afford to spend the money to match the current technology.

 

Flame away.

 

Pat

[FTodaro]

I do not think we should ever discuss parity in the context of wins. That is to track and driver dependent. I think it needs to be done on the dyno. i know people are going to say there are suspension issues and drivability during a race that do not show up on the dyno, but track results are far more dependent on non drive train issues. like set up, driver, track.

 

The heat soak issue is one of those that can be addressed but otherwise, I think this should be based on hard data, otherwise you will never get the appearance of fairness in the change. those who do not think the 1.6 needs a change we not be convinced.

[Bench Racer]

Frank, were in agreement. Consider everything else equal and take the parity technical improvements to the dyno for first step to prove or not. Then take to the track to confirm in a well sorted car with a proven driver to confirm or not confirm. Kuch, you may use my car (108/127 DynoPack) with it's MazdaComp and I have a spare.

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

No disrespect but listening to a guy complain about a 1.6 who openly states that he doesn't utilize one of the biggest advantages of the 1.6 is absurd. I have won in a 1.6, NA 1.8, and I will soon try my luck in a 99 so I do have some experience in each car. I will promise you that I wouldn't dare show up to a race in a 1.6 without the comp diff.

No disrespect taken,but I can tell you that I have run multiple cars at all diff levels of prep for guys just so they can see what there car can do.

I have driven a top level prepped 1.6 with 125hp and 122ft of TQ and know what it can do. I just don't know how tech shed legal it is.
I have also driven a 01 with the same kind of hp and TQ as that 1.6 and I can tell you that I went 1 sec faster at Mid-O and at Nelson Ledges in the 01. With the same track conditions and temps.

So do I think we have a parity issue,yes I do !
It's not much but we shouldn't ignore the fact that there is one.

Like I said before help the 1.6 with the lower TQ issue without adding to the top end and the heat soaking problem and then 1.6 should be fine. Those two areas will help the car be more consistent throughout the race and help it out with being in traffic.

I'm in total agreement with the options that Dave Wheeler suggested and believe those options could be just what it needs at little to no expense to everyone.

Ps I do have a comp diff sitting in the garage and just have to put it in the car. But that is only going to give me a couple of tenths a lap.

[Ron Alan]

I have driven a top level prepped 1.6 with 125hp and 122ft of TQ and know what it can do. I just don't know how tech shed legal it is.
I have also driven a 01 with the same kind of hp and TQ as that 1.6 and I can tell you that I went 1 sec faster at Mid-O and at Nelson Ledges in the 01. With the same track conditions and temps.

This does not help your case or any other 1.6er because it makes no sense?? If a 1.6 could legally achieve those numbers Drago would own a fleet! No way a 01 with the same power and 100lbs more drives 1 sec faster...maybe you worded what you wanted to say incorrectly?

[Ron Alan]

Couple questions for the current SMAC guys who are on here...

 

1. Tom S wrote a letter with a specific requested change for the NA 1.8. Some have commented on here as if this is a done deal. True?

2. Ralph commented that after all the back and forth on here for what seems to be endless that you have only received 1 letter for requested changes to the NA 1.6. True?

3. Are there really 2 competing factions within SCCA over the future of SM or the 1.6 in general? Which is aligned with Mazda?

 

IMO...the NA cars need a LITTLE bump. But it will only be seen when top prepped cars with top drivers swap wins on any given weekend at 50% of the tracks. The other 50% of the tracks will always favor 1 car all things being equal...and this you cannot fix!!

 

If there truly is this silent majority of 1.6 owners who feel they are just wasting their time against the NB cars...you will never make them happy...PERIOD!! So to get them out more often lets let them race each other...a 1.6 class??(Blasphemy!) I think a couple of the most highly subscribed SM areas have added the SSM class and done very well. The 1.6 is still the most popular and affordable car for the true budget/weekend racer. If there is a perception they dont have to compete against a torque monster...wouldn't this bring some out more often? Car counts?? Maybe its to soon...but is sooner better than to late?

[Danny Steyn]

Why are so many '99-'02 Spec Miata's being built and no new NA's (1.6 or 1.8)?  

Flame away.

 

Pat

 

Pat - Not intended as a flame, but I would hazard an educated guess that the reason that they are NOT being built is because they have proved to be UNCOMPETIVE. Nothing to do with cost. Once again, just my opinion

[Danny Steyn]

Couple questions for the current SMAC guys who are on here...

 

1. Tom S wrote a letter with a specific requested change for the NA 1.8. Some have commented on here as if this is a done deal. True?

2. Ralph commented that after all the back and forth on here for what seems to be endless that you have only received 1 letter for requested changes to the NA 1.6. True?

3. Are there really 2 competing factions within SCCA over the future of SM or the 1.6 in general? Which is aligned with Mazda?

 

IMO...the NA cars need a LITTLE bump. But it will only be seen when top prepped cars with top drivers swap wins on any given weekend at 50% of the tracks. The other 50% of the tracks will always favor 1 car all things being equal...and this you cannot fix!!

 

If there truly is this silent majority of 1.6 owners who feel they are just wasting their time against the NB cars...you will never make them happy...PERIOD!! So to get them out more often lets let them race each other...a 1.6 class??(Blasphemy!) I think a couple of the most highly subscribed SM areas have added the SSM class and done very well. The 1.6 is still the most popular and affordable car for the true budget/weekend racer. If there is a perception they dont have to compete against a torque monster...wouldn't this bring some out more often? Car counts?? Maybe its to soon...but is sooner better than to late?

 

Ron, members of SMAC can not comment. There are some things that the SMAC puts out for public discussion

[38bfast]

Ron we have received letters in the past requesting help for the 1.6. But currently have only received one letter in response to the member input from the details in the fast track.

[Tom Sager]

Couple questions for the current SMAC guys who are on here...

 

1. Tom S wrote a letter with a specific requested change for the NA 1.8. Some have commented on here as if this is a done deal. True?

2. Ralph commented that after all the back and forth on here for what seems to be endless that you have only received 1 letter for requested changes to the NA 1.6. True?

3. Are there really 2 competing factions within SCCA over the future of SM or the 1.6 in general? Which is aligned with Mazda?

 

IMO...the NA cars need a LITTLE bump. But it will only be seen when top prepped cars with top drivers swap wins on any given weekend at 50% of the tracks. The other 50% of the tracks will always favor 1 car all things being equal...and this you cannot fix!!

 

If there truly is this silent majority of 1.6 owners who feel they are just wasting their time against the NB cars...you will never make them happy...PERIOD!! So to get them out more often lets let them race each other...a 1.6 class??(Blasphemy!) I think a couple of the most highly subscribed SM areas have added the SSM class and done very well. The 1.6 is still the most popular and affordable car for the true budget/weekend racer. If there is a perception they dont have to compete against a torque monster...wouldn't this bring some out more often? Car counts?? Maybe its to soon...but is sooner better than to late?

Ron, The changes in red throughout the tech bulletin should become official when the next Fastrack is published in a week or so.  I agree the 1.6 needs a little bump.  As many have stated, it's the most "different" of the cars and harder to prep to its peak and keep it there.Easiest thing to do would be to take a little weight off the car.  It used to be 165 pounds lighter than and NB, now 100 pounds lighter but the unrestricted 1.6 engine benefitted the most from the new head rules a few years ago in the opinion of some of the engine builders plus the NB and NA1.8 got smaller plates.  

 

Just in case anyone is lumping in the NA1.8 with the NA1.6 regarding difficulty to prep or source parts, that is not true of the NA1.8.  If anything the NA1.8 is the easiest to prep and maintain.  It doesn't have the electrical gremlins of the NB cars such as cam and crank sensors that go bad.  Fuel pumps and alternators don't crap out on a regular basis.  NA front subframes aren't as prone to cracking or breaking compared to the NB cars.  Parts are readily available.  Donors are readily available and cheap.  

 

Like Danny said, the obvious answer as to why the NA cars are not being campaigned by the top drivers and teams and why the numbers have dwindled (with a small number of exceptions here or there) is that they simply aren't quite as competitive as the NB cars, but there is hope with small changes.      

[Jim Drago]

Jim, you have not been a screamer but you have often been quite adamant and unequivocal. As for Buras, if that's your evidence then you should gather the details and present them, not just tell people to go look it up. And although I'm too long out of touch with the respective development curves to have a firm opinion on current parity, IF the 1.6 and NA 1.8 really can't quite compete at most tracks, then I do think that should be resolved. Not to the point of over-dog armageddon, but if one group should get a SLIGHT edge it should be the one that's more difficult to drive at the limit consistently.

I can accept adamant, not so much unequivocal In fairness to me.. You have been absent awhile.. I have made these cases many times before in detail. I hate to even repost as it is such old data anyway at this point.
As I have said and will continue to say.. If the car needs help, I am not opposed to it giving it help. It is my opinion it could use a little of something. However, I am opposed to making ANY car an overdog intentionally and the socialistic approach that is being talked about both philosophically and from the stand point of it is contrary to any common sense whatsoever. Spending a fortune speeding it up to the edge of reliability, then putting a plate on it is even dumber IMO.

My ONLY point in referencing Buras car ( again this was almost 3 years ago now and old data at best) We had the same arguments from the same people then. Ironically about a year after the same people praised NASA for getting this "right" and the savior of the 1.6, I told them it would change little to nothing and it didn't, but what do I know.

IMO, we again are in the same situation. Another( it wont be me again) top shop can spend their own money and time to build/prep and drive a 1.6 and see if/what it needs. You could/should be that volunteer I am absolutely and "unequivocally" not opposed to giving the 1.6 something, I think it could use a weight break or weight on the other cars as that addressing to some extent the low end TQ issue and that is easy and cheap. We are also much closer than those complaining feel we are. For my approval, the change(s) just needs to be justified and not some socialist handout that panders to those not willing to spend the same amount of time, money and effort as the rest of us do to run at the front. If that becomes the case, we solve nothing. We will have the same gap to those asking for the help, but unfortunately the gap will now be to newly built 1.6 cars. That benefits NO ONE!


And Danny you "forgot" to answer my question?