96 replies to this topic

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Every car has a track or two that favor the car. Still doesn't guarantee a win though.

One mistake and you may not win the race in sm.

[ECOBRAP]

Every car has a track or two that favor the car. Still doesn't guarantee a win though.

One mistake and you may not win the race in sm.

 

There is currently no track that favors the 1.6 in my region. I would argue that applies to every region, but don't have the personal experience to back that up that belief. I am sure others do.

 

And yes, if you think making a mistake in a 1.8SM is costly, try making a mistake in a 1.6SM, you don't have the torque (cue dewhurst) to get you out of trouble, and will lose more ground than a 1.8 would have in the same scenario. Please note that I am not taking this into consideration for my parity adjustments. I am basing my parity arguments on perfect driving, perfect car.

[Jamz14]

My car had perfect suspension setup for the NASA Champs at Sonoma Raceway, a track that should be one of the best 1.6 tracks in the country. I do not know how to setup my car yet, but the previous owner did and set it up for those exact conditions at that exact track.

 

I was 0.6 seconds off the leaders' pace, driving the b**** off the car lap after lap, my best driving of 2014. That being said, my motor needed a refresh, and was down 3-4hp/1tq from a top prep motor. I honestly don't know, how much would you say 3-4hp is worth in terms of lap time? I am hoping it will cover that half a second.

 

The problem comes when I don't think it will address every other track in my region. I think I will still be off the pace at Laguna and Thunderhill (ESPECIALLY the new 5 mile with its three low rpm back to back hairpins). I honestly believe that letting me drop 25lbs this year with my new motor, I may have a slight advantage at Sonoma, but will still have a slight disadvantage at the two other tracks in my region. Hopefully this is a more relevant (but still subjective) data point than Kuch's inside tire being torn to shreds 

Matt,

 

I hate to disagree with you but this is not possible. Setup is a preference thing that is tailored not only to the track but to the driver. The only thing the previous owner could have done was to set it up for a typical day to his typical driving style. Then what has to happen is small setup changes are made at the track to fine tune it to the track conditions of the day and to how you are driving and responding to those changes. Take a look at Jim Daniels setup guide. If anyone has the data and experience to setup a car in advance to a track and for that baseline to be dead on it is Jim. However in his setup guide he provides a example in which he is making small adjustments throughout the day to dial the car in. It is also impossible for the previous owner to setup the car in advance without you being there when he does. You MUST be in the car during the setup for it to be applicable to you. Now you didn't state whether he set it up with you present and in the car or not but I got the impression that you weren't. Baseline setup for a track takes me aprox 4 hours or so. They were the most peaceful 4 hours my kid spent in the car. Usually he was fast asleep while I was working my ass off.

 

I am not trying to come off as some setup expert. I am far from that and lean very heavily on a couple of good friends here on the forums to help me set a baseline. I am also not trying to suggest that you can't get damn close to what you want from a baseline setup and be very very fast. But what I do know is what some of the fastest guys do when trying to close down a tenth or two. In my opinion, I only nailed the setup for Nova once in 3 years of racing SM. Is it a coincidence that that was the only time he won a race?

 

I am not saying that this is the best advice but what I told him was that the car is NEVER perfect and requiring no changes. I always wanted him to suggest something to improve it. Now many times we actually didn't change a thing. But that is because we were both learning so much that we didn't have the confidence to risk changes when the car was very close to being good.

 

One of the saddest things about his passing from a racing perspective for me is that we were just getting to the point where we were coming up with a good system to communicate how the car was behaving. The first real test of it happened to be at MRLS where you raced with him (his last race). We spent hours before the race talking about how he should describe the car handling in a consistent manner so that I would know what to change. We basically took it back to basics instead of trying to be subtle and nuanced with his feedback. Basically; oversteering or understeering in all directions? Or oversteering or understeering in a particular direction (forgetting about OS or US on entry, exit, throttle ETC)? Imagine my frustration then at Mazda when he came back and told me that the car was showing no consistency in oversteer or understeer in either direction. That on one lap it would OS in a corner and the next lap it would US in that same corner. Well by the end of the weekend I found out why. We had two problems compounding on the car. One; the right rear hub nut was loosening over the course of the weekend and I didn't catch it. It actually came off during Sundays qualifying. Second; I had 1 bolt fall out of the gearbox to PPF mounting and the other was just about ready to fall off. The gearbox was moving all over the place. The shift lever looked like a pogo stick in the video. So much so that when he went to grab it to shift, he completely missed the lever a couple of times. But the really big problem with that was the weight shifting all over the place in the car. The moral of the story though is, he finally got to a point where he WAS giving me great feedback when he was coming in and saying; "Dad, I can't tell you what to change because it has NO consistency at all". After working so hard on communicating consistent feedback, I can't imagine how hard it was for him to tell me that knowing that I was going to be frustrated with his answer. But after figuring it out, it was also one of the times I was most proud of him.

 

Sorry for rambling so much and digressing into my personal experiences. If you ever want to just chat about setup, PM me and I'll get you my phone number. I am an amateur though. I know some things but not a lot. My days of trying fiddle with a good car to ike out a tenth more are done. But for you, in trying to build a career and win championships, I'd say your days in figuring out setup subtleties is just beginning.

 

Go tear it up!!!!! and I hope to see you at Willowsprings in a couple of weeks.

[ECOBRAP]

James, it seems we like to disagree a lot  .

 

99% of racers adjust their setup to match their driving style. I adjust my driving style to match the setup (IF the setup has proven to be successful in other hands). I believe that driving style adaptability and setup ability are equally important in pursuit of a pro racing career.

 

Is it crucial for me to learn setup? Yes. Will it make me faster? Yes. How much? Not much IF the starting setup has already proven to be successful. I will simply adapt to the required driving style under that proven setup. Right now, I can jump in any car and be lethally fast due to this adaptability, but can't make or communicate setup changes to chase after the last few tenths of a second.

 

As for your take on perfection, I completely agree. I do not believe in perfection - I believe in the pursuit of perfection. I just use the word "perfect" more than I should :]

 

I appreciate your input and feedback in this, and would love help developing my setup ability this year, but we are hijacking the thread. I have yet to hear your viewpoint on NA parity and am interested to hear your opinion!

[Bruce Wilson]

The NA car is dead and no one wants to admit it!

 

1.NA's and NB's in similar condition now cost the same.. This is a VERY important point. No one in their right mind would choose to build one, when in the end the engine and assembled pieces to make it fast will cost $2000-4000 more.

2. A 1.6 is raceable if you spend $2000-$4000 extra---thus the car doesn't deserve help. Do I think it sucks for everyone who has one----YES. But the simple fact says it can be done---FOR A COST. 

3. Parts for NA's---NEW PARTS are drying up---Mazda is not producing many of the parts for the engine, body and otherwise...  Good enough reason to not build one.

4. The people that spend the money to go MAJORS/National/Whatever you want to call it switched years ago--Its a fact---The only people who will go back and do anything that is being purposed are the same ones racing NBs now...  

5. This will happen to the NB at some point too.......Its what happens in racing.. Spec Miata is special---but it isnt Spec Wrecker--thus it will stop at some point too..    10+ years or more but it will come.

6. NA 1.8 may actually need a little help......

 

For all that think I am wrong------- Write the names of all the racers who are going to step up and spend the $$$$$ if the rules changed.....   

 

 

   

 

 

Flame away........

Well you just can't argue with that.  Your post is well thought out, informed, and relevant to the topic.  I'm sure glad you bring your wisdom of the 1.6 to this forum.

[Brandon]

DISCLAIMER!!!!  POST COMING FROM A SMAC MEMBER!!!

(that clear enough?)

 

There's been a clamoring for 'something' to be done for the 1.6, we've made a recommendation, and it's unfortunate the focus has been on the potential results when viewed in a vacuum.

Don't think or believe our "WDYT on 1.6L allowances" are a one-and-done recommendation.  There will always exist the ability to add a restrictor to the 1.6, enlarge the 99+ restrictor, add weight to 01+...we have many variable to play with.

 

Our hope is to to incentivize (I hate that word but it works here) people to make decisions on when & where to participate in races with the inclination to spend money at SCCA events.

 

Often times you find yourself making a decision on something without knowing what your next steps will be.  This is what we SMAC members find ourselves in the position to do so all I ask is to believe that we have the best interests of the class in mind.

 

Off to bed!

G'night!

Brandon

[James York]

DISCLAIMER!!!!  POST COMING FROM A SMAC MEMBER!!!
(that clear enough?)
 
"WDYT on 1.6L allowances"
 
Off to bed!
G'night!
Brandon

?? WDYT

Help me out a little on this one please.

[Steve Scheifler]

Taking guess, What Do You Think?

Remind me why we needed this additional topic?

[Dave McAnaney]

?? WDYT

Help me out a little on this one please.

 

WDYT = "what do you think"

[pat slattery]

For all that don't know it James York, did race a 1.6, now he is kicking himself for spending all that money on a 99 when he already had the overdog 1.6 all that time 

[Blake Clements]

In all these threads, I've yet to see any technical basis for any adjustments for any car.  Instead of whining like children, making threats against each other, and generally being nasty, maybe some of this time and energy could be donated to actually proving that one car needs an adjustment.

 

Those who had the time and resources to run such tests and analysis have been called everything short of the devil on these forums, so it's time for someone else to pony up and prove you need some help.

[James York]

For all that don't know it James York, did race a 1.6, now he is kicking himself for spending all that money on a 99 when he already had the overdog 1.6 all that time

What does the fact that I drove a 1.6, (and an NA1.8) and 99 have to do with any post here on this thread? Trying to project a little red ass? I have heard about this red mist thing.

[pat slattery]

Well James, just pointing out that you were once a 1.6 owner, did you make a mistake going to a 99.  I seem to remember your lap time got much better at RA after going to the 99

[Blake Clements]

ROAD AMERICA IS NOT THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE

[pat slattery]

It was for the runoffs for 5 years

[James York]

Well James, just pointing out that you were once a 1.6 owner, did you make a mistake going to a 99.  I seem to remember your lap time got much better at RA after going to the 99

 

All the Runoffs I attended, or any races at RA, were ONLY in a 99.

 

Not that it still has any bearing to this thread or anything I wrote in it.

 

You're fishing in the wrong hole.

[Bench Racer]

Mr. Clements, if you were to read "March 2015 Preliminary" thread and some of the previous parity threads you would find the generally agreed upon issue is the 1.6 torque shortfall (car weight pounds/torque pound foot = pounds/pound foot compared to same for the 99 car at 500 rpm increments from 3,000 rpm through 5,500 rpm) below 5,500 rpm. 2 or 3 others including myself have posted these shortfall numbers compared to the 99. Many agree including the SMAC that something relative to torque is required. There have been some potential solutions to the torque shortfall posted. Another issue or 2 is the intake air temperature and or the heat soak issue. Bruce Wilson posted valuable resolve info relative to heat soak. Saul posted resolve info relative to IAT. Of course many of the 99 plus drivers say parity is perfect, as would be expected. 

 

Have Fun

Mr. Dewhurst

[Jim Drago]

Mr. Clements, if you were to read "March 2015 Preliminary" thread and some of the previous parity threads you would find the generally agreed upon issue is the 1.6 torque shortfall (car weight pounds/torque pound foot = pounds/pound foot compared to same for the 99 car at 500 rpm increments from 3,000 rpm through 5,500 rpm) below 5,500 rpm. 2 or 3 others including myself have posted these shortfall numbers compared to the 99. Many agree including the SMAC that something relative to torque is required. There have been some potential solutions to the torque shortfall posted. Another issue or 2 is the intake air temperature and or the heat soak issue. Bruce Wilson posted valuable resolve info relative to heat soak. Saul posted resolve info relative to IAT. Of course many of the 99 plus drivers say parity is perfect, as would be expected. 
 
Have Fun
Mr. Dewhurst

 
With all due respect and in as constructive a manner as I can put it.  You are sounding like Rainman at this point and losing the few supporters you had. There is no one that has ever read this forum that does not know the TQ is lower on a 1.6 than a 99/00 under 5500. If that was all that was involved in a race car, that is the only point that would matter. The TQ curve on your 1.6 will never mirror that of a 99 which is why the car weighs less( yes I know it doesn't fully offset it, but at the top the car has a HP to /weight advantage which is one of the reasons the formula you hate so much is often applied. That weight not only effects acceleration, it effects corning and stopping. Which is one of the reasons why you feel you dont need NB suspension.  Furthermore, most who try to get the most out of there cars try really hard to NEVER race their 1.6 under 5000 RPM. so you are really talking more like 5000-5500.  It is a short coming of the car, we know and understand that and one of the reasons it revvs to 7200 instead of 6900 or 7000.  
 
You are retired and have the time to devoted to this.. Why not test several possible solutions yourself and present the data. Stating an obvious problem for at least 150 times now on the forum is doing nothing but alienating people from your cause IMO.   If it makes you feel better, you can come back with some smart ass reply if you like, it was meant to be constructive.

[Jim Drago]

For all that don't know it James York, did race a 1.6, now he is kicking himself for spending all that money on a 99 when he already had the overdog 1.6 all that time 

He sold that "overdog" and built an even "bigger overdog"  If going to imply a bias, at least be accurate

[Mike Collins]