1001 replies to this topic

[Johnny D]

J~

[Tom Hampton]

Ok,

FYI, One more hurdle is, "is it good for the class" even after all the numbers work, most are happy, etc, etc.

Cost, Implementation, etc.

 

Clarity from Ralph, Todd, etc from time to time is always good.

 

I'm not trying to kill your ideas, just show it's difficult.

Carry on.

J~

I'm not sure who you are asking....I thought my opinion was clear.  I don't think its worth the trouble; even Rich says its worth less than 1/2 HP.  Even doubling the machining would still see less than 3/4 HP by that math, which is still of questionable value. 

[Johnny D]

Our hard working members here working away. lol.
Pages upon pages with charts, etc. disproving the theory.
Carry on.
J~

[Steve Scheifler]

The attached pdf file is a just completed analysis relating to the affect of reducing the flywheel weight. I have walked through the analysis in a top to bottom approach explaining methodology, the assumption and reasons for my approach.
...
Rich Powers

https://www.dropbox....ations.pdf?dl=0

Thanks Rich! I didn't expect my simplified approach to convince everyone so my main hope was that it would encourage someone more qualified to do a proper job of it, even if the result was to prove me wrong. For completeness, what numbers would you get for switching to one of the available (8lb?) units? Close enough to just double your 4# values plus a little?

[38bfast]

Obviously if the lightened flywheel were allowed it would not be a mandatory to have by the rules. It would be a option. Myself personally would not waste my money. But not to say someone would feel compelled to have it if made legal.

[Steve Scheifler]

I would feel compelled, which is why I am opposed to anything more than trimming the stock one, and I don't want to then get stuck with a scatter shield, so scrap the whole idea.

[Todd Lamb]

What is clear is that there is no way to make everyone happy. My personal goal is to make everyone less unhappy.

[RWP80000]

"Thanks Rich! I didn't expect my simplified approach to convince everyone so my main hope was that it would encourage someone more qualified to do a proper job of it, even if the result was to prove me wrong. For completeness, what numbers would you get for switching to one of the available (8lb?) units? Close enough to just double your 4# values plus a little? "

 

Steve,

In all likely hood you would be pretty close just doubling the numbers but if in fact the flywheel material is changed (say from steel to alum) and the cross section ends up being different from the Mazda one the the Mass moment of inertia would need to be recalculated and then the comparisons made using the proper mass moment of inertia.

Rich

[Tom Hampton]

What is clear is that there is no way to make everyone happy. My personal goal is to make everyone less unhappy.

Hmmm.....I thought compromise was about making everyone equally unhappy?

[Cnj]

Steve, Tom, Steve,

Great job on making the effort to approach this from engineering first principles. It's been a while since I had to dig into my ME past to evaluate such calcs. Bottom line is that 3 seperate calculations reflect that the most optimistic power gain would be 1hp and in all probability would be less than 0.5hp gain and that only in 2nd gear (1st gear is meaningless on the track). It's a waste of money.

This really does not affect me as I'm in a 99, however I urge the SMAC to not promote a modified flywheel for the 1.6. Even if this has been shown to have negligble/imperceptible benefit, approval of the change will drive many to burn cash in the "maybe/perhaps/somehow" chase. I have no problem with allowing the 1.6's a small bump, but if modifications are going to result in cost, let them have clear benefit.

CNJ

[davew]

Maybe Mr Drago, or Steyn, or Lamb or Drennan can answer. How much would you spend for 1/2 horsepower? Especially a 1/2 horse that never needs feeding or adjusting.

 

This is the attention to detail that makes a top prep car. But as usual, the masses don't want to spend the money on the details that add up to a difference.

 

Todd, I am happy......... that I am not on the SMAC anymore.

 

Dave

[Todd Lamb]

reminder: if you want your opinion to count send in a letter.

[Todd Lamb]

Well said Dave.

I don't mind the SMAC duty. Thick skin and a desire to make the class the best it can be....ask me again in a year

[LarryKing]

 

if modifications are going to result in cost, let them have clear benefit.

 

This. ^^^

 

Is the SMAC even interested in the 1.6 being a legitimately competitive option? I have my doubts.

[FTodaro]

This. ^^^

 

Is the SMAC even interested in the 1.6 being a legitimately competitive option? I have my doubts.

Denny I know you like to stir the pot, but your criticism of these guys who are volunteering to try to make things better for the class is a little unfair.

 

They are just the messengers not the deciders and its up to us to give them messages to send.

 

Just because you do not get what you want does not mean its the SMAC's fault.

 

[Johnny D]

I think you guys are doing a great job!

 

My comment on clarity was only, if some ideas are or aren't showing merit, along the process, if it could be disclosed for potential 2016 rule change and discussed.

 

header test, turn signal, flywheel, etc.

And I'm not saying your not doing this.

J~

[LarryKing]

Frank, I'm asking you honestly - Do you truly believe smoothing the welds on the OEM header (something most people have already done), taking two pounds off the flywheel (maybe 1 HP in some gears), wrapping the intake (who knows) and removing the left turn signal lens (who knows again) will make even the highest prep 1.6 with a top driver remotely competitive at the Majors level? (Please don't quote to me Mid Ohio regional results)

 

Is anyone in an official capacity of the SCCA doing any testing of the SMAC's recommendations and any other potential mods. If so, why aren't we hearing about it.

 

One more thing, whatever is decided it would be great if it is announced before the end of the year so 1.6 drivers have time to implement the changes during the off season.

[Danny Steyn]

Denny

 

IMHO the only way that the 1.6 NA will be competitive is with displacement / and or compression.

A 1.8 engine / harness swap will do this quickly and we can add weight and plate and start the BOP equations to get it inline with the 99/VVT's which seem to be very close.

Are you in favor of this as an approach?

We have asked 1.6 drivers how much they want to spend, and it varies from nothing to more than $5k. 

I am interested in what your approach.

[LarryKing]

Danny, Thank you for asking.

 

You saw first hand Tom's 1.6 experiment at Barber. An aftermarket header and removing the left turn signal lens seemed to close the parity gap fairly well. Yes? No?

 

This option should be pretty economic too. Is anyone officially testing/recommending this option?

 

A 1.8 engine swap would just be a homemade '94-'97. Is a real  '94-'97 1.8 NA car competitive with the NB?

[Sean - MiataCage]

The world is filled with lots of editors, but very few authors. For all the bitching that gets done on this site we see very, very few letters to consider pro's, con's alternative options etc formally submitted to us for consideration.

Thanks to the current SMAC and Drago's generosity, Todd has agreed to be more transparent about the things we are discussing to help all of you be part of the process to make your class better.

Everyone..... Please take the time to write your letters and by all means if you have the answer to this parity thing, please send it in and I'm sure once the magnificent simple solution that the SMAC is missing is identified Todd will even give you public credit for being the savior(s) of the class.

It is my personal opinion that having these more trsnspaent discussions and having guys like Steve, Tom, Rich etc put physics and science behind the discussion we are only going to improve our class.

Sean