1001 replies to this topic

[Johnny D]

Should the SMAC only be able to run NA's next year until they win a Majors to better address the problem ?

 

Seriously, this is very difficult balance, not too much for regional but enough for Majors across the country and different tracks.

And with no/small amount of letters coming in, is there an issue ?

Then again the polling data did show most thought the NA needed help, so...

Thanks guys.

J~

[Brandon]

If memory serves, there are, in fact, two SMAC members who DO race NA's - myself & the other I don't remember exactly (Ralph?).

 

Anyway - I've put my money where my mouth is and built a motor (NA1.8) and am aiming for the 2016 Runoffs regardless...perhaps after that we can finally agree to give us something.

 

[Tom Hampton]

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

 

Thanks, Sean.  I fully intend to write a letter (or letters).  However, I want to have some facts first to put some weight behind what I write.  I think the flywheel is pretty much put to bed.  My participation here has been to flesh out the collective opinion to whatever degree of consensus can be reached.  Then to write a letter regarding those conclusions.  

 

Ive asked this before....what timeframe is the smac looking at for letters on this topic.  Testing and analysis take time.  Even this one, which was reasonably trivial didn't happen overnight. 

[FTodaro]

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.

Denny I do not know honestly, but if i did you would not believe me. I do know that lots of little things add up to big things.

 

I know most of the guys on the SMAC in some capacity and do not doubt their motives. 

 

Now lets talk about regional results.

[LarryKing]

is there an issue ?

 

Nope. No issue at all. Just to be sure let's ask Bette Midler.

 

Bette, does the 1.6 need help?

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=W6Jfs8bK6WQ

[Johnny D]

Well. Walter...

 

Are they passing the buck until next time ?

Poll come out, any changes?

Write a letter, we can't do anything without a letter?

After 15 pages, Danny asking what do you suggest, suggest he wasn't doing/considering anything with the testing data.

This has been going on for years.

Cry wolf ?

J~

[Bench Racer]

Danny and SMAC, this is not whining.  Drop dead date for letters???

 

Seems two (ambient air intake/wrapped snorkel) of the four items on the Todd/SMAC letter have value at this time. Two of the items (grind header welds and minus two pounds of flywheel weight) of the TODD/SMAC letter have zero value.

 I appreciate the energy from Tom Fowler while at the same time his 1.6 had 2 items combined at VIR. How much value added  was the ambient air intake and how much value added was the header. Were there any track runs completed with header only and then the turn signal taken out.

[LarryKing]

Johnny, I sent a letter last week. I sent letter last year. I sent letters previous years.

 

A HEADER, AN AFTERMARKET HEADER. NOT A TURBO OR A SUPERCHARGER. A FREAKING HEADER. THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING FOR.

 

Did you catch it that time?

[Johnny D]

So you are asking for an experiment for 2016 in your region in the regional class for a header to see who will do it and what result, before the nationwide rollout?

J~

[davew]

Mr. Vetter, Chill Out

 

Please remember a few things, The SMAC is a bunch of volunteers. Be nice to them. The majority of the current SMAC was not on the group last year. As you may recall there was a big "to do" about a year ago that caused a change in personel. Thus they do not know what you wrote a year ago. The only thing that counts is that you wrote an official letter through SCCA channels. Nothing on this or any other website holds any meaning when it gets to the people who actually do the work and approve the recomendations.

 

From what I read here, the slightly lighter flywheel helps mostly at lower RPM and mostly in lower gears. Not a big help, but you only want a little help.

 

Grinding the header welds WILL make a difference to an unmodified header. If you already did this, then you do not get any additional benefit other than your dark gray area modification has now become lilly white legal.

 

There is no accurate method of testing the wrapped intake or the removed turn lense except back to back track testing with some significant data annalysis. But they are cheap mods and can not hurt.

 

Allowing an aftermarket header will create a new overdog, known as a 1.6. We will then be making weight and plate adjustments to the new overdog for the next 5 years.. While Fowler, Drago, myself etc build a bunch of new cars. 

 

Asking for too much will not get you anywhere. Asking for a reasonable adjustment in a polite manner may get you what you want.

 

Ex-SMAC

Dave

[Tom OPM]

If we do not write letters we will not get anything.

I personally feel the car needs more than just a few small token items.

I would really like to see a spec header, I will be happy with cleaning up a stock one.

Since we may not do anything with the flywheel, probably a good idea, let us have the header.

Stay with the turn signal and intake wrap.

If we feel we went to far add 25lbs.

Did I mention write letters.

[davearm]

Just curious as to NASA's take (official or off the record) on all this discussion, as this seems at the moment to be focused primarily towards an SCCA change. I race both, but mostly NASA.

[Steve Scheifler]

As I've said before, my biggest concern about doing something with the flywheel is that those making the rules will mistake it for a significant benefit overall, and obviously that must then reduce what else is done. I think we have adequately made the case that under most circumstances the "gain" is extremely small and in some cases most mentioned effectively nil. Meanwhile, there are some tracks where the 1.6 would benefit a bit in 2nd gear. Not much, and not for very long since I doubt they are routinely dropping to 5k in 2nd, but enough that it would be more than nothing. At the same time I reject the argument comparing it to what "top prep" drivers will pay for 1/2hp or whatever. Obviously a LOT, me too if I thought it were an edge on the guy in front, or something he already has. But surely it's obvious that's fundamentally different than a parity adjustment where the idea is to bring a whole group of cars closer in the most cost effective way. I can give you guys a list of high cost low benefit options if you just want to ridicule 1.6 owners for not being willing to do what it takes. Not very productive and in fact antagonistic IMO

But back to trimming a few pounds off the flywheel. I get the impression that the idea already has too much inertia (if you didn't smile or at least groan at that you are not qualified to vote on the matter) so IF the limits of its value are understood and reflected in the total package, AND if we are gaurenteed that a scatter shield will not be required now or later as a result, then I would view an allowance to lighten the stock one as a bone primarily tossed to those with a lot of 2nd gear corners. And of course I'll pull mine out and trim it accordingly because I can and it would be stupid not to.

Do I need need to write another letter and include all the physics to support my assertion that it is of very little benefit and almost none above 2nd gear? Should Rich & Tom to likewise?

And as someone else asked, where are we in the process? Todd indicated that four things were on the short list. In keeping with the promised increase in transparency, exactly when will an SMAC recommendation be passed up the ladder?

Thinking about the proposed changes it seems to me that the ability to fix the stock header is primarily a way to equalize within the 1.6 ranks more than lift them relative to other models. The turn indicator delete and intake wrap are primarily to stabilize performance of the 1.6 throughout a race especially on hot days. So that leaves only the flywheel proposal as an actual parity adjustment in the normal sense, and I think we have clearly demonstrated that it amounts to very little at best and effectively nothing the rest of the time. Or put another way, if the powers thought that the 1.6 needed just 1/2 hp and only some of the time, there would be no point.

Of course not everyone thinks it needs help at all, and if that's the honest collective belief of the SMAC then the three "consistency" proposals are still well worth doing in their own right. And if you throw in the flywheel to appease those with the occasional 2nd gear corner then that's fine too. Just please do not later bill this as some huge handout to the 1.6 and make like they should suddenly be overdogs if properly prepped and driven. Remember the OPM test mule, which had actual power enhancements and was still just competitive (no real threat to win looking at all the data). I doubt that it was missing enough other "top prep" attention to drop it from overdog to also ran.

Oh, and for those who haven't kept score, I have not been clamoring for 1.6 parity help. I proposed the turn indicator thing because that seems like an easy and free way to at least partially mitigate a problem. Other than that it is obvious to me that the 1.6 is at a significant torque disadvantage which can be decisive when used against it, and I think driving it on the edge is more difficult, but it also has some distinct advantages in terms of weight and redline. I think the net result is very close thanks to years of effort by the SMAC, but on balance I think the NBs still come out on top. Unfortunately what the 1.6 needs can't be just bolted on for a few hundred bucks, so I have remained largely neutral with respect to other parity enhancements. I don't want to win with a COTY, I just want to know that the field is as level as possible.

[davew]

Just for the record, I have voted, by writing a letter, in favor of all 4 items. I have also written letters to allow 1.6 cars to update to NA 1.8 engines and to allow the NB suspension on all cars.

 

If someone where to bring me a 1.6 car, and request the 4 proposed items be done, he would expect to pay me about $600 in parts and labor.

 

Dave

[Johnny D]

https://www.youtube....h?v=oTB46FJOF5w

J~

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

I'm sorry but quit worrying about what guys are willing to spend because you have no idea what people will spend to get closer parity. Let's just get them closer to have better racing.

Yes your not going to get a lot of Regional guys to spend the money but so what, they won't have to if they don't want to. Is that a reason not to make any changes because if it is that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. At least that will give the guys that want to a chance to be competitive !

Ps I'm in favor of the header,turn signal removal,and wrap. I don't really care to much for the flywheel.

Just my opinion !

[Bench Racer]

FYI: Autobahn Country Club’s Spec Miata series has had about 40 members race this year, with an average car count of approx. 24.  Members own 60-70 Spec Miata’s.  To increase car count and encourage new entrants, members embarked on a series of tests to improve 1.6 performance. In the end, at 2275#, a Racing Beat header with the driver’s side turn signal lens and headlight bulb removed appears to be a quick, effective and cost efficient means of making the 1.6 cars more competitive. On a fresh Stewart motor, the header improved torque and horsepower about 3 units (range of 2-4) throughout the 4500-7000 rpm range, top-speed increased 3 mph at three different locations on the South track.  The track’s SM champion turned virtually identical lap times in the test car and his ’99.  About 10 cars are presently being converted.

Jim Morris, is there any documented tq/hp data in 250-500 rpm increments comparing the 1.6 and the 99 the ABCC members would share?

[Sean - MiataCage]

 

 

Ive asked this before....what timeframe is the smac looking at for letters on this topic.  Testing and analysis take time.  Even this one, which was reasonably trivial didn't happen overnight. 

 

Hi Tom,

 

I would have to default to Todd on this one, but I can tell you that we meet the 3rd Wednesday of the month, so the sooner the better.  I'm sorry I don't have a better answer for you.

 

Sean

[davew]

I'm sorry but quit worrying about what guys are willing to spend because you have no idea what people will spend to get closer parity. Let's just get them closer to have better racing.

Yes your not going to get a lot of Regional guys to spend the money but so what, they won't have to if they don't want to. Is that a reason not to make any changes because if it is that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. At least that will give the guys that want to a chance to be competitive !

Ps I'm in favor of the header,turn signal removal,and wrap. I don't really care to much for the flywheel.

Just my opinion !

 

I posted the cost so people would have another data point to base their decision on. An educated public will make better decisions.

 

dave

[davew]

Just as another point of reference, the CRB "tent" meeting for SM is Tuesday at Daytona.

 

I am sure it will be a lively discussion