1001 replies to this topic

[Adax]

To make it easy for everyone, could someone please post the address to which we should mail letters?

 

Thanks,

Alan

[Sean - MiataCage]

 

 

 Two of the items (grind header welds and minus two pounds of flywheel weight) of the TODD/SMAC letter have zero value.

 

 

David..... Your a smart guy.  The analysis did not say ZERO value on the flywheel.  The amount of value versus the return on investment may be minimal to you and others but that does not mean ZERO. On the header I have seen with my own eyes the difference between a good one and a bad one on the dyno with back to back testing.  I would not call that Zero either.  Remember that the changes are cumulative and meant to add a LITTLE bit to the 1.6L at little or no hard cost. 

 

To have open and honest dialogue we need to get away from words that imply absolutes.  You assesment that it provides Zero value is not accurate.  Its like when people say there are NO tracks that use 2nd gear.  Not true in a lot of cases and out west here every track we race on requires 2nd gear in a 1.6L.  Sears Point, Thunderhill, Laguna, Portland, Seattle, The Ridge.  There are others, but I think my point is made.

[Bench Racer]

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

Sure, with all four 1.6's entered.

 

If the SM meeting at Daytona were online and open dialog for all, it would be a real hoot.

[Johnny D]

To make it easy for everyone, could someone please post the address to which we should mail letters?
 
Thanks,
Alan

https://www.crbscca.com/

J~

[Todd Lamb]

Redacted

Redacted

Redacted

We have a conf call next weds. No saying if we will reach any conclusions then, but get your letters in by Monday to be on the agenda.


And just to clarify, the SMAC budget for testing is $0/hr. Which also equates to $0 annually. And that includes all the big bucks we get paid.

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]

David..... Your a smart guy.  The analysis did not say ZERO value on the flywheel.  The amount of value versus the return on investment may be minimal to you and others but that does not mean ZERO. On the header I have seen with my own eyes the difference between a good one and a bad one on the dyno with back to back testing.  I would not call that Zero either.  Remember that the changes are cumulative and meant to add a LITTLE bit to the 1.6L at little or no hard cost. 

 

To have open and honest dialogue we need to get away from words that imply absolutes.  You assesment that it provides Zero value is not accurate.  Its like when people say there are NO tracks that use 2nd gear.  Not true in a lot of cases and out west here every track we race on requires 2nd gear in a 1.6L.  Sears Point, Thunderhill, Laguna, Portland, Seattle, The Ridge.  There are others, but I think my point is made.

Sean, didn't mean to excite anyone. Pick a word that works, slight value, minimal value?  If you were to share your dyno info with reference to an OEM header which has the internal welds ground we could all benefit. 

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
We have a conf call next weds. No saying if we will reach any conclusions then, but get your letters in by Monday to be on the agenda.
And just to clarify, the SMAC budget for testing is $0/hr. Which also equates to $0 annually. And that includes all the big bucks we get paid.

Quit using those big words Todd your messing with my head !

[Sean - MiataCage]

Sean, didn't mean to excite anyone. Pick a word that works, slight value, minimal value?  If you were to share your dyno info with reference to an OEM header which has the internal welds ground we could all benefit. 

 

No worries, I just keep hearing people say things that are not correct and then they get regurgitated and it becomes truth on the internet.

 

I have zero dyno data on a ground header.  I'm saying there is a difference in the manufacturing tolerance (likely manufacturer to manufacturer) over the years in the size location of the welds etc on the Mazda OEM un-touched part..... Parts bin blue printing of OEM ones.  The last time we did a header clean up was for an endurance race many many years ago and the car was in PT trim.  Not sure I can even find those dyno runs.

 

Sean

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

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

I agree but the three items I suggested cost very little and believe this would be a good start for all the NA guys and cheap !

[cam]

Letter sent.  There has been very little discussion about cams.  I would assume that cams with more lift and duration with a tighter LCA will do wonders to wake the little 1.6 up without making it too powerful.  While cams are expensive, they are cheaper than building a new car.

[38bfast]

Letter sent.  There has been very little discussion about cams.  I would assume that cams with more lift and duration with a tighter LCA will do wonders to wake the little 1.6 up without making it too powerful.  While cams are expensive, they are cheaper than building a new car.

Cam you could be very correct. Please submit your findings on proposed grinds.

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

Cam you could be very correct. Please submit your findings on proposed grinds.

Maybe one of the old engine builders that are still around can chime in about cams.

As I recall they have tried them as well as making there own cam gears that looked like they where stock. If this is true maybe they might have some old dyno sheets laying around that they would be willing to share with us.

[Bruce Wilson]

Compression is cheaper than cams and much easier to tech.

[Danny Steyn]

Letter sent.  There has been very little discussion about cams.  I would assume that cams with more lift and duration with a tighter LCA will do wonders to wake the little 1.6 up without making it too powerful.  While cams are expensive, they are cheaper than building a new car.

 

IMHO cams do the opposite of what you need. Cams will give you more horsepower but will not increase torque. Our desire is to make the cars as close as possible and this means trying to overcome the 1.6's biggest issue. It can run fast lap times in the CURRENT STATE, and certainly on some tracks might even be the fastest car, but when it is put into racing conditions, and it get balked by another car, essentially mitigating its weight advantage and nimble handling through the corners, then it struggles out the corners while the 99's and VVT's just pull away, or if behind, go around, and this is how the 1.6 gets shuffled backwards.

[bmw251]

What about solving a majority of parity and just permit all NA's and NB's to use vvt engine and 1.8 brakes... I see these swaps on cars for sale on Craigslist therefore the harness issue must be not impossible to fit. This would allow people to choose when it is time for an engine rebuild... Even the guys with the 99..... I think this would bring parity closer between all the variations we have now in a spec class... And no I am not writing a letter.. I really have no dog in this fight. I run a 99 and just enjoy regional racing and NASA racing. This board should be used as ideas for the SCCA not just letters.

Greg

[Pat Ross]

if the proposed changes are approved a major "arms race" will occur in regional racing. Where the regional guys racing 1.6 NAs are fairly equal today, anyone choosing to not make the proposed changes will find themselves non-competitive.

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

[Bench Racer]

IIRC per the Todd/SMAC locked letter, the SMAC in so many words is being very conscious.

[Steve Scheifler]

if the proposed changes are approved a major "arms race" will occur in regional racing. Where the regional guys racing 1.6 NAs are fairly equal today, anyone choosing to not make the proposed changes will find themselves non-competitive.

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

But Pat, the biggest gains will be the turn indicator light which is free, and maybe wrapping the intake which is cheap and DIY. Even removing and cleaning up the header, which will be very small gains in most cases, is a pretty simple task. Getting to the flywheel is the only change that amounts to significant expense of effort and unless they have a lot of 2nd gear corners it is certainly not going to upset the balance of the field. I really don't see much room for an arms race with this. If they are just average prep cars now then there's already opportunity for them to spend or do a little more than the next guy, right?

[Pat Ross]

Steve, do you think those minor changes you named would make the NA 1.6 competitive with the NB & NB vvt?

[RWP80000]

Not to beat a dead horse, but I think the perspective presented by this Professors "letter to the editor" attached below fits right in with the Flywheel discussion.  I think it was Danny who said, something to the effect that "it is one of those items you do not have to feed or "adjust" and I agree.  The benefit is always there on every acceleration (at varying degrees-depending on acceleration) and it it never wears out.

 

While 2 lbs isn't much, it is something.  For a track like Road America I would give a directional estimate of it helping by about .05 second per lap.  This would be virtually impossible for "seat of the pants" feel but other tracks with more turns and acceleration gear changes could see better results in reduction in lap time on a percentage basis.

 

As for the issue of safety, removing the inertia ring would actually reduce the chance of any inertial "disentegration" as reducing the mass at the outer diameter significantly reduces stresses in the flywheel.  I can say from the experience of observing flywheel disentegration post-tests results performed in a wood lined pit using an air motor capable of 20,000 RPM, it isn't a pretty picture after a flywheel lets go.

 

Since, I believe I read that with full removal of the 1.6L flywheel you can remove more than two pounds of weight, does anyone know with any degree of accuracy just how much weight might be available to be removed?

 

Rich Powers

 

 Transcribed Prof of Engr Inertia letter.htm   27.04KB   13 downloads