1001 replies to this topic

[chris haldeman]

Lol it's all good

[pat slattery]

Dave, you sound like Drago:)

 

Who wants to build a 35K 1.6 only to have to sell it for 12K if your lucky.  The NB cars have not only killed parity but our resale for the 1,6.  If you could build a 1.6 that could come in at 15-18K, what does that do to the 99 and up values.  I don't think anyone in the car building business wants that to happen,but it would be good for the racers

 

Pat

[MDixon]

Let me point out that every EVERY dyno reads different. 

 

Confuses says, 

 

Man with two watches never knows what time it is...

[Tom Hampton]

I seem to recall someone telling us that this testing had been done, but that the data said that the changes were in the wrong range to be useful for adjusting NA6 "parity".  Clearly the data above is not useful for comparing to the NB due to the different quality of builds, and unknown tune levels.  However, the data does support either compression or header as being effective where it needs to be.  Possibly a light restrictor plate might be needed to limit top-end gains.  But, that would need a better quality 1.6L build with a better AFM, and better AFR tuning to assess. 

 

I like the header idea, it eliminates another "cherry" part from the equation (exhaust manifold).  I don't know which would be better: Spec'd part, or Open.  Would the "open" quickly become...defacto standard like exhaust systems have with just a couple of equivalent options?  Or would there be a bunch of "developed" headers that cost $$$$? 

[Sean - MiataCage]

I would like to Thank all the powers that be that decided to release this information.  There are several "experts" on the interweb who want you to believe what they believe the 1.6 needs and several think we should just give up on the 1.6.  Exposing this data to the public is nothing but positive as now people can make their own informed opinions about the testing.  I believe that transparency is important for the class and this will hopefully spur some positive conversation around the parity issues and maybe get some more letters submitted on the topic.

 

My big question is why was none of this tested on track before deciding not to proceeed with any of it.  In my mind the testing is half way done at best.  We don't race dyno's.  The dyno is a great start, but it needs to be tested on track in my opinion.

 

Trust but Verify.....

 

Disclaimer.....  My postings are the thoughts and opinions of me and me only and do not reflect anything relating to the SMAC committee.

[38bfast]

Sean that test was just to evaluate the HP and torque gains of each modification. Delta from a baseline. It was not a top prep package so putting it on track would not yield a apples to apples comparison to a competitive car. Comparing to a top prep 99 was a pointless exercise in this test as it was not comparing like prep cars. A stock crate engine / head is the least advantageous combination for a 1.6 looking to get to the pointy end.

The test was good for what it was intended for. To evaluate gains of selected modifications.

For me it was shocking to find that adjusting cam timing yeild no gain.

[Sean - MiataCage]

Thanks Ralph......  So does that then mean that any of these improvements are still on the table for consideration?  I was led to believe that they were all dead in the water because the dyno improvements that were seen were deemed to be to much for the 1.6L.

 

Thanks.... Sean

[38bfast]

The SMAC is reviewing all data as it pertains to 1.6 parity.

[davew]

I hope everyone remembers that we are working with 4 different cars with some additional small variations in the middle. Trying to get them equal is impossible. Getting them close is difficult at best. One combination has to be the best and another has to be the worst. I understand nobody wants to be the worst. But somebody will finish last in every race. Lets not switch what package is the best, only to drive the cost of competition up. Only to come back in 2 years and make another change.

 

Be carefull, is what I am saying

 

dave

[Bench Racer]

August 12, 2015

 

Dear Spec Miata Stakeholders:

 

The test data have been shared with the SCCA Spec Miata Advisory Committee (SMAC) and NASA. These data can be used for potential BoP adjustments. This is on the current SMAC agenda for its call August 19.

 

The Spec Miata Group is sharing this information for several reasons. First and foremost, the Group wants the process to be transparent to the community at-large. Second, we want the community to have the opportunity to provide the sanctioning bodies with input as the data are evaluated for potential changes. Finally, we found the data enlightening, and felt that you would as well.

 

To provide input to the rules-making bodies, please submit letters to www.crbscca.com for SCCA and/or johnmueller@drivenasa.com for NASA.

 

For the sport,

 

Eric Prill, SCCA Vice President and COO

John Doonan, Mazda Motorsports Director

John Mueller, NASA Spec Miata National Director

Jim Wheeler, SCCA Club Racing Board Chairman

John Bauer, SCCA Club Racing Technical Manager

David Cook, Mazda Motorsports Business Development Manager

Steve Sanders, MAZDASPEED Motorsports Development Manager

Mike Allen, MAZDASPEED Motorsports Development Specialist

 

To continue the group's transparent focus, David Dewhurst as a 1.6 stakeholder within the Spec Miata community would like to know the process the SMAC/CRB will use to evaluate the JPM data towards power improvement for the 1.6.

 

As long as were all into being transparent, would the SMAC/CRB care to share info on ambient air intake for the 1.6? My research finds that for each 10* F increment in temperature reduction there is a 1 to 1.8 percent increase in power. How about the SMAC/CRB use their resources to validate a percent power improvement for each 10* F increment in temperature reduction.

[davew]

Pat, come into the current state of the class. You simply can not build ANY year SM for that price.

 

3000 donor car is cheap

1000 hardtop

6000 motor

500 ACT clutch

1000 trans

1000 roll cage kit

1000 seat, belts, safety gear

1500 spec suspension kit

500 set of dry wheels

500 set of wet wheels

700 set of dry tires

700 set of wet tires

 

My math is $17,400 and we have not touched any needed maintenance work, brakes, paint, or labor. And that number does not change for a 1990 or a 2005 model year donor. I wish a top level SM was possible for that price, but it is not. The dodo bird, the model T and the $15000 top flight SM are all gone. Please pull your head out of the sand. None are coming back.

[Ron Alan]

There was an offer put out after the Western NASA Champs by the top 1.6 finisher to share his DATA! I believe there is a top 99 car and a top 01 car from that weekend that also may be willing to share. The dyno numbers are also there for the comparison.

I would think there are several people on the SMAC that could analyze this data. Real time info. Min and Max speeds, acceleration, segment times. Maybe I'm off base but I think there would some valuable data here after you make a few assumptions. Granted, same driver would be ideal for better omparison...but for arguments sake lets just assume the drivers, tires, set up are close enough that we can just look at car.
NASA also felt all the dyno numbers on these cars was within "normal" so no issue of illegal power.

Just a thought since we had a very good finishing 1.6 car.

[LarryKing]

Would someone please define what exactly a "top prep" package is? And I ain't talking about fancy painted interiors, wrap graphics or driver comfort gizmos. I want to know exactly what hardware and tuning separates top from average prep.

[FTodaro]

After getting my ass kicked at mid O last weekend by a 1.6, I always have a difficult time with this parity issue in my back yard. Yes some cars are better than others,drivers are better than others,  but i am only worried about the ones beating me.

 

Remember in this parity debate, if you add any of the modifications above the you have to add back the 125 lbs of weight with it.

 

I have noticed a big difference between last year and this year just on the wt. differential.

 

This is my idea about parity:

 

It costs about the same to build a new 1.6 and its less expensive but relatively close in cost to buy a used 1.6.

 

except for those who own one, newcomers have a choice and the cost is not that significant.

[Keith Andrews]

After getting my ass kicked at mid O last weekend by a 1.6, I always have a difficult time with this parity issue in my back yard. Yes some cars are better than others,drivers are better than others,  but i am only worried about the ones beating me.

 

Remember in this parity debate, if you add any of the modifications above the you have to add back the 125 lbs of weight with it.

 

I have noticed a big difference between last year and this year just on the wt. differential.

 

This is my idea about parity:

 

It costs about the same to build a new 1.6 and its less expensive but relatively close in cost to buy a used 1.6.

 

except for those who own one, newcomers have a choice and the cost is not that significant.

 

It would be interesting to see that cars dyno information.  What kind of tech was performed at this race?  Was this fast 1.6 Whistled and the head inspected?  Perhaps it has some of the above mods already.

 

I know I frequently see fast 1.6/1.8na cars at regional races.  They pass the weight and plate tech.

[Bench Racer]

After getting my ass kicked at mid O last weekend by a 1.6, I always have a difficult time with this parity issue in my back yard. Yes some cars are better than others,drivers are better than others,  but i am only worried about the ones beating me.

 

Remember in this parity debate, if you add any of the modifications above the you have to add back the 125 lbs of weight with it.

 

I have noticed a big difference between last year and this year just on the wt. differential.

 

This is my idea about parity:

 

It costs about the same to build a new 1.6 and its less expensive but relatively close in cost to buy a used 1.6.

 

except for those who own one, new comers have a choice and the cost is not that significant.

 

The thread topic is, 1.6 data and Test.

 

Underscored point one speaks for it's self.

 

Underscored point two, give it a rest until track proven. If successful another option would be to lighten the 99 plus cars. 99 plus don't give a damn about the overweight 1.6 builds.

 

Underscore point three, data please.

[Jim Drago]

Sean that test was just to evaluate the HP and torque gains of each modification. Delta from a baseline. It was not a top prep package so putting it on track would not yield a apples to apples comparison to a competitive car. Comparing to a top prep 99 was a pointless exercise in this test as it was not comparing like prep cars. A stock crate engine / head is the least advantageous combination for a 1.6 looking to get to the pointy end.

The test was good for what it was intended for. To evaluate gains of selected modifications.

For me it was shocking to find that adjusting cam timing yeild no gain.

Doing much of this testing through the years.. I have very real concerns to the accuracy of the testing...  I have absolutely found gains in cam timing ( proven it time and time again) IMO, the header gains are grossly over stated from what I have seen/tested myself.  I applaud the effort.. but I think many of us have done 25x the testing and some of this stuff just does not jive with what we have seen. There is a lot more to this testing than making the changes and throwing the car back on the drum. No information was provided about how the testing was really performed.. hard to know if it was done right or not. 

[LarryKing]

 

I have noticed a big difference between last year and this year just on the wt. differential.

 

Frank, do you know the weight of the winning 1.6? I would be surprized if it was much under 2300 lbs.

 

Does it matter that the driver has more laps at Mid-O, by far, than probably any other active SM racer?

 

For comparison the #17 ran a 1:41.854 at Mid-O in October 2014 presumably at 2300 lbs min. The #21 ran a 142.003 at that same event. Both times are faster than their best laps this past weekend. Granted, Mid-O is very weather/temperature dependent but where's the "big difference"?

[Tom Sager]

Frank, do you know the weight of the winning 1.6? I would be surprized if it was much under 2300 lbs.

 

Does it matter that the driver has more laps at Mid-O, by far, than probably any other active SM racer?

 

For comparison the #17 ran a 1:41.854 at Mid-O in October 2014 presumably at 2300 lbs min. The #21 ran a 142.003 at that same event. Both times are faster than their best laps this past weekend. Granted, Mid-O is very weather/temperature dependent but where's the "big difference"?

#17 told me in July he was near the new minimum weight.  Conditions in October were very favorable with 50-55 degree air.  Everybody went fast at that event on that particular day.  Hard to compare results that day to an 80 degree day.  

[Jim Drago]

Frank, do you know the weight of the winning 1.6? I would be surprized if it was much under 2300 lbs.

 

Does it matter that the driver has more laps at Mid-O, by far, than probably any other active SM racer?

 

For comparison the #17 ran a 1:41.854 at Mid-O in October 2014 presumably at 2300 lbs min. The #21 ran a 142.003 at that same event. Both times are faster than their best laps this past weekend. Granted, Mid-O is very weather/temperature dependent but where's the "big difference"?

 

 

I think picking and choosing one car, a few tracks etc is probably not the thing we should be concerned about.   I think what the conversation should be focused on how far off a top prep, top driven 1.6 car is off on average across all the tracks.. Then use ( very carefully) the Hp gain deltas and apply them as changes for 2016. 

 

A real problem is there are few top 1.6 cars to based this info on, we can argue for days as to why this is .. so we can just go with the conspiracy that the SMAC/Crb had a secret plan.