1001 replies to this topic

[Bench Racer]

Sean, my letter which you should have viewed requested, 9.5 pound aftermarket flywheel sold by MazdaMotorSports, header, ambient air intake and wrapped snorkel. Yes a 9.5 pound flywheel would allow the engine to wind up and slow down quicker for a net gain. Along with this 9.5 pound flywheel there would be a loss during upshifts. Also my letter made comment, if the combination track tested made the 1.6 an over-dog, decrease the weight and or increase the RP hole size for the 99 plus cars.

[Johnny D]

https://www.youtube....h?v=qfResyFrqlM
 
J~

[Sean - MiataCage]

Sean, my letter which you should have viewed requested, 9.5 pound aftermarket flywheel sold by MazdaMotorSports, header, ambient air intake and wrapped snorkel. Yes a 9.5 pound flywheel would allow the engine to wind up and slow down quicker for a net gain. Along with this 9.5 pound flywheel there would be a loss during upshifts. Also my letter made comment, if the combination track tested made the 1.6 an over-dog, decrease the weight and or increase the RP hole size for the 99 plus cars.

 

Hi David,

 

I will let Todd speak to this if he so chooses, I don't think it's my place.  I will say that when we look at the letters and make our reccommendations on potential changes we always try to balance the cost to the racer versus the benefit to the parity discussion.

 

Thanks.... Sean

[ECOBRAP]

I think there is new justification for the turn signal intake duct for the 1.6 (possibly all NA's?). Shoutout to good friend and competitor Jimmy Casey for figuring this out. I am very surprised that I have not seen this brought up on the forums before.

 

The next time you see an NB in the paddock, take a look at the driver's side strut tower, right next to the intake there is an opening that sees through into the wheel well. The NA does not have this opening, and I think it may contribute to why NA's heatsoak with IAT's more than NB's. The wheel well is a high pressure zone, and will push cool air through that small opening directly next to the intake! Not only that, it will also work in a draft because it is picking up cool air from under the car instead of the front.

 

Curious to hear people's thoughts on this.

[Tom OPM]

From what I understand the recommendation to SCCA will be : remove left marker light, wrap plastic part of the intake tube, clean up welds on the exh manifold and downpipe.

I will be running our 1.6 in this configuration next wknd at our regional championships at Sav. Todd will be there and can report back. Not a great place to test because its already a good 1.6 track. I would like to do more testing at tracks where the car struggles. Personally I still say we need header and add 25lbs back. My 2 cents.

[cam]

Thanks for sharing Tom, if you can, please report back if the 1.6 if overall better or does it not fall over (heat soak) as quickly?  My guess is that it will be able to maintain the performance level longer (not heat soak).

[callumhay]

I'm concerned that the left head light will impede airflow even if the turn signal is removed.. As an owner of a 1.6 I appreciate the help we are getting and I sent a letter to the CRB in support.. I am wondering if we are going to see the 1.6 cars running with their pop ups in the up position on the slow parts of the track and down on the fast parts... I guess you could say combining aero with air intake... That being said the GCR does not say I can do that so it means that I can't. Unless it's dark. I'm definitely in favor of more night races for 1.6 cars. Definitely . I can hear the groans already. .!

[Steve Scheifler]

topgear3793, you are correct about the difference in the source of outside air, but it's been discussed many times in the past and is the reason why the turn indicator removal was first recommended.

Callumhay, agreed, removal of the bulb was mentioned from the very beginning but seems to be forgotten in most mentions.

[ECOBRAP]

I'm concerned that the left head light will impede airflow even if the turn signal is removed.. As an owner of a 1.6 I appreciate the help we are getting and I sent a letter to the CRB in support.. I am wondering if we are going to see the 1.6 cars running with their pop ups in the up position on the slow parts of the track and down on the fast parts... I guess you could say combining aero with air intake... That being said the GCR does not say I can do that so it means that I can't. Unless it's dark. I'm definitely in favor of more night races for 1.6 cars. Definitely . I can hear the groans already. .!

 

I think to best match the airflow that 1.8's receive, 1.6's should have the turn signal and headlight assembly removed, but also have the U-bend intake pipe that brings the air filter right behind the headlight.

 

[Bruce Wilson]

Have you ever dyno'd a racing beat?  I think I have a few of those laying around.  Free to anyone who wants one

 

guys, all these ideas better be thoroughly tested on and off track.  Incomplete calculations and speculative analysis will NOT help.  But I can guarantee you 9.9 compression will...

[Bench Racer]

topgear and callumhay, with all your concerns about ambient air intake, search for the photos Tom Hampton posted (blogs/download/wherever) of my legal 1.6 ambient air intake, (since with a wrapped snorkel) and it's all thermocouple tested. The wrapped snorkel is illegal today, but expect that to be legal shortly.

 

Bruce, don't disagree with the compression. That seemed to get played down by the 99 plus crowd because 1.6er's are cheap. 

[Tom Hampton]

Its in my gallery.

[Bruce Wilson]

Bruce, don't disagree with the compression. That seemed to get played down by the 99 plus crowd because 1.6er's are cheap. 

 

Those 1.6er's are in the wrong sport.  The serious  1.6er's have and will continue to spend as much or more than a whole bunch of 99+ guys...

 

SRF continues to make SM look silly when it comes to upgrades and rules!  This is an expensive sport and anyone who thinks they can come close to doing good based on their talents without spending the money is very much disillusioned.

 

You can make all these concessional rules changes, or fix the problem with a long term plan.  Let's choose wisely!

 

The biggest problem with rules in SCCA is the vocal minority wins.  The reason SRF continues to get the big entries both regionally and Majorly is because of how the rules are decided.  They saw the expensive engine swap work in the past, so they had no qualms doing it again and it has been a huge success.

[Bruce Wilson]

And another thing I've learned in racing is never assume the future will be the same as the past.  For example, who would have ever guessed that a large field of cars in a night race in the rain would go without a full course caution.  Who would have ever guessed that a Miata could be built into the racing machines they are today.  I've been around since the early days when people drove their SM's to the track and raced junk yard engines (and did well).  Now most everyone has a pro built motor and custom paint and very well accessorized cars with all of the top racing accouterments. Things have changed A LOT!

 

Frankly I was floored when I heard people say that a compression bump is expensive.  REALLY???  Have you seen your tire bill lately...  Like if you bought more than one set of tires in the last 12 friggin months, this should be a serious 1.6 option.  

 

Now I'm getting motivated.  Either we need to see a survey monkey poll on this topic or you're going to see a hell of a lot of posts annoying the hell out of everyone

[Jim Drago]

Those 1.6er's are in the wrong sport.  The serious  1.6er's have and will continue to spend as much or more than a whole bunch of 99+ guys...

Who are these guys? I havent seen any in last 4-5 years at any of the races I have been to?

 

SRF continues to make SM look silly when it comes to upgrades and rules!  This is an expensive sport and anyone who thinks they can come close to doing good based on their talents without spending the money is very much disillusioned.
 
You can make all these concessional rules changes, or fix the problem with a long term plan.  Let's choose wisely!
 
The biggest problem with rules in SCCA is the vocal minority wins.  The reason SRF continues to get the big entries both regionally and Majorly is because of how the rules are decided.  They saw the expensive engine swap work in the past, so they had no qualms doing it again and it has been a huge success.

When you say silly, Do you mean in SRF's lack to draw more entries than SM does or the fact that SRF field is routinely spread further apart than SM even with all our "problems" and their only fielding one car when SM fields four.

[Adax]

I don't think anyone with a 1.6 that wants to race in the front has any delusions that he/she will be able to to it cheaply.  I ran a 1.6 for 6 years and guess what it cost me to get to the front? Around $30K for an '01. Would much rather have spent $6K on a new 1.6 engine to get the same results. Read that again.

[Joe Cooley]

Those 1.6er's are in the wrong sport.  The serious  1.6er's have and will continue to spend as much or more than a whole bunch of 99+ guys...

 

SRF continues to make SM look silly when it comes to upgrades and rules!  This is an expensive sport and anyone who thinks they can come close to doing good based on their talents without spending the money is very much disillusioned.

 

You can make all these concessional rules changes, or fix the problem with a long term plan.  Let's choose wisely!

 

The biggest problem with rules in SCCA is the vocal minority wins.  The reason SRF continues to get the big entries both regionally and Majorly is because of how the rules are decided.  They saw the expensive engine swap work in the past, so they had no qualms doing it again and it has been a huge success.

 

SRF upgrades are a bit ridiculous for a car that shouldn't be having constant upgrades.  Brakes, Ladder belt, new alternator, new wire harness, new fuel regulator, new fuel pump, new intake, etc.  Every year was 1000 bucks in upgrades it seemed.  The engine change was not universally liked.  Orignal goal was 10-12K and now 15-16K.  A lot of people were less than excited to be getting more power.  There was no need for it according to them.  The engine being a Ford again when Ford had done pretty much nothing for the class while Mazda and to a lesser extent Honda had good choices and have done a LOT more to support SCCA racing.  Huge success on the engine swap?  Depends on what you are measuring.  Does the car sound better and go faster?  Yep.  Has it attracted new people into SRF?  I haven't seen a change.

 

SRF had a good showing at Daytona but part of that was due to relatively easy qualifying for the older cars since a lot of the fast guys went to Gen3 and the same thing for Gen3 only needing top half in points to qualify.

 

SRF field is spread out time wise a bit more than SM.  That's a fact but I'd argue it's more due to the differences in drafting.  I feel the Miata draft brings the cars closer together and therefore tightens up the field.  SRF does get the draft help but not to the same level as SM (sorry if that is a bit confusing)  Overall I'd say there is a slight bit more talent in SM right now but not much.  The front guys in both fields are all really darn good drivers. 

 

I sold my SRF right as they were talking about the engine change as I didn't want to deal with all the crap of a transition.  Happily playing in a Miata right now.  May go back to SRF but right now I sure do like the Miata crowd.  

[Bruce Wilson]

SRF did well with their transition as is proven in continued interest in the class and 2 year backlog of new engine packages (last I heard).  My point in case anybody missed it, was that they aren't timid in making forward thinking rules even if it carries a pricetag.

 

Jim, just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean they don't exist.  High dollar 1.6s exist and are being driven in both clubs.  Sure they have been greatly diminished and maybe/probably non-existent on the East coast. And of course in my opinion they've been diminished partly because of lack of parity and partly because builders prefer to build a car that can be made fast more consistently and don't want to have to deal with too many years.

 

9.9 compression is the answer. The other options are conciliatory at best and put us in danger of having this conversation again.  I'd much prefer to hear any dissent by 1.6 owners as to why it is not the best option.  

 

Moderators, do I need to start a new thread so that conversation doesn't get sidetracked?

[Tom Hampton]

Bruce -

Start a new thread if you wish. You're not that far off topic, but this one has been going on for a while. I like the header option. The data looks pretty good. Haven't seen any compression data to compare the header with.

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

Bruce -
Start a new thread if you wish. You're not that far off topic, but this one has been going on for a while. I like the header option. The data looks pretty good. Haven't seen any compression data to compare the header with.

I'm for the header as well but it would be to much of a gain ( with a good header ) and the NB crowd wouldn't be happy with this.

I say let the NA cars have a header and they can adjust it with weight or a plate if needed !

Ps sorry but unfortunately were not getting a header by the way !