1001 replies to this topic

[Jim Drago]

In the Texas area, Gale Corly has a top prep 1.6 and the talent to win, he still places well if the circumstances are right.  Keith Verges is also a top talent but can not speak for his car prep, would assume it is top notch. Keith also places very high in other classes, lost track of them all but has podium finished in SRF, Viper League (or whet ever it is called), and I think it is a Radical that he has also done well in.  Most of the other "good" SM guys use to race 1.6 and have moved on to either 99+ or race their 1.6 in an other class.

Good examples.
Gale has/had NB cars as well and still races his 1.6? Glutten for punishment? He was no better/worse in his NB car though.

[LarryKing]

 

I understand what you are saying but I cant think of a SINGLE 1.6 driver in the great lakes region who is prepping to a top level with a top driver who I can say if the car were better he or she would win.

 

 

Really? No one? How about Mr. Hille? Are you saying that when he raced a 1.6 that he did not prep to win, that his prep level suddenly went up as soon as he switched to a 99?

 

 

What are you looking to achieve after said changes ?

Or your the 1.6's lobbyist ?

Can we get you in on a test session ??
And what would you do if your lap times didn't changed or did change ?

I'm a bit torn. Is it a spec class or not ? So adjust or not.
Have to factor what's best and that's moving on and leaving 1.6's behind or leave as entry level/hobby racer ??
1.6's are close but not there, but they don't want their own class.
Different turn out in East and West coast. Of Course Major and Regional.
It's just an older but still cool.

 

Does anyone understand any of the above? Maybe Johnny can start a pole to guess the context?

[Tom Scheifler]

OK 1.6 crowd..
Here is the question.. Please name three or more 1.6 drivers that are putting in the required effort and have the talent to finish on majors podiums now and are being held back only because of the rules.

No! It's not the question. Or at least it should not be, because ...
IT IS NOT A MAJORS-ONLY ISSUE.

[Jim Drago]

No! It's not the question. Or at least it should not be, because ...
IT IS NOT A MAJORS-ONLY ISSUE.

Whether they race in the majors or not doesn't really matter. But If we are trying to level the playing field.. The field needs to be leveled from the top down. It seems like we are trying to level middle of the road 1.6 efforts with majors winning NB efforts and that makes no sense. The cars need to be balanced on equal levels. The only way to do that is with all in top flight efforts. That is car, driver, prep and budget etc. Right now the best examples of that are in the majors.

[Tom Hampton]

Jim-

 

I don't think anyone has argued to adjust the middle in a long time---I certainly haven't, and that certainly hasn't been the focus of this conversation.  I can't speak for all, but several of us have agreed that it SHOULD be leveled from the top down.  Quote "equal prep" across the vintages should be equal on track (whatever the hell that means). 

[Michael Novak]

"Really? No one? How about Mr. Hille? Are you saying that when he raced a 1.6 that he did not prep to win, that his prep level suddenly went up as soon as he switched to a 1999."

Justin can answer this best...


I think he will tell you his level of prep has picked up 10 fold.

[trimless]

Good examples.Gale has/had NB cars as well and still races his 1.6? Glutten for punishment? He was no better/worse in his NB car though.

I enjoy a challenge, and driving a 1.6 certainly presents a challenge with the constant tuning and car prep required to stay up with the NB crowd. These cars will never be "equal" but are close enough now that a good 1.6 car/ driver can win at a few tracks, but not many.

[EMatoy]

First a couple of disclaimers:  1.  I am a 1.6 owner.  2. I spent more money on my car this year than it is likely worth (new head, intake, exhaust manifold, complete exhaust, Mazda comp diff, replaced almost all suspension components, setups from very knowledgeable SM shop, dyno time, AFM tuning, etc).  3.  This year was my first year racing.  

 

With that out of the way here are my thoughts:  The 1.6 needs some help - as many here agree.  Even when I was doing track days last year I immediately noticed that the car goes slower the longer you run it.  After looking at the data I saw one obvious answer - the intake air temperature.  Further data collection, analysis and testing with and with out the left turn indicator lamp proved this.  I validated the data several times at 4 different tracks with the same result.  Hence my presentation of the data and letter to the CRB earlier this year.  This is what I believe to be the biggest issue with the 1.6.  I did not test the wrapped intake with this change, however I would guess the two would work nicely together and support that change too.

 

This year I did make many improvements to my car, however I would not claim it to be top prep - it is not.  I am not asking for and do not think the car needs a lot of help.  With the changes requested I do not expect it to become a winning car - it won't.  Additional changes (header and compression) coupled with the removal of the turn indicator and wrapped intake could make it a top car.  However I do not think that would be good for anyone to make this car the best car.  Something must be done to help the car a little and make it more consistent - when you can drive with a 99 at the start and then a few laps later you are doing all you can to told on in the draft and then at the end of a race you don't have a chance something should be done.  

 

Specifically talking about the compression change - if it were legal I would take advantage of it (even though the days of me driving a 1.6 are numbered and I think compression is the wrong answer).  From what I have seen the intake air temp is the problem.  The solution is free.  We need to start with that and the wrapped intake - then go from there.  Allowing us to clean up welds on an exhaust manifold would be nice - so we did not have to look at and try several to find a good one (that is not cracked). 

[Tom Scheifler]

Whether they race in the majors or not doesn't really matter. But If we are trying to level the playing field.. The field needs to be leveled from the top down. It seems like we are trying to level middle of the road 1.6 efforts with majors winning NB efforts and that makes no sense. The cars need to be balanced on equal levels. The only way to do that is with all in top flight efforts. That is car, driver, prep and budget etc. Right now the best examples of that are in the majors.

Good. That's different than what you stated above. Or at least different than how I understood what you stated.
I agree the measuring stick should be the legal top-prep level for each (not that people totally agree what that means). But it is the right thing to do even if we never see another 1.6 in a major. And still the right thing even if there are very few top-prep 1.6s running regionals (there's also lots of less-than-top-prep NBs running regionals).

[38bfast]

This my own personal opinion.

In Great Lakes we see a lot of 1.6 do very well. Murdock, Gutery, Hillie when he raced the 1.6, Spencer, Selmets. Always up in the leed pack or winning. So all this BS about the 1.6 can not compete is exactly BS. I recognize the 1.6 could use a little help. That equates to a few .1s of a second. Also remember that there are many 1.8, 99, and VVT cars behind these guys in a race.

Sorry to brake this to you but if you are seconds of the pace it has nothing to do with the rules for the 1.6.

If we added 5/5 to any other year car it would be a big jump in performance. So big it would be the very clear over dog. So if you think adding that much to the 1.6 is justified you are going to be very disappointed.

If Drago, Novak, Sterns, etc. etc. was down 5/5 in any of thier cars they would not even bother to bring the car to the track. At that level I would doubt that it would make it into the top 15.

We see many teams moving from the 1.6 to the NB just do to the fact that it makes so much more financial sense. If you can pick between two cars that can run the exact same lap times but one is 33% cheaper and a hell of a lot less hassle which one would you pick. So when I hear the excuse that none of the top guys are running 1.6 because it can't win I call BS. If you are going to put that much time and effort into winning why the hell would you pick the most difficult path.

The rules are not the issue. The 1.8 cars are just a better platform to build upon.

[EMatoy]

I recognize the 1.6 could use a little help. 

So what is your personal opinion on what it needs?  

[38bfast]

I support the collective end extensive efforts for the 1.6 adjustments of the SMAC / CRB / BOD

[Ron Alan]

Sing along...

 

The wheels on the Miata go round and round,round and round, round and round, the wheels on the miata go round and round, round and round, round and round and round...

[Tom Scheifler]

if you are seconds of the pace it has nothing to do with the rules for the 1.6.

Only 11% of respondants thought it needed more than a little help.
http://mazdaracers.c...-need-help-how/
Hopefully they realize that's not true.
But once again, drivers that are currently seconds off the pace deserve (possible) parity just as much as the pointy-end even if it means they never improve their finishing position.

[Steve Scheifler]

Cam, your list of 1.6 finishing positions is not really all that helpful without the number of seconds back at the end and fast lap, which are more indicative of competitiveness.

[LarryKing]

 

In Great Lakes we see a lot of 1.6 do very well.* Murdock, Gutery, Hillie when he raced the 1.6, Spencer, Selmets. Always up in the leed pack or winning.

 

*At regional events

 

PS: Ralph, please correct me if I'm wrong - don't you prep Justin's car(s). Did prep increase 10 fold when he switched to a '99?

 

PSS: I'm fine with the NA 1.6 having it's own regional class

 

PSSS: Not rushing, but is the SMAC going to reach a conclusion this year?

[38bfast]

Justin's 1.6 was at a very high level prep 1.6. He raced NASA with it and won a lot. That car made the same HP as a top 99.

[mhiggins10]

//edit

[LarryKing]

 

Justin's 1.6 was at a very high level prep 1.6. He raced NASA with it and won a lot. That car made the same HP as a top 99.          

 

Would you say he's had even better results with the NB car?

[Bench Racer]

Justin's 1.6 was at a very high level prep 1.6. He raced NASA with it and won a lot. That car made the same HP as a top 99.

That's great ^, all the 1.6 requires is more of that torque stuff to get it to peak horsepower quicker.