1001 replies to this topic

[Johnny D]

I think we kind of need a score card here. Correct me and fill in the blanks.

 

Dave and Ralph are for the changes and that includes a header ?

 

Todd's been pretty quite.

 

Sean ?

 

Rich ?

 

Brandon ?

 

Danny ?

 

Who else (SMAC) and where do they stand ?

 

J~

[mhiggins10]

As the NorthWest has said, compression!!! But no, per plenty of 99 plusers, the 1.6er's are cheap asses. The SMAC/CRB bought the cheap story and that's the end of more compression. What the smell do the 99 pluser's care if the 1.6er's are allowed more compression, other than some of the mid packer's would go further rearward. And when the car is an over dog take some weight off the 99 pluser's. WIN WIN, the 1.6er's are in the game and everyone races faster. I really don't see a negative for anyone, other than the site hits would really take a spiral downward.

Here's a random thought- since we seem to be in favor of overshooting and adding some weight to the NAs to adjust, why not just start that way instead of all the data, testing, modifications, etc. for the NAs?  Wouldn't just adding some some weight to the NBs be an easy solution?

 

Just spitballing- I'll take any bone thrown my way, but I am obviously not a top prep, top talent, big budget driver so it appears I have little relevance to the discussion at hand.

[LarryKing]

 

Just a quick update. We have run out 1.6 in the last 2 SCCA events with what we had hopped the SMAC was going to recommend. Decent car not a over dog by any means. Now word is we will not be getting a header just a massaged manifold plus heat wrap on intake and marker light out. In my honest opinion its not enough.

 

On my dyno jet with header was 120/105. My dyno runs 2-3 low to Drago same car same conditions. We just swapped out massaged manifold with the header. 116-117/ 102-103 This will not cut it. They massaged manifold is only slightly better than stock which is what I would expect. We already had a decent manifold the the extra work was kinda useless.

 

The 1.6 guys need a header. If we think its too much add weight. Most cannot make the 2275lbs anyway so that does not help.

 

Write your letters. May be too late but who knows. The 1.6 cars are getting a really small bone thrown to them. They should not be happy.

 

For reference really good 99 cars going to Daytona were 125-126/114-116 on this dyno. I know its 125lbs but.......

 

 

Drago, Ralph, Todd L., Dave W., anyone?

 

I don't expect anyone to give much weight to my blathering but here we have Tom Fowler, who I believe everyone in this class respects, repeating 3 or 4 times now that what the SMAC is proposing is not enough and has tested a car to back it up, and no one has commented on his posts.

 

What gives?

[James York]

 

 

Just spitballing- I'll take any bone thrown my way, but I am obviously not a top prep, top talent, big budget driver so it appears I have little relevance to the discussion at hand.

 

You can submit a letter to the CRB and your opinion matters the same as every other member that does so.  Budget doesn't matter.  But posting here does nothing around impacting the rules.

[Bench Racer]

mhiggins10, iF with compression the 1.6 was an over dog my comment would be to reduce the 99 plus weight.

 

Anybody that owns/drives a 1.6 has relevance in this discussion and they all should have paid attention and wrote letters. A wild ass guess would be the SMAC/CRB received more letters from the 99 plus folks (suggesting cool air, wrap the snorkel and header weld grind) than from the 1.6 folks and the SMAC/CRB drank the Kool-Aide.

 

I'll say it again my letter requested 9.5 pound aluminum flywheel from MazdaMotorSports, cool air, wrap the snorkel and a header. Didn't request compression because that was off the table.

 

Walter, add Todd Buras to the respected list with Tom Fowler.

[38bfast]

Tom at Daytona you told me the header (OBX) you used made +2/2 over the stock header you had on the car.

[38bfast]

Toms test car by his own statement with a header is down 5 hp to a top flight runoffs car. With those number I would agree the car needs the header. The problem is I know you can get.peak hp numbers out of a current 1.6 that match a top 99 under our current rules. How do I know? I did it.

I would agree that toms test car would be considered a average 1.6. But by his above statement it certainly not a runoffs effort example. So again not apples to apples.

Also the third party evaluation (published) of a RB header showed much higher gain than Tom has reported from his header swap.

[Bench Racer]

And peak tq/hp is for a 99 and for a 1.6. Hmmm, power under the curve.

[Jim Drago]

Toms test car by his own statement with a header is down 5 hp to a top flight runoffs car. With those number I would agree the car needs the header. The problem is I know you can get.peak hp numbers out of a current 1.6 that match a top 99 under our current rules. How do I know? I did it.

I would agree that toms test car would be considered a average 1.6. But by his above statement it certainly not a runoffs effort example. So again not apples to apples.

this^

[Jim Drago]

And peak tq/hp is for a 99 and for a 1.6. Hmmm, power under the curve.

You'll find 125 lbs under the same curve

[38bfast]

Also form my own testing. I have found on average a +2 going from a average stock header to a perfect example of a stock header and a +3 on a blatantly cheated OE header.

[38bfast]

And peak tq/hp is for a 99 and for a 1.6. Hmmm, power under the curve.

Under the curve a 125-150 lbs weight advantage.

Jim beat me to it.

[Bench Racer]

125 lbs under the curve as well

Hey, I all ready got wet when typing the last post. Talking about bones for the 1.6 is wasted effort which no header is proving. How many 1.6's don't have there welds removed at this time. How many 1.6's have cool air intake today. How about minus another 25 pounds, I'll still make minimum weight.

[Johnny D]

I know you can get.peak hp numbers out of a current 1.6 that match a top 99 under our current rules. How do I know? I did it.

J~

[EMatoy]

[quote name="38bfast" post="82847" timestamp="1444167135"]

The problem is I know you can get.peak hp numbers out of a current 1.6 that match a top 99 under our current rules. How do I know? I did it.

I agree it can be done- my car is currently 2 down and I know there is more I can do. You did this on a dyno- in a race you will not make and continue to make that power for the entire race. This is what I want addressed.

[38bfast]

I agree Eric. We don't race Dynos. We need to make that power on track.

[Brandon]

I think we kind of need a score card here. Correct me and fill in the blanks.

 

Dave and Ralph are for the changes and that includes a header ?

 

Todd's been pretty quite.

 

Sean ?

 

Rich ?

 

Brandon ?

 

Danny ?

 

Who else (SMAC) and where do they stand ?

 

J~

 

That information, while not 'classified', is what I'd call proprietary to the SMAC debate.  

And outside of individual members expressing their opinions publicly, it won't necessarily be collected & released to the membership at large.

 

But I'm not the SMAC chairperson so it probably wouldn't be up to me to make that decision otherwise.

[speedengineer]

Not sure if anybody here is interested, but I have lap simulation software I wrote that calculates speed around any racetrack.  It uses inputs of primary vehicle charactoristics - dyno power curve, weight, aero coefficients, lateral and longitudinal g capability, basic tire load sensitivity, diff ratio and tire diameter, trans ratios, driver shift times, etc, etc.  It is very accurate, particulatily for comparing the lap time potential of different power curve shapes, weights, etc.  Modeling the 1.6 vs NA8 vs 99 vs VVT cars would be the perfect application for this.

 

So, if there was interest, and I was provided representative dyno curves of the four cars, I could spend the time running the simulation, and report the lap time potential of each car.  We could then alter the deficient vehicles in some way and rerun the simulation until they all achieve similar lap time potential.  I could run the simulation for any track, or multiple tracks.

 

Example of simulation output:  Take a look at the plot of "Final SPeed vs Distance" - this is simulation predicted speed trace vs a real GPS data measured trace.  The track in this example is VIR, stock FRS.

Attached Files

•  Code Data Inputs.PNG   58.88KB   0 downloads
•  Delta-Time plot.png   5.36KB   0 downloads
•  gear and rpm.png   6.3KB   0 downloads
•  g-g plot.png   10.55KB   0 downloads
•  lateral g force.png   4.84KB   0 downloads
•  longitudinal g force.png   5.08KB   0 downloads
•  Output.PNG   4KB   0 downloads
•  Speed vs distance.png   11.65KB   0 downloads
•  track path.png   6.64KB   0 downloads
•  wheel power.png   4.28KB   1 downloads

[FTodaro]

That information, while not 'classified', is what I'd call proprietary to the SMAC debate.  

And outside of individual members expressing their opinions publicly, it won't necessarily be collected & released to the membership at large.

 

But I'm not the SMAC chairperson so it probably wouldn't be up to me to make that decision otherwise.

I am not sure it matters what the score is and i think they should be able to express opinions and NOT be required to publicize it. We want people to express their honest opinion and be a voice for all factions of the class. Its not a popularity contest, they should not have to be concerned with a public thrashing from those who may not agree with them.

 

And we know we don't agree on much.

[Blake Thompson]

 

 

And we know we don't agree on much.

 

you take that back.