1001 replies to this topic

[Tom Sager]

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.

Interesting stuff.  The NA cars and NB cars have slightly different suspension characteristics which IMO does effect lap times.  However, it may not be possible to express that in terms of absolute lateral G capability.  How would your model capture that? 

[speedengineer]

Interesting stuff.  The NA cars and NB cars have slightly different suspension characteristics which IMO does effect lap times.  However, it may not be possible to express that in terms of absolute lateral G capability.  How would your model capture that? 

 

Yeah, capturing small nuances like that can be challenging.  The best way would be to utilize real data - if it can be shown that there is a cornering speed difference between NA and NB cars, then this can be incorportated into the model in terms of lateral g capability in order to match those cornering speeds.  If data doesn't suggest a repeatable difference between the cars, then the difference is likely small enough to not matter. 

 

Additionally, if we decide we don't trust comparisons between NA and NB cars, the simulation would be perfectly valid for comparing 1.6 cars to itself with different modifications.  Case in point - how much lap time does an aftermarket header really provide?  Sure, it's easy to dyno the difference, but near impossible to 'guess' how much lap time that different shape power curve/torque values provides.  Unless you have a lap sim, which perfectly simulates putting that power curve to the ground at every point around the track. 

[Erik Hardy]

Introducing, The newest competitor to Spec Miata, gents. 2016's greatest fear!!  

 

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.

[speedengineer]

Introducing, The newest competitor to Spec Miata, gents. 2016's greatest fear!!

Haha.  Erik, shhh!  Nobody can know who I am yet    Besides, I'm proly just full of hopes and dreams of doing well.  Those are probably going to be crushed come my first SM race!

[Sean - MiataCage]

(personal opinion not SMAC)

 

Here is the bummer for me in all of this.......  If we took ALL emotion and Politics out of this equation and truly wanted to FIX this situation why in gods name would you try to speed up one car and hope to get it right and not make it an overdog when all you need to do is fix the plate on the other 2 cars.  Minimal expense, minimal testing and we have a history of having made plate changes on these cars in the past.  No need for new headers, and testing and compression and all the other things being considered.  Simply make a plate change. 

 

Parity is parity, it doesn't matter how many cars show up or who built what. Parity is Parity.  The whole no good 1.6's exist is crap.  Out west there are plenty of very good no expense spared 1.6's that travel up and down the west coast (T-Hill, Laguna, Sears, Utah, Portland, Seattle) and have historically done very well against very good 99's.  it is very easy for some to discount this whole situation by saying none exist.  Some will come back and say why don't you bring them out to the Runoffs then if they are so good......  Why would I is the better question.  As many have stated the Runoffs is a very time consuming expensive race and that is for those that are near it.  Add transport from the Pacific NW to FL or OH etc and it simply doesn't financially make any sense for where we are located.  Going to the Runoffs or not also should not guarantee me parity.  The parity should exist for all cars in all regions regardless of who goes to what race.  I am not suggesting parity should be based on mid pack cars here..... I am simply saying that because I choose not to send my cars to the Runoffs that myself or others opinoins should not be considered and or discounted as though we can't build a front running car.  There are a lot of people who do not wish to take on the man-drama and expense of the Runoffs, but want to know that they have a chance to do well on a given weekend with a well prepared car and well driven.

 

From a procedural perspective a plate change would not be a "rule chage" and could be done as often as necessary throughout the year.  The other changes we are talking about are considered rule chages and must be completed per the process very soon in order to take effect for next year.  The GCR allows for a rule change mid season, but it is not looked upon very favorably and likely should not need to be exercised.

 

Some will say that parity is perfect with the 99-05 cars now and they don't want to mess with it.......  I call BS on that deal, reduce each plate size by the same amount and you should still have the roughly the same parity between the two cars.  If the VVT cars are not as impacted by the plate as the 99/00's then make 50% less change to the VVT cars.  Plate/weight just shouldn't be that complicated.

 

If I understood correclty the whole idea of using weight and plate to keep parity in check was the idea.  Why are we not using weight and plate now?  Too much emotion and politics.

 

I am supporting the turn signal removal, and header clean-up because it is easy and at least the turn signal can be put back into place and we can get it done.  All this other talk of compression and aftermarket headers is just silly in my opinioin.  Change weight and plate and call it good.  For those of you that do not remember the 99-05 car was not always the car to have.  Once the tire change to Hoosier and the plates got bigger (less restrictive) that is when they became the car to have.

 

If all this bickering keeps going on, we are going to end up with a fractured class with early and late cars split into two classes and I for one do not think that is right for the long term health of the class.

 

I can not be more clear in my opinion here....... The 1.6L needs very little for an A+ car with an A+ driver to do well (not necessarily win) at some tracks.  I do NOT see the need to upset the entire apple cart to try to make the 1.6L an overdog and then put a restrictor on it.  Simply change the restrictor on the 99-05 by 1mm and test it.  If 1 is not enough move to 2 for the 99 and 1 for the VVT.  I would assume that there are some math calculations on plate size and it's impact on the cars so I would assume it shouldn't take us that long.

 

It just feels like we are trying to over engineer a solution here because some are afraid that their model year car might no longer be the car to have.  It is my opinion that how we handle this change will have an impact on how we handle parity discussions in the future.  Your model year car may be the one to have now, but I promise you it will not always be that way.

 

Rant over.... Sean

[Tom Sager]

Yeah, capturing small nuances like that can be challenging.  The best way would be to utilize real data - if it can be shown that there is a cornering speed difference between NA and NB cars, then this can be incorportated into the model in terms of lateral g capability in order to match those cornering speeds.  If data doesn't suggest a repeatable difference between the cars, then the difference is likely small enough to not matter. 

 

Additionally, if we decide we don't trust comparisons between NA and NB cars, the simulation would be perfectly valid for comparing 1.6 cars to itself with different modifications.  Case in point - how much lap time does an aftermarket header really provide?  Sure, it's easy to dyno the difference, but near impossible to 'guess' how much lap time that different shape power curve/torque values provides.  Unless you have a lap sim, which perfectly simulates putting that power curve to the ground at every point around the track. 

OK, I'm looking for a teammate for next year.  What do you say?  

[Jim Drago]

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?

I agree the changes the SMAC proposes will not be enough on that car as well. I may have read that wrong.. But I read the best 99's heading to the Runoffs and a rental 1.6 car? That 1.6 car does need help, but it is not representative of what I and others can produce. A good legal 1.6 car can easily produce similar HP if not more than a 99, but less TQ. So if we are balancing rental cars to top prepped 99 cars heading to the Runoffs to mid pack or rental car 1.6's, you have my vote to add the header as well

[Jim Drago]

Interesting stuff.  The NA cars and NB cars have slightly different suspension characteristics which IMO does effect lap times.

No they don't, we have been told that by many forum experts already, don't you listen?

[Tom OPM]

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.

Correct Ralph, my header was a cheap $135 Chinese header. Im sure the racing beat would do better than +2 +2.  So if the RB is too much put some weight back on. What is being proposed is a little more than lipstick covering. My 1.6 is better than most not as good as a Buras/East St car. But then again how many out there are that good or ever will be ???

[LarryKing]

I concur with Sean. We coul just slow-down the NB cars a little. What if we took away the adjustable timing wheel?

[Tom OPM]

(personal opinion not SMAC)

 

Here is the bummer for me in all of this.......  If we took ALL emotion and Politics out of this equation and truly wanted to FIX this situation why in gods name would you try to speed up one car and hope to get it right and not make it an overdog when all you need to do is fix the plate on the other 2 cars.  Minimal expense, minimal testing and we have a history of having made plate changes on these cars in the past.  No need for new headers, and testing and compression and all the other things being considered.  Simply make a plate change. 

 

Parity is parity, it doesn't matter how many cars show up or who built what. Parity is Parity.  The whole no good 1.6's exist is crap.  Out west there are plenty of very good no expense spared 1.6's that travel up and down the west coast (T-Hill, Laguna, Sears, Utah, Portland, Seattle) and have historically done very well against very good 99's.  it is very easy for some to discount this whole situation by saying none exist.  Some will come back and say why don't you bring them out to the Runoffs then if they are so good......  Why would I is the better question.  As many have stated the Runoffs is a very time consuming expensive race and that is for those that are near it.  Add transport from the Pacific NW to FL or OH etc and it simply doesn't financially make any sense for where we are located.  Going to the Runoffs or not also should not guarantee me parity.  The parity should exist for all cars in all regions regardless of who goes to what race.  I am not suggesting parity should be based on mid pack cars here..... I am simply saying that because I choose not to send my cars to the Runoffs that myself or others opinoins should not be considered and or discounted as though we can't build a front running car.  There are a lot of people who do not wish to take on the man-drama and expense of the Runoffs, but want to know that they have a chance to do well on a given weekend with a well prepared car and well driven.

 

From a procedural perspective a plate change would not be a "rule chage" and could be done as often as necessary throughout the year.  The other changes we are talking about are considered rule chages and must be completed per the process very soon in order to take effect for next year.  The GCR allows for a rule change mid season, but it is not looked upon very favorably and likely should not need to be exercised.

 

Some will say that parity is perfect with the 99-05 cars now and they don't want to mess with it.......  I call BS on that deal, reduce each plate size by the same amount and you should still have the roughly the same parity between the two cars.  If the VVT cars are not as impacted by the plate as the 99/00's then make 50% less change to the VVT cars.  Plate/weight just shouldn't be that complicated.

 

If I understood correclty the whole idea of using weight and plate to keep parity in check was the idea.  Why are we not using weight and plate now?  Too much emotion and politics.

 

I am supporting the turn signal removal, and header clean-up because it is easy and at least the turn signal can be put back into place and we can get it done.  All this other talk of compression and aftermarket headers is just silly in my opinioin.  Change weight and plate and call it good.  For those of you that do not remember the 99-05 car was not always the car to have.  Once the tire change to Hoosier and the plates got bigger (less restrictive) that is when they became the car to have.

 

If all this bickering keeps going on, we are going to end up with a fractured class with early and late cars split into two classes and I for one do not think that is right for the long term health of the class.

 

I can not be more clear in my opinion here....... The 1.6L needs very little for an A+ car with an A+ driver to do well (not necessarily win) at some tracks.  I do NOT see the need to upset the entire apple cart to try to make the 1.6L an overdog and then put a restrictor on it.  Simply change the restrictor on the 99-05 by 1mm and test it.  If 1 is not enough move to 2 for the 99 and 1 for the VVT.  I would assume that there are some math calculations on plate size and it's impact on the cars so I would assume it shouldn't take us that long.

 

It just feels like we are trying to over engineer a solution here because some are afraid that their model year car might no longer be the car to have.  It is my opinion that how we handle this change will have an impact on how we handle parity discussions in the future.  Your model year car may be the one to have now, but I promise you it will not always be that way.

 

Rant over.... Sean

This all makes a lot of sense. The rest of the SMAC are you listening ? The only issues- All 99-05 cars have to buy a new plate. With a 1.6 header only about 10 will really do it. The rest will complain about the cost and labor. Give the 1.6 the turn signal and intake wrap and wee how they do. Then we can look into plate changes.

[Tom Sager]

I concur with Sean. We coul just slow-down the NB cars a little. What if we took away the adjustable timing wheel?

That would just make it harder for NB cars to get the timing they want, but rest assured, many would get it.  

[Jim Drago]

(personal opinion not SMAC)
 

I can not be more clear in my opinion here....... The 1.6L needs very little for an A+ car with an A+ driver to do well (not necessarily win) at some tracks.  I do NOT see the need to upset the entire apple cart to try to make the 1.6L an overdog and then put a restrictor on it.  Simply change the restrictor on the 99-05 by 1mm and test it.  If 1 is not enough move to 2 for the 99 and 1 for the VVT.  I would assume that there are some math calculations on plate size and it's impact on the cars so I would assume it shouldn't take us that long.

Not opposed to this in theory, but why slow 95% of the cars competing in the majors, dick with parity that works to appease people who aren't even racing? Yes I know all about regional racing. Regional racing can run whatever rules they like. We can run SM-t where you run Sm rules but the 1.6 cars can run a turbo sadly, most still wouldnt win, so they would likely need less weight as well

We have all seem to forget we did this once already( smaller plates), we choked the NB cars down in 2012...The great NASA salvation of the class. Again, No new 1.6 cars came out, not even those that were built, even when the general consensus was the rules favored the 1.6 cars. The NB guys continued to come out, continue to develop their cars and are probably closed the power gap 75% or so from where we were in 2011. Most of the 1.6 cars have remained in the same state for the most part since 2007, the same guys are on here complaining about the same issues. In what racing can you pull a car basically out of storage for five years and compete? It doesn't work. I can assure you if I shelved my car and pulled it out some time in mid 2017 it would not be competitive either. You better be finding 1.5 Hp a year or the equivalent of it or you are falling behind.


Not sure dumbing the class to down to the lowest common denominator is the best idea. So my opinion is yes, the 1.6 guys SHOULD spend money. If they want parity, prove it! Invest in the car, invest in the class, do more than complain. Add these things to your cars and get out and compete.

[Jim Drago]

This all makes a lot of sense. The rest of the SMAC are you listening ? The only issues- All 99-05 cars have to buy a new plate. With a 1.6 header only about 10 will really do it. The rest will complain about the cost and labor. Give the 1.6 the turn signal and intake wrap and wee how they do. Then we can look into plate changes.

This in a nutshell is why I disagree so wholeheartedly with this approach. WTH are we adjusting every NB car for only 10 guys willing to add header? that makes no sense at all to me. I know that is a guess at the numbers, but I bet it is not that far off.

[Tom Sager]

This in a nutshell is why I disagree so wholeheartedly with this approach. WTH are we adjusting every NB car for only 10 guys willing to add header? that makes no sense at all to me. I know that is a guess at the numbers, but I bet it is not that far off.

What about the guys/gals with '94-97 cars that are pretty close now and just need a tweak?  Would slowing the NB cars just a touch make sense there?  

[Sean - MiataCage]

Not opposed to this in theory, but why slow 95% of the cars competing in the majors, dick with parity that works to appease people who aren't even racing? Yes I know all about regional racing. Regional racing can run whatever rules they like. We can run SM-t where you run Sm rules but the 1.6 cars can run a turbo sadly, most still wouldnt win, so they would likely need less weight as well

We have all seem to forget we did this once already( smaller plates), we choked the NB cars down in 2012...The great NASA salvation of the class. Again, No new 1.6 cars came out, not even those that were built, even when the general consensus was the rules favored the 1.6 cars. The NB guys continued to come out, continue to develop their cars and are probably closed the power gap 75% or so from where we were in 2011. Most of the 1.6 cars have remained in the same state for the most part since 2007, the same guys are on here complaining about the same issues. In what racing can you pull a car basically out of storage for five years and compete? It doesn't work. I can assure you if I shelved my car and pulled it out some time in mid 2017 it would not be competitive either. I think you better be finding 1.5 Hp a year or the equiavalent of it or you are falling behind.


Not sure dumbing the class to down to the lowest common denominator is a great idea either. So my opinion is yes, the 1.6 guys SHOULD spend money. If they want parity, prove it! Invest in the car, invest in the class, do more than complain.

 

In 2012 my guys (and me ) all built new 1.6's and we won the NASA Runoffs with them.  Didn't do SCCA Runoffs cause it was too far away.  So "no one" built new 1.6's is not accurate.  I don't have time to look it up, but the entries in the 12 NASA Champs was not all 99-05's it was a much better mix of both cars.  Tire played a part here if I recall as well.

 

There is nothing left for me and my cars to invest in.....  You know my cars, you know how I build them, there is nothing left and they are not capable of winning if any big dogs show up to the races.

 

Under your 95% theory above, lets just get rid of the 1.6L and move it to vintage.  No more 1.6L in SM.  What made this class successful was the grassroots racer.  The Majors in my opinion don't represent the entirety of the class.  Out west, the Majors are not well attended (2 SM's at Portland this year) because the expense for the event has gotten out of control and very few from out of town travel to a NW Majors, so it ends up just being a regional anyway.  How long are the Majors going to be the thing?  SCCA has a history of changing things up, so the Majors may not last forever.

 

I don't see achieving parity as dumbing down at all.  Weight and Plate are the catalyst for achieving parity.  We do not have parity (my opinion) so why not use the process in place to fix it?

 

The Majors and the Runoffs do not represent the whole of this class.  As much as I love this website it doesn't even represent the whole of this class.  There are very few who comment on here relative to the total number of cars in the country that race.  

 

I know you are not calling me out specifically but I do feel it appropriate to say that in my part of the country we do invest in our cars, we still race them (never stopped) and we do testing to do more than just complain.  Those that know me, know I don't generally take someones word for it.  I like to do the testing and spend the money to see for myself.... That's just who I am.  I have offered many times as has Mike Rossini to put up the money to build a higher compression motor at no cost to anyone but Mike and I to put into a car and test on both the East coast and West coast.  Several people/comapnies/sanctioning bodies (read between the lines) were on board with this early last year and then quickly the plug was pulled and we were told that there was a Super Committee that would be handling this moving forward.  Thank you for your input.....

 

You know I respect you and I know you want what is best for this class.  You always have.... I just think that parity is parity and who shows up or who built what is irrelevant.  You yourself have said that the 1.6L needs some help.  Why not just adjust the plate on 99-05 to achieve it.

 

In your estimation what would 1mm or restriction do to the car?

 

Sean

[Sean - MiataCage]

This in a nutshell is why I disagree so wholeheartedly with this approach. WTH are we adjusting every NB car for only 10 guys willing to add header? that makes no sense at all to me. I know that is a guess at the numbers, but I bet it is not that far off.

 

There are 25 cars in my region that will buy the header immediately because they feel they need to.  My part of the country represents very little when you look at population centers in the US.  I know we are little strage up here in the NW, but if my area will support it, so will others.

 

Sean

[FTodaro]

(personal opinion not SMAC)

 

Here is the bummer for me in all of this.......  If we took ALL emotion and Politics out of this equation and truly wanted to FIX this situation why in gods name would you try to speed up one car and hope to get it right and not make it an overdog when all you need to do is fix the plate on the other 2 cars.  Minimal expense, minimal testing and we have a history of having made plate changes on these cars in the past.  No need for new headers, and testing and compression and all the other things being considered.  Simply make a plate change. 

I think this is a bad Idea. Understand i am in the minority who do not see the 1.6 problem at my track. To many examples and i won't go through it again.

 

I am in the "if it aint broke don't fix it" camp. I have already seen the 50 lb swing in the VVT and the 1.6 show up big at our track (Mid Ohio) I am on board with fixing the heat soak and what ever other modest changes. but to throw smaller plates in the VVT and 99, will make it an over dog at my track.

 

I do not expect anyone to agree with me, but if your going to do this,  do it at the track specific places where the 1.6 needs that boost. Its not at all tracks so

 

can we throw  into the equation track specific changes if your really looking for parity why would you not acknowledge that the 1.6 performs differently at the short tracks???

[Sean - MiataCage]

I think this is a bad Idea. Understand i am in the minority who do not see the 1.6 problem at my track. To many examples and i won't go through it again.

 

I am in the "if it aint broke don't fix it" camp. I have already seen the 50 lb swing in the VVT and the 1.6 show up big at our track (Mid Ohio) I am on board with fixing the heat soak and what ever other modest changes. but to throw smaller plates in the VVT and 99, will make it an over dog at my track.

 

I do not expect anyone to agree with me, but if your going to do this,  do it at the track specific places where the 1.6 needs that boost. Its not at all tracks so

 

can we throw  into the equation track specific changes if your really looking for parity why would you not acknowledge that the 1.6 performs differently at the short tracks???

 

Hi Frank....  Personally I am not against the theory of specific plate or weight for given tracks, but we are having a hard enough time just getting an agreement on the basics.... If we start throwing track specific discussions it will never get resolved in a timely manner.

 

I respect your opinion, but I will say this...... I will donate $500.00 to the charity of your choice if a 1.6L makes the podium at the Runoffs next year at Mid-O.

 

(disclaimer.... Must be a 501 C3 legitimate charity not an SM fund   No multipliers, $500.00 total.)

[davew]

What about the guys/gals with '94-97 cars that are pretty close now and just need a tweak?  Would slowing the NB cars just a touch make sense there?  

 

The 94-97 owners are not as vocal and whiney as the 1.6 guys.