1001 replies to this topic

[Jim Drago]

Thanks MPR, so gracious of you to let me win by your absence this weekend . I owe you one.

TWS is not really a great 1.6 track so I had to drive a near perfect race for 45 minutes to win on Sunday. I made one small mistake that I can remember in that race, but still won anyway.  I followed John Babot and Chris Haldeman for a large portion of that race waiting for a mistake to make a move.  Got by Chris but John was not making any mistakes.  John did make one mistake (not really his fault), he ran out of gas! Trevor McCallion  did manage to get by me on the front straight with two laps to go but made one mistake that I took advantage of to secure the win.

 

It is really difficult to get by a good 99 in a 1.6 at any track.  I basically have to be patient and wait for a mistake, as trying any pass that slows momentum is a killer in a 1.6. Unless I am confident the pass will work I don't even bother to try.  In a 99 you can recover from either a mistake or ill attempted pass much easier. We all know the 1.6 lacks torque below 5500 rpm, not really an easy fix for that but a header seems to be the easiest remedy to decrease the gap between the cars.  Write your letters 1.6ers and well see what happens...

Reading this I got a little chuckle..  I have never won a race in the last 5 years that I didn't drive a near perfect race, welcome to SM my friends, that is not a 1.6 issue, that is a SM issue

[Bench Racer]

It is really difficult to get by a good 99 in a 1.6 at any track.  I basically have to be patient and wait for a mistake, as trying any pass that slows momentum is a killer in a 1.6. Unless I am confident the pass will work I don't even bother to try.  In a 99 you can recover from either a mistake or ill attempted pass much easier.

 

Write your letters 1.6ers and well see what happens...

I didn't get any chuckle. Jim, how long has it been since you personally raced a 1.6 car against a pointy end 99 plus car?

[trimless]

Jim. agree that you need to drive near perfect to win any race. The 1.6 issue is that you have less room for error due the the lack of torque.  Make a tiny mistake in a 1.8 and you at least have a chance to get out of it without getting passed by a gaggle of cars behind you. In a 1.6, make a tiny mistake in a low rpm turn and you can be assured of getting passed more times than not.  

 

Please don't think I'm whining about the lack to torque like some folks on here,  I choose to drive a 1.6 and take the good with the bad

[Jim Drago]

Jim. agree that you need to drive near perfect to win any race. The 1.6 issue is that you have less room for error due the the lack of torque.  Make a tiny mistake in a 1.8 and you at least have a chance to get out of it without getting passed by a gaggle of cars behind you. In a 1.6, make a tiny mistake in a low rpm turn and you can be assured of getting passed more times than not.  

 

Please don't think I'm whining about the lack to torque like some folks on here,  I choose to drive a 1.6 and take the good with the bad

Well as a guy who has had both and chooses the 1.6, forgive me if I am not 100% on board with the explanation of " I like the extra challenge" as it was not like you were running away with wins with the 99 and needed further challenges?  No one has ever run away with SM races for any length of time.

If you make a mistake in this class, you will and should get passed in any car. I agree more so in a 1.6. But it happens in all, same argument can be made from NA1.8 to NB, 99 to VVT.  I am very well aware of the challenges of the 1.6, also aware that a good 1.6 is faster on the straights and lighter than the NBs.. We all know the characteristics of the 1.6, but yet we always seem to only want to point out the negatives? Human nature I guess. 

[Cnj]

Well as a guy who has had both and chooses the 1.6, forgive me if I am not 100% on board with the explanation of " I like the extra challenge" as it was not like you were running away with wins with the 99 and needed further challenges?  No one has ever run away with SM races for any length of time.
If you make a mistake in this class, you will and should get passed in any car. I agree more so in a 1.6. But it happens in all, same argument can be made from NA1.8 to NB, 99 to VVT.  I am very well aware of the challenges of the 1.6, also aware that a good 1.6 is faster on the straights and lighter than the NBs.. We all know the characteristics of the 1.6, but yet we always seem to only want to point out the negatives? Human nature I guess.

Hey Jim - a little tough on Gale? I never read his post as only pointing out the negatives.

CNJ

[Pat Ross]

Craig,

I don't think Jim was saying Gale complains about the shortcomings of the NA1.6. I think he was referring to other posters who are constantly harping on them.

Pat

[Jim Drago]

Hey Jim - a little tough on Gale? I never read his post as only pointing out the negatives.
CNJ

If it came off that way, I apologize. Not my intention.

[Cnj]

Craig,
I don't think Jim was saying Gale complains about the shortcomings of the NA1.6. I think he was referring to other posters who are constantly harping on them.
Pat

Oh, I know exactly who torqued Jim up
But he responded to Gale. However all is back to normal now in the world of mazdaracers.

CNJ

[Bench Racer]

Oh, I know exactly who torqued Jim up
CNJ

Got to torque him up on the site because there's not enough to torque him up on track.

 

Pat, so some of the 1.6 Texans could care less about torque. Others that have only one (1) car to race and do not have the financial capabilities to build/own a second or third car really do care to gain a small equalizer. With a bone NO ONE is saying the 1.6's will always be at the pointy end. If the 1.6 bone is successful we'll see where the harping will come from. TWS is not the only track where a 1.6 sticks it's nose out and pulls it right back in, where it was, behind the 99 plus car.

 

Hey, it's Sunday, church is finished, breakfast is complete and the Packers are on their by week.

[trimless]

Jim, why I choose the 1.6 you ask? No, I really don't like the extra work or challenge.   Let me just use an analogy to keep it short. Listening to your favorite music on a high end turntable and speakers vs. listing on a CD.  The vinyl set up is a pure connection to the music, the CD not so much ( just 1's and 0's).  Simply put, my 1.6 talks to me when I drive it and a 99 just plods along lap after consistent lap.  

 

There, hope you get a good chuckle from that

[Caveman-kwebb99]

  Simply put, my 1.6 talks to me when I drive it and a 99 just plods along lap after consistent lap.  

 

There, hope you get a good chuckle from that

 

 

I think thats ok as long as you dont talk back the little 1.6 that could...  

 

I do admire that you chose to run your 1.6 even though you have a 99 for me that is proof it doesnt need much help as others insist. I have confidence that the smac will solve the problem to people like you's likeing, but i am possitive that many will still cry the blues unless we bolt on a supercharger. 

[Bench Racer]

 but i am possitive that many will still cry the blues unless we bolt on a supercharger. 

Your dinking the Kool-Aide.

[Todd Lamb]

Are we still talking about this?

[Jim Drago]

Are we still talking about this?

Tune in next year and the following and the following and it will be still going on.. 

In other meaningless facts.. Sutherland won this weekend in his 1.6, but I'm sure there is a reason other than he drove well and the car was competitive.. because we all know that is not possible under normal conditions when other good drivers in NB cars are there. 

[Bench Racer]

Was Sutherland racing amongst his North West 1.6 group or were there a mixture of cars.

[Ron Alan]

Facts above...

 

Thunderhill regional. 1st race finish...

 

Matt Schultz(NA1.8)

Brian Ghidinelli(vvt)

Ken Sutherland(1.6)

Will Schrader(99)

Mason Fillipi(99)

 

Recap...Ken on poll Brian p2. Ken led for 1/2 race before Brian passed him under power/draft on front straight(still 5 car pack). Not sure when it happened but Ken got back around Brian. 4/5 laps to go they caught traffic. A lapper caused some nose to tail contact in tight racing. Brian got the worse and shuffled back to 4th with Ken, Matt, Will ahead of him. Matt made a pass on Ken under power/draft down the front straight...never looked back. Brian got back by Will and Ken.

 

Race 2...Unfortunately Brian was under weight after the 1st race(not having been in the car in a year didnt pick up on the mid-season weight change)and had to start in the back. Will started on poll(fast lap race 1)with Ken P2, Will then Mason. Mason timed the start perfectly and pushed Ken an himself past Will. Ken drove away to never look back. Will dropped to 4th while Matt and Mason had a great battle for P2(several changes) with mason finishing 2nd at the end.

 

My observations...the 1.6 was better in the slower front half of the track(after front straight). The 1.8's were better on the back half with 3 straights and pulling out of slower corners. The 1.6 could not pass under power(at this track)and had to rely on either late braking when behind and defending when in front.

[deyan]

edit: I'll stay away for now

[Cnj]

Are we still talking about this?

er, yes. And will undoubtedly continue to do so till the SMAC/CRB/BOD release parity updates. Then the debate will reset and start again with fresh fodder.

CNJ

[Bench Racer]

With the time this is taking (not a complaint) I'm thinking something very positive is on the way.

[Johnny D]

https://www.youtube....h?v=2K2-qG-tG-s

 

J~