1001 replies to this topic

[High Chair]

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. 

Equal drivers (which I know is very subjective) I would say no they can't win. Could it happen on the rare occasion, sure but it is highly unlikely when good drivers like you, Todd, or others show up in good 99-05 cars. The powers that be have done a great job getting them close I just don't think you will ever get the finicky 1.6 to compete with cars a decade newer on a regular bases in regions were National type cars and drivers show up.

[Sean - MiataCage]

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.

 

One more fact to add to the above list.... This was a Toyo race not a Hoosier race.  I have no interest in debating the impacts of the tire again, just wanted to throw it out there for those that were not aware that are looking at the situation.

 

Sean

[Jim Drago]

Equal drivers (which I know is very subjective) I would say no they can't win. Could it happen on the rare occasion, sure but it is highly unlikely when good drivers like you, Todd, or others show up in good 99-05 cars. The powers that be have done a great job getting them close I just don't think you will ever get the finicky 1.6 to compete with cars a decade newer on a regular bases in regions were National type cars and drivers show up.

I tend to agree 'now' and supported that opinion with a letter. However, few of merit have been doing much of anything with the 1.6 since 2011( really 2007). We did this in late 11 and spent the time, money and effort  as you know the results followed in 12 and Buras won majors in the SE and the Sprints that year. The cars could use a bump now I guess, but the rules haven't changed since then for the most part. If the cars are given much of anything they certainly will be able to win. Yet, in 6 months, these same arguments will pop up again and again because our main issues is dollars, time, effort and talent.. not rules and adjustments.   

[Bench Racer]

However, few of merit have been doing much of anything with the 1.6 since 2011( really 2007). 

 

Yet, in 6 months, these same arguments will pop up again and again because our main issues is dollars, time, effort and talent.. not rules and adjustments.   

Per an earlier post, with the time it's taking (not a negative comment) it would seem a bone is on the horizon for the 1.6. Presume the bone will be positive and nothing will make me happier than for a 1.6 driver with more driving talent than me to put a stop to these comments.

 

As long as you continue to throw out your 2 cents worth, I'll continue to throw out my 1 cent worth. ​

[Jim Drago]

Per an earlier post, with the time it's taking (not a negative comment) it would seem a bone is on the horizon for the 1.6. Presume the bone will be positive and nothing will make me happier than for a 1.6 driver with more driving talent than me to put a stop to these comments.

 

As long as you continue to throw out your 2 cents worth, I'll continue to throw out my 1 cent worth. ​

Forgive me for saying.. but you are full of ( can find the old pile emoticon)... We have been down this road with you before... nothing changed..  

The changes SMAC will propose will be NO WHERE NEAR what you feel are needed, so round and round we will go.  

[Steve Scheifler]

I tend to agree 'now' and supported that opinion with a letter. However, few of merit have been doing much of anything with the 1.6 since 2011( really 2007). We did this in late 11 and spent the time, money and effort as you know the results followed in 12 and Buras won majors in the SE and the Sprints that year. The cars could use a bump now I guess, but the rules haven't changed since then for the most part. If the cars are given much of anything they certainly will be able to win. Yet, in 6 months, these same arguments will pop up again and again because our main issues is dollars, time, effort and talent.. not rules and adjustments.

I suspect that you are correct, or mostly correct, on all points. The 1.6 is mostly competitive now but as we have said so many times it gets there in a different way which is inherently a bit of a disadvantage, and that is not easily changed. I've been trying to watch the NBs around us and figure out the differences. At times I've lost drag races when we were dead-even after entering a straight and no longer scrubbing speed, and had no doubt that we lacked acceleration at those times. Other times I have had dead-even runs side-by-side with a competitive NB. I've also compared data with a top NB car/driver and seen equal or better corner and exit speeds but lower speed by the next brake zone (without a draft for either). With video to weed out other influences I think that's the best way to compare them and I would like to do a lot more of it to get a clearer picture.

But, I've also seen where I've been beat more on cornering speeds than power, despite the weight advantage. What I don't know is why. Maybe different things at different times, tires, setup, mad car control skills, etc. But when l'm on a good line, back on the gas early with all four tires at the limit in a nice balanced drift but still don't gain on a car that misses the apex by six feet while making large corrections, I can't help wondering what's going on. I recognize that I'm often just plain out driven but there are other times that make me question the 1.6 handling even when I think mine is setup well. I guess what I'm getting at is, should we revisit the option to upgrade to the later suspension?

[Bench Racer]

The changes SMAC will propose will be NO WHERE NEAR what you feel are needed, so round and round we will go.  

Being your in the know about what I feel are needed, please expound, I'm curious. Yes, I would do compression if the rule was changed and the 99 plus could loose some weight and or use a larger plate.

 

What gains did the 1.6 receive since the 99 plus has been around other than flopping the 1.6 weight round and round every now and then.

[Jim Drago]

I suspect that you are correct, or mostly correct, on all points. The 1.6 is mostly competitive now but as we have said so many times it gets there in a different way which is inherently a bit of a disadvantage, and that is not easily changed. I've been trying to watch the NBs around us and figure out the differences. At times I've lost drag races when we were dead-even after entering a straight and no longer scrubbing speed, and had no doubt that we lacked acceleration at those times. Other times I have had dead-even runs side-by-side with a competitive NB. I've also compared data with a top NB car/driver and seen equal or better corner and exit speeds but lower speed by the next brake zone (without a draft for either). With video to weed out other influences I think that's the best way to compare them and I would like to do a lot more of it to get a clearer picture.

But, I've also seen where I've been beat more on cornering speeds than power, despite the weight advantage. What I don't know is why. Maybe different things at different times, tires, setup, mad car control skills, etc. But when l'm on a good line, back on the gas early with all four tires at the limit in a nice balanced drift but still don't gain on a car that misses the apex by six feet while making large corrections, I can't help wondering what's going on. I recognize that I'm often just plain out driven but there are other times that make me question the 1.6 handling even when I think mine is setup well. I guess what I'm getting at is, should we revisit the option to upgrade to the later suspension?

I don't think anyone who is passionate and supports this class wants anything but parity between the years, that especially includes me. I demonstrated this in the past on my own dollar and produced a majors winning 1.6 car under the same basic rules we have now, same tire. It should have helped, but it didn't so I am not likely to do it again.  Why would I?  I will let someone else carry the load this time.  I don't think the proposed changes will be much of anything other to those already relatively close which unfortunately is very few at this point.  So these changes by those most vocally complaining( who are no where near close) will poo poo the changes, the SMAC and the class as they have done for years now.  

 

All cars absolutely should have the 99 up suspension, but the most vocal complainer had just bought all new subframes etc for his car so he went out posting negatively about it and the BOD did not approve the allowance. Ironically that car has never been driven at or near the limit, so not sure how that person came to that conclusion? The general thought process of the time was it was an either/or situation and the vocal 1.6 minority wanted power/Tq, not suspension changes. Instead they got little to nothing and no suspension.  The suspension was basically coming with no weight penalties as it should have.  All cars should be able to Run the NB suspension IMO

[davew]

 All cars should be able to Run the NB suspension IMO

 

Many of us have been saying this all along. Put everybody on the same suspension geometry and eliminate another variable. When the SMAC approved this several years ago, the letter writing campaign killed it. If you want it back, write a letter.

 

Dave

[Bruce Wilson]

Why?  The 1.6 already corners better than 99+.  Suspension upgrade (along with lower weight) would only result in the 1.6 getting held up even more (than potential) in the corner, so IMHO another red herring.

[LarryKing]

I nominate Bruce Wilson for president of the SMAC

[Bruce Wilson]

LOL.  SMAC is in good hands and they have this.

[cam]

IMHO, the class as a whole would improve parity if the NA cars were allowed to upgrade to the NB suspension hardware.  While Bruce has pointed out that the lighter 1.6 is a good handling car, it has also been pointed out in multiple other threads that the 1.6 is more nervous at the edge of traction.  There is an explanation for this behavior.  When Mazda designed the 99+, there were small yet significant adjustments to the front moment center and SVSA (Side View Swing Arm).  The change in moment center in relationship to CG (Center of Gravity) in the front view of the front suspension is more desirable and lends itself to more consistent weight transfer during heavy cornering.  In other words, makes it less twitchy.  And the change in SVSA is more desirable and lends itself to more consistent weight transfer during heavy braking with improved “anti dive”.  These two changes allows the 99+ to feel more stable in heavy cornering and trail braking.  If one compares the three dimensional geometry of the NA front suspension (sub frame, control arms, spindles) side by side to the NB front suspension, you will see minor changes in the control arm attachment points to the sub frame, the length of the upper ball joint, and the layout of the spindle.  All of these changes look minor but in concert, add up to an easier to drive car at the limit of traction.  It is important to point out that the limit is not raised with the NB suspension, rather it is easier to maintain the limit with the NB style suspension.

 

When I did the measurements and math several years ago, did not see significant changes to the rear suspension, just the uprights are a little wider which means a wider track but that is easily recreated with wheel spacers. I was looking for changes in "anti squat" but did not notice anything significant.

 

Hope this explanation takes some of the mystery out of why the NBs seem to be less twitchy.  If you want to investigate more on your own, then I recommend http://www.amazon.co...r/dp/B004XEA3E2

 

update:  I re-read what I wrote and noticed two (2) type-o's.    (1) tail braking should be trail braking  (2) when referring to the rear suspension,  I typed "anti dive" but should have been "anti squat".  Anti dive is only used for front suspension.  I have corrected the above but was quoted before I noticed my fat fingers.

[Jim Drago]

IMHO, the class as a whole would improve parity if the NA cars were allowed to upgrade to the NB suspension hardware.  While Bruce has pointed out that the lighter 1.6 is a good handling car, it has also been pointed out in multiple other threads that the 1.6 is more nervous at the edge of traction.  There is an explanation for this behavior.  When Mazda designed the 99+, there were small yet significant adjustments to the front moment center and SVSA (Side View Swing Arm).  The change in moment center in relationship to CG (Center of Gravity) in the front view of the front suspension is more desirable and lends itself to more consistent weight transfer during heavy cornering.  In other words, makes it less twitchy.  And the change in SVSA is more desirable and lends itself to more consistent weight transfer during heavy braking with improved “anti dive”.  These two changes allows the 99+ to feel more stable in heavy cornering and tail braking.  If one compares the three dimensional geometry of the NA front suspension (sub frame, control arms, spindles) side by side to the NB front suspension, you will see minor changes in the control arm attachment points to the sub frame, the length of the upper ball joint, and the layout of the spindle.  All of these changes look minor but in concert, add up to an easier to drive car at the limit of traction.  It is important to point out that the limit is not raised with the NB suspension, rather it is easier to maintain the limit with the NB style suspension.

 

When I did the measurements and math several years ago, did not see significant changes to the rear suspension, just the uprights are a little wider which means a wider track but that is easily recreated with wheel spacers. I was looking for changes in anti dive but did not notice anything significant.

 

Hope this explanation takes some of the mystery out of why the NBs seem to be less twitchy.  If you want to investigate more on your own, then I recommend http://www.amazon.co...r/dp/B004XEA3E2

I'm sure all the experts here are far more knowledgeable than the Mazda engineers.. Mazda must have decided to redesign the front suspension to save some tax dollars

[Danny Steyn]

But, I've also seen where I've been beat more on cornering speeds than power, despite the weight advantage. What I don't know is why. 

 

Steve - I also believe that cornering is one area where Torque makes its presence felt. Under cornering, for the most part our cars are scrubbing speed laterally, and TQ helps to overcome this tire scrub.

 

At certain tracks which feature high speed corners with longer times under lateral loads, I have noticed on my data that my VVT will maintain better mid corner speeds compared to my 99, depending on where the corner lands in the engine RPM range

 

In terms of parity between the VVT and 99, both of my cars typically run within 1/10th second at each track that I ran them both this past year. This includes Sebring, Road Atlanta, NOLA, VIR and Daytona (but both VIR and Daytona times were draft-assisted, so I wouldn't use them as data points) 

[Tom Scheifler]

IMHO, the class as a whole would improve parity if the NA cars were allowed to upgrade to the NB suspension hardware. While Bruce has pointed out that the lighter 1.6 is a good handling car, it has also been pointed out in multiple other threads that the 1.6 is more nervous at the edge of traction. There is an explanation for this behavior. When Mazda designed the 99+, there were small yet significant adjustments to the front moment center and SVSA (Side View Swing Arm). The change in moment center in relationship to CG (Center of Gravity) in the front view of the front suspension is more desirable and lends itself to more consistent weight transfer during heavy cornering. In other words, makes it less twitchy. And the change in SVSA is more desirable and lends itself to more consistent weight transfer during heavy braking with improved “anti squat”. These two changes allows the 99+ to feel more stable in heavy cornering and trail braking. If one compares the three dimensional geometry of the NA front suspension (sub frame, control arms, spindles) side by side to the NB front suspension, you will see minor changes in the control arm attachment points to the sub frame, the length of the upper ball joint, and the layout of the spindle. All of these changes look minor but in concert, add up to an easier to drive car at the limit of traction. It is important to point out that the limit is not raised with the NB suspension, rather it is easier to maintain the limit with the NB style suspension.

When I did the measurements and math several years ago, did not see significant changes to the rear suspension, just the uprights are a little wider which means a wider track but that is easily recreated with wheel spacers. I was looking for changes in anti dive but did not notice anything significant.

Hope this explanation takes some of the mystery out of why the NBs seem to be less twitchy. If you want to investigate more on your own, then I recommend http://www.amazon.co...r/dp/B004XEA3E2

Thanks! Gonna just use this as a letter to the CRB. Suggest all 1.6 owners do the same or write their own.

Here's a slightly modified version for letter submission.

The class as a whole would improve parity if the NA cars were allowed to upgrade to the NB suspension hardware. While it has been pointed out that the lighter 1.6 is a good handling car, it has also been pointed out that the 1.6 is more nervous at the edge of traction. There is an explanation for this behavior. When Mazda designed the 99+, there were small yet significant adjustments to the front moment center and SVSA (Side View Swing Arm). The change in moment center in relationship to CG (Center of Gravity) in the front view of the front suspension is more desirable and lends itself to more consistent weight transfer during heavy cornering. In other words, makes it less twitchy. And the change in SVSA is more desirable and lends itself to more consistent weight transfer during heavy braking with improved “anti squat”. These two changes allows the 99+ to feel more stable in heavy cornering and trail braking. If one compares the three dimensional geometry of the NA front suspension (sub frame, control arms, spindles) side by side to the NB front suspension, you will see minor changes in the control arm attachment points to the sub frame, the length of the upper ball joint, and the layout of the spindle. All of these changes look minor but in concert, add up to an easier to drive car at the limit of traction. It is important to point out that the limit is not raised with the NB suspension, rather it is easier to maintain the limit with the NB style suspension.

When the measurements and math were done several years ago, did not see significant changes to the rear suspension, just the uprights are a little wider which means a wider track but that is easily recreated with wheel spacers.

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

IMHO, the class as a whole would improve parity if the NA cars were allowed to upgrade to the NB suspension hardware.  While Bruce has pointed out that the lighter 1.6 is a good handling car, it has also been pointed out in multiple other threads that the 1.6 is more nervous at the edge of traction.  There is an explanation for this behavior.  When Mazda designed the 99+, there were small yet significant adjustments to the front moment center and SVSA (Side View Swing Arm).  The change in moment center in relationship to CG (Center of Gravity) in the front view of the front suspension is more desirable and lends itself to more consistent weight transfer during heavy cornering.  In other words, makes it less twitchy.  And the change in SVSA is more desirable and lends itself to more consistent weight transfer during heavy braking with improved “anti dive”.  These two changes allows the 99+ to feel more stable in heavy cornering and tail braking.  If one compares the three dimensional geometry of the NA front suspension (sub frame, control arms, spindles) side by side to the NB front suspension, you will see minor changes in the control arm attachment points to the sub frame, the length of the upper ball joint, and the layout of the spindle.  All of these changes look minor but in concert, add up to an easier to drive car at the limit of traction.  It is important to point out that the limit is not raised with the NB suspension, rather it is easier to maintain the limit with the NB style suspension.
 
When I did the measurements and math several years ago, did not see significant changes to the rear suspension, just the uprights are a little wider which means a wider track but that is easily recreated with wheel spacers. I was looking for changes in anti dive but did not notice anything significant.
 
Hope this explanation takes some of the mystery out of why the NBs seem to be less twitchy.  If you want to investigate more on your own, then I recommend http://www.amazon.co...r/dp/B004XEA3E2

Let me start by saying I agree with you 100%

So that being said let me ask all of you this question. Answer me how this will help with parity ?

We are not having an issue with cornering speeds and I know with the updated NB suspension the car would be even faster and better handling in the corners.

So let's not forget where the 1.6 lacks, it's getting stuck in traffic and getting held up in the corner and not having the same TQ as an NB to pull out of the coner with the same speeds.

So let's sum it up

Is a 1.6 fast by its self ? Yes
Can a 1.6 qualify as well as an NB ? Yes
Can a NB do well in traffic ? Yes
Can a 1.6 do well in traffic ? Maybe in some situation but mostly no it's a sitting duck ! IMHO

Yes you can over lap as much data as you want with these cars on an open track and they won't seem that much diff.but over lap them while in a race in traffic and you will see where the problem lays. But I'm sure all of the smart guys on here already know this !

Again not trying to argue with anyone just pointing out a few things !

[cam]

In an effort to address Kuch's question on "how this will help with parity?"  I think that there is a consensus that the cars are close but both the 1.6 and 1.8 are lacking a bit behind the NBs.  If the goal is to have parity between the various years of production Miatas that fall under the umbrella of Spec Miata, then something fairly simple is to put them all on the same suspension geometry.  If this goes to the SMAC, then I would vote that it should be an option (not mandatory) to allow all NAs to upgrade to the NB front subframe and related suspension and steering parts.   It really is not that hard to do, IIRC, only 6 bolts hold the subframe to the unibody.  It is similar to allowing all cars to use the Torsen rear end but it is not mandatory and allowing all cars to use the NB shock hats along with the Fat Cat bump stops, but again not mandatory.  As these cars are getting older, (first 1.6 is now 25 years old) there is a need to replace parts.  Why not replace them with parts that make the cars more equal?

[Steve Scheifler]

Why? The 1.6 already corners better than 99+. Suspension upgrade (along with lower weight) would only result in the 1.6 getting held up even more (than potential) in the corner, so IMHO another red herring.

Your point is not "wrong", but does it make sense for the cars that are often driven by beginners and those in a tight budget be the more difficult to drive at the limit? Why force them to cope with a more "nervous" handling car which results in less consistency and therefore greater risk if driven at the limit?

The goal is to make them more the same wherever we can if it can be done at reasonable cost. By all indications we will never get the power curves as close as we'd like but that's no reason to not make this change. Making the NA slightly less twitchy won't suddenly transform it into an over-dog but it would help level the field in terms of how the cars handle.

I was, and still am, doubtful that the cost will be as low as some claimed when this was recommended last time. Used parts are a risk and not so plentiful that prices won't rise with demand, but as an optional upgrade I suspect a relative few would do it immediately. What I would like to know is the availability of new parts, especially the sub frames, and whether an additional discount could be negotiated as part of the deal

[Tom Scheifler]

Cam, is it also possible/likely that the NB suspension is easier on tires? Specifically, with an optimal setup on both, does an NA experience a greater drop in tire performance during a race than an NB?