1001 replies to this topic

[Steve Scheifler]

Good question. The simple answer, often mentioned, is that the lighter car is easier on tires. But what isn't mentioned is that more sliding, slip angle, scrub also add more heat and increase wear. We can quantify the weight difference (small as a %) but no so easily the suspension geometry factors.

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

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?

Then why not ask for a motor swap and have the exact same power and just add weight ?

Again not argueing just asking !

[Bruce Wilson]

Steve, the goal should be to make the cars competitive, meaning that a top prepped, 110% car with a very skilled driver can win a race in a 1.6.  This is what the newbies and novice drivers are looking for, contrary to what they naysayers will  tell you.  I've driven both NA and NB cars extensively and in no way would I classify the 1.6 as twichy.  I would classify it as damn fun -- sideways action -- flowing -- feeling the slip angle, etc.  I classify the 99 as a mechanical feeling differential that feels like crap when you go over the gators or bang the curbs -- you know the fun stuff

[Ron Alan]

Well, if there is going to be a campaign to change front suspension...no reason to stop there. Make sure you allow the rear parts on all cars to be open. Just have to change the rear max track width in the NA to what the NB is currently at. I don't care either way...just do it all or do nothing.

Bruce...I get your point. But I would argue this would not be done/allowed for parity reasons...simply allowed as an option.

[Tom Scheifler]

Steve, the goal should be to make the cars competitive, meaning that a top prepped, 110% car with a very skilled driver can win a race in a 1.6. This is what the newbies and novice drivers are looking for, contrary to what they naysayers will tell you. I've driven both NA and NB cars extensively and in no way would I classify the 1.6 as twichy. I would classify it as damn fun -- sideways action -- flowing -- feeling the slip angle, etc. I classify the 99 as a mechanical feeling differential that feels like crap when you go over the gators or bang the curbs -- you know the fun stuff

You may be 110% right. But why not allow it as an option?

[Bruce Wilson]

Sure it's an "option", but the reason I'm opposed to it at this time, is that it takes our focus away from what is important!  Move the suspension discussion to another thread and I'll gladly weigh in with more positive comments

[Bench Racer]

[High Chair]

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 don't disagree. All of these so called fixes for the 1.6 have been discussed time and again. As soon as a fix is proposed many 1.6 owners will come on here complaining about the costs of modifying their cars and will start lobbying for more weight or a plate change on the newer cars. Every 6 months the same cycle repeats. I know some people are not in favor of giving the popup headlight cars their own class  (and I wasn't either at one time) but I do think the best competition adjustment that can be made for the 90-97 cars and for the long-term health of the SM class is to separate the cars and run the newer cars with much less restrictions. It will happen eventually so why not just pull the plug now.

[High Chair]

I raced against Todd multiple times while he was in is 1.6 and there is no doubt it was a fast car and he is a good driver but I don't believe that car had ever been torn down (I could be wrong) and eventually disappeared. I'm not implying that the car wasn't legal but we don't know for sure and regardless that was one car and therefor shouldn't be used for parity purposes in my opinion. All that video shows me is a good 1.6 can draft with a pair off 99s when wheeled by a good driver.

[Jim Drago]

Steve, the goal should be to make the cars competitive, meaning that a top prepped, 110% car with a very skilled driver can win a race in a 1.6.  This is what the newbies and novice drivers are looking for, contrary to what they naysayers will  tell you.  I've driven both NA and NB cars extensively and in no way would I classify the 1.6 as twichy.  I would classify it as damn fun -- sideways action -- flowing -- feeling the slip angle, etc.  I classify the 99 as a mechanical feeling differential that feels like crap when you go over the gators or bang the curbs -- you know the fun stuff

sideways action sounds fast

[Jim Drago]

I raced against Todd multiple times while he was in is 1.6 and there is no doubt it was a fast car and he is a good driver but I don't believe that car had ever been torn down (I could be wrong) and eventually disappeared. I'm not implying that the car wasn't legal but we don't know for sure and regardless that was one car and therefor shouldn't be used for parity purposes in my opinion. All that video shows me is a good 1.6 can draft with a pair off 99s when wheeled by a good driver.

That video was posted in this thread as a cryptic message to point out some flaw in that 1.6 car that no one else seems to see The car was no different than any of the other three raced against as we built all of them. No better comparison IMO. All the cars went to the Sprints expecting a tear down that didn't happen. All you can do is show up and win the races where there is generally tear down.

[Jim Drago]

Well, if there is going to be a campaign to change front suspension...no reason to stop there. Make sure you allow the rear parts on all cars to be open. Just have to change the rear max track width in the NA to what the NB is currently at. I don't care either way...just do it all or do nothing.

Bruce...I get your point. But I would argue this would not be done/allowed for parity reasons...simply allowed as an option.

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 !

Good points by both... but as was said years ago by SMAC.. Why is this always linked to power? Why is this suspension issue always and an either /or or a parity adjustment? This is not and was not proposed as a mandatory change.

In general, I agree with Kuch's assessment.. by why not address both issues? Why throw the suspension we ALL know is not as good out the window?

Allow the suspension on all cars to run the NB from front to rear..
Continue to address parity issues.

These cars will never be identical. You will definitely need to use some race craft with the 1.6. If you are dumb enough to ride on a NB cars bumper into a slow corner, you really have no merit to complain here Time your exit. We are doing the same thing with 99 Vs VVT cars.

There is no way to have parity if we allow any car to be lighter by 100 plus lbs, accelerate as well out of a corner and be faster at the top end. Where would the other cars have an advantage? How could they compete?

[Ron Alan]

Without much fan fare, the original effort to get the cars closer in weight has reversed itself...why is that? Simple...it helped! 

 

3 years ago(4?) in the last major parity adjustments, one of the objectives was to get the cars as close in weight as possible. That was achieved but time has proven that this didnt turn out as expected. The fact that the current adjustments have moved the weights farther apart has helped the 1.6...has it gone far enough? Granted...what was not expected was how the bigger heavier tires that we went to has affected the lighter car...and it does not seem to affect the heavier cars...at least proportionally.

 

As the NB cars development has improved, it seems to overcome the efforts to slow it down. Along with the adjustments that may make the 1.6 car race better(heat soak)maybe the NB just go back up in weight? The restrictor changes affected the top end in the NB but not so much the torque. VVT got 25lbs back...maybe it really needs 40lbs and the 99 20lbs? Yes...this wont be popular...but I heard NO ONE complain when the VVT got back 25lbs!!! 

[Todd Lamb]

Then they should also all have the same engines. And while we are at it the same chassis. The same headlights. The same differential. The same ECU. (But not the same tires if it rains).

And then we can start the process of trying to find parity with 7 different versions of hybrid cars with various engine and suspension transplants. Fun.

So what year are we all going to build cars to? 99-00? 01-05? 90-93? 94-95? 96-97? 1998???

The cars all have differences. I don't believe the point was ever for the cars to have the same components or identical handling/power characteristics, just the same overall performance.

If you're going to take your 1.6 and upgrade it to a 1.8 engine, then add NB suspension, why not just buy/build the year of car you are trying to emulate? Certainly can't be any cost savings at that point.

[Bench Racer]

The video was for anyone to view and then come back and specify how the 99 suspension would improve that 1.6's performance.

 

If I wanted to be the critic you many times refer I would have said the car did real well on the 99 suspension.  

[Johnny D]

So DD this comments only comes from you but I'll bite.

One of features from the 1.6 is that it's fun to drive. (over a NB)

So why would you want a NB suspension ?



I'm with Todd, if you want to make a NA into a NB go buy a NB.

I like Ron's idea of more weight for 99's. But on Hoosiers not on Toyo's.

J~

[Bench Racer]

J, I don't want a NB suspension.

 

Was asking where the 2012 June Sprints 1.6 performance would have been improved, pick a video time/cornor. I viewed a lot of drafting and presume frequently there was a pusher.

[Ron Alan]

Then they should also all have the same engines. And while we are at it the same chassis. The same headlights. The same differential. The same ECU. (But not the same tires if it rains).

And then we can start the process of trying to find parity with 7 different versions of hybrid cars with various engine and suspension transplants. Fun.

So what year are we all going to build cars to? 99-00? 01-05? 90-93? 94-95? 96-97? 1998???

The cars all have differences. I don't believe the point was ever for the cars to have the same components or identical handling/power characteristics, just the same overall performance.

If you're going to take your 1.6 and upgrade it to a 1.8 engine, then add NB suspension, why not just buy/build the year of car you are trying to emulate? Certainly can't be any cost savings at that point.

So you are not in favor of allowing subframe/suspension part swaps...perfect! You have made Davids day!

[Steve Scheifler]

Then they should also all have the same engines. And while we are at it the same chassis. The same headlights. The same differential. The same ECU. (But not the same tires if it rains).

And then we can start the process of trying to find parity with 7 different versions of hybrid cars with various engine and suspension transplants. Fun.

So what year are we all going to build cars to? 99-00? 01-05? 90-93? 94-95? 96-97? 1998???

The cars all have differences. I don't believe the point was ever for the cars to have the same components or identical handling/power characteristics, just the same overall performance.

If you're going to take your 1.6 and upgrade it to a 1.8 engine, then add NB suspension, why not just buy/build the year of car you are trying to emulate? Certainly can't be any cost savings at that point.

Yes, and no, I think. Swapping sub-frames and a few suspension pieces is a whole lot simpler and cheaper than the engine with wiring harness etc. If you are going to do the engine then I agree, it looks a lot less cost effective, and that's always been my take on the idea. Of course if you already own a nice 1.6 then the upgrade makes more sense so I've never objected to it as an option. My concern has always been that once officially allowed it would be seen as "problem solved" and the end of any attempts to keep the 1.6 close.

So why object to the suspension upgrade? If I am replacing parts anyway why not bolt on newer ones that match the later cars? Why are you against that, regardless of what you think was promised or aspired to? I genuinely don't understand.

As for fun to drive, I agree, the 1.6 seems more nimble but I assume that is more about weight than anything. It may also be in part from a less rigid chassis even if that seems backwards, hard to say. But if the inferior geometry is what's making it more fun, then I'll gladly risk losing it for a more stable platform. At least I should have the option.

[Bench Racer]

Interesting the NA 1.8 folks never get into the 99 suspension gossip.