1001 replies to this topic

[Tom Scheifler]

We all knew the cars were different when we started in SM.

Bought my 1.6 SM in 2002. Was there a choice then?

[Todd Lamb]

Bought my 1.6 SM in 2002. Was there a choice then?

So you expect a flexed-out chassis with 13 years of racing to still be competitive against fresh low mileage builds?

 

PS There's a choice now.

[Tom Scheifler]

So you expect a flexed-out chassis with 13 years of racing to still be competitive against fresh low mileage builds?

PS There's a choice now.

No. And I did not say I did.
Just pointing out some people bought long ago.
PS. It also sat for many years with no racing.

[Todd Lamb]

Don't leave me hanging.... 

 

No. And

[Todd Lamb]

No. And I did not say I did.
Just pointing out some people bought long ago.
PS. It also sat for many years with no racing.

 

Yes I am well aware there are a few people that have had SM's since before the 1.8 was introduced. However for the other 99.9% there was a choice when they bought their car. For 100% there is a choice now.

[Bench Racer]

My selective memory does not remember Tom or Ron harping about weight, 7,000 rpm, oh ya.

[Tom Scheifler]

Yes I am well aware there are a few people that have had SM's since before the 1.8 was introduced. However for the other 99.9% there was a choice when they bought their car. For 100% there is a choice now.

 

Sigh. I honestly could not recall if there was a choice in 2002. Guess I should have prefaced my question with: I'M NOT TRYING TO PICK A FIGHT OR PISS YOU OFF, BUT ...

[Jim Drago]

Sigh. I honestly could not recall if there was a choice in 2002. Guess I should have prefaced my question with: I'M NOT TRYING TO PICK A FIGHT OR PISS YOU OFF, BUT ...

I "think" the NB came into SM 2004

[Tom Scheifler]

Thanks Jim

[Pat Ross]

When did the NA1.8 enter the fray?

[Steve Scheifler]

I've heard talk of flexed out chassis before but wonder how much there really is to it. They aren't exactly rigid even new but of course the cage can't tie into the sub-frames so I guess more of the loads are taken by fewer points, and spot welds can take only so much. It's too bad we can't repair those but that would inevitably lead to a whole new area of rules bending and clarifications. Not that I don't think some of it is done now and disguised under restoration and repairs.

So if, as I have heard before, a chassis is good only a few seasons and that only if built from a low mileage car, why are we even trying to give the NAs anything at all? There are no fresh low mile builds so if they are fundamentally as hopeless as Todd implies, let's stop all the nonsense and pull the plug. Why get all bent out of shape when a region tries to give them their own group to play in? Which is it, they can still be competitive with good prep and a good driver, or they can't? Shit, make up your minds!

[Bruce Wilson]

This is something you can measure...  My latest 1.6 was built on a frame jig to eliminate warp during cage install.  It started with > 1/4" of "play" from corner to corner and ended up with less than 1/16" of play.  This allowed me to setup the suspension with equal spacing between all four bumpstops when the car was at 50% crossweight.  After 7 years of racing, it still aligns exactly as it did the very first race weekend. Frame jig was built by Rothsport Racing here in Portland using very large steel I-beams and lots of laser measuring. 

[Tom Sager]

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.

 

 

This above is one of the best posts on the subject ever.  For sure the NA and NB cars do drive differently with the NB being the more stable and predictable handling car at least comparing an NA 1.8 at 50 pounds lighter to a '99. We did a test once checking the wheel angles of the NA 1.8 to the '99 with the steering wheel turned about 90 degrees and the car in a corner lean and the NA 1.8 at racing ride height actually loses a bit of toe angle when the wheel is turned.  The steering has some ackerman built in (at least at normal ride height) which is apparently lost in SM trim so the bump steer complaint is real.  The '99 did not lose toe angle when checking it.  

 

Yeah, it would be better if all the cars at least had the option to run on the same suspension and and yes adding some weight for that would be appropriate, but how much since the older cars make less power and we are using weight to compensate for that too?  The 1.6 at 125-150 pounds lighter really has a weight advantage that should show up in handling, but with these big fat sticky tires we run, I don't think we see the difference that you would expect.  At 50-75 pounds lighter, the NA1.8 doesn't weigh enough less IMO to handle better than an NB with the better suspension and certainly a 1.6 with the same suspension runs 75 pounds lighter than an NA1.8.  

 

So does the NA1.8 have 75 pounds worth of power advantage over the 1.6 yet only 50 pounds less of a disadvantage in terms of power and suspension from a '99? A case can probably be made to take 25 pounds off the 1.8.  

[LarryKing]

 

Why get all bent out of shape when a region tries to give them their own group to play in? Which is it, they can still be competitive with good prep and a good driver, or they can't? Shit, make up your minds!         

 

Kinda what I was thinking. The 1.6 should be phased out. Splitting the class is bad. Which is it dudes?

[Mike Collins]

the 1.6 and 1.8 were introduced into SM on the same day.  The first prototype car was a 1.6 but the first set of rules included rules for the NA 1.8.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Kinda what I was thinking. The 1.6 should be phased out. Splitting the class is bad. Which is it dudes?

 

Well, it has been done in the SE with SMSE, introduced at the ARRC!!!

 

on line registration for ARRC closes tomorrow sometime I beleive?  ! (ONE) SMSE signed up at the moment...  Does that sound like a success to you? Maybe its to early to say, but I thought there were all kinds of guys just begging for this oportunity to be classified as SMSE class??

 

I personally think in large most 1.6 guys do not want a seperate group, and most are not really that interested in making any changes to the car, they chose the 1.6 over the last few years from a budget standpoint and most understand their racing effort at the the $$$ spent will not put them or any car at the pointy end of the field but will allow them to go out and have a hell of a time racing door to door with others just like them, racing in the best class in the history of club racing!  

 

I have watched some of these guys have more fun at the track then most anyone I see on a regular basis and never hear them complain about needing more tq or hp!

[38bfast]

The SMAC has sent thier recomdations for the 1.6 up to the CRB for consideration. It is my belief that the recommendations will put the cars potential at a slight over dog to the NB. The SMAC has MANY (too many) hours invested on the subject of 1.6 parity.

[Tom Scheifler]

The SMAC has MANY (too many) hours invested on the subject of 1.6 parity.

What should they be doing instead?

[Caveman-kwebb99]

What should they be doing instead?

 

Getting Paid!!!!!

[38bfast]

Addressing many other concerns.