1001 replies to this topic

[High Chair]

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.

Drago I don't disagree that the car/owner was expecting to get torn down and thought they were 100% compliant. However, with the recent issues involving other cars that also expected to be torn down it would have been nice to have the fastest 1.6 in the country get a complete look see so people have a clear understanding of what a top flight 1.6 is or is not capable of. Many of us on this board have raced all of the cars at one time or another and I just don't see how the 1.6 will ever compete with the other cars now; I don't think Todd's 1.6 from the Sprints could do it today either. Sure you could change suspensions and motors but I have to agree with Lamb that will only make it even more difficult to create parity and at that point just buy an NB. I wonder if we are the only class that spends 6k on engines only to add plates and weight to slow them down; seems a little silly to me. Collins, Dave, Fowler, and others certainly have worked hard on parity but as I have stated before I think for the health of the class it is time to pull plug and let the 1.6s race in SSM, SMSE, or whatever allows them to have the best racing possible for the least amount of money and allow the rest of the cars to move forward with less restrictions. 

[deyan]

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?

 

 

At Waterford, the last turn is Swamp, a very very long sweeper comprised of 2 turns. It's all 3rd gear stuff at around 5k. On paper, the 1.6 should be faster through there, but no matter what line, how much speed I carry into it, how early or late I brake, I get killed by the 1.8's through there, and it's all through the "on power" section. On the other hand, at Big Bend, which is another very fast sweeper, but much shorter, and I can unwind the steering wheel much quicker, I always get a huge run on the 1.8s.

[High Chair]

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!

In all fairness there are only 4 1.6s (no 94-97 cars) in the field and one is racing SMSE so 25% of the 1.6 cars are racing in the new class; not a bad showing for the first time. If the truth were known the other 3 1.6s are probably unaware of what SMSE is. And the best thing about the new class is it doesn't effect anyone else. By the way there are 31 99-05 cars registered with more to be added.

[Jim Drago]

Drago I don't disagree that the car/owner was expecting to get torn down and thought they were 100% compliant. However, with the recent issues involving other cars that also expected to be torn down it would have been nice to have the fastest 1.6 in the country get a complete look see so people have a clear understanding of what a top flight 1.6 is or is not capable of. Many of us on this board have raced all of the cars at one time or another and I just don't see how the 1.6 will ever compete with the other cars now; I don't think Todd's 1.6 from the Sprints could do it today either. Sure you could change suspensions and motors but I have to agree with Lamb that will only make it even more difficult to create parity and at that point just buy an NB. I wonder if we are the only class that spends 6k on engines only to add plates and weight to slow them down; seems a little silly to me. Collins, Dave, Fowler, and others certainly have worked hard on parity but as I have stated before I think for the health of the class it is time to pull plug and let the 1.6s race in SSM, SMSE, or whatever allows them to have the best racing possible for the least amount of money and allow the rest of the cars to move forward with less restrictions.

One last post regarding that car.. I built the four 99's ahead of it. The 1.6 car was to the same prep level or less, it was as compliant / non compliant as the rest. As compliant or non compliant as your car was at the time. It was a straight up comparison, that is the point I was trying to make.
Do I think they can keep up now, yes but it would take a very similar effort or perhaps even better one. The rules have not changed in the 99 since then, the 1.6 has gotten even lighter. With the proposed changes coming, I think even less of an effort will compete. As far as separating the class.. I have no issue with 1.6 owners starting an SSM or some 1.6 only regional class. But I also don't think it is fair to drop them from SM as there are guys with 1.6 cars that want to race SM with their current car.

[Todd Lamb]

I didn't say the 1.6 wasn't competitive. I very much said the opposite. But those with 1.6's complaining the grass is greener in the 1.8 camp should switch camps instead of constantly complaining or asking for a bunch of rule changes that will in the end cost more money and not gain any performance (because they would then be performance balanced again for parity).

I will say it again: the 1.6 is competitive with the current ruleset. As Ralph said with the changes coming it is probably a slight overdog but at worst case it is equal to the 1.8's. The cars are not the same and were never intended to be. They will race different, weight different, have different HP/tq characteristics, and handle different. That's the nature of the cars. Our goal is to make sure they are competitive.

As for what the SMAC is doing - yes we have plenty of other issues to work on. For free. On our own time.

[davew]

Another idea that has been beat to death for a while:

 

CSM, Club Spec Miata. Just as the formula guys have Club Formula Ford for the older, non-competitive cars. We could have a regional/divisional only class for the pop up headlight cars. they would run the same rules as current SM, just not have to compete against them. Pop ups, would still be allowed to run as a SM if the desire. But the rules makers could forget about parity between the sexy cars and the dinosaurs.

 

Dave

[Bench Racer]

Thank you Ralph, Sean, Danny, Todd, Brandon and Rich for your energy spent in following through with bones for the 1.6.

 

EDIT:

Thank you 1.6er's and Tom for providing info/letters.

[ner88]

one thing for sure, if the 1.6 becomes the overdog, there will be way more guys looking for parity!

[LarryKing]

If only there was an entry level class where racers with a limited budget could compete in identically prepared cars. That would be awesome.

[Brandon]

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

 

Again, folks feel the 1.6 needs the improvement over the NA1.8 (it's our "parity baseline" due to the brakes/engine limitations) so if a change is suggested that has the potential for influence on the NA1.8 then it is considered.

 

The latest round of suggestions (specifically the wrapping of the intake tube) is less applicable due to the tube running above the radiator (not in-line with the hot-side exit) but the signal removal was considered for the NA1.8s but those models do not suffer from the lack of outright cool air like the 1.6s do (no flapper AFM).

[Jim Drago]

If only there was an entry level class where racers with a limited budget could compete in identically prepared cars. That would be awesome.

MX5 Global

[Todd Lamb]

Another idea that has been beat to death for a while:

 

CSM, Club Spec Miata. Just as the formula guys have Club Formula Ford for the older, non-competitive cars. We could have a regional/divisional only class for the pop up headlight cars. they would run the same rules as current SM, just not have to compete against them. Pop ups, would still be allowed to run as a SM if the desire. But the rules makers could forget about parity between the sexy cars and the dinosaurs.

 

Dave

I believe this is a step towards fracturing the class. I haven't heard anyone suggest that we as a class want to phase out, forget about, or otherwise let the NA's slip into obscurity. I think there is a place for all the SM's to compete in the same class and all of the SMAC efforts (well before my time) are/were to make it a level playing field for 90-05 cars.

 

I have been very vocal against the SM-SE addition, because it is providing something we didn't ask for, and it is fracturing the class. There are no 1.6 cars coming out of mothballs for that class. SSM is another story - different class and ruleset. That I think is a decent idea but implementation is difficult with the traveling regional series most have (which is why MARRS can pull it off with Summit as a home base).

 

Side note: Also I forgot to address the flexed out chassis issue. Yes you'll be able to corner weight correctly, even on a bent car. The flexing occurs dynamically, not statically.

[High Chair]

As for what the SMAC is doing - yes we have plenty of other issues to work on. For free. On our own time.

And most of us are very appreciative of the current and former SMAC representatives. We may not always agree but your time and effort do not go unnoticed.

[High Chair]

MX5 Global

Two on order!

[LarryKing]

 

MX5 Global         

 

We have a vastly different definition of 'low cost' my friend.

[Steve 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.

Todd, this is my issue. This implies that when you say that the 1.6 is definitely competitive, you mean hypothetically, if we found a chassis with <50k on the clock and built it up. It also implies that 99% of what's out there now can't compete at the highest lever no matter how well prepped. You can't deride us for expecting to be competitive in an old chassis then again for whining that already competitive cars need help. For the record, I've asked a lot of questions and listened to a lot of opinions and ideas but made VERY few claims that we need help. We were on a re-learning curve and not in a position to speak factually about parity. My only formal requests have been to stabilize intake temps with the turn indicator delete and about parity within the 1.6 ranks with things like the option to clean up headers that came non-compliant directly from Mazda.

As for "there's a choice now", not helpful, not at all. I have a stable of 1.6 cars and a truck load of parts. The job of the SMAC, those who chose to serve, is to keep them relevant. I've always expressed my appreciation of their efforts, still do, thank you, but that can't prevent me from also expressing my concerns when I feel warranted. So far since returning I have no serious complaints about actions taken but it is starting to feel as if the main goal is to shut a few people up.

As for other important business, that would be OUR business, so please give us a bullet list of issues to be addressed that impact more drivers than this (even though only a small % of 1.6 owners are likely even paying attention). I'd be fine hearing that you'd just like to spend less personal time on SMAC business period, but if there are other issues pending then we should at least hear about them at a high level. Otherwise it's a bit hard to empathize.

[FTodaro]

Todd, Brandon Ralph and others, is it safe to say then that the only parity adjustments we can expect for 2016 will be the 1.6 and maybe NA 1.8? Are we done with the 99 & VVT?

[High Chair]

One last post regarding that car.. I built the four 99's ahead of it. The 1.6 car was to the same prep level or less, it was as compliant / non compliant as the rest. 

One last post here as well. Just to be clear nobody claimed it wasn't compliant as I have no idea if it was or wasn't and really couldn't care less; that is beyond the scope of this thread. However, that car is often used as proof that a 1.6 can compete against the newer cars and I don't think that is a fair assumption given it was one car that appeared to be an outliner when compared to other 1.6 cars. Sure it was prepped well and well driven but surly there are other 1.6s that are prepped well with good drivers yet I never see them up front in a field of other competitive drivers with newer cars. Lamb thinks the 1.6 is competitive with the current rules; I disagree. But not because the rules are bad but because the cars are just old and finiky and no 1.6 gift is going to fix that. It takes too much time and effort to keep one at the front.

[Todd Lamb]

Todd, this is my issue. This implies that when you say that the 1.6 is definitely competitive, you mean hypothetically, if we found a chassis with <50k on the clock and built it up. It also implies that 99% of what's out there now can't compete at the highest lever no matter how well prepped. You can't deride us for expecting to be competitive in an old chassis then again for whining that already competitive cars need help. For the record, I've asked a lot of questions and listened to a lot of opinions and ideas but made VERY few claims that we need help. We were on a re-learning curve and not in a position to speak factually about parity. My only formal requests have been to stabilize intake temps with the turn indicator delete and about parity within the 1.6 ranks with things like the option to clean up headers that came non-compliant directly from Mazda.

As for "there's a choice now", not helpful, not at all. I have a stable of 1.6 cars and a truck load of parts. The job of the SMAC, those who chose to serve, is to keep them relevant. I've always expressed my appreciation of their efforts, still do, thank you, but that can't prevent me from also expressing my concerns when I feel warranted. So far since returning I have no serious complaints about actions taken but it is starting to feel as if the main goal is to shut a few people up.

As for other important business, that would be OUR business, so please give us a bullet list of issues to be addressed that impact more drivers than this (even though only a small % of 1.6 owners are likely even paying attention). I'd be fine hearing that you'd just like to spend less personal time on SMAC business period, but if there are other issues pending then we should at least hear about them at a high level. Otherwise it's a bit hard to empathize.

I was speaking very specifically of your car since that was the example you chose. ANY car with a decade of racing is not going to be as good as a newer build.

[LarryKing]

A simple timeline to theorize that chassis flex may not be exclusively an NA issue.

 

 

1990   .  1993    .    .    .    .    .   1999   .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .   2016