1001 replies to this topic

[Jason J Ball]

"Top Prep" 1.6L is like a Unicorn, everyone has heard of it, but nobody has ever seen one!

[Longdaddy]

Let us celebrate SM talent driving "config 2" cars that dyno with numbers as shown, to top 3 finishes in their respective regions.

[chris haldeman]

Am I the only one who noticed that config #4 is missing from the chart? It jumps from 3 to 5.

Also I disagree that the STR provided no benefit. Not at peak, but if you look at the area under the curve it is +1-2 at every step in the midrange. (This is also why you can't just look at single dyno numbers and should look at the curve.)
Also kinda surprised at the header gains...

May want too look at the charts again. 1-2 shows a loss in many areas under peak and that was full legal machining including now legal 1.5mm str
5-6 is opening up str too 3mm and show around .6 gain in all but 2 spots on the graph. How is that plus 1-2??

[Jim Drago]

"Top Prep" 1.6L is like a Unicorn, everyone has heard of it, but nobody has ever seen one!

GOOGLE 'UNICORN BURAS 2012 JUNE SPRINTS" 

[Jason J Ball]

GOOGLE 'UNICORN BURAS 2012 JUNE SPRINTS" 

List the Prep that was done on this Unicorn. Why does he not run the car anymore? I have watched the video and agree it is fast, but you've never quantified how "you" got it there. I imagine it just cost too damn much to keep it there with the finicky AFM and FPR. 

[Todd Green]

May want too look at the charts again. 1-2 shows a loss in many areas under peak and that was full legal machining including now legal 1.5mm str
5-6 is opening up str too 3mm and show around .6 gain in all but 2 spots on the graph. How is that plus 1-2??

I didn't mean steps 1-2, I meant a 1-2 HP gain in steps 5-6 (sorry thought that was clear since we were talking about the STR mod).  (I was looking at 5-6K rpms which is where the argument has been that the 1.6 needs help.)  Here are the exact numbers.

Attached Files

•  Screenshot 2015-08-13 14.29.03.png   31.56KB   0 downloads

[Jamz14]

BS. Jim, Todd, are you saying that I could look at both of your cars and find absolutely nothing that would violate IIDSYCYC? I mean absolutely nothing? And just because I feel that IIDSYCYC isn't followed to the letter doesn't mean that the rule book has been thrown out the window. It means that top prep exploits areas of the rules that aren't highly specific and gray areas. Christ, doesn't STR gate prove that? Please tell me where in the rules it says you can plunge cut out of concentricity? It doesn't. So by definition it violates. ETC ETC.

 

Meathead has stated publicly here his view on it. "nothing in the rules says you can't be smarter than me". I agree with that view. But leaving no stone unturned doesn't come under that notion Todd. You imply that I just have to pay attention to detail. Like my half shafts are spinning freely, my brakes aren't dragging, my driveshaft is free, my wheels are balanced, ETC ETC. That isn't being "smarter than me". Being smarter than me means ( and this is a direct example ), "there is nothing in the rule book that denotes the orifice size of the proportioning valve" . However, touching the proportioning valve violates IIDSYCYC. 

 

I'll let on to one of my "cheats" and use as an example. The wiring harness in the 97 runs right in front of the air intake. When I say right in front, I mean within an 1 or so of the front of the snorkel inlet. So I clipped the harness tie down and moved the wire bundle an inch or so under the snorkel instead of right in front of it ( just that one foot section of the harness). Do the rules say that I can? No. Did I violate the rules? Yes, I guess so. Did I throw the rule book out the window? NO!! ( Something you guys hate but....... ) Did I violate the spirit of the rules with this minor adjustment? Hell no IMO

[Todd Green]

I haven't seen a top prep 1.6 since Saul/Bennett had his out in .... 2007? Yet I see a lot of top prep 99/VVT cars every weekend.

 

The 1.6's were prepped well enough to win NASA Nats in 2010 and 2013.  Now that may just be a MMP thing since there aren't too many tight corners onto long straights and I'm sure others will argue NASA vs SCCA prep levels.  But if you talked to Sean (MiataCage) and the Oregon boys, I'd think they'd tell you that they didn't leave stones unturned on their cars. FWIW.

[Jim Drago]

BS. Jim, Todd, are you saying that I could look at both of your cars and find absolutely nothing that would violate IIDSYCYC? I mean absolutely nothing? And just because I feel that IIDSYCYC isn't followed to the letter doesn't mean that the rule book has been thrown out the window. It means that top prep exploits areas of the rules that aren't highly specific and gray areas. Christ, doesn't STR gate prove that? Please tell me where in the rules it says you can plunge cut out of concentricity? It doesn't. So by definition it violates. ETC ETC.
 
Meathead has stated publicly here his view on it. "nothing in the rules says you can't be smarter than me". I agree with that view. But leaving no stone unturned doesn't come under that notion Todd. You imply that I just have to pay attention to detail. Like my half shafts are spinning freely, my brakes aren't dragging, my driveshaft is free, my wheels are balanced, ETC ETC. That isn't being "smarter than me". Being smarter than me means ( and this is a direct example ), "there is nothing in the rule book that denotes the orifice size of the proportioning valve" . However, touching the proportioning valve violates IIDSYCYC.

this is blatant cheating..
 

I'll let on to one of my "cheats" and use as an example. The wiring harness in the 97 runs right in front of the air intake. When I say right in front, I mean within an 1 or so of the front of the snorkel inlet. So I clipped the harness tie down and moved the wire bundle an inch or so under the snorkel instead of right in front of it ( just that one foot section of the harness). Do the rules say that I can? No. Did I violate the rules? Yes, I guess so. Did I throw the rule book out the window? NO!! ( Something you guys hate but....... ) Did I violate the spirit of the rules with this minor adjustment? Hell no IMO

this is a non issue


And yes, that is exactly what I am saying.

[Jim Drago]

The 1.6's were prepped well enough to win NASA Nats in 2010 and 2013.  Now that may just be a MMP thing since there aren't too many tight corners onto long straights and I'm sure others will argue NASA vs SCCA prep levels.  But if you talked to Sean (MiataCage) and the Oregon boys, I'd think they'd tell you that they didn't leave stones unturned on their cars. FWIW.

or NASA vs SCCA talent levels(depth of fields)

[Todd Lamb]

The 1.6's were prepped well enough to win NASA Nats in 2010 and 2013.  Now that may just be a MMP thing since there aren't too many tight corners onto long straights and I'm sure others will argue NASA vs SCCA prep levels.  But if you talked to Sean (MiataCage) and the Oregon boys, I'd think they'd tell you that they didn't leave stones unturned on their cars. FWIW.

 

As I said, I haven't seen any 1.6's with top prep recently. Where are these cars because I haven't seen them? Get them to the well attended Majors with top level drivers to run against other top prep cars with top level drivers. We need a valid comparison. We have exactly zero data points with the current ruleset.

[davew]

The 1.6's were prepped well enough to win NASA Nats in 2010 and 2013.  Now that may just be a MMP thing since there aren't too many tight corners onto long straights and I'm sure others will argue NASA vs SCCA prep levels.  But if you talked to Sean (MiataCage) and the Oregon boys, I'd think they'd tell you that they didn't leave stones unturned on their cars. FWIW.

 

So this proves that the 1.6 needs no help. Case closed, everybody be quiet. NASA has proven that the 1.6 needs no help. Drago, close the thread. Dewey is wrong. You heard it here first.

[Todd Green]

"there is nothing in the rule book that denotes the orifice size of the proportioning valve"

Sure it does:

 

C. AUTHORIZED MODIFICATIONS The following items represent the only modifications and safety items
permitted

C.A "All components must be standard dimensions".

 

If you look in the factory service manual it shows charts and gives pressure specifications for both sides of the prop valve.  You mess with the orifice you'll mess with the pressures and hence will not have a "standard dimension".  And yes the manual gives tolerances for the pressures.

[Todd Lamb]

BS. Jim, Todd, are you saying that I could look at both of your cars and find absolutely nothing that would violate IIDSYCYC? I mean absolutely nothing?

There's nothing on my car or any of the other cars we build that I would be concerned with in any level of tech. Come to Runoffs and check for yourself if you'd like.

[Todd Green]

So this proves that the 1.6 needs no help. Case closed, everybody be quiet. NASA has proven that the 1.6 needs no help. Drago, close the thread. Dewey is wrong. You heard it here first.

Never said they don't need help(*).  I'm saying you don't win a National Championship with a half-assed prepped car.  No matter how much the SCCA drivers want to look down upon the NASA drivers.  (Note I joined the SCCA in '97 and raced there til 2012.  Didn't join NASA til 2006.  I'd still race with the SCCA if they actually had any events in our region.  Not exactly biased either way.  Both orgs have their pluses and minuses.)

 

Todd - Where are they now?  From what I heard they got tired of the drama and are having fun doing their own thing.  Can't blame them.

 

* Though I have said a zillion times to be careful about trying to make them equal because if you error on the wrong side, you'll just flip over the apple cart and all the top guys will go back to 1.6's and you'll have a bunch of bitching 99 and newer owners with cars worth what 1.6's are today.

[Bench Racer]

Entrance , other Todd, with Drago for back up, SAY WHAT!!!!  

 

 

Oh, had another 1.6 thought, how fast Niki Coello is forgotten. If his 1.6 and other cars were not top prep/shelf, I don't quite known what to say. Memories................

 

 

Bruce, care to join the top prep 1.6 party?

[Todd Green]

or NASA vs SCCA talent levels(depth of fields)

There's no arguing that it doesn't get any deeper than at the Runoffs.   Bad jokes aside, it'd be really interesting to see some of the top drivers go for both NASA and SCCA championships in the same year.  I'd imagine the appeal has been lessened since NASA split the championship into East/West.

[Jim Drago]

Entrance , other Todd, with Drago for back up, SAY WHAT!!!!  

I wish I knew what you were saying

[Bench Racer]

A moment ago Todd Lamb had a post referencing Bennett's 1.6 as the last top prep 1.6 he'd seen.

[Todd Lamb]

You're making the assumption that I've seen Buras' 1.6 in action.

 

There are so many of these unicorn top prep 1.6's in existence, you'd think we would see them on a regular basis.