1001 replies to this topic

[Ron Alan]

(Sean's personal opinion - not SMAC)

It costs competitors money........ The amount has yet to be seen, but with labor included I have to assume close to $1,000.00 to do the swap. In my opinion it does nothing for the average racer as handling is not the issue holding the 1.6L back. Many will assume that they have to do it either from what their buddies tell them or what prep shops tell them and I don't see that as helping the class or parity.

As I think it was Ralph suggested, we need a detailed listing of parts needed and a rough idea of cost. Then we need someone to do the swap to figure out what we are missing.

One of the other big challenges we have in the SMAC is we have to take into account what our suggestions do to the tech process. If we were to upgrade all of these parts for some but not all cars, how does tech know which track measurement applies to which cars? Agree that a sticker would be a pretty easy solution, but selling that to tech volunteers as one more thing to try to figure out is not as easy a task as maybe it should be. I also expect someone to say we never measure track width and that may very well be true, but you have to consider what the rules are as written and then how you enforce the rule per the book not by the what we have done in the past method.

I personally just don't see this as an immediate concern for the cars.... If the masses want it and the letters support it, then we can certainly run it up the flag pole to the CRB right away and ask for it to be approved. As a 1.6L fan I am all for anything I can get for the cars, but not if it costs the average competitor money and does not provide a decent return on that investment.

Thanks... Sean

Good info and thought out...appreciate facts, personal opinion, and void of any emotional bias.

Your last sentence made me laugh! Return on investment...we are racing cars right??

As far as tech...maybe a declaration like overbore weight sticker?
Rear doesn't need NB parts...simple 5mm spacer makes cars the same.
Used parts cost will vary but $250-$500 would be in the range.
If I bent a corner hard and had to replace...I'd rather spend the money on the newer used parts! And maybe a small benefit comes out of it?
Only people who may really object to this is the 1.6 owners who don't want there other 1.6 buddies to suddenly start driving away from them

[Ron Alan]

What about the Bracing? the 99+ has the bracing around the Diff?

This upgrade has already been allowed for awhile Frank

[LarryKing]

 

But my point is that it does not make sense for the least experienced or least skilled drivers to be stuck with cars that amplify their mistakes while the better drivers, and better funded drivers, have a more forgiving platform. If that can be remedied then perhaps we should make it an option.         

 

Just a personal observation: most of the new faces I see in my area are what appear to be very well funded (Bank of Dad) young people intent on moving up the ladder and driving a well prepped NB.

 

Most of the NA cars are driven by old f'ers like me still dancing with their high school sweetheart. Ain't love grand.

[Mike Collins]

Does anyone have first hand knolage converting from NA to NB suspension. We all know what it's intended to do, but has anyone tried it? A-B comparison? For a proposed change of this magnitude I would expect the SMAC to want some real world on track data.

 

Yes, and its wonderful.. It takes the car from being on edge and feeling like the next twitch may send you over to driving a cadillac...  "Back in the day" some had '99 subframes with the rear ears trimmed off to look like earlier frames with with the steering rack mounts swapped out to allow the use of the early steering rack, just placed in the later location...  It would have taken a tear down of epic proportion to prove, something foreign to SM at the time...

[Todd Lamb]

What is most educational about this thread is that 1.6 drivers wanted concessions despite no data showing it was needed, and before it is even implemented there is demand for even more concessions, also with no data to show they are warranted.

How about we let the ink dry first?

[38bfast]

What is most educational about this thread is that 1.6 drivers wanted concessions despite no data showing it was needed, and before it is even implemented there is demand for even more concessions, also with no data to show they are warranted.
How about we let the ink dry first?

I think the turbo will be the next request. Mazda made them with the Mazdaspeed Miatas, so it should be good to go.

[Bench Racer]

Used parts cost will vary but $250-$500 would be in the range. 

But, then we'd be told our 1.6 wasn't prepped 100% because we'd used salvage yard parts.

 

 

 

The 116 HP Miata 1.6 DOHC motor from 1990-1993 is a normally aspirated version of that GTX 323 turbo engine.

[Steve Scheifler]

No data, really? I thought intake temps were measured. I KNOW new stock headers won't pass tech so that has to be fixed.

Show me all the detailed real-world certified data supporting almost any rules change made in any other class in the past decade. That's not how it really works, never has for 99.9% of cases. I'm not saying that I prefer to have a few influencial people deciding what's best without checks and balances and something to back them up, but let's not pretend that SM is somehow way out of line proposing small changes based on basic facts that are a simple matter of physics (increasing intake temps = less power) and established facts like the header issue. On top of that, of those who pay attention and care enough to comment it is clear that the need for "a little help" is aknowledged by plenty of respected owners and drivers of NB cars. Now you imply that the whole thing is unwarranted. Perhaps it is your position that needs to be supported by data.

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

Todd and everyone else that is and was on the SMAC I understand the pressure and stress this has on you guys. I just want to thank you for your time and efforts and having to put up with guys like me .

I have no actual live data that I can share and I am only voicing my opinion. So I know it's not worth much but is there anyway or any place that we can see the actual data that SMAC has been using to compare with.

I think myself as well as many others would love to see that kind of info but I do not know if it's possible to share.

Again I would like to thank all of you for all the free time and effort you put into this class. I have nothing but respect for you guys and just want to say thanks

[Bench Racer]

Come on guys, it's all about communication. Sometimes maybe a word or two is absent and an item is misunderstood.  I for one appreciate todays transparency from the current SMAC.

 

 

Jim, didn't I get the broken record badge for harping about the lack of 1.6 torque and now after 47 pages I'm the only holder.

[Tom Scheifler]

What is most educational about this thread is that 1.6 drivers wanted concessions despite no data showing it was needed

 

Other than being factually incorrect, what is most educational about this statement is your decision to criticize people for pursuing adjustments (not "concessions") through group discussion and appropriate channels.  I thought you were someone that would applaud all legal efforts to improve car and driver.

[Todd Lamb]

Steve it's clear based on your Road Atlanta crash thread that you love to argue online. I don't have the desire to debate every word you twist around into an argument.

Take the point of my comment for what it is: the current rule changes haven't even taken effect and there is already demand for more changes, based on precisely no data that more changes are needed. Perhaps a wait and see approach would apply here based on logic and reason?

[Todd Lamb]

Other than being factually incorrect, what is most educational about this statement is your decision to criticize people for pursuing adjustments (not "concessions") through group discussion and appropriate channels. I thought you were someone that would applaud all legal efforts to improve car and driver.

There was no on-track performance data to support the current changes, in fact perhaps the opposite. Factual. We made them anyway. Factual.

The changes have not yet taken effect. Factual. There is already demand for more changes. Factual.

Adjustments are concessions with no facts to back them up.

You can call it criticizing. I call it logical

[Jim Drago]

Jim, didn't I get the broken record badge for harping about the lack of 1.6 torque and now after 47 pages I'm the only holder.

Yes

[Bench Racer]

^

[Todd Lamb]

Todd and everyone else that is and was on the SMAC I understand the pressure and stress this has on you guys. I just want to thank you for your time and efforts and having to put up with guys like me .

I have no actual live data that I can share and I am only voicing my opinion. So I know it's not worth much but is there anyway or any place that we can see the actual data that SMAC has been using to compare with.

I think myself as well as many others would love to see that kind of info but I do not know if it's possible to share.

Again I would like to thank all of you for all the free time and effort you put into this class. I have nothing but respect for you guys and just want to say thanks

 

The best real world data is at the race track, comparing cars that are top prep or at the very least accounting for what isn't top prep on the cars and factoring that into the comparison.

 

My personal experience was shared on this a while back with Fowler's rental 1.6 at Barber and Roebling vs 99/VVT.

[FTodaro]

I think we are close to the point that debate is getting counter productive.

 

What we know is that some changes for 2016 are proposed, in response to the request for a parity adjustment.

 

We also know that according to procedure that anything additional will not be considered till next year, so for those who have additional ideas, you have say 9 months to evaluate the current rules and do some testing or gather date for any further suggestions.

 

The guys on the SMAC should not be the target of our frustrations, they are simply a conduit for our ideas. 

 

Lets see how this plays out in 2016.

 

Someone come up with somehting else interesting.

 

Lets talk about how Professional NASCAR is and what a wonderful example they set Lol.

[Tom Scheifler]

1.6 drivers wanted concessions despite no data showing it was needed

There was no on-track performance data to support the current changes

 

See the difference in the statements?

 

Todd, I don't like alienating people, especially someone in a leadership position with credentials like yours.  But when you make absolute statements like "1.6 drivers wanted concessions despite no data showing it was needed", lots of people will believe it unless the statement is challenged.

 

Now you have qualified/amended the statement to "There was no on-track performance data to support the current changes".  Also not factually correct.

 

FYI: Autobahn Country Club’s Spec Miata series has had about 40 members race this year, with an average car count of approx. 24.  Members own 60-70 Spec Miata’s.  To increase car count and encourage new entrants, members embarked on a series of tests to improve 1.6 performance. In the end, at 2275#, a Racing Beat header with the driver’s side turn signal lens and headlight bulb removed appears to be a quick, effective and cost efficient means of making the 1.6 cars more competitive. On a fresh Stewart motor, the header improved torque and horsepower about 3 units (range of 2-4) throughout the 4500-7000 rpm range, top-speed increased 3 mph at three different locations on the South track.  The track’s SM champion turned virtually identical lap times in the test car and his ’99.  About 10 cars are presently being converted.

 

Perhaps you mean to say that in your opinion the on-track data was insufficient or otherwise not relevant?

 

As for your advice to wait-and-see on the proposed adjustments, when is the last time you said to yourself -- I'm going to wait-and-see the result of my xyz change before I start working on other improvements to my car and myself.  I have to think someone of your caliber is always working on multiple improvements at the same time and adjusting your priorities based on any new information.

[Jason J Ball]

There was no on-track performance data to support the current changes, in fact perhaps the opposite. Factual. We made them anyway. Factual.

They changes have not taken effect. Factual. There is already demand for more changes. Factual.

Adjustments are concessions with no facts to back them up.

You can call it criticizing. I call it logical

 

History of major Rule Changes that benefited mostly the NB:

 

1) Fuel Pressure and Timing Wheel: most were parts bin matching or worse (outright cheating) to get AFR and Timing where desired. FACT

2) Plunge Cuts and Unshrouding: Standard valve job does not included any machining other than the valve seat matching, but most were plunge cutting and unshrouding. Now we have limits for these because the shops kept pushing further and further from factory. FACT

3) STR Gate: See number 2 above...

 

So in theory, you push the limits/outright cheat, get caught (lots of big names get caught) doing it and rules get changed because it would cost to much to force them back to stock. But we, the 1.6 guys,  get lambasted for asking and continuing to ask for rules adjustments, through the legal process, because we haven't supported the adjustments with reams of data to support our meager cars. We're just looking for handouts... Ok, got it.

 

"We are the NB's (the 1%'ers) and we run this class, you don't spend enough money to have a say in your rules."

 

Todd, I'm sure that's not your intent to come across like that. But, you can see how most of the guys that I know have either quite racing SM or sold the 1.6's and moved to NB's. If that is the intent of the SMAC to move us all to newer platform, then it needs to be published. NA's are no longer eligible for SM after XX,XX date. To continue to say "write letters and support it with data" is frankly BS... End rant, flame suit on! 

[Sean - MiataCage]

Todd and everyone else that is and was on the SMAC I understand the pressure and stress this has on you guys. I just want to thank you for your time and efforts and having to put up with guys like me .

I have no actual live data that I can share and I am only voicing my opinion. So I know it's not worth much but is there anyway or any place that we can see the actual data that SMAC has been using to compare with.

I think myself as well as many others would love to see that kind of info but I do not know if it's possible to share.

Again I would like to thank all of you for all the free time and effort you put into this class. I have nothing but respect for you guys and just want to say thanks

 

Thank you from all of us.......  I personally believe transparency is important and it doesn't really scare me.  We were able to get Mazda and SCCA to publish the data from the testing that was done on the 1.6L changes.  The intent was that was NOT going to be released and through conversations with Mazda they supported the idea of being transparent and showing that they took the parity issue seriously and were willing to spend some money to see what if anything we could/should do to help the 1.6L.   

 

That was in my opinion the start of the transparency and then Todd agreed to talk more about what we as the SMAC are doing which I totally respect and support.  Then Jim gave us a place on this site to post a little bit about what we are up to, so I see that we are certainly moving in the right direction and hope that it continues.

 

My concern is that Todd probably doesn't want to share much anymore ( I wouldn't blame him) because of what happens on these message forums.  We often get people second guessing things we do (without all the facts), making things personal and then we run a slippery slope of airing dirty laundry in public.  I love this site, but it has been said a few times by new people that they get scared to come into the class when they read some of the bickering that goes on here.

 

We all look at SM through a different set of glasses.  Things that I see in the NW maybe don't get seen out East.  That shouldn't mean one is right or wrong, it just means we need to take into account the entire country and the masses and what is right for the class.  I believe that the SMAC is currently made up of very passionate individuals that all have differing backgrounds and view points.  Believe it or not we even have someone who races a NA 1.8L. Thanks Brandon.  Often we don't all agree..... I think that is a very good thing as it forces more detailed discussion and in a lot of cases forces us to go out and get some data to validate what we may think is accurate.

 

So..... I for one appreciate the open and honest communication and hope that it continues as long as it can be respectful from all involved.

 

Thanks... Sean