1001 replies to this topic

[Jim Drago]

Oh, had another 1.6 thought, how fast Niki Coello is forgotten.

How fast? Really? I started SM at the end of 2003, he was running a NA 1.8 since at least 2004. So we need to go back 11 years? How is that remotely relevant?

[Todd Lamb]

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................

 

Were you making a point that was relevant to 2015?

 

Edit: Drago beat me to it

[davew]

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?

 

Dewey, you make our point. Niki's car was top shelf. But he has not raced anything in 3-4 years and spent the last 4 years of his career in a formula car. That makes his SM car at least 7 years old. Like Todd and Jim and I have been saying all along "Nobody has built a top shelf 1.6 in years"

 

Edit, beaten to the point by the 2 fast guys and their NB cars

[Jamz14]

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.

That is way different than if your cars violate IIDSYCYC. IIDSYCYC is not equivalent to tech shed legal. So I am clear. I am not suggesting in the least that anyones car is cheating. I am saying that top prep most probably violates IIDSYCYC. Jim has acknowledged that my example is not an issue. But my example does in fact violate IIDSYCYC. So therefore I think we are in agreement.

 

I am standing up and telling the truth to people. Top prep means being creative and ingenious. Like plunge cuts off center. I have given my opinion before and think things like that are elegant, beautiful, complex, and creative. Top builders are all of these things. Non top prep is simplistic and conforming.

 

I have zero interest in inspecting your cars for noncompliance. Why, because in my book I won't find anything!!!! You are missing my point Todd. I am trying to help those that think they can look at the rule book and think that compliance to the rule book with good components equals top prep. It doesn't IMO and I believe in yours too if people were not looking at my comments defensively.

[Bench Racer]

If one owns a SM prep shop they believe they are the only folks with capabilities to prep a top shelf car.   

[Todd Lamb]

I don't recall anyone saying that.

What we HAVE been saying is that there are no 1.6 top prep cars with top level drivers currently running against top prep NB's with top level drivers that we can use as any type of data point. I guess that is a difficult pill to swallow, because you keep introducing everything but relevant facts to the discussion. If I am mistaken about this, it would be in your best interests to set me straight. We have a SMAC call next week and that info would be useful.

[MPR22]

Oh please, please make the 1.6 an over dog so I can sell mine!!!

That is basically all I am hearing from the 1.6 die hards. They aren't interested in parity they are interested in selling their cars for a profit. If you can't light it on fire and roll it off a cliff then you shouldn't be racing it.

[Steve Scheifler]

Todd, let me first say that I believe your car and those of most other regular front runners are probably more "legal" today than ever before, maybe even entirely with respect to any meaningful and intentional modifications. Unlike years ago, I am not stating with conviction and absolute certainty that they are otherwise. But, for those of us who have been around a long time your description of a top prep car is just too familiar. It could easily have been a direct quote from the class "leader" back in the day, and we debated that definition at length. Mostly I and a couple others with some aptitude in such things scoffed at it as smoke and BS, and in turn were berated and criticized by minions who drank the coolaid, and laughed at by those "in the club". So we put a bug in the ear of national tech about shocks and cams, and were proven right. "Rampant" was the term I used and got hammered for, but they were. And then I bought several "carefully assembled" ferry dust engines and proved they were all blatant cheats. Attention to detail my ass.

So fast forward to one year ago and I suspect that most people at the front would have said pretty much the same thing you just posted with a straight face, some even believing it. And yet in a very short time there was blatant cheating found on compression from some, almost universal violation of the head rules, almost universal violation of the rules to get more camber, and a growing concern about the VVT ECU. Did I leave anything out?

After all that I would like to believe that, at least for now until Hyde takes back control, the definition of a top prep car really does include rules compliance not just visually passable, but I hope you can understand a healthy level of skepticism towards vague answers about attention to detail. That sets off all manner of alarms and red flags.

[Todd Lamb]

All I can tell you is this: I got involved in SM in 2007. During that time I've driven 40+ different SM's. All supposedly top prep cars. Only a handful were truly TOP prep, and the attention to detail showed in lap times. The other 30+ had bad shocks, clunky transmissions, cooling issues, safety issues, setup issues, suspension bind etc. So you'll have to excuse my (and many others) skepticism that a top prep car is really that. The odds are not in favor of a car being top prep, and none of that has anything to do with what the rule book says.

I stand by what my point is, staying on subject instead of veering to the right. Until we can compare apples to apples, the discussion is meaningless. Can anyone honestly say they have prepped a 1.6 to the level of Bennett and Buras and run it at a Majors level against top prep NB's? This is what we need to make informed decisions.

[FTodaro]

Another factor to Add to  what i consider "top Prep" its not just the prep at the shop but its the attention to detail at the track.  How many guys bring their own scales and pads to the track and are checking cross wt and toe between every session?

 

That is the type of attention to detail that gets the last 200 to 500. of a second on the track.

[LarryKing]

Bennett had a top prep 1.6 and he was also one of the first people to throw in the towel on the 1.6 (although he has since said he wishes he kept it)

[Todd Lamb]

His 99 wasn't any faster (with the ruleset in 2008). So "throwing in the towel" isn't quite an accurate statement, nor is "one of the first". He thought the grass was greener in the 99 pasture.

[Steve Scheifler]

Todd, understood and I largely agree, which is why I'm still on the fence about parity even though we run 1.6s. Just trying to explain why some bristle at vague references to "top prep" and ask for specifics. After all, if you don't define it how can we judge whether any exist in the wild?

[Tom Hampton]

Dave w gave his definition several weeks ago. I'll see if I can find it.

[38bfast]

I prepped Justin Hille's 1.6. It was prepped to win and pass tech. At mid o that car was the one to beat. The car was a rocket ship. It fell to its demise, a wall that jumped out in front of it. Then Justin pushed the easy button and replaced it with a 99 knowing how much it took to keep that 1.6 at the pointy end (time and money). It was pure financial and time resources that moved him away from the 1.6 not performance.

[Bruce Wilson]

All I can tell you is this: I got involved in SM in 2007. During that time I've driven 40+ different SM's. All supposedly top prep cars. Only a handful were truly TOP prep, and the attention to detail showed in lap times. The other 30+ had bad shocks, clunky transmissions, cooling issues, safety issues, setup issues, suspension bind etc. So you'll have to excuse my (and many others) skepticism that a top prep car is really that. The odds are not in favor of a car being top prep, and none of that has anything to do with what the rule book says.

I stand by what my point is, staying on subject instead of veering to the right. Until we can compare apples to apples, the discussion is meaningless. Can anyone honestly say they have prepped a 1.6 to the level of Bennett and Buras and run it at a Majors level against top prep NB's? This is what we need to make informed decisions.

Yes, 2 or 3 of those cars in the NW.  Not sure why nobody wants to believe that. LOTS of dyno time, best of everything, many parts replaced every year.  testing testing testing of everything prepped before every race, 1-2 new sets of tires per weekend, drivers with divisional titles, and wins going all the way back to Pro SM days, blah blah.  Those guys built 99s to race last year because they felt they needed them for Laguna.  They did okay considering they only had one year to learn and develop their 99s.  They've been racing their 1.6s this year because they love them and wanted to have fun after a disastrous '15

[Todd Green]

What we HAVE been saying is that there are no 1.6 top prep cars with top level drivers currently running against top prep NB's with top level drivers that we can use as any type of data point. I guess

 

Doesn't that answer your question right there?  Are you also surprised when no one brings a knife to a gun fight?  It is pretty clear the 1.6 isn't as good a car to race as the 99 or VVT cars (Yes it can turn a lap.  That isn't the same as racing for 30-45 mins.)  People at the top of this sport aren't stupid.  They have access to all the cars and clearly have not opted for the 1.6.  Sure some haven't because they can't make minimum weight.  Some just want to race what everyone else is racing.  Some think they are fairly equal, but the newer cars are just easier to maintain, etc.  But the fact that you can't find a single car should be telling you something.

 

I'll still argue the question isn't if they need something, but should we give them something.  Anyone who has raced at the top level knows that the cost of the car is soon dwarfed by the operating expenses.  (Assuming you aren't crashing every race etc.)  Do we really think that droves of 1.6's are going to come out of the woodwork and contest Majors/Runoffs because they got to pop a turn signal light out, or add a header/flywheel.  I'm very doubtful.   The only way your going to see a resurgence of 1.6's is to make it the COTY.  I'd love to be proven wrong and see attendance sky rocket.  Won't hold my breath though.

 

Jamz - You picked the wrong class.  The idea behind "Spec" is that everyone has the same equipment and it comes down to the driver (of course the world isn't idyllic so this never truly happens).  There are tons of other classes that are meant for you to engineer your way around the rule book.

[Todd Lamb]

I don't personally buy into the theory that just because there aren't 1.6's running well attended Majors events means that they aren't competitive. There is no actual data to back that up, yet there are plenty of valid reasons not to be running a 1.6 and you mention a few of them.

I do agree 100% that no matter what the rules, it is unlikely a bunch of 1.6's are going to come out of retirement (or that values will rise). I would venture to say that very few of the 1.6 owners will even implement any potential rule changes within the first 6 months (especially if they are internal to the engine). If they're not on the scales and dyno every week, why would they even worry about a few extra hp/tq from a rule change?

The chance of any car being a Car Of The Year from this point forward is very slim because those that made the current ruleset did a good job with parity adjustments. I don't think making the 1.6 or any other years a clear favorite would be good for the class.

[Bruce Wilson]

I would approximate that 80% of NW 1.6 drivers are running pro motors and all the latest goodies.  I would guess a very large majority of them would make any upgrade to a new rule package.  Back yard Spec Miata builds left us a few years ago.  Ron, would you agree for SFR cars?

[Johnny D]

Bruce are you guys running the over bore with the weight ??

J~