268 replies to this topic

[Jim Drago]

Low 2.14's for NB's..  All day long.    Have not been able to locate a time with a 1.6 anywhere close to that.. In fact... can't find anything faster than a 2.16..  Now..  I don't have the vast decades of experience you have and data...  Where am I wrong?

I have been doing this a loooong time.. Too long actually.   

 

What does that mean? Exactly NOTHING!    The same exact car at VIR can and has done 3-4 second different in time at VIr depending on conditions?  What 1.6 car/driver has been to VIR capable of running top times? 

 

If you believe your case.. I suggest you get facts and data.. real stuff. Not what you are presenting here..  What you are saying is equivalent to no red pink and blue car has run X time at X track?    

 

SMAC/CRB has data from Sutherlands 1.6 from portland and I believe the Runoffs.( Fairly certain that it has been studied already by CRB and/or SMAC) That is what you need to focus on. If you want changes, start there. I can promise you. Any letter you send to SMAC that claims you are two seconds off the pace will be laughed at and not taken seriously and they will move to the next topic. Have real data, make a good case and submit a letter. Stating what you have here, IMHO will be a complete waste of your time.  Not making fun, not saying I even disagree.. Just sharing  8-9 years of experience of being on these committees

[Pat Mcg]

Talking about VIR here..  Where the runoffs are planned..   Also... SO I am clear.  You believe the 1.6 is settled and the benefits gained by the turn signal and wrap leveled the playing field and enables this car to be competitive at a Majors or higher event? 

[gerglmuff2]

1.6 driver here. 

i think the problem is more complex than "give the 1.6 more power" 

what about adding some drag to the NBs? to me that seems to be the problem, long straights, where the NB is a bit more slippery. out of corners the 1.6's weight makes up for the lack of power pretty well, and if you add more power the 1.6s they will have a distinct advantage there over the NBs. if you add power you gotta add weight in order to keep the corner exits similar. the 1.6 falls on its face compared to the NBs on the long straights, where drag is the issue. so add some drag to the NB, or remove some drag from the 1.6s. let us cut the rear bumper, or make the NBs run something to add drag. 

[38bfast]

You do know that a 1.6 was on pole for the runoffs this year. 

[Jim Drago]

Talking about VIR here..  Where the runoffs are planned..   Also... SO I am clear.  You believe the 1.6 is settled and the benefits gained by the turn signal and wrap leveled the playing field and enables this car to be competitive at a Majors or higher event? 

Another problem for you..  SMAC/CRB will NEVER base a competition adjustment on one track, even when the runoffs go there. It is not the way it works. 

 

My opinion really doesn't matter, but since you asked, I will give it.

While not perfect., the rules are very close right now. A well built and driven 1.6 car has a clear advantage at some tracks, slight disadvantage at some, it is "competitive" at all.  It has won super tour races, it was on pole for the Runoffs. It will be a VERY hard case to convince me ( or SMAC,CRB or NASA) that the car is at such a disadvantage that it needs help.  The same facts you use to help your case actually can hurt it as well. Look at the number of NB cars versus NA cars competing in Super tours..  Just by pure numbers if all were dead even the 1.6 results are far better represented than they should be.   If you are looking for significant help, its not coming. Personally, I would be shocked if anything changes. 

 

Kohler has very good data and done lap time simulations with both cars and still has the 1.6 and not the 99. I believe he felt the 1.6 cars were equal or slightly better and the  99 would sell better, so he kept the 1.6. He can share with you as well. I also think you are aware that Hille was faster in a 1.6 around mid Ohio than his 99 that he won the national championship with.   It will never be perfect, but I think the powers that be believe they have it pretty dam close.

[Danica Davison]

1.6 cars to the pit of misery!!!!

[LarryKing]

 

You do know that a 1.6 was on pole for the runoffs this year. 

… and finished 19 seconds down to the winner

[Pat Mcg]

Haha... 19 seconds... like a lifetime in SM...  

 

Dang Jim..  Thought this was a forum for discussion.. Not the actual Board?   Just throwing out my 2 cents in an open forum is all.. 

 

Look...  I am not saying I don't appreciate the help from a couple of years ago..   BUT  There is little evidence the help provided any equalization on BOP. 

 

If there was any chance in hell a 1.6 could win.. and not at just a single track..   Jim and many others would build and race it..  That in itself should tell you more is needed if you want to keep these cars in the race.. 

 

Hey.. I am fine if you want to kick them out also..  NP..  Make an official date where they are no longer going to have the ability to run in Majors.. But..  if we are going to include them..  the discussion needs to open back up..  IMO.

[Martinracing98]

… and finished 19 seconds down to the winner

 

I think with 2 laps to go he was in 3rd and then made contact  with someone.  So I am not sure 19 seconds is an accurate indicator. 

[Steve Scheifler]

Neither the pole nor the final gap were entirely representative of the car’s potential. The simple and obvious fact remains, there are too few in capable hands for getting much usable data from results. Not entirely unlike any discussion of ladies in motorsports.

[Jim Drago]

Haha... 19 seconds... like a lifetime in SM...  

 

Dang Jim..  Thought this was a forum for discussion.. Not the actual Board?   Just throwing out my 2 cents in an open forum is all.. 

 

Look...  I am not saying I don't appreciate the help from a couple of years ago..   BUT  There is little evidence the help provided any equalization on BOP. 

 

If there was any chance in hell a 1.6 could win.. and not at just a single track..   Jim and many others would build and race it..  That in itself should tell you more is needed if you want to keep these cars in the race.. 

 

Hey.. I am fine if you want to kick them out also..  NP..  Make an official date where they are no longer going to have the ability to run in Majors.. But..  if we are going to include them..  the discussion needs to open back up..  IMO.

haha  18 seconds was the closest 99/00 in third place..  and 19 seconds ahead of last years Champion in a really good VVT ... An eternity in Sm.. ( once again, you see how that Cherry picking isn't working for you    )

 

 

I'm just offering my experience of what you "could"  or "should " do. if you feel strongly about your opinions. We can talk all day here and I can continue to tell you why your opinions are wrong and mine are right It is the off season

 

Jim would never build a 1.6 unless he got his fat ass down 100 lbs.   And you are again incorrect in your assumption . Jim and others have cars that we know can win and have a lot of money invested. Why would we build a 1.6 car? The ONLY way we build a 1.6 car is if it is at a CLEAR overdog status.  IMO it is not there. I think many believe it is or really close.   But if we are looking for "parity", no front runner with a very good NB car is going to blow 30k plus on a car just for fun.  

[Ron Alan]

Haha... 19 seconds... like a lifetime in SM...  

 

Dang Jim..  Thought this was a forum for discussion.. Not the actual Board?   Just throwing out my 2 cents in an open forum is all.. 

 

Look...  I am not saying I don't appreciate the help from a couple of years ago..   BUT  There is little evidence the help provided any equalization on BOP. 

 

If there was any chance in hell a 1.6 could win.. and not at just a single track..   Jim and many others would build and race it..  That in itself should tell you more is needed if you want to keep these cars in the race.. 

 

Hey.. I am fine if you want to kick them out also..  NP..  Make an official date where they are no longer going to have the ability to run in Majors.. But..  if we are going to include them..  the discussion needs to open back up..  IMO.

The west coast still has many decent donor survivors...one reason the car out here still gets built. But this is about the only reason! And the reality is the adjustments 3 years ago DID help and DID keep the cars around! In capable hands the car is every bit a weapon at most west coast tracks! That said...as an owner of 3 NA cars...time marches on! We can certainly build new motors and trannies that are fresh...but 21-28 year old wiring gets replaced with what...another similar age harness? IMO...this is the biggest negative to any of the old cars...this stuff is just failing...and it is very difficult to chase these issues.

 

  Long before I'd start arguing parity I'd start looking at separate classes! But for all NA owners who think their cars aren't measuring up...I say this...look at your power, set up, then hire a coach!

 

If a car was guaranteed to win it would be an overdog...and that is a lose lose for all. The reality is a good car(any year) and driver can win at most tracks...their are exceptions and this all have to live with. The early cars are sticking around because they can be picked up reasonable...but rarely are they being built by a top guy. Hence rarely are they winning! Why would any top guy build a "new" older car that is equal? This speaks to the statement I bolded in red above...which by the way shows the posters inability to understand this class! 

[OrangeCrush86]

Since we are off season bench racing I'll just leave this here.

 

If you want to be competitive in a 1.6 make the prep shops run in their own class. A one man show with a $7500 NA car is never going to compete with an unlimited budget prep shop that can pool data from a half dozen cars every weekend.

[Tim Wright]

Haha... 19 seconds... like a lifetime in SM...  

 

Jim, Ron, 

 

You guys have me opening a beer and sitting down with my feet up for this one. Explaining things factually is not the goal of the troll here. (this thread IS 3 years old, no?)

[LarryKing]

"Explaining things factually is not the goal of the troll here."

Apparently calling people names because they have an opinion is a goal.

[Bench Racer]

We can certainly build new motors and trannies that are fresh...but 21-28 year old wiring gets replaced with what...another similar age harness? IMO...this is the biggest negative to any of the old cars...this stuff is just failing...and it is very difficult to chase these issues.

Ron, I hear what your saying for the NA cars. After the wiring failure is found, what are the different actual failures and how many are self imposed?

[LarryKing]

One troll's opinion: a "top prep" 1.6 with a "top" driver will never beat an equally prepped and driven NB at VIR. The torque deficit is too great. The parity ship has sailed, the fat lady sang, the horse is dead, I'm over it. Please can we cut the crap that a 1.6 has a chance?

[gerglmuff2]

this thread is a lovely history lesson for a newbie like myself ... that folks in NB cars have been telling the 1.6ers they have plenty of car, when we know for a fact, they didn't have a competitive car for years. 

don't get me wrong, i do think the 1.6 has some competitive chops again (thanks SMAC), but the message of "parity is fine" was shouting down everyone else, even when parity wasn't fine. that should lead to at least a little self reflection on the part of those shouting "parity is fine" today too. 

I think we should really take a look at where the 1.6 competes, and where its steamrollered. competes: PIR, blackhawk, sonoma ... all tracks that don't have long straights. look at where the 1.6 gets steamrollered: daytona, road america etc etc all tracks with long straights. 

i would love for example to see advanced run there 1.6 v 99 test at road america, not blackhawk and see what happens. blackhawk is about as 1.6 friendly a course as i could think of and i 100% believe the 1.6 can compete there. but at road america it will be eaten alive. 

[Bench Racer]

Information only, nothing more, nothing less. Todd Buras (not your everyday SM driver) did win the 2012 June Sprints in a 1.6. From the cheap seat watching the video, the car with Todd could hang with the 99 plus cars but couldn't pass as they passed him a time or two. That was before the bones were thrown to the 1.6...………………………... 

[speedengineer]

I owned a 1.6 and a 99.  Both good cars.  My 1.6 is equally competitive as NB cars at most tracks near me.  It might be more competitive at certain tracks, at least in qualifying.  My lap simulation suggested a 0.3 second advantage over 99 cars at Sonoma.  However, I suspect the 1.6 is not so competitive at high speed tracks.

Consider car entries for these 2018 events:
Sonoma Runoffs:  29% of entries were 1.6

Mid-Ohio HST:  14% of entries were 1.6
Road America June Sprints:  2% of entries were 1.6

 

 

This discrepancy is partly because more 1.6 cars exist on west coast, but I'd wager also because everybody knows the 1.6 will suck at Road America and does well at Sonoma, Mid-Ohio. 


Still, there is no way the 1.6 is 2 seconds off at VIR.  That said, the car doesn't have to be 2 seconds off to race terribly.  If a car is a little sluggish above 100mph on the straights, it'll lose a spot to the draft about every lap, and never be able to draft any positions back. 

 

 

Not sure anything should be done about it.  Not an easy issue to resolve.  An option if someone doesn't like the parity is to buy a different car.  America is the land of the free, and you're free to race which ever year spec miata you choose.