118 replies to this topic

[Jim Drago]

If we held a meeting with all of the 2015 Runoffs competitors in NB cars and offered each of them a future and permanent 15 pound weight reduction if they installed NA subframes and suspension, how many would opt to do that?  Let's throw in free parts and labor also.  How many do it?  I'd say near zero.  So what is the number where half of the NB field decides to do it?  What is the number where all want to do it? I'd say we have to get to near a 50 pound reduction before the NB majority are willing to do it.  

 

so same power and 50 lb less weight in exchange for ugly headlights and and bad front susp?

Sign me up for that plan or the 15 lbs off my car with 97 front susp. 

[Tom Sager]

so same power and 50 lb less weight in exchange for ugly headlights and and bad front susp?

Sign me up for that plan or the 15 lbs off my car with 97 front susp. 

I don't believe you would backdate your NB cars to '97 suspension in exchange for 15 pounds and be happy with the result.  You or anyone else.  

[Jamz14]

The evidence is the absolute dearth of anyone even ENTERING a 94-97 model car in Majors let alone being equivalently competitive.

The evidence is my builder only getting within 2-3HP of his best '99.

The evidence is the known disadvantage of the NA suspension relative to the NB.

The evidence is the known shorter fuel cutoff of the 94-97 ECUs.

 

I'm not the best driver in the nation, I'm not he worst driver in the conference, but I'm racing the platform that has received the least substantive analysis over the past 5 years so I'm putting my money where my mouth is in an effort to prove a point regarding support for anything.

 

I've contemplated doing the underhanded thing and moving to a modified ECU (replacement crystal soldered), getting an NB front subframe, running with a 99-00 head (at 2415 & the restrictor) solely in an effort to give folks the opportunity to state "It doesn't need anything; your results prove that." 

 

But that wouldn't be fair to myself nor those who've helped me within the club over the past 6 years and it would jeopardize my standing within this club I enjoy giving back to (driver's school instructor, RE, SMAC member) so it's not something I will be pursuing.  Yet this is approximately what I perceive is needed to absolutely put to bed the parity discussion for all 1.8s.

 

Sorry for turning this into a parity thread (yet again) - hey, at least it's not a 1.6 parity thread!

I run a 97. Never felt the need to cheat like that. I cheat other ways like removing airbag wiring, removing the speaker wires from the doors. Running my wipers lower than the stock location. You know, real cheats with real performance advantages unlike chipped ECUs.

 

If proof and evidence was as simple as what you just put forward, the 1.6 parity debate would have been settled by you guys long ago. You proved Mikes point and are also playing both sides of the fence. But I understand that. You run a NA 1.8 . And like Mike said, the key to get something changed is to get together enough people running the platform to complain. Which is a form of evidence I guess.

 

I've put forth a similar argument to yours. The evidence that the NA 1.8 needs something is that if the big boys(pun intended) aren't running a particular year then it must be disadvantaged. That didn't fly.

 

As a case study and to help us determine a clear track to bringing parity to the NA 1.8 so we can avoid the 5+ years of back and forth that happened on the 1.6, what was the clear evidence that compelled the rule changes for the 1.6? Lets fast track this effort and model the 1.6 path.

[CarbonRacer]

If the NA 1.8 is equal and doesn't need anything then I have some questions.

 

How many NA 1.8 drivers that switched to NB have slower lap times? I know plenty of drivers that have switched to NB and I guess some magic pixie dust was sprinkled on them and they run faster lap times overnight.

 

How many NA 1.8's have been on the podium against a top level NB at a Major event?

 

How many NB drivers have complained in the last few years that the NA 1.8 has to much power and can handle better than the NB and wins to many races?

 

If the NA 1.8 had a 1% advantage over the NB some top level drivers would have one in their stable but they don't.

[Ron Alan]

When we started, the NA 1.8 had just gotten hit with changes because in the right hands it was a better car than the 1.6(power to weight). This was 09? About this time the NB cars were really being developed and the natural choice given the NA 1.8 change was to move and develop the newer cars(or back to 1.6). Regionally the 1.6 car was still better than the NA1.8 in the right hands...it was only natural the NA1.8 became less and less popular. No doubt it was the complete underdog for 3-4 years. Anyone who really did their research would not buy one!

 

Now it is 50lbs lighter with the SAME restrictor and can run the 24mm front bar...than it was in 2010!! Locally I've seen it run with the best NB cars and put down just as fast times. BUT...given the 1.6 changes I'm surprised the SMAC didnt give it a little bone! 

 

Exhaust manifold welds would seem like a no-brainer to be consistent. 

Turn signal delete...I dont think this car has the same issue as the 1.6

Wrap of the box/tube...why not? Cant hurt and certainly isnt going to change things dramatically.

 

The worst thing about this car is the rev limiter at 6900. And of course this only shows up at certain tracks in which an extra shift is a disadvantage. But if this could be fixed easily it would have been done along time ago!

 

Aero...cant really do anything with this.

 

Bottom line is so few run this car its like the forgotten step child...and we do not have a DD to remind everyone we need some help. But I think the weight and restrictor change has gone a long way in making this car close again. But fact is it will never be the car of choice for a variety of reasons!  

[Danny Steyn]

The SMAC IS looking at the '94-'97 NA. However we are hoping to get some real relative data cars as the season unfolds. Will feed back when we have something sensible to report. I anyone intends campaigning a 94-97 NA at a SE Div majors event, please PM me. Thanks

[MPR22]

The SMAC IS looking at the '94-'97 NA. However we are hoping to get some real relative data cars as the season unfolds. Will feed back when we have something sensible to report. I anyone intends campaigning a 94-97 NA at a SE Div majors event, please PM me. Thanks

Danny, 

 

Have not driven a NA 1.8 but have raced Taylor and Blake in theirs.  The car's weakness seems to be at the top of 4th gear.  It just doesn't have the tq/hp to cut the wind and push through for a pass.  I would focus my data/testing on the restrictor plate sizing.  Ron Alan's car seems to be very competitive, maybe we should borrow it and use it as our test mule.   

[CarbonRacer]

I will agree with MPR22, when the NA 1.8 needs to use 4th or 5th gear it hits a wall of air.

 

A suggestion would be to pull the plate and add 25 lbs.

[CarbonRacer]

Here are the current entries for the Homestead / Sebring Majors in Florida this month.....HHHMMM

 

Homestead

99's   -   35

01's   -   15

NA 1.8 - 1

NA 1.6 - 3

 

Sebring

99's   -   41

01's   -   18

NA 1.8 - 1

NA 1.6 - 2

[Danica Davison]

Carbon,

 

Adren Hance is registered in a 1.6 but he is actually in a '99.  He registered his old car by mistake for both races. 

[CarbonRacer]

John,

 

Thanks for the correction, now the NB's have a better chance to get on the podium with one less 1.6 and only one NA 1.8 to worry about.  

[MPR22]

Here are the current entries for the Homestead / Sebring Majors in Florida this month.....HHHMMM

 

Homestead

99's   -   35

01's   -   15

NA 1.8 - 1

NA 1.6 - 3

 

Sebring

99's   -   41

01's   -   18

NA 1.8 - 1

NA 1.6 - 2

So is the NA dead? We spent countless hours haggling over improvements for the 1.6 and only 1-2 show up.  I thought they were suppose to start racing again.  I guess the CRB didn't go far enough to get the car covers off.  

[Jim Drago]

Here are the current entries for the Homestead / Sebring Majors in Florida this month.....HHHMMM
 
Homestead
99's   -   35
01's   -   15
NA 1.8 - 1
NA 1.6 - 3
 
Sebring
99's   -   41
01's   -   18
NA 1.8 - 1
NA 1.6 - 2

And this means what to you? To me it means that most of the NA guys aren't interested in spending the money it costs to run the majors.
What it doesnt mean to me is the cars have no chance or not competitive etc.

Perhaps it is time to stop spending so much time and energy on parity of cars that arent even raced in hopes that they will come out? We have been through this before and they didn't! Anyone who is willing and able to spend the money and wants to race has moved on or is racing what they have.

[Bench Racer]

To me it means that most of the NA guys aren't interested in spending the money (and away time) it costs to run the majors.

Perhaps it is time to stop spending so much time and energy on parity of cars that arent even raced in hopes that they will come out?

 

Anyone who is willing and able to spend the money and wants to race has moved on or is racing what they have.

No disagreement with your point 1.

 

Point 2, your the guy since the 1.6 bones have been thrown brining up parity and hope cars will come out.

 

Your point 3, has it ever occurred that there are plenty of 99 plus cars doing Divisional/Regional events and therefore aligning the car capability (your word would be parity )has importance to many (the Divisional/Regional entries count are IIRC 3 times the Majors entry count) of us. Much to your surprise there are Majors players doing Divisional/Regional events.

 

[Jim Drago]

Your point 3, has it ever occurred that there are plenty of 99 plus cars doing Divisional/Regional events and therefore aligning the car capability (your word would be parity )has importance to many (the Divisional/Regional entries count are IIRC 3 times the Majors entry count) of us. Much to your surprise there are Majors players doing Divisional/Regional events.
 

Wow really? Thank you for pointing that out..

Stop looking for excuses and reasons and race your cars!

[Bench Racer]

Stop looking for excuses and reasons and race your cars!

Throwing the word excuses towards me has zero value (I don't know the 1.6er's that don't race) and the only car racing around here this time of year is ice racing and I'll do that about as soon as I would Kart race on ice when I was Kart racing.

[Jim Drago]

Throwing the word excuses towards me has zero value (I don't know the 1.6er's that don't race) and the only car racing around here this time of year is ice racing and I'll do that about as soon as I would Kart race on ice when I was Kart racing.

race your cars was meant to the group, not you individualy

[Bench Racer]

 

[Danica Davison]

And since transitioning to the 99...I have been trying to convince the other 1.6 entered in the Homestead/Sebring races, Nick Soriano, to make the transition as well.  I would have been willing to spend the extra money to improve the 1.6, motor swap, or whatever the possible ruling would have been...but I figure just move to the 99 and that was the best decision I have made.  No more excuses for me which I like   

[Brandon]

I love tossing a grenade into a room and leaving.

Let's move the parity discussion out of this thread...I'll start a new one.