177 replies to this topic

[Rob Burgoon]

So if we were to overlay the unrestricted 95 dyno plot vs the 99 plot, would the 95 plot be below the 99?

[Jamz14]

Guys,

I have spoken to a few of you offline. Let me breakdown my concerns.

1. I hate making cars handle worse to balance performance. I'd rather make them better to balance.

2. I hate when changes are made and we have not decided in advance what success or failure looks like before making the change. If you all told me we were going to do this and we will judge it with X specifics, then I am more inclined to try things. But being ambiguous about what success/failure is, is not scientific and bs.

3. Say you are willing to dial back the weight add all you want but unless a guarantee is given that it will be looked at in x amount of time, and with success failure criteria in place, I fear that the weight will be added and it will be a multi year process to get it removed.

4. Related to point 3: I fear this is being done to give us a bone and all everyone will want to do is consider it done and to never address it again. Leaving us stranded if it turns out to be the wrong move until 3 years of bitching compels people to address it.

5. I fear that not enough drivers of these exist back east. So you will have no one able to give you feedback that you will accept as valid.

Of all the points above, number 2 is the most important to me. Tell me you have a solid plan to readdress and how success will be specifically measured and I will happy. Tell me your winging it and ok, but promise you will wing it soon and consistently and I will be a little less fine but fine.

Like the 1.6 changes. No one has defined how it will be determined if it was too much or too little except if they start winning. But winning is about many things other than parity even though drivers never think so. We are all Dan gurney in our individual opinions.

[Johnny D]

[Tom Sager]

So if we were to overlay the unrestricted 95 dyno plot vs the 99 plot, would the 95 plot be below the 99?

Maybe someone can post one.  I don't have comparable dyno files for both cars to overlay.  Roughly speaking  (horsepower) '95 unrestricted from 5000-5800 will probably be near equal to '99, slightly above '99 from 5800-6500 and further above '99 from 6500-6850 (time to shift '95).  

[Tom Sager]

Guys,

I have spoken to a few of you offline. Let me breakdown my concerns.

1. I hate making cars handle worse to balance performance. I'd rather make them better to balance.

2. I hate when changes are made and we have not decided in advance what success or failure looks like before making the change. If you all told me we were going to do this and we will judge it with X specifics, then I am more inclined to try things. But being ambiguous about what success/failure is, is not scientific and bs.

3. Say you are willing to dial back the weight add all you want but unless a guarantee is given that it will be looked at in x amount of time, and with success failure criteria in place, I fear that the weight will be added and it will be a multi year process to get it removed.

4. Related to point 3: I fear this is being done to give us a bone and all everyone will want to do is consider it done and to never address it again. Leaving us stranded if it turns out to be the wrong move until 3 years of bitching compels people to address it.

5. I fear that not enough drivers of these exist back east. So you will have no one able to give you feedback that you will accept as valid.

Of all the points above, number 2 is the most important to me. Tell me you have a solid plan to readdress and how success will be specifically measured and I will happy. Tell me your winging it and ok, but promise you will wing it soon and consistently and I will be a little less fine but fine.

Like the 1.6 changes. No one has defined how it will be determined if it was too much or too little except if they start winning. But winning is about many things other than parity even though drivers never think so. We are all Dan gurney in our individual opinions.

SCCA is not recommending changes in a vacuum I'm sure, but write to CRB and NASA now and write later also if you feel it is necessary.

[Jamz14]

Johhny, ok. I'm done.It's not worth it to discuss with you.

[Jamz14]

Tom, I don't feel it necessary. The 97 car is my car and not my customers car.

[Jim Drago]

Jamz

this is not rocket science, I really believe you are too worried here. The car is better than it was, there is no denying that. Give it a chance.

[Rob Burgoon]

Maybe someone can post one.  I don't have comparable dyno files for both cars to overlay.  Roughly speaking  (horsepower) '95 unrestricted from 5000-5800 will probably be near equal to '99, slightly above '99 from 5800-6500 and further above '99 from 6500-6850 (time to shift '95).  

 

If that's the case, that sounds promising.  With luck the ECU will behave better too.  Now we just need a turn signal delete.

[tferranti]

This is comical...are people who own the 94-97's really complaining about these changes???

 

I raced a '94 from 2011-2014.....so....2350 and 45mm plate.  All the car needed was some top end help.  Myself, along with the 7 or so others who had the cars campaigned for the 47 plate to come back each year only to be told it was competitive as is.  Was it.....yes, I won races and ran up front with it every-time I ran my limited schedule.  Could I win against a top 99 with a top driver, not often.

 

My car was the black 51, a bear out of the turns, not so great on the top end...see around the 6 min mark.

 

As Jim said, give it a chance...if not, send me details on your car and a price.

[Tom Sager]

If that's the case, that sounds promising.  With luck the ECU will behave better too.  Now we just need a turn signal delete.

 

A/F ratio comparing plate to no plate is virtually the same so the '94-'95 is still gonna be a bit leaner in the lower RPM ranges than we'd like.  '96-'97 will still be a flatter curve but if we start bitching about that right now we'll probably get more shoes thrown at us than George Bush and Hillary Clinton.

 

[MPR22]

This is comical...are people who own the 94-97's really complaining about these changes???

 

I raced a '94 from 2011-2014.....so....2350 and 45mm plate.  All the car needed was some top end help.  Myself, along with the 7 or so others who had the cars campaigned for the 47 plate to come back each year only to be told it was competitive as is.  Was it.....yes, I won races and ran up front with it every-time I ran my limited schedule.  Could I win against a top 99 with a top driver, not often.

 

My car was the black 51, a bear out of the turns, not so great on the top end...see around the 6 min mark.

 

As Jim said, give it a chance...if not, send me details on your car and a price.

And this is exactly what they fixed.  It may suffer a little at tracks that don't flow as much and it may put more heat in the tires but it is for sure an improvement. Wish you still had your car Taylor because you would be the perfect test mule.  

[mglobe]

And this is exactly what they fixed. It may suffer a little at tracks that don't flow as much and it may put more heat in the tires but it is for sure an improvement. Wish you still had your car Taylor because you would be the perfect test mule.

I wish he still had it too. :-(

[Jim Drago]

And this is exactly what they fixed.  It may suffer a little at tracks that don't flow as much and it may put more heat in the tires but it is for sure an improvement. Wish you still had your car Taylor because you would be the perfect test mule.  

I agree Taylor you are the perfect Jack A$$

[trimless]

Yep, I will be racing my 94 next year to see how it does.  At least try it at TWS, not sure about the "other" track we have around here.

[Tom Scheifler]

This discussion sounds exactly like the 1.6 crowd complaints and nay-saying when the recent changes were announced, yet we seem to have gotten that right.

Close but not 100%. Danny stated earlier in this thread, the 1.6 still suffers from heat soak.

[Johnny D]

Coolant reroute ?

 

http://949racing.com...ute-system.aspx

 

J~

[Rob Burgoon]

Coolant reroute ?

 

http://949racing.com...ute-system.aspx

 

J~

 

What I've heard is that the only thing the reroute does is allow you to stay in the draft a little longer before the ECU gets pissed.  That and balance the temps across the head better but at our power levels we don't care much about that.

 

Someone with better first hand experience can comment further.  I think my temperature woes may have been thermostat related, I'll be doing more testing.

[Bench Racer]

Close but not 100%. Danny stated earlier in this thread, the 1.6 still suffers from heat soak.

^ 1.6 heat soak is a very interesting point.

I've read about this heat soak forever. Way back in the original JD days.

When folks say heat soak, what are you really saying? Engine temp, incoming air temp, what????

In the North West it has been stated by IIRC Bruce and maybe Sean that up that away heat soak is no longer an issue.

When we have 1.6's prepped with ambient air, does that eliminate heat soak?  Cooler air at temperature AFM temperature probe.

My 1.6 track time is not consistent enough to gain heat soak knowledge or understand what heat soak is. 

Maybe the SMAC, Danny or someone else (engine builders) could provide some data that proves heat soak is and what the end result is.

 

 

Rob, the NA engines were originally crossways in the engine bay and the thermostat was at todays rear of the engine. With the thermostat at the front of the engine it is known that the number 4 cylinder runs hotter than the number 1 cylinder.

[Danny Steyn]

Close but not 100%. Danny stated earlier in this thread, the 1.6 still suffers from heat soak.

Tom. I did not say that. I said that it appears as IF the 1.6NA still suffers from heat soak. A big IF. Waiting on data from many NA1.6 drivers but nothing received to date.