13 replies to this topic

[38bfast]

The CRB / SMAC what's to know what you think.

Proposal A
.
Allow intractability between listed NA and NB suspension components. i.e., NA components may be used on NB and vice versa.

Listed components:

All A-arms front and rear upper and lower.
Front spindles
Rear subframe
Rear Hub Support
(Rear uprights)

NOTE: some of these components have already been superseded by Mazda

Proposal B.
Allow intractability between listed NA and NB suspension components. i.e., NA components may be used on
NB and vice versa. This proposal may be subject to a weight penalty.

Listed components:
Front Subframe
Steering Rack and Tie Rods
Front sway bars.

[Jim Drago]

either or works for me

[chris haldeman]

Either is fine with me as well.

[Johnny D]

Your comments may take a while to post. this SMAC Forum wants approval for each post by a Moderator.

 

J~

[FTodaro]

I would support either proposal.

 

Can you propose to amend the rules to allow an NB transmission in an NA or the other way around also?

[Bench Racer]

Can you propose to amend the rules to allow an NB transmission in an NA or the other way around also?

2. Transmission/Final Drive

a. Transmission and final drive ratios must remain stock for the year of car. All cars shall only use the 5 speed transmission and the 4.3 differential ratio. Transmission gear ratios must be stock. All cars may use the stock 4.3 unmodified OEM open differential or one of the approved alternates listed below.

b. 1990 to 1993 Miatas may use the stock, unmodified viscous limited slip differential or the MAZDASPEED Motorsports Development limited slip differential, part number #QN1064-A00 (previously TOY1-27-200 & 0000-02- 5501). Alternate MAZDASPEED #0000-02-5500 limited slip differential is permitted.

c. 1994 and newer cars may use the stock limited slip (Torsen or Tochigi Fuji) differentials from 94-05 models. 4.3 gear ratio must be retained.

d. The 90-93 Miatas may convert to the 94-05 differential assembly and must retain the 4.3 differential gear ratio. This conversion includes the driveshaft and half-shafts. The original 90-93 model rear suspension uprights must be retained.

e. Lubricants may be substituted with any lubricant.

f. Updating or backdating of transmissions (inclusive of shifters) from 90-05 is permitted; OE shifters must be retained.

[Bench Racer]

Point A. The word "intractability" is used in the proposed suspension rule. Exactly what is the definition of the word "intractability" ? Is the word "interchange" to common a word to use?

 

Point B. With tin foil hat being worn and black helicopters over head, if proposal B. which consists of, front sub frame, steering rack/tie rods and front sway bars becomes rule, DO NOT REQUIRED these items to be MANDATOR implemented for future parity discussions/requests. 

[Johnny D]

Point A. The word "intractability" is used in the proposed suspension rule. Exactly what is the definition of the word "intractability" ? Is the word "interchange" to common a word to use?

 

Point B. With tin foil hat being worn and black helicopters over head, if proposal B. which consists of, front sub frame, steering rack/tie rods and front sway bars becomes rule, DO NOT REQUIRED these items to be MANDATOR implemented for future parity discussions/requests. 

 

in·trac·ta·ble  (Ä­n-trăk′tÉ™-bÉ™l)
adj.
1.
a. Difficult to manage, deal with, or change to an acceptable condition: an intractable conflict; an intractable dilemma.
b. Difficult to alleviate, remedy, or cure: intractable pain; intractable depression.
2. Difficult to persuade or keep under control, as in behavior: "Bullheaded enough when he was cold sober, he was intractable after a few drinks" (John Grisham). See Synonyms at obstinate.
3. Difficult to mold or manipulate: intractable materials.
in·trac′ta·bil′i·ty, in·trac′ta·ble·ness n.
in·trac′ta·bly adv.

[Ron Alan]

As stated above...some parts are already only available in the "NB" version. 

 

Simple supply should be driving this discussion IMO.

 

If in fact the front NB bits are deemed an "advantage" then it should be stated as a reason why not to allow! And if it is allowed and there is a vocal minority that feel they are being dealt a disservice because of budget(cant make their car better because of money), allow the NA rack to be shimmed to help with the bumpsteer...easy and cheap?  

 

The rear of the car only has one difference...the uprights project 5mm more outward per side. Yet the rules allow the track width to be the same. There is absolutely ZERO reason not to allow any year upright!

[davew]

So that the bucket of intractables can make an educated decision, I will go throughthe parts individually and show the differences and likenesses of each. If I am mistaken on something, let me know

 

Front subframes: Direct bolt in swap. Requires match design (NA versus NB) steering rack. Slightly different geometry for upper control arm mount. All year control arms will mount with no modification

 

Front lower arms: Outside of the sway bar tab being different shape, everything is interchangable. I believe the early arms are no longer available from Mazda

 

Front spindles/uprights: NB's have a thicker ball joint flange than the NA version. Must us the matching upper control arm (NA with NB and vice versa) as the ball joint length is different

 

Front upper control arms: Same geometry for all years. See above for interchange

 

Steering rack and pinion assembly: Same ratio, different mounts, but no functional difference. Easy to put NA on NB but not the other way around. Inner tie rods have different thread sizes between NA power and NB power. All year manual racks use the same inner tie rod. Outer tie rods are all the same. R-model outers are legal and interchange to all years

 

Rear subframes: Look different and use different braces. Suspension geometry is all the same. Straight bolt in, but no performance advantage.

 

Rear upper arms: All the same, all years.

 

Rear lower arms: Different sway bar tabs. Otherwise functionally the same. later ones have more internal braces. I think NA is no longer available from Mazda

 

Rear uprights: I will divide this into 3 parts:

Rear bearing: All the same

Rear hub: The part that spins with the lug studs, functionally all the same. 1.6 hubs have a small hole for wheel studs.

Cast housing: NB has moved the bearing position outward by 5mm thus creating a 10 mm wider track. They interchange otherwise.

 

Rear sway bars: All the same from Eibach

 

front sway bars: 3 sizes from Eibach. NA 1.6 is the smallest and only legal on NA 1.6 cars. NA 1.8 has the option of using its specific bar or the NA 1.6 bar. MOST (except Tom Sagar) prefer the 1.6 bar on these cars. NB cars have the largest bar and are not allowed to change to any of the other bars.

 

My personal opinion has always been to allow 100% interchangability with the exception of the front sway bar. Which should remain as it is currently written.

 

Dave

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

So that the bucket of intractables can make an educated decision, I will go throughthe parts individually and show the differences and likenesses of each. If I am mistaken on something, let me know
 
Front subframes: Direct bolt in swap. Requires match design (NA versus NB) steering rack. Slightly different geometry for upper control arm mount. All year control arms will mount with no modification
 
Front lower arms: Outside of the sway bar tab being different shape, everything is interchangable. I believe the early arms are no longer available from Mazda
 
Front spindles/uprights: NB's have a thicker ball joint flange than the NA version. Must us the matching upper control arm (NA with NB and vice versa) as the ball joint length is different
 
Front upper control arms: Same geometry for all years. See above for interchange
 
Steering rack and pinion assembly: Same ratio, different mounts, but no functional difference. Easy to put NA on NB but not the other way around. Inner tie rods have different thread sizes between NA power and NB power. All year manual racks use the same inner tie rod. Outer tie rods are all the same. R-model outers are legal and interchange to all years
 
Rear subframes: Look different and use different braces. Suspension geometry is all the same. Straight bolt in, but no performance advantage.
 
Rear upper arms: All the same, all years.
 
Rear lower arms: Different sway bar tabs. Otherwise functionally the same. later ones have more internal braces. I think NA is no longer available from Mazda
 
Rear uprights: I will divide this into 3 parts:
Rear bearing: All the same
Rear hub: The part that spins with the lug studs, functionally all the same. 1.6 hubs have a small hole for wheel studs.
Cast housing: NB has moved the bearing position outward by 5mm thus creating a 10 mm wider track. They interchange otherwise.
 
Rear sway bars: All the same from Eibach
 
front sway bars: 3 sizes from Eibach. NA 1.6 is the smallest and only legal on NA 1.6 cars. NA 1.8 has the option of using its specific bar or the NA 1.6 bar. MOST (except Tom Sagar) prefer the 1.6 bar on these cars. NB cars have the largest bar and are not allowed to change to any of the other bars.
 
My personal opinion has always been to allow 100% interchangability with the exception of the front sway bar. Which should remain as it is currently written.
 
Dave

So if I'm reading this right there is no advantage other then the wider 10mm track on the NA is this correct ?

The only reason I'm asking is why would there be a weight penalty for any of the cars if most of the parts are interchangeable and the only big diff. Is the 10mm wider track.

So how much would be gained from a 10mm wider track ?

[davew]

There is a small change to the front upper control arm geometry. This IMHO is why the NB are easier to drive at the limit. This was all approved by the SMAC many years ago (when I was still on it) but was shot down by the CRB due to a couple of very vocal 1.6 owners who came up with the idea that it would take several thou$and dollar$ to update their cars. Truth is that you could do the updates that actually make a difference for the price of 1 set of tires.

[Jim Drago]

So how much would be gained from a 10mm wider track ?

has to be 2-3 seconds a lap

you can already get to that number with spacers.. test it yourself

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

has to be 2-3 seconds a lap
you can already get to that number with spacers.. test it yourself

2-3 seconds a lap is that all ! Lol !!!!!!