166 replies to this topic

[Jamz14]

^^^ Agreed.

[Jim Drago]

Brandon, on 01 Mar 2017 - 12:53 PM, said:

"Identical spec" == everyone running as close to identical hardware as possible minus aerodynamic differences.

 

Permit the 90-93 to update to all NB1 running gear (subframes, rear uprights, engine, differential, brakes, dash) + 38mm plate.

Permit the 94-97 to update to all NB1 running gear (subframes, rear uprights, engine) + 38mm plate.

 

To the best of my knowledge, there's not a performance difference in the 1.8 blocks to require a full engine swap so allowing the 94-97 to merely drop on a NB1 head + manifolds in lieu of the full engine would be the only variation.

 

It essentially is moving things in that way with the suggestion of NA8 w/o plate and the WDYT posted a month or so ago about the subframes/uprights.

 

Thank You For Your Input!!!

 

x2

[Brandon]

Why would you change anything on your car Brandon? I think you have the best running gear in the country for a 96. Especially as it hasn't been optimized or tuned in any way.

 

That's incorrect - it's been tuned to what the builder thinks is effective.  As part of the build he had access to 3 computers, 2 exhaust manifolds, and then moved from the "shop special" exhaust to a Springfield Dyno one (which consistently produced another 1.5HP per my builder).  With the plate there wasn't enough incentive to pursue the intake side (as I understood him).

 

Now absent the restrictor I'm collecting intake manifolds and any other untested computers (currently have one more and a spare intake; looking for more) and will be making a trip to him in April.

 

This is the same guy that does my setups too (don't have scales or a "known good location" to do them).

 

I can't claim to have the best prepped NA8 in the area (NE) but it is prepared to the limits of what I am capable of achieving (solo racer, no shop, do all mechanical stuff myself).

It has returned a regional championship in 2015 and a number of "near podiums" at NE Majors in 2016 with a driver-induced pathetic showing at the Runoffs (DFL - "last one running").

[Jamz14]

My mistake Brandon. I misinterpreted this statement from you:
"IOW, my NA8 was making the most power he's ever made on a "current rules" build for that model, without tuning and performing any further parts binning of manifolds."

[Brandon]

My mistake Brandon. I misinterpreted this statement from you:
"IOW, my NA8 was making the most power he's ever made on a "current rules" build for that model, without tuning and performing any further parts binning of manifolds."

 

Apologies, I should have been more clear myself.  The "without tuning" was in reference to the no-plate state or any other components being optimized in that configuration.

 

Built new motor to 2015 specs (47mm plate), optimized everything to the hard parts I had (manifolds, FPR, ECU...); did dyno pull, "best result as configured" observed.

Removed plate; did dyno pull, "not best result as configured" observed (was running too lean; loss of low-end torque I think).

 

Now without the plate, he's indicated to generate the best power output, I need to begin gathering up different intake manifolds in addition to the other pieces available for tuning (FPR, ECU).  His point was with the restrictor the intake manifold was not the bottleneck so now it becomes another component subject tuning/testing for the best result.

[Rob Burgoon]

I think I gotta give some credit to whoever had the idea to run the NA 1.8 at least temporarily at 2400. It's neat to see and try and measure the difference in suspension geometry on the track.  At the same weight, we have a much better shot of observing that (given similar shocks and ride heights of course).

[Tom Sager]

I think I gotta give some credit to whoever had the idea to run the NA 1.8 at least temporarily at 2400. It's neat to see and try and measure the difference in suspension geometry on the track.  At the same weight, we have a much better shot of observing that (given similar shocks and ride heights of course).

Rob, when will be your first opportunity to try the big power big weight config and at what track? 

[Rob Burgoon]

Rob, when will be your first opportunity to try the big power big weight config and at what track? 

 

Willow Springs on the 18th.  However, the last time I took the car out (NASA champs) I was having substantial power issues due to heat.  I've replaced the radiator and will be trying a different thermostat, but I don't know how much of a car I'll be bringing to that race.  I also will likely be retuning the fuel reg on an access road, not a dyno.

 

Soooo..... I'm not sure any data of mine from that race will be worth anything, but we'll see.  I should have video.

[Tom Sager]

Willow Springs on the 18th.  However, the last time I took the car out (NASA champs) I was having substantial power issues due to heat.  I've replaced the radiator and will be trying a different thermostat, but I don't know how much of a car I'll be bringing to that race.  I also will likely be retuning the fuel reg on an access road, not a dyno.

 

Soooo..... I'm not sure any data of mine from that race will be worth anything, but we'll see.  I should have video.

 

Doesn't look like it'll be terribly hot weather there then.  From my experience and if I may make a suggestion - run with no T-stat.  That and a good radiator (assuming no other unknown cooling issues) should mean the car will run under 180 degrees in 70 - 75 degree weather outside of draft.  If you are committed to running a thermostat, get a 160 degree unit and drill a 1/8 inch hole in the flat portion (or 2 of those holes).  NAPA sells a 160 degree T-stat that fits, I don't have the part number handy but it was pretty easy to find with a little help from the counter guy at a store. 

[Rob Burgoon]

I had been using the OEM t-stat, so I'm sure having changed to a 160 will be a big change on its own.

 

I don't think I'll be overheating at willow springs, but just not sure what sort of shape the engine is in. We'll see.

[RazerX]

Just another perspective.   I have a few fellow racers where happy about the extra weight given their mid sections, this gave their cars some viability.  I think when thinking of the health of the SM class, sometimes what is 'easier' for the 90% of racers not on this forum or in the front this could be healthy.  Not taking away from the discussion here or what is fair, some something I heard recently. 

[Jamz14]

Just another perspective.   I have a few fellow racers where happy about the extra weight given their mid sections, this gave their cars some viability.  I think when thinking of the health of the SM class, sometimes what is 'easier' for the 90% of racers not on this forum or in the front this could be healthy.  Not taking away from the discussion here or what is fair, some something I heard recently.

I respect what you are saying and your intent but I disagree. Anything done that isn't designed for attracting top drivers and builders will ultimately be harmful for the future of that year. I think it is in the best interest of the 90% having the 10% driving development. If not, that particular year begins its life of obscurity and stagnation. This whöle conversation has me agreeing with drago; future builds will only be late model builds where the 10% are rigorously driving development and where ultimately the fastest cars will always be on average.

[Rob Burgoon]

This whöle conversation has me agreeing with drago; future builds will only be late model builds where the 10% are rigorously driving development and where ultimately the fastest cars will always be on average.

 

Is that like my idea to simply declare a car to be "the competitive car" and be done with parity discussion for decades?

[Jamz14]

Rob,

No. I'm not calling for the end of early models. I'm saying aggressively spec early models to the point top people consider them. That is good for the front and the middle and the back of the pack. And because the above is not true, swimming against the current to change the current is time consuming and expensive. Both of which are counterproductive to winning today. And because I want my 99 car winning, I choose the latter strategy and I believe that is why the vast majority of top drivers and builders have chosen the later strategy.

Should have removed the plate, left the weight and see how many people really build a NA 1.8 if it was the over dog it was thought to be in that config. Based on the one accepted as valid race result, would being 50 lbs lighter have dramatically changed the buras car? Would it have made it an overdog? No, imo.

[Tom Sager]

I had been using the OEM t-stat, so I'm sure having changed to a 160 will be a big change on its own.

 

I don't think I'll be overheating at willow springs, but just not sure what sort of shape the engine is in. We'll see.

Hope it goes well and that your engine is still healthy.

[Tom Sager]

Rob,

No. I'm not calling for the end of early models. I'm saying aggressively spec early models to the point top people consider them. That is good for the front and the middle and the back of the pack. And because the above is not true, swimming against the current to change the current is time consuming and expensive. Both of which are counterproductive to winning today. And because I want my 99 car winning, I choose the latter strategy and I believe that is why the vast majority of top drivers and builders have chosen the later strategy.

Should have removed the plate, left the weight and see how many people really build a NA 1.8 if it was the over dog it was thought to be in that config. Based on the one accepted as valid race result, would being 50 lbs lighter have dramatically changed the buras car? Would it have made it an overdog? No, imo.

 

50 pounds is A LOT in our class.  If at any competitive SM race half the field were randomly permitted to run 50 pounds lighter, the results of that race would be very different than otherwise IMO.  A few tenths of a second a lap x 20+ laps is a lot of distance at the end of the race. 

 

All NA's IMO should run lighter than NB's due to suspension differences but given = power that difference should be less than the 50-75 pound split we had between NA8 and NB last year (assuming = power).   

[Jamz14]

Tom, 50 lbs is a lot. I wouldn't be suggesting it taken off if SCCA didn't add on "A LOT". It doesn't matter how the entire race field would be different if 50 lbs were removed (not from half the field or random cars, but OUR cars, NA 1.8 cars). It only matters how a top driver finishes that is respected by people that make the decision. I am suggesting that Buras' finishing position would have been the same 50 lbs lighter.

 

But this highlights what I have been saying. That no one knows exactly what success looks like. No one has described it. No one has said we are going to look at these cars at these places for these results to know if we did the right thing. I'd quietly sit back and remain open minded about it if someone would describe these things. Like Carnac the Magnificent, I predict that 2375 will be adopted this year, there will be no other changes for the car, and that will be the last we hear of it. OH, and there will be no difference in the average finishing order or number of NA 1.8 built. Can I say this because I am omnipotent or some driving genius? No. I can say it because it has been predetermined that this is where it is going to go. There is no objective plan. Why is asking for an objective to plan to critique the adjustment so crazy?

[Bench Racer]

I am suggesting that Buras' finishing position would have been the same 50 lbs lighter.

If your referencing the 2012 June Sprints, you are absolutely correct, he finished first. But if Todd could have weighed 50 pounds less AND could make that weight, during the race I'd suggest he could have advanced further up than 5th place (position most of the race other than a gift here and there). He'd have braked deeper and come off the corners with more authority.

[Rob Burgoon]

Hey James, you talking about Bolanos or Buras?

[Jamz14]

Sorry guys. Referring to Bolanos not Buras.