72 replies to this topic

[EMatoy]

dunno if this a joke, but the fastest 200tw are nearly equal in cost and likely have less competitive heat cycles. https://www.tirerack...052XL&tab=Sizes

a052 is 152 a tire, rr is 190

I pay less than $100 for RE71’s. So far has proven to be the fastest 200 TW tire.

[Ron Alan]

Whats the big deal about the tires?  

Are 200 tw tires going to offer more heat cycles than a Toyo RR?

Uhggg...keep up

 

Few years back when we did a 10hr Trec enduro with NASA...I hunted around for 200tw tires. Prices ranged from $100-$160 per tire. Availability at the time was another hurdle as well as size! In the end, I think I saw 4 or 5 different tires being used in the race by teams...no one I'm aware of changed tires...maybe rotated...all lasted. 

 

Lucky Dog out west is sponsored by Hankook. On a Miata the required tire lasts the weekend no problem...thats 15hrs. But take that comment with a grain of salt...pace eats tires...put 2/3/4 top level SM drivers in these cars going 10/10ths(they say they are at 9/10ths ) and my statement gets tossed!

 

Another example...4 top drivers in a 25hr Miata I couldn't hold back...5 sets of tires(RR) to complete race. 4 drivers out to have a great time in the same race spinning laps 4-5 seconds off the fast car...2 1/2 sets of tires(RR) to finish!

 

200tw tires on average are doing 2 heat cycles

[gerglmuff2]

I pay less than $100 for RE71’s. So far has proven to be the fastest 200 TW tire.

 

hell of a deal. and i personally love the re71r, but that isn't a general public price. general public price was i think 140ish? 

the a052 is faster over one lap too. maybe not over the length of a race, but they are quicker for sure. 

[Bench Racer]

James, have you ever had a top (best driver at the track) of the Spec Miata class race your car? Is it your series of "if I could have" that's keeping you from wining, is it the car setup, OR is it the spacer between the seat and steering wheel? Where does your car finish compared to other NB cars and where does it finish compared to 99 plus cars? Use your best track as an example.

[Jim Drago]

Tell me why solid lifters for the na 1.8 head is contrary to the spirit of the class? Present me with something sound and why this simple thing shouldn't be considered and I'll drop it.
 

This statement alone is why you will never get it.. 

[EMatoy]

hell of a deal. and i personally love the re71r, but that isn't a general public price. general public price was i think 140ish?

the a052 is faster over one lap too. maybe not over the length of a race, but they are quicker for sure.

Actually it is a general public price at the right store. Walk in say I want to buy 4 sets. That’s what you get. Online stores are not always the cheapest.

[Tom Sager]

True, arguing with me is pointless. I thought the spirit of the class was to keep costs low ( aftermarket valves when oem backordered) keep car counts high and people racing ( VALVES ), racing cars that are competitive with each other ( solid lifters so the car hangs in there with what it has till the end and no I controlled variable valve lift, shims ).

What I ask for is crazy but you guys putting in place na's with nb uprights, intake plenum changes, etc, etc, well that's so much different and very good for the class.

Of course I argue for my gear and not yours. You do that well enough. You guys are the ones that told me that it is the owners of those years that have to do the arguing for it. And Bench has shown me the way on how persistence in message pays off.

Tell me why solid lifters for the na 1.8 head is contrary to the spirit of the class? Present me with something sound and why this simple thing shouldn't be considered and I'll drop it.

Na 1.8 guys, why should we not get the same max lift from our spec cams as the 99/00 get? The max lift numbers for our cars is a joke if you cant achieve throughout the session.

Just one comment on lifters.  I don't know to what extent they "squish" when hot if even at all.  Hard thing to measure.  I will say this.  Years ago I used some very lightweight oils in my '95 meaning under 35PSI oil pressure hot.  On the dyno, you can get a small gain with lighter oil.  After running the car for a season or so with the lighter oil I would hear tickity tick when pulling into the paddock hot after a session or race on a hot day.  In recent years I've used a heavier oil and targeted 42-45PSI hot and I don't hear the tick.  This is not proof of less or no lifter "squish" but it seems like it's having a positive effect.  Might cost 1HP on the dyno but seems like a good tradeoff. 

[Steve Scheifler]

Just one comment on lifters. I don't know to what extent they "squish" when hot if even at all. Hard thing to measure. I will say this. Years ago I used some very lightweight oils in my '95 meaning under 35PSI oil pressure hot. On the dyno, you can get a small gain with lighter oil. After running the car for a season or so with the lighter oil I would hear tickity tick when pulling into the paddock hot after a session or race on a hot day. In recent years I've used a heavier oil and targeted 42-45PSI hot and I don't hear the tick. This is not proof of less or no lifter "squish" but it seems like it's having a positive effect. Might cost 1HP on the dyno but seems like a good tradeoff.

Measured and confirmed on a 1.6, too little oil viscosity costs power due to reduced lift, potentially quite a lot. First time we overdid it at Blackhawk my shift points kept moving further up the straight on the test day, and yes the ticking was loud after the session. Someone ran out for a pint of STP to thicken it up and we did an oil change that evening. Later we did some tests on the dyno and as I recall we lost about 7hp.

[Steve Scheifler]

IMNSHO people are being too hard on James. I don’t agree with everything he said above but I understand the sentiment and would certainly like things to work more the way he describes them. My long standing peeve in his list is the valve spring shims which 100% absolutely WERE allowed by the rules on the 1.6 by virtue of being explicitly prescribed as a routine maintenance/adjustment method in the factory service manual. The fact that one builder EXCEEDED the prescribed degree of shimming as PART of a technique to make more power was NEVER a good enough excuse to ban them entirely. It was a LAZY and stupid solution. Like I said, pet peeve.

The problem with some things like valves, pistons, rings etc. is that there really is potential for making tiny gains by sourcing just the right aftermarket parts. So while I groan or worse when ordering parts from Mazda that even with our discount cost far more than comparable aftermarket (and sometimes identical to what Mazda sells repackaged as OEM), as long as a car is eligible for the Runoffs in such a competitive class, I just don’t see a good alternative. Except for the FSM specified valve spring shims, that’s still totals BS!

[Jim Drago]

Just one comment on lifters.  I don't know to what extent they "squish" when hot if even at all.  Hard thing to measure.  I will say this.  Years ago I used some very lightweight oils in my '95 meaning under 35PSI oil pressure hot.  On the dyno, you can get a small gain with lighter oil.  After running the car for a season or so with the lighter oil I would hear tickity tick when pulling into the paddock hot after a session or race on a hot day.  In recent years I've used a heavier oil and targeted 42-45PSI hot and I don't hear the tick.  This is not proof of less or no lifter "squish" but it seems like it's having a positive effect.  Might cost 1HP on the dyno but seems like a good tradeoff. 

ding ding.. and any "gain" from solid lifters is 99.9% mental. Unless running some stupid ultra light weight oil

[Jim Drago]

IMNSHO people are being too hard on James. I don’t agree with everything he said above but I understand the sentiment and would certainly like things to work more the way he describes them. My long standing peeve in his list is the valve spring shims which 100% absolutely WERE allowed by the rules on the 1.6 by virtue of being explicitly prescribed as a routine maintenance/adjustment method in the factory service manual. The fact that one builder EXCEEDED the prescribed degree of shimming as PART of a technique to make more power was NEVER a good enough excuse to ban them entirely. It was a LAZY and stupid solution. Like I said, pet peeve.

The problem with some things like valves, pistons, rings etc. is that there really is potential for making tiny gains by sourcing just the right aftermarket parts. So while I groan or worse when ordering parts from Mazda that even with our discount cost far more than comparable aftermarket (and sometimes identical to what Mazda sells repackaged as OEM), as long as a car is eligible for the Runoffs in such a competitive class, I just don’t see a good alternative. Except for the FSM specified valve spring shims, that’s still totals BS!

Well, hard is probably not the right word   I know James well, love James to death.. but realize its a waste of time typing anything that does not agree or support his opinion    Also when he asked for lifters for the 1.8 and apparently the same lifters aren't a problem in the 1.6 , it makes me think just a little that perhaps someone has a selfish agenda  

[Jamz14]

Hard for me to agree with arguments that are basically saying, because I said so. The falling down of the lifters 7nder heat is real because of science. On your 99 cars, are you happy with the lash at .010 on the intake or do you strive for .0062 as described in the fsm?

If you are setting them up to the smallest lash, why are you doing that? Then tell me what the effective lash is on the hla? What side of that 3.8 lash variance in the fsm do the hlas fall? Are you as careless about your lash as you are wanting me to be with mine? I dont think so. YOU are the one that had preached to me and others that top cars and top builders and top drivers pay attention to the smallest details. You are the one that told me setup is so important. To you and Bench, I setup my cars every race weekend. I pay more attention to setup than any driver, builder, owner I know west of the rookies. So Bench, this is not the case of being worried about little things while ignoring bigger issues. And yes Bench, the best driver on any particular day at any particular track on the west coast has been in my cars. So now that we have addressed that, am I allowed by you to start working on the little things that separate good cars from great cars? The na 1.8 car being rebuilt by me right now will be the lightest, best na 1.8 on the west coast and possibly in the country. And you might say why does it matter if it is the lightest when it has to weight the same as the nb? If you ask that then it isnt me that doesnt get it.

Jim you said that i dont get the spirit thing if I question using nb lifters in a na 1.8 . But to me you guys have done the same thing by trying to turn the na 1.8 into a nb. Trying to get the car to be an nb the car is being screwed up. Why is it cool with you guys to try and change the suspension and geometry to a nb but giving it the same engine performance is off the table? Rhetorical because you cant bother to explain your positions to me because you believe I will never hear them. Well I dont believe you hear me either. That you are invested in the way you see it and it is hard to see my view. Call it experience, and a ton of value in that. But experience also blinds. For example, you are blind to all of the ways in which you have guided how I view racing and car prep. Maybe if you weren't blind to it you wouldn't think that it is pointless to talk with me about these types of things. But just because you have been instrumental in developing me as a builder doesnt mean I just shut up and swallow everything you say. You see me as never being able to accept what you say. I see it as you never being able to handle the push back to how you see things. The reality is probably that neither of these is true.

[Bench Racer]

James, what are lap times with "the best driver" what are the lap times compared to a best driver in a 99 plus car?

 

With all the issues you have currently with the NA 1.8 why are you building a new NA 1.8?     Sell/throw your NA 1.8 stash and start fresh with a 99 plus car. I sold my NA 1.6 and if I were to build another car (I also sold all the extra pieces/garage stuff/setup stuff/trailer and scales, done gone fishing) no way in hell would I build anything other than a 99 plus.

[Ron Alan]

James, what are lap times with "the best driver" what are the lap times compared to a best driver in a 99 plus car?

 

With all the issues you have currently with the NA 1.8 why are you building a new NA 1.8?     Sell/throw your NA 1.8 stash and start fresh with a 99 plus car. I sold my NA 1.6 and if I were to build another car (I also sold all the extra pieces/garage stuff/setup stuff/trailer and scales, done gone fishing) no way in hell would I build anything other than a 99 plus.

Like Steve...I too will come to defend James.  David(Bench Fisherman )...you are asking questions of James that have zero relevance. I know because I see James on occasion and I know what cars he has and who he is supporting. James as a driver is not chasing lap times. He started with his son in a NA1.8...which I believe he still has...then built a 99 which he has supported with young drivers for several years. Not sure if he has a new NA1.8 or if he is refurbishing his original car. 

You of all people David should not be lecturing James on what car to build or what not to complain about...for YEARS you went on and on about 1.6 Torque!!!

 

BUT...what he is doing is paying close attention to detail so when he does rent/support or drive his own car...the ONLY excuse hopefully is the spacer!! In doing so he has been finding the ups and downs of different cars...in this case in the motor. Just like most of us he has learned and gotten deeper in the weeds along the way!

 

What I will say to James...and maybe this was what Jim was referring to with his SPIRIT comment. You cant make a 1.6 motor a 1.8. You cant make a NA1.8 motor a NB1 motor. You cant make a NB1 motor a NB2 motor. OEM cars are what we are driving and Mazda is supporting(for the most part).  Parity revolves around weight and power with a little handling thrown in. Many changes over the years as people have found success...that success leads to more parity. Whats crazy is some are still driving the crap out of 30 year old cars and setting track records! I really think the VVT car I'm building needs a bigger RP...its a tank! 

[Steve Scheifler]

...
What I will say to James...and maybe this was what Jim was referring to with his SPIRIT comment. You cant make a 1.6 motor a 1.8. You cant make a NA1.8 motor a NB1 motor. You cant make a NB1 motor a NB2 motor. OEM cars are what we are driving and Mazda is supporting(for the most part). Parity revolves around weight and power with a little handling thrown in. ...

But James also made the point that the SMAC wanted to allow NAs to update to NB suspension, right? The 1.6 now gets the NB rear uprights, and most perplexing the NA8 gets the NA6 front bar as an option but NOT the reverse (WTF?). I’m not advocating solid lifters for the 1.6 (I think they are a pain) and I’m not particularly against them, but I see no real difference between that request and the suspension updates and back-dates. I don’t have to completely agree with someone to recognize when they’ve boxed their opponents into a corner.

[Ron Alan]

I'm all for James asking for changes(done correctly, not just complaining)...thats how things get improved or put to bed! Many of us have written letters. Most all have been denied but occasionally things change. I will agree sometimes people will question the spirit...either as a reason to change or not change!  In this case...now that I have read James last post again...he was clear and I actually skimmed too fast(Sorry JB!). Carry on.....

[Bench Racer]

Ron, I was/am fully aware of James son and original car. If it's not about lap times, what is it about? WE of the 1.6 world who gathered two different air temp data proved the advantage and the SMAC accepted and made a change. It did make a difference in lap times, proof.

 

Gone fishing 

[Jim Drago]

To all those but James

 

The cars are balanced with the engine internals as they are. ANYTHING that changes that balance results in a competition adjustment.  If the lifters add power( which I am not sold on it even being a measurable amount).. guess what? The cars get pulled back because of additional power.  Then you also have EVERY pre 99 car buying solid lifters and pucks( not just the one NA1.8 owner in CA)  Did you know that MAZDA is ROUTINELY out of many shims? That we need to tip valves in order get the correct lash( heads need to come off, valves out).  You just added easily $1500 plus to evry NA owners budget who cant do it themselves (90% ? ) only to suffer a comp adjustment if it adds power.  Seems like a smart thing to do. 

 

Allowing rear knuckles,  99% of the community can do themselves and basically a wear item. Spacers already allowed. The only difference is updating to a part that doesn't need the spacer. Front and rear lowers already superseded at Mazda for years. This is VERY different than changing engine internals.   

 

The request is VERY short sighted and makes no sense IMO. Stop running zero weight oil and move on. 

 

Why dont we just put 99 heads on the NA 1.8? Might as well add 9.5, well hell 10.0 VVt pistons while there, oh then the Square top Intake? That work?  Not one of those is anymore irrational that adding lifters if the reason is to gain power.  I have a bright idea, if you want a 99, build one.   

[Steve Scheifler]

To all those but James

The cars are balanced with the engine internals as they are. ANYTHING that changes that balance results in a competition adjustment. If the lifters add power( which I am not sold on it even being a measurable amount).. guess what? The cars get pulled back because of additional power. Then you also have EVERY pre 99 car buying solid lifters and pucks( not just the one NA1.8 owner in CA) Did you know that MAZDA is ROUTINELY out of many shims? That we need to tip valves in order get the correct lash( heads need to come off, valves out). You just added easily $1500 plus to evry NA owners budget who cant do it themselves (90% ? ) only to suffer a comp adjustment if it adds power. Seems like a smart thing to do.

Allowing rear knuckles, 99% of the community can do themselves and basically a wear item. Spacers already allowed. The only difference is updating to a part that doesn't need the spacer. Front and rear lowers already superseded at Mazda for years. This is VERY different than changing engine internals.

The request is VERY short sighted and makes no sense IMO. Stop running zero weight oil and move on.

Why dont we just put 99 heads on the NA 1.8? Might as well add 9.5, well hell 10.0 VVt pistons while there, oh then the Square top Intake? That work? Not one of those is anymore irrational that adding lifters if the reason is to gain power. I have a bright idea, if you want a 99, build one.

Reluctant to continue but to be perfectly clear, it’s not about gaining power, just not losing it as things heat up. It’s comparable to the wrapped intake plumbing on a 1.6. The alternative is heavier oil which of course comes at a small price in terms of power and is a compromise the solid lifter cars don’t have to deal with. But as I said above, solid lifters are a pain, so I was always satisfied running oil that allows the HLAs to work under racing conditions. If parity is based on that then as Jim says, there’s no need to make a change. For those wanting to optimize every little bit you do need to monitor oil pressure and/or temp to help decide whether conditions dictate a viscosity change, but when in doubt I error on the side of too heavy.

[Jamz14]

Steve, exactly! It's about keeping the power we are already entitled to and not losing it because of......