Spec Miata Community   
search | help | calendar | games | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello Spec Miata Community » SpecMiata.com » Spec Miata » Runoffs notes from Jim Daniels (Page 4)

 - Email this page to someone! | Subscribe To Topic
Page 4 of 7 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  next » 
 
Author Topic: Runoffs notes from Jim Daniels
Brian Ghidinelli Verified Driver
Moonwalker

Region: SFR
Car #: 12
Year : 99
Posts: 267
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Brian Ghidinelli   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Drago:
We also DO NOT make adjustments for the Runoffs and Runoffs only. Surveys were sent out after lat years runoffs and very,very few wanted cars adjusted for the Runoffs primarily.[/QB]

I think that's the right approach. The bottom line is that building a car for one race (Run Offs) is the purview of a very limited number of racers who run Nationals.

That said, it sounds like we still have options to get the cars closer IF people are willing to spend some money and deal with change. You have to hand it to us racers though, we neither want to spend any money to fix the problem nor be satisfied with how things are!

My apologies to the SMAC/CRB in advance...

--------------------
MotorsportReg.com / Haag Performance / Team SafeRacer
2010 San Francisco Region SMT Champion

Cajun Miata Man Verified Driver
Overdog Driver

Region: Houston; SWDIV
Car #: 15
Year : 99
Posts: 680
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Cajun Miata Man     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Tom Sager:
quote:
Originally posted by Drago:
quote:
Originally posted by B Wilson:
Finding a way to equal out the torque curves a bit so that moving to a different track DOESN'T favor one car or another.

-bw

Bruce
There is one option for that... A single car class. Second best would be allow 1.8 engines in 1.6 cars. Neither are popular. ANY OTHER FIX, is just that, A FIX or PATCH.
We have parity, now we are if we are searching for equality.. That s another story all together. We also DO NOT make adjustments for the Runoffs and Runoffs only. Surveys were sent out after lat years runoffs and very,very few wanted cars adjusted for the Runoffs primarily. That is against my personal philoshy as that is all I really care about? [Frown]
Jim

It is possible to make the cars more the same and it can be done with weight and plates. The '99 could get a smaller plate and less weight to make it perform more like the other cars regardless of the track. Close the HP and weight gaps and we have even better parity.
Tom,

I am no expert, nor did I sleep at a Holiday Inn Express; but I don't think HP is the issue. It's torque in most cases and tracks. I don't think any reasonable reduction in plate size on the 99 will bring it in line with a 1.6, and if you coupled it with a weight reduction it will probably accelerate faster causing even more disparity.

I believe the only real way to equalize is to get everyone over on a 1.8L engine. To me, a 1.8L conversion option needs to be available for the 1.6 drivers with correct weight and plate. People can upgrade based on their percieved need and/or budget.

--------------------
James York


sponsored by:
Stan's Auto Center, Lafayette LA
powered by:
East Street Racing, Memphis TN
set up guru:
Gilfus Racing, Austin TX

Alex Bolanos Verified Driver Series Champ
Member

Car #: 18
Year : 1994
Posts: 202
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Alex Bolanos     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Cajun Miata Man:

I believe the only real way to equalize is to get everyone over on a 1.8L engine. To me, a 1.8L conversion option needs to be available for the 1.6 drivers with correct weight and plate. People can upgrade based on their percieved need and/or budget.

Bingo

backusm Verified Driver Made Donation to Website Series Champ
Member

Region: CenDiv
Car #: 94
Year : 90
Posts: 1319
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for backusm     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Arrgh -

If the cars are equal everywhere, but the 99 dominates at the runoffs track, why would you build anything but a 99?

Tony's always been quick at RA (anyone remember the Milwaukee Cups). Maybe he'll build a 90 for next year since he's only banged his head against the wall once.

People vote with they're pocketbook. Until the 1.6 gets more, people won't build them. If you allow a 1.6 some part of a motor swap, AFM, header, cams, different ECU chip, Cam gear, flywheel, magic clutch, weight back to 2255 (way old school - who needs a dash bar?) then you have a real discussion.

--------------------
Mike Backus
90 SM white #94

Tom Sager Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: Chicago
Car #: 94
Posts: 176
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Tom Sager     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Cajun Miata Man:
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Sager:
quote:
Originally posted by Drago:
quote:
Originally posted by B Wilson:
Finding a way to equal out the torque curves a bit so that moving to a different track DOESN'T favor one car or another.

-bw

Bruce
There is one option for that... A single car class. Second best would be allow 1.8 engines in 1.6 cars. Neither are popular. ANY OTHER FIX, is just that, A FIX or PATCH.
We have parity, now we are if we are searching for equality.. That s another story all together. We also DO NOT make adjustments for the Runoffs and Runoffs only. Surveys were sent out after lat years runoffs and very,very few wanted cars adjusted for the Runoffs primarily. That is against my personal philoshy as that is all I really care about? [Frown]
Jim

It is possible to make the cars more the same and it can be done with weight and plates. The '99 could get a smaller plate and less weight to make it perform more like the other cars regardless of the track. Close the HP and weight gaps and we have even better parity.
Tom,

I am no expert, nor did I sleep at a Holiday Inn Express; but I don't think HP is the issue. It's torque in most cases and tracks. I don't think any reasonable reduction in plate size on the 99 will bring it in line with a 1.6, and if you coupled it with a weight reduction it will probably accelerate faster causing even more disparity.

I believe the only real way to equalize is to get everyone over on a 1.8L engine. To me, a 1.8L conversion option needs to be available for the 1.6 drivers with correct weight and plate. People can upgrade based on their percieved need and/or budget.

I would agree that getting everyone to a 1.8 helps a lot, but it seems like we're limited at this late stage of the year in SCCA to weight and plate adjustments due to rules or an unwillingness among rulesmakers to go beyond that. That and many 1.6 owners are not willing to invest in the conversion.

Getting the '94 - '97 cars on par with the '99's could be done with weight adjustments but that won't help the 1.6 much.

If the goal (and I don't think we even know what the goal of the SMAC and CRB is on this matter) is to close the gap between the cars such that we reduce track specific differences, then you have to start by slowing down (reducing power) of the '99. More weight on that car alone will won't get the job done IMO.

Drago Verified Driver Made Donation to Website Series Champ
MegaModerator

Region: mid south
Car #: 2
Year : 1999
Posts: 4275
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Drago   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Tom Sager:

Getting the '94 - '97 cars on par with the '99's could be done with weight adjustments but that won't help the 1.6 much.
[/QB]

I think Mr Coello showed the 94/97 weren't near as far off as many suggested? [Wink] But I do believe they are still a little heavy. I think if we put the youngest Coello brother back in a 1.6, he would demonstrate the 1.6 needs to be 2300 lbs + [duck]

quote:
Originally posted by Tom Sager:
If the goal (and I don't think we even know what the goal of the SMAC and CRB is on this matter) [/QB]

I think the goal of the SMAC and CRB has been spelled out pretty clearly multiple times before? We want to sustain the health and well being of this class. We want to accomplish this by balancing the cars and making them as close to "spec" as we can for ALL TRACKS in the country, not anyone specific track. We don't want to create a COTY scenario as we believe this will cause us to lose member who become frustrated building new cars every year. We would rather get the cars close as possible so that that any car can compete on any track. while we may be there yet, we are very close and we are constantly monitoring the class. One car WILL Always be best at a certain track unless we go to a single car class. We went through extensive measures collecting data last year to support our decisions and had several data analysis experts sift through our data and even shared the data with the community. Little has changed since then except the numerous changes made to 94/97 car, the end result, that car is now is closer to spec, but still a tad heavy. I wouldn't expect many changes other than a possible weight reduction to that car for 2011.
Any changes with regard to 1.8 in all cars would be a rules change and be effective no sooner than 1/1/12. At this point, SMAC can do nothing for 2011 other than weight and plates adjustments. NOTHING!
Jim

--------------------
Jim Drago
East Street Auto Salvage
jdrago1@aol.com
2006-2007 Mid-West Division
07,09 June Sprints Champion

EAST STREET RACING

Tom Sager Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: Chicago
Car #: 94
Posts: 176
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Tom Sager     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Drago:
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Sager:

Getting the '94 - '97 cars on par with the '99's could be done with weight adjustments but that won't help the 1.6 much.

I think Mr Coello showed the 94/97 weren't near as far off as many suggested? [Wink] But I do believe they are still a little heavy. I think if we put the youngest Coello brother back in a 1.6, he would demonstrate the 1.6 needs to be 2300 lbs + [duck]

quote:
Originally posted by Tom Sager:
If the goal (and I don't think we even know what the goal of the SMAC and CRB is on this matter) [/QB]

I think the goal of the SMAC and CRB has been spelled out pretty clearly multiple times before? We want to sustain the health and well being of this class. We want to accomplish this by balancing the cars and making them as close to "spec" as we can for ALL TRACKS in the country, not anyone specific track. We don't want to create a COTY scenario as we believe this will cause us to lose member who become frustrated building new cars every year. We would rather get the cars close as possible so that that any car can compete on any track. while we may be there yet, we are very close and we are constantly monitoring the class. One car WILL Always be best at a certain track unless we go to a single car class. We went through extensive measures collecting data last year to support our decisions and had several data analysis experts sift through our data and even shared the data with the community. Little has changed since then except the numerous changes made to 94/97 car, the end result, that car is now is closer to spec, but still a tad heavy. I wouldn't expect many changes other than a possible weight reduction to that car for 2011.
Any changes with regard to 1.8 in all cars would be a rules change and be effective no sooner than 1/1/12. At this point, SMAC can do nothing for 2011 other than weight and plates adjustments. NOTHING!
Jim [/QB]

You've confirmed that for 2011 weight and plate is all that can be adjusted. I think some people not aware of that.

Overall I think the work in recent years done to evaluate the cars and make adjustments in a very tough climate (lots of varied and competing opinions among the membership and tough SCCA leadership to navigate through) has been very very good. It's a tough and often thankless job I'm sure.

Drago Verified Driver Made Donation to Website Series Champ
MegaModerator

Region: mid south
Car #: 2
Year : 1999
Posts: 4275
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Drago   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Tom Sager:
]You've confirmed that for 2011 weight and plate is all that can be adjusted. I think some people not aware of that.

[/QB]

The suspension proposal and open timing and FP is going to BOD this month. If that goes, that will be for 1/1/11.. Past that, weight and plate adjustments ONLY until 1/1/12
Jim

--------------------
Jim Drago
East Street Auto Salvage
jdrago1@aol.com
2006-2007 Mid-West Division
07,09 June Sprints Champion

EAST STREET RACING

KW78
Member

Posts: 16
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for KW78     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Tom Sager:
quote:
Originally posted by Drago:
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Sager:

Getting the '94 - '97 cars on par with the '99's could be done with weight adjustments but that won't help the 1.6 much.

I think Mr Coello showed the 94/97 weren't near as far off as many suggested? [Wink] But I do believe they are still a little heavy. I think if we put the youngest Coello brother back in a 1.6, he would demonstrate the 1.6 needs to be 2300 lbs + [duck]

quote:
Originally posted by Tom Sager:
If the goal (and I don't think we even know what the goal of the SMAC and CRB is on this matter)

I think the goal of the SMAC and CRB has been spelled out pretty clearly multiple times before? We want to sustain the health and well being of this class. We want to accomplish this by balancing the cars and making them as close to "spec" as we can for ALL TRACKS in the country, not anyone specific track. We don't want to create a COTY scenario as we believe this will cause us to lose member who become frustrated building new cars every year. We would rather get the cars close as possible so that that any car can compete on any track. while we may be there yet, we are very close and we are constantly monitoring the class. One car WILL Always be best at a certain track unless we go to a single car class. We went through extensive measures collecting data last year to support our decisions and had several data analysis experts sift through our data and even shared the data with the community. Little has changed since then except the numerous changes made to 94/97 car, the end result, that car is now is closer to spec, but still a tad heavy. I wouldn't expect many changes other than a possible weight reduction to that car for 2011.
Any changes with regard to 1.8 in all cars would be a rules change and be effective no sooner than 1/1/12. At this point, SMAC can do nothing for 2011 other than weight and plates adjustments. NOTHING!
Jim [/QB]

You've confirmed that for 2011 weight and plate is all that can be adjusted. I think some people not aware of that.

Overall I think the work in recent years done to evaluate the cars and make adjustments in a very tough climate (lots of varied and competing opinions among the membership and tough SCCA leadership to navigate through) has been very very good. It's a tough and often thankless job I'm sure. [/QB]

This definitely can be a thankless job. I am on the AS Adhoc, but ran SM for the last 2 years as well.

[soapbox]

Many things get beat to death here over and over, but one item I have not seen discussion on is the AERO! The 99's have phenomenally better Aero. That IMO is why they race so good at RA. We have a short track here that is a HP track (In my mind that means hard braking, and long accel pulls) that only has a top speed of 105-ish, and also a tight infield.

At our N/N here, I got data on sunday that was very interesting. A 1.6 had the pole, my 1.8 ended up with the lap record, and a 99 won. Why? Aero. The short of it was I had a top speed of 103 by myself one lap, pushed the 1.6 to a top speed of 107 the next, and drafted without being able to push the 99 to 104 the next.

At the end of the race the 99 pulled out and passed at top end, had car position for the win.

My conclusion is that the NA punches a huge hole (relatively) in the air.

The 99 punches a small hole in the air.

The 99 have the benefit of being able to draft up on the NA's, and the NA's can not on the 99's.

I don't really lose to a 99 coming off a corner, so I don't think the tq/hp to weight adjustment via a restrictor helps much. At the top end tho, the 99 motor just has a lot less work to do with the better aero.

Add the factory rear spoiler to the 99's? Or a good Nascar flap bisecting the roof!

BTW, the 47mm restrictor w. the 25# slowed my car,it did not improve it. It just hurt the handling and the power to weight was a wash. I think the 94/7 should be back at 2375, and given cold air intake, or flywheel, or both.

NOTE TO BOD, the rule's season concept has gutted the ability of the ADHOCs to listen to the members and grow the class. The ADHOCs are generally in the class and the experts on the class, so tieing their hands makes no sense!

My [twocents]

Kyle

Mike LL
Member

Region: Florida
Posts: 43
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Mike LL     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Just have Mazda & Toyo bring 63 equally prepared cars to the runoffs. [banghead]

--------------------
Mike Lliteras
Sponsor, Mechanic, Owner and Dad
NASA FL

B Wilson Verified Driver Series Champ
Gold Member

Region: Oregon
Car #: 68
Year : 91
Posts: 2359
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for B Wilson   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Drago:
... Second best would be allow 1.8 engines in 1.6 cars. Neither are popular.

Jim, I haven't heard anyone who's against allowing the 1.8 upgrade. Did I miss a post or is this input from another source than this forum?

-Bruce

--------------------
Bruce Wilson
2010 Oregon Region Champ
2010 Monte Shelton Driver of the Year
2010 25 Hours of Thunderhill E3 and Under 2 liter Overall Champion
Oregon Region SM Class Advisor

Rob Burgoon Verified Driver
Member

Posts: 443
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Rob Burgoon     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by B Wilson:
quote:
Originally posted by Drago:
... Second best would be allow 1.8 engines in 1.6 cars. Neither are popular.

Jim, I haven't heard anyone who's against allowing the 1.8 upgrade. Did I miss a post or is this input from another source than this forum?

-Bruce

Just a bunch of 1.6 guys worried about being eventually "forced into it".

Should probably make it only optional for a few years to give people a chance to finish off their 1.6 engines, then leave the 1.6 engine behind and consider uncorking the 1.8.

--------------------
It really makes my week when nobody crashes into me.

d mathias Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: OVR
Car #: 88
Year : 1991
Posts: 2401
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for d mathias     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
The 99's have phenomenally better Aero
Do you have data to support that? We haven't escalated to wind tunnels, have we?

'Strongbad'
Member

Region: Atlanta
Car #: 28
Year : 1992
Posts: 14
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for 'Strongbad'     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Maybe have the 99's run without the top! That should punch a bigger hole through the air and make the cars look better.

Anybody have real data on running the car with/out the top?

Joseph Strong
1.6

d mathias Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: OVR
Car #: 88
Year : 1991
Posts: 2401
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for d mathias     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Have the 99s run with one flat tire.

B Wilson Verified Driver Series Champ
Gold Member

Region: Oregon
Car #: 68
Year : 91
Posts: 2359
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for B Wilson   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Cd is .38 and frontal are can't be that different for all years in SM, so aero should be the same unless someone's running helicopter tape [Smile]

-bw

--------------------
Bruce Wilson
2010 Oregon Region Champ
2010 Monte Shelton Driver of the Year
2010 25 Hours of Thunderhill E3 and Under 2 liter Overall Champion
Oregon Region SM Class Advisor

Alex Bolanos Verified Driver Series Champ
Member

Car #: 18
Year : 1994
Posts: 202
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Alex Bolanos     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by d mathias:
quote:
The 99's have phenomenally better Aero
Do you have data to support that? We haven't escalated to wind tunnels, have we?
Of course there is no data, talking about aero in a spec series where the cars have a top speed of ~135 is ridiculous.

Here's a bombshell: Andrew's 99 won the race with NO FRONT LIP! Imagine how much faster he'd have gone if Mazda still built them! [Roll Eyes]

pat slattery Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Veteran Member

Region: cincy
Car #: 79
Year : 92
Posts: 1495
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for pat slattery     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Gorrilla didn't have one either.

--------------------
keeping the faith for the 1.6

Arrow Karts

Keith in WA Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Pack Fodder

Region: NWR / Oregon
Car #: 88
Year : 95
Posts: 2000
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Keith in WA     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

I'm pretty sure the '99 is more aero, but it shouldn't count for a dramatic difference. The math doesn't support the videos. We don't go fast enough to see little contours make huge differences. Drag is a factor of velocity ^3 (I may have that wrong being I was more concerned with drinking fluids in college than studying them.) so the effects would maginify significantly moving through 4th and 5th gears. I don't see that in videos.

I haven't raced many 99s to see for myself but I did race against a very SM looking miata while driving a miata with a masonite top, shark fins, and no rear window. We ran out of 5th gear. Many differences there but we didn't see one car or another accelerate away during the long runs from 90 to terminal velocity.

--------------------
Keith Novak
(Will work for tires)

d mathias Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: OVR
Car #: 88
Year : 1991
Posts: 2401
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for d mathias     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

The front dam is coming off my car this weekend - that's what's been holding me back.

Can you buy helicopter tape at Home Depot?

disquek Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Veteran Member

Region: New England
Car #: 92
Posts: 1993
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for disquek     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by KW78:
The 99's have phenomenally better Aero.

It's not the aero that gives them a better top speed, it the HP.

Think about Bonneville racers. They don't care about weight at all. In fact they add weight to gain stability.

Top speed is about two things. HP and aero.

The aero is the same. But the 99s have more HP (and more weight). But the weight does not impact terminal velocity, just acceleration.

-The other Kyle

Drago Verified Driver Made Donation to Website Series Champ
MegaModerator

Region: mid south
Car #: 2
Year : 1999
Posts: 4275
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Drago   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Alex Bolanos:
quote:
Originally posted by d mathias:
quote:
The 99's have phenomenally better Aero
Do you have data to support that? We haven't escalated to wind tunnels, have we?
Of course there is no data, talking about aero in a spec series where the cars have a top speed of ~135 is ridiculous.

Here's a bombshell: Andrew's 99 won the race with NO FRONT LIP! Imagine how much faster he'd have gone if Mazda still built them! [Roll Eyes]

135 only in Florida, most of us never see 125 [Wink] [Big Grin] [Eek!]

--------------------
Jim Drago
East Street Auto Salvage
jdrago1@aol.com
2006-2007 Mid-West Division
07,09 June Sprints Champion

EAST STREET RACING

Gatoratty Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: Central Florida
Car #: 3
Year : 1992
Posts: 1304
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Gatoratty     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Must be when they are using the Daytona aero package!

--------------------
Paul McLester

Willie the Tard Verified Driver
Member

Region: NASA Texas
Car #: 8
Year : 92
Posts: 697
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Willie the Tard   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Drago:
We don't want to create a COTY scenario as we believe this will cause us to lose member who become frustrated building new cars every year.
Jim

I am glad we do not have the COTY -- is it the COTDecade, COTCentury or COTMillennium? [Smile]

--------------------
William Keeling a.k.a. Willie the Tard

Willie the Tard Verified Driver
Member

Region: NASA Texas
Car #: 8
Year : 92
Posts: 697
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Willie the Tard   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Cajun Miata Man:
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Sager:
quote:
Originally posted by Drago:
quote:
Originally posted by B Wilson:
Finding a way to equal out the torque curves a bit so that moving to a different track DOESN'T favor one car or another.

-bw

Bruce
There is one option for that... A single car class. Second best would be allow 1.8 engines in 1.6 cars. Neither are popular. ANY OTHER FIX, is just that, A FIX or PATCH.
We have parity, now we are if we are searching for equality.. That s another story all together. We also DO NOT make adjustments for the Runoffs and Runoffs only. Surveys were sent out after lat years runoffs and very,very few wanted cars adjusted for the Runoffs primarily. That is against my personal philoshy as that is all I really care about? [Frown]
Jim

It is possible to make the cars more the same and it can be done with weight and plates. The '99 could get a smaller plate and less weight to make it perform more like the other cars regardless of the track. Close the HP and weight gaps and we have even better parity.
Tom,

I am no expert, nor did I sleep at a Holiday Inn Express; but I don't think HP is the issue. It's torque in most cases and tracks. I don't think any reasonable reduction in plate size on the 99 will bring it in line with a 1.6, and if you coupled it with a weight reduction it will probably accelerate faster causing even more disparity.

I believe the only real way to equalize is to get everyone over on a 1.8L engine. To me, a 1.8L conversion option needs to be available for the 1.6 drivers with correct weight and plate. People can upgrade based on their percieved need and/or budget.

I agree mostly. We had good parity between the NA 1.6 and NA 1.8 so why not force the NBs to the NA 1.8 motor. [Smile] Just as likely as your idea.

--------------------
William Keeling a.k.a. Willie the Tard

KW78
Member

Posts: 16
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for KW78     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by disquek:
quote:
Originally posted by KW78:
The 99's have phenomenally better Aero.

It's not the aero that gives them a better top speed, it the HP.

Think about Bonneville racers. They don't care about weight at all. In fact they add weight to gain stability.

Top speed is about two things. HP and aero.

The aero is the same. But the 99s have more HP (and more weight). But the weight does not impact terminal velocity, just acceleration.

-The other Kyle

The Aero is absolutely not the same. I gave the short story of the data, we have tons of it.

The video's absolutely support this conclusion. At the runoffs this year I could draft right up to the few NA cars, and it took a pack of two or more 99's for the same effect. I passed alot of them so I was paying attention.

The 99 owner in my example here is quick and has owned all 3 cars at the same time, with data. His 99 actually has slightly worse HP to weight than his 1.8, and higher top speeds.

Like someone said - it is cubed, so the effect in 4th and 5th is dramatic. Yes aero effects are generally dismissed in the rest of the racing world on sub 125MPH situations, but we are talking 120HP, and we are talking drag, not downforce.

The NA is a dirty bird!

Everyone can do their own experiment, just run without the hardtop.

Kyle

d mathias Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: OVR
Car #: 88
Year : 1991
Posts: 2401
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for d mathias     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

What is the delta Cd, NA vs NB?

d mathias Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: OVR
Car #: 88
Year : 1991
Posts: 2401
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for d mathias     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Not a novel thought, but I would certainly support EVERYBODY buying a sealed 1.8 crate.

Alex Bolanos Verified Driver Series Champ
Member

Car #: 18
Year : 1994
Posts: 202
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Alex Bolanos     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Drago:
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Bolanos:
quote:
Originally posted by d mathias:
quote:
The 99's have phenomenally better Aero
Do you have data to support that? We haven't escalated to wind tunnels, have we?
Of course there is no data, talking about aero in a spec series where the cars have a top speed of ~135 is ridiculous.

Here's a bombshell: Andrew's 99 won the race with NO FRONT LIP! Imagine how much faster he'd have gone if Mazda still built them! [Roll Eyes]

135 only in Florida, most of us never see 125 [Wink] [Big Grin] [Eek!]
An old 4.10 geared 1.8 pushing a 99 or 1.6 in neutral through the trioval is fun [thumbsup]

Cajun Miata Man Verified Driver
Overdog Driver

Region: Houston; SWDIV
Car #: 15
Year : 99
Posts: 680
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Cajun Miata Man     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Willie the Tard:
quote:
Originally posted by Cajun Miata Man:
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Sager:
quote:
Originally posted by Drago:
quote:
Originally posted by B Wilson:
Finding a way to equal out the torque curves a bit so that moving to a different track DOESN'T favor one car or another.

-bw

Bruce
There is one option for that... A single car class. Second best would be allow 1.8 engines in 1.6 cars. Neither are popular. ANY OTHER FIX, is just that, A FIX or PATCH.
We have parity, now we are if we are searching for equality.. That s another story all together. We also DO NOT make adjustments for the Runoffs and Runoffs only. Surveys were sent out after lat years runoffs and very,very few wanted cars adjusted for the Runoffs primarily. That is against my personal philoshy as that is all I really care about? [Frown]
Jim

It is possible to make the cars more the same and it can be done with weight and plates. The '99 could get a smaller plate and less weight to make it perform more like the other cars regardless of the track. Close the HP and weight gaps and we have even better parity.
Tom,

I am no expert, nor did I sleep at a Holiday Inn Express; but I don't think HP is the issue. It's torque in most cases and tracks. I don't think any reasonable reduction in plate size on the 99 will bring it in line with a 1.6, and if you coupled it with a weight reduction it will probably accelerate faster causing even more disparity.

I believe the only real way to equalize is to get everyone over on a 1.8L engine. To me, a 1.8L conversion option needs to be available for the 1.6 drivers with correct weight and plate. People can upgrade based on their percieved need and/or budget.

I agree mostly. We had good parity between the NA 1.6 and NA 1.8 so why not force the NBs to the NA 1.8 motor. [Smile] Just as likely as your idea.
My suggestion was not forcing anyone. It was an option for those that feel they need it. Maybe I would put in a NA 1.8L if I could run lower wieght and a bigger restrictor if it was an option. Might be a better combination. Why don't you write in and suggest it?

--------------------
James York


sponsored by:
Stan's Auto Center, Lafayette LA
powered by:
East Street Racing, Memphis TN
set up guru:
Gilfus Racing, Austin TX

pat slattery Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Veteran Member

Region: cincy
Car #: 79
Year : 92
Posts: 1495
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for pat slattery     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

If a 1.6 would, or could put a 1.8 in it would it be just that simple? Wouldn't we need to put a whole new wiring harness, ECU, air box, header, intake, etc. If that is the case, it is a much bigger undertaking than just putting in a new motor.

How about allowing the 1.6 to be bored out some to bring it up in HP and add some weight. That way we could keep all the stuff we have in the car right now. Should be cheaper and easier.

Pat

--------------------
keeping the faith for the 1.6

Arrow Karts

Cajun Miata Man Verified Driver
Overdog Driver

Region: Houston; SWDIV
Car #: 15
Year : 99
Posts: 680
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Cajun Miata Man     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by pat slattery:
If a 1.6 would, or could put a 1.8 in it would it be just that simple? Wouldn't we need to put a whole new wiring harness, ECU, air box, header, intake, etc. If that is the case, it is a much bigger undertaking than just putting in a new motor.


Yep. ECU, MAS, the works....

quote:
Originally posted by pat slattery:
How about allowing the 1.6 to be bored out some to bring it up in HP and add some weight. That way we could keep all the stuff we have in the car right now. Should be cheaper and easier.

Pat

How much HP do you think you need. What weight? What is your proposal?

--------------------
James York


sponsored by:
Stan's Auto Center, Lafayette LA
powered by:
East Street Racing, Memphis TN
set up guru:
Gilfus Racing, Austin TX

disquek Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Veteran Member

Region: New England
Car #: 92
Posts: 1993
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for disquek     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Kyle,

You mention HP/weight ratio. To repeat myself: Weight has nothing to do with terminal velocity. More HP means higher top speed regardless of weight (assuming the same aero). It will just take longer to get there.

Drafting potential is not directly related to total aero drag either. Drafting has to do with how the air releases from the rear of the car. Want an example: the Sprint Cup cars draft way better with the spoilers than they did with the wings, but they have more drag.

You're a data guy so you have an easy way to measure aero drag. Coast down tests.

Get your NB and NA to coast down from terminal velocity (car must be in neutral - at the same spot on track - on the same day - with little or no wind). Measure the difference by overlaying the speed graphs. Also, make sure that they're running similar ride heights and rake.

I think you'll find them to be nearly identical. I'd even bet that the NA generates less drag. It's narrower.

-Kyle

PS: Areo drag increases with the square of the velocity.

soupy
Member

Region: Mohud
Car #: 98
Year : 1999
Posts: 915
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for soupy     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by d mathias:
Have the 99s run with one flat tire.

I did that once, I still won. So that won't work.

--------------------
Charlie Campbell
Race Engineering
carbotech brakes

Pat Newton Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Enduro addict

Region: Northwest, Oregon
Car #: 79
Year : 90
Posts: 3336
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Pat Newton   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by disquek:
You mention HP/weight ratio.

How about 480/2579. Is that good? Still not as fast as a '99... [Wink] [Big Grin]

--------------------
Crew Chief, 3D Racing #64, aka Team Scrappy 2.0
3rd place E2, 2009 25 Hours of Thunderhill

Crew Chief, EGR/Miller Motorsports #64, aka Team Scrappy
E2 Champions, 2008 25 Hours of Thunderhill

pat slattery Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Veteran Member

Region: cincy
Car #: 79
Year : 92
Posts: 1495
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for pat slattery     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Cajun Miata Man:
quote:
Originally posted by pat slattery:
If a 1.6 would, or could put a 1.8 in it would it be just that simple? Wouldn't we need to put a whole new wiring harness, ECU, air box, header, intake, etc. If that is the case, it is a much bigger undertaking than just putting in a new motor.


Yep. ECU, MAS, the works....

quote:
Originally posted by pat slattery:
How about allowing the 1.6 to be bored out some to bring it up in HP and add some weight. That way we could keep all the stuff we have in the car right now. Should be cheaper and easier.

Pat

How much HP do you think you need. What weight? What is your proposal?

Don't really know James, just throwing ideas around to alternatives to putting a 1.8 in the 1.6, it just seems pretty entailed to do. Everyone was talking about putting a 1.8 in the cars, putting weight in the 1.6 and lowering the 99 weight. Just throwing ideas out, don't really have any idea how much or how little it would make a difference. I think the 1.6 could take a little weight on if we could find a little torque.

Pat

--------------------
keeping the faith for the 1.6

Arrow Karts

Cajun Miata Man Verified Driver
Overdog Driver

Region: Houston; SWDIV
Car #: 15
Year : 99
Posts: 680
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Cajun Miata Man     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by pat slattery:
quote:
Originally posted by Cajun Miata Man:
quote:
Originally posted by pat slattery:
If a 1.6 would, or could put a 1.8 in it would it be just that simple? Wouldn't we need to put a whole new wiring harness, ECU, air box, header, intake, etc. If that is the case, it is a much bigger undertaking than just putting in a new motor.


Yep. ECU, MAS, the works....

quote:
Originally posted by pat slattery:
How about allowing the 1.6 to be bored out some to bring it up in HP and add some weight. That way we could keep all the stuff we have in the car right now. Should be cheaper and easier.

Pat

How much HP do you think you need. What weight? What is your proposal?

Don't really know James, just throwing ideas around to alternatives to putting a 1.8 in the 1.6, it just seems pretty entailed to do. Everyone was talking about putting a 1.8 in the cars, putting weight in the 1.6 and lowering the 99 weight. Just throwing ideas out, don't really have any idea how much or how little it would make a difference. I think the 1.6 could take a little weight on if we could find a little torque.

Pat

What people need to propose is real solutions and data to back them up. Otherwise this is all pissin' in the wind in my opinion.

Like Jim said, it's only going to be weight and restictor for this year. So people have about 8 months to do some research for 2012 and come up with real solutions.

--------------------
James York


sponsored by:
Stan's Auto Center, Lafayette LA
powered by:
East Street Racing, Memphis TN
set up guru:
Gilfus Racing, Austin TX

Casey Z Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
MegaModerator

Region: MidDiv
Car #: 13
Year : 92
Posts: 2873
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Casey Z     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Cajun Miata Man:
What people need to propose is real solutions and data to back them up. Otherwise this is all pissin' in the wind in my opinion.

That is a fair take on things but lets look at past changes. Shock hats? No data just anecdotal. Track width / spacers? No data, just anecdotal. Now subframes? No data, just anecdotal. But all those changes were (or are being made) because everyone darn well knew they materially effected the performance of the cars.

So in my opinion that dog just won't hunt. Let's ask the guys that have the car that can't win to prove why they can't win before we make any real changes. Convenient, but totally bogus.

Finally, the only real data that exists for RA was gathered at the 09' runoffs and that data is equivocal at best. Those in the know are aware that some of the DA units were installed improperly (backwards) and the data is essentially meaningless.

Again, let's not let the facts get in the way... [Wink]

--------------------
----------------
Z Brothers Racing / East Street Auto

Casey Z - 1.6 Kettle
MidDiv National #13

Cajun Miata Man Verified Driver
Overdog Driver

Region: Houston; SWDIV
Car #: 15
Year : 99
Posts: 680
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Cajun Miata Man     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Casey Z:
quote:
Originally posted by Cajun Miata Man:
What people need to propose is real solutions and data to back them up. Otherwise this is all pissin' in the wind in my opinion.

That is a fair take on things but lets look at past changes. Shock hats? No data just anecdotal. Track width / spacers? No data, just anecdotal. Now subframes? No data, just anecdotal. But all those changes were (or are being made) because everyone darn well knew they materially effected the performance of the cars.

So in my opinion that dog just won't hunt. Let's ask the guys that have the car that can't win to prove why they can't win before we make any real changes. Convenient, but totally bogus.

Finally, the only real data that exists for RA was gathered at the 09' runoffs and that data is equivocal at best. Those in the know are aware that some of the DA units were installed improperly (backwards) and the data is essentially meaningless.

Again, let's not let the facts get in the way... [Wink]

I think all the past adjustments you qouted were to make each car have an equivalent piece, so why not even them up. The gripes here are about moving up the 1.6L with some unique adjustment to move the balance. That's fine, I have no issue with getting the cars as close as possible.

But this moaning is exactly the same as last year. I bet we can look up some posts from last year and they are materially exactly the same. And next year, I'll take any bet it will be the same again.

Jim said it in a couple of posts somewhere. The CRB and SMAC have no desire to equalize for 1 track. Rules changes for next year are set with the exception of weight, plate, timing (99) and FP (99).

My opinion is, like last year, burning up bandwidth by a handful of folks stating the same thing over and over will not accomplish change. Letters need to be written that are well thought out and constructive.

But, it just provides more reading, so no problem here. 1.6L keepers of the faith, please continue, don't mind me.

--------------------
James York


sponsored by:
Stan's Auto Center, Lafayette LA
powered by:
East Street Racing, Memphis TN
set up guru:
Gilfus Racing, Austin TX

Steven Holloway Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Blue Eyes, Aquarius, hates being squeezed to the grass in SowDiv!

Region: Lonestar
Car #: 97
Year : 91
Posts: 740
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Steven Holloway     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Damn James, you were such a good guy until you bought that 99...

--------------------
If you can't fix it with a hammer, it's got electrical problems.

Cajun Miata Man Verified Driver
Overdog Driver

Region: Houston; SWDIV
Car #: 15
Year : 99
Posts: 680
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Cajun Miata Man     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

How about this:

for 201x (2013?), all national SM run a 3rd party sealed motor, ecu, intake, etc so that all cars years are the same weight with no plate? That way, everybody shares the pain.

Regional can remain as is, and the sealed cars can run both.

--------------------
James York


sponsored by:
Stan's Auto Center, Lafayette LA
powered by:
East Street Racing, Memphis TN
set up guru:
Gilfus Racing, Austin TX

Cajun Miata Man Verified Driver
Overdog Driver

Region: Houston; SWDIV
Car #: 15
Year : 99
Posts: 680
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Cajun Miata Man     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Steven Holloway:
Damn James, you were such a good guy until you bought that 99...

It's all the walking I have had to do lately without my pit bike that you still have.

--------------------
James York


sponsored by:
Stan's Auto Center, Lafayette LA
powered by:
East Street Racing, Memphis TN
set up guru:
Gilfus Racing, Austin TX

Steven Holloway Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Blue Eyes, Aquarius, hates being squeezed to the grass in SowDiv!

Region: Lonestar
Car #: 97
Year : 91
Posts: 740
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Steven Holloway     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Still waiting for the check you mailed me.

--------------------
If you can't fix it with a hammer, it's got electrical problems.

l8tbreakr
Member

Region: NER
Car #: 17
Year : 90
Posts: 69
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for l8tbreakr     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Can a shop do some dyno testing on a 1.6 with the addition of a header and aluminum flywheel, and maybe some higher flow injectors? Compare TQ/HP curves to Nationally competitive 99? Bolt on stuff, easy to police, light on the wallet (well, lighter than a 1.8 motor, not as light as adding RP to a 99).

If pros like Rolex and ALMS, and amatuers like Production classes or IT can find ways to equalize different cars, it makes one suspicious that it can't be done in SM. No offense, but there's an awful lot of smart people here to not come up with a simple and cheap way to equalize 3 models of the same car. If you can't figure it out, you have to assume some (maybe a lot) of 1.6 owners are going to sell out and change classes. I'm not a national dreamer, so why not just run IT/PT and avoid this headache altogether.

--------------------
-----------
AJ Goldsmith
Westborough, MA

Rob Burgoon Verified Driver
Member

Posts: 443
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Rob Burgoon     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by l8tbreakr:

If pros like Rolex and ALMS, and amatuers like Production classes or IT can find ways to equalize different cars, it makes one suspicious that it can't be done in SM.

Psst... they aren't equal there either!

--------------------
It really makes my week when nobody crashes into me.

David Dewhurst
Veteran Member

Posts: 574
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for David Dewhurst     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Rob, so true ^.

***But this moaning is exactly the same as last year. I bet we can look up some posts from last year and they are materially exactly the same. And next year, I'll take any bet it will be the same again.***

I agree 100% ^ & have not been burning up band width. [yep]

***Jim said it in a couple of posts somewhere. The CRB and SMAC have no desire to equalize for 1 track. Rules changes for next year are set with the exception of weight, plate, timing (99) and FP (99).***

My suggestion is that the SMAC & the CRB join the 21st century. Enough of this, gee we never did that before. Be creative for the good of all members of the class. Ya all know the ol saying it's better to do something than nothing. IMHJ, this suspension stuff is going to be a waste of time & money. Implement some torque for the 1.6 at all Road America races with the understanding that the same will be taken away if two out of three podium spots are taken by 1.6's for year 2011 at the Runoffs. There are X amount of people thumping their chest saying that they can win at Road America legally in a 1.6 as they exist today, but they know full well that the odds are SO MUCH BETTER WITH A 99. & no I haven't looked at any of the results from this years Runoffs. Same results, different year.

--------------------
Have Fun [Wink]

David Dewhurst
CenDiv
Milwaukee Region
Spec Miata #14

Rob Burgoon Verified Driver
Member

Posts: 443
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Rob Burgoon     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Want torque? Phase in a 1.8 conversion. Bam, 2 cars to balance instead of 3.

Hell, if there were enough 99 engines out there we could have a spec 99 engine class and just worry about balancing aero.

Gives me parity chills just thinking about it!

--------------------
It really makes my week when nobody crashes into me.

Johnny D Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Hot Member

Region: SFR
Car #: 88 SM
Year : 99
Posts: 367
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Johnny D     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Rob Burgoon:
Want torque? Phase in a 1.8 conversion. Bam, 2 cars to balance instead of 3.

Hell, if there were enough 99 engines out there we could have a spec 99 engine class and just worry about balancing aero.

Gives me parity chills just thinking about it!

Hey I'm not the only one.
With the suggestion of a 1.8.
Who was only thinking NA instead of NB?

When the front runners in 1.6's start buying 99's this rule should be in affect.

But i'm already there so no skin off my back.
Would be nice to let my 99 loose with a bigger RP or nothing.
And have the biggers guys in the 1.6 be able to run a cool suit setup and come in at weight not over.
J~

--------------------
Avatar Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww9cFE3lKcA

l8tbreakr
Member

Region: NER
Car #: 17
Year : 90
Posts: 69
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for l8tbreakr     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Rob Burgoon:
quote:
Originally posted by l8tbreakr:

If pros like Rolex and ALMS, and amatuers like Production classes or IT can find ways to equalize different cars, it makes one suspicious that it can't be done in SM.

Psst... they aren't equal there either!
Not equal, equalize. The cars won't be equal, but you can't be afraid to do something cheap and easy for a season - heck Rolex added displacement to the porsche mid-year this year b/c they were getting spanked by the Mazdas. If you want to phase out the 1.6 (think first gen RX-7 and the 12a motor) then it will be easy to let it go and move the class forward to 94+ or 99+. I'm not moaning and not a parity dreamer - I bought a good car and there will be someplace to play and be competitive.

--------------------
-----------
AJ Goldsmith
Westborough, MA

Drago Verified Driver Made Donation to Website Series Champ
MegaModerator

Region: mid south
Car #: 2
Year : 1999
Posts: 4275
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Drago   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Rob Burgoon:
quote:
Originally posted by l8tbreakr:

If pros like Rolex and ALMS, and amatuers like Production classes or IT can find ways to equalize different cars, it makes one suspicious that it can't be done in SM.

Psst... they aren't equal there either!
psst Sm is 10x closer [Wink]

--------------------
Jim Drago
East Street Auto Salvage
jdrago1@aol.com
2006-2007 Mid-West Division
07,09 June Sprints Champion

EAST STREET RACING

 
Page 4 of 7 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  next » 
 

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic | Subscribe To Topic
Hop To: