ITS Acura Racer Input

[Chuck Davis]

I'm looking for all those racing '94-95 Acura GSR. The issue is the finished weight of a car fully prepared by the rules. (FYI, in my first outting this weekend I discovered I was 170 lbs. underweight.) You know the attitude expressed by the board is that they don't make mistakes determining car weights. I think they missed this one by 100 lbs. You can call me anytime at 913 484-5510 or reply here. Thanks.

[bobpink]

Try honda-tech.com too.

The issue of weights of cars has been beat to death here and at honda-tech.com so you should be able to find some info with a search. I don't recall anyone being happy with the way SCCA does things with car weights.

------------------
Bob Pinkowski
Atlanta Region SCCA
ITS Honda Prelude (no longer for sale, I think)

[OTLimit]

And the caveat to such a discussion is that just because you can get below the required weight doesn't mean that you have to, or should.

------------------
Lesley Albin
Over The Limit Racing
Blazen Golden Retrievers

[Geo]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">You know the attitude expressed by the board is that they don't make mistakes determining car weights. I think they missed this one by 100 lbs.</font>

Based upon what?


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[This message has been edited by Geo (edited September 08, 2004).]

[Quickshoe]

Chuck,

ssssshhhhhhh...don't complain. If they get rid of the minimum ballast rule you will be in good shape, assuming you can be competitive at the minimum weight.

Not trying to fling poo. You seem to be mad at the board because you came in underweight, how do you fully prep an IT car without it ever seeing a set of scales first?
Put in 100# of ballast, some extra cage tubing, a cool suit system, an accusump if you don't already have one. You'll be rocking.

It could be worse. You could have the minimum required cage, gutted all you legally can and still be 50# over weight.



------------------
Daryl DeArman

[lateapex911]

Keep in mind that the CRBs goal in setting weights has as its primary objective, to have the cars potential performance hit an imaginary "perfromance" target (for a specific class), and part of that calculation is the math involving the actual weight of the car, (curb), and the amount of "stuff" you can remove (stripped weight) and the amount you will likely add (race weight).

If the resulting number is close to the desired target, all is good. If that number is lighter than the desired target, no problem, adding weight is easy. If the number is higher than the desired target, there is a problem, and perhaps the car might be a better fit in a lower class.

(ITAC guys chime in here if I mis-stated the classing process)

Now, you COULD argue that the weight that they have assigned your car is unreasonable because the car can't be competitive at that weight, but you building a legal car and coming in underweight is a dream most of have!

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[Knestis]

To be fair, however most of the current IT spec weights were NOT determined under the current, light-of-day specification process.

Evidence suggests that previous Comp Boards have made their decisions assuming that spec weights were (a) based on the curb weight, (B) NEVER set to adjust competitiveness, © determined by a formula, (d) NOT determined by a formula, or (e) set by pixies in the dark of night, in a wooded glen in Northampton.

K

[Banzai240]

Are we talking about the ITS Acura Integra 3-Door GS-R with 172 stock HP?? If so, assuming a meager 25% increase with IT prep, I'd have to say that this one is SPOT ON for the class... In fact, I'm thinking it's a little on the light side, if the HP numbers work out correctly...

Compare this to the '95-'98 240SX, which has to weight 2650lbs and only makes 155hp stock, or the 944, which has 157hp stock and has to weight 2715lbs...

I'm not sure I'd be complaining if I were you...

Keep in mind that stock weights have very little to do with final weight these days... except to try to help determine if the final weight can be achieved with legal IT prep...

Looking at the numbers, the Acura being discussed looks like a really NICE choice for an ITS car...

Good Luck!



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Knestis:
To be fair, however most of the current IT spec weights were NOT determined under the current, light-of-day specification process.

Evidence suggests that previous Comp Boards have made their decisions assuming that spec weights were (a) based on the curb weight, (B) NEVER set to adjust competitiveness, © determined by a formula, (d) NOT determined by a formula, or (e) set by pixies in the dark of night, in a wooded glen in Northampton.

K

True K man, but I didn't say it twas always so....

Actually I like the image of the past comp boards getting together, drinking some (a lot?) of spirits, then getting a wall, a bunch of 'Post-its' with weights wriiten on them, a spinning stool and a blindfold.

You can figure out how it went from there, but one hint is that all but one member ducked for cover when it came time to "pick" a weight!

(Sorry Kurt, (W) some of the weights have been spot on, but others...well, you know what I mean!)



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[Catch22]

You are spot-on in terms of HP for this car Darin. But you need to take into account that the brakes are the same units that come on the (future ITA) Civic EX at around 300lbs lighter, making this a SERIOUS weak point on this car. Its also seriously lacking in torque, which again hurts like hell when you're trying to pull a 2700lb car off of a slow corner.
5th gear also kind of sucks. This along with the lack of torque can sometimes see the car actually slow down on a long straight with a headwind (seriously).

But I agree, the raw top-end HP is there. Its also a dead nuts reliable car as long as you don't mind constantly working on the front brakes.

I'm going by memory here, but I think Grand Am used to spec this car at 2575lbs, running against cars very similar to what is in ITS. I think Honda Challenge currently has it at 2575 as well.

I've always felt that 2625 was the proper ITS weight for this car. In direct comparison to the 13B RX-7, the HP is about the same and torque is pretty close with a slight edge actually going to the RX-7. But the RX-7 has a HUGE advantage in braking and tire conservation.
Right now the GSR looks great in the rain. But its doubtful you'll see them do much anything in the dry against stiff competition.

It really is something you guys might want to look at Darin. Look at the whole car, not just the power numbers. I have plenty of info if you'd like it, just give me an email address.

Scott, who used to own an OPM prepped '94 GSR that was prepped to IT rules but ran in Honda Challenge (at 2600lbs).

[This message has been edited by Catch22 (edited September 09, 2004).]

[SPiFF]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Compare this to the '95-'98 240SX, which has to weight 2650lbs and only makes 155hp stock, or the 944, which has 157hp stock and has to weight 2715lbs...</font>

Very true. Honda makes a fine engine with great top end power, but also keep in mind that the GSR is a 1.8L in a class of 2.3L+ RWD cars. The GSR makes 128 lbs/ft of TQ. The RX7 140, 240SX 160, E36 181, etc. The car also has very small brakes.

Every weapon has pros and cons. The GSR is a fine S car, but it will never come close to being competitive at 2700#. At 50-100# less, it has as good of chance to win as any RX7.

Looking at the HP alone, yea 2700# sounds okay, but for a car with small brakes and a small engine, it is a bit over weight to be competitive.

------------------
Zsolt - #18 H3 GSR
http://www.SouthEastHondaChallenge.com

[ITSRX7]

The car is right in the mix with the non-E36 cars.

The 'small' front brakes are only smaller than the RX-7's by 15mm (277mm vs. 262mm). Some guys are running the S4 brakes on the RX-7 that are actually 250mm.

Built 1.8 VTEC's have made 170whp without sweating it. This is also supposed to be one of the best handling FWD chassis out there.

It may not be at a perfect weight, but sure isn't so far out it needs to be corrected - IMHO. Based on what we are doing now as far as calculations, it is within 22 pounds.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6 (ITA project)
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Andy is right on.... against all but the E-36 the Integra is a top contender in the right hands.

As an example, the results from the Labor Day Double at Summit Point shows that there would be little difference between all the makes (even the 944) if it weren't for the rest of the pack being overshadowed by the E-36's.
http://www.wdcr-scca.org/results/results.c...ndex.htm?040704 (http://www.wdcr-scca.org/results/results.cgi/results/index.htm?040704)

[Bill Miller]

Careful w/ those numbers, you're gonna make the case that an S13 240SX and the Civic Si's are good ITS cars as well!!! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif



------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Errr, well...... Maybe since so many people are trying to make a case for the 944 to be moved down to ITA, perhaps they should move all the "old guard" ITS cars down to ITA and put other cars into ITS that actually have a chance against the E-36's...
If you notice, the top S13's and SI's are running nearly identical times as the 240Z's and the rest of the ITS cars... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

[ITSRX7]

Easy now!!!! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Let's all remember you can't look at a single Regional without having all the info.

Sit back and watch some football!

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6 (ITA project)
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[Geo]

Folks are asking us to look at the whole car, but are not talking about the car's strength... chassis. The car has double wishbone suspension, clearly among the best in the field. Not only that, but compared with many others in the field it still has decent suspension travel when lowered to the legal limit.

IMHO the car is close enough. By close enough I mean I don't think we missed anything that we could add a number to that would dramatically alter the weight.

BTW, just for clarification, I was the only person making a case for moving the 8v 944, based upon technical specs compared with other ITS cars and ITA cars. I haven't mentioned it for some time now. I think there is still something to be said for it, BUT, I think that some things are happening in IT that I'll just wait to see how they shake out (nothing that hasn't been discussed here in some form or another, so it's nothing secret). My biggest gripe right now (not to thread hi-jack) is that there is a huge power to weight gap between the 944 and 944S yet they share the exact same chassis. Something is NOT right with that.

Back to our regularly scheduled Acura discussion. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Andy, look through the results for the DC region for the last 4 years and you'll start to see a pattern. It's not just one regional.

The Integra is the only car that has even come close to keeping up with the top 2 or 3 E-36's.
I don't know the Integra well, but I'd say it might have a bit more in it since it's still a fairly new car to the class.

[Catch22]

I'm not suggesting that it is far off. Yes, it is a great chassis and yes, 170ish whp is just about dead-on.

But 128 wheel torque is also dead-on. Which is quite low in a 2700lb car. And you'll never see this chassis win ITS at the ARRC (unless it rains) because 20 laps of competition that tight will result in both the brakes and front tires being burned off the car. Even with a very very good driver.

As far as the RX-7 brake comparison, how about taking the fact that the RX-7 is RWD, has better weight distribution, and has significantly larger rear rotors... Oh, and dual piston calipers.

I'm not saying the GSR is far off, but I am suggesting that it is off by at least 50lbs, maybe 75. Should it rise to the top of the ITAC's list... Maybe not. But its something you guys should keep an eye on IMO.

Again...
Great Chassis
Great HP
Good Aero

Terrible Brakes (in comparison to other ITS cars in its weight range)
Terrible Torque
Very front heavy

And as I've said before, maybe one of the E36 solutions is to lighten up several S cars. GSRs and RX-7s are both typically running a good bit of lead. Heck, take some weight out of both of them <shrugs>.

[JeffYoung]

Lots of S cars are in the GSRs' boat. Good in one category, weak in others. I've got 135 hp stock, 175 ft./lbs of torque, so I'm the exact opposite of you. And my front brakes are worse, trust me.

So what's the board to do? I think the simplest answer is to move the 325 back to the realistic weight at which it was first classed (approx. 3000 lbs) and be done with it.

The other alternative is trying to adjust the 7-8 second tier S cars that are out there running consistently (190E, GSR, 280z, 240sx, TR8, Alfa Milano/GTV, 944, 924s) and that sounds a lot harder than making a single weight correction to the BMW.

Jeff

[JeffYoung]

One other point: the reason why the BMW and the RX7 are so fast, in my book,is due primarily to the fact that they are SO well-balanced. No real glaring weakness on either. The 7 is a bit down on torque and the BMW...uh...the BMW...uh...well, there has got to be something not quite up to snuff (aren't the brakes good, but not RX7 good?).

Every other S car is not as well balanced. But that is the choice we make, and the cross we bear, when we choose to build or buy a non-front runner.

[ITSRX7]

RX-7 makes 127-130 WTQ in IT trim - same as the Integra.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6 (ITA project)
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[JeffYoung]

Wow, that low? Amazing that people wring the performance out of that car on the "tighter" tracks in the SEDiv, but they do. Same is true with Lime Rock right? You would think that the RX7 wouldn't have a chance with no torque, but it is fast there?

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by JeffYoung:
You would think that the RX7 wouldn't have a chance with no torque, but it is fast there?

Keep in mind that I believe the RX-7 have 4.88 or even 5.13 rear end gears avaialable for it... I know a lot of guys that run the 5.13s in EP... That would help a bit...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[lateapex911]

And Lime Rock is a handling/drivers/momentum track. Torque helps, but good top end power makes a difference on the front straight as you enter it in the 80 MPH range.

Teh BMW really shines at places like Atlata, where you need grunt of the final corner before teh runway long straight.

I would think a well prepped and driven Acura would do very well in ITS at LimeRock...the ITA version has turned 1:01.8s there, and the ITS record is 1:00.9 if I remember correctly. Is 35 more Hp worth .9 second??

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[Chuck Davis]

Thanks to all for your input. However, I'm still looking for ITS Integra competitors and their feedback with details about the weight of their cars. Do you know of anyone in your Region with a '94-'95 Interga?

[Greg Amy]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Do you know of anyone in your Region with a '94-'95 Interga?</font>

Phil Phillips, http://www.philstireservice.com/ . He also runs Honda Challenge.

As an aside, I believe the GS-R is an excellent car for ITS. There's a lot of heretofore untapped potential in it, I think. If the E36 gets reigned in a little bit that Honda will be right up there. - GA

[Catch22]

Phil's car used to be mine. I built it. I do kinda sorta actually know what I'm talking about.

But... Whatever.

[ITSRX7]

The thing about the RX-7 and the Integra with regard to torque is that on an open track, the cars can get to 100% of their potential. When traffic plays a factor (like in every race), the torqier cars drop in potential only marginally while any momentum drop in a car such little torque is devestating.

The RX-7's do typically run either a 4.88 or a 5.12 rear gear. That helps keep the car in the 7-9K RPM range.

Saying that a car is 50-75 pounds off it's ideal weight is nit-picking IMHO. I think there are tons of issues more pressing/deserving, no?

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6 (ITA project)
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[SPiFF]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Thanks to all for your input. However, I'm still looking for ITS Integra competitors and their feedback with details about the weight of their cars. Do you know of anyone in your Region with a '94-'95 Interga?</font>

I have one. Currently running in Honda Challenge H3 at 2575#. I ran one SARRC weekend in ITS this year and am planning to run some more next year. Region is SEDIV.

Feel free to contact me if you want. zsf at mindspring dot com.

------------------
Zsolt - #18 H3 GSR
http://www.SouthEastHondaChallenge.com

[BVinson]

Chuck,
I agree with you, they did miss the weight by alot. When I built my 1998 GSR I too was way under. I made up for it by adding alot of bars to my cage, which now looks like cross between a rally cage and a nascar cage. I still had to add a 34lb weight to my floor board and have to start each race with full tank of fuel to make weight. Hopefully they will make a change, but we'll see.

Brian Vinson
1998 Acura Integra GSR #88 ITS

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by BVinson:
Chuck,
I agree with you, they did miss the weight by alot.

Guys...

ONE MORE TIME... the weight was PURPOSFULLY SET where it is... It has not been "missed", or is otherwise NOT INCORRECT for the cars potential...

There is nothing in the ITCS that says the weight of your car will be set based on what it would really weight were it to be gutted, caged, or otherwise prepped for IT. The weights are set to create a car that is compeitive with other cars in the class.

This car, based on it's specifications, is set at a nearly IDEAL weight for ITS. In other words, the weight to "potential" power ratio is right in line with any number of other ITS front runners (even a litte better based on some of your numbers...)

I can't believe you guys are complaining, when you have cars that can actually be made to meet the minimum weight... You can't POSSIBLY know how good you have it!

By the way... we have a couple of these cars out here and they are REALLY freakin fast... A fully developed one should really turn some heads...

Go have some fun! I wish I had this kind of problem... SHEESH! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited September 13, 2004).]

[BVinson]

Didn't say we weren't havin fun. Yes, you are correct on power/weight. Try to stop though. The weak point is the brakes due to the weight. Maybe we could keep the weight the same, but upgrade to the type-r front brake system. Also the weight for the same car in SSB is 2725. You mean to say that you can take 35lbs out of a non-competitve car in SSB and make a competitive car for ITS, I don't think so.
The 240sx for example from SSB to ITS is 230lbs!
[This message has been edited by BVinson (edited September 13, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by BVinson (edited September 13, 2004).]

[Greg Amy]

Will never happen. Alternative components are 'not within the philosophy of the category.'



[This message has been edited by grega (edited September 13, 2004).]

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by BVinson:
The 240sx for example from SSB to ITS is 230lbs!

And the 240SX only makes 155 stock HP compared to 172hp for the Acura... With similiar smallish brakes (257mm)... AND, I'll take your problems any day, because I'm still 100lbs overweight, and it's going to cost BIG $$$ to try to get it any lighter than it already is...

The Big picture is taken into consideration when these classifications are made, and, based on the current weight of the Acura in question, I'd say that the brakes and FWD configuration were more than accounted for.

SS weights have NOTHING to do with IT weights, so again, this is a non-sense comparison, as it means very little. What matters is the stock weight of the car, and what we can reasonably expect the car to weight after IT prep... We start adjusting the weight after that...

The Acura is POTENT for ITS, and I just can't see ANYONE on the ITAC, CRB, or BoD being sold that this car needs any kind of weight brake... It looks really good right where it sits...

I know I sure do enjoy watching the back-side of the two we have up here go blasting by me on the straights... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/mad.gif



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[BVinson]

I know it was a "non-sense" comparison, and I agree that the Acura is fast on the straights. I just thought it was a little strange that the 240 can lose 230lbs and the Gsr 35lbs. Sounds like the 240 could use a weight adjustment as well if your over. In my region there is only a handfull of competitive cars and I have won as many races or more than the others. So I am happy and will take your advise and let it be.

Brian Vinson

[This message has been edited by BVinson (edited September 13, 2004).]

[Knestis]

When was the current ITS weight of the GS-R set, and on whose watch? I honestly don't remember but if it wasn't done with the recommnedation of the current ITAC, what evidence do we have that the weight was actually decided based on its potential?

Now, whether or not it is in the right ballpark based on current thinking is another matter. It might be but only by sheer luck.

K

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Knestis:
Now, whether or not it is in the right ballpark based on current thinking is another matter. It might be but only by sheer luck.

K

Kirk... From what I can tell, it may have been luck, but I'll take that, since it's right about where the current "process" would place it. I ran it through our process and it actually comes up right about where it is.

I'll give credit where credit is due... the previous watch got this one "right"...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by BVinson:
I just thought it was a little strange that the 240 can lose 230lbs and the Gsr 35lbs.

When you say "can lose 230lbs", what you are really saying is that you find it strange that the spec weight would be 230lbs LESS than it's SS weight... That doesn't really mean that the actually car itself is capable of losing that much weight with IT prep, only that the powers that be felt that the potential of the car warrented a spec weight of 2650lbs...

Perception has played a big role in the spec weights of many of these cars over the years, and it still has a small part in the process... That's why cars like the 944, with only 157hp stock, are spec'd at 2715lbs... because someone "perceived", or otherwise thought that the potential of the car warrented this much weight.

Today, we are looking at things a bit differently. We take into consideration the ability of the car to actually make weight, and use some reasonable methods of estimating power potential to try to classify the car in the correct class at an achievable weight. Our goal is to, #1, get the car in the right class to start with, and #2, to get competitiveness a little closer than it's been in the past...

This year may well be a year for finding out if we are getting in right, but, at least on paper, many of the recomendations we've made look to be along the right track...

Hopefully, we'll have IT grids full of happy competitors, all agreeing that we're doing a good job of this... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited September 13, 2004).]

[Tristan Smith]

Hi Darin,
Kind of a generic question for you and the ITAC folks.
How early can someone request a car classification? I have a 2002 model in mind and I would love to start the build process now, so that it might be ready by the start of the 2007 season. When is "too early" to request a classification? Knowing that the proposed PCA's could be a factor in all of this I would hold off probably untill the first of the year anyway. But what's your thoughts on this or the rule?

------------------
Tristan Smith
Buffalo's Southwest Cafe
ITA Nissan 240sx #56

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by BVinson:
.......and I have won as many races or more than the others. So I am happy and will take your advise and let it be.

Brian Vinson

[This message has been edited by BVinson (edited September 13, 2004).]

So, you are winning races, but you think they "blew it" on your spec weight, and you want it to be lowered further???????

That's rich!



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[BVinson]

Yeah, you like that? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif As I said there are only 4-5 cars at the most in ITS in this region. What if I was to go to another region or even arrc. Just want all to be fair. Thats all.

[Geo]

Originally posted by BVinson:
What if I was to go to another region or even arrc.

Well, you'd get to have fun at Road Atlanta I'd guess.


Originally posted by BVinson:
Just want all to be fair. Thats all.

Sounds like it is. For you at least.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com



[This message has been edited by Geo (edited September 13, 2004).]

[Geo]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
Saying that a car is 50-75 pounds off it's ideal weight is nit-picking IMHO.

I agree. I think it's impossible to accurately gauge car potential to get any finer resolution than 65 or so lbs.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[lateapex911]

Agreed, and it's not just because of the inability to get closer, but because of the variety of tracks, and the individual strengths of some cars vs. the strengths of others. What wins here loses there and vice versa........in a perfect world.

Now, if you really think that you are spec'ed too heavy, then indeed you NEED to go to the ARRCs, and other areas and tracks and run against the best, AND put every last effort of development into the car possible. And, encourage your friends who run the same car to do the same. Might have to share secrets to prove a point.

Proving your car is too heavy is a little tough...you need numbers on your side, empirically, as well as results-wise, just to get the attention of the boards. Then you need those numbers to be obvious...like Pierre Kleinubing drove your car, at the ARRCs lets say, and you had every last trick part and tweak on it, and you paid Real Time to prep and set it up. Pierre gets creamed all over the track, gets out at the end, and said, "Thees car is a peese of sheet"!

(The famous corallary to this is the not exactly true story of how the Accord got moved from ITB to ITA....Randy Pobst supposedly drove it at the ARRCs and cleaned up with it an *PooF*! it was in ITA!)

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[mavis]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
Are we talking about the ITS Acura Integra 3-Door GS-R with 172 stock HP?? If so, assuming a meager 25% increase with IT prep, I'd have to say that this one is SPOT ON for the class... In fact, I'm thinking it's a little on the light side, if the HP numbers work out correctly...

Compare this to the '95-'98 240SX, which has to weight 2650lbs and only makes 155hp stock, or the 944, which has 157hp stock and has to weight 2715lbs...

I'm not sure I'd be complaining if I were you...

Keep in mind that stock weights have very little to do with final weight these days... except to try to help determine if the final weight can be achieved with legal IT prep...

Looking at the numbers, the Acura being discussed looks like a really NICE choice for an ITS car...

Good Luck!



Not entirely sure where you are getting the figure 172 stock HP? Most stock numbers are about 150whp.

[SPiFF]

Crack HP as rated by the factory.

Mine was 137.9 WHP and 107.9 WTQ bone stock on a dyno jet BTW.

------------------
Zsolt - #18 H3 GSR
http://www.SouthEastHondaChallenge.com

[Geo]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
Then you need those numbers to be obvious...like Pierre Kleinubing drove your car, at the ARRCs lets say, and you had every last trick part and tweak on it

If Klangandbang drove it you'd need a new car the following season.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[x-ring]

"If Klangandbang drove it you'd need a new car the following season."

Season? Don't you mean session, George? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


------------------
Ty Till
#16 ITS
Rocky Mountain Division

[Knestis]

Okay - I'm probably going to kill off a couple of our more prodigious posters with coronary failure when I hit "post" but...

If you weren't involved in conversations about weight specs back in the bad old days (aka 18 or more months ago) then you don't know how good we have it now.

Before the current ITAC gained any traction on the problem, the stories about how weights were set changed faster than Darin changes his shorts. They were set based on curb weights, then by some magic (if unpublished) formula, then by voodoo...

Even with the subjective factors that get considered now, we are WAY better off than we used to be, in terms of some predictable, repeatable process being applied to this question. I'm still on the fence re: PCAs but am increasingly confident.

I do chuckle a little whenever one of the ITAC members posts something about the "formula," for reasons that should be obvious to those who WERE around here over the last four years or so but GOOD WORK, GUYS...

K

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Knestis:
...the stories about how weights were set changed faster than Darin changes his shorts.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say, but I'm SURE that I don't like it! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif (just a funny phrase that I came up with one day when responding to my wife... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif )




I do chuckle a little whenever one of the ITAC members posts something about the "formula," for reasons that should be obvious to those who WERE around here over the last four years or so but GOOD WORK, GUYS...

K

"PROCESS" Kirk... "PROCESS"... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Hopefully... this will work!?!?!? http://www.coloradoscca.org/prodcar/images/smiles/icon_sorry.gif


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[Geo]

Originally posted by x-ring:
"If Klangandbang drove it you'd need a new car the following season."

Season? Don't you mean session, George? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif




Yes, exactly. I was just assuming (wrongly) that the ARRC would be the last race of the season. But you are 100% correct.

I swear sometimes the only thing that guy doesn't hit is the starter's stand.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[This message has been edited by Geo (edited September 14, 2004).]

[lateapex911]

Kirk?????

IS that you Kirk???

Ok, who stole Kirk, and WHO is posting in his name????

Falling over, I am...


------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[Catch22]

Oh, as I've posted many times before I think the new ITAC is doing a fandamnedtastic job. There is now a method to the madness, which is a very very good thing.

I figure the next couple of years will be spent adjusting grossly misclassed cars (like has already started). But after that I'm hoping that the process itself will get tweeked a little further. Plucking the low fruit first and then going after the tougher stuff so to speak.

A fine example is the car we're talking about here. As I mentioned before in this thread, I don't think its something at or near the top of the current list. But maybe in a couple of years it should be. By the current process the car looks good at 2690, but I promise you guys it isn't. It won't get off a slow corner and the brakes won't stand up to a tough race at even a moderate braking track. In a close NASA race at CMP (brutal on brakes) in 2002 I actually cracked a front rotor all the way through (the rotor was a brand new Brembo that was double ducted) and was lucky not to crash. This was at 2600lbs.

Nitpicking-65lbs may sound like nitpicking to some of you guys, but as a former owner of one of these cars I will say that beyond question when a car's weakness is torque and brakes, 65lbs can make a BIG difference.
Maybe the ITAC can start nitpicking in 2006??? I'm sure there are many other chassis that need some nitpicking (both up and down)
Meaningful Results-OK, some guy is winning some races in xxx chassis in xxx division... Is this a meaningful data point???
What is the level of the competition???
Is the car legal???
What is it doing in divisions where its class is well attended???
What is it doing at the ARRC???

Sure, for now the ITAC has a plate so full that a chassis that isn't a gross miss isn't on the radar. But what about later?

Scott, who wouldn't have sold his '94 GSR had it been listed at 2625lbs. Yes, those 65lbs ARE that significant.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
"PROCESS" Kirk... "PROCESS"... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Hopefully... this will work!?!?!? http://www.coloradoscca.org/prodcar/images/smiles/icon_sorry.gif




Right Darin! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

Process/PCA = Formula/CA

You know what they say about walking like a duck! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Process/PCA = Formula/CA


Would someone kindly explain to Mr. Miller the difference between a "Formula" and a "Process"... I've tried... he just doesn't get it...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[Geo]

Originally posted by Catch22:
Nitpicking-65lbs may sound like nitpicking to some of you guys...

<snip>

Sure, for now the ITAC has a plate so full that a chassis that isn't a gross miss isn't on the radar. But what about later?

Scott, those 65 lbs are lost in the mix. I know you and some others won't like to hear this, but IMHO (I don't speak for the whole ITAC of course) if we are that close, we are not only done, but I'd say "good job." I don't see how we could estimate performance potential of 300+ cars to get closer than that. And I'd guess I'm one of the ITAC members who is more open to adjustments. Just trying to be honest and up front. And don't think "hey if I ask for 100 lbs I might get 50." Doesn't work that way.

Now, if you want to talk about a car that is in need of adjustment...

The 944 and 944S share the exact same chassis. If the 944 were set to the same power to weight as the 944S it should weight around 2220 lbs. Currently it must weigh 2750. This isn't even a matter of estimating performance since the only difference is the engines. You can have your 65 lbs if I can have my 530 lbs. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[Catch22]

You can have your 65 lbs if I can have my 530 lbs. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


See George, I see that example as speaking of 2 different things. I (and apparently alot of other people) see the 944 as a good old fashioned "tweener." Too slow for ITS as light as you can legally get it and too good for ITA unless you fill it with a dumptruck full of sand.
There will be cars like this. That just don't really fit well anywhere. FWIW I think the New Beetle is one of these. I think ITC at over 2700lbs was the best choice, but c'mon... 2750lbs, Front wheel drive and 6" wide wheels... Yeah, OK, Have fun with that.

The Integra in question isn't such a car. Its a good ITS car all around, its just listed a bit too heavy.
Again, here's one potential solution to the BMW problem. And if you think just adding weight to the E36 is the solution think again. A little birdie told me many of the E36 cars that are currently dominant are already running well above 2800lbs. Even adding 200lbs to them won't change much.

Remember, I've got no horse in this race. I sold my Integra 2 years ago and won't be building another. I'm just trying to be honest based on my knowlege and experience.

[Geo]

Originally posted by Catch22:
See George, I see that example as speaking of 2 different things.

Actually, you missed the point.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
Would someone kindly explain to Mr. Miller the difference between a "Formula" and a "Process"... I've tried... he just doesn't get it...



Ok Darin, I was just poking a little fun, but obviously, you don't get that either. The difference is, that if you call it a 'Process', you can hide behind the fact that it's not official, and doesn't have to get applied objectively to everyone.

Have fun!

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Catch22]

Originally posted by Geo:
Actually, you missed the point.




Well, OK.
I'll try to do better next time.

[JayLfrye]

I invite any one of you knuckleheads to drive my 95 GSR at Summit. If you can get within two seconds of the top running BMWs I'd be shocked. There are two well developed, well funded GSR's and all we can do is pray for attrition so we can even have a shot at a top 5 finish.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by JayLfrye:
I invite any one of you knuckleheads to drive my 95 GSR at Summit. If you can get within two seconds of the top running BMWs I'd be shocked. There are two well developed, well funded GSR's and all we can do is pray for attrition so we can even have a shot at a top 5 finish.

First off... you might want to show a little constraint with the "knuckleheads" comments... There are a lot of people here who deserve a little more respect than that... Perhaps you might want to consider getting a few posts under your belt before coming out with guns a blazin'...

Second, as has been said here numerous times, the BMW is a clear overdog in ITS. If you were to complain about not being able to run with the 240Zs or 2nd gen RX-7s, then you'd have a valid complaint, because THEY can't keep up with the BMW either...

I doubt, however, that this is the case, since we have two Integras out here that have shown they can run with the fastest Zs in town... underdeveloped and one of them underdriven...

The specs on the car and a quick analysis of it's classification show that it's pretty close to being classified correctly. The specs are close, the rest is up to you...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 12, 2004).]

[JayLfrye]

Please pardon the knucklehead reference if you took it to heart. It was an attempt at humor.

These types of discussions have been around the SCCA since classes were developed. And, there have always been discussions regarding disparages in classifications. However, in today’s world of faster communication and freedom of information more members are questioning the manner, process and/or procedures used in determining the classification. Intelligent discourse and rational debate is something that should be encouraged in a member driven organization. I believe the perception is that this is not the case, hence the migration and atrophy to organizations such as NASA.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by JayLfrye:
Please pardon the knucklehead reference if you took it to heart. It was an attempt at humor.

No Problem...


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">However, in today’s world of faster communication and freedom of information more members are questioning the manner, process and/or procedures used in determining the classification. Intelligent discourse and rational debate is something that should be encouraged in a member driven organization. I believe the perception is that this is not the case, hence the migration and atrophy to organizations such as NASA.</font>

Well, as the Chairman of the IT Advisory Committee, I can assure you that this "perception" is simply NOT the case... I'd say I, George Roffe, Andy Bettencourt, Chris Albin, Peter Keane, and Chris Camadella, who all participate here and are members of the ITAC are proof that we are working hard to listen, be open in our discussions, and try to find out what it is the IT community wants.

As for the Integra and the process of classification, it's pretty simple... Though this car was classified prior to the current classification "process", it falls pretty much inline with what it would end up at today. We simply use the following procedure:

Estmated HP output * wt/pwr factor + adders = spec weight

The adders are basically figured by comparing things like brakes, tranny ratios, suspension design, drive config, etc., to some baseline cars in the class. In the case of ITS, these include the 944, RX-7, and 240Z. This weight is added/subtracted from the initial weight calculation to come up with the final number.

The process is still someone subjective, but necessarily so, since we don't have F1 technology or spec cars here.

Based on this process, the Integra comes in very close to what it needs to be to be competitive in the class, at least with the 240Z, RX-7, 944, etc...

Hope this helps,




------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[x-ring]

Based on this process, the Integra comes in very close to what it needs to be to be competitive in the class, at least with the 240Z, RX-7, 944, etc...

I'd like to offer the following supporting your comment Darin. An Integra tied for the season win in the RMDiv points series with an RX-7 driven by the man who won the series for the last ten (or more) years. I was a distant third in a Z car.

While we're on the subject of weight, I saw a number of class/weight changes in the last Fastrack, but nothing about the 325is. Is this because the rule that allows PCA's will not take effect until January? Currently the E36 means nothing to me since there isn't one running in RMDiv, but I'm sure that won't last forever.



------------------
Ty Till
#16 ITS
Rocky Mountain Division

[zracre]

I think everyone should just watch and see what happens in the next season with all the changes in the pipeline...we cannot predict the future accurately with so many changes coming with car classifications and wheel sizes etc. I sold my 94 integra gs for a 92 so i could run ITA competitively. I was worried about putting all this money in a car that was running against the same car with almos 30 more bhp...now it is moved to ITA...oh well. I finally took it to sebring for a shakedown before the ARRC without all the goods bolted to it(no swaybar stainless brake lines ignition etc)...i swept all 3 races. I know i wont be too competitive at the ARRC without an LSD or a rebuilt motor (68k stock motor car from buy here pay here lot) but I will have a blast anyways...see ya all there i hope!!!!

[BVinson]

quote;An Integra tied for the season win in the RMDiv points series with an RX-7 driven by the man who won the series for the last ten (or more) years. I was a distant third in a Z car.

This is true. What it doesn't show is that the RX7 only ran 8 races and I ran 12 races. I only beat the RX7 4 times. Once in the snow{integra=full tread toyos, rx7=new hoosiers}, once when he didnt show, once after he had surgery and once when he was involved in an incident. I never outright beat him. When he won,it was by a long ways.

[x-ring]

Originally posted by BVinson:
... I never outright beat him. When he won,it was by a long ways.

Really? I guess I was always so far back that I never saw why you and Guy's finishing interval was. The only race I remember seeing the finish of was Sunday's race at Pueblo in July, and I thought you two were snoot-to-boot at the checker.

[BVinson]

Forgot about that one http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/redface.gif. I almost caught that him that race. That "guy" is so tough to catch. Oh well.
Hows things in new mex? Sorry you couldnt make the enduro. Are you coming up for the banquet?

Brian

[x-ring]

I was thinking about it. If I can unload the kids on the grandparents for the weekend Betsy and I may come up. Do they give awards for third place? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

What about Arizona? You mentioned you were thinking about Firebird this weekend. I can't make that one but there's a double reg. at (supposedly) AMP on the weekend of 11/13. You up for it? Soren was thinking about going if can find a couple of customers who want to go.

Shoot me an email or call if you want to chat more about it.




------------------
Ty Till
#16 ITS
Rocky Mountain Division

[four27]

Originally posted by Chuck Davis:
I'm looking for all those racing '94-95 Acura GSR. The issue is the finished weight of a car fully prepared by the rules. (FYI, in my first outting this weekend I discovered I was 170 lbs. underweight.) You know the attitude expressed by the board is that they don't make mistakes determining car weights. I think they missed this one by 100 lbs. You can call me anytime at 913 484-5510 or reply here. Thanks.
I ran a 94 gsr in Oregon division in ITS until mid season and wanted to do more to car so I am running Oregon RS and will try SPU. My car typically came off the track at 2710. I had 35 pounds of ballast plus spare tire in rear 25lbs. I had to start with half fuel tank also. I weigh 218. My car was very competitive with the Portland bunch. I have only four seasons under my belt so driving skills have room for improvement. My car pretty much had best of everything in it and it was dialed in perfectly with just a tad bit of oversteer. this is a perfect car for ITS but you have to spend money to get it competitive. My head was done by Sunbelt in Georgia and bottom end by Drummond Auto. I shifted at 8500 and ran the new hoosiers.


Now I have the car weight down to 2470 with me in it. Horsepower is 174 and torque is 128. I now have carbon fibre hood and trunk. With loss of weight and increase in power I have shaved about 3 seconds off per lap. the car handles very well, especially with the 2700 dollar Mugen shocks. Big problem is lack of RS cars in PDX SCCA so I will be going to lots of conference races and trying spu.

Anything else I can help you with let me know. I have a brand new GSR short block and a race prepped head for sale. Ron 1-541-954-0135

[sgraves]

Chuck,

Was your first outing the October race at TMS? You forgot to tell everyone that you qualified first in ITS if that was you. I wouldn't worry about the 100lbs yet. Spend some more time developing the car.