Del Sol VTEC - Please Contact me

[Bob Roth]

Does anybody know anybody who drives a Del Sol VTEC in ITS? In consideration of our recent 220 pound weight increase, I would like to contact other Del Sol owners to understand what their cars actually weigh and what their actual racing results were.

Also, if anybody has does or dont's on who to contact or how to appeal competition adjustments, please advise. I can be contacted at [email protected]

thanks
Bob Roth

[R2 Racing]

Wait a minute, they added 220lbs to the ITS Del Sol? Are you kidding me?

There use to be a guy in CenDiv who ran one a couple of years ago, but I have no idea what happened to him or the car since I haven't seen either in probably 2 or 3 years. He by no means was blazing the ITS fields or anything.

[charrbq]

If its the same guy I saw run the ARRC a couple of years ago he was by no means a threat to win. His car was very quick and tempting, but no BMW. That guy hurt his car pretty much towards the end of the race when it found the side of a spinning car. Haven't seen it since then.

I don't understand how the rules makers justify adding weight to some cars. It's as though rather than embrace new cars in a class, they penalize them for being competitive. Integras get popular and competitive and they slap weight on them. I suppose there's a reason, but I doubt I'll ever understand it. :dead_horse:

[stevel]

In consideration of our recent 220 pound weight increase

[/b]

You sure? When did it come out? I did not see it in the Feb. Adendum, nor the March or April fasttrack?

s

[Bob Roth]

The weight add happened in the April Fasttrack. To be honest, I haven't paid that much attention to these adjustments as to date they weren't about anything I've been running, I'd love to understand what's happening.

tks
bob

[R2 Racing]

Wow, I wouldn't believe it if I didn't go and see it myself.

Both the Honda Civic Del Sol VTEC ('94-'96) and the Honda Civic si ('99-'00) use to be classified at 2360lbs. In the April FastTracks, effective April 1st, they have both been changed to 2580lbs. Geez, at that weight, I think I'd take a 2690 GSR instead (yet still not be seriously competitive).

Bob, I'm just wondering, how light were you actually able to get your Del Sol down to? At 2360 I think the car could be quite competitive but I doubt it could actually be made that light.

[Andy Bettencourt]

These cars were looked over during the Feb correction. Both of these cars were VERY underweight given their power potential and 160 stock hp. I think you would agree that at 2360 and given the specs this car was a major issue. Both cars now fit the process. (please ignore the current 2850 BMW for comparison - it's an anomoly)

AB

[R2 Racing]

Both of these cars were VERY underweight given their power potential and 160 stock hp. I think you would agree that at 2360 and given the specs this car was a major issue.[/b]

I do agree, but I also believe that 2360 in either of those cars was a ficticious and unreachable number. I'd just like to see what Bob was able to get his car down to previously.

Personally, I think 2480 would be a reachable and possibly competitive weight for them. But remember that now since it has been changed, it's guaranteed to be looked at again during the next off season. Just keep on racing hard and we'll see how things shake out after this year in ITS.

[Catch22]

As I mentioned on another board this morning, this is another instance of VTEC hurting the classification of a Honda.

Andy, those cars weren't going to be ITS competitive at the old weight. Now they are dead.
Sure, they do make 160hp, BUT they are very peaky 1.6 liter motors that make no torque at all. And as a local Atlanta driver (a good one) found a few years ago, that 1.6 liter engine WILL NOT hang with BMWs and RX7s and 240s on the last half of a straight. That was at the old weight with a King Motorsports powerplant.
He gave up on that project. I think that car is being regionally run in EP now.

I understand the process and I mostly agree with it. But this is a case (and I'm sure there will be others) where the process got it wrong. Really really wrong.
I'm starting to think "the process" is weighted such that the high revving, high peak power, low displacement and low TQ Honda products are in big trouble. With FWD and a lack of grunt, weight kills these cars, but the high peak HP numbers are getting them the weight.

Its a tricky situation.

[gran racing]

I primarily know about the '00 civic si (I owned one for a few years) and that weight will kill it. It does seem like a lot of weight for both of these cars, esp. as Scott said with the VTEC impacting the final HP numbers.

I too am curious what weight you were able to get down to.

[Bob Roth]

I bought it last thanksgiving so I don't know what weight the car will end up at. Based upon the previous owners, dry and a light driver was mid 2400. Given my 50 year old mass, I wouldn't have a problem at 2480.

I absolutely concur on the no torque comment though. I would be surprised if it at 5000 rpm has more torque than a 1600 cc CRX. Torque wins races, (or more acurately the area under the HP curve wins) not the HP peak at redline.

The worst distortion with this rule is the 83 to 88 2V 944 Its 2.5 Liter, has 56% more displacement than mine and probably 50% more torque when he shifts. Under the old rules it weighed 2715 and under the new rules it weighs 2575 (5 pounds lighter than the new Del Sol weight). Plus it has rear drive, 50/50 weight balance, and can probably run 245 tires.

If anybody is on the committee is reading this, what I want to say is I didn't ever expect this car to win against good ITS fields. I just wanted something new, interesting and Honda. What I object to is having to run probably 75 pounds ballast while giving up 50% torque to every time I shift.

It would do a lot of good for the committee to publish a couple things or the cars in the class.

1) Representative weights without balast
2) representative HP curve for the engine types with area under the curve for expected operating range. (They are out there)
3) Maximum tire cross section (Mine is 225)
4) Its relative finish vs other cars in the class (its an easy exercise if you havew the results)

Again, my objective is not to change how ITCC does their weight adjustments . All I am saying is that although the VTEC Del Sol and Civic Si might be a good cars against the Nissan 240s or Nissan NX2000 in ITA, its a no brainer that they don't have the stones to win in ITS. I bought the car knowing that it can't run with RX7's, and BMW's. I accept that it won't, I just object to having to look at 75 to 100 pounds balast while doing it .

thanks for letting me spew.

Bob Roth
Honda double wishbone racing since 1991

[SPiFF]

Andy, those cars weren't going to be ITS competitive at the old weight. Now they are dead.
Sure, they do make 160hp, BUT they are very peaky 1.6 liter motors that make no torque at all.
[/b]

Yup. The "power potential" is not there either. VTEC motors are rated high from the fectory and are already in a high state of tune in stock trim. IT prep is not going to give you as much as you might think.

[charrbq]

Yup. The "power potential" is not there either. VTEC motors are rated high from the fectory and are already in a high state of tune in stock trim. IT prep is not going to give you as much as you might think.
[/b]
that's a fact proven in the Integra ITS car. It's a screamer on the streets, but it's done on the track. What you buy off the showroom floor is just about it. I once thought about a Del Sol, hoping that the ITS car would get mercifully bumped down to ITA. I was told by a well informed person that it would never happen. The word VTEC puts it in ITS no matter what displacement. The board is just too afraid of every class being won by a Honda.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I don't know what to tell you guys. To say that this car wouldn't be competitive at 2360 is a little shakey. You guys talk about lack of torque but the 1.3L RX-7 puts down 130ft/lbs at the wheels. How far off are we talking on the 160hp 1.6L?

262mm front brakes. A quick look through the ITS books shows those brakes are not that poorly sized. I stopped counting at 15 cars that had smaller brakes at more weight. I realize the things aren't going rip your eyes out but lets not go over the deap end.

How about power? The 944 mentioned above is 185 crank tops in IT prep. These Honda's should go 200 to 205 crank with a full-effort. 200 is a 25% improvment. Remember, Serra has seen well over a 25% improvement on the GS-R.

Bob,

I am not sure what you want in your questions. #1 has no bearing on any classification factor. #2 is factored more of a 'adder' for cars with huge torque. Ignore the BMW because that car has never been through this process. #3 I would venture to guess (because that info is unavailable) that 90%+ of ITS runs the 225. The benefits cars with lower weight. #4 is totally irrelvant. Unless you can provide the level of prep, the level of driving ability, the track design, the conditions, etc, etc, then on-track results are impossible to interpret. I would say that they could be used for trending over the course of multiple seasons to prove or disprove process weights.

We have said all along that the cream will rise to the top. I think you guys are vastly underestimating the potential of these cars - especially the Civic with the more stable chassis. Didn't Louis from LTB have a DelSol that made 170+ at the wheels?

On Edit: Took me a little while to find it but let's make sure we have seen the best...this is from MCN/Anthony Serra - arguably one of the top HondAcura guy around...


I have tuned many cars that were built to the hilt, including some GSR's only to find big power gains in a properly tuned exhaust and ecu.I will not share numbers, but theses cars can make good power, if they are set up properly, a shorty exhaust totally kills the torque on those motors, in fact I tuned a well known ITS car that was a (fully built car) only to find he was leaving 10+ hp at the wheels with a fully built motor and his number was north of 185...[/b]

YMMV.

[bamfp]

I remember Mike Cottrel's Del Sol making 160 hp and 105tq at the wheels with his King motor. I can tell you that the ITB car I will be driving this year makes the same tq out of a sohc 1.5L.

Blake

[SPiFF]

You guys talk about lack of torque but the 1.3L RX-7 puts down 130ft/lbs at the wheels. How far off are we talking on the 160hp 1.6L?[/b]

You would need be lucky (and wealthy/cheating) to get 110 out of the B16A. Getting 130 out of the B18C1 in the GSR doens't seem too easy either.



These Honda's should go 200 to 205 crank with a full-effort. 200 is a 25% improvment. Remember, Serra has seen well over a 25% improvement on the GS-R.[/b]

I have not seen any dynos from Serra's "well over 25%" GSR. His ITA Integra makes more TQ then my ITS Integra though. :( 25+% for a GSR is going to be 180 WHP+. I'd like to see the dyno of that. None of the GSRs I have seen, mine, Scott Seck's, or Jeremy B's, don't make anywhere near that.

200+ HP at the crack from the B16A is going to hard as well. That would be 170+ WHP.

My stock GSR street car put down 137HP/110TQ on a dyno jet. The ITS car makes 169HP/126TQ on a dynojet.

These cars don't pull off the corners well at all, they don't have the tire under the front end to toss them in fast at corner entry, and in the case of the GSR, they don't have the brakes. The weights given to the VTEC cars just does not't fit.

EDIT:



in fact I tuned a well known ITS car that was a (fully built car) only to find he was leaving 10+ hp at the wheels with a fully built motor and his number was north of 185...[/b]

Those numbers would be very impressive!! Lemme look at the check book and get back to you. :P

[Catch22]

Well, since Blake threw out the name I will as well.

Mike Cottrel (the guy that had the pink SM on the front row at the 05 ARRC, so he can drive and prep a car) tried the del sol a couple of years ago. Fully built King motor got him the numbers mentioned above.

1.6 liters is 1.6 liters.
Please don't compare to rotaries Andy, you know better than that.

And lets not race dynos. Serra's 185whp might match up completely to the 172whp I got from my GSR on Balanced Performance's dynojet. Until you do same day same dyno... Its all theoretical.
There is an ITA CRX builder out there that claims over 130 legal whp. All I have to say is thats a mighty optimistic dyno, and I wouldn't use that number to make any sort of spec line decision.

I've seen four ITS Integra GSR dynojet dyno sheets. ALL of them were under 180whp and aout 130wtq.
The 1.6 liter cars struggle to get 110tq, but will lay down decent power with about 160 at the wheels.
This shouldn't be earth shattering news. Its a 1.6 liter motor fer chrissakes.

I'm a fairly knowlegeable Honda guy in terms of IT, and I wouldn't have built an ITS Del Sol or Civic Si at THE OLD WEIGHT. So adding weight to them seems mildly ludicrous in my mind, and demonstrates to me that there is at least one hole in the process.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Scott,

I hear you. But without good numbers we have to go with the process. Your GSR lost 20% to the wheels? That seems excessive, no?

Serra's numbers may be optimistic but there is no disputing his cars make the power. You are going to use Jeremy's car as a data point? Just bolt on's and a chip get him to 165whp? That's 206bhp using your 20% loss! His car has no head work, no .5 point of compression, no .040 overbore, no blueprint and balance, no port matching. Is the DC sports Header the top of the line? What exhaust is he running (See Serra quote)? You think that is a Sunbelt/MSN type of effort?

I don't know what to tell you other than we have to use a 25% until someone can 100% disprove it (see Porsche 944/944S on the low side and Rotories/Civic Si 1.6 88-91 on the high side.

As far as a hole in the process, the only one I can see potential for is FWD/RWD. What would you say that is worth, given all things being equal?

[Catch22]

I'm not sure I understand 100% of your post Andy, Where did my GSR lose 20%, and who is Jeremy?

I'll just restate what I know. My GSR had everything (Sunbelt motor, custom header, maximum compression, tuned on a dynojet by Ed Senf) except a pimpy Hondata setup and laid down 172/130. If I give the Hondata 8whp (which I doubt) I'm still nowhere near that 185 mark. Exhausts? I tried several and didn't see much change between them. Maybe Anthony has a magic exhaust welder of some sort up there, but I think its more likely that its an optimistic dyno.

I say that because, as I mentioned before, Mine wasn't the only GSR in the low 170s with no torque. Scott Seck and Zsolt Ferency both have fully built efforts and both land in about that same spot.

As far as data on the 1.6 cars, there isn't much, but we do have the above results from Mike Cottrell's effort a couple of years ago. We could have shared that, but you guys didn't ask (at least I never saw you ask, maybe you did). Just keep in mind that there is one constant with the Honda VTEC cars... No torque. Another example is the Type R. While it puts down about 20 more whp than a GSR, both still have the same TQ (130). The 1.6 cars have good power, but horrid TQ.
Weight KILLS when you have no TQ.

And the FWD/RWD thing does come into play when you start adding weight because the FWD cars do 90% of everything on their front tires and brakes. I'm not sure how to weight it in the "process," but it does need to be taken into account.
This past weekend the 2005 ITA ARRC winning Integra struggled with an admittedly underprepared and oil using 1.6 Miata (Bowie's) in a VIR enduro because Alex couldn't hold off the Miata and keep the front tires on the car.
Its something to keep in mind. I'm not saying these cars didn't need weight, just maybe not as much as you guys think they do because they have no TQ and are FWD.

[R2 Racing]

Andy, I'm fine with quoting Anthony as we can all agree that he is one of the foremost experts on IT Honda engine builds. But if you want to quote him, make sure to quote everything he had to say on the subject.

He goes on to say this after saying he's seen 185+whp from one, as you quoted:

the ITS Integra has a chance on any weekend regionals (arrc is another story though) you can get the power, but it will be expensive to do it, more importantly the whole package handling and brakes would have to be spot on. 2600 lbs would be the right number for the car, it really should be 2500 but that will never happen. Write the letters and see what happens, there are so many of them out there, but too many guys don't want to play, but it should be car that should be given a break at this point.[/b]

Additional comments:

I think the guys with the lower prepped cars are going to suffer the most from the changes, so intstead of closing the gap its going to get wider. The people willing to spend the money and time & effort are always going to come out on top. I expect a decline in entries from this, BMW guys are definetly going to go other places if the cars end up being slow, and there are other series for Honda's to run in that look good also.[/b]

Cost for that power:

Just to clarify costs on a GSR motor package, this would include ecu tuning,header & exhaust $11,750.[/b]

My point is that if you want to base the competitive potential of the VTEC cars based on what you quoted, look at everything that "arguably one of the top Honda/Acura guys around" had to say about it. Right there is the peak power he's ever seen, the cost it took to do it, and still yet a plee to give the car a weight break since the ARRC would still be "another story".

The Del Sol is the same story and maybe even more so since you're never even going to see over about 115lb-ft at the wheel in one of those things. There's a reason why the B16A has become famously coined "the torqueless wonder".

[Jeremy Billiel]

I'm not sure I understand 100% of your post Andy, Where did my GSR lose 20%, and who is Jeremy?

I'll just restate what I know. My GSR had everything (Sunbelt motor, custom header, maximum compression, tuned on a dynojet by Ed Senf) except a pimpy Hondata setup and laid down 172/130. If I give the Hondata 8whp (which I doubt) I'm still nowhere near that 185 mark. Exhausts? I tried several and didn't see much change between them. Maybe Anthony has a magic exhaust welder of some sort up there, but I think its more likely that its an optimistic dyno.

I say that because, as I mentioned before, Mine wasn't the only GSR in the low 170s with no torque. Scott Seck and Zsolt Ferency both have fully built efforts and both land in about that same spot.

As far as data on the 1.6 cars, there isn't much, but we do have the above results from Mike Cottrell's effort a couple of years ago. We could have shared that, but you guys didn't ask (at least I never saw you ask, maybe you did). Just keep in mind that there is one constant with the Honda VTEC cars... No torque. Another example is the Type R. While it puts down about 20 more whp than a GSR, both still have the same TQ (130). The 1.6 cars have good power, but horrid TQ.
Weight KILLS when you have no TQ.

And the FWD/RWD thing does come into play when you start adding weight because the FWD cars do 90% of everything on their front tires and brakes. I'm not sure how to weight it in the "process," but it does need to be taken into account.
This past weekend the 2005 ITA ARRC winning Integra struggled with an admittedly underprepared and oil using 1.6 Miata (Bowie's) in a VIR enduro because Alex couldn't hold off the Miata and keep the front tires on the car.
Its something to keep in mind. I'm not saying these cars didn't need weight, just maybe not as much as you guys think they do because they have no TQ and are FWD.
[/b]

Scott I am Jeremy that they are referencing.

To be clear my motor should NOT be used as a benchmark as it does not have a lot done to it. The only thing my dyno plots create is another data point to know where the motors start at. There is absolutely no doubt that there is more HP to be had in my engine. With that said, I have no doubt that Anthony can make a good high hp #, but I am not sure you are going to see much more than mid 170's.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, I'm fine with quoting Anthony as we can all agree that he is one of the foremost experts on IT Honda engine builds. But if you want to quote him, make sure to quote everything he had to say on the subject.

My point is that if you want to base the competitive potential of the VTEC cars based on what you quoted, look at everything that "arguably one of the top Honda/Acura guys around" had to say about it. Right there is the peak power he's ever seen, the cost it took to do it, and still yet a plee to give the car a weight break since the ARRC would still be "another story".

The Del Sol is the same story and maybe even more so since you're never even going to see over about 115lb-ft at the wheel in one of those things. There's a reason why the B16A has become famously coined "the torqueless wonder". [/b]

Kevin,

What I quoted was what he stated as 'fact'. His suggestion that 2500 is the right weight is pure conjecture and, frankly, is rediculous IMHO. Why would I quote that? What if he said 2300lbs? It isn't relevant. Understand also that that car that came in STARTED at 185whp and he found 10whp. Let's just use 190whp as a conservative number to bounce around based on Serra's first-hand account.

Weight to WHP:

GSR: 2500 (suggested) / 190 = 13.1
RX-7: 2680 / 182 = 14.9

Huh?

Using the weight setting process, and his numbers, the cars base weight before 'adders' would be 2883. I think it's fair to say that a 200lb reduction is resonable for FWD and 'small' brakes.

And cost doesn't factor. You have to class based on a cars potential - period. And we aren't trying to class cars based on the "ARRC" either. Look at the cluster-f the Prod community is in every year when requests come in based on 'my drive at Mid-Ohio'. No way.

Again, I understand the issues but this is not an exact science and I suspect that the real beef may be with what to take off for FWD given a RWD dominated class (or conversly how much to add for RWD given a FWD dominated class). And when I say dominated, I don't mean results, I mean cars classed in the ITCS.

Let me ask a serious question: Why is there no beef in the ITA world with the Teg and the 240SX? They weigh effectly the same, the 240 has huge torque and RWD, they make about the same hp - yet the cars stack up on the track. I suspect it's because the ITA Teg's have been fully developed where the ITS cars have not. (Again, leave the E36 out of the equation from a spec persective)

AB

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'm not sure I understand 100% of your post Andy, Where did my GSR lose 20%, and who is Jeremy?

I'll just restate what I know. My GSR had everything (Sunbelt motor, custom header, maximum compression, tuned on a dynojet by Ed Senf) except a pimpy Hondata setup and laid down 172/130. If I give the Hondata 8whp (which I doubt) I'm still nowhere near that 185 mark. Exhausts? I tried several and didn't see much change between them. Maybe Anthony has a magic exhaust welder of some sort up there, but I think its more likely that its an optimistic dyno.

I say that because, as I mentioned before, Mine wasn't the only GSR in the low 170s with no torque. Scott Seck and Zsolt Ferency both have fully built efforts and both land in about that same spot.

As far as data on the 1.6 cars, there isn't much, but we do have the above results from Mike Cottrell's effort a couple of years ago. We could have shared that, but you guys didn't ask (at least I never saw you ask, maybe you did). Just keep in mind that there is one constant with the Honda VTEC cars... No torque. Another example is the Type R. While it puts down about 20 more whp than a GSR, both still have the same TQ (130). The 1.6 cars have good power, but horrid TQ.
Weight KILLS when you have no TQ.

And the FWD/RWD thing does come into play when you start adding weight because the FWD cars do 90% of everything on their front tires and brakes. I'm not sure how to weight it in the "process," but it does need to be taken into account.
This past weekend the 2005 ITA ARRC winning Integra struggled with an admittedly underprepared and oil using 1.6 Miata (Bowie's) in a VIR enduro because Alex couldn't hold off the Miata and keep the front tires on the car.
Its something to keep in mind. I'm not saying these cars didn't need weight, just maybe not as much as you guys think they do because they have no TQ and are FWD. [/b]

Didn't see this one first Scott - sorry!

Like I said, we have a process that estimates power potential and then takes into accounts like torque, layout, aero, tranny ratios, etc. Until something can be disporoven behond a shadow of a doubt, we have to go with it. It may not be (and isn't) perfect, but it is at least documentable and repeatable - unlike the old 'dartboard' method. Remember how almost all DOHC 4cyl around 140hp we in ITS not so long ago? Yikes!

Let's not use enduro's as a data point. I have talked on the phone with Boooo-eee and he knows his car is not the car to have in sprints. He is primarily an Enduro guy and he chose a car with good balance and one that will last. It's not fair to use that - even though he still beat him!

All I ask is that you all undertand the process DOES factor things in, correctly or incorrectly. I have to ask again, what weight differential would you assign to a FWD vs. RWD given the same everything else?

[R2 Racing]

Understand also that that car that came in STARTED at 185whp and he found 10whp. Let's just use 190whp as a conservative number to bounce around based on Serra's first-hand account.[/b]
I don't know if relying purely on what one person said the car has done on his dyno should be taken as the end all fact. I do not doubt that it was done because I trust Serra, but what others are saying they've seen on their dynos with full out builds needs to be taken into account as well. As Scott said earlier, until your doing car after car on the exact same dyno, nothing can be taken as written in stone fact.

FWIW, I can tell you that I am good friends with a guy who use to race Grand Am Cup Type R's, fully prepared in house by his race shop, on his dyno, with an infinite amount of development and they never saw over about 193whp on their Dyno Jet. So as others have said, I'd buy 175whp, maybe even 180 out of a stellar ITS GSR build (on your average dyno, on your average day).


Again, I understand the issues but this is not an exact science and I suspect that the real beef may be with what to take off for FWD given a RWD dominated class (or conversly how much to add for RWD given a FWD dominated class).

Let me ask a serious question: Why is there no beef in the ITA world with the Teg and the 240SX? They weigh effectly the same, the 240 has huge torque and RWD, they make about the same hp - yet the cars stack up on the track. I suspect it's because the ITA Teg's have been fully developed where the ITS cars have not.[/b]
That's a very good question and let me first start off by saying once again that I couldn't be happier to see all of this action in the ITAC! I applaud you guys for having the balls to take IT by the horns and shake it up a bit - it needed to be done. I also couldn't be more thrilled that there's someone like you out there who's on these boards listening to us and available to discuss this stuff like this.

In response to "why no beef in ITA", I think it's because of two reasons. First, the Integra in ITA is one of the most successful chassis to date along with a small handfull of others. I personally drive one and I'm just happy to see the chance for more competitors becoming more enticed by these changes to step up to the plate, prepare their chassis to the level that the Integra and CRX drivers have thus far, and take a run at us! It's the purest sense of "competition" and what racing should be about, IMHO. That being said, I also know for a fact that the ITAC has a system in place such that if we see Miata's and 240's wipping the floor with CRX's and Integra's this year than they'll recognize the problem. The ITAC will (hopefully) see that proven, fully built, well driven cars that use to win are now being beat under the new changes, and adjustments will be made accordingly. Will it happen? Quite possibly. But I'm confident given a year or two of "teething problems" that ITA racing will become the best it's ever been.

Now look at this from the ITS standpoint. Rather large chunks of weight are being added to Honda/Acura products that no one was winning in prior to the added weight. That right there is where "the beef" is. In ITA, if the changes end up killing the Integra's and/or CRX's, it'll be pretty clear pretty quickly and changes will/should be made because the old saying of "Well, that car was never fully prepaired" will be tossed out the window concernign those two cars (Right? I hope so...). In ITS however, the Honda/Acura cars are being killed before they ever lived. If you think no one ever built one to their potential before, do you expect them to now?


My second point has to do with the FWD vs. RWD debate. In ITA, you're talking about the Integra vs. the 240. They both weigh about 2600lbs and are pushing around 145whp (at least I can say that about the Integra). Many Integra guys have not raced thier cars near that weight but I have (routinely around 2575 last year) and can honestly say that the car and the 225 tires can handle it. It took me a while to get my handleing set up to do so but after two years of constant development, it's pretty damn good. So at that weight and power, my FWD car has proven to be up to the task already. Therefore I don't feel that the RWD of the 240 is that huge of a advantage because I don't feel like my FWD is hindering me. But also remember that we sure as hell know what Mr. Stretch was able to accomplish in those 240's before the weight additions to the CRX and the Integra. (Which is cold, hard, on the track evidence BTW. Unlike talk of potential dyno numbers and "what ifs".) Hmmm, so should I be more concerned about them? Maybe I should be, but I don't think it's because they're RWD and I'm not.

Now again, look at this in ITS. Take about the same weight but add a potential 35-45 more whp with about the same sized brakes and the same sized tires. Yea, I could see those FWD cars burning up their tires in that instance. For conversation sake, let me tell you about our ITS Prelude. Right now it puts down around 180whp and 180ft-lbs out of it's 2.3L. It also weighs about 2750lbs (I think). That car just kills its front tires! You absolutely cannot drive it like you can my ITA Integra as you will burn the front tires off of it in no time. So just from these personal experiences of mine, RWD is a bigger advantage in ITS than it is in ITA, IMHO. In a FWD car you're pushing all of that power, cornering, and braking mainly through just those two front 225 tires. As you keep adding those on, eventually it just won't do it anymore.


Whew, long one! (Can you tell that I'm bored at work? ;) )

[Catch22]

Andy...

All I can say is that 190ish whp from a legal ITS GSR is just... I dunno.
It DOES NOT match up with what other people are seeing. My guess is that its the dyno or there is something up with that car. The Type R guys running in Honda Challenge are only seeing about 195 at the wheels, so I have a hard time understanding a GSR that starts 20hp down to the Type R getting the same thing.
But again, you can't race dynos. Too many variables.
Thats why I think you throw out outlyers that are oddly high or low. And I'll say it again, if you do that, you get about 172/130 on a GSR.

Pretty pretty please don't put another 100lbs in the CRX just because Blaney says he can get 135 legal whp.
B)

As for FWD vs. RWD I can't answer the question because I don't know the process and how things are currently weighted. Is there no current distinction between FWD and RWD? If not, there needs to be, and the heavier you get the more important it becomes.
If the goal is to class all these cars as fairly as possible, these things need to be taken into account.

Lets use the GSR vs. the RX7 as an example.
Both have about the same hp and tq. Both weigh about the same.
Yet... Even the best prepared GSRs can't hang with good RX7s. Why is this?
My guess, from experience (yes, I have driven both in anger) is the brakes and the balance. The RX7 has SIGNIFICANTLY better brakes (the GSR brakes just plain suck, and if pushed hard can catch on fire. I've seen it happen twice) and is much easier on front tires. The GSR does have better suspension design though.
So... Why does the GSR actually weigh 10lbs MORE than the RX7?
Thats a good question.
I'd like to see it weigh about 50lbs less based (if on nothing else) on the brakes. Then maybe another 40 for FWD.

I came to this conclusion working backwards based completely on the fact that I think the GSR ought to be at 2600lbs. I think it suddenly becomes a good ITS car at that weight instead of a brake destroying front heavy pigmobile that you can't sell for more than $9000 because nobody wants one.

Good weight for the 1.6 VTEC cars? Maybe 2480.
But I STILL wouldn't build one.
I might consider a GSR at 2600, but I probably still wouldn't do that either.

I think you really need to have owned and tried to race one to understand where some of us are coming from. They are very good cars, but with 100lbs of lead and a spare tire in the back they become fairly useless and even higher on consumables than they already were.
And any FWD car over 2500lbs is going to be tough on tires and brake components.

PS - I used the enduro as an example of what weight can do to a FWD car Andy. I realize its apples to oranges to compare that to a sprint, but its usable data.

[Andy Bettencourt]

In response to "why no beef in ITA", I think it's because of two reasons. First, the Integra in ITA is one of the most successful chassis to date along with a small handfull of others. I personally drive one and I'm just happy to see the chance for more competitors becoming more enticed by these changes to step up to the plate, prepare their chassis to the level that the Integra and CRX drivers have thus far, and take a run at us! It's the purest sense of "competition" and what racing should be about, IMHO. That being said, I also know for a fact that the ITAC has a system in place such that if we see Miata's and 240's wipping the floor with CRX's and Integra's this year than they'll recognize the problem. The ITAC will (hopefully) see that proven, fully built, well driven cars that use to win are now being beat under the new changes, and adjustments will be made accordingly. Will it happen? Quite possibly. But I'm confident given a year or two of "teething problems" that ITA racing will become the best it's ever been.

Now look at this from the ITS standpoint. Rather large chunks of weight are being added to Honda/Acura products that no one was winning in prior to the added weight. That right there is where "the beef" is. In ITA, if the changes end up killing the Integra's and/or CRX's, it'll be pretty clear pretty quickly and changes will/should be made because the old saying of "Well, that car was never fully prepaired" will be tossed out the window concernign those two cars (Right? I hope so...). In ITS however, the Honda/Acura cars are being killed before they ever lived. If you think no one ever built one to their potential before, do you expect them to now?


My second point has to do with the FWD vs. RWD debate. In ITA, you're talking about the Integra vs. the 240. They both weigh about 2600lbs and are pushing around 145whp (at least I can say that about the Integra). Many Integra guys have not raced thier cars near that weight but I have (routinely around 2575 last year) and can honestly say that the car and the 225 tires can handle it. It took me a while to get my handleing set up to do so but after two years of constant development, it's pretty damn good. So at that weight and power, my FWD car has proven to be up to the task already. Therefore I don't feel that the RWD of the 240 is that huge of a advantage because I don't feel like my FWD is hindering me. But also remember that we sure as hell know what Mr. Stretch was able to accomplish in those 240's before the weight additions to the CRX and the Integra. (Which is cold, hard, on the track evidence BTW. Unlike talk of potential dyno numbers and "what ifs".) Hmmm, so should I be more concerned about them? Maybe I should be, but I don't think it's because they're RWD and I'm not.

Now again, look at this in ITS. Take about the same weight but add a potential 35-45 more whp with about the same sized brakes and the same sized tires. Yea, I could see those FWD cars burning up their tires in that instance. For conversation sake, let me tell you about our ITS Prelude. Right now it puts down around 180whp and 180ft-lbs out of it's 2.3L. It also weighs about 2750lbs (I think). That car just kills its front tires! You absolutely cannot drive it like you can my ITA Integra as you will burn the front tires off of it in no time. So just from these personal experiences of mine, RWD is a bigger advantage in ITS than it is in ITA, IMHO. In a FWD car you're pushing all of that power, cornering, and braking mainly through just those two front 225 tires. As you keep adding those on, eventually it just won't do it anymore.


Whew, long one! (Can you tell that I'm bored at work? ;) ) [/b]

Kev,

The short answer to your issue is simple. These weight changes have been made NOT because of on-track performance. They have been made based on the process and the process alone. I empathize that the results of drivers, no matter how limited the cars are being raced, haven't proven the cars to need any weight change, but as has been outlined, there are so many factors that play that it is impossible to use that as primary data.


Andy...


As for FWD vs. RWD I can't answer the question because I don't know the process and how things are currently weighted. Is there no current distinction between FWD and RWD? If not, there needs to be, and the heavier you get the more important it becomes.
If the goal is to class all these cars as fairly as possible, these things need to be taken into account.[/b]

I didn't ask the right way. I am not asking you to interpret the current process, I am asking you to tell me what the difference should be.

Within the current process, the GSR shows a slight estimated power advantage. Until proven otherwise, it kinda has to stay. Similar to many cars in the ITCS.


Good weight for the 1.6 VTEC cars? Maybe 2480.
But I STILL wouldn't build one.
I might consider a GSR at 2600, but I probably still wouldn't do that either.

I think you really need to have owned and tried to race one to understand where some of us are coming from. They are very good cars, but with 100lbs of lead and a spare tire in the back they become fairly useless and even higher on consumables than they already were.
And any FWD car over 2500lbs is going to be tough on tires and brake components.[/b]

I understand your position but it is a 100% guess. The process is still a guess, but it is an educated one that is applied the same to all cars. Someday (maybe soon?) there may be different compensation for FWD or any other 'adder'... That may be the basis for a letter.

[Greg Krom]

What is the current compensation for FWD in ITS? How about double wishbones? VTEC? Can the values used throughout the process be published? It would be kind of hard for any of us to write a letter requesting that they be changed if we don't know what they are right now. ;-)

Reverse engineering of the new weights for 1.6 VTEC cars tells me that the subtraction for FWD is offset in the process by the additions for double wishbones and VTEC - I can't think of any other adders associated with those cars off the top of my head. Is that correct?

It seems to me that FWD would be a bigger hinderance to on track performance (at least at these weights & horsepower) than the wishbones and VTEC would be advantageous.

[Catch22]

Here is a quick note on VTEC.

Its not all its cracked up to be. It adds top end HP at the very top of the RPM band ONLY. Thats all you get.

And what you end up with is a high hp car with no torque, small brakes, and alot of lead because of the high peak HP.
IMVHP THATS whats killing the Honda and Acuras under the current process. The benefits of that peak HP can't compete with the cost of that weight on corner exit, upshifts, and braking.

I imagine that the Type R (which was just rejected) would come in at something like 2900lbs under the current process. It wouldn't even be competitive there. Sure, it's got 195whp at 8000rpms, but 130lbft of TQ ain't gonna lug 2900lbs off a corner.
As I mentioned before... small displacement is small displacement.
And I think thats the hole in the system.

FWIW.

PS - I own none of the cars being discussed, I just think it benefits all of us if cars are properly speced, especially newer, popular ones.

[Bob Roth]

A couple of replies here;

1.) Keeping track of unbalasted weight is important because if the car can't get to the weight legally, its not a break. My buddy races a 944 and is overwheight at the current minimum. We may be arguing about nothing if a 944 driver has to remove doors and hatch needed to get to the new minimum.
It would build trust and confidence if the ITCC was gathering sampling data of cars.

In terms of tires, I recall 245 rubber on at least BMW is.

Also. this is from memory but I recall that the Porsche 944 brakes are in the 280's mm and the civic (same weight) in the 260's mm diameter. My brake disks probably have 60% the mass of those on 944. I believe that's significant. I can not outbrake a 944 more than once.

The third point is the hp curve wins races, not the peak number. We don't have variable ratio tranmissions. Look the the power curve of a 1.6 literVTEC. I am very confident that you will see an engine that builds in tourque and HP right up into 8500 rpm redline. In otherwords its HP is lowest at shift point and goes up in near proportion to engine speed. Thats great for advertisements but not too useful on the track.

Now look at an 8v 944. Its torque peak might be at 5000 rpm its hp peak might be at 5700, but you might run it to 6500 rpm because at 6700 its hp is now equal to the hp it makes 5000. In other words, the curve like like a gentle hill that's peaks somewhere in the middle. The point is a 16valve, a 16 valve VTEC, a 8 valve, a 24 valve with variable cam timing, and a wankle all have different power curves even if they have the same peak hp. Its not the peak that matters, its the area under the useful curve.

Think of it this way, If you had a drag race starting down a 1 mile straight starting at 4800 rpm and 3rd gear between a 2.5 liter 944 with 180 hp and a 944 with 1.6 liter VTEC and a world class 200 hp motor, does anybodt believe that the 1.6 is going to outpull the 2.5 though 3rd, 4th and mid fifth gear.

Let me also say, I don't think a Del Sol is the right car for the class and it won't ever be, I just hate running ballast. These adjustments should be based on what's on the track, not somebody's perception of what Mugen "might" build and what Aryton Senna is going to do with it. Face it, until somebody does it, or has real world pertinent data, its not real.

My comment is that its great to use a formula, but the committee needs to share their data and then use statistics and data to see if the formula is working. Appeals are great but frankly, but my guess is as the only Del Sol driver in the world, there will be the opinion that my car or my driving is the problem and not the formula. How do you eliminate this distrust. Easy, Get a race engineer for this committee present how the formula works, and how you are collecting data such as HP curves (not peaks) and using statistical evaluation to improve this formula.

I do not want to be in the business of whining "I am slow, cut my weight " In that world, adjustments are political. I prefer using a formula, because its understandable and stable. I just want to understand how it works, how to improve the data, and how to improve the formula. I also believe that any formula that says a 2575 pound 2.5 liter 944 is an equivalent car to a 2580 pound 1.6 liter Del Sol VTEC might need a little work.

I agree that a formula is the solution, but let's work on the formula using regression tools and the most important data. I hope this is helping. I am on professional engineering rule making committee's too, and as such I recognize that there are more points of view than mine. In fact I'd be surprised if I know 10% of what's been discussed. All I am trying to do is explain my honest concerns and hope that it will be usefull.


regards
Bob Roth

[Knestis]

Everyone who comes to IT should be required to watch the 10-hour "History of IT" series on PBS, so they can understand how freakin' much better things are now, than they were three years ago.

FWIW, Bob - if now were then, you'd be in ITS with the 1994 Civic EX, a couple of Neons, and several 2-liter Nissans. They got moved because the math said they should. The Del Sol didn't because the math says it is too much car for A.

The problem ith the Del Sol and newer Si is that they fall into a crack between the current benchmark for A and the real-world competitive standard in S. If the top of S (the e36 325) were brought into line [b]with a few hundred pounds of lead[/i] (hint, hint), the DS wouldn't be particularly out of range.

K

[Catch22]

The problem ith the Del Sol and newer Si is that they fall into a crack between the current benchmark for A and the real-world competitive standard in S. If the top of S (the e36 325) were brought into line with a few hundred pounds of lead[/i] (hint, hint), the DS wouldn't be particularly out of range.

K



I agree that IT is 1000% better than it was just a few years ago. The ITAC is doing a great job.
But does that mean we're not allowed to raise our hands and say "Uhhhhh... I think you missed" when it looks like they missed?
I think not.

And to be mean and throw your own statement back at you Kirk, why would we ADD weight to a car thats currently between the benchmarks for A and S?
I agree that these cars have too much top end for ITA. So put them in S with no ballast.
They still won't win the ARRC, but at least the classification isn't ludicrous.
And I disagree with your lead statement on the BMW. That 1.6 liter motor is not going to run in ITS at 2500ish pounds. No way, no how, not ever.

But I truly think you have to be "A Honda Guy" to truly understand this. And if you are a Honda guy, it looks like you're just trying to help out Hondas.

But I'll say this. I couple of years ago when I built my Civic for ITC I had an opportunity to get a del sol super cheap. I passed. While it would be very light on consumables by ITS standards, I felt that it would be completely uncompetitive. Other "Honda Guys" agreed. That was at the OLD weight.
Add 220lbs to that weight and it becomes a bad joke.

[Knestis]

It's in the crack at the "formula" weight. It's only slightly above the crack when it's 220 pounds lighter.

I readily accept - and Del Sol owners don't want to hear this - that some cars are going to be dicked by a formulaic process for classifying and setting weights. This is most likely to happen to cars like the Del Sol, that apply a basic formula that is substantially different than the others that fall into a given class basket.

Part of the problem is the limited number of baskets. Five IT classes would make it easier to accommodate 'tweeners. It's also a problem that the jump between the "index" for A and the "index" for S is bigger than between C and B, or B and A.

The problem is that, for the good of the category, it's better that a few cars be left uncompetititve, than we get in the business of subjectively classifying cars based on their on-track performance.

But then, I'm getting dangerously close to trying to encourage a NERD-ish approach here. I'm going back to trying to find a cam belt tensioner that is CORRECT for the Golf.

K

[Catch22]

I understand your point Kirk.

But my point is that if we KNOW some cars are getting dicked by the system, we can adjust the system.
We're smart like that, and I think it can be done.

FWD = -50lbs
Torqueless wonder = -40lbs

See, I just threw that out off the top of my head, but I'd betcha it'd be pretty damned close to helping out cars like the GSR and del sol.

And if you're thinking "hey, that means we should take 40lbs off the RX7."
Nope... Nice big dual piston caliper brakes nullify that.

ITA looks great right now with something like 10 good looking chassis in the rulebook.
Really, there's no legitimate reason ITS couldn't be the same. Even with the BMW changes its still pretty much a 2 chassis class. It doesn't NEED to be that way.
And certainly DON'T add ballast to the cars in that "gap" Kirk mentioned.
Thats all I'm sayin'.

[seckerich]

I understand your point Kirk.

But my point is that if we KNOW some cars are getting dicked by the system, we can adjust the system.
We're smart like that, and I think it can be done.

FWD = -50lbs
Torqueless wonder = -40lbs

See, I just threw that out off the top of my head, but I'd betcha it'd be pretty damned close to helping out cars like the GSR and del sol.

And if you're thinking "hey, that means we should take 40lbs off the RX7."
Nope... Nice big dual piston caliper brakes nullify that.

ITA looks great right now with something like 10 good looking chassis in the rulebook.
Really, there's no legitimate reason ITS couldn't be the same. Even with the BMW changes its still pretty much a 2 chassis class. It doesn't NEED to be that way.
And certainly DON'T add ballast to the cars in that "gap" Kirk mentioned.
Thats all I'm sayin'.
[/b]
It does seem like we should have some extra + or - for width of torque curve and power band. When one car is within 10% of peak power for 4000rpm and another has problems holding it for 1500 it makes a big difference. When I ran against the preludes they are good for about half the race and then the tires are toast. The GSR is pretty equal until it comes to the slow corners but still a real contender with some more work on final drive ratios. The Del Sol is DOA.

[Catch22]

It does seem like we should have some extra + or - for width of torque curve and power band. When one car is within 10% of peak power for 4000rpm and another has problems holding it for 1500 it makes a big difference. When I ran against the preludes they are good for about half the race and then the tires are toast. The GSR is pretty equal until it comes to the slow corners but still a real contender with some more work on final drive ratios. The Del Sol is DOA.
[/b]

And this from an RX7 Pilot.
Hmmmm.... B)

Seriously, I know me some Honda, and if you came to me and said "Scott, fix the Honda ITS Classifications" I'd do the following...

-Take 40lbs out of the VTEC Prelude (They have tq and brakes, but struggle to finish even a sprint well because they are so front heavy and brutally kill tires).
-Take 90lbs out of the GSR (FWD, No TQ, and seriously shitty brakes for a FWD car that heavy).

There. In about 45 seconds I just added 2 competitive cars to the ITS mix. Cars that people will build, race, and compete with the BMWs and RX7s with. And trust me, I didn't just make any of them an overdog by any stretch of the imagination.

I'd then take the 1.6 liter cars back to about 2450lbs. I still wouldn't build one myself, but at least there'd be some hope if it was raining or something.

Then I'd class the Integra Type R at 2775lbs. Its got good top end power, great gearing and very good brakes, but that power is very peaky and it still has no TQ. It would do alot of things well, but that 130wtq would ba a major handicap lugging 2775 lbs off a corner.
There, I just added another good ITS car.

See how easy this is?
:P

[seckerich]

And this from an RX7 Pilot.
Hmmmm.... B)

Seriously, I know me some Honda, and if you came to me and said "Scott, fix the Honda ITS Classifications" I'd do the following...

-Take 40lbs out of the VTEC Prelude (They have tq and brakes, but struggle to finish even a sprint well because they are so front heavy and brutally kill tires).
-Take 90lbs out of the GSR (FWD, No TQ, and seriously shitty brakes for a FWD car that heavy).

There. In about 45 seconds I just added 2 competitive cars to the ITS mix. Cars that people will build, race, and compete with the BMWs and RX7s with. And trust me, I didn't just make any of them an overdog by any stretch of the imagination.

I'd then take the 1.6 liter cars back to about 2450lbs. I still wouldn't build one myself, but at least there'd be some hope if it was raining or something.

Then I'd class the Integra Type R at 2775lbs. Its got good top end power, great gearing and very good brakes, but that power is very peaky and it still has no TQ. It would do alot of things well, but that 130wtq would ba a major handicap lugging 2775 lbs off a corner.
There, I just added another good ITS car.

See how easy this is?
:P
[/b]
You would be pretty close but the GSR should be OK at it's current weight. I tested at 2780 expecting the RX7 to get some weight this year and it was not near the problem I expected. Killed corner exit for any third gear corner and top speed was down. We get about 130 torque on a good day so they are pretty equal and our power is just as peaky. I run 4 seperate rear gear setups for the tracks we run in the southeast just to stay competitive.

[Catch22]

But you get the benefit of transferring all that weight to YOUR DRIVE WHEELS on coner exit. The Honda's are transferring all that weight AWAY from their drive wheels.
Trust me. It matters.

And the GSR brakes suck baboon ass. They are fine if you are racing the car at 2500ish pounds, but at 2700 its "Game Over."
Both Scott Seck and I have caught our pads on fire, cracked brand new Brembo rotors in one race, and have gone off at the end of straights because we simply had no brakes (in a sprint race).
If for no other reason, the GSR needs to be 50lbs lighter than the RX7 because of this.

[Bob Roth]

As a bit of background, I have been running IT since its inception. I am ok with the formula but to be frank, I would of rather kept the rules stability of old. I ran rabbits when they were good, when they weren't I bought a Honda. I got 8 years out of each without a problem. Now I buy a car in November that is clearly at the back of its class (PS, The same is true for the Civic Si), and before setting foot on the track in April, I am told going to have to buy and mount 100 pounds orf ballast because the committee says its "too competitive".

Speaking for the "Gutless wonder" contingent of ITS (Civic SI and DelSol VTEC) I accept that my fate is to run for 5th in a good ITS field. And I will also speak for our slightly stronger 1.8 B series brothers who are meanwhile running for 4th place. The point I make is we object to running with ballast when our cars are not competitive with ITS.

To move this discussion on, I will get my car weighed (without me or ballast but with a full tank of gas) in the next week and get back to the group in two. I would also like any other B series owner to contact me with their weight, without driver or ballast with a full tank of gas. Also please tell me the whether its a tank or a cell and how many gallons the capacity is.

There sounds like there is an engine guru out there. I would like your read of best HP and torque and if you have dyno curves lets get those to. Once we have those, we will have a discussion at what an appropriate minimum weight would be and we will petition the committee for a change.

If you have data, or are interested in signing on to the petition, please email me at [email protected]

Lets use the process and see what we get.

[Jeremy Billiel]

Bob - My GSR will be getting corner weighted in the next couple of weeks. Its a new build and the car has no weight in it yet. I will pass along my Integra information to you once I have it complete.

[R2 Racing]

Then I'd class the Integra Type R at 2775lbs. Its got good top end power, great gearing and very good brakes, but that power is very peaky and it still has no TQ. It would do alot of things well, but that 130wtq would ba a major handicap lugging 2775 lbs off a corner.[/b]

If I could get an ITR at about 2700-2750lbs, I'd seriously consider building one. I owned one for 5.5 years, loving every second of it, and they're great cars. I still can't believe that it got shot down to be classified. It's 195hp stock and the currently classified Prelude VTEC's are 200. Lets not even talk about the gobs and gobs of more torque that Prelude has. Yet it got classified and the ITR didn't.

[lateapex911]

Good commentary here. you guys are much better behaved than those in the other thread. Thanks for not calling all the ITAC guys names, LOL

I'm not an expert in things honda, so I will keep my comments general.

First, the Type R wasn't classed mainly because, (and I know you won't like the reason, LOL) because of it's handbuilt components. Proceduraly, it creates issues with enforcement. It will be impossible to prove in a protest situation, what was done by the competitor, and what was 'stock'. Now I know that the presumption is that anything we bozos (kidding, kidding!)would do to the car would actually hurt it, but, I am sure that you can see the potential for issues down the road on that one.


Some good arguements have been presented here, and it highlights the issues with a formulaic approach. Our "model" is not as sophisticated as the engineers at McLaren use for their predictive lap times. One of the struggles with the E36 has been that the proposed weight would have been significantly outside the "sweet spot" vis a vis the other cars in the class. The CRB felt that it wouldn't race well with the other cars, simply because it weighed so much more. Also, and more relevant to this discussion, is that the proposed weight fell outside the process's linear range. I think that might be what is going on here, but with the other components of the process, to a degree.

Perhaps, at the increased speeds that are found in ITS (vs the other classes) FWD, brakes and TQ need to be accounted for differently than the current "Adder/subractor" aspect of the process allows.

FWD is considered a "subtractor" in ITS. Based on cars like the 944 and the RX7, weight is removed from the number that the process spits out.

My question to you all is, should that weight be a fixed amount, like 50 or 75 or 100 pounds, for example, or a percentage of process weight, like 2.5%?? (Keep in mind that suspension design is a consideration as well, so the FWD aspect can be considered independently)

Keep in mind that the process needs to be kept simple, and somewhat flexible, but if the consensus is that the numbers aren't ending in an equivilent potential (Lets not dive in the "results pool) then perhaps a letter suggesting slight modifications would be in order.

[Catch22]

Jake,

I'll comment mostly on the GSR because I know that VERY intimately. As I've said about 1000 times, thats a good ITS car at about 2575 to 2600lbs. But at 2700 it just cant get off a corner and just murders its front brakes (which are, BTW, the exact same brakes that are on much lighter 93 and up Civic models like the EX and Si currently classed in ITA at nearly 400 pounds less than the GSR.

There are quite a few GSR attempts out there. Some have been sold for pennies on the dollar and some are still trying to compete with them.
Guys (ITAC), TRY an experiment with the GSR. Take it down to 2600lbs and watch it closely. Scott Seck, a former ARRC podium visitor in ITC, is still trying to compete with his. Reduce the weight to 2600 and watch how he does. I KNOW Scott would be willing to share open and honest results with you guys.

TRUST ME!!!
At 2600lbs that car isn't going to suddenly go dominating anywhere unless its just raining buckets for every race. At 2600lbs you have yourself a GOOD (not great) ITS car. It'll still be hard on its little Civic brakes, and will still struggle with lack of tq, but it will be alot more competitive.


I've only seen one fully attempted del sol effort. It was a couple of years ago, and it failed and was abandoned by a top effort in the SEDIV. Given that it was abandoned at 2360lbs, I'm thinking you just killed it as even a remote option at nearly 2600lbs. Might as well go ahead an declassify it.

So... A percentage or a set number for FWD and low TQ?
The easy thing to do (I think) would be to just do a set number (50lbs?) subtractor for FWD cars that have a certain percentage more HP than TQ. I say this because the cars with high hp, fwd, and low TQ are the ones that seem to be getting screwed by the current process.
Maybe someone thats more math savy than I am can figure out what that formula looks like, but cars like the GSR (172/130) and del sol (160/110) are a good place to start.

Brakes... Maybe anything over 2500lbs should get a set subtractor (40lbs?) if their total rotor size is under a certain number?
The GSR is a good place to start with that number since its a proven weak point on that car.

[Bob Roth]

Please lets not talk of DeClassifying the Del Sol. or Civic SI. I run mostly Blackhawk in Central Div. After running about 50 races there in a CRX, I can see what the ITS guys are capable of and with the right final drive, and setup it might surprise some people. A Del Sol it might be ok at 2360 to 2400. (200 pounds heavier than my CRX 2005 weight). Especially against the small ITS fields we seem to have here.

I have no plans to run ARRC in it or any illusions of it being a world beater at Road America.

Again my point is, I accept that the car won't ever be a equal to the front of the ITS field. And it sounds like everybody agrees it doesn't have the potential for ITS. All I ask is a weight assignment that is consistant with that perception and get a minimum that I can get the car legally to. My primary goal is needing to run Ballast in a car thats not really ever going to be a front runner in the class.

I'll weigh it this week and I will propose something in a couple of days.

thanks again

Bob Roth

[seckerich]

How tight can you twist that GSR motor before it comes apart or drops out of the power band? That is the real limiting factor with the chance to make up for torque with final drive. Again it comes back to useable power band.

[Catch22]

I'm going by memory Steve, so this may not be totally accurate.
But the issue with the GSR is that the power band is very narrow and way up high. At pretty much no time is the band flat. The term "peak horsepower" is just that. Its a peak. The 1.6 liter VTEC cars are the same.

I had a 4.7 final drive in mine, and Seck has a 4.9 in his. Not much difference.
You hit peak hp and you shift. There's really no such thing as a "power band" that you try to stay in. It hits its peak and then it starts falling off.

I looked for old dyno sheets but I apparently didn't keep them. If Seck sees this maybe he'll toss in some $.02.

[SPiFF]

Here is mine.

The final drive is a bit of a trade off with these cars since 5th gear is so tall. There is not enough pull from the motor to keep the rear end ahead of the front in 5th gear. RA turn 12, CMP turn 10, etc, cannot really be done in 5th gear.

[Catch22]

And thats pretty typical of IT GSR dyno plots that I've seen. I know Zsolt has a Sunbelt head and a freshened bottom end, but I can't remember if he's done ECU work.
Both Scott Seck and I were 172/130, so Zsolt is right in the ballpark.

I have no clue how someone could legally get 15 more whp unless its just dyno differences.
[shrug]

Note where the HP peaks and where the TQ starts falling off. This is the penalty for high revving, high hp, low displacement motors.
And Zsolt is right about 5th gear. You pay a penalty for getting too aggressive with the FD.
Example... At VIR I was racing against an identical car (this was with Honda Challenge) except he had the stock 4.25 fd and I had the 4.7. Anywhere where the 4.7 was an advantage, I'd give that advantage back somewhere else. I'd come out of hogpen and have to grab 5th while still climbing the hill to the flag stand. Meanwhile the other guy could leave his car in 4th and motor right on past me. He didn't have to grab 5th until the downhill part of the straight.
Another example... CMP. With the 4.7 I was rowing the shifter all through the 11-12-13-14 complex. He just stayed in one gear and kicked my butt.
And you can't safely spin these things much past 8500. The power drops off horrbly anyway, so there's no real reason to do it.

Again, no whining and name calling here. But I think its important for the ITAC to understand these things. Here we have a car that *should* and *can* be right up there duking it out with the BMWs and RX7s and 240zs but its not. Its not because it's got 120lbs of lead in the floor and it legitimately can't handle it.

We shouldn't be doing this. It hurts everyone to have a 2 car class and it is fixable.

I'm sure there are other ITS cars that can be helped. I'm just going with what I know here.

[Jeremy Billiel]

I have posted this before, but here is another plot point that shows just how well Honda makes these engines from the factory. Here is my motor with 75K and has never been opened up.

Comptech Short Ram Intake
FPR
Hondata/Chrome Modified ECU
4-1 JDM 2.5" header with stright pipe 18" resonator

http://home.comcast.net/~jeremybilliel/Torque_Plot.jpg

How again are we going to see more than 175 WHP?

We start at 162 HP, Zsolts 169 and Both Scotts @ 172HP

[Catch22]

Jeremy,

Thats a tad higher that what I've seen from cars with similar modifications, but not alarmingly so. Not anything I'd credit outside of dyno or weather or "its just a good motor" variances.

It was a long time ago, but I think mine got 156whp before the IT build. I had everything you have listed there except the ECU modification.

So yeah, that sounds about right.

[Jeremy Billiel]

So to seckerich's point, look at the peak HP and peak TQ.

Peak Tq is at 5-6K. The peak HP is around 7.5K so this is where the arguements come in that the slow corners really hurt the GSR's.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Here is mine.

The final drive is a bit of a trade off with these cars since 5th gear is so tall. There is not enough pull from the motor to keep the rear end ahead of the front in 5th gear. RA turn 12, CMP turn 10, etc, cannot really be done in 5th gear. [/b]

[attachmentid=365]

Look familiar? Best exhaust raised peak power to 175, dropped peak torque to 128 and RPM's stayed the same.

AB

[Bob Roth]

If you shift at 7500 Hp peak and start the next gear 25% lower RPM, it resumes at 17% lower HP (135) If you run it higher and shift at 8000, the area gets better but your hp goes from about 152 down to about 140. Anybody got a curve for a B16?

[Bob Roth]

One other comment, is notice of two how two dyno runs for different owners, how similar the shape of the curve is.

My opinion is that if you get a curve for similar engine types, for modern fuel injected engines and I suspect that the curves are about the same when matched pro HP peak. Ie a CRX Si curve is pretty close to the NX 2000 16 valve and the 16 valve GTI curves when you match the HP peaks. Same thing for the 8 valve golf and the 8 valve 4cyl Porche 944.

The point is,its ok to use HP to handicap the cars as long as you consider two aspects.

1) how strangled the original engine is compared to a rules limit engine. As the charts show, the Honda isn't very strangled.
2) What does the curve look like over the typical shift range. On a Honda, when you fall off the mountain, you fall a long way. Especially if you have to shift say 10% short of hp peak because its the end of a straight. These engines may put out impressive hp but the problem is, they don't make them very long!

The best of all worlds is an engine that has variable cam timing, Thats cause much less HP drop as RPM drops. Looking at HP only tells only part of the story.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I know most of you now this, but the dyno sheet I supplied is one from my old ITS RX-7...

I think the hard thing some of us are having to swallow is the cry's of 'narrow power band', 'lack or torque', 'peaky motor', etc. Your point above VVT is valid - and mitigates a tiny bit of your powerband issue. TINY bit, but still something. Nothing to really factor in for an 'adder' IMHO.

You have to work within the parameters of your situation and minimize the flaws and exploit the positives. And to think that 40lbs is going to make a craps bit of difference in the competitiveness of a car is just not going to happen IMHO.

AB

[dickita15]

So in reading thru this thread I do find it curious that with front wheel drive cars competing very effectively in A, B and C I do not remember any doing very well in S.

The question is why.

Is it that the fwd cars in S tend to have small displacement peaky motors that do not have torque or broad power bands?

Is it that the “formula adders” need to be different with the regard fwd with the higher horsepower in ITS?

Is that no one has done a BMW/Rx7/240Z top flight effort on a fwd car in ITS?

Or am I all wet and there are fwd cars in other parts of the country that are doing well in ITS against strong rwd cars?

[seckerich]

So in reading thru this thread I do find it curious that with front wheel drive cars competing very effectively in A, B and C I do not remember any doing very well in S.

The question is why.

Is it that the fwd cars in S tend to have small displacement peaky motors that do not have torque or broad power bands?

Is it that the “formula adders” need to be different with the regard fwd with the higher horsepower in ITS?

Is that no one has done a BMW/Rx7/240Z top flight effort on a fwd car in ITS?

Or am I all wet and there are fwd cars in other parts of the country that are doing well in ITS against strong rwd cars?
[/b]
In the end I think it comes down to tires. Just can not get enough rubber to handle the power, brakes, and turning without killing the fronts. We transfer the weight to the rear off the corners which is good. Very bad on a front driver--tires light up and you are done.

PS I could lay my dyno chart on top of Andy's as far as curves are concerned!!

[Catch22]

But Andy... Look at your torque curve between 5000 and 7000 and look at Zsolt's between 5500 and 7500.
Yours is nice and flat, his is dropping steadily.
I'm pretty sure this is where upshifts and corner exits are landing in both cars.

Factor in that the RX7 is transferring all that weight to the drive wheels while the Integra is doing the opposite and any mystery is solved.

And I agree that 40lbs won't make a huge difference, but 90 to 100 will, so I'll say it one more time...
ITS Integra GSR - 2600lbs.

Look guys, the ONLY thing the GSR has on the RS/LS (that is in ITA) is about 20ish peak hp at the top end. Thats it.
Chassis, brakes, aero... everything else is the same.
So riddle me this...
With just a 20 peak hp advantage (and the non VTEC ITA cars actually have a better TQ curve), why is the GSR not only in a higher class but also weighs more?
See... That doesn't make sense. And if it makes sense in the formula then I suggest that the formula is busted.

[R2 Racing]

With just a 20 peak hp advantage (and the non VTEC ITA cars actually have a better TQ curve)[/b]

That's true, my non-vtec ITA Integra makes about the same or more torque than all of the dyno graphs posted.

[Knestis]

So, in ITS - where there is a broader range of fundamental layouts and engine configurations, AND higher weights/powers that amplify what would otherwise be small performance differences - how do you come up with a defensible, equitable system that doesn't count on lots of subjective assessments of potential?

It's a very small step from micro-adders/subtractors, or factors that apply to only one make/model of car, to gen-u-ine competition adjustments. One way that you can tell you have consensus is that EVERYONE is equally pissed off, which is what will happen if that process runs its logical route. Picture owners of all ITS models given the chance to have the same kind of persecution complex seen in e36 owners this winter, if the process isn't consistent and defensible.

K

[Catch22]

I can't disagree with you Kirk.

The question is... How do we get ITS away from being a 2 car class?

I'm trying to provide answers to get it closer to a 4 or 5 car class. My knowlege doesn't extend far enough to the horizon to help any further. Sorry.

While I understand the counter-arguments, its painful to stand staring at 100lbs of lead in the floorboard of a perfectly good GSR knowing that if we took that stuff out the car would stand a chance.
So how do we make that happen?
Because we need to make that happen.

[Andy Bettencourt]

But Andy... Look at your torque curve between 5000 and 7000 and look at Zsolt's between 5500 and 7500.
Yours is nice and flat, his is dropping steadily.
I'm pretty sure this is where upshifts and corner exits are landing in both cars.[/b]

You say it like they are drastically different. The 1.8 has 125ft/lbs from 5500 to almost 7000. The 1.3 has 125ft/lbs from 5000 to 7000. Both cars are at 115ft/lbs at 7500. 1 or 2 ft/lbs here and there inside those numbers...the differences are so small.


Factor in that the RX7 is transferring all that weight to the drive wheels while the Integra is doing the opposite and any mystery is solved.

And I agree that 40lbs won't make a huge difference, but 90 to 100 will, so I'll say it one more time...
ITS Integra GSR - 2600lbs.[/b]

90 lbs. We will agree to disagree. Rucks car came off the ARRC race almost (or more?) than 100lbs over minimum for that car in 2005 - didn't seem to hurt him much...


Look guys, the ONLY thing the GSR has on the RS/LS (that is in ITA) is about 20ish peak hp at the top end. Thats it.
Chassis, brakes, aero... everything else is the same.
So riddle me this...
With just a 20 peak hp advantage (and the non VTEC ITA cars actually have a better TQ curve), why is the GSR not only in a higher class but also weighs more?
See... That doesn't make sense. And if it makes sense in the formula then I suggest that the formula is busted. [/b]

Why are you comparing cars from class to class? It's apples to oranges. The GSR should run at least 30 more WHP than the ITA car...

I admit that the disconnect here is FWD vs RWD and the 'compensation' paid to the FWD for having the handicap.

[iambhooper]

as i hope to eventually graduate from my ITC car, i've been following this with some interest. brand loyalty, is not necessarily as important to me as a competetive, reliable and attractive ride are.

so, having been following this thread, i have one question. i haven't seen anyone mention over boring the integra or del sol's motors. i know you are allowed to go out 40 over. what difference does this make on the hp/tq curve? or are the blocks built to such tollerance's that you cant over bore? i figure that the bmw guys are surely seeking out every advantage from the block.

just curious, as i try to follow allong.

Thanks!
hoop

[Catch22]

Andy,

I compared the two cars in different classes for one reason, the reason you (inadvertantly I think) supported in your reply.
The ONLY difference is about 30hp (I think its more like 25, but I'll give it to you). Thats it.
And the ITA car has better TQ.

So... It makes no sense that 2 otherwise identical cars are separated by weight AND class.
Thats double jeopardy!!!
30hp alone surely doesn't warrant all that. At the very least the ITS Integra needs to weigh the same as the ITA Integra.

And 90lbs does matter to someone who can't finish a race with front tires or brakes still working.
Hell, ANYTHING matters to that person. Give 'em 25lbs and they'll smile and take it.

And I'll finish with this...
I know we don't want to use results, but... To date nobody has been able to get a GSR under the ITA track record at Road Atlanta. Two separate ARRC podium finishers (in other classes) have tried in fully prepped cars and failed.
Again, for emphasis... Thats the ITA record. The ITS record is... Well... Lets just say the times aren't even close to the OLD pre-dominant BMW lap times.
OK, we don't want to use results. But sometimes we may need to admit that results might be an indicator that something is wrong with the process.

[SPiFF]

Why are you comparing cars from class to class? It's apples to oranges.
[/b]

Apple to oranges? The cars are identical spec other then the motor and the gear box. Even the 2nd gen Integars are mechanically not that much different.

GSRs have yet to be able able to consitently run the same lap times as the ITA Integras. Maybe we need better shoes in the S cars, but that should send a message.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So what you guys are telling us is that the ITA Teg at it's weight is a faster car than the ITS GS-R at it's weight?

I don't buy it. Put the ITS drivers in the ITA cars and see if they can match thier times.

And I say apples to oranges in that the weight of one car in one class has nothing to do with the weight of another in another...it's not even fair to compare bcause they ae held to different standards with different tartgets and different adders.

[R2 Racing]

Rucks car came off the ARRC race almost (or more?) than 100lbs over minimum for that car in 2005 - didn't seem to hurt him much...[/b]

I came in 90lbs over (2570), and yes, I do believe it hurt me. Take that 90lbs off of my car and I'm on Alex and Joey's ass. Believe me, add 90lbs to both of their cars and it may have been a different race. (Not to take anything away from either of them - they're both phenomenal drivers with incredible cars and deserved it.) Through two years of constant (and often tedious) development, I finally just got the suspension on the car a month before the ARRC that allowed me to keep the tires underneath it for the whole race. Add 30 more whp (which would only be ~175whp btw) and another 100lbs and I'm not sure it would take enough time off of my laps to be ITS fast or be able to last for a full sprint race without burning off the tires.

[Catch22]

Well, I'm done.

All I can do is keep repeating the same thing, so... Uncle.

[lateapex911]

OK, let me make sure I understand you guys.

ITA Integras and GSRs are the same excepting the motors.

And the GSRs are 20 hp? stronger?

But the lap times for the GSRs are slower (where the best have both run in good conditions on the same track)

(Forgetting that it is tough to compare times due to changing conditions.....)

What are you guys thinking the ITA tegs put down for tq and hp?

And, in qualifying, can you really put the lack of speed on the brakes?
I would think that the car should be able to use that extra power....at least in qualifying, right?
Or am I missing something here?

[Jeremy Billiel]

This is right from Edmonds.com. I chose just one year (95), but it is the exact same for all years.
IT Weight HP TQ
1995 ITA LS 2620 142 127
1995 ITS GSR 2690 170 128

I have not seen a dyno plot of an prepped ITA Integra motor, but the point is the GSR is holding 70lbs more and all it has is peak HP. I am willing to bet the TQ is higher on an non-VTEC 1.8. Does anyone have a dyno plot they are willing to share?

[Catch22]

OK, let me make sure I understand you guys.

ITA Integras and GSRs are the same excepting the motors.

And the GSRs are 20 hp? stronger?

But the lap times for the GSRs are slower (where the best have both run in good conditions on the same track)

(Forgetting that it is tough to compare times due to changing conditions.....)

What are you guys thinking the ITA tegs put down for tq and hp?

And, in qualifying, can you really put the lack of speed on the brakes?
I would think that the car should be able to use that extra power....at least in qualifying, right?
Or am I missing something here?
[/b]

Jake,
I'm mainly comparing the 2nd gen Integra to the 3rd gen GSR because nobody has really yet developed a 3rd gen ITA Integra. BUT, the 2nd and 3rd gen ITA Integras are damned near identical except for bodywork, so its a reasonable comparison.

The problem is that the GSR has a tad less torque and carrying 110 more lbs. That extra 25ish hp helps the GSR in exactly one place... At the very end of long straights. That does not overcome the difficulties it has braking, upshifting, and on corner exit with that extra 110lbs.
Trust me because I know first hand. Weight is a KILLER in these cars. If you really look at it closely, and read what the experienced honda guys are saying, it makes sense.

Dammit Jake, you made me repeat myself again.

[lateapex911]

ha ha! My dastardly plan WORKED! LOL. ;)

Ok, so susp, brakes and chassis are the same. Hp is 25 higher on the GSR, but tq is a "tad" lower. What's a tad?

(Don't repeat yourself, I'm not trying to be difficult, I just want to be clear and have numbers, thats all)

[Racerboy03]

To quote Serra from the thread last month..

"I have tuned many cars that were built to the hilt, including some GSR's only to find big power gains in a properly tuned exhaust and ecu.I will not share numbers, but theses cars can make good power, if they are set up properly, a shorty exhaust totally kills the torque on those motors, in fact I tuned a well known ITS car that was a (fully built car) only to find he was leaving 10+ hp at the wheels with a fully built motor and his number was north of 185,brakes are not a problem if bias and pad compound combo's are set front to rear,in fact last years 05 arrc winner in ITA was using the same pads I run and he can attest to how well they work. I wouldn't nail the coffin shut on that car dump 60-90lbs off of it and it would be a worthy contender.As far as the A Integra's the weight is not going to affect its performance at all, if you guys are worried about running out of brakes in short sprint races, your running some old technology pads, or holding on to that middle pedal to long,you want to go fast in a fwd Acura brake balance is key.If any of you guys would like any help my contact numbers are readily available.The fact is no one has really built one of these cars to its full potential, I would give it a try but we have too much on our table right now...

..as far as intake manifold & head you are quite mistaken as they flow very well, infact some of the top all motor cars in the country running b series have used stock gsr intakes over many others in the past.It is possible to get the results, but hey will not come cheap, ..

...you will also need a 5.08 final drive which I have to really be able to hang with the top guys in ITS, a 4.9 on the longer tracks,with a 4.7 you will not even hang with the mid packers in ITA, It will not be a cheap car to build right but most of the cars in S are pretty big dollar." -Anthony Serra

This was from the thread last month about the Feb fastrack:
http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...pic=7141&st=400 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7141&st=400)

Just some food for thought, this thread seems to look an awfull lot like the thread last month.

-Mark C.

[Catch22]

I said "a tad" because thats what the ITA Integra guys say, presumably because they don't want to share real numbers publicly.

The *best* TQ number I've seen from a fully built GSR is 130 at the wheels. I've seen several as low as 126, so we can safely call it 128.

Maybe someone like Ruck or Muresan can share what they get from their ITA cars. If not publicly then maybe a PM to me or Jake.
Right now, all I have is "a tad higher."
So I'd guess somewhere between 132 and 135.

Think of it this way...
If you took Muresan's ARRC winning Integra and made it ~4 mph faster at the end of the longest straights, but added 110lbs to it, could it compete in ITS?

Thats what you are currently asking of the GSR.

Doesn't add up, does it?

[timmyc]

just to weight in , i built a 99 civic si , to replace the aging 92 prelude si.the civic looked appealing at 2360, far less than the prelude at 2715.after driving both i have to say the civic will not catch the fast rx7 or the e36.in four outings we were consistantly 2-3 seconds off the fast guys.with the prelude we were only 1-1.5 seconds off the same cars.so to add wieght to the del sol or civic is a death nail in ITS.two points to make,(1)the formula for determining roll bar tubing goes out the window,since at 2360 the tubing size is 1.5x.095.when you add 220 lbs. the roll bar size goes to 1.75x.095 or1.75x.120.so is the cage that i had built leaga ?(point 2) our car will need at least 160lbs. of ballast, where does all that weight go.are these points factored into the formula for determining weights in IT. J ust my thoughts on the subject .timmy chapman

[R2 Racing]

I haven't said what my torque number was because I really can't remember what it was. I'd have to dig out my dyno graph. I believe it was in the 130 range but can't verify that for sure right at the moment.

[stevel]

So what you guys are telling us is that the ITA Teg at it's weight is a faster car than the ITS GS-R at it's weight?

I don't buy it. Put the ITS drivers in the ITA cars and see if they can match thier times.
[/b]

I wouldn't say the ITA car is faster, but I bet the GSR only marginally beats the ITA car. The ITA car has more torque and it comes on earlier.



And I say apples to oranges in that the weight of one car in one class has nothing to do with the weight of another in another...it's not even fair to compare bcause they ae held to different standards with different tartgets and different adders.
[/b]

I disagree. When we're talking about the same chassis, same brakes, and marginally more power I think it's a pretty fair comparison. They are held to different standards (power/weight) but that's the basis for the argument.



To quote Serra from the thread last month..


This was from the thread last month about the Feb fastrack:
http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...pic=7141&st=400 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7141&st=400)

Just some food for thought, this thread seems to look an awfull lot like the thread last month.

-Mark C.
[/b]

yes, we discussed this back on page 1.

I can understand your justification for the GSR weight, i disagree, but your points I can understand. I still think it needs 100lbs less. I think FWD in ITS needs more of a subractor than it does for ITA. I think that extra weight of the ITS car just hinders the FWD that much more. The subtractor for FWD in ITA should not be the same subtractor for FWD in ITS. Is that the case? Or am I wrong?

I can't for the life of me understand how that much weight was added to the del sol and Civic Si. For a car to weight that much when it only has 105 ft/lbs torque to the wheels and barely 160hp (if it can even get that) in full IT trim, it's just a dead car now.

just my $.02.

s

[Racerboy03]

yes, we discussed this back on page 1.

I can understand your justification for the GSR weight, i disagree, but your points I can understand. I still think it needs 100lbs less. I think FWD in ITS needs more of a subractor than it does for ITA. I think that extra weight of the ITS car just hinders the FWD that much more. The subtractor for FWD in ITA should not be the same subtractor for FWD in ITS. Is that the case? Or am I wrong?

I can't for the life of me understand how that much weight was added to the del sol and Civic Si. For a car to weight that much when it only has 105 ft/lbs torque to the wheels and barely 160hp (if it can even get that) in full IT trim, it's just a dead car now.

just my $.02.

s
[/b]

I agree that the weight should be dropped, I wasnt saying it is fine where it is.

I was posting his quotes because I thought it was relevant to what was being discussed on this page, especially since it is from a reputable engine builder and has experience developing the chassis. He also posted on page 19 of that thread that the weight should be 2600.

Ideally, the weight should be 2600 for the GSR, and I dont think it would be too much to ask for seeing the recent weight adjustments in IT. The ITAC can keep track of it at 2600 and adjust it back up if it becomes too competitive (..it wont). As far as the Civic/Del Sol, the Si would have been interesting at 2360, but that motor is even worse with torque then the GSR and the weight will kill it.

-Mark C.

[Bob Roth]

For what its worth, the car weighed in at 2394 w/o driver but with full tank. which I assume to be 11 gallons.
(it might have more, its an old endutance car....) As such with a empty tank its 2327 and with me 200 pounds its 2527 empty. 2594 full. Its got a heck of a cage and hasn't been particularialy lightened. I
am racing the end of april. Any way to get a wright brek at least so I don't have to buy ballast?

[charrbq]

just to weight in , i built a 99 civic si , to replace the aging 92 prelude si.the civic looked appealing at 2360, far less than the prelude at 2715.after driving both i have to say the civic will not catch the fast rx7 or the e36.in four outings we were consistantly 2-3 seconds off the fast guys.with the prelude we were only 1-1.5 seconds off the same cars.so to add wieght to the del sol or civic is a death nail in ITS.two points to make,(1)the formula for determining roll bar tubing goes out the window,since at 2360 the tubing size is 1.5x.095.when you add 220 lbs. the roll bar size goes to 1.75x.095 or1.75x.120.so is the cage that i had built leaga ?(point 2) our car will need at least 160lbs. of ballast, where does all that weight go.are these points factored into the formula for determining weights in IT. J ust my thoughts on the subject .timmy chapman
[/b]
I do believe we've hit a bit of a sticky wicket with the roll bar thickness issue. As it is not clearly written, there is only a specification for where the weight is to be located, but I want to see how someone can safely mount 100 extra lbs. in the front floor board of a stamped steel uni-bodied car. What I hope not to see is something that causes that weight to come loose during competition. I'm sure that the formula for weight versus horsepower didn't include the change in roll cage construction.
I always thought that one of the main missions of the SCCA was safety. I suppose our insurance carrier thinks the same.

2 dimes

[dickita15]

You guys keep straying into “this car is slow and need help”, that argument will not work. The ITAC has said the car was run thru the process and fits. They do not entertain this type of argument for a particular car. Is there a problem with the process that works pretty well for A-C when you get to S. you have talked about the GSR and the Del Sol. Are there other example of FWD S cars that have been run thru the process but still don’t work. Is there a larger trend that demonstrates there is an overall problem with FWD in S.

[zracre]

there are many fwd cars in S that have the same problem...vr6=heavy...prelude=heavy...civic si=heavy. there are others too but the engine that does the process obviously is biased towards rwd cars. A B and C are dominated by FWD because they are cheap and make up the majority. Now the A class has a car in it that should be a tweener on paper (1.8 MIATA) with obvious advantages. if you watch SCCA SPEED TOURING you will see BMW's run with TSX's...evenly matched FWD vs RWD...we do not have that now as the FWD cars seem heavy. I am going to try with the GSR so I will test the theory myself.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Dick is right on the money here. But it has been mentioned that the 'process' that has seeminly worked so well in A, B and C MAY have hit some sort of ceiling in S. What we have to do is take the BMW out of our minds. If we do that, it comes down to:

FWD vs. RWD
Disparity in estimation for power output

The power issue won't be solved anytime soon. There are no FWD cars that people consider podium potential in ITS IMHO. So maybe an 'additional' 50lbs of 'subtractor should be considered in ITS. Won't make a sacks worth of difference but if perception turns to reality, it would be good.

[Catch22]

50lbs WILL make a difference Andy.
Do you have any experience racing FWD? Based on your response here I'm betting you don't.

Remember that with a FWD you are asking the same 2 tires and the same 2 brake rotors to do EVERYTHING. So yes, 50lbs matters. Thats 50 less pounds that those tires and rotors have to deal with.

My suggestion is this, A subtractor (50lbs?) for anything under 2 liters (answering the torque question) and a subtractor for FWD (50lbs?). I think that solves alot of issues and gets some FWD cars threatening for the podium.

[Catch22]

Current Grand Am ST Classifications...

Acura Integra Type R - 2350lbs
Acura RSX - 2450
Acura TSX - 2500
06 Civic Si - 2550
Mazda6 - 2600
BMW E46 328 - 2850
Lexus IS300 - 2800
Mazda RX8 - 2700

And those guys have FWD and RWD cars fighting equally for the podium.
In ITS, we don't. Go figure.

You don't have to be a genius to see a big difference in classification philosophy here.
IF we classified the Type R or RSX in ITS today, I'm betting they would weigh 500lbs more than where Grand Am has them listed, but we have the BMWs listed pretty damned close to where they list them.
Hmmmmm... Now ask me again why nobody can get a FWD car on an ITS podium (unless its in the middle of a flood)?

I'm not picking at anyone or trying to stir up trouble. I just think we, as a community and a club, have some things that need to be fixed. The ITAC has done a FABULOUS job on things the past couple of years, but the work isn't finished. At least in ITS there is a big ugly hole in the process.
And I'd bet that once some folks really get some Miatas and 240s developed in ITA, we'll find we have some FWD issues there as well, just not as bad as in ITS.

[R2 Racing]

Several interesting points, Scott. Say your suggestion of -50lbs for less than 2.0L and -50lbs for FWD, that would take 50lbs off of the Prelude's (vtec and non-vtec) and 100lbs off of the GSR, Si, and Del Sol. I think that would certainly help all of them be more competitive. Would any of them be closer to a podium at the ARRC? Hmmmm, I don't know about that. But, it's closer.

That list of GAC classifications is interesting too. Take the ITR vs. the RSX-S for example. The ITR had infinite development and was the ruler of the class for years, but was a highly strung, no torque 1.8L. Nowadays it is given a 100lb advantage over the RSX-S, a car with a notoriously worse suspension design but with 15 more hp stock and more torque. Yet for how much better the ITR's suspension and brakes were, the RSX-S still runs circles around it now. That increase in torque and width of powerband has to be worth a lot! That doesn't even add in if one was a RWD car, but you can see how much more weight those cars are carrying.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Scott,

With no data to suport either side (you or me), you won't convince me that 50lbs off of the GS-R will make a difference. Heck, there is probably that much difference in individual cars - and that doesn't bring it from an also-ran to a viable choice. I just don't buy a 1.8% decrease in weight can do that. Sorry.

I have been looking at other series to see how they do it as well. The flaw in the GAC example is that the prep level is not the same for cars within the same class. The tire and wheel sizes vary by model, cars have RP's, limits to intakes, special trannies, special suspension componentry. It would be impossible to understand what is going on in that classification system without being intimate with it. Cam gears are open for goodness sake. Lots of rules "With the permission of GAC" which are unseen at first look.

Let me ask this. Let's say we had a GSR-powered 2nd gen RX-7 vs. a GS-R. You tell me how you would apply the adders? What would the difference in weight be?

[Catch22]

Andy,
Good question.

The GSR Powered RX7 does two things significantly better:
1. Transfer weigh to the drive wheels.
2. Brake.

All other things equal, thats 75 to 100lbs in my mind.

As for Grand Am, I realize its not apples to apples with IT rules, which is why I noted that its "close."
BUT... The weight gaps are HUGE. H U G E!!!! Between the Front and Rear WD classifications.
And again, they have managed to equalize competition between those layouts quite well.

I also noticed that the notoriously torque challenged RX8 is the lightest of the RWD cars.
Seems like they are answering some of the questions we are asking here. And they are saying that low TQ and FWD = Less Weight regardless of peak horsepower.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,
Good question.

The GSR Powered RX7 does two things significantly better:
1. Transfer weigh to the drive wheels.
2. Brake.

All other things equal, thats 75 to 100lbs in my mind.

As for Grand Am, I realize its not apples to apples with IT rules, which is why I noted that its "close."
BUT... The weight gaps are HUGE. H U G E!!!! Between the Front and Rear WD classifications.
And again, they have managed to equalize competition between those layouts quite well.

I also noticed that the notoriously torque challenged RX8 is the lightest of the RWD cars.
Seems like they are answering some of the questions we are asking here. And they are saying that low TQ and FWD = Less Weight regardless of peak horsepower. [/b]

OK, good points. Not sure how we can use them, but good points non the less.

So the Teg should be less weight. If we use your 75lbs, factor in the motor difference, here you go.

170*1.25*12.9 = 2741 - 75 = 2666. GS-R currently classed at 2690. Off by 22lbs (or 49lbs if you use 100)
160*1.3*12.9 = 2683. RX-7 currently classed at 2680.

So is it THAT broken?

[Catch22]

OK, good points. Not sure how we can use them, but good points non the less.

So the Teg should be less weight. If we use your 75lbs, factor in the motor difference, here you go.

170*1.25*12.9 = 2741 - 75 = 2666. GS-R currently classed at 2690. Off by 22lbs (or 49lbs if you use 100)
160*1.3*12.9 = 2683. RX-7 currently classed at 2680.

So is it THAT broken?
[/b]

My answer is basically that WHATEVER the RX7 weighs, the GSR needs to be 75 to 100lbs lighter due to braking and weight transfer advantages enjoyed by the RX7.
So if the "process" says its only 17lbs (2683-2666), then my answer is "Yes Andy, something is broken."

[Andy Bettencourt]

My answer is basically that WHATEVER the RX7 weighs, the GSR needs to be 75 to 100lbs lighter due to braking and weight transfer advantages enjoyed by the RX7.
So if the "process" says its only 17lbs (2683-2666), then my answer is "Yes Andy, something is broken."


[/b]



So you want to take power out of it. Until someone proves it can't make 25% more than 170, we can't do that. And maybe at those HP levels, the brakes become the limiting factor and it just isn't a good racecar. You can't use weight to eliminate a weekness without taking into account the remaining strengths.



Lat call on this one from me? 50lbs doesn't turn crap to gold, the combination of strengths and weeknesses may make this a poor choice for a racecar - and one that can't be compensated for 'evenly', and the current consideration for FWD in ITS needs to be examined a little closer.



I will make sure the ITAC talks about the last one.



AB

[stevel]

So you want to take power out of it. Until someone proves it can't make 25% more than 170, we can't do that.
[/b]

25% over stock rated crank hp. No way. I think that's where the hole in the formula is for this car. I figure 20% at most. Try the formula with that number. Also, keep in mind when comparing crank and wheel hp number, honda/acuras only lose about 12% from the drivetrain. At least in my experience.

steve

[Catch22]

So you want to take power out of it. Until someone proves it can't make 25% more than 170, we can't do that. And maybe at those HP levels, the brakes become the limiting factor and it just isn't a good racecar. You can't use weight to eliminate a weekness without taking into account the remaining strengths.



Lat call on this one from me? 50lbs doesn't turn crap to gold, the combination of strengths and weeknesses may make this a poor choice for a racecar - and one that can't be compensated for 'evenly', and the current consideration for FWD in ITS needs to be examined a little closer.



I will make sure the ITAC talks about the last one.



AB
[/b]

So if I'm understanding you Andy (and maybe I'm not)...
We agree that the GSR is currently not up to task with the RX7 (do we? I think we do.)
We agree that a 180lb driver needs to put over 100lbs of ballast in his GSR
We agree that currently the GSR is probably not a good race car due to the "combination of strengths and weaknesses."

And this is where I get lost.
Why can't we take some of that lead out?
Why would we be willing to just write some of these cars off as "not good racecars" when they have a handicap bolted right to the floor?

That makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

[lateapex911]

here's what i suggest.

Write a letter describing what you preceive as a flaw in the process.

But don't just include one manufacturers product. Look at the big picture and propose where the process gets it wrong.

Not enough "credit" for FWD at the higher HP levels seen in ITS?
Not enough credit for low torque but high strung motors?
Not enough credit for less than ideal brakes for ITS cars?

If it's looked at from a procedural view, the chance of changes is better, in my opinion.

Remember that the ITAC must use max examples as data points. If ONE guy in the country has figured out how to get an extra 10 hp and 10 ft lbs of tq out of a Washby Super Fly, then thats the standard that everyone has to hit, whether he chooses to reveal his trick or not. So accept that the data points in the process will be the extreme.

Feel free to use a few cars as data points, but if it's written to ask for a weight break for one car, it's technically a comp adjustment, and thats a dirty word, right Kirk?

[Andy Bettencourt]

25% over stock rated crank hp. No way. I think that's where the hole in the formula is for this car. I figure 20% at most. Try the formula with that number. Also, keep in mind when comparing crank and wheel hp number, honda/acuras only lose about 12% from the drivetrain. At least in my experience.

steve
[/b]

Based on what? Even conservative Serra quotes show 25% is very possible.




So if I'm understanding you Andy (and maybe I'm not)...
We agree that the GSR is currently not up to task with the RX7 (do we? I think we do.)[/b]
Until I see one that is maxed, I can't answer the question. I believe that you are underestimating power potential at a 100% build.


We agree that a 180lb driver needs to put over 100lbs of ballast in his GSR[/b]
So? A 180lb drive has to put 100lbs of ballast in his RX-7 too.


We agree that currently the GSR is probably not a good race car due to the "combination of strengths and weaknesses."[/b]

What I am saying here is that if you make it light enough to 'offset' the torque and brake problems you have, the power potential of the car shatters the 'process'. In some cases, you have to take the good with the bad and the sum may not be what you want.


Why can't we take some of that lead out?
Why would we be willing to just write some of these cars off as "not good racecars" when they have a handicap bolted right to the floor?

That makes absolutely no sense to me at all.
[/b]

Because the CRB is not in the business of trying to make every car competitive, that is Prod. The process may be flawed but until a 100% effort shows that the process is wrong, we are stuck (frankly, we have first hand accounts from MSN that 25% is attainable - even at 12% loss. The only thing I will conceed is that more consideration needs to be given to FWD in ITS...and that means discussion, not weight. It may end up as weight but...

[charrbq]

Andy,
Comments section:

First, thanks for trying to make a difference and putting up with attacks to your effort. I understand that its a professional handicap.

Second, you're right...one of the first statement in the GCR deals with giving us a place to race our cars, but not guaranteeing them to be competitive.

Third, why do you repeatedly say not to include the ITS BMW in our posts? Is it because you're tired of talking about it, afraid of talking about it, or don't really know what to do about it? Or is that just dust being kicked up by the black helicopter?

Four, what business to SIR's have in IT? I can see it in pro racing, but isn't this the base level of club racing?

Five, why are competitive, semi-competitive, and non-competitive cars labored by unsafe ballast?

I'm sure I have more questions. Believe me, I'm not trying to attack you or any members of any committees concerning our classes and our sport, I just don't understand all that goes on, and I don't have time to read everything that's written on this forum. Plus, you always seem to be brave enough to wade into the swamp.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,
Comments section:

First, thanks for trying to make a difference and putting up with attacks to your effort. I understand that its a professional handicap.[/b]

No problem. We wouldn't be out here if we didn;t have thick skin. Tough questions are fine.


Second, you're right...one of the first statement in the GCR deals with giving us a place to race our cars, but not guaranteeing them to be competitive.[/b]

And to be more specific, we want to have a system that allows everything that runs through it a reasonable chance but we understand the cream will always rise to the top. A very peaky car with excellent HP potential and 'smallish' brakes may never be able to 'fit' into ITS as it is currently made up.


Third, why do you repeatedly say not to include the ITS BMW in our posts? Is it because you're tired of talking about it, afraid of talking about it, or don't really know what to do about it? Or is that just dust being kicked up by the black helicopter?[/b]

LOL. The problem some people have is that they compare 'their' car to the E36 and say "WTF?". That car is an anomoly and the CRB is adressing the problem. You guys have been great but I try and make sure it doesn't go that route.


Four, what business to SIR's have in IT? I can see it in pro racing, but isn't this the base level of club racing?[/b]

That is a question better asked of the CRB. I am personally against SIR's in IT.


Five, why are competitive, semi-competitive, and non-competitive cars labored by unsafe ballast?[/b]

Can you site any instances where a properly installed ballast (in a sound, rust-free car) has harmed anyone? While I understand the concern, I think the rules are written in such a way so that you can mount it safely. What proof do you have to use the word 'unsafe'? Mounting plates can be installed, loads can be spread out and you can mount with a ton of fasteners.


Plus, you always seem to be brave enough to wade into the swamp.

[/b]

Most would call me stupid.

[Bob Roth]

Say, I agree that the ITAC shouldn't make the front of the class run so much ballast that even the back of the class is competitive. I don't believe anybody in this string has suggested that. Instead what is being asked is why the are Integras, civics and del sols being ballasted when there is every evidence that they are not equals to the front of the class. On what basis, I will be glad to collect the data availabile out of the GCR but there are several areas that as an engineer I believe are worth discussion and verification.

1) Weight balance (FWD is 60% or more front wheels) thus they work harder. I bet there are a good number of the ITS rear drive with 50 50 weight balance. Something not so common in the lower classes.
2) Brakes - These heavy cars are asking a lot more of their brakes. Wheras a 2500 to 2600 pound honda has 259 mm brakes, a quick eyeball of 2560 pound porsche 2.5 liter 944= 283mm. The Z cars 272mm, 91 - Mazda RX7 277mm. That doesn;t sound right.
3) Hp - The honda's VTEC's do not gain a lot of Hp like some cars do. Also, their Hp with VTEC is very peaky. Like a 19% power drop with each shift minimum. Any assumption that a 1.6 vtec is the equal of a to a 2.5 liter 8 valve porsche doesn't sound right also.

Perhaps the formula works in the lower classes because the lower power and speed on nearly same tires and brakes doesn't show the differences. Also there is a pretty small displacement difference in those classes whereas in ITS, we are running against cars with 50% more displacement. We all pretty mich shrugged in the past, but now that you are making us run ballast too, yes, I guess we will start talking about weight.

Finally, why is the TSX competitive? I don't know, perhaps he has a 50/50 weight balance, he runs huge aftermarket brakes, and he is running a 2.4 liter engine. Give me front drive, 50/50 weight, the same brakes as a porsche, a 160 hp 2.4 liter motor and at 2580 pounds I will stop whining. Oh that would be a 2.5 liter porsche at 20 pounds overwheight. hmmm.

got any takers?

[charrbq]

Dear "Stupid",
Sorry, couldn't resist. I suppose the use of the term unsafe comes from being bombarded by it from working in the chemical industry. What you say about mounting ballast properly is true, but in the real world, I've seen cars come up to the grid (when I work it) that flat scare me. The red mist seems to give them different ideas of what's safe and what's legal. I won't critisize tech inspectors...it's not a good approach. I've been given crap by some, help by others...such is the human race. I will say, that every time I see something funny on the grid, I get on the radio, call tech, and a steward and tech inspector answer either physically or on the radio to my question.
But I don't work grid all that often, and a lot of guys do as little as they think they can get by with when it comes to ballast. The addition of 100 lbs of whatever kind of ballast they decide to use bolted to the floor board in some sort of fashion that gets by an over worked and sometimes under trained tech inspector can be amazing.
If a guy doesn't do the job right, safe, or whatever, and the stuff comes loose for whatever reason...cheese and rice....do we say that we maybe should've paid more attention to the rules, or do we say that he was aware of the rules and chose not to adhere to them?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bob,

The weights of newly classified cars (and recent changes of weights) are not based on on-track performance. The reasons for which have been written many times. It's about the 'process' - half formula and half subjective accounting for different physical characteristics as compared to the cars in the class.

It doesn't matter how the Del Sol has done or how light they can get. What matters is the power potential * ITS targets + subjective 'subtractors' (in this case). We have agreed to disagree on how much FWD needs to 'take away' from ITS. And stop on the brakes. I wrote earlier that I quickly found 10+ cars that weighed more with smaller brakes in ITS. Perfect? No, but hardly a deal breaker. The power? You can almost overlay the RX-7 and GSR dyno sheets on each other. That ain't the problem.

If you want to piece the best car together, go ahead and run ITE. We all have to look at the strengths and weeknesses of our cars and decide if they are right for us. Sounds like you should be in a 944.

Signed,

"Stupid"

[Bob Roth]

Say, who here is on ITAC and who here is a not. I have been respectful, have tried to discuss this with the limited facts I have, and have tried to call out an obvious sore thumb in your formula which interprets a no torque, front drive, small brakes 60/40 weight distribution Del Sol or Civic Si needs to run more weight than a 50/50 great brakes 2.5 liter porsche. Yes, under these changes, I will have to run Ballast.

I will run my Del Sol VTEC, and I will respectfully point out that it belongs in ITA where it with front drive at 2580 pounds 10.2 compression, 1.6 liters, and 262/239 f/r brakes, can can run against a NX2000 which is 2515 pound , 2.0 liter, 9.5 compression, having 257/234 brakes. Why? Both are front drive, the NX is lighter, slightly smaller front brakes and has 25% more displacement. Sounds pretty equal to me. PS, don't lecture me about having the feared wishbone suspension. Struts havent hurt mazda's, bmw's or porsches.

Racing in ITA seems a lot better match than racing in ITS against a rear drive, probably 50/50 weight distribution Mazda or Porsche, with either 277 or 283 mm brakes. Yes, send me a mazda dyno curve and I will probably agree that the RX-7 has no more power than a acura or honda. Guess what, all that means is that if you put your engine in my Del Sol, it will still be underclassed whereas the mazda will still not be.

There seems to be a lot of people here privy to the ITS targets. Please enlighten me then and provide how exactly did you arrive at the weights and classification of

ITS - Porsche 944 2.5 liter , - 2575 lb - 283/289 brakes rear drive
ITS - 85Mazda 13b - 2360 pounds - 250/256 brakes rear drive
ITS - '99 Acura GSR 1.8 liter- 2690 pounds - 262/239 brakes Front drive
ITS - '95 Del Sol VTEC 1.6 liter- 2580 pounds - 262/239 brakes Front drive

ITA - Nissan 240 SX 2.4 liter- 2630 pounds - 252/258 brakes rear drive
ITA - Nissan NX2000 2.0 liter- 2515 pounds - 257/234 brakes Front drive
ITA - 99 Acura GS - 1.8 liter- 2620 pounds - 262/239 brakes Front drive

Then I would like to look at torque curves across 1.3 times the worse of 3/4 or 4/5 shift ratio because the torque curve means more than the 10 seconds a lap that my car is at its feared 160 hp peak. If you look at this, the Del Sol VTEC ties for worst on the list with the 99 acura GS. Oh well at least he's in ITA.

If I and other Honda fwd are going to have to run ballast in ITS while lighter, better braked, much better torque, better weight ballance cars do not, if you are on the committee, please give me the data. If you want to take it off line, fine and I will keep this off the forum. But if you are going to add 220 pounds to my car while taking almost an equal weight from others, I as a loyal member of SCCA and a long term competitor in IT, would like to understand the with facts.

Several coments seemed to be expressed that "honda has their class, its ITA". Fine, bump me to ITA at 2580 and I will run against the NX2000 and 240 SX. PS please don't say, we can't because there aren't any Del Sol VTEC's out there. When's the last time you have seen a NX2000 and 240 SX's on the street.

I will be glad to discuss directly with the committee how these classifications may be more fairly adjusted. And let me say again, I never had a gripe with running in ITS until three weeks ago when the committee added 220 pounds to my car while taking 140 pounds out of the porsche and the other front runners so that my car ended up at 2580 while the Porsche is at 2575. Show me the calculations that my show that FWD, bad weight balance, small brakes and no torque is the fast lane to winning, or I will have to conclude its a voice vote and honda is not invited to ITS. If thats the case, put me in ITA at 2580. Nuff said. Pls advise who is on the committee, lets talk data, and we ITS Honda guys (if there are any left) will take it off line if you want. [email protected].

ps, ITS Honda guys, drop me an email and we will pool our knowledge.

tks
bob

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bob,

I will compile a detailed answer to your post later today when I get back in the office, but you ask more than a couple of questions that have been adressed in this thread. I won't reinvent the wheel, however. Maybe over the next 6 hours, someone will help you with those items...

[zracre]

Based on what? Even conservative Serra quotes show 25% is very possible.
Until I see one that is maxed, I can't answer the question. I believe that you are underestimating power potential at a 100% build.
So? A 180lb drive has to put 100lbs of ballast in his RX-7 too.
What I am saying here is that if you make it light enough to 'offset' the torque and brake problems you have, the power potential of the car shatters the 'process'. In some cases, you have to take the good with the bad and the sum may not be what you want.



Because the CRB is not in the business of trying to make every car competitive, that is Prod. The process may be flawed but until a 100% effort shows that the process is wrong, we are stuck (frankly, we have first hand accounts from MSN that 25% is attainable - even at 12% loss. The only thing I will conceed is that more consideration needs to be given to FWD in ITS...and that means discussion, not weight. It may end up as weight but...
[/b]

Even Conservative Serra??!! HAHA Didn't he quote something like 195 to the wheels? I told that to some of the all motor honda drag race guys and they said stock cam gears/cams/valve job no porting??? GOOD LUCK! If it is such a bad race car and maybe not that competitive, why not give it a weight break like the others??? Do we have something against Hondas? How many Civics or Del Sols won races before the weight adjustments? They dont! You even say it may not be that good a car...i thought thats why we adjusted them...I am going to build my GSR as a full effort car (when the ITA car is done) and I doubt it will have anything for the RX7's and such.

[Catch22]

You even say it may not be that good a car...i thought thats why we adjusted them
[/b]


I don't understand why people can't seem to grasp that this isn't the case.
Not being a "good car" isn't why they are adjusted. It just isn't, and it was never said that it would be.

Cars are now being "adjusted" by a formula, or a process (whatever you want to call it) that makes them all relatively even ON PAPER. Actual results ARE NOT USED.

In order to go any further and discuss these issues intelligently, YOU MUST GRASP THIS and understand it. Period.

I am not contending that some of these cars need a weight reduction because they aren't getting results. What I am saying is that the fact that these cars are carrying ballast, lots of it, AND they haven't shown results, might demonstrate that there is a hole in the process.
There is a huge difference there. Adjusting cars based on their on-track performance is a hornets nest that will never stop being a moving target. Tweeking the classification formula because on track performance suggests that it is flawed is a altogether different animal.

[Knestis]

Thinking about the issue generically, it makes SENSE that as power increases, FWD becomes a relatively greater handicap. This conversation has done a good job of surfacing the idea that the same formula that creates a fair match between an ITA Civic EX and a 1.6 Miata might not apply when there's more potential for wheelspin.

I'd echo Scott G's point that every time we drift into "this car needs a break" territory, we weaken the conversation.

K

[timmyc]

I don't understand why people can't seem to grasp that this isn't the case.
Not being a "good car" isn't why they are adjusted. It just isn't, and it was never said that it would be.

Cars are now being "adjusted" by a formula, or a process (whatever you want to call it) that makes them all relatively even ON PAPER. Actual results ARE NOT USED.

In order to go any further and discuss these issues intelligently, YOU MUST GRASP THIS and understand it. Period.

I am not contending that some of these cars need a weight reduction because they aren't getting results. What I am saying is that the fact that these cars are carrying ballast, lots of it, AND they haven't shown results, might demonstrate that there is a hole in the process.
There is a huge difference there. Adjusting cars based on their on-track performance is a hornets nest that will never stop being a moving target. Tweeking the classification formula because on track performance suggests that it is flawed is a altogether different animal.
[/b]
i dont have a problem with comp adjustments,or leveling the playing field,but when they go against other rules and guidlines ,i do have a problem. ie roll bar tubing size.and if on track performance is not a factor then the formula is simple to under stand horsepower to weight and ajust weight accordingly.timmy chapman 99 honda civic si

[Andy Bettencourt]

Evan,

Catch summed it up well. I am not sure why this is eluding people.

Serra's quotes were not conservative, but if you looked at them conservatively, you can assume 180whp is VERY possible. That's 5whp LESS than when it rolled in

There is no Honda conspiracy...and if you told that to VW owners, they would laugh you out of the paddock. Seriously.

Catch,

My only issue with your post is that the amount of ballast a car has to carry is 100% irrelevant to it's competitivness. All it has to do with is that it is lighter than it's classified weight. You think RX-7's are too heavy? Some have to carry 100lbs+ with a 180lb driver. The Teg Serra drove in 2005 had 100lbs of lead on the floor - BEFORE the weight corrections. Does this define a misclassification? No.

Timmy,

I really have no idea what you are talking about re: tubing. And a standard hp to weight formula would have there cars further away from the podium than they are perceived to be now.

Bob,

I am on the ITAC. Most of them lurk here, only a couple of us are stupid enought to stick our necks out.



The 'process' does take into account the items you complain about, the 'compensation' given to them may not be the amount you think is fair, but it is taken into account non-the-less. ITA for the Del Sol? Come on. Why did you pick the RX-7 to examine? 135hp stock, a strut front, solid axle rear? You want to run one? Have at it.

[SPiFF]

I don't understand why people can't seem to grasp that this isn't the case.
Not being a "good car" isn't why they are adjusted. It just isn't, and it was never said that it would be.

Cars are now being "adjusted" by a formula, or a process (whatever you want to call it) that makes them all relatively even ON PAPER. Actual results ARE NOT USED.

In order to go any further and discuss these issues intelligently, YOU MUST GRASP THIS and understand it. Period
[/b]

Sure. But I don't see how a magic formula or super secret process could have any lagitamacy without some kind of feedback loop. Like it or not, feeback comes from the real world in the form of:
* lap times
* do people actually want to build a car as speced
* has any1 even been close to a podium at a big event with one
* general discontrent by the owners of these cars
* sanity check

The Del Sol weight really should have been cought by he sanity check. But just the like Aztec, 100s of people inside of GM saw the plans, sketches, etc yet no1 sttod up and said, hey that is a fugly POS.

When you get cought up in the the process™, you end up with some Aztecs.

[timmyc]

andy, the weight of the 99 civic si was published at 2360. according to the gcr the tubing size is 1.5x.095. now with the adittion of 220lbs. the tubing goes to 1.5x.120. where does this put my car?not that it will make a difference but nobody protest a fith place car.i would like to see this "formula" that is being refered to, thanks for setting all of us IT guys straight. timmy chapman

[Catch22]

Catch,

My only issue with your post is that the amount of ballast a car has to carry is 100% irrelevant to it's competitivness. All it has to do with is that it is lighter than it's classified weight. You think RX-7's are too heavy? Some have to carry 100lbs+ with a 180lb driver. The Teg Serra drove in 2005 had 100lbs of lead on the floor - BEFORE the weight corrections. Does this define a misclassification? No.
[/b]


You are missing my point Andy.
Let me rephrase...
If you have a car that can't seem to get results, and that car falls out of the performance envelope of the next lowest class, AND that car has NO ballast with an averaged sized driver... You have a bad race car.

If you have that same car, and that car carries 100lbs of ballast with an averaged size driver... You have an opportunity for improvement.

In a post BMW adjustment world, the RX7 has shown no need for improvement. It was the car in 2nd place behind the BMW.
BUT...
The Honda products (And I don't intend to make it a Honda discussion, but Hondas are the only FWD cars I've seen used in legitimate ITS efforts) have demonstrated that they can't even keep up with the good RX7s. Fully built and tuned Integras and Preludes piloted by the likes of Tom Fowler and Scott Seck (and heck... Me, I've stood on an ARRC podium too ;) ) haven't even really been close to the top RX7s, much less the BMWs. And all of those cars carry LOTS of ballast.

So that tells me there is an opportunity to get some more competition in the class, and I think thats kind of the goal of the whole exercise.

[Andy Bettencourt]

You are missing my point Andy.
Let me rephrase...
If you have a car that can't seem to get results, and that car falls out of the performance envelope of the next lowest class, AND that car has NO ballast with an averaged sized driver... You have a bad race car.

If you have that same car, and that car carries 100lbs of ballast with an averaged size driver... You have an opportunity for improvement.

In a post BMW adjustment world, the RX7 has shown no need for improvement. It was the car in 2nd place behind the BMW.
BUT...
The Honda products (And I don't intend to make it a Honda discussion, but Hondas are the only FWD cars I've seen used in legitimate ITS efforts) have demonstrated that they can't even keep up with the good RX7s. Fully built and tuned Integras and Preludes piloted by the likes of Tom Fowler and Scott Seck (and heck... Me, I've stood on an ARRC podium too ;) ) haven't even really been close to the top RX7s, much less the BMWs. And all of those cars carry LOTS of ballast.

So that tells me there is an opportunity to get some more competition in the class, and I think thats kind of the goal of the whole exercise. [/b]

And I did miss your point - and what you say makes sense, in a comp-adjustment world...

Liek I said, I will be bringing up the FWD 'adder' on the next con-call.

[SPiFF]

And I did miss your point - and what you say makes sense, in a comp-adjustment world...[/b]

It is funny to hear stuff like this. How is classing and speccing a car properly a comp-adjustment? How is what is going on now with moving cars from S to A, changing weights, and putting on SIRs, not a comp-adjustment?

Seems like this club puts itself in the pickle jar most of the time by getting panties in a wad over terms like "comp-adjustment". :wacko:

[Andy Bettencourt]

It is funny to hear stuff like this. How is classing and speccing a car properly a comp-adjustment? How is what is going on now with moving cars from S to A, changing weights, and putting on SIRs, not a comp-adjustment?

Seems like this club puts itself in the pickle jar most of the time by getting panties in a wad over terms like "comp-adjustment". :wacko: [/b]

It's not a comp adjustment. Comp adjustments are based on on-track results. It's well documented why you can't use OTP to make car-by car adjustments. It will never happen in IT and I am thankful for that.



Teh CRB will not adjust weight just because something is not competitive. Period.



The moving cars from S to A, changing weights, and putting on SIRs are not 'comp adjustments' as defined above either.

Moving cars is a 'correction' to a misclassification.

The recent weight changes were the result of running all the cars in the GCR through the 'new car classification process'. If all new classifications and re-classifications are measured using that stick, everyone else should too. The weight changes were done on those cars that had significant differences in there spec weight and their 'process' weight. It was simply a re-grouping of all cars at a 'ground-zero' so that all can be looked at similarly.

The SIR is a solution by the CRB to reverse engineer the process for the BMW. That car falls around 3200lbs in regular process weight. They chose to limit power to a certain level if the car was to stay at 2850. Again, this car had never been through the process and they backed into a solution that way. Just process, not on-track guessing games.

[stevel]

AB,

Is there a subtractor for weight distribution? That plays into this big time. I know you mentioned that there's a lot of cars at the same weight as the GSR and have the same size brakes, so what's the problem? Well, they're all RWD cars. And that does make a difference. RWD cars use a lot more of the rear brakes than FWD cars do. You ever see GSR rear brakes? I think they're 9". Look at the rear brakes on most of those same RWD cars and I bet they're bigger. It does make a difference in braking. And so does the F/R weight distribution with respect to that braking. When a GSR is carrying 260lbs more up front, that's where your braking problem comes from. Where as the RX7 has that weight shifted to the rear with larger rear brakes.

So, maybe F/R weight distribution should be an adder/subtractor also, if it isn't already.

s

[Catch22]

AB,

Is there a subtractor for weight distribution? That plays into this big time. I know you mentioned that there's a lot of cars at the same weight as the GSR and have the same size brakes, so what's the problem? Well, they're all RWD cars. And that does make a difference. RWD cars use a lot more of the rear brakes than FWD cars do. You ever see GSR rear brakes? I think they're 9". Look at the rear brakes on most of those same RWD cars and I bet they're bigger. It does make a difference in braking. And so does the F/R weight distribution with respect to that braking. When a GSR is carrying 260lbs more up front, that's where your braking problem comes from. Where as the RX7 has that weight shifted to the rear with larger rear brakes.

So, maybe F/R weight distribution should be an adder/subtractor also, if it isn't already.

s
[/b]

Andy has already said he'd put a discussion of FWD issues in ITS on the table for the ITAC. I think most of the back and forth he and I are having is the usual web board misunderstanding of premise and intent.

Thanks Andy.

[stevel]

Andy has already said he'd put a discussion of FWD issues in ITS on the table for the ITAC. I think most of the back and forth he and I are having is the usual web board misunderstanding of premise and intent.

Thanks Andy.
[/b]

I know. And I've chewed his ear off about this before, all in good fun. I just thought it was another point to bring up.

s

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy has already said he'd put a discussion of FWD issues in ITS on the table for the ITAC. I think most of the back and forth he and I are having is the usual web board misunderstanding of premise and intent.

Thanks Andy.
[/b]

Don't mention it - it's not like you are gonna get banned over here... :P :D :P :D

[Catch22]

I dunno, NASA's sphere of influence seems to be creeping into unexpected places.

I wish I was the first person that's been banned from a web board lately for saying things NASA folks don't like, but I'm not. They are banning and kicking out their own members all over the place for questioning their A-THAW-RIT-TAY.

Sorry for the wander there, but that damned yankee AB started it.

Scott, who feels pretty safe here... I think.

[charrbq]

Scott, never feel too safe or too secure or too comfortable. The black helicopters are circling...circling...circling. Hear them...listen...they're there...watching, waiting...they know where we are, our weaknesses...when, where, and how they'll eliminate us. Listen...be afraid...very afraid. :cavallo:

[Hracer]

I've just got caught up with this thread. This is a great discussion and even more so, it's very good to see that the ones in charge are both interested and listening. Thank you very much. IT is a great place to be part of.

Having a formula in place that takes into account many factors with which all cars are then judged with is a great way of doing it. Unfortunately, the difficult (if not impossible) part is assessing the correct importance of each of these factors. If some of these factors are not appreciated correctly, even a perfect formula will result in some erroneous outputs. That doesn't mean the formula is incorrect, but just that what each questionable factor is worth should be re-considered. Obviously doing this poses a potentially even greater problem since the results of the original process have all already been published, and changing even one factor's value would necessitate in running many of the cars affected through it again. Fortunately, the only cars affected by the changes in question (below) would be the FWD ITS cars, which there are few to begin with. After reading this thread, it seems that there might be 3 main changes in the process that seem logical.

1. The handicap that FWD plays at the higher weights and higher engine outputs seen in ITS needs to be re-evaluated.

2. The handicap that an inferior (60/40) weight distribution when compared to a perfect (50/50) weight distribution plays at the higher weights seen in ITS has to be re-evaluated. (It is very important to note that the disadvantages created by weight distribution alone, are different and than those created by FWD. Think of the benefits that a Miata with 50/50 distribution would have over a Miata with a 60/40 distribution in areas such as optimizing the car's handling/balance and braking. For the latter not in terms of wear/fade throughout a race, but in terms of actual maximum physical braking performance that all 4 wheels can provide based on the car's weight distribution.)

3. The handicap that difference in brake size is worth at the higher weights and higher power levels seen in ITS. In this case, not in terms of actual maximum physical braking performance, but in terms of wear/fade throughout a race.

It seems that the current process considers adders/subtractors for these 3 factors that are constant, irrespective of weight and power. However, the general consensus of this discussion might be that for these 3 factors, at least some linearly dependant values that are a function of a car's weight and power might prove to be more reflective of real world performance.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I've just got caught up with this thread. This is a great discussion and even more so, it's very good to see that the ones in charge are both interested and listening. Thank you very much. IT is a great place to be part of.

Having a formula in place that takes into account many factors with which all cars are then judged with is a great way of doing it. Unfortunately, the difficult (if not impossible) part is assessing the correct importance of each of these factors. If some of these factors are not appreciated correctly, even a perfect formula will result in some erroneous outputs. That doesn't mean the formula is incorrect, but just that what each questionable factor is worth should be re-considered. Obviously doing this poses a potentially even greater problem since the results of the original process have all already been published, and changing even one factor's value would necessitate in running many of the cars affected through it again. Fortunately, the only cars affected by the changes in question (below) would be the FWD ITS cars, which there are few to begin with. After reading this thread, it seems that there might be 3 main changes in the process that seem logical.

1. The handicap that FWD plays at the higher weights and higher engine outputs seen in ITS needs to be re-evaluated.

2. The handicap that an inferior (60/40) weight distribution when compared to a perfect (50/50) weight distribution plays at the higher weights seen in ITS has to be re-evaluated. (It is very important to note that the disadvantages created by weight distribution alone, are different and than those created by FWD. Think of the benefits that a Miata with 50/50 distribution would have over a Miata with a 60/40 distribution in areas such as optimizing the car's handling/balance and braking. For the latter not in terms of wear/fade throughout a race, but in terms of actual maximum physical braking performance that all 4 wheels can provide based on the car's weight distribution.)

3. The handicap that difference in brake size is worth at the higher weights and higher power levels seen in ITS. In this case, not in terms of actual maximum physical braking performance, but in terms of wear/fade throughout a race.

It seems that the current process considers adders/subtractors for these 3 factors that are constant, irrespective of weight and power. However, the general consensus of this discussion might be that for these 3 factors, at least some linearly dependant values that are a function of a car's weight and power might prove to be more reflective of real world performance. [/b]

An EXCELLENT post. An example of someone who reads the whole thread, considers all points of view, and then makes a conclusion. Thanks!

I will make sure this gets consideration. No promises but...

[Jeremy Billiel]

Thank you Andy!

[R2 Racing]

Thank you Andy!
[/b]

Agreed, thanks for listening, Andy. :023:

[charrbq]

Yep, you're our favorite guy to abuse...and you seem to like it. At least you listen. I wish I could say the same for all the race stewards. Somehow, I feel I just placed myself at the end of a black flag. :o

[Bob Roth]

Hi, there is one more item for consideration. Although I don't have the HP dyno curves at hand, I think and would encourage the committee to evaluate whether the average of the HP may need to be considered in ITS rather than just peak hp. As I understand it, the peak number is used for rule making.

I spend many hours looking at HP curves in Sports Compact Cars, (sorry, I throw my old issues away so I don't have any to share). My hypotheseis is that the average HP of five "200 hp" different type motors (Wankle, VTEC, 16 valve, 16 valve with variable cam timing, and 8 valve) over the best 30% of their rpm range is substantially different.

I wouldn't be surprised if there is 15% to 20% difference between the average HP for the best example (big displacement low RPM engine) and the worst example (small displacement high rpm engine). I think it would be good for somebody to look at that and see if there is any merit to the hypothesis.

This may not be technically as hard as it might appear. It may be that for an engine type, the curves are similar even if the peaks are not. If thats the case, all the committee needs to do is pick the most appropriate curve, and use it as a averaging factor.

Again, using averages should only be done if it creates a compelling improvement in the rule making. If the difference between the best and worst was more than 20%, it may be worth considering. It its less than 10%, forget about it.


ps If this is already been considered, thanks

regards
bob

[GKR_17]

I'm afraid I'm a little late in entering this discussion, but I'd like to step back to primary issue of the thread.

First off, lets agree that this was a comp adjustment to the Del Sol, since there is no other legal way to change the weight of a current IT car.

Then let's look at the rule governing the PCA process (see GCR 17.1.4.C). Except in rare or extreme circumstances (i.e. BMW E36) the PCA process is fixed after the vehicle has been classed for four years. The Del Sol in question was introduced in 2002, so it is still eligible for typical PCA review, however, the rule clearly states that the factor used in the PCA evaluation is "the vehicle's racing performance relative to other vehicles in its class". Not fitting a 'process' isn't justification for any PCA, only on track performance is.

One word of caution if/when you dispute this PCA however -- The same thing was done to the E36 a few years back, before PCA's were allowed at all. We cried foul and successfully had it reversed. Now we have the SIR.

Then there were the cars classed more than four years ago…


Grafton

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'm afraid I'm a little late in entering this discussion, but I'd like to step back to primary issue of the thread.[/b]

And it seems you haven't read the other threads on similar topics. No issues, there are many.


First off, lets agree that this was a comp adjustment to the Del Sol, since there is no other legal way to change the weight of a current IT car.[/b]



Not a chance. Comp adjustments are a no-no in IT as a rule - other than PCA-based extreme examples. The Del Sol and Civic changes were a month late due to the ITAC missing them in the 'correction' in the Feb FT addendum in which all IT cars were run through the new classification process in order to bring all cars under the same classification umbrella. New cars classed, cars getting re-classed and now everything in the ITCS is based on this process. Not a mish-mash of previous regiemes classifications. No more real or perceived overdogs - no more 'have-nots'. Will the best still be the best? You bet but all are now measured by the same stick.


One word of caution if/when you dispute this PCA however -- The same thing was done to the E36 a few years back, before PCA's were allowed at all. We cried foul and successfully had it reversed. Now we have the SIR.

Grafton [/b]

Are you inferring that the SIR is some sort of retaliatory punishment for the 'foul cries'? If so, you are barking up the wrong tree. This has been explained a ridiculous amount of times but I will hit it once more for you:

The E36 is the only car not classified at it's 'process' weight. In order to fit ITS UNRESTRICTED, it would have to weigh 3150-3200lbs with no 'adders' (none necessary at this weight IMHO). The CRB decided, that seeing as how the cars were already built to a 2850 minimum, adding that kind of ballast was not the right thing to do. So they reverse-engineered the process given the 2850 minimum. To do this, you cap the hp so that at 2850, you hit the target pw/weight or the class. It's all been details and debated to death.

[GKR_17]

The E36 is the only car not classified at it's 'process' weight.[/b]

While I don't know the specific adders, I've run the whole ITS field through the formula as I understand it, and there are a lot of cars that appear out of line. For one of the best examples, look at the 3.0L Alfa Milano vs. the 2.5L Alfa Milano. Both cars are virtually identical except for different engines (the 3.0 has nearly 30 more hp). However, they're both classed at the same weight! And the 'process' agrees? I could start a new thread with more examples if you'd like.

As I said before, the PCA process is the ONLY method allowed in the GCR to change the weight of any current IT car. The retroactive implementation of this 'process' is illegal per the GCR. Can you show somewhere in the rules where this 'correction' is allowed? If not, I see no reason to continue the discussion. Put the Del Sol (and every other car illegaly adjusted by the 'process') back to the correct weight.

Grafton

[Andy Bettencourt]

"Correct weight" or "orignial weight"? :wacko:

<span style="color:#3333ff size2"><span style="color:#ff0000">the vehicle’s class (per the ITCS).

The way I read it, PCA&#39;s allow a change to the weight or classification of a car at any time in it&#39;s life in the interest of class equity. Within 4 years it&#39;s allowed and after 4 years it&#39;s allowed - albiet on rare occasion. This revision has only happened once - rare?

Could this not be considered a PCA-based move with individual class equity in mind as well as category-wide equity?</span></span></div>
</span></span></span></span>

[JeffYoung]

I think what Andy is saying is that some of the weights for IT cars were classified, initially, incorrectly, and this has now been fixed. The fixes are not PCAs because they are not based on performance, at all, nada, nilch, zilch, nippo, zippo. I also think (Andy, correct me if I am wrong) that some cars were not run through the process because the ITAC was not aware of any of them being raced -- there are limits to people&#39;s time (and yes, I am aware of the Butler&#39;s 3.0 Milano here in NC).

That&#39;s the answer for whether this was all a PCA or not.

Now, can a BMW driver please defend 2850 for me, using the process that has been used to set the weight for all other IT cars except for orphans that are not typically being run?

Thanks.

Jeff

[GKR_17]

The way I read it, PCA&#39;s allow a change to the weight or classification of a car at any time in it&#39;s life in the interest of class equity. Within 4 years it&#39;s allowed and after 4 years it&#39;s allowed - albiet on rare occasion. This revision has only happened once - rare?

Could this not be considered a PCA-based move with individual class equity in mind as well as category-wide equity?[/b]

Andy,

The way I read the rule, all of the language is singular, looking at each car individually; it is a big stretch to apply it to a large number of vehicles. The PCA process is there to fix problems caused by newly classed vehicles, I don&#39;t think there was any intent to allow large scale changes like these.

To be honest, I&#39;d have a lot less problem with this &#39;correction&#39; if I had confidence that it is rare. There were a few extra (overlooked) vehicles last month. What about later on? The limitations on the PCA process provide the competitor some stability, giving confidence that the factors used when selecting a vehicle won&#39;t be changed.

I currently drive and E36. Our team is sorting out our options now that we have the SIR. We have seriously considered moving on to another car (or away from IT all together). Several of the cars that look good to us appear to be between 100 and 300 pounds underweight per the &#39;process&#39;. I&#39;d like to know that they aren&#39;t going to be corrected later on if/when they prove to be fast.

I&#39;m hearing two stories here. One says all cars have now been through the process, the other says that some aren&#39;t raced enough to be reevaluated. In the second case, more cars will be corrected, but only after some poor guy has spent a lot of time and money. I&#39;d rather kill this correction now, than risk further changes in the future.


Jeff,

I don&#39;t think anyone should have to defend the BMW&#39;s weight at 2850. There was a method used to determine that weight, and I can only assume it was applied universally. I won&#39;t argue that I didn&#39;t think it was the best car for the class (pre SIR), that&#39;s the reason I drive one!

Now we have something new, and it says what it does.

I would think you&#39;d be leading the charge to get the odd-balls run through the &#39;process&#39;. Do you realize that before adders, the TR8 is roughly 400 pounds heavy right now?

Grafton

[JeffYoung]

Grafton, I appreciate your honesty -- the BMW was probably teh best car in class pre-SIR, and that was a problem.

The problem as I understand it (you have been doing this a lot longer than me) is that pre the latest go around with the process, cars were classed haphazardly based on what could be obtained (looking at curb weight) and some rough estimate of their potential. This lead to some mistakes.

The BMW obviously is one. I would like a rational discussion of why a car that everyone acknowledges can make 195 whp, and which credible sources put far above that, should be classed at 300 to 400 under its process weight.

I have a lot of sympathy for the BMW guys on the idea of the SIR, and the timing of it. I don&#39;t think there was any intention to do you guys wrong, but it worked out that (especially timing). Somethings that were promised abou the SIR weren&#39;t true and the CRB went against the ITAC&#39;s recommendation to add weight.

Where I don&#39;t have any sympathy is where you guys seem to think the "answer" should be the status quo when, putting results aside, the objective numbers show the BMW (already one of the best chassis in ITS) to be several hundred lbs light via the "process."

My car is a poor example for the process -- one of a few -- because (1) it makes stock torque far in excess of the stock hp, which the process does not objectively account for and (2) it probably has as high of an IT prep gain as any car out there, save yours. I just can&#39;t drive the damn thing yet, and I still don&#39;t have the motor developed as well as I should. It is making 157 whp and 195 wtq now, and there is a LOT to be done to it. At 2560, that is getting close to competitive. At 175 whp, it is very competitive, and I am pretty sure 175 will be fairly easy to get.

I am actually concerned that the process might class my car light. But that&#39;s not for this thread.

Can you justify the car at 2850 and 195-210 whp in ITS?

[Andy Bettencourt]

I&#39;m hearing two stories here. One says all cars have now been through the process, the other says that some aren&#39;t raced enough to be reevaluated. In the second case, more cars will be corrected, but only after some poor guy has spent a lot of time and money. I&#39;d rather kill this correction now, than risk further changes in the future.
*******************************

I would think you&#39;d be leading the charge to get the odd-balls run through the &#39;process&#39;. Do you realize that before adders, the TR8 is roughly 400 pounds heavy right now?

Grafton


[/b]

G,

We have gone over and over the details on the correction. Try a search and if you can&#39;t find it, drop me a PM and I will give you the details.

If *I* were looking to build a new car, and thought I had found one with an advantage, I would ask the ITAC if it had been through the process. If it had, I would feel confident that it was solid. All we want is for the cars to be set using the same &#39;set of tools&#39;. The cream will rise to the top.

Like the TR8, there are plenty of cars where you have to look deaper at in orderto estimate the power potential. How about the 110stock hp Buick Skyhawk in ITA? 3.8l V6, unknown amount of smog stuff chocking it down, huge engine and torque potential - yet a solid axle and nobody running them. No need to endanger the competitive balance of ITA/ITB by forcing the car through the process with weird specs and little knowledge. High risk, low reward.

You REALLY think that there was a &#39;system&#39; for doing weight as little as 3-4 years ago? The same &#39;system&#39; that had 134hp VW Golfs and 140hp Sentra SE-R&#39;s in ITS? That is a little disingenuous. Take a casual look at the ITS classifications in 03-04, you think there is/was any rhyme or reason?

We are just establishing a real ground-zero to build from. All I can tell you is that one of the reasons PCA&#39;s are there is to be able to correct a car that is outside the scope of a class&#39;s envelope - regardless of the timing. Applying them one-by one 50 times in a row is seemingly the same as applying them once for 50 cars. It&#39;s a baseline where none has existed before. I understand your read of the &#39;intent&#39; of the rule but people only play that card when they figure out they haven&#39;t been reading it the same as everyone else....happened with pistons and SB&#39;s ealier this year.

[lateapex911]

As I said before, the PCA process is the ONLY method allowed in the GCR to change the weight of any current IT car. The retroactive implementation of this &#39;process&#39; is illegal per the GCR. Can you show somewhere in the rules where this &#39;correction&#39; is allowed? If not, I see no reason to continue the discussion. Put the Del Sol (and every other car illegaly adjusted by the &#39;process&#39;) back to the correct weight.

Grafton
[/b]

Man, you sure are grumpy!

Define "rare".....

And yes, due to the hundreds of cars, and therefor thousands of data considerations, it was impossible to look at each car. There are cars out there that don&#39;t fit the process, but they aren&#39;t thought to be raced in significant numbers, or out of whack in a defendable manner. If the future brings new information to light, there may be more changes.

Think of it this way. you looked at the rules, picked a car you knew was an overdog. Now....you&#39;re crying foul and asking everything be reversed. But what if, another car was added to ITS...say the E46 at say 2750. What would you say then?

Well, that&#39;s how EVERY guy in ITA felt when the CRX got added...and every guy in ITS felt when the E36 hit. But instead of adding other cars to match the BMW like they did in ITA with the CRX, the line was drawn, and the system got a good looking at. It was obvious that the old system had, shall we say, some inconsistencies. It is a goal of this ITAC to create a system that can be carried forward, by others, in a consistant manner. While it seems like there are a lot of changes, they are in fact rare if looked at thru the scope of time as well as car counts.

[GKR_17]

Think of it this way. you looked at the rules, picked a car you knew was an overdog. Now....you&#39;re crying foul and asking everything be reversed. But what if, another car was added to ITS...say the E46 at say 2750. What would you say then?[/b]

As much as I hate it, the E36 PCA is legit. I&#39;m not complaining about that one here. The others however, do not meet the requirements in the GCR. If a newly classed car proves too fast (based on on track performance), then the PCA definitely applies.

My apologies to the Honda crowd for hijacking this thread. My only intent here was to rally support from some others who don&#39;t want illegitimate weight added to their cars.

Over and out.

Grafton

[e36its]

Where I don&#39;t have any sympathy is where you guys seem to think the "answer" should be the status quo when, putting results aside, the objective numbers show the BMW (already one of the best chassis in ITS) to be several hundred lbs light via the "process."
(snip)
Can you justify the car at 2850 and 195-210 whp in ITS?
[/b]
No.... and I&#39;ve never tried to justify the car at that weight. Me personally, I can see the rationale and data for an adjustment. What I&#39;ve had a problem with is the proposed (now implemented) solution to the problem. I think it&#39;s possible to advocate AGAINST the proposed remedy without advocated FOR the status quo, isn&#39;t it?

tom
(in a Honda thread no less!)

[JeffYoung]

Tom, Grafton, I think we agree completely. SIR bad. Weight, if done properly, ok.

You are right, I have hijacked this. Sorry guys.

Jeff

[Bob Roth]

In July 2000, my &#39;95 Del Sol was issued a ITS logbook and was raced in ITS. How can it then 6 years later have its weight adjusted? Isn&#39;t the only weight adjustment allowed a performance competition adjustment?

If this was a PCA, the ITCS as quoted below allows PCA&#39;s based only upon actual racing performance. Is there evidence is there that a Del Sol has ever won in ITS, much less than dominate its class like the E36 has in order to justify a weight adjustment?

My point is the &#39;95 Del Sol has had 220 pounds added to its minimum weight. It got its ITS logbook in 2000 so it seems like a PCA. No body of evidence showing "on track performance" has been shown that justifies it. So what within the ITCS empowered this change? The quoted section of the rule is below.

thanks
bob


"On rare occasion—and only after careful review of the actual racing
performance of a particular make/model/year of vehicle—the Club may
reclassify a vehicle, revise a vehicle’s minimum allowable weight, and/or
in the most extreme situation an intake restrictor may be required. Such
an action shall be taken solely for the purpose of restoring equity within
the vehicle’s class."

[GKR_17]

My point is the &#39;95 Del Sol has had 220 pounds added to its minimum weight. It got its ITS logbook in 2000 so it seems like a PCA. No body of evidence showing "on track performance" has been shown that justifies it. So what within the ITCS empowered this change?
[/b]

You&#39;ve got it exactly right Bob. I&#39;d suggest a letter or email to the Club Racing Board with those same comments. Hopefully they will follow the GCR.

Now to convince the ITA Honda and Acura guys to do the same. I doubt many of the guys who lost weight will be complaining.

Grafton

[Bob Roth]

Can somebody advise the email for the Club Racing Board?
Also, if somebody has the reason within the ITCS that this is allowed, feel free to explain.
tks

bob

[GKR_17]

see: http://www.scca.com/Inside/Index.asp?IdS=0...90&x=080|070&~= (http://www.scca.com/Inside/Index.asp?IdS=0012B6-3D80990&x=080|070&~=)

[timmyc]

bob roth
timmy chapman here . i just built a 99 civic si and in the same boat as you are.food for thought,if you built the car to the exiting gcr rules,the cage is now illeagal with the addition of 220lbs.that was probably not factored into the "process".if the pca process is implemented correctly and according to the gcr,how do you follow the rule for building a safe racecar, as far as determining the roll cage tubing size
timmy chapman

[seckerich]

bob roth
timmy chapman here . i just built a 99 civic si and in the same boat as you are.food for thought,if you built the car to the exiting gcr rules,the cage is now illeagal with the addition of 220lbs.that was probably not factored into the "process".if the pca process is implemented correctly and according to the gcr,how do you follow the rule for building a safe racecar, as far as determining the roll cage tubing size
timmy chapman
[/b]
You might want to go back and reread the roll cage specs. Your tube size is determined by the spec weight of the car MINUS driver (180#) so you are still very legal at the new weight I believe. Fat but safe. :D

[raceworks]

Bob,

In response to your original question WAAAAAY back on page 1:

I was one of the first ones to run a Del Sol in ITS (since I was the one that got it classified). It&#39;s been a while since we ran the car in ITS spec (2003 or so), but here&#39;s what I recall off the top of my head:

In IT trim, the car weighed around 2,500# w/driver depending on fuel load. Other than it&#39;s brief pro career, the car was mostly run at Road Atlanta in ITS races. With a few modifications (lighter shocks & wheels, 0.95 instead of 1.20 wall tubing in the cage), the weight might get down to around 2,450 in IT trim. A Civic Si may actually get closer to 2,350, since in my experience the regular civics are usually 100# or so lighter than the Del Sols.

The fastest lap time we got was a 1:45.6, and the best result we had was qualifying 4th in the rain.

Mike Cottrell did a little better with one at RA, if I remember correctly he&#39;s gotten at least one podium finish and lapped about a second faster.

After 2003 we converted the car to NASA H1 specifications, becuase as an IT car the Del Sol had no torque and it was very easy to fry the front brakes (even with ducting) after about 15 minutes or so of running flat-out. The more open rules allowed us brake upgrades, extensive lightening, and more horsepower (via putting an Integra TYpe R drivetrain in the car).

If you&#39;ve built a Del Sol for ITS, I apologize, since it really is my fault. The only weay you are ever going to win is if it rains, or nobody shows up, or an eartquake or tornado swallows up the top six. Realistically, a Del VTEC or a Civic Si would make failry competetive ITA cars, but SCCA has VTEC-phobia (in spite of not a single VTEC-powered car dominating anywhere that I know of).

Your best bet with the Del Sol VTEC is to either race NASA, convert it to production or ITA specs, or sell it to someone to use as a track-day or school car.



Some general notes of interest and things to consider for FWD cars in ITS:

1) As has been stated before, high horsepower is a big handicap with FWD. When we first put a type R engine in, and went from less than 160hp at the wheels to 198, it took a year of development just to get back down to ITS times with the car. We ended up re-doing everythinig (spring rates, sway bars, and shocks).

2) There does need to be some re-thinking about the horsepower formula with the VTEC engines, particularly the 1.6. In ITS trim we used to get beat down the back straight by top-prepped CRX&#39;s, and utterly destroyed by the RX-7&#39;s, 240&#39;s, & 325&#39;s. Even with some of the R&D we&#39;ve made since converting our car, you&#39;d still be hard-pressed to beat a well-prepped ITA CRX or Integra. I&#39;ll have to look through my records, but I recall about 158 HP & 105 fl-lb out of the ITS motor.

The best numbers I&#39;ve ever been able to get out of a B16 are 192 hp at the wheels & 125 ft-lb of torque, and that was with a World-Challenge spec motor with a host of extremely illegal-for-IT modifications (ported head, aftermarket cams & cam gears, extrude-honed manifold, forged pistons, lightened crankshaft, & aluminum flywheel). Even then the torque dropped off fairly quickly, and the peak horsepower wasn&#39;t until 9,400 rpm.

[Bob Roth]

Thanks, great comments. It kind of makes one wonder why a car 6 years after its listing would get a +220 pound weight add competition adjustment whan nobody runs it and nobody is successful with it. I will be asking the competition board to explain this.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Thanks, great comments. It kind of makes one wonder why a car 6 years after its listing would get a +220 pound weight add competition adjustment whan nobody runs it and nobody is successful with it. I will be asking the competition board to explain this. [/b]

Bob,

I don&#39;t know what else to tell you. The first page of this thread gave you the explanation. It&#39;s not a comp adjustment.

You may not agreee with it, but it was part of a shift to restore category-wide equity. I will tell you that I am looking hard at changing the &#39;adders&#39; for FWD in ITS to reflect, what most pereceive to be, not enough &#39;allowance&#39; for the difficiency in design. Initial modeling would show lower weights for most FWD cars in ITS. If you want to write something that will get you somewhere, as for a serious look at more consiederation for FWD in ITS.

AB

[lateapex911]

Might toss in some comments about the weighting of torque in that letter too.....

[Bob Roth]

Heres some race results. I ran at Blackhawk last week against avery good second gen RX-7. Richard Walke Ex firehawk car, original owner. He ran 1:20s in qualifying, thought he set a new lap record. 2680 pounds minimum.

I have run about 90 races at blackhawk The last time I ran there in a CRX at 2180 pounds I turned a 1:23.6. (about a second off of lap record.) My Del Sol, which now weights with ballast 2612. My best qualifying was 1:24.48 and best race was 1:24.60. I ended up being beat by two Spec Miata&#39;s - One who&#39;s best race time was mid 23&#39;s and the other was mid 24&#39;s.

I got the jump on the Miata’s at the start and could hold off the miata’s for a while but within 5 laps I was passed by the one and by 15 laps I was passed by the other because my tires were going off and I had concerns about serious abusing the brakes for a half hour. And this was a race at 70 degrees in april. Its going to be a lot worse when it gets hot.

My car ended the race at 2612 pounds with a weight balance 63% front 37% back. In comparing the Del Sol to my ‘88 CRX, the Del Sol is marginally quicker down the straight but I give most of the speed back in Blackhawk turns 1, 6 and 7. In a CRX Si, using the same tires, I can run even with most Miata’s through those turns turns at blackhawk, not in a Del Sol.

Here is the problem,

1) In my CRX the front weight was about 1450 pounds. In a Del Sol, the front weight 1640 pounds. As a result, in the same speeds that the CRX can drive through a turn, the Del Sol washes out the front end. When I go into a turn, the best strategy is trail brake it in and scrub (have the front and back end slide) through the apex and get on it as soon as possible which is about the outside edge of the track. The problem with this is three fold.

a)I am scrubbing off a lot of speed compared to a lighter CRX B) I can’t put power down until the turn’s exit. Whereas on a CRX, I am floored from the apex on.
c)All this sliding the front end kills the front tires

2)My Del Sol has a 63%/37% FR weight balance. This 1650 pounds on the front tires causes 2 problems.

a)The front end weighs a lot more than comparable rear drive IT cars. For example, the RX-7 I was racing against might weigh 2700 pounds with a 55/45 weight balance. That’s 1485 pounds on the front tires which is comparable to my CRX at its old un ballasted weight. A 1:20 time is no surprise then when it pulls like or better than my Del Sol down the straight but brakes like a miata (50/50 weight balance) and turns like a CRX in the turns.

b)It also limits the amount of braking I can do. If I make some hard braking, it locks up the rear and tries to swap ends especially under trail braking. Granted, I can try biasing more brakes to the front but as I mentioned before, I ran out of fronts before the end of the session.

The bottom line is that any set of rules that puts a Porsche 944 with a 50/50 weight balance or a RX-7 with a 55/45 (my guess) weight balance as the same as a 63/37% Honda front drive Honda may need som re-thinking. This is the gist of what I will be communicating to the ITAC

bob

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bob,

I have written - and deleted about 3 responses to your post realizing that there isn&#39;t much more to say that hasn&#39;t already been posted.

Bottom line for you? I have been working on developing new &#39;standards&#39; for the allowance made for FWD in ITS. In ITC, ITB and ITA; the realative lack of power makes our process work well. In ITS, it seems as if there is something else on the table. While individual reace results are impossible to use, the trends have shown that no FWD car in ITS is considered when you talk about &#39;what to race in ITS&#39;.

My proposal is before the ITAC now and would result in many (not all) FWD cars in ITS losing weight under a revised &#39;process&#39; should it make it&#39;s way past the ad-hoc and then the CRB.

If this is something that you think is a good idea, send in your support or conversly, if you think FWD cars in ITS are just fine where they are, send it a letter of opposition.

Something like:

"It is my understanding that the ITAC is considering changing the &#39;adders&#39; applied to FWD cars in ITS to more appropriately class and reclass cars in this perfomance envelope. If these new considerations result in lower weights for some FWD cars, I would support (or not support) this thought process......."

Blah Blah Blah :)

AB

[R2 Racing]

Once again, thanks for the hard work, Andy.


Richard Walke is real fast in that RX-7 and I wouldn&#39;t expect any ITS Del Sol to be anywhere close to being able to compete with him at Blackhawk. I&#39;d like to know though, who was driving the Miata&#39;s?

In their defense, Tony Coello in his SM actually beat my once in my ITA Integra at Road America (a huuuuge power track!). Granted it&#39;s a phenomenal driver on his home track, but holy crap, that&#39;s moving!

[SPiFF]

While individual reace results are impossible to use, the trends have shown that no FWD car in ITS is considered when you talk about &#39;what to race in ITS&#39;.

My proposal is before the ITAC now and would result in many (not all) FWD cars in ITS losing weight under a revised &#39;process&#39; should it make it&#39;s way past the ad-hoc and then the CRB.[/b]

:happy204: :happy204: :happy204:

Andy,

Thanks for the hard work. You really are a breath of fresh air for this club. I have been turned off many times by the lack of progress and red tape in IT. I hope this and the ITR proposal move forward.



If this is something that you think is a good idea, send in your support or conversly, if you think FWD cars in ITS are just fine where they are, send it a letter of opposition.

Something like:

"It is my understanding that the ITAC is considering changing the &#39;adders&#39; applied to FWD cars in ITS to more appropriately class and reclass cars in this perfomance envelope. If these new considerations result in lower weights for some FWD cars, I would support (or not support) this thought process......."

Blah Blah Blah :)

AB
[/b]

Where should we send the letters of support? [email protected]?

Thanks!

[Bob Roth]

Thanks andy. Actually I have posted two letters to the CRB.

The first was sent two weeks ago is to request taking the DelSol back to 2360 because the change does not conform to the CGR 2006 Section 17.1.4 C. This section requires (to paraphrase) changes after the fourth year "for restoring equity in the vehicle&#39;s class" to be based on "actual racing performance". When my weight was changed, my car was in its fifth year of classification. To the best of my eforts, I have found no &#39;95 Del Sol "actual racing performance" for a justifying a competitive adjustment to restore "equity". Given this. I believe this change does not conform to Section 17.1.4 C requirements and that the committee is well justified to restore the weight to 2360.

The second letter which I sent last night is to request that weight subtractors be given the Del Sol to bring it back to 2360 based upon subtractors for torque, FWD weight balance, and brake size compared to typical front running cars in the class. This letter was based upon various observations in this string.

I believe both positions are valid and am looking forward to an affirmative reply to the committee.

As a comment, I don&#39;t believe that my first letter affects any car other than the ITS 94-95 Del Sol as its these are the only ITS cars I could find that are non competitive while having a weight add and being more than 4 years old. As to the second letter, I would encourage all cars having similar metrics (Torque, FWD, Brakes) such as Civic Si &#39;99 and Integra&#39;s to send in your own comments ASAP to the committee so they can be discussed at the same time.

regards
bob

[Andy Bettencourt]

I believe both positions are valid and am looking forward to an affirmative reply to the committee.

regards
bob
[/b]

The 1st letter you sent has been reviewed by the ITAC and will receive a &#39;thank you for your input&#39;. The ITAC and CRB do not agree with your position on the &#39;illegality&#39; of the moves. Explanations why have been posted in this thread.

I hope to see the &#39;adders&#39; modified. Getting back to EXACTLY 2360 won&#39;t happen, but it will certainly be much closer to that than the current weight if the process is modified for ITS/FWDers. I think the proposal I did makes a lot of sense and hope the ITAC does too.

AB