CRX - is it still competitive? [Archive] - Improved Touring Racing Forums

Tom Blaney

05-29-2006, 07:03 AM

The CRX is still quite competitive, and I think it has more potential than you think. Granted it has a few shortfalls (one being the very short wheelbase which will make it a win or die driving experience when pushed to the very edge).

But if you look at the statistics, a WELL PREPARED CRX is still winning races and resetting track records. But you do have to take the time and money to prepare it well. There are a few advantages to the Integra, one of them is that a deciently prepped one will get to the front 1/3 of the field easily, making the driver feel he is king of the hill, unfortunatly as most experienced drivers know that staying at the front and gaining those precious 2 tenths takes a lot of extra effort.

Fortunatly the CRX will get those extra 2 tenths with a less money and just more driver skill and taking the time to tune the suspension to the improved driving style.

As long as the cars are kept legal (and we all know who's Integra's NOT) the battle for the front of the pack is still up for grabs.

Tom

charrbq

05-29-2006, 10:54 AM

In a word...Not like they used to be! Wait, that's 6 words...well, you get my drift. If you want a world beater for the class, build a 1.8 Miata. That's where the advantage is headed...for now. <_<

Marcus Miller

05-29-2006, 08:54 PM

Thanks guys.

I was jsut curios, sine lots of thme seem to be popping up for sale at what seem like very inexpensive prices. (in expensive as compared to the $$ I had in my ITA Rx-7 I just sold) To give a frame of reference, I sold it becuase in my mind, its not competitive.

Am I going to buy a CRX to find myself in that situation nesxt year? The answer to me is a scary yes, looking at the teg and anticpating the Miata results.

Tom - I have no idea whose Integra is not legal... would be curious though.

Marcus, wishing ITB/ITC were popular on the west coast.

Andy Bettencourt

05-31-2006, 08:23 PM

In a word...Not like they used to be! Wait, that's 6 words...well, you get my drift. If you want a world beater for the class, build a 1.8 Miata. That's where the advantage is headed...for now. <_< [/b]

I urge you to try and put one together and take on the world. I have a long way to go to catch the Amy NX and the Serra Teg's.

It ain't as easy as you think - but be my guest!!!!

ITA is simply the best class going right now. Lot's of legitimate podium contenders.

lateapex911

05-31-2006, 09:11 PM

Tom - I have no idea whose Integra is not legal... would be curious though.

[/b]

I am guessing that Tom is talking about a Teg here on the East coast.....mmm...like the NORTH east coast, that blows up more than it finishes. If I'm right, this driver has put more oil/flames/antifreeze and gear oil on the track than the EPA should allow.

When the car hangs together, he's a rocket down the straights, passing fast ITS cars, and most ITA cars like they are standing still.

But, hey, I could be thinking of someone else.

Why hasn't he been protested you ask? beats me...maybe because his car is always blowing up, and it's equipment level is a forever moving target.

(But if somebody is willing to take the plunge, I think I know a little about the Protest procedure by now, LOL)

gran racing

05-31-2006, 09:25 PM

Heck, I'm racing in ITB but still willing to thow in some money for the protest! The whole "people take this too seriously, it's just club racing" but I still justify cheating crap is so annoying.

The CRX...I'd still consider it if moving to ITA - which I'm not moving back anytime soon unless Jake and the BOD have other plans. :rolleyes: Yes, the weight hurt the CRX but it was getting tiresome to watch the spec CRX/Integra class, I mean ITA, the way it was.

I'd love to jump in a well-built, well-tuned CRX!

Tom Blaney

06-01-2006, 04:29 AM

"Why hasn't he been protested you ask? beats me...maybe because his car is always blowing up, and it's equipment level is a forever moving target"

That's easy, lets see!...over a grand in costs, blatently illegal car, and the result is a "Shame on You Bad Boy Bad! now gimmie that trophy back" result.

"I'd love to jump in a well-built, well-tuned CRX!" Too bad Dave mine is now running around in the hands of the Poison Arrow Frog guys, (with a better paint scheme), but if you want to buy one of the ones for sale now, I can get you the go fast parts real easy.

lateapex911

06-02-2006, 12:37 AM

That's easy, lets see!...over a grand in costs, blatently illegal car, and the result is a "Shame on You Bad Boy Bad! now gimmie that trophy back" result.

[/b]

For those that don't know, or can't read between the lines, thats the voice of a guy frustrated with the system.

Tom was involved in a protest that alledged that a CRX was running , basically, a high comp cheater motor. I was one of the protesters as well as 3 other ITA guys. Long story short, (see "A protest story" on this site for the looooong version) the tech staff failed to handle the protest in a proper manner. Kathy Barnes became involved late in the going, and it is my opinion that her involvement adjusted the course of the protest. (for the better) In the end, the pistons were confirmed as high compression units, and the car was deemed illegal. The travesty of it was that this same car, in this same configuration, set lap records and won trophies previous to that protest, but the Protest Steward in charge never saw fit to ask any questions regarding the history of the engine. So the penalty was as low as you can get....the minmum points and a DQ for that event.

Those of us that have witnessed other protests have seen penaties 5 times stiffer for non performance items.

So Tom is understandably angered over the result.

(I should add that it is my opinion that the "Top brass" got wind of this situation, and was rather upset, but I have no official word on that, or any details.)

Bottom line is that justice barely got done in a clearly flagrant situation, and several racers had their faith in the system damaged.

Back on topic........it is my opinion that rumours of the CRXs demise are greatly exagerated!

R2 Racing

06-02-2006, 07:30 AM

Yes, they are still quite competitive, IMHO. But, I think we'll see them maybe be a little more "track specific" now compared to how they use to be. For example, last weekend I was at Grattan, a very tight and twisty track, and got outqualified by a CRX both days. The car was formally owned by someone else and was one of the top cars in the CenDiv - actually one of two car/driver combinations I've never beat in the CenDiv, ever. Now it's in the hands of another driver who also use to drive a CRX for years, but an underprepared one. Now he has moved into this faster, top notch CRX and was really, really fast at Grattan. I mean, my Integra is handleing pretty damn good right now, but I still couldn't keep up with that CRX with the tight esses there. He actually got down to within a couple tenths of the track record - not bad for a first outing in a car that had 100 more lbs bolted to the floor.

I've also noticed the huge amount of really nice ITA CRX's for sale at dirt cheap prices. I know what this CRX sold for and for what it has and can do, it was an absolute steal! Yet I see former ARRC podium finishing CRX's going for $7-9K and Integra's that haven't going for $13-15K. I mean, I still find the CRX vs. Integra or any other ITA car debateable, but the market sure isn't showing it!

JamesB

06-02-2006, 08:11 AM

I think its very competitive if well driven and well prepared. In MARRS the front runners where a huge mix of cars, 1.6 Miata, Integra, CRX, 240SX. All great drivers and the only time one of them was missing from the top 5 was when they overdrove a corner. I didnt get to spectate M1 since I was finally driving, but from the result sheets the front was tighter together then last year.

almracing

06-02-2006, 10:02 AM

I certainly hope the CRX is still competitive... I plan to put mine back together (see wreck story in New England Region forum) It has been disappointing to see some of the newer cars in the ITA class coming on so strong, but I also know alot of $$ have been spent to make them fast.

I run at NHIS in NH and can battle with some of the Integras. The CRX can hold its own down the straight, but suffers a bit in a slow uphill section. I find the car a blast to drive with great brakes and good handling. Now if I could only do a street-rod swap and put an Integra engine in it. <_<

charrbq

06-02-2006, 05:55 PM

I urge you to try and put one together and take on the world.

[/b]
Why would I want to do that? Well, I suppose having a more competitive car in a class I can't afford might be a reason, but that won't happen any time soon. I only said that the CRX' would not be as competitive as they once were. You recall when they were unbeatable? That's changed, now it's the Integra, but you Miata guys won't let that stay for long. Then there will be complaints, whining, etc. and the process will continue. Who knows what's coming to the class...924's?

lateapex911

06-02-2006, 07:05 PM

Why would I want to do that? Well, I suppose having a more competitive car in a class I can't afford might be a reason, but that won't happen any time soon. I only said that the CRX' would not be as competitive as they once were. You recall when they were unbeatable? That's changed, now it's the Integra, but you Miata guys won't let that stay for long. Then there will be complaints, whining, etc. and the process will continue. Who knows what's coming to the class...924's?
[/b]

I guess we need to come to an agreement on the term, "competitive".

Competitive is NOT dominating.

Dominating is NOT the model that may win the most. That might be the more popular car. In the early 90s, people called the RX-7 "dominating"...but a well prepped RX-3 never lost to an RX-7 ....

An overdog is a car that is classed in such a way as to have an inherent physical advantage that, when raced against other equally well preppped and well driven cars, is unbeatable.

Competitive is, to me, a car that can win against the best, on certain tracks. Not necessairily ANY track, or every track.

Defined that way, I think the CRX is certainly competitive, and ITA has nothing that is, at this point, a clear and obvious overdog.

At this point I think that the models in ITA that are "competitive" are:
CRX
Integra
Nissan 240SX
Nissan NX2000
Sentra SER
Miata
Saturn

I'm sure i missed one as well.

Unproven, but solid "Good chance" cars include the:

Neon
BMW 325e
and probably some other Honda product!
and maybe the GTI?

That's quite a list to choose from! One thing is for sure, the ARRC could be pretty interesting this year. I can think of an example of each car in the first group that has the talent and build quality to make the trip to Atlanta wothwhile.

Hotshoe

06-02-2006, 07:38 PM

I guess we need to come to an agreement on the term, "competitive".

a well prepped RX-3 never lost to an RX-7 ....

Competitive is, to me, a car that can win against the best, on certain tracks. Not necessairily ANY track, or every track.

Defined that way, I think the CRX is certainly competitive, and ITA has nothing that is, at this point, a clear and obvious overdog.

At this point I think that the models in ITA that are "competitive" are:
CRX
Integra
Nissan 240SX
Nissan NX2000
Sentra SER
Miata
Saturn

I'm sure i missed one as well.

Unproven, but solid "Good chance" cars include the:

Neon
BMW 325e
and probably some other Honda product!
and maybe the GTI?

That's quite a list to choose from! [/b]

Jake,

.... I can't believe that you turned your back on your own car. I am running ITA this year just to prove to you ( and everyone else ) that a 1st gen RX7 can be competitive (as you said"on certain tracks not every track"). I guess I need to wait until they put my 97 Miata in ITA then maybe I will have a chance. But until then I'll do my best with what I've got.....LOL

... FYI ... My First three wins were against the ITA Champion ,Stan Hinds, Driving an RX3

... And don't be surprised when the 1.8 Miata takes over ITA. The writing is on the wall............. I'm ready.

... Just standing up for my car and myself ...

... Rick Thompson

Catch22

06-02-2006, 08:00 PM

Well, I've been driving an ITA CRX all year, and I'll say this...

Its still fast.
But that 110lbs is taking its toll in other places. Our formerly dead nuts reliable chassis is now a brake, hub and halfshaft eating monster, and we aren't the only ones. Other folks in the divsion are also struggling with front end reliability.

As a result, we've punted on the ECR series. The car is just too brutal on front end parts now to try to do longer races. We're now just looking at SARRC and ProIT races.
Very unfortunate indeed, but continually replacing front end parts is not in the budget and we're having a hard time even finishing the long races.

My opinion (and remember that I wasn't against the weight addition when the news first broke) is now that the adjustment went too far. The percentage of weight added vs. the total weight of the chassis is larger than any other car's adjustment (I think, but I'm admittedly bad at math) and its going to prove to be too much in my opinion. The car is still capable of burning some fast laps, but it can't do it in a sustaned manner anymore. The problem is that a Miata (both flavors), RX7 and an Integra can.

My suggestion, after 1/2 a season in a 2250lb CRX (that started the season with all new front end parts BTW), is for the ITAC to revisit the addition and consider dropping the weight to 2200lbs.
I'm afraid if some sort of compromise isn't made, we'll see these very good and formerly hot dog cars start to disappear.
That would be extremely unfortunate, and is not what the ITAC or the comp board wants.
We need balance, but not at the expense of obsoleting a popular chassis.

If you do the math, a 60lb addition as opposed to 110 more closely matches what other chassis got percentage-wise in "The Great Adjustment of 2006."

JMVHO

Andy Bettencourt

06-02-2006, 08:31 PM

If you do the math, a 60lb addition as opposed to 110 more closely matches what other chassis got percentage-wise in "The Great Adjustment of 2006."

JMVHO
[/b]

What every other car 'got' has nothing to do with it. The fact it got the 'most' percentage-wise, just means it was the furthest 'off' pre-correction.

People are selling them because they aren't overdogs anymore. Now you have to actually race - oh no!

110lbs turns the car from perfect to a parts eating monster? Hmmmm...

Remember, these were not comp adjustments. They were just run through the process like everything else. The CRX SHOULD be a car that is track dependent - it's small and nimble. Others will have strengths elsewhere.

You boys better keep developing - Greg Amy is coming to Atlanta with a real sharp knife.

AB

charrbq

06-02-2006, 10:02 PM

I guess we need to come to an agreement on the term, "competitive".

Competitive is NOT dominating.

[/b]
Agreed, but not in everyone's dictionary. In a perfect world, we desire to compete on an even field with everyone having a chance to win. In reality, we want to kick everybody's butt! That's when most feel they are competitive. Not necessarily correct, but still human nature. Most don't build a particular car to be simply competitive, but to dominate, if possible. We all won't to win as often as we can. Even that Schumaker guy has to have a helluva car to win. The best of drivers can't do it with a simply competitive car all the time.

Knestis

06-02-2006, 10:10 PM

... and maybe the GTI? ...[/b]

Seriously - A is where it's at.

If the 2.0 16v GTI weren't as rare as hen's teeth, I'd have built one the instant they got moved to ITA. Since I got de-NERDified, I've harbored thoughts of just building a Frankenstein damn-the-VIN version out of the older, straight, rust-free $300 no-sunroof shell I see sitting whenever I go to my favorite Asian lunch joint, and the drivetrain from a crapped out, freebie '91 Passat. The "big" bumpers are the hardest part of the recipe.

Just let some NERD protest me. I know Greg won't but...

K

Ron Earp

06-03-2006, 11:00 AM

Kirk,

I don't think anyone would really file a protest on a VIN number. Would they? I mean dang, this is racing, this is a race car, that VIN number stuff is rooted in IT days long gone with tags title etc. Build the car just like a GTI, be done with it. Looks like a duck, smells like a duck, etc. Heck, stamp your own VIN on a plate if you need to. Lord knows that was done with some 260zs to 240s back in the day, I know - I own 1/2 of one that ran like that in the past.

Ron

lateapex911

06-03-2006, 04:14 PM

Agreed, but not in everyone's dictionary. In a perfect world, we desire to compete on an even field with everyone having a chance to win. In reality, we want to kick everybody's butt! That's when most feel they are competitive. Not necessarily correct, but still human nature. Most don't build a particular car to be simply competitive, but to dominate, if possible. We all won't to win as often as we can. Even that Schumaker guy has to have a helluva car to win. The best of drivers can't do it with a simply competitive car all the time.
[/b]

Well, good! That means the best drivers are winning.........

last I checked, that was the goal.

Jake,

.... I can't believe that you turned your back on your own car. I am running ITA this year just to prove to you ( and everyone else ) that a 1st gen RX7 can be competitive (as you said"on certain tracks not every track"). I guess I need to wait until they put my 97 Miata in ITA then maybe I will have a chance. But until then I'll do my best with what I've got.....LOL

... FYI ... My First three wins were against the ITA Champion ,Stan Hinds, Driving an RX3

... And don't be surprised when the 1.8 Miata takes over ITA. The writing is on the wall............. I'm ready.

... Just standing up for my car and myself ...

... Rick Thompson
[/b]

Rick! Hows the rebuild coming!? The pictures looked pretty invasive! If anyone can do that, it's you.

Yup.I left the RX-7 out of it. I figured I'd just pass on it as i own one. My post was more of a 10,000 foot view.

I have no doubts you'll win a few more.

Your wins against Stan...how'd you do it? In the braking? ;)

Seriously - A is where it's at.

If the 2.0 16v GTI weren't as rare as hen's teeth, I'd have built one the instant they got moved to ITA. Since I got de-NERDified, I've harbored thoughts of just building a Frankenstein damn-the-VIN version out of the older, straight, rust-free $300 no-sunroof shell I see sitting whenever I go to my favorite Asian lunch joint, and the drivetrain from a crapped out, freebie '91 Passat. The "big" bumpers are the hardest part of the recipe.

Just let some NERD protest me. I know Greg won't but...

K
[/b]

Pssssssssssst.

plasma cutter.......
Tig welder
grinder...

Didn't hear it from me.
;)

charrbq

06-03-2006, 07:13 PM

Well, good! That means the best drivers are winning.........

last I checked, that was the goal.
I thought the original question concerned whether or not the car was competitive, not the driver.
Pssssssssssst.

plasma cutter.......
Tig welder
grinder...

Didn't hear it from me.
;)
[/b]
Psssst! Impound! Protest commitee?

lateapex911

06-04-2006, 09:18 AM

Psst...Knestis...looks like the secrets out...better not do that, LOL....;)

Z3_GoCar

06-04-2006, 03:40 PM

Here's my definition of competitive based upon my experience driving a spec muffler class Yahama Kart:

Competitive is when you're not spit out the back when the green flag drops, and you're not lap traffic for your class after five laps. Given this definition there are lots of Spec Miata that aren't competitive in their own class. I found I needed a new Kart chassis and to blueprint my motor to not get left behind, my best finish was a 2nd place because I drove a smart race and didn't get collected.

James

Catch22

06-04-2006, 09:32 PM

What every other car 'got' has nothing to do with it. The fact it got the 'most' percentage-wise, just means it was the furthest 'off' pre-correction.

People are selling them because they aren't overdogs anymore. Now you have to actually race - oh no!

110lbs turns the car from perfect to a parts eating monster? Hmmmm...

Remember, these were not comp adjustments. They were just run through the process like everything else. The CRX SHOULD be a car that is track dependent - it's small and nimble. Others will have strengths elsewhere.

You boys better keep developing - Greg Amy is coming to Atlanta with a real sharp knife.

AB
[/b]

I don't care about "dominating" anything.
What I do care about is a car that keeps tearing up brand new parts.

Yes Andy, 110lbs does qualify as a shit ton of weight on a 2140lb FWD "grocery getter." It has significantly handicapped the car, not in speed, but in reliability.
I don't really think that was the goal of the addition. I hope I'm correct about that.

And I'm very familiar with Mr. Amy and his sharp knife. He is my pick to win the ARRC this year as the VanSteenburg Miatae are rarely spotted at Road Atlanta.
That said, Thats not even what I'm talking about here.

Please understand that I'm not talking about speed or competitiveness or winning the ARRC. What I'm talking about is a formerly spot-on reliable car that is now systematically killing components that it has not historically killed nearly as quickly.
Out of 4 races, we've had ONE race that we finished without a complete failure or a major repair. Yes, these are 1.5 hour races, but CRXs have been doing these races for years in the SE without these issues.
Now (maybe coincidentally???), hubs, bearings, CV Joints, and brake components are being terminated with extreme predjudice and not on just one car. Earlier this year at VIR if you had a supply of CRX hubs and bearings you could name your price. I'm not kidding.

I know its easy to poo poo this and say "Oh, 110lbs isn't wreaking THAT much havoc." And honestly, if I wasn't in the middle of the havoc I might say the same thing.
But we keep breaking parts, NEW parts, and we keep looking around and seeing other guys breaking parts. I just can't bring myself to buy that its all a coincidence.

Again... The car isn't any slower. I can turn just as fast a lap at 2250 that I could at 2140.
I just can't manage to finish the race at 2250.
Meanwhile, Bowies Miata with something like 30 races on the motor just keeps on going like the energizer bunny. He readily admits that his "beat a CRX" strategy is now to just pressure it a bit and wait for the front end to burn to the ground. So far its worked for him flawlessly.

Again, and I can't stress this enough... This isn't about speed.
If Christian decides to bail out and sell his CRX it won't be about competitiveness or because he got spanked by Greg Amy, it'll be because he's tired of replacing front end components after EVERY weekend.
Thats how my Integra GSR used to be, and its why I sold the damned thing.

I'm just trying to provide information for you guys. I don't own an ITA CRX and don't plan to buy one. I likely won't be driving the one I'm currently driving after this year.
In short, I have no dog in this hunt.
I just truly believe that the CRX adjustment needs to be revisited because its not accomplishing what you guys in the ITAC intended for it to accomplish, and in the long term that is going to hurt ITA, not help it.

We've scratched the ECR series and the ARRC enduro off our schedule. At this point, based on what we've seen so far, we don't see the point in even trying to do those races.

R2 Racing

06-04-2006, 09:52 PM

Scott, I'd have to ask what kind of suspension components you guys are running. I only ask because in my first year with my Integra, I was going through axles like water. At the time my car was around 2570lbs and had a relatively "soft" suspension on it. It just came down to the fact that the front end was too soft to handle the weight and cornering loads, was rolling over a ton, and was pushing the axles beyond their design capabilities. I ended up having to throw springs and bars at it in effort to just make it finish races. Once that happened, I had to make it actually handle. Kind of ass backwards, I know, but it happened. Now its about 2605lbs after races, handles freaking great, and runs like a top! :023:

I don't know if comparing an Integra to a CRX is right in this instance, but I know that the suspension designs are almost identical. I do not know if the Integra's hubs are beefier though, maybe explaining why I never had a problem there.

Andy Bettencourt

06-04-2006, 09:55 PM

Don't know what to tell you. What do you think the CRB was trying to 'accomplish' with the correction? NOTHING to do with performance or longevity that is for sure. Just getting everyones weights in line with the classification/reclassification process. Simple.

As far as your issue? Some cars make great enduro cars, some make great sprint cars. Bowie's Miata and the CRX may be opposites. One makes a great Sprint car in ITA (CRX) and one makes a great enduro car in ITA (Miata).

Choose your weapon. Bowie did knowing that he didn't have an ARRC winning platform - but for long races, he could be the man.

AB

Tom Blaney

06-05-2006, 04:37 AM

Catch:

I am not sure what life expectency you demand out of your parts (assuming your using OEM or second line), but the 100+ lbs of weight are not going to start breaking hubs etc. Since except for the 88 CRX Si body most of the cars weren't at minimum weight anyway. And the boxier and heavier Civic uses the same components.

I have run multiple enduros and sprints in a variety of CRX's and we do not have that kind of component failure with my heat treated hubs and rotors.

Perhaps if you keep track of the parts use hours you might have less failures.

Tom

charrbq

06-05-2006, 07:56 AM

Let's see...if it weighs so much that the darned thing snaps in to several pieces, then I guess the only other way slow it down is an SIR! <_<

Catch22

06-05-2006, 08:46 AM

Uncle.

Thats all I can say at this point.
Its an OPM set up car, with the same components and suspension setup they've used for years with no issues. Now we're having issues. Apparently thats now acceptable.

As far as tracking usage hours... We aren't getting enough to worry about it.
Lets see...
Front bearing (OE Honda) hours... About 3.
Raxles half shaft (very good reputation)... 1.5 weekends
OE Honda lower ball joints... 2 weekends
Cobalt brake pads and Brembo Rotors... Forget about tracking hours, we're going through those so fast we just need to plan on starting every weekend on new ones (CRXs didn't used to be that way).

As far as weights Tom, the Civic used to weigh 35lbs more, no big deal in the greater scheme. And I know several drivers in 89-91 CRXs that were already running a little ballast at the old weight. So yeah... Adding 110lbs has actually added 110lbs in most cases. It did in our car (an '89 BTW).

But whatever. Forget I ever said anything and we'll see how this sorts out in the long run.

dickita15

06-05-2006, 01:07 PM

Scott,
You certainly are getting beat up here, and I know that you are just saying what is happening to you in the real world. It’s just to those of us on the sidelines it does not seem to make sense that that amount of weight would make that big a difference.

I guess if I was in you shoes I would be looking for legal way to move weight toward the rear.

Catch22

06-05-2006, 01:48 PM

Well Dick, the point I'm trying to make is that I see an issue on the horizon. As I mentioned, I don't even own a CRX, so my input here is not self serving. I don't expect any potential change would occur before the end of this year, and its unlikely I'll be driving this car after '06, so there's not really anything for me to personally gain unless a free ITA CRX ride unexpectedly falls in my lap at some future time (and we all know how often THAT happens).

And as I also stated before, I'm not sure I would buy it either if I was on the outside looking in. But its not just our car, other CRXs are seeming to have issues they didn't really used to have.

Just coincidence?
Maybe, but at this point I'm willing to stick my neck out and say I don't think so. I could look stoopid later, but it wouldn't be the first time.

The mechanism is there to review changes that are made. I'm simply suggesting that this is one that needs to be looked at.

dickita15

06-05-2006, 04:46 PM

So lets talk in the hypothetical. If an addition of enough weight to “level the field” makes racing a car difficult, impossible, unsafe ECT. What should be done? Now as you said, we have not reached that end with the CRX conclusively. But what happens when we get to that point. Do we take the weight off and let a car be an overdog? Do we move them up a class? Do we add a restrictor? Do we just say sorry you picked the wrong car?

charrbq

06-05-2006, 04:50 PM

Seems to me like the response is usually the last one...even when unspoken.

Catch22

06-05-2006, 05:42 PM

Well, I honestly don't think we're anywhere near that point... Yet.

Remember that this whole thing is still very new, so I'd honestly be quite surprised if the next few years don't see a bunch of changes. And I'm OK with that.
I think the guys on the ITAC are doing a fantastic job, but to think that they'd go from zero methodology of classing cars to getting it perfectly correct the first time would be kind of a stretch.

As many folks know, I'm one of a group of folks that isn't totally happy with the current speccing method because it doesn't take FWD into account. And very few people will argue the view that weight hurts FWD cars more than RWD cars, and that penalty gets worse as the cars get faster in ITS and ITA (and ITR?).

We've already discussed the idea of a break for FWD ITS cars in other threads around here, and last I heard that discussion is on the ITAC agenda. Maybe that same discussion needs to take place with ITA in mind, just a little less of a break?

As far as the CRX being an "overdog," I have some thoughts about that...
1. A CRX has won the ARRC only what? Once? in the past 5 years. That doesn't sound very overdoggy to me.
2. Remember that not only did the CRX get 110lbs, but some other cars like the RX7 lost weight. So even if you feel the CRX was an overdog before, taking weight back off of it now doesn't take things back to pre-05 status due to other changes.
3. Was the CRX really an overdog or was it a case of everyone building them because a few guys did really well with them early? Sort of like what has been happening with the Integra lately. I seem to remember that a guy that thought outside the ITA box and put a full effort into a 240sx did pretty well, but I never really heard it called an "overdog."

You cant legitimately put the "E36 Label" on the CRX because it never produced dyno numbers well and truly above the rest of the class. The CRX can't put any more to the wheels (legally) than a good 1.6 miata and it does less than a 12a RX7. The BMW simply laid waste to every other car in the class on the dyno.
So that "overdog" label is apples to oranges.

Honestly, if nothing ever changes and the venerable CRX falls by the ITA wayside its no skin off my ass. But I really don't think thats good for the class in the long run, and thats why I'm bringing this up now.

:birra:

Andy Bettencourt

06-06-2006, 05:01 AM

Well, let's blow up some misconceptions. Drivetrain layout IS taken into account in every class in terms of weight. What is being looked at in ITS is ADDITIONAL 'compensation' for FWD. It seems as if when you get to higher weight and higher HP levels, what is working in the other classes is marginalized in ITS.

So the net/net is that the car is just as fast as it ever was but it just goes through parts faster?

The 'overdog' comments you here are (respectfully) from guys whose cars where crushed by the inclusion of the CRX way-back-when. No issues, just a stinger.

What are you saying when you say "Just coincidence? Maybe, but at this point I'm willing to stick my neck out and say I don't think so. I could look stoopid later, but it wouldn't be the first time."

And to even state that the CRX could 'fall by the wayside' is bogus. If it can still run at the front of ITA but just may not be the best enduro car sure doesn't spell it's death.

zracre

06-06-2006, 08:08 AM

It looks like the only restrictor has been put on us Hondacura drivers wallets. We can still go almost as fast as before, we just need to spend more money to do it...new tires every race, new axles more often and obviously more brakes more often. The Honda product is the most popular ITA ride for a reason...good aftermarket and development. It took years to get these cars right just so they can be slowed. Why hasn't the RX7 been reeled in some? Other than the aforementioned Beemer, I dont know of any other regular at the front (the occasional one off Merc does but how many of them are there?)...leaving no room for other cars to compete.

Catch22

06-06-2006, 08:18 AM

What are you saying when you say "Just coincidence? Maybe, but at this point I'm willing to stick my neck out and say I don't think so. I could look stoopid later, but it wouldn't be the first time."

[/b]

I'm saying exactly what I'm saying (which is pretty much the status quo with me). What I'm seeing is CRXs having reliability issues and not doing all that well out on track. I'm also seeing numbers down. I'm also seeing people trying to sell former championship cars and nobody wanting them. I'm also seeing RX7s pass me on straights (and I'm in a car with a brand new ballz-out OPM motor). In short, I'm seeing a bunch of negatives and not really any positives in terms of where the CRX stands in ITA today.
When I add all these things up, it doesn't look good for the CRX to me.

But... I could be totally wrong.
Somebody could show up at the ARRC this year and whip everyone in a CRX.
Someone *could* do that... But my bet is that (depending on everyone with top non-CRX cars showing up) there won't be a CRX in the top 3, maybe even the top 5 this year.

Maybe I should start "Spec CRX?"
What the hell... It worked for the "uncompetitive in ITA" Miata. Right?

Well, let's blow up some misconceptions. Drivetrain layout IS taken into account in every class in terms of weight. What is being looked at in ITS is ADDITIONAL 'compensation' for FWD. It seems as if when you get to higher weight and higher HP levels, what is working in the other classes is marginalized in ITS.

[/b]

Thats my point Andy.
How do you KNOW its "working" in other classes?
We just started this whole thing this year. We don't "know" that the system is working in other classes. Not yet.

Andy, you and I both agree that FWD cars just can't seem to cut it at current specs in ITS, so further "compensation" is being considered.

Well, maybe it will bear out that the same applies to ITA, just to a lesser degree. Say (and I'm just whipping numbers out of my arse) something like ITS FWD cars get a 100lb break and ITA FWD cars get a 50lb break.
I honestly think its too early to make that call, but its something that needs to be considered and planned for.

I think most of us will agree that if you take an ITA CRX and a ITA Miata and add 100lbs to both of them, you just penalized the CRX significantly more.

Xian

06-06-2006, 12:26 PM

I think most of us will agree that if you take an ITA CRX and a ITA Miata and add 100lbs to both of them, you just penalized the CRX significantly more.
[/b]
Nope, you're completely wrong. Stop all this "the CRX is going thru parts talk"... how do you think I'm gonna be able to sell the car next year if everyone finds out it like to eat parts for breakfast, lunch , and dinner?

Seriously though, the CRX is a great chassis with a really good engine and suspension but at the current weight it's all taking a toll on the front end. I know not every car is going to be good at everything adn I'm ok with that but the weight adjustment means that I'm not going to be running the car in Summer ECR's anymore b/c the front end just can't take the weight and abuse. Will I still race tha car? Of Course I will. Will I think about switching to something RWD down the road? Probably... :unsure:

Christian

Zahniser1970

06-06-2006, 12:40 PM

Scott and Christian,

When did the weight addition go into effect and how much weight did you have to add?

Xian

06-06-2006, 01:16 PM

Scott and Christian,

When did the weight addition go into effect and how much weight did you have to add?
[/b]
Weight went into effect at the beginning of this season. There was a total of around 100#'s of weight that got added back into the car (ballast, spare tire, oil cooler, bigger rear bar, heavier exhaust, etc) and neither Scott nor myself are small guys... we both weigh around 210#'s.

There is definitely weight that could be taken out of the car if it was still at the old weight. As it sits, the car is as light as it can get and still be legal. When it was rolled across the scales at CMP 2 weeks ago it came in at 2252 with me in the car and the tank at the point of fuel starve. I suspect that the front hubs/axles/brakes have reached their breaking point based on the loads that uber-sticky tires and higher weight are imparting.

Catch22

06-06-2006, 01:33 PM

the weight changed at the beginning of the year Chad, if you havent added it your car is either mighty heavy, hasn't been through impound yet, or snuck across the scales underweight.
If you were actually underweight at VIR, that might help explain why you had the *ONLY* CRX there that didn't have some sort of hub/bearing issue.
But I'm sure thats just more coincidence. :cavallo:

We had to add about 100lbs to Christian's car. We put the donut spare in the back and a bunch of lead plates in the passenger footwell (as far back as currently legally accepted). We also start each race with a full tank of gas.
We've pressed the envelope getting it as light as possible. At CMP Christian rolled across the scales after the race at 2252. Yeah... Thats as dialed in as it gets weight-wise.
Both Christian and I weigh over 200lbs and the chassis is an '89 with alot of custom cage in it.
The 88s are a little lighter and will likely need a little more weight.

Zahniser1970

06-06-2006, 01:33 PM

Catch22

06-06-2006, 01:35 PM

Simultaneous posts are cool.
:birra:

Xian

06-06-2006, 01:41 PM

Simultaneous posts are cool.
:birra:
[/b]
At least we've got our story straight :P

Catch22

06-06-2006, 01:42 PM

I know that our car was somewhere over 2200 last year and we had nothing else to get rid of. I weigh 213 right now and weighed 231 laste year and bill, my teammate, is well over 250. We have not ran since VIR so I am curious as to how our car will do at Rd Atl next month.
[/b]

With a 230 to 250lb driver I can see a CRX weighing close to 2200 with no ballast and a full tank of gas.
Christian's came in at about 2150 last year with him in it (210lbs) and no ballast. Smaller drivers have traditionally been running 25 to 50lbs of lead at the old weight.

My guess is that you guys were under 2200lbs at VIR but you probably got away with it because you wrote the old number on your tech form and the guy at the scales didn't notice.
Even with Bill's 250lbs in the car, I'm positive you guys were at least 50lbs light with no ballast and after an enduro stint at VIR (likely down near 1/2 tank of gas).

Pure speculation on my part, but it all adds up and makes sense.

We'll be double checking your scale numbers at Road Atlanta Chad. B)

Zahniser1970

06-06-2006, 02:47 PM

I cannot wait to let you guys whip up on us

Xian

06-06-2006, 03:30 PM

Being that it'll be my first time at RA, I'm not sure that I'll be "whipping up" on anyone but I'll sure try! :lol:

Andy Bettencourt

06-06-2006, 03:48 PM

But... I could be totally wrong.
Somebody could show up at the ARRC this year and whip everyone in a CRX.
Someone *could* do that... But my bet is that (depending on everyone with top non-CRX cars showing up) there won't be a CRX in the top 3, maybe even the top 5 this year.[/b]

And I bet you are right - about the CRX's potential to win the ARRC. And if that holds true, the only people to balme are the CRX drivers who bailed on the car because of a PERCEPTION that the car was dead. It most certainly isn't.

Thats my point Andy.
How do you KNOW its "working" in other classes?
We just started this whole thing this year. We don't "know" that the system is working in other classes. Not yet.[/b]

We don't KNOW anything. The data this year is sure leading us to belive that ITA is healhier than ever. More cars, more diversity and more drivers who think their car has a shot. THAT is the definition of success IMHO. As I have said before, the cream will always rise to the top - and it will - but right now, on paper and on the entry lists, the system is working.

Andy, you and I both agree that FWD cars just can't seem to cut it at current specs in ITS, so further "compensation" is being considered.

Well, maybe it will bear out that the same applies to ITA, just to a lesser degree. Say (and I'm just whipping numbers out of my arse) something like ITS FWD cars get a 100lb break and ITA FWD cars get a 50lb break.
I honestly think its too early to make that call, but its something that needs to be considered and planned for.[/b]

What would you say if I told you that the 50lbs is already in effect for 'other' classes'? The fact remains that the CRX can cut laps as fast as it ever could - as per your experience. Just because it is a little tougher on parts does not mean the system is broken. It just means it may not be a great choice over long races.

AB

Catch22

06-06-2006, 04:53 PM

What would you say if I told you that the 50lbs is already in effect for 'other' classes'?
AB
[/b]

I'd say then *maybe* it needs to be 100 in ITA.
Note that I said "maybe" because I don't know for sure yet, and neither do you.
Or *maybe* just a few cars will struggle with the weight and others won't, so some cars might need a little help.

Sure, ITA is very healthy right now. Better than it has been in years.
But that doesn't mean its "right."
Maybe (note the "maybe" again) it could be more healthy???

Honestly answer this...
What if:
The CRX weight didn't change from 05.
The Integra weight didn't change from 05.
The 1.6 Miata weight didn't change from 05.
AND...
The Neon came to ITA from ITS
The Civic EX came to ITA from ITS
The Sentra and NX came to ITA from ITS
The later Integra came to ITA from ITS
The 1.8 Miata came to ITA from ITS
The 12A RX7 lost a bunch of weight

Would the CRX and Integra STILL be considered "overdogs" even at their old weight?
Would the class be just as healthy as it is now?
My answers are no and yes.
What are yours?

I hear what you are saying Andy, and I believe in "The Process."
But maybe the process can be even better? Lets not assume it can't be better without trying and lets not shoot ourselves in the foot by letting some chassis fade from contention because we're too stubborn to take 75lbs out of them.
Think 75lbs isn't a big deal? I disagree, and looking at Rewards weight systems in varous pro racing series (including SCCA's own) 75lbs IS considered to be substantial.

Here's what I've seen since last year at this time...
Integra... Fast, harder on parts in 06 but still finishing races.
1.8 Miata... Very fast
1.6 Miata... Added weight had little effect
NX... Very fast
Civic EX... Very fast
12a RX7... Much faster, winning ITA races with the right driver
CRX... Struggling with reliability and DNFs in 06. Still fast, but can't sustain it. Quickly becoming the option at the bottom of this list of cars.

That last one is a red flag to me. And if one is concerned with the health of ITA attention should be paid to that. My observation and experience tells me that a 2150 (or 2175 or 2200)lb CRX is no more of a threat to a 1.8 Miata, Integra, or NX than a 2250lb CRX. Its just that the lighter CRX has a better chance of still chasing those cars at the end instead of being 3-4 seconds off the pace or parked with a busted hub.

Again, and I can't stress this enough, I don't own a CRX.
If I built an ITA car today it wouldn't be a CRX, not even at 2140lbs instead of 2250.
My concern is strictly that, a concern.

ltblouis

06-06-2006, 05:51 PM

Hello guys, I have been reading the post and I usually don't like to comment but I will point few things from my experience, you guys read or interpret them anyway you like:
* When I ran my CRX back 5 to 7 years ago I used to always qualify and finish in the top 5 in the group at least and no one complained about me beating ITS cars.
* I never broke an axle, never lost a hub never or never DNF for any of these reasons.
* the CRX in ITA was given a wait penalty 8 years ago by SCCA , so this is the second weight adjustement.
* my car was always 40 to 50 lbs over the weight limit back in the old days
* my old car that I have bought again now has better weight distribution now with 2250, I would take any day more weight with better weight dist.
* a well build and rep. crx can still kick ass in good hands.
*not anyone can drive a crx fast!!!!! the car has to be very scarry to go fast and if you set it up neutral you will always be slow.
* I know only few drivers that can drive a fast crx and give them a good prep crx they will still beat anyone, some of these drivers that I remember are: Endicott, Moser, Muresan, Fowler, Botha, Puckett and few more sorry I don't know some all the new guys.
* if you are a good driver stick to Miata it is easier to drive, if you are a great driver build a crx.
* yes crx are cheap these days but for one reason, people that sold tem lately needed the money and where not running these cars to show how good they are. The car is still worth at least 10 to 12 k
* SCCA loves Mazda, don't waste time on asking them 50lbs for the crx they will never do it soon they will have a Miata in every class in SCCA :)

Andy Bettencourt

06-06-2006, 05:53 PM

I'd say then *maybe* it needs to be 100 in ITA.
Note that I said "maybe" because I don't know for sure yet, and neither do you.
Or *maybe* just a few cars will struggle with the weight and others won't, so some cars might need a little help.[/b]

Then we will agree to disagree - for now. Your 'estimation' on weight is totally subjectve and based 100% on the longevity of parts - not sprint performance.

Sure, ITA is very healthy right now. Better than it has been in years.
But that doesn't mean its "right."
Maybe (note the "maybe" again) it could be more healthy???[/b]

We have made a one-time 'correction' to get everyone on the same page. Nit-picky fiddling is not in the future. IT has undergone some MAJOR changes over the past 18 months and the goal is stability - but we had to get to a consistant and repeatable spot first.

Honestly answer this...
What if:
The CRX weight didn't change from 05.
The Integra weight didn't change from 05.
The 1.6 Miata weight didn't change from 05.
AND...
The Neon came to ITA from ITS
The Civic EX came to ITA from ITS
The Sentra and NX came to ITA from ITS
The later Integra came to ITA from ITS
The 1.8 Miata came to ITA from ITS
The 12A RX7 lost a bunch of weight

Would the CRX and Integra STILL be considered "overdogs" even at their old weight?
Would the class be just as healthy as it is now?
My answers are no and yes.
What are yours?[/b]

My answer is that the 3 cars you mention would be the only 3 cars that hadn't been through the process in ITA - and that is a bad thing. Facilitating that thought is that they would be out winning races without ANY justification to their minimum weights. If you were driving a car that was 'overweight', would you be making the same argument?

Here's what I've seen since last year at this time...
Integra... Fast, harder on parts in 06 but still finishing races.
1.8 Miata... Very fast
1.6 Miata... Added weight had little effect
NX... Very fast
Civic EX... Very fast
12a RX7... Much faster, winning ITA races with the right driver
CRX... Struggling with reliability and DNFs in 06. Still fast, but can't sustain it. Quickly becoming the option at the bottom of this list of cars.[/b]

I am going to call a 1/2 BS on this one. We are talking sprints here. Typical club racing. You are basing your statement on enduros. If you told me that the CRX couldn't stay together for a 30 minute sprint, then I think we would need to look at it. (and when I say that, I don't know what I would recommend as I wouldn't have a car at an artifically low weight just to make it relaible but also unfairly quick...).

Bottom line is that the car is just as fast as it used to be. Now it just fits the process.

That last one is a red flag to me. And if one is concerned with the health of ITA attention should be paid to that. My observation and experience tells me that a 2150 (or 2175 or 2200)lb CRX is no more of a threat to a 1.8 Miata, Integra, or NX than a 2250lb CRX. Its just that the lighter CRX has a better chance of still chasing those cars at the end instead of being 3-4 seconds off the pace or parked with a busted hub.[/b]

And I hear you but your opinion is 100% subjective. The system has to work for everyone, not just one car.

Again, and I can't stress this enough, I don't own a CRX.
If I built an ITA car today it wouldn't be a CRX, not even at 2140lbs instead of 2250.
My concern is strictly that, a concern.
[/b]

But you are racing one. The goal is to have lots of options - and we have that in ITA now - and the CRX is most certainly one of them.

Catch22

06-06-2006, 06:52 PM

Bottom line is that the car is just as fast as it used to be. [/b]

We'll see come November.
I think the car is as fast as ever for a few laps, thats all. And a few laps can't win races.

The question is... If the CRX gets completely shut out at the ARRC, and a couple of them DNF for failures, will you guys re-visit the weight?
I know the process is not supposed to be based on results, but results can surely indicate a flaw in the process... Agreed?

We're ditching enduros for the remainder of the year Andy. I'll keep you informed on how well the sprint racing goes.

Andy Bettencourt

06-06-2006, 08:59 PM

We'll see come November.
I think the car is as fast as ever for a few laps, thats all. And a few laps can't win races.[/b]

Are you saying the car is dead in a 20 lap sprint?

The question is... If the CRX gets completely shut out at the ARRC, and a couple of them DNF for failures, will you guys re-visit the weight?
I know the process is not supposed to be based on results, but results can surely indicate a flaw in the process... Agreed?
[/b]

I can't speak for the CRB but I would say no. If SE-R's (or insert your favorite ITA car here) get shut out and a couple DNF, you want their weight reduced or revisited to improve their potential ARRC performance for 2007??? Results can be used - only as a trend. And not if the prophecy will self-fulfill by no-shows, etc. (Meaning the top 3 CRX drivers from last year need to be there...same with ITS - if Chet doesn't show with his E36 and an RX-7 wins, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy for BMW guys)

Again, I hear you...but................

Catch22

06-06-2006, 09:44 PM

Are you saying the car is dead in a 20 lap sprint?

[/b]

I'm not saying that *yet*.
But if you put a gun to my head and made me give you an answer today I'd say "Yes, if its pushed hard it will fall off significantly over 20 laps."
I'm basing this off of enduro performance and how it has fallen off there, even at a slower enduro pace. But I realize this is not exact. Its going to actually require an ARRCish race with a ballz out push for 20 laps to make the "no doubt about it" call, and I haven't done that yet.

But I'll say this, I have sort of a rep for being a guy that can keep a car under him for an entire race and be there at the end instead of burning the car down early, and my results have shown this.
So if I have an issue, I'll go out on a limb and say its *probably* not me.

Add this to the premature brake, shaft, and bearing failures we've had, and well... You know... Things don't look so good.

Again, I hear you...but................[/b]

I know you do.
I'm just providing information. It may prove to be useless, it may not.
I'm just suggesting you guys keep the performance of this car on your radar.

gran racing

06-06-2006, 10:16 PM

1. A CRX has won the ARRC only what? Once? in the past 5 years. That doesn't sound very overdoggy to me. [/b]

As much fun as RA and the ARRC is, that is not [i]the[i/] only track out there. I know I (and other "yankees" who would do even better at LRP) would enjoy a champioship event at our home track. Hey, you coming for the race in two weeks? :)

R2 Racing

06-06-2006, 10:20 PM

"ITA in 2006 - what a long, strange trip it will be!"

After reading this thread, it just makes me think that I need to send Joe Moser an email again. If he decides to run the ARRC again this year, that will be your final decision maker on what the "new" CRX can do, period. The last I talked to him, he was moving back to the CenDiv this summer so I imagine I might get to see it first hand before too long.

Also, in response to the comment about the lack of wins for the CRX at the ARRC over the last couple of years, lets remember that Joe was winning last year before his rear subframe started ripping itself from the chassis. He also put dow the fastest race lap with half a second on Alex's Integra and a full second on mine. Also remember that James Evans was DQ'd from a win for no passenger door window glass in 2002 (I think 2002). Might not mean anything, but just remember.

Andy Bettencourt

06-06-2006, 10:26 PM

R2 Racing

06-06-2006, 10:29 PM

Would be great to have the track record holder there, no?
[/b]
As a spectator and/or a person with great interest in ITA? Absolutely!

As a competitor who would dearly love to win the damn thing? HELL NO!

:P

lateapex911

06-07-2006, 12:57 AM

I don't think the sky has fallen quite yet................

And to even talk about the ARRC results...in terms of a win percentage, is pretty silly, for lots of reasons....

Don't certain VWs have similar issues? What happened with them..did they get some form of compensation?

lateapex911

06-07-2006, 01:22 AM

* the CRX in ITA was given a wait penalty 8 years ago by SCCA , so this is the second weight adjustement.
[/b]

Huh? Refresh my memory...that was '98..what was the previous weight and why the change??

* SCCA loves Mazda, don't waste time on asking them 50lbs for the crx they will never do it soon they will have a Miata in every class in SCCA :)
[/b]

Oh puleeeze...the CRX is in 8 classes from Prod to GT to IT. And it's just a little old for SS, but SS is loaded with Hondacura products. The Miata? 8 classes fro IT to GT, plus Spec Miata.

I lost count of all the Civic variants in IT alone. SCCA has classed more Hondas than you can shake a stick at. :rolleyes:

ltblouis

06-07-2006, 06:31 AM

Huh? Refresh my memory...that was '98..what was the previous weight and why the change??
Oh puleeeze...the CRX is in 8 classes from Prod to GT to IT. And it's just a little old for SS, but SS is loaded with Hondacura products. The Miata? 8 classes fro IT to GT, plus Spec Miata.

I lost count of all the Civic variants in IT alone. SCCA has classed more Hondas than you can shake a stick at. :rolleyes:
[/b]

This is why I never post on this forum, you guys has nothing to do but to fight each other.
If you read my post you will see that I am not against the weight increase.
I only stated known facts and yes they increase the crx back in 1998 just to please the mazda Rx7 people and that never worked either, I only was posting a fact, just don't forget back 4 to 7 years ago when ITA was dead becasue the RX7 guys was not happy with the CRx and they decided to start their own IT7, that was SCCA big mistake and they should have even up the field back in those days not now.
Now for the Mazda and SCCA issue I will take one example: the crx si 2nd gen model and the Miata 1.6 in production class alone and we will find the crx only in EP but the Miata 1.6 is listed in EP and FP, do you consider that fair???
Your comment on loosing count of Civic variants in IT alone is a joke, how many size and type in civic variant is in that class at least 4 you can not be serious about your comment when the civic has been produced for over 25 years with many different type and engines.

I blame SCCA for all these issues, the old SCCA not the new one. The old SCCA never addressed the issue of keeping all class even they should not let the IT7 class be formed they should have fixed the crx weight back in the old days or gave the rx7 less weight to keep them in ITA or actually keep them running in ITA, Andy and the others are doing geat job now and they have issues to fix but work with them because at least they listen now not like the old days they change car from ITB to ITA and back to ITB !!!! oh I forgot that was a Honda to not a Mazda. :D

Again I am not fighting for the CRX I just posted some known facts.

lateapex911

06-07-2006, 04:30 PM

Not picking a fight...but I have zero knowledge of any weight addition to the CRX since it's initial classing.

As far as I am concerned, it is not a known fact. I will research it.

RSTPerformance

06-07-2006, 04:49 PM

Why is it that everyone cares so much about the "popular" cars and we forget about all the "unpopular" cars that are far less "competitive" than the ones we argue about here day in and day out??? - Thats an honest question... I think I am going to start arguments about the ITA Audi Coupe GT that knowone has ever bothered to build because it has absolutely no chance at winning in ITA.

first though I will complain about my current car, the ITB Audi Coupe. I think that the 1984 Audi Coupe in ITB needs a weight reduction.... It is a front heavy pig with VW rabbit hubs/bearings and even smaller brakes... The car "falls off" hard after 10 - 15 laps if I run at full tilt depending on the track. Since everyone referes to RA the car wont finish a race wihtout braking a hub or some other suspension componant if you run it at full tilt. Instead of a weight break can I get permision to just move the engine back behind the front wheels thus balancing the car a bit more to the rear?

:dead_horse:

THE CRX IS STILL COMPETITIVE... If you think it needs some sort of weight break write a letter, and if you think it should be classed in another class, then write a letter!!!
:dead_horse:

PS: ITBlouis- I noticed in your posts your comments from old SCCA to new SCCA... I am glad to see that someone else out their thinks that things are heading in the right direction. We can't change the past, but we sure can like the future!!!

Raymond 'wow that was fun" Blethen

gran racing

06-07-2006, 06:40 PM

Ray, I soooo agree with you about the Audi needing a weight break! Lets write a petition to get about 100 lbs off the car. Oh, I'll even spring for the new "A"s you'll be needing. :D

ltblouis

06-07-2006, 07:05 PM

Not picking a fight...but I have zero knowledge of any weight addition to the CRX since it's initial classing.

As far as I am concerned, it is not a known fact. I will research it.
[/b]

In 2000 Tom Fowler, Tim Meeks, Alex Muresan, Mike Cottrell, yours truly and many more requested to have the CRX returned to original weight of 1950 lbs from 2140( if I remember correct not sure about the weight ) all these letters sent and the reply that we got from SCCA saying was they don't do weight adjustements !!!! we asked for the weight to be reduced because of the famous 240sx of Bob Stretch that could not be beaten.
I know more about CRX than any of a lots of you guys so trust me on that one, I built 3 of them, Alex Muresan and I won the ECR championship in 2000 in one of them, I won the Pro It championship same year, finished second at the ARRC behind Fowler, won the SIC in 2000 and 1999 all in a 1988 crx si

Do your research or maybe Andy can help us to get an update on exactly what was the first original weight on the CRX when it was first put in ITA, I forgot the number but I am sure it will help all of us to remember the real story of the crx in ITA.

Again I like the current weight adjustement to even the field, my car was always around 2180 to 2190 and I never had problem with it, but my concern is that the CRX at this point with 2250 is heavier than the factory original car and maybe parts on it can not handle the load (they handled 2180 to 2200 but maybe 2250 is stretching it). That issue can get SCCA in a safety matter and would be an issue than need to address, you can not take a car designed and built around 2017 lbs and you add more weight to 2250, parts may fail and put the driver in danger.
SCCA should never let any car be heavier than factory weight for racing not only the crx but any other car, the engineers who built these cars are not stupid.
SCCA first concern should be safety not slowing down a car.

Louis Boustani

Andy Bettencourt

06-08-2006, 08:29 AM

In 2000 Tom Fowler, Tim Meeks, Alex Muresan, Mike Cottrell, yours truly and many more requested to have the CRX returned to original weight of 1950 lbs from 2140( if I remember correct not sure about the weight ) all these letters sent and the reply that we got from SCCA saying was they don't do weight adjustements !!!! we asked for the weight to be reduced because of the famous 240sx of Bob Stretch that could not be beaten.
I know more about CRX than any of a lots of you guys so trust me on that one, I built 3 of them, Alex Muresan and I won the ECR championship in 2000 in one of them, I won the Pro It championship same year, finished second at the ARRC behind Fowler, won the SIC in 2000 and 1999 all in a 1988 crx si

Do your research or maybe Andy can help us to get an update on exactly what was the first original weight on the CRX when it was first put in ITA, I forgot the number but I am sure it will help all of us to remember the real story of the crx in ITA.

Again I like the current weight adjustement to even the field, my car was always around 2180 to 2190 and I never had problem with it, but my concern is that the CRX at this point with 2250 is heavier than the factory original car and maybe parts on it can not handle the load (they handled 2180 to 2200 but maybe 2250 is stretching it). That issue can get SCCA in a safety matter and would be an issue than need to address, you can not take a car designed and built around 2017 lbs and you add more weight to 2250, parts may fail and put the driver in danger.
SCCA should never let any car be heavier than factory weight for racing not only the crx but any other car, the engineers who built these cars are not stupid.
SCCA first concern should be safety not slowing down a car.

Louis Boustani

[/b]

Louie, Louie!

Jake has been in ITA for ever too so I will let him find out the original weights. (Wasn't this car in ITS at some point? Maybe that was the weight in that class...)

You get to choose now. 2250 in ITA or (for safety reasons :) ) 1800 in ITS (1620 without driver) !

The problem is that there are cars that are either going to be heavier than their curb weight in a lower class (like the DOHC Neon in ITA) or lighter than they could ever possibly get to in a higher class. What to do?

MattP

06-08-2006, 09:16 AM

SCCA should never let any car be heavier than factory weight for racing not only the crx but any other car, the engineers who built these cars are not stupid.
[/b]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but my G-Stock 91 CRX Si (without driver, but with A/C and half a tank of gas) weighed 2180 lbs the last time I weighed it, and that's below the owner's manual number. It is mechanically the same as the earlier lighter Si's. Using the hypothetical 180lb driver, you could add quite a bit more weight to an ITA CRX before reaching the factory weight.

Jake

06-08-2006, 09:19 AM

That issue can get SCCA in a safety matter and would be an issue than need to address, you can not take a car designed and built around 2017 lbs and you add more weight to 2250, parts may fail and put the driver in danger.
SCCA should never let any car be heavier than factory weight for racing not only the crx but any other car, the engineers who built these cars are not stupid.
[/b]

While I agree that the CRX was overly penalized, your argument is a bit silly. Is it unsafe to drive around with two people in a CRX Si? Because adding ttwo people to the 2017lb dry weight will get it to a weight that you think parts will fail. I agree, the engineers weren't stupid.

Andy Bettencourt

06-08-2006, 09:24 AM

ltblouis

06-08-2006, 09:52 AM

While I agree that the CRX was overly penalized, your argument is a bit silly. Is it unsafe to drive around with two people in a CRX Si? Because adding ttwo people to the 2017lb dry weight will get it to a weight that you think parts will fail. I agree, the engineers weren't stupid.
[/b]

Silly !!!

do you take 2 people and drive fast as you drive on the track ???? do you do the same abuse you do with these 2 people on the street like you do on the track, do you use 185 factory size tires on the track ???

common guys please be logical !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't have a dog in this fight, but my G-Stock 91 CRX Si (without driver, but with A/C and half a tank of gas) weighed 2180 lbs the last time I weighed it, and that's below the owner's manual number. It is mechanically the same as the earlier lighter Si's. Using the hypothetical 180lb driver, you could add quite a bit more weight to an ITA CRX before reaching the factory weight.
[/b]

Do you have the CRX shop manual ???? I do and it says clearly in the shop manual 2017 lbs.

Louie, Louie!

Jake has been in ITA for ever too so I will let him find out the original weights. (Wasn't this car in ITS at some point? Maybe that was the weight in that class...)

You get to choose now. 2250 in ITA or (for safety reasons :) ) 1800 in ITS (1620 without driver) !

The problem is that there are cars that are either going to be heavier than their curb weight in a lower class (like the DOHC Neon in ITA) or lighter than they could ever possibly get to in a higher class. What to do?
[/b]

I will take the 1800lbs in ITS any day over 2250 in ITA.

Greg Amy

06-08-2006, 09:52 AM

...the CRX at this point...is heavier than the factory original car...[/b]

Louis, I don't think we really wanna go down this road. My NX2000 is heavier than its original curb weight; should I therefore petition the CRB for a weight break on safety grounds?

Anyone in the Northeast think I should get a weight safety break? Bueller? Bueller...?

ltblouis

06-08-2006, 09:57 AM

Silly !!!

do you take 2 people and drive fast as you drive on the track ???? do you do the same abuse you do with these 2 people on the street like you do on the track, do you use 185 factory size tires on the track ???

common guys please be logical !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do you have the CRX shop manual ???? I do and it says clearly in the shop manual 2017 lbs.
The 1988 crx was lighter than the 89-90-91 model and the 91 was the heavier of all.

I will take the 1800lbs in ITS any day over 2250 in ITA.
[/b]

Catch22

06-08-2006, 10:05 AM

Just for clarification on my point of view...
I do not think the CRX was given too much weight. Where it sits now is where the same formula that was applied to the other cars in its class put it. Plain and simple. And fair in terms of what we know in June of 2006.

What I'm suggesting is that maybe the formula is wrong in terms of certain cars. I'm suggesting this because early evidence shows that a formerly spot-on reliable chassis (not just the one I'm driving, there are others) is now pretty unreliable.
I'm also suggesting that IF this early evidence turns out to be a trend, its in the best interests of the category as a whole to give this car (and any others like it) a break of about 50 to 75lbs in the name of not washing a car by the wayside.

What makes this different than Raymond's complaint above?
Well, when he built his car it was at the same spec it is at now (as far as I know, I'm certainly not an expert on the history of the ITB Audi). In other words, the water temperature is the same today that it was when he originally jumped into the pool. He made that choice.

Now, lets take Christian as an example with the CRX situation...
When he bought the car last year it was known as a good, reliable chassis that finished races and wasn't very expensive to operate. THATS the pool he jumped in.
Now, the water in that pool has gotten very cold indeed. Out of 5 races entered he has 2 mechanical DNFs, 1 finish with a long mechanical pit stop, 1 finish where the car was barely functioning at the end and well off the pace, and 1 good, no issues finish.
Thats ONE good finish in 5 races.
Thats not the game he signed up for, and its not the budget he signed up for.

Now, again, let me reiterate that its EARLY. This whole thing may have been bad luck for him (and me).
But I have looked around and seen other CRXs having issues, and also seen the one guy who never realized he was supposed to add ballast up to 2250 NOT have any problems... And it has me leaning towards the "This isn't so good" end of the scale.

Don't poo-poo the notion that if this becomes a trend and an issue that its the end of all the CRXs in ITA. Last time I checked NASA offers a really good alternative to ITA for a CRX and its under 2200lbs (last I checked). And don't forget Spec Miata and IT7.
People just wont continue to try to race cars that keep breaking in ITA when there are alternatives. THATS what I'm talking about. IF the CRX is truly going to have a problem carrying this weight, its in the best interest of every IT racer to take 50 (or 60 or 70) pounds back off of it and keep them around. Theres just too damned many of them out there to let them take their bucket to another sandbox. And 50ish pounds isn't going to upset the apple cart all that damned much.

Just my humble opinion. I could be completely wrong.
But someone needs to be looking out for the possibility that I'm right.

Louis, I don't think we really wanna go down this road. My NX2000 is heavier than its original curb weight; should I therefore petition the CRB for a weight break on safety grounds?

Anyone in the Northeast think I should get a weight safety break? Bueller? Bueller...?
[/b]

The difference between your car and the CRX is that there is an old benchmark where the CRX was proven reliable. Yours really doesn't have that. See my comment about the water in Raymond's pool vs. Christian's.

Hopefully my point is coming across. I know what I'm trying to say, but maybe you guys don't see it.

JeffYoung

06-08-2006, 10:46 AM

Jake

06-08-2006, 10:51 AM

Curb weight on the CRX is 2174 (edmunds.com) so GVW should be significantly higher than 2250.

Jake - What data are you using to form your opinion that the CRX was 'over penalized'? (Even though we all know it was not a 'penalty').

AB
[/b]

Exactly. A Spec weight above the stock weight? The Spec weight is as raced. The Stock weight is without a driver/pass/luggage. The car was designed for durability at GVW.

Andy - here's where I'm coming from: Before the adjustments, I would argue that the 'Teg wasn't inferior to the CRX - but percentage-wize (what counts) the CRX got more of an "adjustment" than the 'Teg.

Andy Bettencourt

06-08-2006, 10:58 AM

Andy - here's where I'm coming from: Before the adjustments, I would argue that the 'Teg wasn't inferior to the CRX - but percentage-wize (what counts) the CRX got more of an "adjustment" than the 'Teg. [/b]

So what? All that means is that the CRX was 'further off' than anything in ITA. It didn't get the 'biggest penalty', it got the biggest 'correction' because it was the most wrong.

See you at LRP!!!!!!!!!!!

AB

Catch22

06-08-2006, 12:57 PM

You could apply the same logic to the SIR and the BMW. Guys jumped into the 2850 no SIR pool and now they have to spend big dollars to make the car "work" at its new process mandated hp.

Why is the CRX situation any different if it fits the process at the new weight?
[/b]

Don't get me started on that Jeff.
I think the whole E36 thing is a complete debacle because the car should have never been classed in ITS in the first place. No, the E36 owners shouldn't be penalized for SCCA's mistake, but something has to be done because the car has proven to simply be too fast for the fastest class by ALOT.

IMO thats apples and oranges to the potential CRX issue...
1. We're talking about 50 to 70lbs on the CRX, not 300lbs on the BMW. One is reasonable, one isn't.
2. The CRX is not an "overdog" as the E36 is. Its NOT a case of "something simply must be done to slow it down." It wasn't killing Integras and NXs and Miatas at the old weight.

Keep in mind that I'm not just talking about the CRX here. I'm talking about any car that gets a hefty "adjustment" and then starts struggling with reliability or competitiveness. I'm talking about cars that significantly fall off from their prior proven abilities.
Again, its just not worth it to lose cars over 50 or 75lbs. Thats really not the goal here, and we can't assume that applying the formula evenly to all cars will have consistent results across all cars.

Like my grandpa used to say... I'm just sayin' what I'm sayin' and thats all that I'm sayin'.

ltblouis

06-08-2006, 01:04 PM

Andy Bettencourt

06-09-2006, 08:17 AM

Do you guys know of any car in ITA that have received more than once weight adjustment or penalty ???
I can not remember any but would love to know if any have received more or equal to the crx in adjustments ?? [/b]

It doesn't matter Louis. As of right now, everything is equal. Everyone is judged by the same stick.

Xian

06-11-2006, 08:56 PM

Now, lets take Christian as an example with the CRX situation....
[/b]
I'm going to wait and see how the rest of the season goes... if the car keeps going thru parts then one of two things will happen: 1- I'll sell the car at a loss, take a season off, and race something else or 2- I'll take the car and go race NASA's HC. Let me just say that I really don't want to race with NASA (spec tire and safety related concerns) but if it's the difference between having a running car and not having a running car... well, I know which way I'll have to go.

Christian, who'd probably be better off racing the CRX for a season in H4 and then selling the CRX to an aspiring NASA HPDE'r than taking it up the rear in the SCCA resale market.

Phat-S

06-20-2006, 12:56 AM

I'm going to wait and see how the rest of the season goes... if the car keeps going thru parts then one of two things will happen: 1- I'll sell the car at a loss, take a season off, and race something else or 2- I'll take the car and go race NASA's HC. Let me just say that I really don't want to race with NASA (spec tire and safety related concerns) but if it's the difference between having a running car and not having a running car... well, I know which way I'll have to go.[/b]

If you run ECRs in a CRX, it WILL go through parts (tires, brakes, bearings, hubs, even an axle or two). If you race SARRCs, it will do far less so. Its got very little to do w/ the additional weight. I don't think the weight does the car any favors but it really hasn't changed the fundmentals of the car IMO.

Hey Louey, I don't suppose there's any way to convince you to bring the Rexy up to VIR for Goblins Go in October?

zracre

06-20-2006, 07:58 AM

Anyone in the Northeast think I should get a weight safety break? Bueller? Bueller...?
[/b]

If there were 4 or 5 of your NX's running around dominating, you betcha they would slap weight on you...the penalty for running a popular developed car...but there is only one Greg Amy NX2000 right now...The Integra got weight piled on because "it responded well to IT modifications"...your car would too if every high school kid wanted parts for it! RA should be fun this year!

Greg Amy

06-20-2006, 09:10 AM

Down, boy... :) Actually, I'm requesting a weight REDUCTION on the NX2000 for safety reasons, 'cause I'm running over the manufacturer's rated curb weight now and - as we all seem to agree - this is unsafe. I'm sure you guys will support me on this, right...?

By the way, the 02-06 weight addition had nothing to do with your on-track performance and everything to do with going through the formulaic process...same process as mine went through...

I'll be watching Fastrack for that safety weight break... ;)

Andy Bettencourt

06-20-2006, 09:15 AM

If there were 4 or 5 of your NX's running around dominating, you betcha they would slap weight on you...the penalty for running a popular developed car...but there is only one Greg Amy NX2000 right now...The Integra got weight piled on because "it responded well to IT modifications"...your car would too if every high school kid wanted parts for it! RA should be fun this year! [/b]

I don't understand why you think so. The NX2000 was one of the first cars to be put through the process when it got moved from ITS. It's done. The Teg, the CRX, the 1.6 Miata and the 240SX had NOT been through the process - and they went through in Feb. Now everyone is on par. Has nothing to do with on-track. It's just not a coinsidence that the top cars were 'light'.

Greg has beaten me every time we have faced off this year...it ain't getting weight - it just may be a damn good cr when you drive it like Greg can and you put 5 years of CUSTOM development into it. I have been RIGHT behind it in some races - I challenge ANYONE to build one - you will hate yourself (unless you have Greg on the payroll)

zracre

06-20-2006, 09:35 AM

thats the point! what part of the adders is "honda"?? eg:

Acura Integra
1.8 L
FWD
2595#
140bhp

Mazda Miata
1.8L
RWD
2380#
128bhp

Nissan NX2000
2.0L
FWD
2515#
145bhp

I can understand that Hondacuras do well on track but since the weight addition they dont seem to go slower, just cost more to run competitively. I chose the car accordingly (im not rich/want cheapest competitive car). I read the no guarantee clause. I built a car. Weight is added. Hmm...I know it is a new system but what is the honda adder??????

Greg Amy

06-20-2006, 10:04 AM

Correction: NX's rated stock power was 140hp @ 6,400 rpm.

The difference in ITA weights between the Integra and NX2000 is due to suspension design. Stick your nose underneath that red egg sometime and take a gander...

...since the weight addition they dont seem to go slower, just cost more to run competitively.[/b]

Are you suggesting an "adder" ("subtractor"?) for cars that are expensive to run? If so, let's sit down and talk about what it takes to build and campaign a Nissan NX2000. EVERYTHING on this car is fabricated by us, from the swaybar(s), to the struts, to the camber plates, to the brake pads (no one makes them for this car any more), to air dams, to spherical suspension bearings (still designing those), to ECU programming, to whatever you care to discuss. Finding good rebuildable engines is damn near impossible; finding untrashed transmissions is a journey. I've yet to open a catalog and order a Nissan-specific competition part off the Internet.

Competition adjustment based on expense of competition? Bring it on, baby...

zracre

06-20-2006, 10:15 AM

HUH?? not the point at all! Maybe the egg should weigh 2460 or so...I worked for Nissan for 6 years as a tech (1992-1997) and know alot about the egg. oh never mind <_<

Zodiac

06-20-2006, 06:00 PM

You guys seem to be talking about the CRX Si with this wieght issue.
How has the standard 1.5L CRX been affected reliablity wise?

anrkii

06-21-2006, 02:08 AM

what do you guys think about itb (85/87si) crx and its current level of competitiveness?

Tom Blaney

06-21-2006, 05:43 AM

I don't get it, I am still racing a CRX/Si at the current weight, and there were other CRX's that have run since this post started and I don't see parts flying off of cars in droves.

One or two cars have had issues, so they DNF'd is it possible (just possible) that they didn't take the time to do the proper maintenance on the car!!!!!

There were 3 Si's at the 3 hour of nelsons all running very respectable times and damn no dnf's, no wheels flying into the packed grandstands, nothing, in fact 1'st, 4th, 5th, (albiet more pit stops because of fuel capacity but that's a different rant)

This post has turned into the same as the other posts, bitchin about a weight penalty that is not turning the tide on wins and losses. It seems that there are a few new cars in the class that seem to have prepped their cars well and know how to drive them. In fact I looked at the Lime Rock results, and wild man Rich Hunter set the fastest lap and finished the race with all his components intact.

To the few that seem to have parts failure, buy my parts, buy Fowlers parts, and buy a how to maintenance your race car book.

To the ones that constantly bitch about weight, get over it, I am quite sure you have been bitch slapped in the past by somebody with a heaver/older/less competitive/POS race car who drives better than he whines.

IMHOC

Tom Blaney
:birra:

Xian

06-22-2006, 09:00 PM

To the few that seem to have parts failure, buy my parts, buy Fowlers parts, and buy a how to maintenance your race car book.[/b]
Wow, I'm kinda surprised to see this thread still going...

Anyway, I've bought pretty much everything through OPM and Tom has personally gone through the entire car top to bottom. Being that he's done the majority of the maintenance on my car, I'm pretty sure that's not the problem either. The additional maintenance and wear and tear is really just a nuisance and an additional fiscal load to carry... nothing earth shattering but definitely something that I've noticed.

What is the problem? IMO, it's running the CRX at current weight for prolonged periods of time. Do I think it'll get a weight reduction? Probably not. Am I motivated enough to go on a campaign about the current weight? No. When everything is said and done, I'll race what I've got but I'm not doing ECR's anymore. It'll be sprints from here on because breaking shit at the track sucks.

Christian

Phat-S

06-23-2006, 06:38 PM

What is the problem? IMO, it's running the CRX at current weight for prolonged periods of time.[/b]
No offense but I don't see where you have any way to substantiate that the weight addition has ANYTHING to do with this. Anyone not doing continuous maintenance on these cars and running the ECR series WILL have failures. Continuous maintenance is an amorphous concept and has a lot to do with where you are racing and the conditions.

And continuous maintenance for this car at 2140# was a front left wheel bearing every six races at a MINIMUM and if it goes a weekend too long, a brandy new hardened hub too. And a weekend at Kershaw alone could fry a bearing due to brake heat. You are easily in for a halfshaft a year at BEST. You will replace the right front wheel bearing at least once a year. I was rebuilding both front calipers every three race weekends and every other one, would replace w/ new if I could. For two years, we never started an ECR weekend without both brand new brake pads and sticker front tires. And at Kershaw, the pads would not see a caliper until the pace lap. At RRR, we wouldn't even count on Toyos to last an ECR + practice + qualifying. Those are the minimum costs to try run at the front in the ECR series (and a great part of running at the front in that series is making it to the end cause invariably, your competition will not for one reason or another).

To refute your claims that this weight is "the" problem for the car - I bought two 225 R3S05s at VIR in March and heat cycled them on Friday test day. Now it goes without saying that I had some rear wheel bearing issues up there but that had nothing to do w/ weight - that was a tolerance problem (and that could have affected my car at 1800# just the same). Those two front tires ran the ECR quali, Alex's stint in the ECR, my SARRC, a full test day at Kershaw, 2 practices at LMS, ECR quali at LMS, the ECR at LMS and then my SARRC on Sunday - and I turned my fastest lap of the weekend on the last lap of the SARRC race. If the weight was so problematic, there is NO way any of that would be possible. And ask Puckett what he thinks of my brake wear.

You guys have this wrong if you think the weight is affecting these cars' reliability. At least at this point you don't have me convinced and if I thought it was, believe me, I'd be the first guy to write a letter. Now that's not to say that over time, considerable time, I might be convinced the weight is an unfair hinderance but as for now, I do not believe the sky is falling.

charrbq

06-23-2006, 09:08 PM

You guys seem to be talking about the CRX Si with this wieght issue.
How has the standard 1.5L CRX been affected reliablity wise?
[/b]
If you're refering to the carberated CRX in ITC, there has been no change in minimum weight. The only failure I've had of any front end parts came this year with a torn boot that caused the grease to go away and ruin the CV joint. That was a result of my overlooking a loose suspension piece, not a weight issue or a poor maintenance problem...just stupidity. The only suspension part I've ever had to replace due to wear was rear hub bearings.
My understanding about weight additions is the reason for the SIR on the BMW's in ITS. An increase in weight would create reliability problem in suspension parts, etc. At least that's what I got from screaming BMW owners.

Catch22

06-24-2006, 12:36 PM

No offense but I don't see where you have any way to substantiate that the weight addition has ANYTHING to do with this. Anyone not doing continuous maintenance on these cars and running the ECR series WILL have failures. Continuous maintenance is an amorphous concept and has a lot to do with where you are racing and the conditions.

And continuous maintenance for this car at 2140# was a front left wheel bearing every six races at a MINIMUM and if it goes a weekend too long, a brandy new hardened hub too. And a weekend at Kershaw alone could fry a bearing due to brake heat. You are easily in for a halfshaft a year at BEST. You will replace the right front wheel bearing at least once a year. I was rebuilding both front calipers every three race weekends and every other one, would replace w/ new if I could. For two years, we never started an ECR weekend without both brand new brake pads and sticker front tires. And at Kershaw, the pads would not see a caliper until the pace lap. At RRR, we wouldn't even count on Toyos to last an ECR + practice + qualifying. Those are the minimum costs to try run at the front in the ECR series (and a great part of running at the front in that series is making it to the end cause invariably, your competition will not for one reason or another).

To refute your claims that this weight is "the" problem for the car - I bought two 225 R3S05s at VIR in March and heat cycled them on Friday test day. Now it goes without saying that I had some rear wheel bearing issues up there but that had nothing to do w/ weight - that was a tolerance problem (and that could have affected my car at 1800# just the same). Those two front tires ran the ECR quali, Alex's stint in the ECR, my SARRC, a full test day at Kershaw, 2 practices at LMS, ECR quali at LMS, the ECR at LMS and then my SARRC on Sunday - and I turned my fastest lap of the weekend on the last lap of the SARRC race. If the weight was so problematic, there is NO way any of that would be possible. And ask Puckett what he thinks of my brake wear.

You guys have this wrong if you think the weight is affecting these cars' reliability. At least at this point you don't have me convinced and if I thought it was, believe me, I'd be the first guy to write a letter. Now that's not to say that over time, considerable time, I might be convinced the weight is an unfair hinderance but as for now, I do not believe the sky is falling.
[/b]

Well, thats all great Adam, and you aould certainly know.
And, believe it or not we are basing our maintenance and wear expectations off of some info you gave me 2 years ago when you ran so many ECRs. And thats the problem, we aren't even getting THAT far before stuff breaks. We are breaking stuff before we reach the reasonable preventive maintenance points you mentioned before and above in this post. We started the year with brand new parts pretty much everywhere, and have already replaced damned near everything at least once after just 3 weekends.
It could just have been bad luck. We don't know yet.
Hopefully it was.

In short, the things you mention above were the PM goals. We haven't managed to even get that far yet.

And Mr. Blaney, we all know your parts are superawesometastic and last forever and a half, but if you actually read the previous posts and comprehend them, you'll see that we DID start the year will all new parts, a planned PM program, and the owner is not shy about spending money to have good equipment under him. Stuff keeps breaking anyway.
But hey, thanks for your input.

dazzlesa

06-24-2006, 12:55 PM

scott personally i think the racing gods are not smilling on your car. you guys should keep racing it. your luck should change sooner or latter.i like the analogy about buying one pond and giving a new pond to work with the next year.i am going through this with my integra. i do not mind making the playing field more even, but i wish they did it with weight reductions not weight adders. i like going faster, not dealing with new weight issuess. rick

lateapex911

06-24-2006, 01:49 PM

i do not mind making the playing field more even, but i wish they did it with weight reductions not weight adders. i like going faster, not dealing with new weight issuess. rick
[/b]

The basic problem with huge weight cuts across the board is the large scale inability of cars to get low enough, and the expense involved in doing so.

An approach where some cars lost, some stayed the same, and some gained, was deemed more practical. It also spreads the load a bit further. But, it's basically impossible for some of the cars that lost weight to get every last pound...allowing 100 more would have been useless. And line item allowances are not part of IT.

So, it's a case of trying to do the best for the greatest number of participants, within the physical realities that govern the category.

dazzlesa

06-24-2006, 02:26 PM

i know it does not allways work and it may not be practical for others to drop weight but how about some give and take? can we do more a reasonable # of 50 lbs off the cars across the boardor even 30lbs would be helpfull. the less weight across the board the happier the cars run.

Catch22

06-24-2006, 09:05 PM

scott personally i think the racing gods are not smilling on your car. [/b]

Could be. I agree totally.
As I've mentioned at least half a dozen times in this thread... We *could* have just been very unlucky with bearings and halfshafts and brakes in our first 3 outings.
The bad reliability and added weight *could* very well be coincidence.
Or maybe it isn't.

We're finished with enduros for now. We're spending too much time fixing broken stuff and not enough time sorting/racing the car. Maybe if we get some reliability in a few sprints we'll try some ECRs again and see what happens.
Thats the owner's call.

Phat-S

06-27-2006, 10:29 PM

Well, thats all great Adam, and you aould certainly know.
And, believe it or not we are basing our maintenance and wear expectations off of some info you gave me 2 years ago when you ran so many ECRs. And thats the problem, we aren't even getting THAT far before stuff breaks. We are breaking stuff before we reach the reasonable preventive maintenance points you mentioned before and above in this post. We started the year with brand new parts pretty much everywhere, and have already replaced damned near everything at least once after just 3 weekends.
It could just have been bad luck. We don't know yet.
Hopefully it was.
[/b]
Well I am not sure that you are basing it off my data properly as I would have told you then, now and forever into the future that you cannot even sniff a brake pad before the start of an ECR at Kershaw in a CRX. And I never would have said anything but a set of stickers for the front of the car every weekend. Every ECR, as a rule, new brake pads, new front tires. That's how it was for us w/ the exception of the toyo weekends in 2003. Hell, if I were running your schedule, the left front wheel bearing would have already been replaced as a matter of course, the hub would have been mic'd (and replaced if coned), both front calipers would have been rebuilt once and then replaced either now or after the next race you run, the gear oil would have been replaced after every weekend along w/ motor oil, I would be on my .... 6th or 8th sticker Hoosier (or by 2003s tire wear, 3rd or 4th sticker toyo) and definitely 4th set of brake pads. And that's assuming nothing else needed to be addressed.

Now far be it me to be a snoop but I have read of you guys lunching one new halfshaft this year and that's all I have seen. If you are breaking something else, make sure it wasn't causally related to the halfshaft. And as for losing a new halfshaft - s**t happens, I got a bad one in 2002 and Tom replaced it for me.

But to the point I am trying to make here. I do not think there is possibly enough data to say the 110# addition has hurt the CRX YET. If it proves to, fine. But for now, the stuff you are citing doesn't make me think its anything different than the car at 2140#.

Sorry you are bagging the ECRs - I think its something the CRX can be quite competitive in despite the maintenance costs. But you have to preemptively spend to keep the car on the track, mind the track you are at and maybe look at knocking a few ticks off your pace to make sure it lasts - that's the cost of running ECRs in the car. And there is a greater cost at making sure you will be running at the end - sucks but them's the breaks.

prkiller

06-30-2006, 04:42 AM

I have a question along the lines of the original topic. Forgive me if it was already covered because I did not read through all 5 pages.

How are you guys doing against the DA tegs? Is the power difference not a killer for you guys? I am currently racing H4 with my CRX, and although I know my car is not at it's full potential with every part I can put on it, it does have a fair amount of work done to it.
The problem I find at certain tracks is the teg seems to pull such a large gap on me on the straights that I do all I can to close up under braking and cornering. Even when I have a good 2-3 mph on him at corner exit, he still pulls out the gap. Closing that gap and making a pass is nearly impossible at the moment unless the other guy makes an error.

Could just be my car, but I wanted to hear what all the other CRX racers are experiencing.
Currently, my car is at 2180lbs because I can't get it down anymore than it already is.

The teg seems to have it's strongest pull on my from 3-4th gear shifts. The teg driver is running a 4.7 ITR FD. I am running a 4.7 as well. Both of us have fully built .040 motors that are just about maxed.

Thanks all.

Hracer

06-30-2006, 06:05 PM

From what I've seen the best CRXs should launch well enough out of the turns and be making enough poop to stay right on an integra's rear bumper, and possibly close on it and pop out beside it if the draft and the CRX's motor are good enough. Probably not what you wanted to hear, but I've seen it happen first hand. I've also heard other integra drivers complain about the bigger than necessary hole these cars punch in the air. How far have you come with the ecu on your CRX? Apparently there are significant gains to be had in the top end with the right tune.

prkiller

06-30-2006, 06:45 PM

I'm hoping to be able to use a Hondata soon if the rules will allow it. I am hoping I can make a good bit of difference with the new tune! Right now, I am running a stock ECU, but I have dyno tuned the car for fuel pressure and timing!

The biggest problem my car seems to have is the lack of TQ compared to the teg. It gets out of the 3rd gear corners so much better!

I agree that the teg does punch a HUGE hole in the air. That is the only real reason I was able to stay with the leader for the whole race this year at cali speedway! I could draft up, but as soon as I pulled out the car slowed down. So, the chance I had was to pass under braking for the turn into the infield.

I know a have a bit of work to do with the suspension still. There is some speed left in the chassis. But I really want to find some more power from the lump in the hood.

Tom Blaney

07-01-2006, 07:43 AM

The CRX is a little weak in tq compared to the Integra, but the power to weight (even now) is pretty even. Some things you want to keep im mind is that the crx has better brakes and tires in the long run because of the lighter weight.

You won't musle past them in a tight corner but you usually can outbreak and outlast. I think the CRX also works well if you try to keep the momentum going, rework your line a little so that you don't loose that. If you pressure the integ all race long you will still have better tires and brakes to make the critical moves at the end of the race.

Tom Blaney

Zodiac

07-04-2006, 03:58 AM

If you're refering to the carberated CRX in ITC, there has been no change in minimum weight. The only failure I've had of any front end parts came this year with a torn boot that caused the grease to go away and ruin the CV joint. That was a result of my overlooking a loose suspension piece, not a weight issue or a poor maintenance problem...just stupidity. The only suspension part I've ever had to replace due to wear was rear hub bearings.
My understanding about weight additions is the reason for the SIR on the BMW's in ITS. An increase in weight would create reliability problem in suspension parts, etc. At least that's what I got from screaming BMW owners.
[/b]

Actually I was talking about the 88-91 standard CRX which came with a 1.5L fuel injected engine and rear drums as opposed to the CRX Si with its 1.6L engine and rear discs.

Catch22

07-04-2006, 08:17 PM

I hear you Adam.
Just as an FYI, here's where we are after 3 weekends, 4 ECRS (but both VIR races were DNFs). This is by my memory, so some of this might be wrong...

Halfshaft (2 weekends)
Front bearing (one weekend)
Lower ball joint (3 weekends)
3 sets of brake pads

Christian has also sprung for 4 new Toyos (started using them at his school) and 8 new Hoosiers so far this season.
I bring this up to point out that this IS NOT a low budget half-assed effort. Christian believes (as I do) that racing is too dangerous and too expensive to skimp on things to save a few bucks.

So, again (13th time?)...
Maybe we are just having disgustingly awful luck.
Or
Maybe the 110lbs is a contributing factor.
Or
A little of both

Xian

07-04-2006, 09:47 PM

After getting input from the rest of the ITA Honda racers, I'd really like to think that it's just plain old bad luck so far this year. I'm not convinced that's the case but,a s I said, I'd like to think it <_< Once again, it's not really going to matter too much either way as Sprints and Pro-IT's are what will comprise the rest of this season's efforts.

RE: the list of stuff on the car so far, I think that just about covers all the "normal" wear and tear parts this season. There were an additional 3 sets of front rotors but those don't really count as they're wear items anyway. We've had a few other melted ball joint boots but those are normal enough wear items for this car/class.

Christian, who's looking forward to RA this month...