Preliminary CRB Minutes/Tech Bulletin - November

[Dave Gomberg]

Available now at http://www.scca.com/clubracing/content.cfm?cid=44472 near the bottom of the page.

Dave

[JoshS]

Looks like alternate engine mounts are on their way.

[Knestis]

Looks like a couple of key Process fixes in ITB - including some LONG OVERDUE attention to the Toyotas. Hooray!! Andy can build his Corolla GTS...

A 2800+ pound Acura RSX in ITA...?? I know what I'd build if I lived near a horsepower track.

The engine mount thing is going to be a beeotch in terms of details. It's about 4x as wordy as it should have been, which is a waste because it can't prevent what it says it's trying to prevent. My "stayrod" solution makes one of my mounts absolutely "rigid" in terms of the vague allusions in the new rule (i.e., not "non-metallic") but it DOES move. Thousandths of an inch, maybe, but it moves... If 1/2" of rubber donut is OK, how about 1mm? How about .002"? Just silly.

K

[Ron Earp]

A 2800+ pound Acura RSX in ITA...?? I know what I'd build if I lived near a horsepower track.


160 hp RSX, how come that car isn't squarely in ITS? FWD box brigade wants it in ITA with the others?

R

[JeffYoung]

Achievable weight. We didn't think the RSX could make weight in ITS (2500 lbs or something).

More on engine mounts later. A lot of time went into that rule and we knew that some wouldn't be happy with it. The crux of the issue is that there was a strong feeling that solid mounts shouldn't be allowed, and a recognition that what a solid mount "is" would be hard to define.


160 hp RSX, how come that car isn't squarely in ITS? FWD box brigade wants it in ITA with the others?

R

[Ron Earp]

Achievable weight. We didn't think the RSX could make weight in ITS (2500 lbs or something).


The curb weight is listed at 2790 lbs +/- 75 lbs on numerous sites.....if true, even if the weight is 100 lbs higher, I suspect the car could hit 2500 lbs with some effort into the build.

and 160 stock hp is .....160x1.25x12.9 = 2580 lbs. What stock hp rating did the GSR in ITS have, 170? Is the Honda Civic Si in S?

[erlrich]

Achievable weight. We didn't think the RSX could make weight in ITS (2500 lbs or something).


Since when did that become a consideration?

[lateapex911]

It always has been, Earl, but it's tough to tell what different cars can get down to. Old, cheap cars with cardboard interiors lose little. (think 80s MR2) Newer cars with power seats, motorized this and that, airbags, heavy noise matts and carpet, heavy AC systems, power windows, etc etc etc, (think BMWs) can lose a bunch. But there are lots of exceptions and individual quirks. My gut would think the car could be an S car, but, I haven't looked into it closely at all, and at that HP level, it is a lower S car, at least by 'classic' standards.

And IIRC, there was a brouhaha over the 'sister' Honda that was debated as an A or S car. Matching that would be consistent.

But new cars aren't 'classic'....

[lateapex911]

Re: Mounts.
My opinion: This worry over solid mounts is misplaced.
As the rule is technically written, I can:
-Use a delrin mount (hardish) but not lead (softish, but metalic)
-Use a granite mount (really hard) but not aluminum (softer, yet metalic)

I can take a stock mount and gut it, and fill it with super hard epoxy. I'd argue that's legal, and would be effectively a solid mount.

Now, IF a well meaning dude does that and uses some middle ground pretty hard epoxy, he may get protested. And the protest committee will be screwed.
One guy will think it's just fine. Another guy will think it's clearly too hard. The third guy will be scratching his head. heck, I bet if you took the ITAC members, and put THEM on the protest committee, and blind polled them, you'd get different answers! IF that is even remotely possible the rule is not well written.

If somebody wants to solid mount their production car engine that wasn't designed to be a stressed member, and they like blowing up bearing 5 (or whatever) in exchange for 'stiffening up' the front clip (which will STILL be disconnected (by any real structure) from the main cage.....let them!

As it stands, we let people weld a rod from the engine to the chassis, and the sky hasn't fallen.
Andys idea of disallowing stayrods when optional mounts are used is great, if the chassis stiffness issue is a great concern. (and vice versa)

[JeffYoung]

It's always been a consideration. It's just that sometimes reasonable people disagree on what a car that has never been built can achieve weight wise. A guessing game in many cases.


Since when did that become a consideration?

[seckerich]

We still have the log chain option.:D

[erlrich]

It always has been, Earl, but it's tough to tell what different cars can get down to.

Jake - sorry, I forgot to put the brackets around my post. I was just commenting on the fact that one car was deemed to be "competitively classed" at a weight almost 500 lbs below its curb weight, while another was deemed to be "unachievable" at a weight some 250 lbs below its curb weight.

You gotta love the consistency...

[joeg]

Besides what Jake said:


(If somebody wants to solid mount their production car engine that wasn't designed to be a stressed member, and they like blowing up bearing 5 (or whatever) in exchange for 'stiffening up' the front clip (which will STILL be disconnected (by any real structure) from the main cage.....let them!)

You can also add cracked windshields and stress cracks in the unibody.

[Ron Earp]

The 2006 RSX classification seems odd.



The 2006 Honda Civic Si with 197 hp is classed in S at 3000 lbs. The curb weight on that car comes in at 28XX lbs. (+150 lbs curb wt)




The 1999-2000 Honda Civic Si is rated at 160hp and is classed in S at 2430 lbs. The curb weight on the car is listed at around 26XX lbs. (-200 lbs curb wt)




The 1999-2004 Acura Integra is rated at 170 hp and is classed in S at 2590 lbs. The curb weight on the car is listed at around 26XX lbs. (-60 lbs curb wt)




The 2006 Acura RSX is rated at 160hp and is classed in A at 2800 lbs. The curb weight on the car is listed at around 2790 lbs. (at curb wt, if in S it would be -200 lbs curb wt)


Seems to me a 160hp car is an S classification for sure. What else in ITA is at 160 stock hp?

[JeffYoung]

Don't you think it MIGHT be possible that cars are different enough that some can shed more curb weight than others?

Or do you really think that we ought to be classing cars because some guy on the internet (not knocking Psherm, there have been others) just got to thinking that a car in the ITCS looked like it might not make weight in its present class?

We class as consistently and as objectively as possible. One of the areas where we have some judgment is whether to class light in the higher class, or heavy in the lower. A number of factors go into that thinking that are not part of the Ops manual.

Right now we have one guy building an ITS V6 Mustang and after a lot of work and a lot of research he thinks it can be competitive in S.


Jake - sorry, I forgot to put the brackets around my post. I was just commenting on the fact that one car was deemed to be "competitively classed" at a weight almost 500 lbs below its curb weight, while another was deemed to be "unachievable" at a weight some 250 lbs below its curb weight.

You gotta love the consistency...

[JoshS]

Seems to me a 160hp car is an S classification for sure. What else in ITA is at 160 stock hp?

Mazda3. Also could never get to its ITS weight.

Newer cars are just simply harder to get light for the same horsepower. It's not just interior stuff like seats and airbags that are heavy in new cars. It's also the structure.

[Greg Amy]

The 2006 RSX classification seems odd.
Yes, it does, simply because it starts out with 160hp and lots of torques*. But one thing you're missing is that curb weight is totally irrelevant to the Improved Touring classification process, except whether it "can" make it or not.


The 2006 Honda Civic Si with 197 hp is classed in S at 3000 lbs.Way too many ponies for ITA.


The 1999-2000 Honda Civic Si is rated at 160hp and is classed in S......and has a 1.6L V-Tec engine with no torque. If anything was ripe for ITA...


The...Acura Integra [GS-R] is rated at 170 hp and is classed in S at 2590 lbs.There are rumors of 175-ish wheel in ITS trim. We had to run lead to get it to its classified ITS weight.


The 2006 Acura RSX is rated at 160hp and is classed in A at 2800 lbs.Oink, oink.

Let's not forget a very crappy strut suspension (a la NX2000) that was so bad people ran from it in droves in Grand-Am and World Challenge.


Seems to me a 160hp car is an S classification for sure.Me, too.


What else in ITA is at 160 stock hp?Nuttin', Honey.

I think the RSX would be interesting *only* if you already had one (SSB? SSC?) and had no place to play. But at 2800 piggies I'd not even bother, given the Miata is over 400 pounds lighter. I don't care how much more power you're making, that's like carrying two large people as ballast.

Move it to ITS and let Nature take its course.

GA

*The NX2000, also a 2L car, starts out with 140 ponies and 132 torques. I don't recall the torques increase (145-ish?) but we were putting 152 ponies to the ground when we were done with it.

[JeffYoung]

We may have blown this one (the RSX). I'll take a look at it again.

We *seemed* pretty confident it couldn't make ITS weight but it looks like it is worth another look based on the above.

[ShelbyRacer]

More on engine mounts later. A lot of time went into that rule and we knew that some wouldn't be happy with it. The crux of the issue is that there was a strong feeling that solid mounts shouldn't be allowed, and a recognition that what a solid mount "is" would be hard to define.

Wow, looks similar to some of the wording I sent in last year. I'm not sure exactly what the issue is...

"Solid" is a relative term. If the ITAC is seriously that concerned, then consider restricting the filling material to a certain type (rubber, poly, etc.) and place a durometer limit of no higher than 50D on the material (a somewhat arbitrary number at this point, but it could be refined...), thereby eliminating . Keep in mind I am NOT advocating for this, but simply offering it as an option that may not have been considered.

I will ask- what does anyone out there feel is the inherent evil in "solid" (read- even metallic) mounts, so long as location and geometry are not changed?

[chuck baader]

"These items may be corrected and will not be official until published
on the Fastrack page of the scca.com web site on or about October 20."

I understand that to mean the mounts will be legal Oct 20. Have I missed something? CB

[Ron Earp]

Way too many ponies for ITA.

I think the RSX would be interesting But at 2800 piggies I'd not even bother, given the Miata is over 400 pounds lighter.

Similar to the reason why I didn't understand the questioning the V6 Camaro in ITR. With 200 stock hp the car would be classed at over 3200 lbs in ITS - over 700lbs heavier than a ITS 240Z! Good luck making that work against 175 whp Z cars.


We may have blown this one (the RSX). I'll take a look at it again.


Yes, I think you guys might have passed up a good S car.

[Greg Amy]

...does anyone out there feel [there is an] inherent evil in "solid" (read- even metallic) mounts, so long as location and geometry are not changed?
Not here. Nothing but bad can come from that, given our current prep rules.


I understand that to mean the mounts will be legal Oct 20. Have I missed something? CB
This is a rule change, and would not become effective until 1/1/12, pending both CRB and BoD approval.

GA

[mossaidis]

there is another "modern" Civic Si that is not mentioned here. The 02-05 Si listed in ITA at 2840 lbs... yet with a curb weight of 2740 lbs.

Honda Civic Si (02-05) 4 Cyl DOHC

86.0 x 86.0 1998 (I) 35.0 (E) 30.0 9.8 cr 101.2 in wheelbase 15 in wheels; gears: 3.06, 1.77, 1.21, 0.92, 0.74
(F) 262 vented (R) 259 solid
2840 lbs

From wiki...

Shifting away from the B-series engine, the seventh generation Civic Si adopted the K-series K20A3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_K_engine#K20A3) engine rated 160 bhp (120 kW) at 6500 rpm and 132 ft·lbf (179 N·m) at 5000 rpm. With a redline of 6,800 rpm, the Si distanced itself from the narrow, high-rpm powerband engine of its predecessor, and as a result saw a 20 percent increase in torque. Performance was relatively underwhelming compared to the competition; the switch to MacPherson struts from double-wishbone suspension resulted in less responsive handling, and a near-150 lb (68 kg) increase in weight to 2,744 lb (1,245 kg) contributed to slower acceleration than the lighter '99-'00 Si. Much of the weight gain is attributed to the chassis' stouter structure when compared to the previous generation hatchback, with the '02 Si boasting an increase in torsional rigidity by 95 percent and a bending rigidity increase of 22 percent.

Blindly, I would think ITS as well here.

[chuck baader]

Thanks, Greg....parts ordered. CB

[ShelbyRacer]

Not here. Nothing but bad can come from that, given our current prep rules.




Not sure I follow. Do you consider solid mounts a problem or not?

[quadzjr]

there is another "modern" Civic Si that is not mentioned here. The 02-05 Si listed in ITA at 2840 lbs... yet with a curb weight of 2740 lbs.

Honda Civic Si (02-05) 4 Cyl DOHC

86.0 x 86.0 1998 (I) 35.0 (E) 30.0 9.8 cr 101.2 in wheelbase 15 in wheels; gears: 3.06, 1.77, 1.21, 0.92, 0.74
(F) 262 vented (R) 259 solid
2840 lbs

From wiki...

Shifting away from the B-series engine, the seventh generation Civic Si adopted the K-series K20A3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_K_engine#K20A3) engine rated 160 bhp (120 kW) at 6500 rpm and 132 ft·lbf (179 N·m) at 5000 rpm. With a redline of 6,800 rpm, the Si distanced itself from the narrow, high-rpm powerband engine of its predecessor, and as a result saw a 20 percent increase in torque. Performance was relatively underwhelming compared to the competition; the switch to MacPherson struts from double-wishbone suspension resulted in less responsive handling, and a near-150 lb (68 kg) increase in weight to 2,744 lb (1,245 kg) contributed to slower acceleration than the lighter '99-'00 Si. Much of the weight gain is attributed to the chassis' stouter structure when compared to the previous generation hatchback, with the '02 Si boasting an increase in torsional rigidity by 95 percent and a bending rigidity increase of 22 percent.

Blindly, I would think ITS as well here.

I never understood why the 99 civic si with the B16 was an S car and the next generation that is a better car with more torque was an A car.

[gran racing]

Probably because a different group of individuals in the ITAC or CRB classed them. Exactly why a solid process and documentation is so valuable.

[JoshS]

I never understood why the 99 civic si with the B16 was an S car and the next generation that is a better car with more torque was an A car.

Because IT is fundamentally based on a power-to-weight classification system. We don't class all 150hp cars in the same class. We class all cars with similar power-to-weight ratios in the same class (altered for some physical characteristics, such as FWD/RWD, etc.)

The next-generation car with more torque is a heavier chassis. It fits better in A.

[quadzjr]

Because IT is fundamentally based on a power-to-weight classification system. We don't class all 150hp cars in the same class. We class all cars with similar power-to-weight ratios in the same class (altered for some physical characteristics, such as FWD/RWD, etc.)

The next-generation car with more torque is a heavier chassis. It fits better in A.

sound enough logic.. I buy it.

[Greg Amy]

Not sure I follow. Do you consider solid mounts a problem or not?
I do consider solid mounts a technical problem, not a rules problem. I have no problem with allowing them by the rules, but I would decisively NOT install them in a car I was writing checks for. - GA

[Ron Earp]

The next-generation car with more torque is a heavier chassis. It fits better in A.

I'm not seeing that. The next generation car with more area under the horsepower curve is a better fit in A, a class that generally has horsepower challenged cars?

If it were 500 lbs heavier I could see that, but it isn't.

[mossaidis]

to Josh's point, what would be the 02-05 Civic Si weight if it was classed in S? In current A form, I would imagine it would need to carry at least 300 lbs of lead. Think power-seats, rear bench, spare tire/hw, sunroof/brackets, other interior moldings/panels, AC system, etc. BTW, thank you engaging in the conversation as always. I would imagine we're a tough bunch. XO

[Ron Earp]

to Josh's point, what would be the 02-05 Civic Si weight if it was classed in S? In current A form,XO

Pretty easy to do, weights without whatever modifiers these cars get:

In S 160 x 1.25 x 12.9 = 2580 lbs

In A 160 x 1.25 x 14.5 - 2900 lbs

Looks like in A it would be above the curb weight, which is 2740 lbs, and in S slightly less than curb the weight. I'm thinking it should be classed in S, slightly less than curb weight as I've never heard of a car gaining weight with the deletion of all the stuff you can legally remove, plus the the addition of cage, driver, and safety equipment. If it does end up weighing more in race trim, than street trim, then I suspect that someone hasn't done their race car construction planning very well. Single pounds do matter as they add up to 10s and 100s.

[ShelbyRacer]

I do consider solid mounts a technical problem, not a rules problem. I have no problem with allowing them by the rules, but I would decisively NOT install them in a car I was writing checks for. - GA

I'm right there with you. I just wasn't sure exactly what you meant.

Wouldn't allowing the solid mounts be fine, given the authentic penalty that may accompany their use? (this question is not posed at Greg, but at anyone else who'd like to take a shot)

BTW- sorry for the duality of the thread.

[Marcus Miller]

tJY, if you need acheivable weights for RSX, try Jeremy Lucas; the Honda racing west guys have run them for years, and Matt Staal ran one in the stu race at the runoffs. They are NASA spec Honda challenge cars, but prep is similar enough to use as a datapoint.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Understand also that these cars get different 'subtractors' in ITS vs. ITA for FWD. Which can affect the weight in a decent amount triggering consideration for another class. More % off in ITS, plus NO DW adder on this car that would be there for the Teg and Civics.

[lateapex911]

I'm right there with you. I just wasn't sure exactly what you meant.

Wouldn't allowing the solid mounts be fine, given the authentic penalty that may accompany their use? (this question is not posed at Greg, but at anyone else who'd like to take a shot)

BTW- sorry for the duality of the thread.

I think I've been asking...and saying the same thing.
Nobody has responded with good reasoning.

For all the trouble the proposed wording creates, why not just open it up?
I just don't see the solid mount fear as being reasonable.
(Especially when the proposed wording allows me to pretty much do it)

[Chip42]

re: the RSX - there was a request to classify it matching the EP Civic Si. so we did. FWIW, ITA weight is obviously 2840, ITS is 2440. I think the cars could get there, but just. I wasn't around for the civic, but the thought on the RSX (a slightly heavier car that has an engine almost identical to the civic si) was to match the civic spec because they are so close in all IT-relevant aspects. FWIW they seem a good fit in A to me. dynamically different than the bulk of the class but matched in P/W and hopefully lap time.

re: the 99-00 civic Si (EM1) in ITS. it's light there. achievably light, but light. no, it will likely never be a SARRC winner, but it's a fun and reliable car. at 2800# or whatever the A weight thrown around a while back was, it would be less so. I can't understand why people who want to see the RSX and EP moved to S would want to see the EM1 in A. FWIW, I argued against the move to A for the EM1 as we were running one at the time and had no desire to see it get heavier. that's a ton of weight gain.

this is ANOTHER one of those cases where a car isn't obviously a good fit for A or S, and might be good fodder for dual classing arguments. I don't like dual classing on account of added confusion.

One thing that IS true - IF these cars get built in ITA, and moved to ITS, they will be carrying ~40# of cage with them due to the weight in A. if anyone seriously wants them moved, please request it NOW. and please provide something supporting your request because I think these cars fit well in A and well overweight in S.

[Andy Bettencourt]

. FWIW they seem a good fit in A to me. dynamically different than the bulk of the class but matched in P/W and hopefully lap time.



I generally agree with Chip but disagree here. If by 'dynamically different' you mean 'way heavier with way more HP' then I think it's a mistake if there is a choice. I would never want to create a car that was so different in charateristics if there was a choice. Sometimes there isn't...

Because there is no DW 50lb adder back in, these would be lighter than a 160hp Civic is it had DW's and may not be able to make weight. If it were a 'maybe it can' scenario, I would clas in ITS and then reclass if letters and legit evidence came in.

[Chip42]

If by 'dynamically different' you mean 'way heavier with way more HP' then I think it's a mistake if there is a choice. I would never want to create a car that was so different in charateristics if there was a choice. Sometimes there isn't...

Because there is no DW 50lb adder back in, these would be lighter than a 160hp Civic is it had DW's and may not be able to make weight. If it were a 'maybe it can' scenario, I would clas in ITS and then reclass if letters and legit evidence came in.
basically thats what I mean andy - slower in the corners, faster on the straits than the average ITA car, but probably similar to the DA integra so not overly weird.

I don't know if the cars can make ITS weight. I reckon the civic could, less sure about the RSX. like I said before, it went where the civic went. there wasn't too much hemmin and hollerin about it. maybe that was a failure on our parts.

[DavidM]

Back to the motor mount rule. So what's wrong with the rule as written, other than it being a bit lengthy? Writing an airtight rule is probably impossible and I'd rather see some attempt at confining the usage versus leaving it wide ass open. Everybody says they would never use solid mounts, but that doesn't mean somebody won't find a way to make them work and gain an advantage in some form. I've pretty much got sphericals or solid mounts for every other bushing on the car and I'm guessing some folks thought that would not occur. Maybe the rule as proposed would make it illegal, maybe it wouldn't. You could file a protest and find out. I think having the intent in the rule does give some guidance for a protest committee. If the rule is wide open then the protest option doesn't exist.

David

[mossaidis]

re: the RSX - there was a request to classify it matching the EP Civic Si. so we did. FWIW, ITA weight is obviously 2840, ITS is 2440. I think the cars could get there, but just. I wasn't around for the civic, but the thought on the RSX (a slightly heavier car that has an engine almost identical to the civic si) was to match the civic spec because they are so close in all IT-relevant aspects. FWIW they seem a good fit in A to me. dynamically different than the bulk of the class but matched in P/W and hopefully lap time.

re: the 99-00 civic Si (EM1) in ITS. it's light there. achievably light, but light. no, it will likely never be a SARRC winner, but it's a fun and reliable car. at 2800# or whatever the A weight thrown around a while back was, it would be less so. I can't understand why people who want to see the RSX and EP moved to S would want to see the EM1 in A. FWIW, I argued against the move to A for the EM1 as we were running one at the time and had no desire to see it get heavier. that's a ton of weight gain.

this is ANOTHER one of those cases where a car isn't obviously a good fit for A or S, and might be good fodder for dual classing arguments. I don't like dual classing on account of added confusion.

One thing that IS true - IF these cars get built in ITA, and moved to ITS, they will be carrying ~40# of cage with them due to the weight in A. if anyone seriously wants them moved, please request it NOW. and please provide something supporting your request because I think these cars fit well in A and well overweight in S.

ah... i will need to read this twice over to get what you are saying. (no offense)

If no one will step up to do the research on th RSX, I will. I agree with chip, speak now or forever hold your piece. Unless whp ratios change and move lots down to ITA and ITB and ITC, I still believe the 02-05 civic si should be classed in ITS. as an ITA guy, I do not fear the competition btw. I have spoken to the ITAC/CRB and plan on doing similar research on the 02-06 Accord and 04-08 TSX, both share similar platforms but different engines.

[Andy Bettencourt]

basically thats what I mean andy - slower in the corners, faster on the straits than the average ITA car, but probably similar to the DA integra so not overly weird.



But not so similar. Well over 10 more whp and way worse handling. We ran the Davis GA RSX's out of our shop for a year.

[ShelbyRacer]

Back to the motor mount rule. So what's wrong with the rule as written, other than it being a bit lengthy? Writing an airtight rule is probably impossible and I'd rather see some attempt at confining the usage versus leaving it wide ass open. Everybody says they would never use solid mounts, but that doesn't mean somebody won't find a way to make them work and gain an advantage in some form. I've pretty much got sphericals or solid mounts for every other bushing on the car and I'm guessing some folks thought that would not occur. Maybe the rule as proposed would make it illegal, maybe it wouldn't. You could file a protest and find out. I think having the intent in the rule does give some guidance for a protest committee. If the rule is wide open then the protest option doesn't exist.

David

I'm not saying I don't like the rule, as I just want thte ability to modify my mounts so they don't fail on a regular basis.

I'm just there with Jake in that I truly wonder how dimensionally identical solid mounts would be an issue of a huge performance gain, given the collateral damage that can occur. I'm trying to make a potential protest situation even more black and white. Measure it. If it ain't identical within tolerance, it's non-compliant. The material used to get it there is academic.

[Knestis]

... The material used to get it there is academic.

Which may or may not be legal, depending on how rigidly academic one is.

K

[ShelbyRacer]

Which may or may not be legal, depending on how rigidly academic one is.

K

I meant if we went to no limits on material, and "allowed solid mounts".

However, I'm sure there are still academics of some sort who could find some exceptions :)

[Z3_GoCar]

I'm just glad this has moved on. So aluminum blocks are out, urethane is fine, but what about say delrin? Maybe the ITAC took the language from the solo II STx rules?

[Chip42]

But not so similar. Well over 10 more whp and way worse handling. We ran the Davis GA RSX's out of our shop for a year.

the well known crap handling makes me wonder why anyone would want to make a race car from one. it might even be more of an impediment in S, where it would have less of a hp/tq "advantage" to make up for the slower cornering. either way, I'll sign off on a move to S (EP Civic Si as well) if one is requested, though I really think they are correct in A. I believe the request to classify the RSX was academic in the first place.

[Flyinglizard]

Motor mounts are either stock or not. The tech issue of quantifying non stock mounts is just stupid.
The issue is engine placement. Non stock mounts can optimize the engine placement.
Once the mounts can be replaced, the ship has sailed.
Records will fall as power is delivered better with cars that have moved the engine lower. MM

[mossaidis]

the well known crap handling makes me wonder why anyone would want to make a race car from one. it might even be more of an impediment in S, where it would have less of a hp/tq "advantage" to make up for the slower cornering. either way, I'll sign off on a move to S (EP Civic Si as well) if one is requested, though I really think they are correct in A. I believe the request to classify the RSX was academic in the first place.

I slept on it and I think you correct. Regardless, I have started a Honda Civic/Acura matrix of information for models for last 10+ years. I will post when finished.

[Chip42]

Motor mounts are either stock or not. The tech issue of quantifying non stock mounts is just stupid.
The issue is engine placement. Non stock mounts can optimize the engine placement.
Once the mounts can be replaced, the ship has sailed.
Records will fall as power is delivered better with cars that have moved the engine lower. MM

mike, reread the rule. relocation and reorientation of the mounted component (i.e. engine, trans, diff,...) are not allowed. the debate is over materials and their stiffness. comparing stock critical dimensions to replacement critical dimnsions can (and I presume, at some point, will be) be done at tech.

[jumbojimbo]

mike, reread the rule. relocation and reorientation of the mounted component (i.e. engine, trans, diff,...) are not allowed. the debate is over materials and their stiffness. comparing stock critical dimensions to replacement critical dimnsions can (and I presume, at some point, will be) be done at tech.

In before he says you can't police it. Ignoring the fact that people can modify the stock mount now and move the motor. Same amount of illegal regardless.

[chuck baader]

Also note, this does nothing to the bushing rule. Chuck

[Bill Miller]

Interesting to see that they have asked for input regarding running the Volvo 240 in ITB or ITC. Makes you wonder why they didn't pose the same question regarding the RSX (and many other cars).

I was actually surprised w/ the response about being able to run stock wheels. Silly IMHO. Would seem like a case for a spec line note ala MR2 aero pkg.

[Marcus Miller]

I think the difference Bill is one involves folks already invested, vs. a new classification.

The wheel thing is silly, IMHO.

[Flyinglizard]

Are the mounts to be compared to new mounts or old sagged mounts?
How much tolerance is there?? ( There is a tolerance value for everything)

Wheels?? I was sure that the CRB allowd the stock wheels. IE; for the ITC New beetle. Not allowing the stock wheels is just nuts . It just takes one line to fix that," stock or X size".
Bring the door jamb sticker and the owners' manual/FSM, for other than class size wheels. SCCA needs to fix this part for sure.
PS, more tire sizes in the normal class sizes..
MM

[JeffYoung]

Correct. We have at least one guy running a 242 and we wanted to know where he wanted to race.

Additionally, we asked on this one because there is no way the 242 is going to make its ITB weight. It's an ITC car by the process. However if the guy driving it wants to stay in B for now, I have no issue with that. I doubt we are going to see any of them built again anyway.

The RSX we tried to figure out where it fit "best" as it is much more of a tweener than the 242. It looked like A at first and even based on the above discussion still looks like a close call.

I'd love to have another modern FWD car in S but if the thing can't handle and really has no "torque" advantage like it kinda does in A, does it have any shot at all in S??


I think the difference Bill is one involves folks already invested, vs. a new classification.

The wheel thing is silly, IMHO.

[Bill Miller]

Correct. We have at least one guy running a 242 and we wanted to know where he wanted to race.

Additionally, we asked on this one because there is no way the 242 is going to make its ITB weight. It's an ITC car by the process. However if the guy driving it wants to stay in B for now, I have no issue with that. I doubt we are going to see any of them built again anyway.

The RSX we tried to figure out where it fit "best" as it is much more of a tweener than the 242. It looked like A at first and even based on the above discussion still looks like a close call.

I'd love to have another modern FWD car in S but if the thing can't handle and really has no "torque" advantage like it kinda does in A, does it have any shot at all in S??

Jeff,

I think what you've done w/ the Volvo sets a precedent. You've let it out that you'll consider running cars in one class or the other. I would expect that you'll now get letters about moving other cars, or at least inquiring as to what their process weights in a different class would be. If it's a case of a car not being able to make process weight in one class, it goes 'down' a class and gains weight (ala New Beetle). What happens when you get 20 guys that all run the same car, and are split as to where they want to run it? Or if you have another guy that wants to run a 242 in ITC?

In this case, it may be one guy running this car, and nobody may ever build another one, but you've now established that the ITAC is willing to make a decision as to which class a car should run in, based on member input. I think there may be unintended consequences from this one.

As far as the stock wheel thing, I brought this up back when the New Beetle was first classified. This is such an easy fix, don't understand the logic behind the response. Especially in light of the fact that an ITS GM Quad4 car can convert from rear drum to rear disc, w/ parts that never came on the car, yet the New Beetle can't run the stock wheels that came w/ the car. :shrug:

[Ron Earp]

I'd love to have another modern FWD car in S but if the thing can't handle and really has no "torque" advantage like it kinda does in A, does it have any shot at all in S??

That's a bit subjective isn't it? An RSX "handling like crap" still might handle better than a TR8 or many of the other S cars. I realize there are subjective decisions in the classification process, but at some point the process must be employed to class a car. Sort of reminds me of folks saying the ITS Integra could never make ITS power, well, lo and behold, it does.

[tnord]

it's not at all like the ITS integra Ron......arguing power potential changes the actual formula and weight. debating where the base RSX should go is the same discussion we have on every new listing (or at least the same questions i ask myself every time).

1) can it make X weight?
2) is there another similar car somewhere?

the extent of my honda knowledge says that the EP civic and the RSX are more or less the same car.....others agreed....so in ITA it landed. that's all it is for me, nothing more.

[Greg Amy]

Sort of reminds me of folks saying the ITS Integra could never make ITS power, well, lo and behold, it does.
Wow, someone's legally putting down 180+hp to the ground in an ITS Teggy? Kewl!

[rsportvolvo]

The Volvo 240 was only produced from 1975-1993. How did the 1994 & 1995 years get added? Also, how will the OHV B20 2.0L be classified or is it automatically an ITC car?

There are actually 3 folks running the Volvo 240 in ITB, not just 1.

[JeffYoung]

If not that. close to it and more than enough to run up front in very competitive ITS fields.

That car is a perfect fit in ITS, can run up front and win, and Zsolt, Darin Treakle and Scott Seck have proven it.

Bill, yes, *I* do consider where members are running or want to run a car that is a tweener. That precedent was set a while back and I think it is a good one. There are a lot of cars that can "fit" into two classes (more than you would think at first glance) and as Travis noted, the considerations are: (a) can the car make weight in X class? (b) assuming it can in the "higher" class, we generally think it belongs there at a lower weight as people generally prefer running cars at lower weights; and (c) what do guys actually racing the car think?

We did this with the ITS Honda Civic, and the ITS/ITR Miata.


Wow, someone's legally putting down 180+hp to the ground in an ITS Teggy? Kewl!

[JeffYoung]

It's totally subjective. We don't have a formula or a process for deciding where tweener cars go (and as an exericse, I took a few cars from S and you can drop a lot of them in ITA at 300 lbs or so heavier and technically they "fit").



That's a bit subjective isn't it? An RSX "handling like crap" still might handle better than a TR8 or many of the other S cars. I realize there are subjective decisions in the classification process, but at some point the process must be employed to class a car. Sort of reminds me of folks saying the ITS Integra could never make ITS power, well, lo and behold, it does.

[Ron Earp]

1) can it make X weight?


I agree with you, but "can it make X weight" is very subjective too. What you might say "can't make weight" is another guy's challenge to get it to weight and reap the benefits.

Curb weights are notoriously deceiving as starting weights to determine if a car can or can't make weight for a particular class. It was long thought that RX7s couldn't make weight in A. Dick proved those folks wrong, it can, if you are willing to build it and work hard. A friend of mine and Mustang owner told me that an ITR Mustang can't make the minimum weight in ITR - but it can, if you're willing to approach it in the right way and pull out all stops.

At some point the ITAC is making decisions regarding effort/time/money with respect to car classing and minimum weights. How you guys want to approach that is your business, but I think I would class tweeners in the higher class first as it is pretty easy to move them down if weight or hp doesn't work out.

[Greg Amy]

If not that. close to it and more than enough to run up front in very competitive ITS fields.
Excellent! I hadn't heard those guys were running 39s at Road Atlanta; thanks for the update! It's great to hear that "close to it" is "good enough!"

Congrats, guys!

GA

[Ron Earp]

Excellent! I hadn't heard those guys were running 39s at Road Atlanta;

What does 1:39s and RA have to do with it?

[Chip42]

At some point the ITAC is making decisions regarding effort/time/money with respect to car classing and minimum weights. How you guys want to approach that is your business, but I think I would class tweeners in the higher class first as it is pretty easy to move them down if weight or hp doesn't work out.

I agree, Ron. had it not been for the EP civic Si (a sister car with a 90%+ identical engine) already having been in A, there would have been more discussion about it. I think the Civic has a much better shot of making S weight, handles better than the RSX, and is an all around better car in whatever class. if we want to talk about why THAT car is in A, I think the conversation would have a lot more substance. I wasn't around for that one, but I don't remember a lot of fuss on the interwebz when it was classed last year, either. shows the halo effect of the acura name, I guess.

I still think the RSX is a better A car than it is an S, though.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I still think the RSX is a better A car than it is an S, though.

Meaning what, Chip? Meaning it would be more competitive? If it can make weight in ITS, it should be there. Period.

[Greg Amy]

What does 1:39s and RA have to do with it?
The same illogic that "...[t]hat car is a perfect fit in ITS, can run up front and win, and Zsolt, Darin Treakle and Scott Seck have proven it" has to do with it: nothing.

Ron, ITS 'Tegs are not making 180hp, which is the +25% expected (over 170 chp base) -15% drivetrain losses. They're right now about +20% (and poor torque to boot). That has absolutely nothing to do with their compatibility in ITS (which is where they should be) it's only a commentary on the unsupported beliefs of what's actually happening.

I remain open-minded; if someone's got dyno data to prove otherwise, I'm game. - GA

[JeffYoung]

The same illogic that "...[t]hat car is a perfect fit in ITS, can run up front and win, and Zsolt, Darin Treakle and Scott Seck have proven it" has to do with it: nothing.

Ron, ITS 'Tegs are not making 180hp, which is the +25% expected (over 170 chp base) -15% drivetrain losses. They're right now about +20% (and poor torque to boot). That has absolutely nothing to do with their compatibility in ITS (which is where they should be) it's only a commentary on the unsupported beliefs of what's actually happening.

I remain open-minded; if someone's got dyno data to prove otherwise, I'm game. - GA

Incorrect statement(s). That (the hard work that those guys have done on motor development that others did not do) is entirely relevant as the "gut check" we look for to make sure our classing decisions are correct.

The poor torque is a red herring, as Zsolt and Blake have shown with their gearbox development.

I've not seen a dyno sheet for the GSR for a fully developed motor. I know you made 165 without any realy development, and from listening to Zsolt I suspect he is north of 175. It seems to me the 25% is spot on.

[Greg Amy]

Incorrect statement(s). That (the hard work that those guys have done on motor development that others did not do) is entirely relevant as the "gut check" we look for to make sure our classing decisions are correct.

The poor torque is a red herring, as Zsolt and Blake have shown with their gearbox development.

I've not seen a dyno sheet for the GSR for a fully developed motor. I know you made 165 without any realy development, and from listening to Zsolt I suspect he is north of 175. It seems to me the 25% is spot on.
So you fully admit you're completely ignorant as to the facts, and yet remain steadfastly firm in your position based on...a suspected "gut check"?

Noted.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Blake M. 1-17-09

Since Ivan's GSR is no more. It made 178 whp and 129 wtq. I built the engine when I worked at Sunbelt. This was on a fresh engine with about 30 minutes of break in and dino oil. I still needed to do some intake and exhaust testing. I felt that there was maybe a couple more hp there. We were able to turn it 8600 rpm. It made peak power at 8200

:shrug:

[Greg Amy]

Source? I now own the top-end head from that engine, and SPIFF has the crank, rods, pistons. That's a whole lot different info than I have...just sayin'...

[JeffYoung]

What you should have noted is that the car is classed according to the Process. We class cars at 25% unless we have solid information to the contrary. The real speculation is by those who don't think it can make 25% based on a half-attempt at an ITS build.

I fully understand your choice to take your Integra to STU/L. While it appears (to me) that there are some strong ITS cars in the NEDiv, I understand it is struggling some. And, there is the "pull" of running for a national championship. I get all of that.

However, the idea that the GSR can't be competitive in ITS is just not accurate. I'm posting this more for others who are reading this thread and think it cannot, and to try and clear the air on some of this.

1. Greg and Jeremy's car made 165 whp (I believe that is the number they quoted) without a whole lot of development. Others who have put more effort into the motor have made more, and gains are continuing to be found. 180 whp is dead on 25%. Andy's post above, and other information, suggests that this number is very attainable. Barring any conclusive evidence to the contrary, the 25% figure seems correct. Note that the Teg is now classed at what, 2580? Or about 100 lbs less than the ITS RX7 at 2680 which makes at best 180 whp as well.

2. Implicit in a lot of Greg's posting is the idea that if he couldn't be competitive in the car, no one could. Greg's an excellent driver, but I would again point out that others who have spent the time and money to develop the car have had success with it.

3. The "Huffmaster ran a 1:39 at Road Atlanta" has a yardstick for whether a car is competitive in ITS is a red herring. No other RX7 - Speedsource, including Sylvain Tremblay or David Haskell or Steve Eckrich -- has run that. In fact, Huffmaster routinely competes with another excellent driver, Kip Van Steenburg in an ITR 944S2, for the overall win.

While it is difficult to extrapolate anything from this "data point," I think most reasonable folks agree that Huffmaster is just one of those special drivers who extracts more from a car than everyone else. I know I am man enough to admit that Huffmaster would go faster in my car than me, and I suspect that if pressed Greg would admit the same for him and the Integra.

[Greg Amy]

1. Greg and Jeremy's car made 165 whp (I believe that is the number they quoted) without a whole lot of development. Others who have put more effort into the motor have made more, and gains are continuing to be found. 180 whp is dead on 25%.
IIRC, Jeremy got that exact number with a dead-stock longblock. And some very basic evaluation revealed that there was not a significant amount remaining, legally. Oh my godz, could I be wrong? Of course, silly. But I've yet to see documented proof otherwise.

Anyone with a calculator can add 25% to 180, Jeff, that's no major insight. The argument here is whether it's being attained.

If only the Integra has a lower-rated engine from a prior year that we could use for base competition weight...<sigh>...


Andy's post above, and other information, suggests that this number is very attainable.If Blake is publicly claiming that he's making 180+ from an ITS Integra engine, then I'll stand corrected. The Internet apparently know more about this than we do...


2. Implicit in a lot of Greg's posting is the idea that if he couldn't be competitive in the car, no one could.Jeff, don't be an ass. You may apparently infer such nonsense, but I never said nor even remotely implied it.


3. The "Huffmaster ran a 1:39 at Road Atlanta" has a yardstick for whether a car is competitive in ITS is a red herring.No, Jeff, it's not. It's only a "red herring" to you because it doesn't neatly fit into your paradigm.

In your mind "competitive" may mean winning once in a while at your local track(s), but to many in the community a "competitive" car means being able to have a consistent chance of winning at any place, against any competition, they may choose to go. That's not consistently illustrated here. You yourself have publicly declared that in order to be used as a yardstick you must spend countless amount of time, effort, and development, both in terms of the car and the driver, but yet at the same time hold out one driver as some special piece of unattainable access, no matter the car? If that truly exists, is that truly "competitive"?

I constantly have to remind myself to avoid getting Internet pissing matches with you, as you just illogically grind down people until they just give up. Well, I'm calling "uncle" now, Jeff, as you've apparently got it all figured out... :dead_horse:

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Source? I now own the top-end head from that engine, and SPIFF has the crank, rods, pistons. That's a whole lot different info than I have...just sayin'...

Right above it. Blake Merideth, engine builder. Quoted from a post he made on this site in 2009.

[Andy Bettencourt]

If Blake is publicly claiming that he's making 180+ from an ITS Integra engine, then I'll stand corrected. The Internet apparently know more about this than we do...


GA

Publically admitted that he made 178 with more development to go and extrapolated that 180 was possible.

Stand and deliver.

[Greg Amy]

Right above it. Blake Merideth, engine builder. Quoted from a post he made on this site in 2009.
Did that happen to be from a classified ad for the engine? I've got dyno charts from that engine. Just sayin'.

But, as noted, I stand corrected.

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Did that happen to be from a classified ad for the engine? I've got dyno charts from that engine. Just sayin'.

But, as noted, I stand corrected.

GA

No, it was from a thread titled 'WHP for Honda's' or something like that started by Mr. Roth IIRC.

(On edit: HondAcura section, 1-17-09, Roth...Blake post #4, Title: IT prep Whp for honda VTEC's )

[mossaidis]

Why are we Off-topic???!?!?!?! this looks like a NEW THREAD now!!!

[Andy Bettencourt]

If only the Integra has a lower-rated engine from a prior year that we could use for base competition weight...<sigh>...


With the only difference being the ECU? No problem.

[Robbie]

I agree, Ron. had it not been for the EP civic Si (a sister car with a 90%+ identical engine) already having been in A, there would have been more discussion about it. I think the Civic has a much better shot of making S weight, handles better than the RSX, and is an all around better car in whatever class. if we want to talk about why THAT car is in A, I think the conversation would have a lot more substance. I wasn't around for that one, but I don't remember a lot of fuss on the interwebz when it was classed last year, either. shows the halo effect of the acura name, I guess.

I still think the RSX is a better A car than it is an S, though.

Why does the Civic have a better chance at making S weight than the RSX and why do you think it handles better? I would think the RSX would be the better race car as it'll have better aero, a lower COG and they are otherwise identical suspension-wise (to my knowledge).

[Andy Bettencourt]

Why does the Civic have a better chance at making S weight than the RSX and why do you think it handles better? I would think the RSX would be the better race car as it'll have better aero, a lower COG and they are otherwise identical suspension-wise (to my knowledge).

Heavier curb weights are the window into that assumption. Given the size of the chassis and what can be removed, I would think they would be of similar weight when prepped to IT rules.

The Civic has DW's, the RSX has struts.

[Chip42]

[/B]
Heavier curb weights are the window into that assumption. Given the size of the chassis and wha

t can be removed, I would think they would be of similar weight when prepped to IT rules.

The Civic has DW's, the RSX has struts.

I certainly didn't say that. The curb weights are tens of pounds different... The rsx has more glass, a slightly bigger body, likely more attention to nvh attenuation (more structure), etc... I think the civic simply has less to it in IT trim. Its in A now, though, and it can certainly make that weight.

Both cars are strut fronts. Rsx has steering arms up by the top of the strut while ep ismore conventional. Rear on the rsx also has odd motions, and the civic does not share this either. They are pretty significantly different chassis.

Andy, I think the car belongs in a. Period. Can it make weight in s? I don't kno. Should it be in s? That's subjective. Ep was in a. Rsx with same motor went in a. Pretty simple.

[mossaidis]

Heavier curb weights are the window into that assumption. Given the size of the chassis and what can be removed, I would think they would be of similar weight when prepped to IT rules.

The Civic has DW's, the RSX has struts.

The EP civic (02-05) has Struts...

[JeffYoung]

Oh please. Settle down. You've been offering your opinion -- opinion -- that the GSR can't be competitive in ITS for a while, or that it is classed heavy.

I was just explaining that is not correct for others interested in this car who might read the thread. There are plenty of guys developing this car who are doing very well with.

If by your definition of competitive, you mean a chance to win any track against any competition, I think there are a number of chassis in ITS that can do that and I think the evidence pretty clearly shows the GSR is one of them. None of that takes away from what Huffmaster is able to accomplish with an RX7 -- something no other RX7 driver (including the likes of David Haskell, Sylvain Tremblay, Nick Leverone, Steve Eckerich, Kent Thompson, etc.) have done. I chalk that up to driver and while it's certainly a "guess," my personal opinion is he could turn similar lap times in top prep Integra.

And while that is a guess, it's no more or less accurate than your guess after what a year's development on the car? that the GSR can't compete for an ARRC win against Huffmaster.


IIRC, Jeremy got that exact number with a dead-stock longblock. And some very basic evaluation revealed that there was not a significant amount remaining, legally. Oh my godz, could I be wrong? Of course, silly. But I've yet to see documented proof otherwise.

Anyone with a calculator can add 25% to 180, Jeff, that's no major insight. The argument here is whether it's being attained.

If only the Integra has a lower-rated engine from a prior year that we could use for base competition weight...<sigh>...

If Blake is publicly claiming that he's making 180+ from an ITS Integra engine, then I'll stand corrected. The Internet apparently know more about this than we do...

Jeff, don't be an ass. You may apparently infer such nonsense, but I never said nor even remotely implied it.

No, Jeff, it's not. It's only a "red herring" to you because it doesn't neatly fit into your paradigm.

In your mind "competitive" may mean winning once in a while at your local track(s), but to many in the community a "competitive" car means being able to have a consistent chance of winning at any place, against any competition, they may choose to go. That's not consistently illustrated here. You yourself have publicly declared that in order to be used as a yardstick you must spend countless amount of time, effort, and development, both in terms of the car and the driver, but yet at the same time hold out one driver as some special piece of unattainable access, no matter the car? If that truly exists, is that truly "competitive"?

I constantly have to remind myself to avoid getting Internet pissing matches with you, as you just illogically grind down people until they just give up. Well, I'm calling "uncle" now, Jeff, as you've apparently got it all figured out... :dead_horse:

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, I think the car belongs in a. Period. Can it make weight in s? I don't kno. Should it be in s? That's subjective. Ep was in a. Rsx with same motor went in a. Pretty simple.

My bad on the Civic with struts. I knew there were some years that had them but didn't think that version did. None of those design eliments noted between Civic and RSX , front or rear, has any spot in the 'process' if I am not mistaken.

It's not really subjective if it can make weight in ITS. Cars are to be classed in the 'fastest' possible class at the lowest possible weight, right? If you honestly don't feel it can make ITS weight, then ITA is 'more right'.

[JeffYoung]

I think that is right.

So can it make ITS weight?

[JS154]

We may have blown this one (the RSX). I'll take a look at it again.

We *seemed* pretty confident it couldn't make ITS weight but it looks like it is worth another look based on the above.

Just some info for you to consider, I know the racers campaiging the RSX in STU are having a hard time coming within 300 pounds of their weight for that class.

[Ron Earp]

In S 160 x 1.25 x 12.9 = 2580 lbs

In A 160 x 1.25 x 14.5 - 2900 lbs

Looks like in A it would be above the curb weight, which is 2740 lbs, and in S slightly less than curb the weight. I'm thinking it should be classed in S, slightly less than curb weight as I've never heard of a car gaining weight with the deletion of all the stuff you can legally remove


I think that is right.

So can it make ITS weight?

Why not? The A and S weights are shown above (before and modifiers) and the curb weight seems to be around 2740 lbs. A weight is above the curb weight, the S weight is below the curb weight.

[JeffYoung]

Well, at this point we are just guiessing...

JS, tell us what ou know (if you don't mind) about the RSX and race weight -- thanks in advance if you can, and understand if you cannot.

[Ron Earp]

Well, at this point we are just guiessing...

JS, tell us what ou know (if you don't mind) about the RSX and race weight -- thanks in advance if you can, and understand if you cannot.

As is pretty much everyone on this thread unless they have specifically built an RSX for ITS.

Isn't the RSX STU spec weight 2200 lbs?

[JeffYoung]

I agree, all guessing. Interested in JS's information when he gets a minute.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The Grand Am cars we ran out of our shop was spec'd at 2500 without driver or fuel. Used about 40lbs or ballast to get there. They were 'over-caged' so an estimate on SCCA weight?

Probably about 2425 without driver, maybe 2400. About 2575-2600.

So philisophical discussion aside, when the ITAC asks for info, this is what you get.

[Bill Miller]

[/B]

I certainly didn't say that. The curb weights are tens of pounds different... The rsx has more glass, a slightly bigger body, likely more attention to nvh attenuation (more structure), etc... I think the civic simply has less to it in IT trim. Its in A now, though, and it can certainly make that weight.

Both cars are strut fronts. Rsx has steering arms up by the top of the strut while ep ismore conventional. Rear on the rsx also has odd motions, and the civic does not share this either. They are pretty significantly different chassis.

Andy, I think the car belongs in a. Period. Can it make weight in s? I don't kno. Should it be in s? That's subjective. Ep was in a. Rsx with same motor went in a. Pretty simple.

Careful Chip. All the 2.0 8v VW's were in ITB until the New Beetle came along. It was deemed that it couldn't make ITB weight, so it landed in ITC, even though the curb weight was less than the Jetta, which landed in ITB.

[Andy Bettencourt]

And the ITB Golf/Beetle was a decent excersize also in 'what people want'. Nobody built a Beetle for ITC at the much higher weight.

[JeffYoung]

Lotsa reasons for that though. C is dying and in my opinion no one is going to spend that kind of coin on a C car for one. Worth a try though. Didn't we think the car would not make B weight?

[quadzjr]

I've never heard of a car gaining weight with the deletion of all the stuff you can legally remove, plus the the addition of cage, driver, and safety equipment. If it does end up weighing more in race trim, than street trim, then I suspect that someone hasn't done their race car construction planning very well. Single pounds do matter as they add up to 10s and 100s.


mk1 MR2. stock the car weighs mid 22xx (85'-86')range and low to mid 23xx(87'-89') depending on options. You could get down to ITA weight (2270) if you started with an 85' chassis, had a minimal cage and weighed less than 160lbs.

My my late 86 chassis completely gutted per the rules, gutted wiring harness, around 2 gallons of gas, light wheels, 180lb driver scalled at 2340. I could further reduce some weight by a trick used in Motocross racing (Ti-bolts) and some other small things. My dad's late 87' chassis that is gutted similiar with no weight weighs in around 2390lbs.

so long and short of it in IT trim they weigh more. It doesn't pertain to the conversation at hand, more of an Educational/FYI/Informative post.

[jumbojimbo]

Lotsa reasons for that though. C is dying and in my opinion no one is going to spend that kind of coin on a C car for one. Worth a try though. Didn't we think the car would not make B weight?

Someone in FL did build an ITC new beetle about 3 years ago. Never raced it and sold it to a waterford hills/GL driver. It has raced once in GL (2010 ITFest) that I know of. I have no idea how it is on weight, it ran ok but not great. Could be a rocket or a dog. Likely not even close to a 100% build, but it is very pretty and I want it.

In your opinion C is dying. Which may or may not be supported by the numbers, especially when compared to entry trends in A and B which are also down. C is just an easy target regardless of the reality.

I agree that no one is going to spend that kind money to build a C car. But no one is going to spend that kind of money to build a B car either. And no one is going to spend that kind of money to build an A, S or R car. Even if a car is clearly a slight overdog, we're talking about miniscule numbers of potential builds best case. IMO all the teeth gnashing about classing is just moving the deck chairs around and wasting energy.

[Ron Earp]

so long and short of it in IT trim they weigh more. It doesn't pertain to the conversation at hand, more of an Educational/FYI/Informative post.

I assume you mean in IT trim they weigh more than the curb weight, but that isn't the case with every car. Of the cars I've built and/or owned all of them have weighed less at race prep (with driver) than they did in street trim (without driver) - 260Z, Miata, Jensen Healey, and the Mustang. The Mustang is going to way considerably less in race trim then in street trim, probably 2700 lbs (with driver) versus 3200 lbs.

[JeffYoung]

Jim, we are doing all we can to try to keep C afloat but it is in trouble. The fact of the matter is it's just hard to find 60-80 hp stock cars to put in the class, and when we put a "heavy" higher hp car in the class a lot of people get anxious about it (the teeth gnashing over the 2.2 Mopars springs to mind).

People ARE spending that kind of coin on A, S and R builds and on the rare top flight B build. The reason is the competition is good enough to justify it.

I'd like C to stick around and prosper and one of the ways to encourage that is more "teeth gnashing" about whether a car might be a better fit in C despite appearances (like the Volvo 242).


Someone in FL did build an ITC new beetle about 3 years ago. Never raced it and sold it to a waterford hills/GL driver. It has raced once in GL (2010 ITFest) that I know of. I have no idea how it is on weight, it ran ok but not great. Could be a rocket or a dog. Likely not even close to a 100% build, but it is very pretty and I want it.

In your opinion C is dying. Which may or may not be supported by the numbers, especially when compared to entry trends in A and B which are also down. C is just an easy target regardless of the reality.

I agree that no one is going to spend that kind money to build a C car. But no one is going to spend that kind of money to build a B car either. And no one is going to spend that kind of money to build an A, S or R car. Even if a car is clearly a slight overdog, we're talking about miniscule numbers of potential builds best case. IMO all the teeth gnashing about classing is just moving the deck chairs around and wasting energy.

[Knestis]

That New Beetle is for sale.

http://www.waterfordhills.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3870

K

[quadzjr]

I assume you mean in IT trim they weigh more than the curb weight, but that isn't the case with every car. Of the cars I've built and/or owned all of them have weighed less at race prep (with driver) than they did in street trim (without driver) - 260Z, Miata, Jensen Healey, and the Mustang. The Mustang is going to way considerably less in race trim then in street trim, probably 2700 lbs (with driver) versus 3200 lbs.


Correct, in IT trim with driver the mk1 MR2 weighs more than stock weight. I know that is not the case with every car.. actually I would think that this is one of the outliners. This is mostly due to the little amount of stuff to remove and the 5 steel bulkheads on the car. I was just letting you know that there is atleast one car that does not follow the norm from your qoute below. I have thought out, planned, and worked pretty hard on removing weight so I can balast on the passenger side floor to lower CG. Right now the spec weight is higher so it is a moot point. I was just answering the question you never asked.. you said you never head of a car.. I let you know of atleast one that I know of.


"I've never heard of a car gaining weight with the deletion of all the stuff you can legally remove, plus the the addition of cage, driver, and safety equipment. If it does end up weighing more in race trim, than street trim, then I suspect that someone hasn't done their race car construction planning very well. Single pounds do matter as they add up to 10s and 100s."-Ron

[Ron Earp]

less at race prep (with driver) than they did in street trim (without driver) - 260Z, Miata, Jensen Healey, and the Mustang. The Mustang is going to way considerably less i.

Ooops. Clearly I meant weigh.

[Bill Miller]

That New Beetle is for sale.

http://www.waterfordhills.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3870

K

Not any more Kirk, he changed his mind to keep it.

[Greg Amy]

November 2011 Fastrack is up:

http://www.scca.com:8080/assets/11-fastrack-nov.pdf

On edit: Court of Appeals is worth the effort of the download...I especially like the SM shocks one... ;)

[Andy Bettencourt]

It's a good read! Best one for me is the request to raise the weight of the ITS RX-7 in STL.

[Greg Amy]

Yeah, we put the car in at its ITS weight (intentionally, as a "no-brainer" and to avoid concerns about poaching ITS cars into STL) but those cars are demonstrating themselves to be pretty competitive in STL as-is (they currently hold the lap records at LRP and NHMS, for example). Of course, there's about ZERO fully-developed STL cars out there (mine's not) so it's not a fair comparison...hey, we'll "continue to monitor its performance"... :shrug:

[Z3_GoCar]

On edit: Court of Appeals is worth the effort of the download...I especially like the SM shocks one... ;)

Sammy.... Sammy... when are you going to learn.... I heard several SM guys talking about this in the pre-grid.

[raffaelli]

Gorriaran was busy wih paper. Yikes!

[Andy Bettencourt]

Gorriaran was busy wih paper. Yikes!

DDG was actually busy. Notice how he is the 'entrant' and SG is the driver.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Yeah, we put the car in at its ITS weight (intentionally, as a "no-brainer" and to avoid concerns about poaching ITS cars into STL) but those cars are demonstrating themselves to be pretty competitive in STL as-is (they currently hold the lap records at LRP and NHMS, for example). Of course, there's about ZERO fully-developed STL cars out there (mine's not) so it's not a fair comparison...hey, we'll "continue to monitor its performance"... :shrug:

I agree with you on the whole but you say two things here. They aren't really demonstrating themselves to be competitive as, like you say, ZERO developed cars out there. This is a BS request from a driver who instead of developing his program, wants to slow down the others who shouldn't be fast enough when the class plays out. I hate that.

[JeffYoung]

Shouldn't pretty much any even marginally developed STL car be faster than an ITS RX7?

[Greg Amy]

Shouldn't pretty much any even marginally developed STL car be faster than an ITS RX7?
Welcome to ITS in the Northeast, Jeff.

I went faster than the Summit Point ITS lap record in my first outing in my marginally-developed STL Integra (MARRS 4?), yet I spent the rest of my (very limited) 2011 "season" battling hammer-and-tong with ITS RX7 drivers every race (Daryl Stein and Glenn Lawton as standouts). I'll have to look it up to be sure, but I have yet to go faster than the ITS lap record at any track up here, and I've got more compression (1/2 pt), intake mods, valve springs and retainers (for RPM), adjustable cam gears, better transaxle gearing (ITR gearset), larger brakes, and weigh about 160 pounds less than I would in ITS.

Please note that this is more a generalized statement of the state of ITS up here in NE than it is a commentary on my own prep and driving. I'm not a benchmark, just one simple data point... - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

I actually think that having a car that sets a 90-95% competition level - at a 100% prep level is an interesting way to start a class. You have an immediate bogey to go race with, can reference ITS lap records as short term goals and see the light at the end of the end of the tunnel when each program continues to grow.

[JeffYoung]

Agree there, this happened in ITR with the 325. Most good ITS cars are still faster than the developing ITR cars in SEDiv. Probably similar to the NEDiv with "maxed out" ITS cars competing against STL and ITR cars that are in the early stages of teh development curve.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I went faster than the Summit Point ITS lap record in my first outing in my marginally-developed STL Integra (MARRS 4?)

ITS record at Summit was Ed York at 1:24.8 in 2003 before you beat it so there must be 1:23's out there for you.

[Greg Amy]

ITS record at Summit was Ed York at 1:24.8 in 2003 before you beat it so there must be 1:23's out there for you.
Generally speaking, I think the target for STL is a couple seconds faster than ITS. Maybe ITR times?

[JeffYoung]

Probably track dependent. From what little I know of STL, I would think an STL car might be down on power to the "average" ITR (probably 190 to 230ish whp) but should handle better (suspension improvements and aero).

So, power track? Advantage ITR. Handling? STL.

Rough guesses though.

[Gregg]

ITS record at Summit was Ed York at 1:24.8 in 2003 before you beat it so there must be 1:23's out there for you.
And to further Greg's point (I think), the ITA record at Summit is 1:24.487. Perhaps he should be building an STL Miata. :blink:

[Greg Amy]

Perhaps he should be building an STL Miata. :blink:
You just had to go there, didn't you...?

;)

[mossaidis]

STL is 13 lbs per 1 whp, right? Add in moderate aero and minor suspension upgrades not available in IT, what else does STL have over IT in terms of mods?

[JeffYoung]

By Price last year right? Which suggests (given that the S record hasn't moved in 8 years) that the guys in S at Summit are a bit behind the development curve.

That said, Al Gervais I think was the last ITS car to run a 15 at VIR -- seems like a well prepped/driven car (RX7) and John Legg in a 240z was not far behind.



And to further Greg's point (I think), the ITA record at Summit is 1:24.487. Perhaps he should be building an STL Miata. :blink:

[Greg Amy]

STL is 13 lbs per 1 whp, right? Add in moderate aero and minor suspension upgrades not available in IT, what else does STL have over IT in terms of mods?
I'd have to give it a line-by-line rethink, but from memory the general differences are Improved Touring prep, plus:

Engine
- Possibly more compression (11:1 max)
- Possibly more cam (.425 valve lift max, which is what the GSR has stock intake)
- Alternate valve springs/retainers
- Alternate injectors
- IT head prep (e.g., port matching within 1")
- Lightweight flywheel
- No intake restriction
- Next year "ignition is free"

Transmissions
- Alternate transmissions allowed, same manufacturer

Suspension
- Open shocks, stock mounting points (i.e., remote reservoir, et cetera)

Wheels/Tires
- 17x7 max

Aero
- Same front air dam rules
- 48" rear wing allowed
- Can block out radiator openings

Body
- Can remove washer bottle ;)
- Lighter weights
- 5" ride height
- Alternate material hood/trunk/hatch
- Polycarbonate "glass"
- Can remove wiper systems, except for driver wiper
- Can remove unnecessary wiring
- Can remove unnecessary trim, seals, brackets, etc
- Still require stock dashboard.
- Can relocate battery
- Can remove headlights next year and replace with plate
- Can remove factory door bars with "NASCAR bars" next year

Safety
- No limit to cage mounting points
- Same fuel cell rules as LP Prod; i.e., if your tank is in the center of the car, cell not needed.
- Need only a handheld fire extinguisher next year

[lateapex911]

By Price last year right? Which suggests (given that the S record hasn't moved in 8 years) that the guys in S at Summit are a bit behind the development curve.
.

Maybe in S, but certainly not in ITB Volvos. ;)

See what I......
yea, you probably do.
;)

[Gregg]

By Price last year right? Which suggests (given that the S record hasn't moved in 8 years) that the guys in S at Summit are a bit behind the development curve.

That said, Al Gervais I think was the last ITS car to run a 15 at VIR -- seems like a well prepped/driven car (RX7) and John Legg in a 240z was not far behind.
I guess we can say the exact same thing about the SARRC ITS field given that the ITA track record at Roebling Road (http://buccaneerregion.org/roeblingroad.html) is 1:20:267 and the ITS record is 1:20.597. The ITS record hasn't moved there in four years.

Of course, the ITS field has had 12 seasons to better the ITA record there. :shrug:

My original comment solely suggested that at handling (vs. HP) tracks, Greg could be faster in a Miata rather than a front drive tub. And he knows that I meant it tongue-in-check.

[JeffYoung]

Yeah, that one is pretty famous, the RX3 that went what was at the time I think 3 seconds faster than the ITS record in 1998 or whenever it was. No ITA car has been close since. Make of that what you will.

The ITS record was set at Roebling by Irish Mike Flynn the year it was repaved. Several guys (including a Z car) were in the 20s that weekend.

Greg was suggesting that the NEDiv ITS field was stronger (better developed cars, etc.) than that at Summit. I was trying to figure out if that was the case, and certainly welcome any commentary from guys like you who race there all the time.


I guess we can say the exact same thing about the SARRC ITS field given that the ITA track record at Roebling Road (http://buccaneerregion.org/roeblingroad.html) is 1:20:267 and the ITS record is 1:20.597. The ITS record hasn't moved there in four years.

Of course, the ITS field has had 12 seasons to better the ITA record there. :shrug:

My original comment solely suggested that at handling (vs. HP) tracks, Greg could be faster in a Miata rather than a front drive tub. And he knows that I meant it tongue-in-check.

[mossaidis]

And he knows that I meant it tongue-in-check.

you mean "torque-in-check"? no... not funny? come on, it's Friday.

[Gregg]

Yes, Jeff. I feel that the front end of the ITS field is pretty strong, such as Al Gervais and Jeff Lucas in his 240z. Al purchased his car just before the start of last season and has a LOT of development left to do. For all the years that Jeff has been driving, I doubt that we'll see much more out of it.

But as Andy noted, the ITS record was set by a pre-ITR e36 driven by a very well respected driver (who's best effort ever in his ITA Miata was a 1:25.1 two weeks ago), and I would opine that the front of the pack runs as fast as they need to to win a race.