Available now at http://www.scca.com/clubracing/content.cfm?cid=44472 near the bottom of the page.
Dave
Printable View
Available now at http://www.scca.com/clubracing/content.cfm?cid=44472 near the bottom of the page.
Dave
Looks like alternate engine mounts are on their way.
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
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.
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?
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'....
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)
We still have the log chain option.:D
Jake - sorry, I forgot to put the [sarcasm][/sarcasm] 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...
Besides what Jake said:
You can also add cracked windshields and stress cracks in the unibody.Quote:
(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!)
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?
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.
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.
Way too many ponies for ITA.Quote:
The 2006 Honda Civic Si with 197 hp is classed in S at 3000 lbs.
...and has a 1.6L V-Tec engine with no torque. If anything was ripe for ITA...Quote:
The 1999-2000 Honda Civic Si is rated at 160hp and is classed in S...
There are rumors of 175-ish wheel in ITS trim. We had to run lead to get it to its classified ITS weight.Quote:
The...Acura Integra [GS-R] is rated at 170 hp and is classed in S at 2590 lbs.
Oink, oink.Quote:
The 2006 Acura RSX is rated at 160hp and is classed in A at 2800 lbs.
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.
Me, too.Quote:
Seems to me a 160hp car is an S classification for sure.
Nuttin', Honey.Quote:
What else in ITA is at 160 stock hp?
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.
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.
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?
"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
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.
Yes, I think you guys might have passed up a good S car.
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 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.
Thanks, Greg....parts ordered. CB
Probably because a different group of individuals in the ITAC or CRB classed them. Exactly why a solid process and documentation is so valuable.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.