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

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


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

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


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

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

Andy...


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

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

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

I think you really need to have owned and tried to race one to understand where some of us are coming from. They are very good cars, but with 100lbs of lead and a spare tire in the back they become fairly useless and even higher on consumables than they already were.
And any FWD car over 2500lbs is going to be tough on tires and brake components.[/b]
I understand your position but it is a 100% guess. The process is still a guess, but it is an educated one that is applied the same to all cars. Someday (maybe soon?) there may be different compensation for FWD or any other 'adder'... That may be the basis for a letter.