Del Sol VTEC - Please Contact me

[Jeremy Billiel]

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

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

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

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

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

Scott I am Jeremy that they are referencing.

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

[Andy Bettencourt]

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

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

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

Kevin,

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

Weight to WHP:

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

Huh?

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

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

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

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

AB

[Andy Bettencourt]

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

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

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

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

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

Didn't see this one first Scott - sorry!

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

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

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

[R2 Racing]

Understand also that that car that came in STARTED at 185whp and he found 10whp. Let's just use 190whp as a conservative number to bounce around based on Serra's first-hand account.[/b]

I don't know if relying purely on what one person said the car has done on his dyno should be taken as the end all fact. I do not doubt that it was done because I trust Serra, but what others are saying they've seen on their dynos with full out builds needs to be taken into account as well. As Scott said earlier, until your doing car after car on the exact same dyno, nothing can be taken as written in stone fact.

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

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

Let me ask a serious question: Why is there no beef in the ITA world with the Teg and the 240SX? They weigh effectly the same, the 240 has huge torque and RWD, they make about the same hp - yet the cars stack up on the track. I suspect it's because the ITA Teg's have been fully developed where the ITS cars have not.[/b]

That's a very good question and let me first start off by saying once again that I couldn't be happier to see all of this action in the ITAC! I applaud you guys for having the balls to take IT by the horns and shake it up a bit - it needed to be done. I also couldn't be more thrilled that there's someone like you out there who's on these boards listening to us and available to discuss this stuff like this.

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

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


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

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


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

[Catch22]

Andy...

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

[Andy Bettencourt]

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

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


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

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


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

Kev,

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

Andy...


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

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

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

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

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

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

[Greg Krom]

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

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

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

[Catch22]

Here is a quick note on VTEC.

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

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

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

FWIW.

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

[Bob Roth]

A couple of replies here;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


regards
Bob Roth

[Knestis]

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

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

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

K

[Catch22]

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

K

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

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

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

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

[Knestis]

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

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

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

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

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

K

[Catch22]

I understand your point Kirk.

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

FWD = -50lbs
Torqueless wonder = -40lbs

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

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

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

[seckerich]

I understand your point Kirk.

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

FWD = -50lbs
Torqueless wonder = -40lbs

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

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

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

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

[Catch22]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See how easy this is?
:P

[seckerich]

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

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

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

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

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

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

See how easy this is?
:P
[/b]

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

[Catch22]

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

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

[Bob Roth]

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

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

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

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

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

Lets use the process and see what we get.

[Jeremy Billiel]

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

[R2 Racing]

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

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