Del Sol VTEC - Please Contact me

[zracre]

there are many fwd cars in S that have the same problem...vr6=heavy...prelude=heavy...civic si=heavy. there are others too but the engine that does the process obviously is biased towards rwd cars. A B and C are dominated by FWD because they are cheap and make up the majority. Now the A class has a car in it that should be a tweener on paper (1.8 MIATA) with obvious advantages. if you watch SCCA SPEED TOURING you will see BMW's run with TSX's...evenly matched FWD vs RWD...we do not have that now as the FWD cars seem heavy. I am going to try with the GSR so I will test the theory myself.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Dick is right on the money here. But it has been mentioned that the 'process' that has seeminly worked so well in A, B and C MAY have hit some sort of ceiling in S. What we have to do is take the BMW out of our minds. If we do that, it comes down to:

FWD vs. RWD
Disparity in estimation for power output

The power issue won't be solved anytime soon. There are no FWD cars that people consider podium potential in ITS IMHO. So maybe an 'additional' 50lbs of 'subtractor should be considered in ITS. Won't make a sacks worth of difference but if perception turns to reality, it would be good.

[Catch22]

50lbs WILL make a difference Andy.
Do you have any experience racing FWD? Based on your response here I'm betting you don't.

Remember that with a FWD you are asking the same 2 tires and the same 2 brake rotors to do EVERYTHING. So yes, 50lbs matters. Thats 50 less pounds that those tires and rotors have to deal with.

My suggestion is this, A subtractor (50lbs?) for anything under 2 liters (answering the torque question) and a subtractor for FWD (50lbs?). I think that solves alot of issues and gets some FWD cars threatening for the podium.

[Catch22]

Current Grand Am ST Classifications...

Acura Integra Type R - 2350lbs
Acura RSX - 2450
Acura TSX - 2500
06 Civic Si - 2550
Mazda6 - 2600
BMW E46 328 - 2850
Lexus IS300 - 2800
Mazda RX8 - 2700

And those guys have FWD and RWD cars fighting equally for the podium.
In ITS, we don't. Go figure.

You don't have to be a genius to see a big difference in classification philosophy here.
IF we classified the Type R or RSX in ITS today, I'm betting they would weigh 500lbs more than where Grand Am has them listed, but we have the BMWs listed pretty damned close to where they list them.
Hmmmmm... Now ask me again why nobody can get a FWD car on an ITS podium (unless its in the middle of a flood)?

I'm not picking at anyone or trying to stir up trouble. I just think we, as a community and a club, have some things that need to be fixed. The ITAC has done a FABULOUS job on things the past couple of years, but the work isn't finished. At least in ITS there is a big ugly hole in the process.
And I'd bet that once some folks really get some Miatas and 240s developed in ITA, we'll find we have some FWD issues there as well, just not as bad as in ITS.

[R2 Racing]

Several interesting points, Scott. Say your suggestion of -50lbs for less than 2.0L and -50lbs for FWD, that would take 50lbs off of the Prelude's (vtec and non-vtec) and 100lbs off of the GSR, Si, and Del Sol. I think that would certainly help all of them be more competitive. Would any of them be closer to a podium at the ARRC? Hmmmm, I don't know about that. But, it's closer.

That list of GAC classifications is interesting too. Take the ITR vs. the RSX-S for example. The ITR had infinite development and was the ruler of the class for years, but was a highly strung, no torque 1.8L. Nowadays it is given a 100lb advantage over the RSX-S, a car with a notoriously worse suspension design but with 15 more hp stock and more torque. Yet for how much better the ITR's suspension and brakes were, the RSX-S still runs circles around it now. That increase in torque and width of powerband has to be worth a lot! That doesn't even add in if one was a RWD car, but you can see how much more weight those cars are carrying.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Scott,

With no data to suport either side (you or me), you won't convince me that 50lbs off of the GS-R will make a difference. Heck, there is probably that much difference in individual cars - and that doesn't bring it from an also-ran to a viable choice. I just don't buy a 1.8% decrease in weight can do that. Sorry.

I have been looking at other series to see how they do it as well. The flaw in the GAC example is that the prep level is not the same for cars within the same class. The tire and wheel sizes vary by model, cars have RP's, limits to intakes, special trannies, special suspension componentry. It would be impossible to understand what is going on in that classification system without being intimate with it. Cam gears are open for goodness sake. Lots of rules "With the permission of GAC" which are unseen at first look.

Let me ask this. Let's say we had a GSR-powered 2nd gen RX-7 vs. a GS-R. You tell me how you would apply the adders? What would the difference in weight be?

[Catch22]

Andy,
Good question.

The GSR Powered RX7 does two things significantly better:
1. Transfer weigh to the drive wheels.
2. Brake.

All other things equal, thats 75 to 100lbs in my mind.

As for Grand Am, I realize its not apples to apples with IT rules, which is why I noted that its "close."
BUT... The weight gaps are HUGE. H U G E!!!! Between the Front and Rear WD classifications.
And again, they have managed to equalize competition between those layouts quite well.

I also noticed that the notoriously torque challenged RX8 is the lightest of the RWD cars.
Seems like they are answering some of the questions we are asking here. And they are saying that low TQ and FWD = Less Weight regardless of peak horsepower.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,
Good question.

The GSR Powered RX7 does two things significantly better:
1. Transfer weigh to the drive wheels.
2. Brake.

All other things equal, thats 75 to 100lbs in my mind.

As for Grand Am, I realize its not apples to apples with IT rules, which is why I noted that its "close."
BUT... The weight gaps are HUGE. H U G E!!!! Between the Front and Rear WD classifications.
And again, they have managed to equalize competition between those layouts quite well.

I also noticed that the notoriously torque challenged RX8 is the lightest of the RWD cars.
Seems like they are answering some of the questions we are asking here. And they are saying that low TQ and FWD = Less Weight regardless of peak horsepower. [/b]

OK, good points. Not sure how we can use them, but good points non the less.

So the Teg should be less weight. If we use your 75lbs, factor in the motor difference, here you go.

170*1.25*12.9 = 2741 - 75 = 2666. GS-R currently classed at 2690. Off by 22lbs (or 49lbs if you use 100)
160*1.3*12.9 = 2683. RX-7 currently classed at 2680.

So is it THAT broken?

[Catch22]

OK, good points. Not sure how we can use them, but good points non the less.

So the Teg should be less weight. If we use your 75lbs, factor in the motor difference, here you go.

170*1.25*12.9 = 2741 - 75 = 2666. GS-R currently classed at 2690. Off by 22lbs (or 49lbs if you use 100)
160*1.3*12.9 = 2683. RX-7 currently classed at 2680.

So is it THAT broken?
[/b]

My answer is basically that WHATEVER the RX7 weighs, the GSR needs to be 75 to 100lbs lighter due to braking and weight transfer advantages enjoyed by the RX7.
So if the "process" says its only 17lbs (2683-2666), then my answer is "Yes Andy, something is broken."

[Andy Bettencourt]

My answer is basically that WHATEVER the RX7 weighs, the GSR needs to be 75 to 100lbs lighter due to braking and weight transfer advantages enjoyed by the RX7.
So if the "process" says its only 17lbs (2683-2666), then my answer is "Yes Andy, something is broken."


[/b]

So you want to take power out of it. Until someone proves it can't make 25% more than 170, we can't do that. And maybe at those HP levels, the brakes become the limiting factor and it just isn't a good racecar. You can't use weight to eliminate a weekness without taking into account the remaining strengths.



Lat call on this one from me? 50lbs doesn't turn crap to gold, the combination of strengths and weeknesses may make this a poor choice for a racecar - and one that can't be compensated for 'evenly', and the current consideration for FWD in ITS needs to be examined a little closer.



I will make sure the ITAC talks about the last one.



AB

[stevel]

So you want to take power out of it. Until someone proves it can't make 25% more than 170, we can't do that.
[/b]

25% over stock rated crank hp. No way. I think that's where the hole in the formula is for this car. I figure 20% at most. Try the formula with that number. Also, keep in mind when comparing crank and wheel hp number, honda/acuras only lose about 12% from the drivetrain. At least in my experience.

steve

[Catch22]

So you want to take power out of it. Until someone proves it can't make 25% more than 170, we can't do that. And maybe at those HP levels, the brakes become the limiting factor and it just isn't a good racecar. You can't use weight to eliminate a weekness without taking into account the remaining strengths.



Lat call on this one from me? 50lbs doesn't turn crap to gold, the combination of strengths and weeknesses may make this a poor choice for a racecar - and one that can't be compensated for 'evenly', and the current consideration for FWD in ITS needs to be examined a little closer.



I will make sure the ITAC talks about the last one.



AB
[/b]

So if I'm understanding you Andy (and maybe I'm not)...
We agree that the GSR is currently not up to task with the RX7 (do we? I think we do.)
We agree that a 180lb driver needs to put over 100lbs of ballast in his GSR
We agree that currently the GSR is probably not a good race car due to the "combination of strengths and weaknesses."

And this is where I get lost.
Why can't we take some of that lead out?
Why would we be willing to just write some of these cars off as "not good racecars" when they have a handicap bolted right to the floor?

That makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

[lateapex911]

here's what i suggest.

Write a letter describing what you preceive as a flaw in the process.

But don't just include one manufacturers product. Look at the big picture and propose where the process gets it wrong.

Not enough "credit" for FWD at the higher HP levels seen in ITS?
Not enough credit for low torque but high strung motors?
Not enough credit for less than ideal brakes for ITS cars?

If it's looked at from a procedural view, the chance of changes is better, in my opinion.

Remember that the ITAC must use max examples as data points. If ONE guy in the country has figured out how to get an extra 10 hp and 10 ft lbs of tq out of a Washby Super Fly, then thats the standard that everyone has to hit, whether he chooses to reveal his trick or not. So accept that the data points in the process will be the extreme.

Feel free to use a few cars as data points, but if it's written to ask for a weight break for one car, it's technically a comp adjustment, and thats a dirty word, right Kirk?

[Andy Bettencourt]

25% over stock rated crank hp. No way. I think that's where the hole in the formula is for this car. I figure 20% at most. Try the formula with that number. Also, keep in mind when comparing crank and wheel hp number, honda/acuras only lose about 12% from the drivetrain. At least in my experience.

steve
[/b]

Based on what? Even conservative Serra quotes show 25% is very possible.

So if I'm understanding you Andy (and maybe I'm not)...
We agree that the GSR is currently not up to task with the RX7 (do we? I think we do.)[/b]

Until I see one that is maxed, I can't answer the question. I believe that you are underestimating power potential at a 100% build.

We agree that a 180lb driver needs to put over 100lbs of ballast in his GSR[/b]

So? A 180lb drive has to put 100lbs of ballast in his RX-7 too.

We agree that currently the GSR is probably not a good race car due to the "combination of strengths and weaknesses."[/b]

What I am saying here is that if you make it light enough to 'offset' the torque and brake problems you have, the power potential of the car shatters the 'process'. In some cases, you have to take the good with the bad and the sum may not be what you want.

Why can't we take some of that lead out?
Why would we be willing to just write some of these cars off as "not good racecars" when they have a handicap bolted right to the floor?

That makes absolutely no sense to me at all.
[/b]

Because the CRB is not in the business of trying to make every car competitive, that is Prod. The process may be flawed but until a 100% effort shows that the process is wrong, we are stuck (frankly, we have first hand accounts from MSN that 25% is attainable - even at 12% loss. The only thing I will conceed is that more consideration needs to be given to FWD in ITS...and that means discussion, not weight. It may end up as weight but...

[charrbq]

Andy,
Comments section:

First, thanks for trying to make a difference and putting up with attacks to your effort. I understand that its a professional handicap.

Second, you're right...one of the first statement in the GCR deals with giving us a place to race our cars, but not guaranteeing them to be competitive.

Third, why do you repeatedly say not to include the ITS BMW in our posts? Is it because you're tired of talking about it, afraid of talking about it, or don't really know what to do about it? Or is that just dust being kicked up by the black helicopter?

Four, what business to SIR's have in IT? I can see it in pro racing, but isn't this the base level of club racing?

Five, why are competitive, semi-competitive, and non-competitive cars labored by unsafe ballast?

I'm sure I have more questions. Believe me, I'm not trying to attack you or any members of any committees concerning our classes and our sport, I just don't understand all that goes on, and I don't have time to read everything that's written on this forum. Plus, you always seem to be brave enough to wade into the swamp.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,
Comments section:

First, thanks for trying to make a difference and putting up with attacks to your effort. I understand that its a professional handicap.[/b]

No problem. We wouldn't be out here if we didn;t have thick skin. Tough questions are fine.

Second, you're right...one of the first statement in the GCR deals with giving us a place to race our cars, but not guaranteeing them to be competitive.[/b]

And to be more specific, we want to have a system that allows everything that runs through it a reasonable chance but we understand the cream will always rise to the top. A very peaky car with excellent HP potential and 'smallish' brakes may never be able to 'fit' into ITS as it is currently made up.

Third, why do you repeatedly say not to include the ITS BMW in our posts? Is it because you're tired of talking about it, afraid of talking about it, or don't really know what to do about it? Or is that just dust being kicked up by the black helicopter?[/b]

LOL. The problem some people have is that they compare 'their' car to the E36 and say "WTF?". That car is an anomoly and the CRB is adressing the problem. You guys have been great but I try and make sure it doesn't go that route.

Four, what business to SIR's have in IT? I can see it in pro racing, but isn't this the base level of club racing?[/b]

That is a question better asked of the CRB. I am personally against SIR's in IT.

Five, why are competitive, semi-competitive, and non-competitive cars labored by unsafe ballast?[/b]

Can you site any instances where a properly installed ballast (in a sound, rust-free car) has harmed anyone? While I understand the concern, I think the rules are written in such a way so that you can mount it safely. What proof do you have to use the word 'unsafe'? Mounting plates can be installed, loads can be spread out and you can mount with a ton of fasteners.

Plus, you always seem to be brave enough to wade into the swamp.

[/b]

Most would call me stupid.

[Bob Roth]

Say, I agree that the ITAC shouldn't make the front of the class run so much ballast that even the back of the class is competitive. I don't believe anybody in this string has suggested that. Instead what is being asked is why the are Integras, civics and del sols being ballasted when there is every evidence that they are not equals to the front of the class. On what basis, I will be glad to collect the data availabile out of the GCR but there are several areas that as an engineer I believe are worth discussion and verification.

1) Weight balance (FWD is 60% or more front wheels) thus they work harder. I bet there are a good number of the ITS rear drive with 50 50 weight balance. Something not so common in the lower classes.
2) Brakes - These heavy cars are asking a lot more of their brakes. Wheras a 2500 to 2600 pound honda has 259 mm brakes, a quick eyeball of 2560 pound porsche 2.5 liter 944= 283mm. The Z cars 272mm, 91 - Mazda RX7 277mm. That doesn;t sound right.
3) Hp - The honda's VTEC's do not gain a lot of Hp like some cars do. Also, their Hp with VTEC is very peaky. Like a 19% power drop with each shift minimum. Any assumption that a 1.6 vtec is the equal of a to a 2.5 liter 8 valve porsche doesn't sound right also.

Perhaps the formula works in the lower classes because the lower power and speed on nearly same tires and brakes doesn't show the differences. Also there is a pretty small displacement difference in those classes whereas in ITS, we are running against cars with 50% more displacement. We all pretty mich shrugged in the past, but now that you are making us run ballast too, yes, I guess we will start talking about weight.

Finally, why is the TSX competitive? I don't know, perhaps he has a 50/50 weight balance, he runs huge aftermarket brakes, and he is running a 2.4 liter engine. Give me front drive, 50/50 weight, the same brakes as a porsche, a 160 hp 2.4 liter motor and at 2580 pounds I will stop whining. Oh that would be a 2.5 liter porsche at 20 pounds overwheight. hmmm.

got any takers?

[charrbq]

Dear "Stupid",
Sorry, couldn't resist. I suppose the use of the term unsafe comes from being bombarded by it from working in the chemical industry. What you say about mounting ballast properly is true, but in the real world, I've seen cars come up to the grid (when I work it) that flat scare me. The red mist seems to give them different ideas of what's safe and what's legal. I won't critisize tech inspectors...it's not a good approach. I've been given crap by some, help by others...such is the human race. I will say, that every time I see something funny on the grid, I get on the radio, call tech, and a steward and tech inspector answer either physically or on the radio to my question.
But I don't work grid all that often, and a lot of guys do as little as they think they can get by with when it comes to ballast. The addition of 100 lbs of whatever kind of ballast they decide to use bolted to the floor board in some sort of fashion that gets by an over worked and sometimes under trained tech inspector can be amazing.
If a guy doesn't do the job right, safe, or whatever, and the stuff comes loose for whatever reason...cheese and rice....do we say that we maybe should've paid more attention to the rules, or do we say that he was aware of the rules and chose not to adhere to them?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bob,

The weights of newly classified cars (and recent changes of weights) are not based on on-track performance. The reasons for which have been written many times. It's about the 'process' - half formula and half subjective accounting for different physical characteristics as compared to the cars in the class.

It doesn't matter how the Del Sol has done or how light they can get. What matters is the power potential * ITS targets + subjective 'subtractors' (in this case). We have agreed to disagree on how much FWD needs to 'take away' from ITS. And stop on the brakes. I wrote earlier that I quickly found 10+ cars that weighed more with smaller brakes in ITS. Perfect? No, but hardly a deal breaker. The power? You can almost overlay the RX-7 and GSR dyno sheets on each other. That ain't the problem.

If you want to piece the best car together, go ahead and run ITE. We all have to look at the strengths and weeknesses of our cars and decide if they are right for us. Sounds like you should be in a 944.

Signed,

"Stupid"

[Bob Roth]

Say, who here is on ITAC and who here is a not. I have been respectful, have tried to discuss this with the limited facts I have, and have tried to call out an obvious sore thumb in your formula which interprets a no torque, front drive, small brakes 60/40 weight distribution Del Sol or Civic Si needs to run more weight than a 50/50 great brakes 2.5 liter porsche. Yes, under these changes, I will have to run Ballast.

I will run my Del Sol VTEC, and I will respectfully point out that it belongs in ITA where it with front drive at 2580 pounds 10.2 compression, 1.6 liters, and 262/239 f/r brakes, can can run against a NX2000 which is 2515 pound , 2.0 liter, 9.5 compression, having 257/234 brakes. Why? Both are front drive, the NX is lighter, slightly smaller front brakes and has 25% more displacement. Sounds pretty equal to me. PS, don't lecture me about having the feared wishbone suspension. Struts havent hurt mazda's, bmw's or porsches.

Racing in ITA seems a lot better match than racing in ITS against a rear drive, probably 50/50 weight distribution Mazda or Porsche, with either 277 or 283 mm brakes. Yes, send me a mazda dyno curve and I will probably agree that the RX-7 has no more power than a acura or honda. Guess what, all that means is that if you put your engine in my Del Sol, it will still be underclassed whereas the mazda will still not be.

There seems to be a lot of people here privy to the ITS targets. Please enlighten me then and provide how exactly did you arrive at the weights and classification of

ITS - Porsche 944 2.5 liter , - 2575 lb - 283/289 brakes rear drive
ITS - 85Mazda 13b - 2360 pounds - 250/256 brakes rear drive
ITS - '99 Acura GSR 1.8 liter- 2690 pounds - 262/239 brakes Front drive
ITS - '95 Del Sol VTEC 1.6 liter- 2580 pounds - 262/239 brakes Front drive

ITA - Nissan 240 SX 2.4 liter- 2630 pounds - 252/258 brakes rear drive
ITA - Nissan NX2000 2.0 liter- 2515 pounds - 257/234 brakes Front drive
ITA - 99 Acura GS - 1.8 liter- 2620 pounds - 262/239 brakes Front drive

Then I would like to look at torque curves across 1.3 times the worse of 3/4 or 4/5 shift ratio because the torque curve means more than the 10 seconds a lap that my car is at its feared 160 hp peak. If you look at this, the Del Sol VTEC ties for worst on the list with the 99 acura GS. Oh well at least he's in ITA.

If I and other Honda fwd are going to have to run ballast in ITS while lighter, better braked, much better torque, better weight ballance cars do not, if you are on the committee, please give me the data. If you want to take it off line, fine and I will keep this off the forum. But if you are going to add 220 pounds to my car while taking almost an equal weight from others, I as a loyal member of SCCA and a long term competitor in IT, would like to understand the with facts.

Several coments seemed to be expressed that "honda has their class, its ITA". Fine, bump me to ITA at 2580 and I will run against the NX2000 and 240 SX. PS please don't say, we can't because there aren't any Del Sol VTEC's out there. When's the last time you have seen a NX2000 and 240 SX's on the street.

I will be glad to discuss directly with the committee how these classifications may be more fairly adjusted. And let me say again, I never had a gripe with running in ITS until three weeks ago when the committee added 220 pounds to my car while taking 140 pounds out of the porsche and the other front runners so that my car ended up at 2580 while the Porsche is at 2575. Show me the calculations that my show that FWD, bad weight balance, small brakes and no torque is the fast lane to winning, or I will have to conclude its a voice vote and honda is not invited to ITS. If thats the case, put me in ITA at 2580. Nuff said. Pls advise who is on the committee, lets talk data, and we ITS Honda guys (if there are any left) will take it off line if you want. [email protected].

ps, ITS Honda guys, drop me an email and we will pool our knowledge.

tks
bob