Del Sol VTEC - Please Contact me

[JeffYoung]

I think what Andy is saying is that some of the weights for IT cars were classified, initially, incorrectly, and this has now been fixed. The fixes are not PCAs because they are not based on performance, at all, nada, nilch, zilch, nippo, zippo. I also think (Andy, correct me if I am wrong) that some cars were not run through the process because the ITAC was not aware of any of them being raced -- there are limits to people's time (and yes, I am aware of the Butler's 3.0 Milano here in NC).

That's the answer for whether this was all a PCA or not.

Now, can a BMW driver please defend 2850 for me, using the process that has been used to set the weight for all other IT cars except for orphans that are not typically being run?

Thanks.

Jeff

[GKR_17]

The way I read it, PCA's allow a change to the weight or classification of a car at any time in it's life in the interest of class equity. Within 4 years it's allowed and after 4 years it's allowed - albiet on rare occasion. This revision has only happened once - rare?

Could this not be considered a PCA-based move with individual class equity in mind as well as category-wide equity?[/b]

Andy,

The way I read the rule, all of the language is singular, looking at each car individually; it is a big stretch to apply it to a large number of vehicles. The PCA process is there to fix problems caused by newly classed vehicles, I don't think there was any intent to allow large scale changes like these.

To be honest, I'd have a lot less problem with this 'correction' if I had confidence that it is rare. There were a few extra (overlooked) vehicles last month. What about later on? The limitations on the PCA process provide the competitor some stability, giving confidence that the factors used when selecting a vehicle won't be changed.

I currently drive and E36. Our team is sorting out our options now that we have the SIR. We have seriously considered moving on to another car (or away from IT all together). Several of the cars that look good to us appear to be between 100 and 300 pounds underweight per the 'process'. I'd like to know that they aren't going to be corrected later on if/when they prove to be fast.

I'm hearing two stories here. One says all cars have now been through the process, the other says that some aren't raced enough to be reevaluated. In the second case, more cars will be corrected, but only after some poor guy has spent a lot of time and money. I'd rather kill this correction now, than risk further changes in the future.


Jeff,

I don't think anyone should have to defend the BMW's weight at 2850. There was a method used to determine that weight, and I can only assume it was applied universally. I won't argue that I didn't think it was the best car for the class (pre SIR), that's the reason I drive one!

Now we have something new, and it says what it does.

I would think you'd be leading the charge to get the odd-balls run through the 'process'. Do you realize that before adders, the TR8 is roughly 400 pounds heavy right now?

Grafton

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'm hearing two stories here. One says all cars have now been through the process, the other says that some aren't raced enough to be reevaluated. In the second case, more cars will be corrected, but only after some poor guy has spent a lot of time and money. I'd rather kill this correction now, than risk further changes in the future.
*******************************

I would think you'd be leading the charge to get the odd-balls run through the 'process'. Do you realize that before adders, the TR8 is roughly 400 pounds heavy right now?

Grafton


[/b]

G,

We have gone over and over the details on the correction. Try a search and if you can't find it, drop me a PM and I will give you the details.

If *I* were looking to build a new car, and thought I had found one with an advantage, I would ask the ITAC if it had been through the process. If it had, I would feel confident that it was solid. All we want is for the cars to be set using the same 'set of tools'. The cream will rise to the top.

Like the TR8, there are plenty of cars where you have to look deaper at in orderto estimate the power potential. How about the 110stock hp Buick Skyhawk in ITA? 3.8l V6, unknown amount of smog stuff chocking it down, huge engine and torque potential - yet a solid axle and nobody running them. No need to endanger the competitive balance of ITA/ITB by forcing the car through the process with weird specs and little knowledge. High risk, low reward.

You REALLY think that there was a 'system' for doing weight as little as 3-4 years ago? The same 'system' that had 134hp VW Golfs and 140hp Sentra SE-R's in ITS? That is a little disingenuous. Take a casual look at the ITS classifications in 03-04, you think there is/was any rhyme or reason?

We are just establishing a real ground-zero to build from. All I can tell you is that one of the reasons PCA's are there is to be able to correct a car that is outside the scope of a class's envelope - regardless of the timing. Applying them one-by one 50 times in a row is seemingly the same as applying them once for 50 cars. It's a baseline where none has existed before. I understand your read of the 'intent' of the rule but people only play that card when they figure out they haven't been reading it the same as everyone else....happened with pistons and SB's ealier this year.

[JeffYoung]

Grafton, I appreciate your honesty -- the BMW was probably teh best car in class pre-SIR, and that was a problem.

The problem as I understand it (you have been doing this a lot longer than me) is that pre the latest go around with the process, cars were classed haphazardly based on what could be obtained (looking at curb weight) and some rough estimate of their potential. This lead to some mistakes.

The BMW obviously is one. I would like a rational discussion of why a car that everyone acknowledges can make 195 whp, and which credible sources put far above that, should be classed at 300 to 400 under its process weight.

I have a lot of sympathy for the BMW guys on the idea of the SIR, and the timing of it. I don't think there was any intention to do you guys wrong, but it worked out that (especially timing). Somethings that were promised abou the SIR weren't true and the CRB went against the ITAC's recommendation to add weight.

Where I don't have any sympathy is where you guys seem to think the "answer" should be the status quo when, putting results aside, the objective numbers show the BMW (already one of the best chassis in ITS) to be several hundred lbs light via the "process."

My car is a poor example for the process -- one of a few -- because (1) it makes stock torque far in excess of the stock hp, which the process does not objectively account for and (2) it probably has as high of an IT prep gain as any car out there, save yours. I just can't drive the damn thing yet, and I still don't have the motor developed as well as I should. It is making 157 whp and 195 wtq now, and there is a LOT to be done to it. At 2560, that is getting close to competitive. At 175 whp, it is very competitive, and I am pretty sure 175 will be fairly easy to get.

I am actually concerned that the process might class my car light. But that's not for this thread.

Can you justify the car at 2850 and 195-210 whp in ITS?

[e36its]

Where I don't have any sympathy is where you guys seem to think the "answer" should be the status quo when, putting results aside, the objective numbers show the BMW (already one of the best chassis in ITS) to be several hundred lbs light via the "process."
(snip)
Can you justify the car at 2850 and 195-210 whp in ITS?
[/b]

No.... and I've never tried to justify the car at that weight. Me personally, I can see the rationale and data for an adjustment. What I've had a problem with is the proposed (now implemented) solution to the problem. I think it's possible to advocate AGAINST the proposed remedy without advocated FOR the status quo, isn't it?

tom
(in a Honda thread no less!)

[GKR_17]

Think of it this way. you looked at the rules, picked a car you knew was an overdog. Now....you're crying foul and asking everything be reversed. But what if, another car was added to ITS...say the E46 at say 2750. What would you say then?[/b]

As much as I hate it, the E36 PCA is legit. I'm not complaining about that one here. The others however, do not meet the requirements in the GCR. If a newly classed car proves too fast (based on on track performance), then the PCA definitely applies.

My apologies to the Honda crowd for hijacking this thread. My only intent here was to rally support from some others who don't want illegitimate weight added to their cars.

Over and out.

Grafton

[JeffYoung]

Tom, Grafton, I think we agree completely. SIR bad. Weight, if done properly, ok.

You are right, I have hijacked this. Sorry guys.

Jeff

[Bob Roth]

In July 2000, my '95 Del Sol was issued a ITS logbook and was raced in ITS. How can it then 6 years later have its weight adjusted? Isn't the only weight adjustment allowed a performance competition adjustment?

If this was a PCA, the ITCS as quoted below allows PCA's based only upon actual racing performance. Is there evidence is there that a Del Sol has ever won in ITS, much less than dominate its class like the E36 has in order to justify a weight adjustment?

My point is the '95 Del Sol has had 220 pounds added to its minimum weight. It got its ITS logbook in 2000 so it seems like a PCA. No body of evidence showing "on track performance" has been shown that justifies it. So what within the ITCS empowered this change? The quoted section of the rule is below.

thanks
bob


"On rare occasion—and only after careful review of the actual racing
performance of a particular make/model/year of vehicle—the Club may
reclassify a vehicle, revise a vehicle’s minimum allowable weight, and/or
in the most extreme situation an intake restrictor may be required. Such
an action shall be taken solely for the purpose of restoring equity within
the vehicle’s class."

[GKR_17]

My point is the '95 Del Sol has had 220 pounds added to its minimum weight. It got its ITS logbook in 2000 so it seems like a PCA. No body of evidence showing "on track performance" has been shown that justifies it. So what within the ITCS empowered this change?
[/b]

You've got it exactly right Bob. I'd suggest a letter or email to the Club Racing Board with those same comments. Hopefully they will follow the GCR.

Now to convince the ITA Honda and Acura guys to do the same. I doubt many of the guys who lost weight will be complaining.

Grafton

[Bob Roth]

Can somebody advise the email for the Club Racing Board?
Also, if somebody has the reason within the ITCS that this is allowed, feel free to explain.
tks

bob

[GKR_17]

see: http://www.scca.com/Inside/Index.asp?IdS=0...90&x=080|070&~=

[timmyc]

bob roth
timmy chapman here . i just built a 99 civic si and in the same boat as you are.food for thought,if you built the car to the exiting gcr rules,the cage is now illeagal with the addition of 220lbs.that was probably not factored into the "process".if the pca process is implemented correctly and according to the gcr,how do you follow the rule for building a safe racecar, as far as determining the roll cage tubing size
timmy chapman

[seckerich]

bob roth
timmy chapman here . i just built a 99 civic si and in the same boat as you are.food for thought,if you built the car to the exiting gcr rules,the cage is now illeagal with the addition of 220lbs.that was probably not factored into the "process".if the pca process is implemented correctly and according to the gcr,how do you follow the rule for building a safe racecar, as far as determining the roll cage tubing size
timmy chapman
[/b]

You might want to go back and reread the roll cage specs. Your tube size is determined by the spec weight of the car MINUS driver (180#) so you are still very legal at the new weight I believe. Fat but safe.

[raceworks]

Bob,

In response to your original question WAAAAAY back on page 1:

I was one of the first ones to run a Del Sol in ITS (since I was the one that got it classified). It's been a while since we ran the car in ITS spec (2003 or so), but here's what I recall off the top of my head:

In IT trim, the car weighed around 2,500# w/driver depending on fuel load. Other than it's brief pro career, the car was mostly run at Road Atlanta in ITS races. With a few modifications (lighter shocks & wheels, 0.95 instead of 1.20 wall tubing in the cage), the weight might get down to around 2,450 in IT trim. A Civic Si may actually get closer to 2,350, since in my experience the regular civics are usually 100# or so lighter than the Del Sols.

The fastest lap time we got was a 1:45.6, and the best result we had was qualifying 4th in the rain.

Mike Cottrell did a little better with one at RA, if I remember correctly he's gotten at least one podium finish and lapped about a second faster.

After 2003 we converted the car to NASA H1 specifications, becuase as an IT car the Del Sol had no torque and it was very easy to fry the front brakes (even with ducting) after about 15 minutes or so of running flat-out. The more open rules allowed us brake upgrades, extensive lightening, and more horsepower (via putting an Integra TYpe R drivetrain in the car).

If you've built a Del Sol for ITS, I apologize, since it really is my fault. The only weay you are ever going to win is if it rains, or nobody shows up, or an eartquake or tornado swallows up the top six. Realistically, a Del VTEC or a Civic Si would make failry competetive ITA cars, but SCCA has VTEC-phobia (in spite of not a single VTEC-powered car dominating anywhere that I know of).

Your best bet with the Del Sol VTEC is to either race NASA, convert it to production or ITA specs, or sell it to someone to use as a track-day or school car.



Some general notes of interest and things to consider for FWD cars in ITS:

1) As has been stated before, high horsepower is a big handicap with FWD. When we first put a type R engine in, and went from less than 160hp at the wheels to 198, it took a year of development just to get back down to ITS times with the car. We ended up re-doing everythinig (spring rates, sway bars, and shocks).

2) There does need to be some re-thinking about the horsepower formula with the VTEC engines, particularly the 1.6. In ITS trim we used to get beat down the back straight by top-prepped CRX's, and utterly destroyed by the RX-7's, 240's, & 325's. Even with some of the R&D we've made since converting our car, you'd still be hard-pressed to beat a well-prepped ITA CRX or Integra. I'll have to look through my records, but I recall about 158 HP & 105 fl-lb out of the ITS motor.

The best numbers I've ever been able to get out of a B16 are 192 hp at the wheels & 125 ft-lb of torque, and that was with a World-Challenge spec motor with a host of extremely illegal-for-IT modifications (ported head, aftermarket cams & cam gears, extrude-honed manifold, forged pistons, lightened crankshaft, & aluminum flywheel). Even then the torque dropped off fairly quickly, and the peak horsepower wasn't until 9,400 rpm.

[Bob Roth]

Thanks, great comments. It kind of makes one wonder why a car 6 years after its listing would get a +220 pound weight add competition adjustment whan nobody runs it and nobody is successful with it. I will be asking the competition board to explain this.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Thanks, great comments. It kind of makes one wonder why a car 6 years after its listing would get a +220 pound weight add competition adjustment whan nobody runs it and nobody is successful with it. I will be asking the competition board to explain this. [/b]

Bob,

I don't know what else to tell you. The first page of this thread gave you the explanation. It's not a comp adjustment.

You may not agreee with it, but it was part of a shift to restore category-wide equity. I will tell you that I am looking hard at changing the 'adders' for FWD in ITS to reflect, what most pereceive to be, not enough 'allowance' for the difficiency in design. Initial modeling would show lower weights for most FWD cars in ITS. If you want to write something that will get you somewhere, as for a serious look at more consiederation for FWD in ITS.

AB

[lateapex911]

Might toss in some comments about the weighting of torque in that letter too.....

[Bob Roth]

Heres some race results. I ran at Blackhawk last week against avery good second gen RX-7. Richard Walke Ex firehawk car, original owner. He ran 1:20s in qualifying, thought he set a new lap record. 2680 pounds minimum.

I have run about 90 races at blackhawk The last time I ran there in a CRX at 2180 pounds I turned a 1:23.6. (about a second off of lap record.) My Del Sol, which now weights with ballast 2612. My best qualifying was 1:24.48 and best race was 1:24.60. I ended up being beat by two Spec Miata's - One who's best race time was mid 23's and the other was mid 24's.

I got the jump on the Miata’s at the start and could hold off the miata’s for a while but within 5 laps I was passed by the one and by 15 laps I was passed by the other because my tires were going off and I had concerns about serious abusing the brakes for a half hour. And this was a race at 70 degrees in april. Its going to be a lot worse when it gets hot.

My car ended the race at 2612 pounds with a weight balance 63% front 37% back. In comparing the Del Sol to my ‘88 CRX, the Del Sol is marginally quicker down the straight but I give most of the speed back in Blackhawk turns 1, 6 and 7. In a CRX Si, using the same tires, I can run even with most Miata’s through those turns turns at blackhawk, not in a Del Sol.

Here is the problem,

1) In my CRX the front weight was about 1450 pounds. In a Del Sol, the front weight 1640 pounds. As a result, in the same speeds that the CRX can drive through a turn, the Del Sol washes out the front end. When I go into a turn, the best strategy is trail brake it in and scrub (have the front and back end slide) through the apex and get on it as soon as possible which is about the outside edge of the track. The problem with this is three fold.

a)I am scrubbing off a lot of speed compared to a lighter CRX I can’t put power down until the turn’s exit. Whereas on a CRX, I am floored from the apex on.
c)All this sliding the front end kills the front tires

2)My Del Sol has a 63%/37% FR weight balance. This 1650 pounds on the front tires causes 2 problems.

a)The front end weighs a lot more than comparable rear drive IT cars. For example, the RX-7 I was racing against might weigh 2700 pounds with a 55/45 weight balance. That’s 1485 pounds on the front tires which is comparable to my CRX at its old un ballasted weight. A 1:20 time is no surprise then when it pulls like or better than my Del Sol down the straight but brakes like a miata (50/50 weight balance) and turns like a CRX in the turns.

b)It also limits the amount of braking I can do. If I make some hard braking, it locks up the rear and tries to swap ends especially under trail braking. Granted, I can try biasing more brakes to the front but as I mentioned before, I ran out of fronts before the end of the session.

The bottom line is that any set of rules that puts a Porsche 944 with a 50/50 weight balance or a RX-7 with a 55/45 (my guess) weight balance as the same as a 63/37% Honda front drive Honda may need som re-thinking. This is the gist of what I will be communicating to the ITAC

bob

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bob,

I have written - and deleted about 3 responses to your post realizing that there isn't much more to say that hasn't already been posted.

Bottom line for you? I have been working on developing new 'standards' for the allowance made for FWD in ITS. In ITC, ITB and ITA; the realative lack of power makes our process work well. In ITS, it seems as if there is something else on the table. While individual reace results are impossible to use, the trends have shown that no FWD car in ITS is considered when you talk about 'what to race in ITS'.

My proposal is before the ITAC now and would result in many (not all) FWD cars in ITS losing weight under a revised 'process' should it make it's way past the ad-hoc and then the CRB.

If this is something that you think is a good idea, send in your support or conversly, if you think FWD cars in ITS are just fine where they are, send it a letter of opposition.

Something like:

"It is my understanding that the ITAC is considering changing the 'adders' applied to FWD cars in ITS to more appropriately class and reclass cars in this perfomance envelope. If these new considerations result in lower weights for some FWD cars, I would support (or not support) this thought process......."

Blah Blah Blah

AB

[SPiFF]

While individual reace results are impossible to use, the trends have shown that no FWD car in ITS is considered when you talk about 'what to race in ITS'.

My proposal is before the ITAC now and would result in many (not all) FWD cars in ITS losing weight under a revised 'process' should it make it's way past the ad-hoc and then the CRB.[/b]

Andy,

Thanks for the hard work. You really are a breath of fresh air for this club. I have been turned off many times by the lack of progress and red tape in IT. I hope this and the ITR proposal move forward.

If this is something that you think is a good idea, send in your support or conversly, if you think FWD cars in ITS are just fine where they are, send it a letter of opposition.

Something like:

"It is my understanding that the ITAC is considering changing the 'adders' applied to FWD cars in ITS to more appropriately class and reclass cars in this perfomance envelope. If these new considerations result in lower weights for some FWD cars, I would support (or not support) this thought process......."

Blah Blah Blah

AB
[/b]

Where should we send the letters of support? [email protected]?

Thanks!