CRX - is it still competitive?

[lateapex911]

* the CRX in ITA was given a wait penalty 8 years ago by SCCA , so this is the second weight adjustement.
[/b]

Huh? Refresh my memory...that was '98..what was the previous weight and why the change??

* SCCA loves Mazda, don't waste time on asking them 50lbs for the crx they will never do it soon they will have a Miata in every class in SCCA
[/b]

Oh puleeeze...the CRX is in 8 classes from Prod to GT to IT. And it's just a little old for SS, but SS is loaded with Hondacura products. The Miata? 8 classes fro IT to GT, plus Spec Miata.

I lost count of all the Civic variants in IT alone. SCCA has classed more Hondas than you can shake a stick at.

[ltblouis]

Huh? Refresh my memory...that was '98..what was the previous weight and why the change??
Oh puleeeze...the CRX is in 8 classes from Prod to GT to IT. And it's just a little old for SS, but SS is loaded with Hondacura products. The Miata? 8 classes fro IT to GT, plus Spec Miata.


I lost count of all the Civic variants in IT alone. SCCA has classed more Hondas than you can shake a stick at.
[/b]

This is why I never post on this forum, you guys has nothing to do but to fight each other.
If you read my post you will see that I am not against the weight increase.
I only stated known facts and yes they increase the crx back in 1998 just to please the mazda Rx7 people and that never worked either, I only was posting a fact, just don't forget back 4 to 7 years ago when ITA was dead becasue the RX7 guys was not happy with the CRx and they decided to start their own IT7, that was SCCA big mistake and they should have even up the field back in those days not now.
Now for the Mazda and SCCA issue I will take one example: the crx si 2nd gen model and the Miata 1.6 in production class alone and we will find the crx only in EP but the Miata 1.6 is listed in EP and FP, do you consider that fair???
Your comment on loosing count of Civic variants in IT alone is a joke, how many size and type in civic variant is in that class at least 4 you can not be serious about your comment when the civic has been produced for over 25 years with many different type and engines.

I blame SCCA for all these issues, the old SCCA not the new one. The old SCCA never addressed the issue of keeping all class even they should not let the IT7 class be formed they should have fixed the crx weight back in the old days or gave the rx7 less weight to keep them in ITA or actually keep them running in ITA, Andy and the others are doing geat job now and they have issues to fix but work with them because at least they listen now not like the old days they change car from ITB to ITA and back to ITB !!!! oh I forgot that was a Honda to not a Mazda.

Again I am not fighting for the CRX I just posted some known facts.

[lateapex911]

Not picking a fight...but I have zero knowledge of any weight addition to the CRX since it's initial classing.

As far as I am concerned, it is not a known fact. I will research it.

[RSTPerformance]

Why is it that everyone cares so much about the "popular" cars and we forget about all the "unpopular" cars that are far less "competitive" than the ones we argue about here day in and day out??? - Thats an honest question... I think I am going to start arguments about the ITA Audi Coupe GT that knowone has ever bothered to build because it has absolutely no chance at winning in ITA.

first though I will complain about my current car, the ITB Audi Coupe. I think that the 1984 Audi Coupe in ITB needs a weight reduction.... It is a front heavy pig with VW rabbit hubs/bearings and even smaller brakes... The car "falls off" hard after 10 - 15 laps if I run at full tilt depending on the track. Since everyone referes to RA the car wont finish a race wihtout braking a hub or some other suspension componant if you run it at full tilt. Instead of a weight break can I get permision to just move the engine back behind the front wheels thus balancing the car a bit more to the rear?



THE CRX IS STILL COMPETITIVE... If you think it needs some sort of weight break write a letter, and if you think it should be classed in another class, then write a letter!!!



PS: ITBlouis- I noticed in your posts your comments from old SCCA to new SCCA... I am glad to see that someone else out their thinks that things are heading in the right direction. We can't change the past, but we sure can like the future!!!

Raymond 'wow that was fun" Blethen

[gran racing]

Ray, I soooo agree with you about the Audi needing a weight break! Lets write a petition to get about 100 lbs off the car. Oh, I'll even spring for the new "A"s you'll be needing.

[ltblouis]

Not picking a fight...but I have zero knowledge of any weight addition to the CRX since it's initial classing.

As far as I am concerned, it is not a known fact. I will research it.
[/b]

In 2000 Tom Fowler, Tim Meeks, Alex Muresan, Mike Cottrell, yours truly and many more requested to have the CRX returned to original weight of 1950 lbs from 2140( if I remember correct not sure about the weight ) all these letters sent and the reply that we got from SCCA saying was they don't do weight adjustements !!!! we asked for the weight to be reduced because of the famous 240sx of Bob Stretch that could not be beaten.
I know more about CRX than any of a lots of you guys so trust me on that one, I built 3 of them, Alex Muresan and I won the ECR championship in 2000 in one of them, I won the Pro It championship same year, finished second at the ARRC behind Fowler, won the SIC in 2000 and 1999 all in a 1988 crx si

Do your research or maybe Andy can help us to get an update on exactly what was the first original weight on the CRX when it was first put in ITA, I forgot the number but I am sure it will help all of us to remember the real story of the crx in ITA.

Again I like the current weight adjustement to even the field, my car was always around 2180 to 2190 and I never had problem with it, but my concern is that the CRX at this point with 2250 is heavier than the factory original car and maybe parts on it can not handle the load (they handled 2180 to 2200 but maybe 2250 is stretching it). That issue can get SCCA in a safety matter and would be an issue than need to address, you can not take a car designed and built around 2017 lbs and you add more weight to 2250, parts may fail and put the driver in danger.
SCCA should never let any car be heavier than factory weight for racing not only the crx but any other car, the engineers who built these cars are not stupid.
SCCA first concern should be safety not slowing down a car.

Louis Boustani

[Andy Bettencourt]

In 2000 Tom Fowler, Tim Meeks, Alex Muresan, Mike Cottrell, yours truly and many more requested to have the CRX returned to original weight of 1950 lbs from 2140( if I remember correct not sure about the weight ) all these letters sent and the reply that we got from SCCA saying was they don't do weight adjustements !!!! we asked for the weight to be reduced because of the famous 240sx of Bob Stretch that could not be beaten.
I know more about CRX than any of a lots of you guys so trust me on that one, I built 3 of them, Alex Muresan and I won the ECR championship in 2000 in one of them, I won the Pro It championship same year, finished second at the ARRC behind Fowler, won the SIC in 2000 and 1999 all in a 1988 crx si

Do your research or maybe Andy can help us to get an update on exactly what was the first original weight on the CRX when it was first put in ITA, I forgot the number but I am sure it will help all of us to remember the real story of the crx in ITA.

Again I like the current weight adjustement to even the field, my car was always around 2180 to 2190 and I never had problem with it, but my concern is that the CRX at this point with 2250 is heavier than the factory original car and maybe parts on it can not handle the load (they handled 2180 to 2200 but maybe 2250 is stretching it). That issue can get SCCA in a safety matter and would be an issue than need to address, you can not take a car designed and built around 2017 lbs and you add more weight to 2250, parts may fail and put the driver in danger.
SCCA should never let any car be heavier than factory weight for racing not only the crx but any other car, the engineers who built these cars are not stupid.
SCCA first concern should be safety not slowing down a car.

Louis Boustani

[/b]

Louie, Louie!

Jake has been in ITA for ever too so I will let him find out the original weights. (Wasn't this car in ITS at some point? Maybe that was the weight in that class...)

You get to choose now. 2250 in ITA or (for safety reasons ) 1800 in ITS (1620 without driver) !

The problem is that there are cars that are either going to be heavier than their curb weight in a lower class (like the DOHC Neon in ITA) or lighter than they could ever possibly get to in a higher class. What to do?

[MattP]

SCCA should never let any car be heavier than factory weight for racing not only the crx but any other car, the engineers who built these cars are not stupid.
[/b]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but my G-Stock 91 CRX Si (without driver, but with A/C and half a tank of gas) weighed 2180 lbs the last time I weighed it, and that's below the owner's manual number. It is mechanically the same as the earlier lighter Si's. Using the hypothetical 180lb driver, you could add quite a bit more weight to an ITA CRX before reaching the factory weight.

[Jake]

That issue can get SCCA in a safety matter and would be an issue than need to address, you can not take a car designed and built around 2017 lbs and you add more weight to 2250, parts may fail and put the driver in danger.
SCCA should never let any car be heavier than factory weight for racing not only the crx but any other car, the engineers who built these cars are not stupid.
[/b]

While I agree that the CRX was overly penalized, your argument is a bit silly. Is it unsafe to drive around with two people in a CRX Si? Because adding ttwo people to the 2017lb dry weight will get it to a weight that you think parts will fail. I agree, the engineers weren't stupid.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Curb weight on the CRX is 2174 (edmunds.com) so GVW should be significantly higher than 2250.

Jake - What data are you using to form your opinion that the CRX was 'over penalized'? (Even though we all know it was not a 'penalty&#39.

AB

[ltblouis]

While I agree that the CRX was overly penalized, your argument is a bit silly. Is it unsafe to drive around with two people in a CRX Si? Because adding ttwo people to the 2017lb dry weight will get it to a weight that you think parts will fail. I agree, the engineers weren't stupid.
[/b]

Silly !!!

do you take 2 people and drive fast as you drive on the track ???? do you do the same abuse you do with these 2 people on the street like you do on the track, do you use 185 factory size tires on the track ???

common guys please be logical !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't have a dog in this fight, but my G-Stock 91 CRX Si (without driver, but with A/C and half a tank of gas) weighed 2180 lbs the last time I weighed it, and that's below the owner's manual number. It is mechanically the same as the earlier lighter Si's. Using the hypothetical 180lb driver, you could add quite a bit more weight to an ITA CRX before reaching the factory weight.
[/b]

Do you have the CRX shop manual ???? I do and it says clearly in the shop manual 2017 lbs.

Louie, Louie!

Jake has been in ITA for ever too so I will let him find out the original weights. (Wasn't this car in ITS at some point? Maybe that was the weight in that class...)

You get to choose now. 2250 in ITA or (for safety reasons ) 1800 in ITS (1620 without driver) !

The problem is that there are cars that are either going to be heavier than their curb weight in a lower class (like the DOHC Neon in ITA) or lighter than they could ever possibly get to in a higher class. What to do?
[/b]

I will take the 1800lbs in ITS any day over 2250 in ITA.

[Greg Amy]

...the CRX at this point...is heavier than the factory original car...[/b]

Louis, I don't think we really wanna go down this road. My NX2000 is heavier than its original curb weight; should I therefore petition the CRB for a weight break on safety grounds?

Anyone in the Northeast think I should get a weight safety break? Bueller? Bueller...?

[ltblouis]

Silly !!!

do you take 2 people and drive fast as you drive on the track ???? do you do the same abuse you do with these 2 people on the street like you do on the track, do you use 185 factory size tires on the track ???

common guys please be logical !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do you have the CRX shop manual ???? I do and it says clearly in the shop manual 2017 lbs.
The 1988 crx was lighter than the 89-90-91 model and the 91 was the heavier of all.


I will take the 1800lbs in ITS any day over 2250 in ITA.
[/b]

[Catch22]

Just for clarification on my point of view...
I do not think the CRX was given too much weight. Where it sits now is where the same formula that was applied to the other cars in its class put it. Plain and simple. And fair in terms of what we know in June of 2006.

What I'm suggesting is that maybe the formula is wrong in terms of certain cars. I'm suggesting this because early evidence shows that a formerly spot-on reliable chassis (not just the one I'm driving, there are others) is now pretty unreliable.
I'm also suggesting that IF this early evidence turns out to be a trend, its in the best interests of the category as a whole to give this car (and any others like it) a break of about 50 to 75lbs in the name of not washing a car by the wayside.

What makes this different than Raymond's complaint above?
Well, when he built his car it was at the same spec it is at now (as far as I know, I'm certainly not an expert on the history of the ITB Audi). In other words, the water temperature is the same today that it was when he originally jumped into the pool. He made that choice.

Now, lets take Christian as an example with the CRX situation...
When he bought the car last year it was known as a good, reliable chassis that finished races and wasn't very expensive to operate. THATS the pool he jumped in.
Now, the water in that pool has gotten very cold indeed. Out of 5 races entered he has 2 mechanical DNFs, 1 finish with a long mechanical pit stop, 1 finish where the car was barely functioning at the end and well off the pace, and 1 good, no issues finish.
Thats ONE good finish in 5 races.
Thats not the game he signed up for, and its not the budget he signed up for.

Now, again, let me reiterate that its EARLY. This whole thing may have been bad luck for him (and me).
But I have looked around and seen other CRXs having issues, and also seen the one guy who never realized he was supposed to add ballast up to 2250 NOT have any problems... And it has me leaning towards the "This isn't so good" end of the scale.

Don't poo-poo the notion that if this becomes a trend and an issue that its the end of all the CRXs in ITA. Last time I checked NASA offers a really good alternative to ITA for a CRX and its under 2200lbs (last I checked). And don't forget Spec Miata and IT7.
People just wont continue to try to race cars that keep breaking in ITA when there are alternatives. THATS what I'm talking about. IF the CRX is truly going to have a problem carrying this weight, its in the best interest of every IT racer to take 50 (or 60 or 70) pounds back off of it and keep them around. Theres just too damned many of them out there to let them take their bucket to another sandbox. And 50ish pounds isn't going to upset the apple cart all that damned much.

Just my humble opinion. I could be completely wrong.
But someone needs to be looking out for the possibility that I'm right.

Louis, I don't think we really wanna go down this road. My NX2000 is heavier than its original curb weight; should I therefore petition the CRB for a weight break on safety grounds?

Anyone in the Northeast think I should get a weight safety break? Bueller? Bueller...?
[/b]

The difference between your car and the CRX is that there is an old benchmark where the CRX was proven reliable. Yours really doesn't have that. See my comment about the water in Raymond's pool vs. Christian's.

Hopefully my point is coming across. I know what I'm trying to say, but maybe you guys don't see it.

[JeffYoung]

You could apply the same logic to the SIR and the BMW. Guys jumped into the 2850 no SIR pool and now they have to spend big dollars to make the car "work" at its new process mandated hp.

Why is the CRX situation any different if it fits the process at the new weight?

[Jake]

Curb weight on the CRX is 2174 (edmunds.com) so GVW should be significantly higher than 2250.

Jake - What data are you using to form your opinion that the CRX was 'over penalized'? (Even though we all know it was not a 'penalty&#39.

AB
[/b]

Exactly. A Spec weight above the stock weight? The Spec weight is as raced. The Stock weight is without a driver/pass/luggage. The car was designed for durability at GVW.

Andy - here's where I'm coming from: Before the adjustments, I would argue that the 'Teg wasn't inferior to the CRX - but percentage-wize (what counts) the CRX got more of an "adjustment" than the 'Teg.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy - here's where I'm coming from: Before the adjustments, I would argue that the 'Teg wasn't inferior to the CRX - but percentage-wize (what counts) the CRX got more of an "adjustment" than the 'Teg. [/b]

So what? All that means is that the CRX was 'further off' than anything in ITA. It didn't get the 'biggest penalty', it got the biggest 'correction' because it was the most wrong.

See you at LRP!!!!!!!!!!!

AB

[Catch22]

You could apply the same logic to the SIR and the BMW. Guys jumped into the 2850 no SIR pool and now they have to spend big dollars to make the car "work" at its new process mandated hp.

Why is the CRX situation any different if it fits the process at the new weight?
[/b]

Don't get me started on that Jeff.
I think the whole E36 thing is a complete debacle because the car should have never been classed in ITS in the first place. No, the E36 owners shouldn't be penalized for SCCA's mistake, but something has to be done because the car has proven to simply be too fast for the fastest class by ALOT.

IMO thats apples and oranges to the potential CRX issue...
1. We're talking about 50 to 70lbs on the CRX, not 300lbs on the BMW. One is reasonable, one isn't.
2. The CRX is not an "overdog" as the E36 is. Its NOT a case of "something simply must be done to slow it down." It wasn't killing Integras and NXs and Miatas at the old weight.

Keep in mind that I'm not just talking about the CRX here. I'm talking about any car that gets a hefty "adjustment" and then starts struggling with reliability or competitiveness. I'm talking about cars that significantly fall off from their prior proven abilities.
Again, its just not worth it to lose cars over 50 or 75lbs. Thats really not the goal here, and we can't assume that applying the formula evenly to all cars will have consistent results across all cars.

Like my grandpa used to say... I'm just sayin' what I'm sayin' and thats all that I'm sayin'.

[ltblouis]

Do you guys know of any car in ITA that have received more than once weight adjustment or penalty ???
I can not remember any but would love to know if any have received more or equal to the crx in adjustments ??

[Andy Bettencourt]

Do you guys know of any car in ITA that have received more than once weight adjustment or penalty ???
I can not remember any but would love to know if any have received more or equal to the crx in adjustments ?? [/b]

It doesn't matter Louis. As of right now, everything is equal. Everyone is judged by the same stick.