So about these Pony Cars for ITR...

[Bob Roth]

I think a root cause of the objection of V8's in ITR is the way the committee assignes clasifications and weights using OEM peak hp. I think this really puts highly tuned honda VTEC cars that have 100 hp/liter at disadvantage when classed against less than 33 to 45 hp/liter american cars.

I have put a lot of work into my VTEC delsol, (Hondata 300, Hytech header, tuned intake, extensive tyno tuning) to get your expected 25% hp increase . I got a bit of midrange but no substantial increase of hp. The result was 150 whp at 7400. Of course from a 1.6 liter engine thats darn good. Why would I expect more? Torque (ignition timing, displacement, and compression ratio) are already good, and the engine is limited by valve float at over 8000. So, no surprise it realy can't be improved upon when its already 100 hp per liter. What do you expect; 125 hp per liter?? That would be a world challenge motor. Forget it.

(ps our 1.8 liter Integra Type R is 184 whp or essentially 100 whp/per literin IT trim and 109 street hp/liter per stock oem rating).

Meanwhile, take you '80's smog motor that that at 33 to 45 hp/liter, put a big exhaust, intake system, and wake up the engine management, extend the RPM/hp peak from 5000 to 6000 rpm and a 25% increase to 40 to 60 hp/liter sounds doable.

The last point is, cheating. At 100 hp/per liter, something like a type r has nothing to work with (it always has a race cam, and it is already reving to 8400 rpm); do I need to use nitrous?. Besides, if cheating is my goal, it would be a lot easier to start cheating with a car who puts out 40 hp per liter than one with 100 hp, come on....

I looked at the ARCC results, no honda's are entered in ITS. The beauty of the modern japanese cars is that on the engine side, they are pretty fully developed and are near IT maximum as stock. Accordingly we are fighting with a way short stick in IT against low power to displacement V8's.

I really think the ITAC should use something other than OEM power when balancing cars. It puts modern cars at a disadvantage, and it puts VTEC hondas at a huge disadvantage.

If the ITAC fixes the way that hp, is rated, I would be fine with V8's in ITR. Don't, and I think more ITR owners will feel the way that current Honda VTEC owners do about their chances to be competitive.

For comparison from Andy's notes and using his formula (IT Weight = 9.95 * (Stock HP) + 890.8), here are ITR stock power per liter

BMW 325 --75 hp/liter
BMW 328 -- 70 hp/liter
944 S2 --66 hp/liter
Maxima -- 72 hp/liter
300zx -- 79 hp/liter
Supra -- 78 hp/liter
Acura type R -- 109 hp/liter

Camaro (5.8 liter) -- 33.3 hp/liter
Ford Mustang (5 liter) -- 45 hp/liter

For some time, the IT formula has killed competitiveness of VTEC honda's. Who knows, if we let V8 cars at 33 to 50 hp/liter use the same formula as 70 to 100 hp per liter nissans, porsche's and toyotas, maybe somebody other than the Honda VTEC racers will realize how unfair the present rating system is.

Please tell me how to get to 125 hp/liter in a honda legally and I will be glad to oblige in retracting these comments.

[Ron Earp]

Hi Bob,

I think you'll find the membership was in favor of the V8 pony cars in ITR. I understand that the letters received were around ten to one FOR the inclusion of V8 Pony cars.

I understand what you are commenting on with respect to the ITR Type Integra being in a high state of tune from the factory. However, ITR may not be the proper place for Type R Integras. The average car in ITR has significantly more displacement than 1.8L, more horsepower, and more torque than the Type R Integra. It could be that a Type R isn't a good choice for ITR and/or doesn't fit well in the class.

In any event, it'd be a shame to limit the ITR cars based on the inclusion of a single car, or couple of cars, that just barely qualified for the minimum specification for an ITR. The minimum horsepower specifction was 190hp and the Type R, as well as the 1.8L Celica GTS, just barely make it. They make the horsepower number but do so with small displacement when compared to other cars in the class.

"Ease of cheating" isn't a valid argument against including V8 Pony cars in ITR. The SCCA needs not worry about how easy or hard it is to cheat in a class. The rules are broken with a BMW 2.5L motor stroked to 3L just as easily as they are with a Ford 302 inch motor stroked to 347 inches. The only Camaro that was specified in the Pony car proposal was the 5L Camaro. The 5.7L motor was not considered.

Ron

[Knestis]

>> ...The last point is, cheating. At 100 hp/per liter, something like a type r has nothing to work with (it always has a race cam, and it is already reving to 8400 rpm); do I need to use nitrous?. Besides, if cheating is my goal, it would be a lot easier to start cheating with a car who puts out 40 hp per liter than one with 100 hp, come on....

You want us to include as a consideration for weight specs, trying to allow each make/model to be cheated up equitably? REALLY...?

K

[lateapex911]

Bob....I totally see the point regarding hp/displacement. I ring that bell ALL the time...ask anyone on the ITAC. The S2000 is an awesome example of how we varied from the standard operating procedure, and I'd argue even that wasn't enough...but, I think that it's not a point that applies to every one of the cars you mention. You mentioned no Hondas were entered ro did well at the ARRCs. Well i remember a Prelude that ran second for most of the 07 race until burning up a rear bearing, and that particular car owns a few lap recrds, at tracks with solid ITS records. Finally, we're not prod. it takes a LOT..as well it should...for us to vary from the SOP.

But....I agree with Ron that you can't eliminate cars from being classed because you don't like the way others are classed. That's being exclusionary.

The solution is to remedy the issues with the cars you feel are being classed incorrectly, not barring any other cars that could beat the "maligned" cars.

Further, you speak as though the V8s will make big gains...based on their crappy specific displacement...and you mention an intake system. I am sure you're not referring to the actual intake manifold, which can't be changed, and is the kink in the hose on these cars. Factory hp is used because, in general it reflects what the cars will make after a build, as the core components to HP are stock and must remain. As always, remember Kip VanSteenburgs methods...read the spec line carefully, compare the specs, choose wisely. And, it's not ALL decided by the engine.

[Xian]

Hi Bob,

Here's a quote of my response to your same post over int he Honda specific forum:

The D16 SOHC VTEC engine was rated at 125hp... those cars are classed in ITA (1992-1995 Civic EX/Si). The later 99+ Si cars used a B16 that was very similar to what's in your Del Sol.

A couple of questions... you mention that you've put time and money into the engine build. Have you take full advantage of the porting and compression bump allowances? How about an overbore?

As far as weight, I think the cars/engines you listed are reasonably classed and weighted. The GSR has been shown to be a podium runner when well driven, developed, and fully 10/10th's built. The Del Sol VTEC, and Civic Si in ITS are both 160#'s lighter with a smaller and less torquey engine... remember "no guarantee of competitiveness".

ARRC entries aren't really indicative of anything... especially this year with the economy iin the toilet. Add to this the fact that both Ivan and Greg Amy both wrote off very strong GSR's within a few months of the ARRC and you really just don't have much of anything there...

Christian

Ron, I'm all for having the ITR and Celica in ITR... I wasn't in on the original classing and math but am wondering if it was another case of "light" in one class or really "heavy" in another. I know most folks will take light and in a faster class if, for nothing else, it cuts down on abuse to the brakes and tires

[Ron Earp]

Ron, I'm all for having the ITR and Celica in ITR... I wasn't in on the original classing and math but am wondering if it was another case of "light" in one class or really "heavy" in another.

I'm fine with them in there too - as long as those driving/building them don't try to limit the class based on the limitations of the car they picked to race. There is no guarantee of competitiveness in IT. It is fact the cars are borderline for the class and have the smallest displacement engines in the group. If you decide to run one you've got to know that you'll be at a disadvantage with respect to power and hopefully you can capitalize on other attributes of the car.

You are correct with them being something of a tweener. The GTS comes in at 2380 lbs, the lightest car in ITR, 1.8L, 190 hp. I am not sure why the Type Arrggh is 200lbs heavier with only 5 more hp and the same size motor. Anyhow, seems to me that both could be in ITS at a heavier weight. But racing them at a lighter weight would be preferable, I completely agree.

[Cobrar05]

I feel very strongly about the above statement. All of the V8 pony cars have a place to run currently in AS or SS or IT as far as on a regional level. Why are they even being considered for ITR. I believe that it will just disturb the class structure.

If you take a say 1979 to 2002 fox body mustang and prep it for ITR, how much difference would there be in lap time performance versus an ASedan car. Probably less than second. Of course that would really depend on what the weight the car was set at in ITR.

I think if you feel this way, you must know very little about the V8 classes that you are talking about. AS requires a formula that has not been available in a Mustang street car since 1995. The any Mustang there after built with the 4.6L DOHC engine, 13" brakes and 17" wheels needs to be torn down to a roller to be effective.

These cars are now allowed in AS with a weight penalty that makes participation unrealistic.

There is a reason there are 10-15 of these cars per event racing NASA American Iron and 2 or 3 AS cars and no Touring cars. How many ITR cars are there on average?

The SCCA needs to make these cars easier to race, somewhere, somehow and with a chance to be competitive. Its a great source of entries that is not being properly marketed to.

[Cobrar05]

i.e. ITE of course the ruleset varies mostly by division and region for ITE but any of the Escort, Firehawk i.e. IMSA or older SSGT mustangs, camaros and firebirds can run in ITE so why do we need to creat an ITV class or look at putting them in a newer IT, i.e. (ITR) class that has a great start at being of another awesome class like ITA and ITS!

Simple, ITE/ITO allows cars prepped far beyond the IMSA, Firehawk, Grand Am Street stock classes. The Mustang that won ITO at the ARRC had 600hp under the hood.
The cars we are talking about for ITR have half that horsepower or so. My Cobra R dyno's at 320whp. I don't even bother to race ITO sprint races anymore unless I need to just log a race for my license.

I race enduros when I am allowed because I have an actual race with ITR and good ITS cars.

[JeffYoung]

Bob, one thing I immediately noticed in your thread is the assumption that the V8s are going to make huge gains in power. They may, they may not. There is evidence they won't. Let's take a harder look at your list.

I think every Japanese car you list has 4 valves per cylinder, dual overhead cams, GOOD cams, and high compression.

Take a look sometime at the stock comperssion, head design, and cam specs for the cars we are talking about classing.

I would suggest that the collorary of your argument that the Hondas/Nissans/Toyotoas are maxed out and don't gain much in IT trim MIGHT BE that the V8s have inheriting limiting factors that won't result in power per cubic inch rates anywhere near what your car makes.

P.S. -- I of course understand that the displacement of the V8s will necessarily produce a lot of torque, and I think we have tried to account for that in our proposal.

[Bob Roth]

The point I am making is that the ITAC process that uses a fixed 1.25 Hp multiplier discriminates against cars like Honda VTEC’s that come from the factory with high stock HP/liter ratios.

With the present rule, a non-vtec 2.3 Prelude SI at 160 hp at 70 hp/liter is allowed to race at less weight than a 1.8 GSR VTEC which has 94 hp per liter. I believe that at 70 hp/liter, the prelude far better benefits from increased compression, computer and breathing than a 94 hp/liter GSR. The best evidence I can give is the non-VTEC Mid Ohio lap record holding for sale on the forum. He says it far better than I can. Go to https://improvedtouring.coms/showthread.php?t=25399

Bottom line, he's right, the VTEC prelude which has a ton more torque and development potential than a GSR. As he says, why race a VTEC GSR under the current rules?

I think we need to add a factor for Hp/Liter. My suggestion would be to ratio the OEM HP multiplier in a straight line assuming 100% multiplier for 100 hp/liter, 115% multiplier for 70hp/liter and 125% for 50hp per liter. Assuming the below formula, if we capped the max Hp/liter at 100 and the low at 50, the adjusted hp for IT would be


Adj Hp = (100 - OEM Hp/Liter)/50*.25+1


Class----- Car----- Liter----- OEMHP ----Hp/Liter---- Adjustment -----Adjusted Hp
ITR -----BMW 325-2.5------- 187.5------- 75------------ 1.13-------------- 211
ITR----- BMW 328 --2.8------- 196 --------70------------ 1.15-------------- 225
ITR----- 944 S2------ 3-------- 198--------- 70----------- 1.15-------------- 228
ITR------ Maxima---- 3--------- 216-------- 72------------ 1.14-------------- 246
ITR------ 300ZX----- 3---------- 237-------- 79------------ 1.11-------------- 262
ITR------- Supra----- 3---------- 234-------- 78------------ 1.11------------- 260
ITR------ Type R---- 1.8-------- 190------- 100------------ 1.00------------- 190
"ITR" -----Camaro--- 5.8------- 230-------- 40------------- 1.25------------- 288
"ITR"----- Mustang---- 5-------- 225-------- 45------------- 1.25------------- 281

ITS------- GSRVTEC --1.8------ 170-------- 94------------- 1.03------------- 175
ITS------- Prelude Si-- 2.3------ 160-------- 70------------- 1.15------------- 184
NonVTEC
ITS------Prelude VTEC 2.2------ 190------- 86-------------- 1.07------------- 203
ITS -Civic/Sol VTEC --1.6------- 160------- 100------------- 1.00------------ 160

ITA ----Integra -------1.8-------- 143-------- 79------------- 1.10------------- 158
ITA Civic EX VTEC ---1.6-------- 127-------- 79------------- 1.10------------- 140


See next post for continuation

[Bob Roth]

To the eye –

For ITR there starts feeling some equivalence between the 300ZX Nissans, the Supra and the pony cars. As for the Type R, I think its better in ITS.

As for ITS class, with these adjustments a Prelude Si is still less adjusted HP than a Prelude VTEC, however now the GSR is allowed less weight at 1.8 liters than the prelude at 2.3 liters. If you think that’s unfair, ask why is it that the Prelude has the lap records? With a 203 adjusted hp, I think there is a better case case for Prelude VTEC’s in ITR than there is for the Integra Type R. At the same time, I think the Civic SI/Sol VTEC is a better car for ITA.

For ITA class, the parity of the civic EX and Acura Integra doesn’t change as they have the same Hp/Liter. However, with these adjustments the Civic Si/Sol VTEC would slot in at the same weight as a Integra which would be fine with me as I am running very competitively with a ITA tegs and miata’s and would need only about 30 pounds to make the new weight with an empty tank.

What I like about these changes are that we eliminate the fallacy that a 160 hp 1.6 Civic SI VTEC is essentially the same as a 160 hp 2.3 liter non-VTEC Prelude. Everybody who races Honda’s knows that’s not true, that’s why most don’t build VTEC’s today. I hope this doesn’t give too much heartburn, its not intended to. The world is thick with Honda VTEC’s and people who want to race them. If you want more VTEC cars, change the rules.

[JeffYoung]

Bob, there are so many errors in those numbers its hard to work with (you have the stock 300zx horsepower wrong, you are using the 350 for the Camaro, etc.).

I can tell you right now that I personally would not be able to support a change like this that ties expected improvement in IT trim solely to displacement. You never answered my point about how the V8s may have some architectural issues that could provent the gains you are afraid of, and when you chart shows effectively no gain for some motors in IT trim it's hard to take it serious, I'm sorry.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Especially seeing as how cars like the GSR can - and do - make the 25% increase. It's listed at 3% in Bob's model.

The best we can (and should) do, is start from an estimate (25%) and adjust when we know something to be wrong. To simply assign based on displacement has things fubar'd huge.

Agian, we aren't trying to balance on the head of a pin here. The process will slightly fail some cars and slightly benefit some cars but at the point we try and start adjusting 2-3%, I think we have failed what makes IT great.

[Bob Roth]

For those curious on what my sol has, its the ex Fenton Beede motorolla cup car - its really good for weight and suspension. In 2003 it was a NASA Honda Challenge S2 car, national class runner up. Back then, I believe the engine prep was very comparable to IT, overbore, compression etc. I can't vouch for the head but having gone to Steve Coletti shop who has built and raced these engines for a decade, taking Steve's word, 155 hp is about all you are going to see in IT trim.

I have to agree considering 1.8 GSR's are getting 174 hp which is a straight ratio up from 1.8 from 1.6. As Steve says, the engine can only work with the intake and displacement honda gave it. Its not a type R and there is very little improvement to be gotten. Again, its already 100 hp/liter, if you got 125 hp/liter it would be a World Challenge motor.

As it is, the 1.6 Sol VTEC at about 2650 pounds would be a good ITA car. Run it at 2550 pounds with driver (its 2350 empty) against a 2555 pound 2.3 liter prelude SI, its a joke. But thats what the rules say.

Ps. Sorry for talking about both ITS and ITR in the same string. I own a ITR Type R for endurance and a ITS Sol for sprint, this rule and these comments apply to both.

[Knestis]

To the eye –

...However, with these adjustments the Civic Si/Sol VTEC would slot in at the same weight as a Integra which would be fine with me as I am running very competitively with a ITA tegs and miata’s and would need only about 30 pounds to make the new weight with an empty tank. ...

Again, I think there's some merit to what you're suggesting but the kind of rationale presented above just can't make it into the conversation, with any kind of merit. I nose-to-tail with Vesa Siligren as often as not this past season, but that doesn't make the Golf III an ITC car.

K

[Bob Roth]

To jeff's comment about the errors, please understand I am not on the committee and don't have the committe HP numbers. I back calculating the HP's based upon the formula in his string, if I got it wrong, oops. On the Camaro, if that engine is a 305 instead of a 350, it wouldn't make a difference in that anything less than 50 hp/liter would get the same 1.25

Please note what I am trying to do, deal with the HP/liter outlyers. My premise is that the present rule works fine fro cars that are in the range of 70hp/liter (typical Toyota, Nissan, BMW) but doesn't work for VTEC cars. My bet is it isn't going to work for V8's in ITR.

As for the GSR that supposedly is getting 25% increase, I don't believe it. With that intake manifold, throttle body, unported head and compression, he's saying he's getting better performance than a type R? Cool. I wonder what he knows that all the other GSR owners don't?

Bottom line, if the rules were right, where are all the VTEC cars?

[lateapex911]

Bottom line, if the rules were right, where are all the VTEC cars?

THAT is a very good question....

But your premise is that is ONLY the rules that keep them away...but is it??

Before I take this further, I ask you a question, that has two parts-

If the weights were set "properly" how many new entrants would we see??, and...what would "properly" be, for those entrants to feel they wanted to race?

[Bob Roth]

The ITA Integra 1.8 is very equal to a Honda 1.6 B16 VTEC. They use the sameblock, they use the same head, but the 1.6 has a different intake and a VTEC. They use the same suspension. They ought to be close

All I know is that having jumped a 2.5 liter Porsche 944 and a Gen 2 Rx7 at the start, they flat passed me 2 laps into the race. But how can that be, isn't a 160 1.6 liter Honda better than a 155 hp 2.5 liter Porsche? --especially out of a turn?---

Stock hp basis totally ignores the development potential of the engine. Again, where do I improve an engine that is already 100 hp per liter? I will gladly drop the coin to make a legal 175 whp 1.6 VTEC motor, but I don't see any builder proposing how to do it without a GUD cam, 12 to 1 race pistons, Extrudehone the intake system, and using flyweight valves and full race springs. Believe me, I have asked. If somebody is getting 25% increase numbers from a GSR, let him explain how.

[tnord]

i like ya bob, but i think you're off on this one.

1) a couple REAL GOOD ITS Intega's were built last year, and quickly wrecked. see Blake's comments about a ~175whp car that he built the motor for. it was on the dyno, those are the numbers, it can make 25%.
2) even though i'm a miata guy, i would run a GSR in ITS without much hesitation, especially at a place like RA (either one). you really have to pay attention to heat in the front wheel assemblies, but that's going to be the case with any ITS/ITR FWD car. every car has issues, and the GSR has it's share, but that doesn't mean it can't be competitive. are there better options? i think so, but as Andy said, tip of a pin is not the goal....and shouldn't be. this isn't SM.
3) Dyno's are different. Coletti's may be spitting out a number that artificially makes the cars look like they aren't making as good of power as the process says.
4) you'd get a lot farther if you suggested a process that had a reasonable output. ZERO gain for your type R bob? really? i know you've had that on the dyno.
5) i think the best route for you would be to try to get the 1.6l VTEC cars into ITA rather than trying to turn the process, which has unquestionably produced a better, stronger IT class since the years of its implemention......on it's head.

[Knestis]

...All I know is that having jumped a 2.5 liter Porsche 944 and a Gen 2 Rx7 at the start, they flat passed me 2 laps into the race. But how can that be, isn't a 160 1.6 liter Honda better than a 155 hp 2.5 liter Porsche? --especially out of a turn?---

I'm not picking on you in particular, Bob but I can think of a big pile of reasons - tire brand, tire age, suspension set-up, dyno tuning time, strategic advantages/disadvantages, traffic, engine builder's knowledge, fuel, legality, condition of consumables (bearings, bushings, etc.), driver skill and/or bravery, weather conditions, local track knowledge, nature of the track, and a BUNCH of tiny little differences that might add up the kind of difference you describe, if they all stack out one way.

...I will gladly drop the coin to make a legal 175 whp 1.6 VTEC motor, but I don't see any builder proposing how to do it without a GUD cam, 12 to 1 race pistons, Extrudehone the intake system, and using flyweight valves and full race springs. Believe me, I have asked. If somebody is getting 25% increase numbers from a GSR, let him explain how.

(Yet) again - I think you've got a good question here but do you understand the trap the ITAC's in on this kind of thing? We have two people telling us different things. There's just no way we can consistently, equitably, repeatably, and transparently take any of this kind of information into account.

My advice is stick to your core argument, based on the physical attributes of the engines in question. Everyone can argue "I see this," or "I think this," but we have relatively few people contribute a new idea about how to actually look at the things we CAN look at - and that's helpful.

K