Preliminary CRB Minutes/Tech Bulletin - November

[Ron Earp]

Way too many ponies for ITA.

I think the RSX would be interesting But at 2800 piggies I'd not even bother, given the Miata is over 400 pounds lighter.

Similar to the reason why I didn't understand the questioning the V6 Camaro in ITR. With 200 stock hp the car would be classed at over 3200 lbs in ITS - over 700lbs heavier than a ITS 240Z! Good luck making that work against 175 whp Z cars.

We may have blown this one (the RSX). I'll take a look at it again.

Yes, I think you guys might have passed up a good S car.

[Greg Amy]

...does anyone out there feel [there is an] inherent evil in "solid" (read- even metallic) mounts, so long as location and geometry are not changed?

Not here. Nothing but bad can come from that, given our current prep rules.

I understand that to mean the mounts will be legal Oct 20. Have I missed something? CB

This is a rule change, and would not become effective until 1/1/12, pending both CRB and BoD approval.

GA

[mossaidis]

there is another "modern" Civic Si that is not mentioned here. The 02-05 Si listed in ITA at 2840 lbs... yet with a curb weight of 2740 lbs.

Honda Civic Si (02-05) 4 Cyl DOHC

86.0 x 86.0 1998 (I) 35.0 (E) 30.0 9.8 cr 101.2 in wheelbase 15 in wheels; gears: 3.06, 1.77, 1.21, 0.92, 0.74
(F) 262 vented (R) 259 solid
2840 lbs

From wiki...

Shifting away from the B-series engine, the seventh generation Civic Si adopted the K-series K20A3 engine rated 160 bhp (120 kW) at 6500 rpm and 132 ft·lbf (179 N·m) at 5000 rpm. With a redline of 6,800 rpm, the Si distanced itself from the narrow, high-rpm powerband engine of its predecessor, and as a result saw a 20 percent increase in torque. Performance was relatively underwhelming compared to the competition; the switch to MacPherson struts from double-wishbone suspension resulted in less responsive handling, and a near-150 lb (68 kg) increase in weight to 2,744 lb (1,245 kg) contributed to slower acceleration than the lighter '99-'00 Si. Much of the weight gain is attributed to the chassis' stouter structure when compared to the previous generation hatchback, with the '02 Si boasting an increase in torsional rigidity by 95 percent and a bending rigidity increase of 22 percent.

Blindly, I would think ITS as well here.

[chuck baader]

Thanks, Greg....parts ordered. CB

[ShelbyRacer]

Not here. Nothing but bad can come from that, given our current prep rules.

Not sure I follow. Do you consider solid mounts a problem or not?

[quadzjr]

there is another "modern" Civic Si that is not mentioned here. The 02-05 Si listed in ITA at 2840 lbs... yet with a curb weight of 2740 lbs.

Honda Civic Si (02-05) 4 Cyl DOHC

86.0 x 86.0 1998 (I) 35.0 (E) 30.0 9.8 cr 101.2 in wheelbase 15 in wheels; gears: 3.06, 1.77, 1.21, 0.92, 0.74
(F) 262 vented (R) 259 solid
2840 lbs

From wiki...

Shifting away from the B-series engine, the seventh generation Civic Si adopted the K-series K20A3 engine rated 160 bhp (120 kW) at 6500 rpm and 132 ft·lbf (179 N·m) at 5000 rpm. With a redline of 6,800 rpm, the Si distanced itself from the narrow, high-rpm powerband engine of its predecessor, and as a result saw a 20 percent increase in torque. Performance was relatively underwhelming compared to the competition; the switch to MacPherson struts from double-wishbone suspension resulted in less responsive handling, and a near-150 lb (68 kg) increase in weight to 2,744 lb (1,245 kg) contributed to slower acceleration than the lighter '99-'00 Si. Much of the weight gain is attributed to the chassis' stouter structure when compared to the previous generation hatchback, with the '02 Si boasting an increase in torsional rigidity by 95 percent and a bending rigidity increase of 22 percent.

Blindly, I would think ITS as well here.

I never understood why the 99 civic si with the B16 was an S car and the next generation that is a better car with more torque was an A car.

[gran racing]

Probably because a different group of individuals in the ITAC or CRB classed them. Exactly why a solid process and documentation is so valuable.

[JoshS]

I never understood why the 99 civic si with the B16 was an S car and the next generation that is a better car with more torque was an A car.

Because IT is fundamentally based on a power-to-weight classification system. We don't class all 150hp cars in the same class. We class all cars with similar power-to-weight ratios in the same class (altered for some physical characteristics, such as FWD/RWD, etc.)

The next-generation car with more torque is a heavier chassis. It fits better in A.

[quadzjr]

Because IT is fundamentally based on a power-to-weight classification system. We don't class all 150hp cars in the same class. We class all cars with similar power-to-weight ratios in the same class (altered for some physical characteristics, such as FWD/RWD, etc.)

The next-generation car with more torque is a heavier chassis. It fits better in A.

sound enough logic.. I buy it.

[Greg Amy]

Not sure I follow. Do you consider solid mounts a problem or not?

I do consider solid mounts a technical problem, not a rules problem. I have no problem with allowing them by the rules, but I would decisively NOT install them in a car I was writing checks for. - GA

[Ron Earp]

The next-generation car with more torque is a heavier chassis. It fits better in A.

I'm not seeing that. The next generation car with more area under the horsepower curve is a better fit in A, a class that generally has horsepower challenged cars?

If it were 500 lbs heavier I could see that, but it isn't.

[mossaidis]

to Josh's point, what would be the 02-05 Civic Si weight if it was classed in S? In current A form, I would imagine it would need to carry at least 300 lbs of lead. Think power-seats, rear bench, spare tire/hw, sunroof/brackets, other interior moldings/panels, AC system, etc. BTW, thank you engaging in the conversation as always. I would imagine we're a tough bunch. XO

[Ron Earp]

to Josh's point, what would be the 02-05 Civic Si weight if it was classed in S? In current A form,XO

Pretty easy to do, weights without whatever modifiers these cars get:

In S 160 x 1.25 x 12.9 = 2580 lbs

In A 160 x 1.25 x 14.5 - 2900 lbs

Looks like in A it would be above the curb weight, which is 2740 lbs, and in S slightly less than curb the weight. I'm thinking it should be classed in S, slightly less than curb weight as I've never heard of a car gaining weight with the deletion of all the stuff you can legally remove, plus the the addition of cage, driver, and safety equipment. If it does end up weighing more in race trim, than street trim, then I suspect that someone hasn't done their race car construction planning very well. Single pounds do matter as they add up to 10s and 100s.

[ShelbyRacer]

I do consider solid mounts a technical problem, not a rules problem. I have no problem with allowing them by the rules, but I would decisively NOT install them in a car I was writing checks for. - GA

I'm right there with you. I just wasn't sure exactly what you meant.

Wouldn't allowing the solid mounts be fine, given the authentic penalty that may accompany their use? (this question is not posed at Greg, but at anyone else who'd like to take a shot)

BTW- sorry for the duality of the thread.

[Marcus Miller]

tJY, if you need acheivable weights for RSX, try Jeremy Lucas; the Honda racing west guys have run them for years, and Matt Staal ran one in the stu race at the runoffs. They are NASA spec Honda challenge cars, but prep is similar enough to use as a datapoint.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Understand also that these cars get different 'subtractors' in ITS vs. ITA for FWD. Which can affect the weight in a decent amount triggering consideration for another class. More % off in ITS, plus NO DW adder on this car that would be there for the Teg and Civics.

[lateapex911]

I'm right there with you. I just wasn't sure exactly what you meant.

Wouldn't allowing the solid mounts be fine, given the authentic penalty that may accompany their use? (this question is not posed at Greg, but at anyone else who'd like to take a shot)

BTW- sorry for the duality of the thread.

I think I've been asking...and saying the same thing.
Nobody has responded with good reasoning.

For all the trouble the proposed wording creates, why not just open it up?
I just don't see the solid mount fear as being reasonable.
(Especially when the proposed wording allows me to pretty much do it)

[Chip42]

re: the RSX - there was a request to classify it matching the EP Civic Si. so we did. FWIW, ITA weight is obviously 2840, ITS is 2440. I think the cars could get there, but just. I wasn't around for the civic, but the thought on the RSX (a slightly heavier car that has an engine almost identical to the civic si) was to match the civic spec because they are so close in all IT-relevant aspects. FWIW they seem a good fit in A to me. dynamically different than the bulk of the class but matched in P/W and hopefully lap time.

re: the 99-00 civic Si (EM1) in ITS. it's light there. achievably light, but light. no, it will likely never be a SARRC winner, but it's a fun and reliable car. at 2800# or whatever the A weight thrown around a while back was, it would be less so. I can't understand why people who want to see the RSX and EP moved to S would want to see the EM1 in A. FWIW, I argued against the move to A for the EM1 as we were running one at the time and had no desire to see it get heavier. that's a ton of weight gain.

this is ANOTHER one of those cases where a car isn't obviously a good fit for A or S, and might be good fodder for dual classing arguments. I don't like dual classing on account of added confusion.

One thing that IS true - IF these cars get built in ITA, and moved to ITS, they will be carrying ~40# of cage with them due to the weight in A. if anyone seriously wants them moved, please request it NOW. and please provide something supporting your request because I think these cars fit well in A and well overweight in S.

[Andy Bettencourt]

. FWIW they seem a good fit in A to me. dynamically different than the bulk of the class but matched in P/W and hopefully lap time.

I generally agree with Chip but disagree here. If by 'dynamically different' you mean 'way heavier with way more HP' then I think it's a mistake if there is a choice. I would never want to create a car that was so different in charateristics if there was a choice. Sometimes there isn't...

Because there is no DW 50lb adder back in, these would be lighter than a 160hp Civic is it had DW's and may not be able to make weight. If it were a 'maybe it can' scenario, I would clas in ITS and then reclass if letters and legit evidence came in.

[Chip42]

If by 'dynamically different' you mean 'way heavier with way more HP' then I think it's a mistake if there is a choice. I would never want to create a car that was so different in charateristics if there was a choice. Sometimes there isn't...

Because there is no DW 50lb adder back in, these would be lighter than a 160hp Civic is it had DW's and may not be able to make weight. If it were a 'maybe it can' scenario, I would clas in ITS and then reclass if letters and legit evidence came in.

basically thats what I mean andy - slower in the corners, faster on the straits than the average ITA car, but probably similar to the DA integra so not overly weird.

I don't know if the cars can make ITS weight. I reckon the civic could, less sure about the RSX. like I said before, it went where the civic went. there wasn't too much hemmin and hollerin about it. maybe that was a failure on our parts.