Preliminary CRB Minutes/Tech Bulletin - November

[DavidM]

Back to the motor mount rule. So what's wrong with the rule as written, other than it being a bit lengthy? Writing an airtight rule is probably impossible and I'd rather see some attempt at confining the usage versus leaving it wide ass open. Everybody says they would never use solid mounts, but that doesn't mean somebody won't find a way to make them work and gain an advantage in some form. I've pretty much got sphericals or solid mounts for every other bushing on the car and I'm guessing some folks thought that would not occur. Maybe the rule as proposed would make it illegal, maybe it wouldn't. You could file a protest and find out. I think having the intent in the rule does give some guidance for a protest committee. If the rule is wide open then the protest option doesn't exist.

David

[mossaidis]

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.

ah... i will need to read this twice over to get what you are saying. (no offense)

If no one will step up to do the research on th RSX, I will. I agree with chip, speak now or forever hold your piece. Unless whp ratios change and move lots down to ITA and ITB and ITC, I still believe the 02-05 civic si should be classed in ITS. as an ITA guy, I do not fear the competition btw. I have spoken to the ITAC/CRB and plan on doing similar research on the 02-06 Accord and 04-08 TSX, both share similar platforms but different engines.

[Andy Bettencourt]

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.

But not so similar. Well over 10 more whp and way worse handling. We ran the Davis GA RSX's out of our shop for a year.

[ShelbyRacer]

Back to the motor mount rule. So what's wrong with the rule as written, other than it being a bit lengthy? Writing an airtight rule is probably impossible and I'd rather see some attempt at confining the usage versus leaving it wide ass open. Everybody says they would never use solid mounts, but that doesn't mean somebody won't find a way to make them work and gain an advantage in some form. I've pretty much got sphericals or solid mounts for every other bushing on the car and I'm guessing some folks thought that would not occur. Maybe the rule as proposed would make it illegal, maybe it wouldn't. You could file a protest and find out. I think having the intent in the rule does give some guidance for a protest committee. If the rule is wide open then the protest option doesn't exist.

David

I'm not saying I don't like the rule, as I just want thte ability to modify my mounts so they don't fail on a regular basis.

I'm just there with Jake in that I truly wonder how dimensionally identical solid mounts would be an issue of a huge performance gain, given the collateral damage that can occur. I'm trying to make a potential protest situation even more black and white. Measure it. If it ain't identical within tolerance, it's non-compliant. The material used to get it there is academic.

[Knestis]

... The material used to get it there is academic.

Which may or may not be legal, depending on how rigidly academic one is.

K

[ShelbyRacer]

Which may or may not be legal, depending on how rigidly academic one is.

K

I meant if we went to no limits on material, and "allowed solid mounts".

However, I'm sure there are still academics of some sort who could find some exceptions

[Z3_GoCar]

I'm just glad this has moved on. So aluminum blocks are out, urethane is fine, but what about say delrin? Maybe the ITAC took the language from the solo II STx rules?

[Chip42]

But not so similar. Well over 10 more whp and way worse handling. We ran the Davis GA RSX's out of our shop for a year.

the well known crap handling makes me wonder why anyone would want to make a race car from one. it might even be more of an impediment in S, where it would have less of a hp/tq "advantage" to make up for the slower cornering. either way, I'll sign off on a move to S (EP Civic Si as well) if one is requested, though I really think they are correct in A. I believe the request to classify the RSX was academic in the first place.

[Flyinglizard]

Motor mounts are either stock or not. The tech issue of quantifying non stock mounts is just stupid.
The issue is engine placement. Non stock mounts can optimize the engine placement.
Once the mounts can be replaced, the ship has sailed.
Records will fall as power is delivered better with cars that have moved the engine lower. MM

[mossaidis]

the well known crap handling makes me wonder why anyone would want to make a race car from one. it might even be more of an impediment in S, where it would have less of a hp/tq "advantage" to make up for the slower cornering. either way, I'll sign off on a move to S (EP Civic Si as well) if one is requested, though I really think they are correct in A. I believe the request to classify the RSX was academic in the first place.

I slept on it and I think you correct. Regardless, I have started a Honda Civic/Acura matrix of information for models for last 10+ years. I will post when finished.

[Chip42]

Motor mounts are either stock or not. The tech issue of quantifying non stock mounts is just stupid.
The issue is engine placement. Non stock mounts can optimize the engine placement.
Once the mounts can be replaced, the ship has sailed.
Records will fall as power is delivered better with cars that have moved the engine lower. MM

mike, reread the rule. relocation and reorientation of the mounted component (i.e. engine, trans, diff,...) are not allowed. the debate is over materials and their stiffness. comparing stock critical dimensions to replacement critical dimnsions can (and I presume, at some point, will be) be done at tech.

[jumbojimbo]

mike, reread the rule. relocation and reorientation of the mounted component (i.e. engine, trans, diff,...) are not allowed. the debate is over materials and their stiffness. comparing stock critical dimensions to replacement critical dimnsions can (and I presume, at some point, will be) be done at tech.

In before he says you can't police it. Ignoring the fact that people can modify the stock mount now and move the motor. Same amount of illegal regardless.

[chuck baader]

Also note, this does nothing to the bushing rule. Chuck

[Bill Miller]

Interesting to see that they have asked for input regarding running the Volvo 240 in ITB or ITC. Makes you wonder why they didn't pose the same question regarding the RSX (and many other cars).

I was actually surprised w/ the response about being able to run stock wheels. Silly IMHO. Would seem like a case for a spec line note ala MR2 aero pkg.

[Marcus Miller]

I think the difference Bill is one involves folks already invested, vs. a new classification.

The wheel thing is silly, IMHO.

[Flyinglizard]

Are the mounts to be compared to new mounts or old sagged mounts?
How much tolerance is there?? ( There is a tolerance value for everything)

Wheels?? I was sure that the CRB allowd the stock wheels. IE; for the ITC New beetle. Not allowing the stock wheels is just nuts . It just takes one line to fix that," stock or X size".
Bring the door jamb sticker and the owners' manual/FSM, for other than class size wheels. SCCA needs to fix this part for sure.
PS, more tire sizes in the normal class sizes..
MM

[JeffYoung]

Correct. We have at least one guy running a 242 and we wanted to know where he wanted to race.

Additionally, we asked on this one because there is no way the 242 is going to make its ITB weight. It's an ITC car by the process. However if the guy driving it wants to stay in B for now, I have no issue with that. I doubt we are going to see any of them built again anyway.

The RSX we tried to figure out where it fit "best" as it is much more of a tweener than the 242. It looked like A at first and even based on the above discussion still looks like a close call.

I'd love to have another modern FWD car in S but if the thing can't handle and really has no "torque" advantage like it kinda does in A, does it have any shot at all in S??

I think the difference Bill is one involves folks already invested, vs. a new classification.

The wheel thing is silly, IMHO.

[Bill Miller]

Correct. We have at least one guy running a 242 and we wanted to know where he wanted to race.

Additionally, we asked on this one because there is no way the 242 is going to make its ITB weight. It's an ITC car by the process. However if the guy driving it wants to stay in B for now, I have no issue with that. I doubt we are going to see any of them built again anyway.

The RSX we tried to figure out where it fit "best" as it is much more of a tweener than the 242. It looked like A at first and even based on the above discussion still looks like a close call.

I'd love to have another modern FWD car in S but if the thing can't handle and really has no "torque" advantage like it kinda does in A, does it have any shot at all in S??

Jeff,

I think what you've done w/ the Volvo sets a precedent. You've let it out that you'll consider running cars in one class or the other. I would expect that you'll now get letters about moving other cars, or at least inquiring as to what their process weights in a different class would be. If it's a case of a car not being able to make process weight in one class, it goes 'down' a class and gains weight (ala New Beetle). What happens when you get 20 guys that all run the same car, and are split as to where they want to run it? Or if you have another guy that wants to run a 242 in ITC?

In this case, it may be one guy running this car, and nobody may ever build another one, but you've now established that the ITAC is willing to make a decision as to which class a car should run in, based on member input. I think there may be unintended consequences from this one.

As far as the stock wheel thing, I brought this up back when the New Beetle was first classified. This is such an easy fix, don't understand the logic behind the response. Especially in light of the fact that an ITS GM Quad4 car can convert from rear drum to rear disc, w/ parts that never came on the car, yet the New Beetle can't run the stock wheels that came w/ the car.

[Ron Earp]

I'd love to have another modern FWD car in S but if the thing can't handle and really has no "torque" advantage like it kinda does in A, does it have any shot at all in S??

That's a bit subjective isn't it? An RSX "handling like crap" still might handle better than a TR8 or many of the other S cars. I realize there are subjective decisions in the classification process, but at some point the process must be employed to class a car. Sort of reminds me of folks saying the ITS Integra could never make ITS power, well, lo and behold, it does.

[tnord]

it's not at all like the ITS integra Ron......arguing power potential changes the actual formula and weight. debating where the base RSX should go is the same discussion we have on every new listing (or at least the same questions i ask myself every time).

1) can it make X weight?
2) is there another similar car somewhere?

the extent of my honda knowledge says that the EP civic and the RSX are more or less the same car.....others agreed....so in ITA it landed. that's all it is for me, nothing more.