ITS Acura Racer Input

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by BVinson:
.......and I have won as many races or more than the others. So I am happy and will take your advise and let it be.

Brian Vinson

[This message has been edited by BVinson (edited September 13, 2004).]

So, you are winning races, but you think they "blew it" on your spec weight, and you want it to be lowered further???????

That's rich!



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[BVinson]

Yeah, you like that? As I said there are only 4-5 cars at the most in ITS in this region. What if I was to go to another region or even arrc. Just want all to be fair. Thats all.

[Geo]

Originally posted by BVinson:
What if I was to go to another region or even arrc.

Well, you'd get to have fun at Road Atlanta I'd guess.

Originally posted by BVinson:
Just want all to be fair. Thats all.

Sounds like it is. For you at least.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com



[This message has been edited by Geo (edited September 13, 2004).]

[Geo]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
Saying that a car is 50-75 pounds off it's ideal weight is nit-picking IMHO.

I agree. I think it's impossible to accurately gauge car potential to get any finer resolution than 65 or so lbs.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[lateapex911]

Agreed, and it's not just because of the inability to get closer, but because of the variety of tracks, and the individual strengths of some cars vs. the strengths of others. What wins here loses there and vice versa........in a perfect world.

Now, if you really think that you are spec'ed too heavy, then indeed you NEED to go to the ARRCs, and other areas and tracks and run against the best, AND put every last effort of development into the car possible. And, encourage your friends who run the same car to do the same. Might have to share secrets to prove a point.

Proving your car is too heavy is a little tough...you need numbers on your side, empirically, as well as results-wise, just to get the attention of the boards. Then you need those numbers to be obvious...like Pierre Kleinubing drove your car, at the ARRCs lets say, and you had every last trick part and tweak on it, and you paid Real Time to prep and set it up. Pierre gets creamed all over the track, gets out at the end, and said, "Thees car is a peese of sheet"!

(The famous corallary to this is the not exactly true story of how the Accord got moved from ITB to ITA....Randy Pobst supposedly drove it at the ARRCs and cleaned up with it an *PooF*! it was in ITA!)

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[mavis]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
Are we talking about the ITS Acura Integra 3-Door GS-R with 172 stock HP?? If so, assuming a meager 25% increase with IT prep, I'd have to say that this one is SPOT ON for the class... In fact, I'm thinking it's a little on the light side, if the HP numbers work out correctly...

Compare this to the '95-'98 240SX, which has to weight 2650lbs and only makes 155hp stock, or the 944, which has 157hp stock and has to weight 2715lbs...

I'm not sure I'd be complaining if I were you...

Keep in mind that stock weights have very little to do with final weight these days... except to try to help determine if the final weight can be achieved with legal IT prep...

Looking at the numbers, the Acura being discussed looks like a really NICE choice for an ITS car...

Good Luck!

Not entirely sure where you are getting the figure 172 stock HP? Most stock numbers are about 150whp.

[SPiFF]

Crack HP as rated by the factory.

Mine was 137.9 WHP and 107.9 WTQ bone stock on a dyno jet BTW.

------------------
Zsolt - #18 H3 GSR
http://www.SouthEastHondaChallenge.com

[Geo]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
Then you need those numbers to be obvious...like Pierre Kleinubing drove your car, at the ARRCs lets say, and you had every last trick part and tweak on it

If Klangandbang drove it you'd need a new car the following season.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[x-ring]

"If Klangandbang drove it you'd need a new car the following season."

Season? Don't you mean session, George?


------------------
Ty Till
#16 ITS
Rocky Mountain Division

[Knestis]

Okay - I'm probably going to kill off a couple of our more prodigious posters with coronary failure when I hit "post" but...

If you weren't involved in conversations about weight specs back in the bad old days (aka 18 or more months ago) then you don't know how good we have it now.

Before the current ITAC gained any traction on the problem, the stories about how weights were set changed faster than Darin changes his shorts. They were set based on curb weights, then by some magic (if unpublished) formula, then by voodoo...

Even with the subjective factors that get considered now, we are WAY better off than we used to be, in terms of some predictable, repeatable process being applied to this question. I'm still on the fence re: PCAs but am increasingly confident.

I do chuckle a little whenever one of the ITAC members posts something about the "formula," for reasons that should be obvious to those who WERE around here over the last four years or so but GOOD WORK, GUYS...

K

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Knestis:
...the stories about how weights were set changed faster than Darin changes his shorts.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say, but I'm SURE that I don't like it! (just a funny phrase that I came up with one day when responding to my wife... )

I do chuckle a little whenever one of the ITAC members posts something about the "formula," for reasons that should be obvious to those who WERE around here over the last four years or so but GOOD WORK, GUYS...

K

"PROCESS" Kirk... "PROCESS"...

Hopefully... this will work!?!?!?


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

[Geo]

Originally posted by x-ring:
"If Klangandbang drove it you'd need a new car the following season."

Season? Don't you mean session, George?

Yes, exactly. I was just assuming (wrongly) that the ARRC would be the last race of the season. But you are 100% correct.

I swear sometimes the only thing that guy doesn't hit is the starter's stand.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[This message has been edited by Geo (edited September 14, 2004).]

[lateapex911]

Kirk?????

IS that you Kirk???

Ok, who stole Kirk, and WHO is posting in his name????

Falling over, I am...


------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[Catch22]

Oh, as I've posted many times before I think the new ITAC is doing a fandamnedtastic job. There is now a method to the madness, which is a very very good thing.

I figure the next couple of years will be spent adjusting grossly misclassed cars (like has already started). But after that I'm hoping that the process itself will get tweeked a little further. Plucking the low fruit first and then going after the tougher stuff so to speak.

A fine example is the car we're talking about here. As I mentioned before in this thread, I don't think its something at or near the top of the current list. But maybe in a couple of years it should be. By the current process the car looks good at 2690, but I promise you guys it isn't. It won't get off a slow corner and the brakes won't stand up to a tough race at even a moderate braking track. In a close NASA race at CMP (brutal on brakes) in 2002 I actually cracked a front rotor all the way through (the rotor was a brand new Brembo that was double ducted) and was lucky not to crash. This was at 2600lbs.

Nitpicking-65lbs may sound like nitpicking to some of you guys, but as a former owner of one of these cars I will say that beyond question when a car's weakness is torque and brakes, 65lbs can make a BIG difference.
Maybe the ITAC can start nitpicking in 2006??? I'm sure there are many other chassis that need some nitpicking (both up and down)
Meaningful Results-OK, some guy is winning some races in xxx chassis in xxx division... Is this a meaningful data point???
What is the level of the competition???
Is the car legal???
What is it doing in divisions where its class is well attended???
What is it doing at the ARRC???

Sure, for now the ITAC has a plate so full that a chassis that isn't a gross miss isn't on the radar. But what about later?

Scott, who wouldn't have sold his '94 GSR had it been listed at 2625lbs. Yes, those 65lbs ARE that significant.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
"PROCESS" Kirk... "PROCESS"...

Hopefully... this will work!?!?!?

Right Darin!

Process/PCA = Formula/CA

You know what they say about walking like a duck!

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Process/PCA = Formula/CA

Would someone kindly explain to Mr. Miller the difference between a "Formula" and a "Process"... I've tried... he just doesn't get it...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

[Geo]

Originally posted by Catch22:
Nitpicking-65lbs may sound like nitpicking to some of you guys...

<snip>

Sure, for now the ITAC has a plate so full that a chassis that isn't a gross miss isn't on the radar. But what about later?

Scott, those 65 lbs are lost in the mix. I know you and some others won't like to hear this, but IMHO (I don't speak for the whole ITAC of course) if we are that close, we are not only done, but I'd say "good job." I don't see how we could estimate performance potential of 300+ cars to get closer than that. And I'd guess I'm one of the ITAC members who is more open to adjustments. Just trying to be honest and up front. And don't think "hey if I ask for 100 lbs I might get 50." Doesn't work that way.

Now, if you want to talk about a car that is in need of adjustment...

The 944 and 944S share the exact same chassis. If the 944 were set to the same power to weight as the 944S it should weight around 2220 lbs. Currently it must weigh 2750. This isn't even a matter of estimating performance since the only difference is the engines. You can have your 65 lbs if I can have my 530 lbs.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[Catch22]

You can have your 65 lbs if I can have my 530 lbs.

See George, I see that example as speaking of 2 different things. I (and apparently alot of other people) see the 944 as a good old fashioned "tweener." Too slow for ITS as light as you can legally get it and too good for ITA unless you fill it with a dumptruck full of sand.
There will be cars like this. That just don't really fit well anywhere. FWIW I think the New Beetle is one of these. I think ITC at over 2700lbs was the best choice, but c'mon... 2750lbs, Front wheel drive and 6" wide wheels... Yeah, OK, Have fun with that.

The Integra in question isn't such a car. Its a good ITS car all around, its just listed a bit too heavy.
Again, here's one potential solution to the BMW problem. And if you think just adding weight to the E36 is the solution think again. A little birdie told me many of the E36 cars that are currently dominant are already running well above 2800lbs. Even adding 200lbs to them won't change much.

Remember, I've got no horse in this race. I sold my Integra 2 years ago and won't be building another. I'm just trying to be honest based on my knowlege and experience.

[Geo]

Originally posted by Catch22:
See George, I see that example as speaking of 2 different things.

Actually, you missed the point.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
Would someone kindly explain to Mr. Miller the difference between a "Formula" and a "Process"... I've tried... he just doesn't get it...

Ok Darin, I was just poking a little fun, but obviously, you don't get that either. The difference is, that if you call it a 'Process', you can hide behind the fact that it's not official, and doesn't have to get applied objectively to everyone.

Have fun!

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608