I bought it last thanksgiving so I don't know what weight the car will end up at. Based upon the previous owners, dry and a light driver was mid 2400. Given my 50 year old mass, I wouldn't have a problem at 2480.

I absolutely concur on the no torque comment though. I would be surprised if it at 5000 rpm has more torque than a 1600 cc CRX. Torque wins races, (or more acurately the area under the HP curve wins) not the HP peak at redline.

The worst distortion with this rule is the 83 to 88 2V 944 Its 2.5 Liter, has 56% more displacement than mine and probably 50% more torque when he shifts. Under the old rules it weighed 2715 and under the new rules it weighs 2575 (5 pounds lighter than the new Del Sol weight). Plus it has rear drive, 50/50 weight balance, and can probably run 245 tires.

If anybody is on the committee is reading this, what I want to say is I didn't ever expect this car to win against good ITS fields. I just wanted something new, interesting and Honda. What I object to is having to run probably 75 pounds ballast while giving up 50% torque to every time I shift.

It would do a lot of good for the committee to publish a couple things or the cars in the class.

1) Representative weights without balast
2) representative HP curve for the engine types with area under the curve for expected operating range. (They are out there)
3) Maximum tire cross section (Mine is 225)
4) Its relative finish vs other cars in the class (its an easy exercise if you havew the results)

Again, my objective is not to change how ITCC does their weight adjustments . All I am saying is that although the VTEC Del Sol and Civic Si might be a good cars against the Nissan 240s or Nissan NX2000 in ITA, its a no brainer that they don't have the stones to win in ITS. I bought the car knowing that it can't run with RX7's, and BMW's. I accept that it won't, I just object to having to look at 75 to 100 pounds balast while doing it .

thanks for letting me spew.

Bob Roth
Honda double wishbone racing since 1991