Could a first gen crx get to weight with a 1.3?
What is a "touring car?"
- Thread starter Knestis
- Start date
Could a first gen crx get to weight with a 1.3?
Please put one of those dune buggy flags on it, so we can see it coming as we pass it every other lap...
We actually increased the weights across-the-board in STL (Dec 2011?) to attract/accommodate 1.5L cars...with B-Spec'rs as the targets.
adamjabaay
New member
seeing as the lemons 1g crx you and I drive, gutted to crap, weighs 1730, and we have glass , big battery, and bumper bars, and all steel body, I bet it could....the 1.3l 12v head sucks though, and I bet you couldn't get 125whp out of a max effort motor without insane porting, custom intake, and wild comrpression, all not legal...
while thinking about this dumb 1.5l d series I just built, I looked at all the SMALLER honda motors, and they all have almost nothing going for them.....AND parts are all custom.
I think my d15 will be competative, especially with the results I got from V1 , power-wise, and I still want to do .040/crank scraper/ coatings/ slightly bigger cam/not ancient injectors for v2.....(my cam is biggest regrind he could do, lift is only .390 or something though)
I think I can force another 5-10 whp out of v2, but intake manifold is the choker.
I think the only "smaller" Honda motors id even consider are the newer 1.4L d series sold overseas, as they have the same "better" heads we have here, but you'd get a non-usdm weight penalty
and I still need to get another 75+ lbs out !
Last edited:
Not to dissuade lower-displacement efforts -- I'm really looking forward to Adam's efforts -- but it just seems that in STL higher-horsepower wins. Equal horsepower will go to the better chassis (e.g., Miata, RX-8, etc). If you have both then you're invincible. Granted, it's Road America, but in the last two Runoffs I predicted the order of finish based solely on estimated horsepower, and I've been correct. I predict the podium for Laguna Seca will go to the highest-horsepower cars this year as well, with more nods to sports cars*.
I could install a K20 in my Integra - there's bolt-on kits for it - but it's still a lot of work, and a lot of expense. I don't mind the work but I'm pretty much done spending any more significant development time for STL; I just don't think I can afford to compete at the pointy end of that money tree. I'll continue doing some lower-end tuning and enjoy competing/driving instead.
GA
* Haven't given it detailed thought, but leading candidates are Jim Drago in the 1.8L Miata, Robert Schader in the 2L MX-5, Brian Laughlin in the 1.8L Miata, Oscar Jackson in the Miata (noticing a theme here...?) Leading FWD candidates are Brian Shanfield in the 2L Civic, Cliff Ira in the 1.8L Integra, and I see there's another CA-based driver in a 2L Civic; the latter is interesting simply because he probably has experience at the track.
There's a lot of unknown-to-me in there, folks that race on the West Coast; they'll have home field advantage. And you might see some strong 2L FWD cars at the pointy end, especially those in the FG Civics, which have the better suspension. But in the end, I predict the pointy end of the Runoffs will be sporty cars - let's just say it: Miatas - with some higher-powered FWD cars sprinkled in there for good luck.
Me? I'll take that 1.7 liters of pure Honda FWD fury and enjoy the HELL out of a track I've wanted to race for a long time. And beer. Lots of beer.
I could install a K20 in my Integra - there's bolt-on kits for it - but it's still a lot of work, and a lot of expense. I don't mind the work but I'm pretty much done spending any more significant development time for STL; I just don't think I can afford to compete at the pointy end of that money tree. I'll continue doing some lower-end tuning and enjoy competing/driving instead.
GA
* Haven't given it detailed thought, but leading candidates are Jim Drago in the 1.8L Miata, Robert Schader in the 2L MX-5, Brian Laughlin in the 1.8L Miata, Oscar Jackson in the Miata (noticing a theme here...?) Leading FWD candidates are Brian Shanfield in the 2L Civic, Cliff Ira in the 1.8L Integra, and I see there's another CA-based driver in a 2L Civic; the latter is interesting simply because he probably has experience at the track.
There's a lot of unknown-to-me in there, folks that race on the West Coast; they'll have home field advantage. And you might see some strong 2L FWD cars at the pointy end, especially those in the FG Civics, which have the better suspension. But in the end, I predict the pointy end of the Runoffs will be sporty cars - let's just say it: Miatas - with some higher-powered FWD cars sprinkled in there for good luck.
Me? I'll take that 1.7 liters of pure Honda FWD fury and enjoy the HELL out of a track I've wanted to race for a long time. And beer. Lots of beer.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
I'll leave this here one more time:
Please do NOT use interior volume or frontal area or some generic description of a 'sports car' to handicap cars. Those items may be teeny-tiny factors but as some have said above, it's HP above all that wins. Then go down the list after that.
What people are really afraid of (in it's true definition) is a configuration of front AND rear double wishbones. The cars that can outhandle anything are equipped as such. Miata, S2000, RX8. Use this as a starting point for CA's IF you feel like you have to (or need to) after you get the HP situation in line.
Please do NOT use interior volume or frontal area or some generic description of a 'sports car' to handicap cars. Those items may be teeny-tiny factors but as some have said above, it's HP above all that wins. Then go down the list after that.
What people are really afraid of (in it's true definition) is a configuration of front AND rear double wishbones. The cars that can outhandle anything are equipped as such. Miata, S2000, RX8. Use this as a starting point for CA's IF you feel like you have to (or need to) after you get the HP situation in line.
Just sayin.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
I'm not trying to 'make it count', I am trying to influence those who race in the class or who may be thinking about it, when it comes time for them to 'make it count'.
No offense Andy, but that's kinda cowardly. In casually reviewing this thread, and looking at the list below of those that have read at this thread (of the ones I recognize), I count fewer than five persons that have actually turned a wheel in this class. But that's irrelevant because, as you are aware, these decisions are not left up to just those "who race in the class or who may be thinking about it"; it's open for anyone in the Club to decide.
But most importantly, those that may not race in the class probably have some good ideas -- which, last I checked, is the whole point of a "what do you think". "What do you thinks" are not votes; in fact, we give very little credence to the number of votes that go one way or the other (I personally ignore the numbers). Encouraging people to submit "I support this" or "I oppose that" are pointless; that's not what we want. We are looking for ideas. We are looking for different viewpoints to consider positions that we did not think about (see Tip #1 in "Greg's How to Write a Rule"). And we give even less credibility - if any at all - to Internet forum rants.
You can sit here on the Internet, presiding on the sidelines and "influencing" people all you want; feel free to leave as many things on the Internet as you want "one more time". But unless we get some ideas submitted to the CRB, then the STAC is going to make recommendations to the CRB based on existing evidence, observations, and opinions.
Fastrack has yet to be formally published - due out this week - so take this with a grain of salt, but despite all the argumentetation and hand-wringing here on this subject, and the fact that the pre-Fastrack was published over a week ago, I'm kinda surprised that the total number of letters on this subject that have been forwarded to the STAC for review is...
...zero. Dunno, maybe there's less interest in this subject than the current players like to project? Our next concall is in a week and a half; I guess we'll see how that goes...
GA
But most importantly, those that may not race in the class probably have some good ideas -- which, last I checked, is the whole point of a "what do you think". "What do you thinks" are not votes; in fact, we give very little credence to the number of votes that go one way or the other (I personally ignore the numbers). Encouraging people to submit "I support this" or "I oppose that" are pointless; that's not what we want. We are looking for ideas. We are looking for different viewpoints to consider positions that we did not think about (see Tip #1 in "Greg's How to Write a Rule"). And we give even less credibility - if any at all - to Internet forum rants.
You can sit here on the Internet, presiding on the sidelines and "influencing" people all you want; feel free to leave as many things on the Internet as you want "one more time". But unless we get some ideas submitted to the CRB, then the STAC is going to make recommendations to the CRB based on existing evidence, observations, and opinions.
Fastrack has yet to be formally published - due out this week - so take this with a grain of salt, but despite all the argumentetation and hand-wringing here on this subject, and the fact that the pre-Fastrack was published over a week ago, I'm kinda surprised that the total number of letters on this subject that have been forwarded to the STAC for review is...
...zero. Dunno, maybe there's less interest in this subject than the current players like to project? Our next concall is in a week and a half; I guess we'll see how that goes...
GA
adamjabaay
New member
I'll be turning my first "wheel" in STL within a month or so. I can't wait to run against miatas, personally.....
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Cowardly is a stupid term to use Greg. What in the world would I be afraid of in writing a letter? It's an internet BB, we debate. At this time I feel that it's the responsibility of the people who race in the class to weigh in officially. I am not at that point yet where I feel the CRB needs to hear from a non-driver on this topic mostly because the concept has been debated here extensively and we have given those who do race - or may, some information to chew on in order to write a letter.
And it's disingenuous to insinuate that an 'idea' that you heard, that you might think has merit, could not be brought up as part of the monthly STAC calls, by you - or any other board member who reads this BB as part of the committee debate and problem resolution. Just because it's not submitted via the SCCA site doesn't mean the thought process isn't out there. My concept isn't an actionable item anyway, it's a potential piece of someone else's idea who may see merit in next-wave comp-adjustments or even a redefining of the class as we know it now.
Right now, I don't see a problem with the class that needs immediate action.
And it's disingenuous to insinuate that an 'idea' that you heard, that you might think has merit, could not be brought up as part of the monthly STAC calls, by you - or any other board member who reads this BB as part of the committee debate and problem resolution. Just because it's not submitted via the SCCA site doesn't mean the thought process isn't out there. My concept isn't an actionable item anyway, it's a potential piece of someone else's idea who may see merit in next-wave comp-adjustments or even a redefining of the class as we know it now.
Right now, I don't see a problem with the class that needs immediate action.
Last edited:
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
WRT the 'what do you think', I also need to be more educated on what the SCCA has done in the past. STL has the same 'issue' as other classes. I bet EP and FP also have the same 'issue'. Getting some success stories from the Prod ranks on how they have attempted to balance Miata's, Preludes, 240Z's, Integra's, 2002's, S2000's, RX8's, Caterham's, 914's, 944's etc.
Seems like the concepts may already live inside the CRB.
Seems like the concepts may already live inside the CRB.
Wait, whut? Dude, is has been brought up, and it has been discussed by the STAC, and we have discussed various options. All we're doing with this process is asking for other thoughts to ensure that the small committee that is talking about this issue hasn't missed any opportunities or ideas before we make a recommendation. That's what this process is for.
We don't need a vote. I don't give a flying doggy-doo about vote numbers or "influencing" positions. I care about ideas, opportunities, and ensuring that we make the right decisions for the good of the category as a whole. We could get 27 brazillion "we hate this idea" votes and if it's actually the right thing to do, then we're still going to recommend it. In the end, we'll make decisions based on what we see as the good of the category despite opinion numbers that may deviate from that position. That's our minimum responsibility. And we're using the "what do you think" option as a way to ensure we have all reasonable information.
If you don't have any new information to add, well then "thanks for your input".
As for your 'influencing'..."The lady doth protest too much, methinks" (the vernacular interpretation).
GA
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
So what the F are you asking me to write a letter for if you have 'brought it up, discussed in committee and bantered various options'? It's not a new concept that you need to hear via official communication because you are not 'missing' my idea.
Why are you asking me to write in? I don't get it. I am restating the concept to those 'regular' IT.com readers who may be interested in what I think is the 'real' problem they are trying to 'fix'.
And PS: You don't have to keep telling me your responsibilities. I know them. I have lived them. I have been on more National SCCA committees than I care to admit.
Why are you asking me to write in? I don't get it. I am restating the concept to those 'regular' IT.com readers who may be interested in what I think is the 'real' problem they are trying to 'fix'.
And PS: You don't have to keep telling me your responsibilities. I know them. I have lived them. I have been on more National SCCA committees than I care to admit.
Last edited:
Flyinglizard
New member
I have noted prior that IMHo the lateral performance is limited by the dynamic front tire loading.Less weight on that tire, the faster the cornering speed. Well guess what? the more rear weight the better the car balance. As a designer gets some parameters for a sports car, the first is a good balance. 50/50 is the target many times. 40/60 is super car, 70/30 is econobox.
The good weight balnce also seems to come with good aero kinda as a side benefit. At the same time, the FWD cars have all of the opposite values, IE lots of nose weight , tall greenhouse, poor chassis, less than the sum of it's parts.
What it appears is that among the cars listed and raced in ST. the better cars have 50% or more rear weight. These same cars have a better aero package, some what as a result of the weight placement.
That is one reason why the sum of it's parts(Miata) are better than expected. It has great balance and good aero, great drivers/ great factory support/ doesnt break/ and is pretty cheap to keep.
You could " easily" come up with a multiplier based upon rear weight percent. IE 60% rear weight car gets a base weight times 107% or something like that. At the other extreme is the 70/30 FWD car that would have to get weight times 95% or something like that.
The only outlier that I see fast may be the Honda CRX that has a smalll nose and lots of front weight.
The good weight balnce also seems to come with good aero kinda as a side benefit. At the same time, the FWD cars have all of the opposite values, IE lots of nose weight , tall greenhouse, poor chassis, less than the sum of it's parts.
What it appears is that among the cars listed and raced in ST. the better cars have 50% or more rear weight. These same cars have a better aero package, some what as a result of the weight placement.
That is one reason why the sum of it's parts(Miata) are better than expected. It has great balance and good aero, great drivers/ great factory support/ doesnt break/ and is pretty cheap to keep.
You could " easily" come up with a multiplier based upon rear weight percent. IE 60% rear weight car gets a base weight times 107% or something like that. At the other extreme is the 70/30 FWD car that would have to get weight times 95% or something like that.
The only outlier that I see fast may be the Honda CRX that has a smalll nose and lots of front weight.
Z3_GoCar
New member
Greg will get the chance to race a fast CRX at the runoffs, although when I talked to Paul at his first race with us he was running a 1.6 dual cam. But he was competitive with the best of the uncorked SM's from Rush.
The answer for me is 242hp. That's what I got, we'll see if that's competitive with the S-2k at 2550lbs (he added a sequential just because,) I think they're at that power but with 200lbs less
Then there's the turbo version of the 2.5 that's got 270 at the wheel at 2550lbs. Yeah, I don't think the "Turbo" problem is fixed yet, they need to add another 200lbs, and take 200 off me.
The answer for me is 242hp. That's what I got, we'll see if that's competitive with the S-2k at 2550lbs (he added a sequential just because,) I think they're at that power but with 200lbs less
Then there's the turbo version of the 2.5 that's got 270 at the wheel at 2550lbs. Yeah, I don't think the "Turbo" problem is fixed yet, they need to add another 200lbs, and take 200 off me.
Ron Earp
Administrator
RIF fail. 2L RWD.
I wasn't gonna say anything...honest.
for Ron:
2.0L STL weights
RWD w/ F Struts: 2795
Thanks, I was just asking it see if I could build something in my wheelhouse that would be competitive in the class. Sort of doubt it.
We race the ITS Mustangs at 27XX-2800 lbs now. We have 185 rwhp, but, we get it from 3.8L so we have a lot of area under the horsepower curve when compared to say a 1.8L Honda of the same power. For STL and 2L displacement RWD heavy car it'd be a different ball game:
*86ish light Ford Fox like a notch back or Merkur, probably could get that sans driver at around 2400 lbs or there abouts.
*2L Ford/Mazda power plant at 11:1 compression
*T5 tranny ; open ratios
*Same basic suspension design we have now (could we convert to IRS in the rear, not sure I would).
With 2L at 11:1, 0.425 valve lift, and open cams I reckon it'd be possible to make 240hp at the crank with a lot of work, or around 210hp at the wheels. But we'd be racing at the same weight we are now, and the little 2L engine will have a pretty narrow power band to pull that off. Not sure it'd work out at that weight.
Be a fun project though.
Back to the regular program, which is good reading for me to understand this class.
Last edited:
Z3_GoCar
New member
This points to the failure of the straight weight/displacement method of determining competitiveness. So, I'd argue that other than classing the not otherwise classed, it's time to move on to spec lines for at least motors, and leave the reminder of the modifiers in place. Maybe even make a flow chart so that Tech has a coherent way to check ultimate weight.
I put this in my request #14859.
Don't forget that in GT/Production the open cars get to remove their windshield's and have asymmetrical cages to minimize air drag and top weight. So the ST spec roadster (even with a hard top) would be slower than the GT/Production version. Prather has the data to prove it as well.
http://prodracing.com/prodcar/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=15691&start=10
Last edited:
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Which compounds this problem if you allow 'sports cars' better aero. So what is Prod doing to compensate? I think the baseline knowledge is there already.