Beat me, hurt me - I think I'll go run NASA PT
- Thread starter Knestis
- Start date
Catch22
New member
You can spend as much or as little in IT as you want. Really.
I dropped alot of cash (in ITC terms) actually building my old car, but the result was a car that was super easy on equipment and could win on any given day.
Tire budget - One per weekend, including running enduros.
Front brake pads - 2 sets a year
Rear shoes - One set every 2 years
Front hubs - One set a year
etc....
But it wasn't a "cool" car. 90 world blistering HP and the worlds most widely spaced 2-3 upshift.
You can race "cheap" (in racing terms) and win, but you have to surrender some cool points.
So... $5000 to $7500 can get you an ARRC win in ITC... Maybe.
But that AIN'T EVER gonna happen in ITA. Not unless the first dozen or more cars all crash or break.
So if you wanna race cheap and be competitive, pick the right car. But DON'T pick ITS or ITA and then complain that you are being outspent (note: not singling out anyone in particular, I'm just sick of guys standing in front of their ITS BMWs complaining about what they have to spend on tires... SHUT UP!!!)
And this NASA PT thing???
Good luck with that. I see about a dozen holes in it. But they won't matter until if/when the classes get popular. Then there will be a big mess. Especially at something like a national championship.
And just for the heck of it, I figured up what I spend to build and operate my old ITC car vs. what it would cost me to build and competitively operate that "old" Neon ACR in the driveway for SSC.
The ITC car is cheaper by my math. Build costs are pretty close (once you factor in rebuilding the motor and shocks and tranny in that 150K mile Neon it isn't much different than building a good ITB/C car) but the C car murders the Neon on consumables, especially tires.
There are alot of "myths" in club racing. That Showroom Stock is "cheap" ranks almost as high as spec Toyos saving money.
FWIW
I dropped alot of cash (in ITC terms) actually building my old car, but the result was a car that was super easy on equipment and could win on any given day.
Tire budget - One per weekend, including running enduros.
Front brake pads - 2 sets a year
Rear shoes - One set every 2 years
Front hubs - One set a year
etc....
But it wasn't a "cool" car. 90 world blistering HP and the worlds most widely spaced 2-3 upshift.
You can race "cheap" (in racing terms) and win, but you have to surrender some cool points.
So... $5000 to $7500 can get you an ARRC win in ITC... Maybe.
But that AIN'T EVER gonna happen in ITA. Not unless the first dozen or more cars all crash or break.
So if you wanna race cheap and be competitive, pick the right car. But DON'T pick ITS or ITA and then complain that you are being outspent (note: not singling out anyone in particular, I'm just sick of guys standing in front of their ITS BMWs complaining about what they have to spend on tires... SHUT UP!!!)
And this NASA PT thing???
Good luck with that. I see about a dozen holes in it. But they won't matter until if/when the classes get popular. Then there will be a big mess. Especially at something like a national championship.
And just for the heck of it, I figured up what I spend to build and operate my old ITC car vs. what it would cost me to build and competitively operate that "old" Neon ACR in the driveway for SSC.
The ITC car is cheaper by my math. Build costs are pretty close (once you factor in rebuilding the motor and shocks and tranny in that 150K mile Neon it isn't much different than building a good ITB/C car) but the C car murders the Neon on consumables, especially tires.
There are alot of "myths" in club racing. That Showroom Stock is "cheap" ranks almost as high as spec Toyos saving money.
FWIW
lateapex911
Super Moderator
I think PT can be a cheap place to race, if nobody shows up. By that I mean, if nobody shows up with a car prepped to the max for the class it is in. No matter what, each level can be optimized...and the "stock" engine is a classic example......some "stock" engines are more "stock" than others, and when two talented drivers go at it, in similar cars, the one with a few more hp will hold the advantage. It might be a minor one, and it might be expensive, but, just like an auction, it takes two to tango. And if they both want it bad enough, the tango gets pricey.
gran racing
Super Moderator
Hey! But you were targeting Jake with that comment. Now see what you've done Jake - now you owe me a LRP pulled pork sandwich and two beers.
With the SS thing - I wasn't saying keep these older cars running with the newer SS cars rather create new classes for them. I understand there are many holes in this idea too; more of a brainstorming idea.
The question is if there is a way to structure a racing category that does not significantly reward tons of money being spent on their cars? Essentially a place where the return on investment is relatively small.
Are there any clubs elsewhere (Europe?) that people have heard work well to accomplish this?
Bill Miller
New member
Hey! But you were targeting Jake with that comment. No see what you've done Jake - now you owe me a LRP pulled pork sandwich and two beers.
[/b]
Geez Dave, why don't you just ask him to pay your entry fee!!! :119:
944-spec#94
New member
Guys the biggest advantage PT has over IT is that there is a place for just about any car and any modification. In the NASA world there are two things different from SCCA.
Those are HPDE and Time Trials. 95% of folks start in HPDE. They start with street cars in stock form. Over time if they enjoy the driving they begin to mod the car to make it more fun and safer. After a few years they can be very good DE drivers and rather fast. Naturally they will want to take their time of driving with other DE folks and move on. They have Time Trials. Time trail rules are very similar to PT rules. Really that kind of rule set is perfect for HPDE cars. Each car will have varying mods and 95% of drivers don't want to make major changes just to be legel to do time trials. So the rules are such that as long as the car is safe I can time trial or race somewhere. In time folks can adjust their cars for a particular class, but without the PT classing what does someone with a fun DE/track car go if he wants to race? He probably CAN'T race in SCCA because the car will not be legal for most classes. At best he can run ITE where the car probably won't even be CLOSE to anything else.
At least with PT he can race the car in place where there will be a fair chance that he could be on pace. Certainly winning depends on driver skill and car prep, there is vast difference between being competitive and being a rolling road block.
Seriously I can't tell you how many folks I run into at NASA HPDE events that would love to race, but can't find the right place. They have safe near race prepped DE cars that they have built and run for years. They don't race however since their car is not legal for the class where it speed would have it run.
The bottomline is NASA no longer has a "Mirror class" of IT. They have created something new with the intent of capturing new racers or those who feel left out by most of the other classes. Have an odd ball car or odd ball prep and you can run in PT. Have a car prepped to the limit for IT and you should probalby stay there as PT is not IT.
Now as for the expense. No form of racing is "cheap". It does seem to me that one can build a race car and over time evolve it from a slower cheaper prep level to a very high expensive prep level and have its class move up along the way running with cars in its class of a similar speed.
Right now an IT car could be in 3 PT classes. A "safety legal" bare bone IT car would probably run in its base class. A moderate prep car would probably run in one class up. A full tilt IT prep car would run two classes up. Seems like a very nice model for someone wanting to slowly build a car and race it. In IT they are stuck in there class getting runover by the full tilt cars. IN PT they woudl be among slower cars so at least the speed differece would not be as great.
Hey PT is not for everyone. I will not run PT. Why? I have 944 spec that fits my goals and needs perfectly. However without 944 spec I would probably run PT vs IT with my 944 becuase the prep level I run now I cannot really exceed. So in ITS even with the weight break I would get creamed due my "stock junkyard" motor. In PT is only move up one class with my current prep so I would not need to build a motor to be competitive.
Those are HPDE and Time Trials. 95% of folks start in HPDE. They start with street cars in stock form. Over time if they enjoy the driving they begin to mod the car to make it more fun and safer. After a few years they can be very good DE drivers and rather fast. Naturally they will want to take their time of driving with other DE folks and move on. They have Time Trials. Time trail rules are very similar to PT rules. Really that kind of rule set is perfect for HPDE cars. Each car will have varying mods and 95% of drivers don't want to make major changes just to be legel to do time trials. So the rules are such that as long as the car is safe I can time trial or race somewhere. In time folks can adjust their cars for a particular class, but without the PT classing what does someone with a fun DE/track car go if he wants to race? He probably CAN'T race in SCCA because the car will not be legal for most classes. At best he can run ITE where the car probably won't even be CLOSE to anything else.
At least with PT he can race the car in place where there will be a fair chance that he could be on pace. Certainly winning depends on driver skill and car prep, there is vast difference between being competitive and being a rolling road block.
Seriously I can't tell you how many folks I run into at NASA HPDE events that would love to race, but can't find the right place. They have safe near race prepped DE cars that they have built and run for years. They don't race however since their car is not legal for the class where it speed would have it run.
The bottomline is NASA no longer has a "Mirror class" of IT. They have created something new with the intent of capturing new racers or those who feel left out by most of the other classes. Have an odd ball car or odd ball prep and you can run in PT. Have a car prepped to the limit for IT and you should probalby stay there as PT is not IT.
Now as for the expense. No form of racing is "cheap". It does seem to me that one can build a race car and over time evolve it from a slower cheaper prep level to a very high expensive prep level and have its class move up along the way running with cars in its class of a similar speed.
Right now an IT car could be in 3 PT classes. A "safety legal" bare bone IT car would probably run in its base class. A moderate prep car would probably run in one class up. A full tilt IT prep car would run two classes up. Seems like a very nice model for someone wanting to slowly build a car and race it. In IT they are stuck in there class getting runover by the full tilt cars. IN PT they woudl be among slower cars so at least the speed differece would not be as great.
Hey PT is not for everyone. I will not run PT. Why? I have 944 spec that fits my goals and needs perfectly. However without 944 spec I would probably run PT vs IT with my 944 becuase the prep level I run now I cannot really exceed. So in ITS even with the weight break I would get creamed due my "stock junkyard" motor. In PT is only move up one class with my current prep so I would not need to build a motor to be competitive.
Catch22
New member
Well, Dave... I hear what you are saying, but Jake's post above pretty much answers it.
There really is no way to control costs in racing besides claim rules, and claim rules are almost impossible to pull off logistically in a club our size. Imagine 250 entrants at the ARRC and 50 of them decide to use the claim rule. How in the world would you pull that off?
Well, you couldn't. And before you write a rule, you need to make sure you can logistically and reasonably make it happen. As I mentioned earlier, NASA has a SM engine claim rule that looks GREAT on paper, but the only person I've heard of that actually tried to use it got kicked out of the event. Thats good stuff right there.
So a claim rule doesn't work. How about very restrictive rules...
OK.
Lets look at the possibility of a bone stock class for cars 7 years or older. ZERO modifications allowed other than tires and brake pads...
Now, I want to win the ARRC in this new class in the Neon ACR sitting in my driveway...
- Complete motor rebuild barely inside factory spec (the "perfect" parts bin motor).
- Tranny rebuild
- New Konis
- New springs/swaybars
- All new OE bushings
etc...
Get my point? What am I doing here that is much different than building an IT car? Well, not much. And the lack of suspension adjustment, extra weight, and extra body roll means I'm eating up tires and brake pads faster than I would on an ITB/C car.
And if I do all of this, I become Mr. Jones. And if you want to keep up with the Joneses, you have to do it to.
Spec Classes?
Please. Look at SM and SRF. The tighter the rules in a spec class the more expensive things become. People are making a killing selling "perfect" Miata motors for 2 to 3 times as much as what a good Honda IT motor costs.
This NASA PT thing is no better. As soon as someone decides to be Mr. Jones... Let the spending begin.
There really is no way to get away from it, other than just deciding that you don't care if you are competitive. The reason I chose ITC was because at that time it was the only place I could reasonably afford to be a consistent front runner.
Thats about the best you can do. Look at your budget and then pick a class. Don't do it the other way around (which is wayyyyy too common).
There really is no way to control costs in racing besides claim rules, and claim rules are almost impossible to pull off logistically in a club our size. Imagine 250 entrants at the ARRC and 50 of them decide to use the claim rule. How in the world would you pull that off?
Well, you couldn't. And before you write a rule, you need to make sure you can logistically and reasonably make it happen. As I mentioned earlier, NASA has a SM engine claim rule that looks GREAT on paper, but the only person I've heard of that actually tried to use it got kicked out of the event. Thats good stuff right there.
So a claim rule doesn't work. How about very restrictive rules...
OK.
Lets look at the possibility of a bone stock class for cars 7 years or older. ZERO modifications allowed other than tires and brake pads...
Now, I want to win the ARRC in this new class in the Neon ACR sitting in my driveway...
- Complete motor rebuild barely inside factory spec (the "perfect" parts bin motor).
- Tranny rebuild
- New Konis
- New springs/swaybars
- All new OE bushings
etc...
Get my point? What am I doing here that is much different than building an IT car? Well, not much. And the lack of suspension adjustment, extra weight, and extra body roll means I'm eating up tires and brake pads faster than I would on an ITB/C car.
And if I do all of this, I become Mr. Jones. And if you want to keep up with the Joneses, you have to do it to.
Spec Classes?
Please. Look at SM and SRF. The tighter the rules in a spec class the more expensive things become. People are making a killing selling "perfect" Miata motors for 2 to 3 times as much as what a good Honda IT motor costs.
This NASA PT thing is no better. As soon as someone decides to be Mr. Jones... Let the spending begin.
There really is no way to get away from it, other than just deciding that you don't care if you are competitive. The reason I chose ITC was because at that time it was the only place I could reasonably afford to be a consistent front runner.
Thats about the best you can do. Look at your budget and then pick a class. Don't do it the other way around (which is wayyyyy too common).
Except this is totally untrue.
He was kicked out of NASA for belligerant behavior, interfering with an official during an emergency and a number of other reasons I won't mention. This was not an isolated incident this person was involved in as well, just the last straw.
The fact that he wanted to claim someone's motor is beside the fact.
Anyway, a competitor can't claim another's engine. The rules state that the director/NASA Official is the only one that can claim a motor, and only after reasonable evidence. So a fellow competitor can suggest an engine claim be made, but it is up to the director.
I can guarantee the car in question was not "walking away" from the pack. Actually, if anything, was on even par with the protestor's car.
Also, he wasn't told that there wasn't time for that, he was asked to wait until the current incident on track was resolved before filing a protest. After he (the protestor) was still yelling (heard all the way down the pit) he was told to leave the grid. Oh yeah, many impartial witnesses can attest to exactly what happened.
Sorry, I know this is kind of a hijack, but I can't stand it when lies get propagated as truth.
To bring it a bit back on topic
PT will be a great class for beginners to enter road racing. I guess we'll see if PT can grow to be a competitive classing system.
Maybe someday, somewill with try to build a PTA or PTB, etc car, but I think the main goal is bringing racer's into the fold
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
The way I look at this is simple:
NASA has done a great job carving out a niche in a very 'run-what-you-brung' kind of format. Very much like the ST/SM classes in SCCA Solo. A market wasn't being serviced, they addressed it , and now those Solo classes continue to grow while Prepeard and Mod classes shrink.
PT seems like the easiest way to look out your window, see the car in your driveway, and race it.
The problem I see is that with an infinate amount of combinations in all the classs, you will never have a serious series. There will always be a better combination emerging and the possibility for cheating is huge because you have to know the prep level of each individual car instead of the class itself. Each car is not held to one standard, it is held to it's own. You almost have to have a prep sheet on each car at the beginning of every event to even understand what you are competing against. You think it's hard to protest in SCCA?
As far as a $7K car in ITC winning the ARRC - no way. Drop me some prices for the following:
Donor
Cage
2 sets of wheels
Sunbelt Motor
Limted slip/final drive
Shocks/Suspension
Safety equipment, etc, etc.
You can spend $20K+ on ANY car in ANY class. It's just how far you want to go. Most of the top cars are almost 'resto-racers'. You don't HAVE to spend it, but some do.
Showroom stock motors go for $5K. Spec Miata motors go for $6K+. When you have a spec class, people are willing to spend the money to get the extra 3hp that in IT or PT doesn't matter (nearly as much).
I still think there is room for both groups to co-exist. SCCA has to do a better job in some areas and NASA has to do a better job in some.
AB
NASA has done a great job carving out a niche in a very 'run-what-you-brung' kind of format. Very much like the ST/SM classes in SCCA Solo. A market wasn't being serviced, they addressed it , and now those Solo classes continue to grow while Prepeard and Mod classes shrink.
PT seems like the easiest way to look out your window, see the car in your driveway, and race it.
The problem I see is that with an infinate amount of combinations in all the classs, you will never have a serious series. There will always be a better combination emerging and the possibility for cheating is huge because you have to know the prep level of each individual car instead of the class itself. Each car is not held to one standard, it is held to it's own. You almost have to have a prep sheet on each car at the beginning of every event to even understand what you are competing against. You think it's hard to protest in SCCA?
As far as a $7K car in ITC winning the ARRC - no way. Drop me some prices for the following:
Donor
Cage
2 sets of wheels
Sunbelt Motor
Limted slip/final drive
Shocks/Suspension
Safety equipment, etc, etc.
You can spend $20K+ on ANY car in ANY class. It's just how far you want to go. Most of the top cars are almost 'resto-racers'. You don't HAVE to spend it, but some do.
Showroom stock motors go for $5K. Spec Miata motors go for $6K+. When you have a spec class, people are willing to spend the money to get the extra 3hp that in IT or PT doesn't matter (nearly as much).
I still think there is room for both groups to co-exist. SCCA has to do a better job in some areas and NASA has to do a better job in some.
AB
You know what I like about you Scott? It's that you take the time to write out stuff like that so I don't have to. 
I've built a '92 Civic for ITC (winter 02-03) and a '92 Integra for ITA (winter 03-04). I paid the exact same amount for each chassis - $1300 for a base model, 130K'ish miles, very minimal rust, all in all in pretty good shape. Each car I recouped about the same amount from selling of their good interiors and other parts I didn't need for the race car. Each car received the exact same engine build up resulting in pretty similar costs to do so. Both cars received almost the exact same suspension except a shorten and revalve and an aftermarket rear sway bar for the Integra. Both cars received the same ECU tuning and dyno time. Both cars received pretty much the exact same cage. Same OPM LSD'd. Seat, steering wheel, harness, window net, fire system, kill switch, transponder - all exactly the same.
In the end, my ITA car only cost about $2000-2500 more to build than my ITC car. It came from a couple of places:
The much more expensive final drive - custom made versus dropping an Si gear into the ITC car.
The extra work on the Koni's.
The more elaborate (and expensive) header I chose.
Head work due to DOHC vs. SOHC.
That's about it. The cars and the builds they recieved are very similar. However, the operating costs are indeed higher on the Integra. Just because of it's extra weight, speed, and displacement it definately goes through tires, brakes, and gas quicker than the Civic. I also seem to have to do wheel bearings and hubs a little more often - again, more weight, more speed. I'd say in all that the Integra's consumables costs are only somewhere around 50% more than the Civic's, at most.
So I just don't know about saying that ITA is so much more expensive to run than ITB or ITC. In consumables, some. In initial builds, again, some. But certainly not as much as some of you guys are making it out to be.
I've built a '92 Civic for ITC (winter 02-03) and a '92 Integra for ITA (winter 03-04). I paid the exact same amount for each chassis - $1300 for a base model, 130K'ish miles, very minimal rust, all in all in pretty good shape. Each car I recouped about the same amount from selling of their good interiors and other parts I didn't need for the race car. Each car received the exact same engine build up resulting in pretty similar costs to do so. Both cars received almost the exact same suspension except a shorten and revalve and an aftermarket rear sway bar for the Integra. Both cars received the same ECU tuning and dyno time. Both cars received pretty much the exact same cage. Same OPM LSD'd. Seat, steering wheel, harness, window net, fire system, kill switch, transponder - all exactly the same.
In the end, my ITA car only cost about $2000-2500 more to build than my ITC car. It came from a couple of places:
The much more expensive final drive - custom made versus dropping an Si gear into the ITC car.
The extra work on the Koni's.
The more elaborate (and expensive) header I chose.
Head work due to DOHC vs. SOHC.
That's about it. The cars and the builds they recieved are very similar. However, the operating costs are indeed higher on the Integra. Just because of it's extra weight, speed, and displacement it definately goes through tires, brakes, and gas quicker than the Civic. I also seem to have to do wheel bearings and hubs a little more often - again, more weight, more speed. I'd say in all that the Integra's consumables costs are only somewhere around 50% more than the Civic's, at most.
So I just don't know about saying that ITA is so much more expensive to run than ITB or ITC. In consumables, some. In initial builds, again, some. But certainly not as much as some of you guys are making it out to be.
Matt Rowe
New member
You know, SCCA has those two things also. Yes the more user friendly PDX program is new but the Time Trials (Formerly Solo I, Solo Trials) programs have been around for decades. And we have them for the same reason of providing a place for people to get started at a track (or move on from Solo II). So please keep that in mind before giving the impression that SCCA doesn't have a place for new racers or the guy that wants to take his modified daily driver out on track and start learning.
Basically I would say the PT class seems like the road racing version of the tv show "Pinks." It's a more controlled environment for street racers to show up with a car built to what they want. In the tv show the drivers neogtiate what rules they are going to use and who gets what kind of head start. In PT the drivers get to negotiate what mods they have and what class that puts them in. In the end the show is just that, entertainment but not may the best driver win. PT seems to be similar in that it will get you out on track and racing wheel to wheel, but don't expect the best driver to be the one taking the checker.
Kevin, you paid $1300 for an ITC Honda...jees, you got hosed! I bought mine for only $200...straight, and with only a broken rear window!
I will say that if it cost you not that much more to build your Integra to the state that you have it than it did your Civic, then you did this one cheap, or the other one expensive. My pricing of parts (yes, I once considered the class change) came in a lot higher than that. Even still, the cost of running ITC and ITA is way greater in the area of consumables. The problem with ITC is finding competition. When I ran ITA in the the old Si, there were always A cars and there still are. But B and C are getting rare as hen's teeth. There's still a good race out there to be found, but I have to drive 10 to 14 hrs to find it.
There's where my greatest expense in racing lies...gas and wear and tear on the tow vehicle to go racing a competitive field.
Where was it you wanted me to drive 18 hrs to race?...Mid- something or another?
I will say that if it cost you not that much more to build your Integra to the state that you have it than it did your Civic, then you did this one cheap, or the other one expensive. My pricing of parts (yes, I once considered the class change) came in a lot higher than that. Even still, the cost of running ITC and ITA is way greater in the area of consumables. The problem with ITC is finding competition. When I ran ITA in the the old Si, there were always A cars and there still are. But B and C are getting rare as hen's teeth. There's still a good race out there to be found, but I have to drive 10 to 14 hrs to find it.
There's where my greatest expense in racing lies...gas and wear and tear on the tow vehicle to go racing a competitive field.
Where was it you wanted me to drive 18 hrs to race?...Mid- something or another?
Catch22
New member
Sorry Andy, I didn't mean that most of us could build an ITC car that could win the ARRC for $7000, I meant that you could buy one. I think Rebstock's car is for sale for about that price right now. Will Perry recently sold one of his cars for $5000.
I think the ITB Accord that won last years ARRC is for sale for $8500.
The ITA CRX that won two years ago is for sale too, but that price jumps all the way up to $13500.
The infamous Orange BMW... That can be yours for the low low price of $50000 (or... About 8 ITC cars).
If you did EVERYTHING yourself including machine work and fabrication you could build a front running B/C car for $7000ish, but you'd need alot of talent, time, and equipment to do it. Its not realistic for 99% of us.
As for the NASA post above... You assume other folks weren't there too.
Enough of that. Lets move on.
I think the ITB Accord that won last years ARRC is for sale for $8500.
The ITA CRX that won two years ago is for sale too, but that price jumps all the way up to $13500.
The infamous Orange BMW... That can be yours for the low low price of $50000 (or... About 8 ITC cars).
If you did EVERYTHING yourself including machine work and fabrication you could build a front running B/C car for $7000ish, but you'd need alot of talent, time, and equipment to do it. Its not realistic for 99% of us.
As for the NASA post above... You assume other folks weren't there too.
Enough of that. Lets move on.
RSTPerformance
New member
Dave-
Just a comment on the adding of additional SS classes for older SS cars... I don't like the idea of having a million different classes just so every one can win. I think that the progression from SS, to IT, to Production, to GT is great. I would however agree that every year IT seems to become more and more like production, wich at the same time isn't that bad as it makes an easier stepping stone into Nationals.
Raymond
Just a comment on the adding of additional SS classes for older SS cars... I don't like the idea of having a million different classes just so every one can win. I think that the progression from SS, to IT, to Production, to GT is great. I would however agree that every year IT seems to become more and more like production, wich at the same time isn't that bad as it makes an easier stepping stone into Nationals.
Raymond
Well, those '92 Civic CX hatchbacks are pretty highly sought after by the ricer crowd. That of course made the car a little more expensive - plus it was in damn near perfect condition. Doesn't matter much though since I was able to sell enough off of it to recoup about 80% of the original purchase cost.
I don't want to give out exact figures or anything, but I'd say both of the cars were built "cheap". That's a relative term though since my Dad and I do 99% of our own work. That extra 1% going to Serra installing the FD in my Integra (thanks, Anthony!) and my machinest work (who's a sponsor of mine, anyways). But seriously, what do you have to put into an ITA '92 Integra that you wouldn't put into an ITC '92 Civic? The cars themselves are very similar, the suppliers you get the parts from are the same, and the prices for the parts are very similar too. Really, the only extra expenses I incured in building my A car over my C car is what I listed, all the rest of the parts were pretty much equally put into both cars.
That's the reason right there for why the additional build cost and the higher "upkeep" cost made it worth it. Pretty much guaranteed at least 10 ITA cars anywhere you go and sometimes will see up around 30. Oh yea, and hitting the gas and having your car throw you back in your seat is pretty sweet too!
I believe it was "Mid-Ohio".
I'll agree with the thrown seat deal. Evan let me co drive with him at the ARRC enduro in '04. (Bad idea on his part, and I let my ego overload my a-hole, but I digress). The comparison of cornering approach (don't lift) in the C car to the A was really un-nerving, but the thrust on the straights was made me want to go for more than another gear 
Last time I felt that much power in a race car was when I was young, stupid, and drove and Atlantic. Only the stupid remains
Last time I felt that much power in a race car was when I was young, stupid, and drove and Atlantic. Only the stupid remains Andy, while I agree it is possible to spend $20k on any race car, it is fact that the fellows finishing up front at the ARRC in 84/87 ITC Hondas are not. There are 7 ITC Hondas in our small SCCA Region, and I was involved enough in each to know about what was spent. These cars represent THREE first place ARRC ITC finishes, and about 10 podium finishes there. From your list, most recent builds of front runners:
Donor Car: from $100 to big spender at $500
Cage: DIY at $325 for material, swap used parts for bending (would be $1250 for custom shop built)
Two sets wheels: Actually three sets at $100 per set at junkyard (off VW)
Sunbelt Motor: Front runners are using Basement Built, with Sunbelt head. Pistons $159 per set.
Limited Slip/Final drive: Phantom Grip at $259 and SI 4.40 final at <$100 or 4.93 at <$1500
Shocks/Suspension: Tokicos at $470 per set, other $260 including Basement Built strut mounts.
Safety Equipment; See Tim at SafeQuip for about $860.
Add a set of Hoosiers to your list and it comes to about the $7000 mark. Obviously, the mechanically inept would have to spend more.
But the last of the seven ITC cars in our Region took the easy way. He bought a well built ITC Honda for $3075. It just passed it's Annual, and is a former champion (not ARRC). And I sold my ITC Civic for $5000 (former ARRC Champion, mulitple ECR championships).
Maintenance? We don't know what the life of the Basement Built motors is yet. The oldest in our group has 50 SCCA races on it (including ARRC first place and many enduro wins) and a few dirt track races. Car was totaled at VIR (by an SM) in it's 50th race, on the pole. It is now in a street Honda, driven every day and still doesn't burn oil. Pistons haven't been out of the block. It is considered our "spare race motor". It is using the $159 per set pistons.
Can't win in ITC because you have less than $10,000 to spend? Work smarter and harder and drive faster.
Donor Car: from $100 to big spender at $500
Cage: DIY at $325 for material, swap used parts for bending (would be $1250 for custom shop built)
Two sets wheels: Actually three sets at $100 per set at junkyard (off VW)
Sunbelt Motor: Front runners are using Basement Built, with Sunbelt head. Pistons $159 per set.
Limited Slip/Final drive: Phantom Grip at $259 and SI 4.40 final at <$100 or 4.93 at <$1500
Shocks/Suspension: Tokicos at $470 per set, other $260 including Basement Built strut mounts.
Safety Equipment; See Tim at SafeQuip for about $860.
Add a set of Hoosiers to your list and it comes to about the $7000 mark. Obviously, the mechanically inept would have to spend more.
But the last of the seven ITC cars in our Region took the easy way. He bought a well built ITC Honda for $3075. It just passed it's Annual, and is a former champion (not ARRC). And I sold my ITC Civic for $5000 (former ARRC Champion, mulitple ECR championships).
Maintenance? We don't know what the life of the Basement Built motors is yet. The oldest in our group has 50 SCCA races on it (including ARRC first place and many enduro wins) and a few dirt track races. Car was totaled at VIR (by an SM) in it's 50th race, on the pole. It is now in a street Honda, driven every day and still doesn't burn oil. Pistons haven't been out of the block. It is considered our "spare race motor". It is using the $159 per set pistons.
Can't win in ITC because you have less than $10,000 to spend? Work smarter and harder and drive faster.