CRX - is it still competitive?

Now, lets take Christian as an example with the CRX situation....
[/b]
Click to expand...
I'm going to wait and see how the rest of the season goes... if the car keeps going thru parts then one of two things will happen: 1- I'll sell the car at a loss, take a season off, and race something else or 2- I'll take the car and go race NASA's HC. Let me just say that I really don't want to race with NASA (spec tire and safety related concerns) but if it's the difference between having a running car and not having a running car... well, I know which way I'll have to go.

Christian, who'd probably be better off racing the CRX for a season in H4 and then selling the CRX to an aspiring NASA HPDE'r than taking it up the rear in the SCCA resale market.
 
I'm going to wait and see how the rest of the season goes... if the car keeps going thru parts then one of two things will happen: 1- I'll sell the car at a loss, take a season off, and race something else or 2- I'll take the car and go race NASA's HC. Let me just say that I really don't want to race with NASA (spec tire and safety related concerns) but if it's the difference between having a running car and not having a running car... well, I know which way I'll have to go.[/b]
Click to expand...

If you run ECRs in a CRX, it WILL go through parts (tires, brakes, bearings, hubs, even an axle or two). If you race SARRCs, it will do far less so. Its got very little to do w/ the additional weight. I don't think the weight does the car any favors but it really hasn't changed the fundmentals of the car IMO.


Hey Louey, I don't suppose there's any way to convince you to bring the Rexy up to VIR for Goblins Go in October?
 
Anyone in the Northeast think I should get a weight safety break? Bueller? Bueller...?
[/b]
Click to expand...


If there were 4 or 5 of your NX's running around dominating, you betcha they would slap weight on you...the penalty for running a popular developed car...but there is only one Greg Amy NX2000 right now...The Integra got weight piled on because "it responded well to IT modifications"...your car would too if every high school kid wanted parts for it! RA should be fun this year!
 
Down, boy... :) Actually, I'm requesting a weight REDUCTION on the NX2000 for safety reasons, 'cause I'm running over the manufacturer's rated curb weight now and - as we all seem to agree - this is unsafe. I'm sure you guys will support me on this, right...?

By the way, the 02-06 weight addition had nothing to do with your on-track performance and everything to do with going through the formulaic process...same process as mine went through...

I'll be watching Fastrack for that safety weight break... ;)
 
If there were 4 or 5 of your NX's running around dominating, you betcha they would slap weight on you...the penalty for running a popular developed car...but there is only one Greg Amy NX2000 right now...The Integra got weight piled on because "it responded well to IT modifications"...your car would too if every high school kid wanted parts for it! RA should be fun this year! [/b]
Click to expand...

I don't understand why you think so. The NX2000 was one of the first cars to be put through the process when it got moved from ITS. It's done. The Teg, the CRX, the 1.6 Miata and the 240SX had NOT been through the process - and they went through in Feb. Now everyone is on par. Has nothing to do with on-track. It's just not a coinsidence that the top cars were 'light'.

Greg has beaten me every time we have faced off this year...it ain't getting weight - it just may be a damn good cr when you drive it like Greg can and you put 5 years of CUSTOM development into it. I have been RIGHT behind it in some races - I challenge ANYONE to build one - you will hate yourself (unless you have Greg on the payroll)
 
thats the point! what part of the adders is "honda"?? eg:

Acura Integra
1.8 L
FWD
2595#
140bhp

Mazda Miata
1.8L
RWD
2380#
128bhp

Nissan NX2000
2.0L
FWD
2515#
145bhp

I can understand that Hondacuras do well on track but since the weight addition they dont seem to go slower, just cost more to run competitively. I chose the car accordingly (im not rich/want cheapest competitive car). I read the no guarantee clause. I built a car. Weight is added. Hmm...I know it is a new system but what is the honda adder??????
 
Correction: NX's rated stock power was 140hp @ 6,400 rpm.

The difference in ITA weights between the Integra and NX2000 is due to suspension design. Stick your nose underneath that red egg sometime and take a gander...

...since the weight addition they dont seem to go slower, just cost more to run competitively.[/b]
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting an "adder" ("subtractor"?) for cars that are expensive to run? If so, let's sit down and talk about what it takes to build and campaign a Nissan NX2000. EVERYTHING on this car is fabricated by us, from the swaybar(s), to the struts, to the camber plates, to the brake pads (no one makes them for this car any more), to air dams, to spherical suspension bearings (still designing those), to ECU programming, to whatever you care to discuss. Finding good rebuildable engines is damn near impossible; finding untrashed transmissions is a journey. I've yet to open a catalog and order a Nissan-specific competition part off the Internet.

Competition adjustment based on expense of competition? Bring it on, baby...
 
HUH?? not the point at all! Maybe the egg should weigh 2460 or so...I worked for Nissan for 6 years as a tech (1992-1997) and know alot about the egg. oh never mind <_<
 
You guys seem to be talking about the CRX Si with this wieght issue.
How has the standard 1.5L CRX been affected reliablity wise?
 
I don't get it, I am still racing a CRX/Si at the current weight, and there were other CRX's that have run since this post started and I don't see parts flying off of cars in droves.

One or two cars have had issues, so they DNF'd is it possible (just possible) that they didn't take the time to do the proper maintenance on the car!!!!!

There were 3 Si's at the 3 hour of nelsons all running very respectable times and damn no dnf's, no wheels flying into the packed grandstands, nothing, in fact 1'st, 4th, 5th, (albiet more pit stops because of fuel capacity but that's a different rant)

This post has turned into the same as the other posts, bitchin about a weight penalty that is not turning the tide on wins and losses. It seems that there are a few new cars in the class that seem to have prepped their cars well and know how to drive them. In fact I looked at the Lime Rock results, and wild man Rich Hunter set the fastest lap and finished the race with all his components intact.

To the few that seem to have parts failure, buy my parts, buy Fowlers parts, and buy a how to maintenance your race car book.

To the ones that constantly bitch about weight, get over it, I am quite sure you have been bitch slapped in the past by somebody with a heaver/older/less competitive/POS race car who drives better than he whines.

IMHOC

Tom Blaney
:birra:
 
To the few that seem to have parts failure, buy my parts, buy Fowlers parts, and buy a how to maintenance your race car book.[/b]
Click to expand...
Wow, I'm kinda surprised to see this thread still going...

Anyway, I've bought pretty much everything through OPM and Tom has personally gone through the entire car top to bottom. Being that he's done the majority of the maintenance on my car, I'm pretty sure that's not the problem either. The additional maintenance and wear and tear is really just a nuisance and an additional fiscal load to carry... nothing earth shattering but definitely something that I've noticed.

What is the problem? IMO, it's running the CRX at current weight for prolonged periods of time. Do I think it'll get a weight reduction? Probably not. Am I motivated enough to go on a campaign about the current weight? No. When everything is said and done, I'll race what I've got but I'm not doing ECR's anymore. It'll be sprints from here on because breaking shit at the track sucks.

Christian
 
What is the problem? IMO, it's running the CRX at current weight for prolonged periods of time.[/b]
Click to expand...
No offense but I don't see where you have any way to substantiate that the weight addition has ANYTHING to do with this. Anyone not doing continuous maintenance on these cars and running the ECR series WILL have failures. Continuous maintenance is an amorphous concept and has a lot to do with where you are racing and the conditions.

And continuous maintenance for this car at 2140# was a front left wheel bearing every six races at a MINIMUM and if it goes a weekend too long, a brandy new hardened hub too. And a weekend at Kershaw alone could fry a bearing due to brake heat. You are easily in for a halfshaft a year at BEST. You will replace the right front wheel bearing at least once a year. I was rebuilding both front calipers every three race weekends and every other one, would replace w/ new if I could. For two years, we never started an ECR weekend without both brand new brake pads and sticker front tires. And at Kershaw, the pads would not see a caliper until the pace lap. At RRR, we wouldn't even count on Toyos to last an ECR + practice + qualifying. Those are the minimum costs to try run at the front in the ECR series (and a great part of running at the front in that series is making it to the end cause invariably, your competition will not for one reason or another).

To refute your claims that this weight is "the" problem for the car - I bought two 225 R3S05s at VIR in March and heat cycled them on Friday test day. Now it goes without saying that I had some rear wheel bearing issues up there but that had nothing to do w/ weight - that was a tolerance problem (and that could have affected my car at 1800# just the same). Those two front tires ran the ECR quali, Alex's stint in the ECR, my SARRC, a full test day at Kershaw, 2 practices at LMS, ECR quali at LMS, the ECR at LMS and then my SARRC on Sunday - and I turned my fastest lap of the weekend on the last lap of the SARRC race. If the weight was so problematic, there is NO way any of that would be possible. And ask Puckett what he thinks of my brake wear.

You guys have this wrong if you think the weight is affecting these cars' reliability. At least at this point you don't have me convinced and if I thought it was, believe me, I'd be the first guy to write a letter. Now that's not to say that over time, considerable time, I might be convinced the weight is an unfair hinderance but as for now, I do not believe the sky is falling.
 
You guys seem to be talking about the CRX Si with this wieght issue.
How has the standard 1.5L CRX been affected reliablity wise?
[/b]
Click to expand...
If you're refering to the carberated CRX in ITC, there has been no change in minimum weight. The only failure I've had of any front end parts came this year with a torn boot that caused the grease to go away and ruin the CV joint. That was a result of my overlooking a loose suspension piece, not a weight issue or a poor maintenance problem...just stupidity. The only suspension part I've ever had to replace due to wear was rear hub bearings.
My understanding about weight additions is the reason for the SIR on the BMW's in ITS. An increase in weight would create reliability problem in suspension parts, etc. At least that's what I got from screaming BMW owners.
 
No offense but I don't see where you have any way to substantiate that the weight addition has ANYTHING to do with this. Anyone not doing continuous maintenance on these cars and running the ECR series WILL have failures. Continuous maintenance is an amorphous concept and has a lot to do with where you are racing and the conditions.

And continuous maintenance for this car at 2140# was a front left wheel bearing every six races at a MINIMUM and if it goes a weekend too long, a brandy new hardened hub too. And a weekend at Kershaw alone could fry a bearing due to brake heat. You are easily in for a halfshaft a year at BEST. You will replace the right front wheel bearing at least once a year. I was rebuilding both front calipers every three race weekends and every other one, would replace w/ new if I could. For two years, we never started an ECR weekend without both brand new brake pads and sticker front tires. And at Kershaw, the pads would not see a caliper until the pace lap. At RRR, we wouldn't even count on Toyos to last an ECR + practice + qualifying. Those are the minimum costs to try run at the front in the ECR series (and a great part of running at the front in that series is making it to the end cause invariably, your competition will not for one reason or another).

To refute your claims that this weight is "the" problem for the car - I bought two 225 R3S05s at VIR in March and heat cycled them on Friday test day. Now it goes without saying that I had some rear wheel bearing issues up there but that had nothing to do w/ weight - that was a tolerance problem (and that could have affected my car at 1800# just the same). Those two front tires ran the ECR quali, Alex's stint in the ECR, my SARRC, a full test day at Kershaw, 2 practices at LMS, ECR quali at LMS, the ECR at LMS and then my SARRC on Sunday - and I turned my fastest lap of the weekend on the last lap of the SARRC race. If the weight was so problematic, there is NO way any of that would be possible. And ask Puckett what he thinks of my brake wear.

You guys have this wrong if you think the weight is affecting these cars' reliability. At least at this point you don't have me convinced and if I thought it was, believe me, I'd be the first guy to write a letter. Now that's not to say that over time, considerable time, I might be convinced the weight is an unfair hinderance but as for now, I do not believe the sky is falling.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Well, thats all great Adam, and you aould certainly know.
And, believe it or not we are basing our maintenance and wear expectations off of some info you gave me 2 years ago when you ran so many ECRs. And thats the problem, we aren't even getting THAT far before stuff breaks. We are breaking stuff before we reach the reasonable preventive maintenance points you mentioned before and above in this post. We started the year with brand new parts pretty much everywhere, and have already replaced damned near everything at least once after just 3 weekends.
It could just have been bad luck. We don't know yet.
Hopefully it was.

In short, the things you mention above were the PM goals. We haven't managed to even get that far yet.

And Mr. Blaney, we all know your parts are superawesometastic and last forever and a half, but if you actually read the previous posts and comprehend them, you'll see that we DID start the year will all new parts, a planned PM program, and the owner is not shy about spending money to have good equipment under him. Stuff keeps breaking anyway.
But hey, thanks for your input.
 
scott personally i think the racing gods are not smilling on your car. you guys should keep racing it. your luck should change sooner or latter.i like the analogy about buying one pond and giving a new pond to work with the next year.i am going through this with my integra. i do not mind making the playing field more even, but i wish they did it with weight reductions not weight adders. i like going faster, not dealing with new weight issuess. rick
 
i do not mind making the playing field more even, but i wish they did it with weight reductions not weight adders. i like going faster, not dealing with new weight issuess. rick
[/b]
Click to expand...

The basic problem with huge weight cuts across the board is the large scale inability of cars to get low enough, and the expense involved in doing so.

An approach where some cars lost, some stayed the same, and some gained, was deemed more practical. It also spreads the load a bit further. But, it's basically impossible for some of the cars that lost weight to get every last pound...allowing 100 more would have been useless. And line item allowances are not part of IT.

So, it's a case of trying to do the best for the greatest number of participants, within the physical realities that govern the category.
 
i know it does not allways work and it may not be practical for others to drop weight but how about some give and take? can we do more a reasonable # of 50 lbs off the cars across the boardor even 30lbs would be helpfull. the less weight across the board the happier the cars run.
 
scott personally i think the racing gods are not smilling on your car. [/b]
Click to expand...

Could be. I agree totally.
As I've mentioned at least half a dozen times in this thread... We *could* have just been very unlucky with bearings and halfshafts and brakes in our first 3 outings.
The bad reliability and added weight *could* very well be coincidence.
Or maybe it isn't.

We're finished with enduros for now. We're spending too much time fixing broken stuff and not enough time sorting/racing the car. Maybe if we get some reliability in a few sprints we'll try some ECRs again and see what happens.
Thats the owner's call.
 
Well, thats all great Adam, and you aould certainly know.
And, believe it or not we are basing our maintenance and wear expectations off of some info you gave me 2 years ago when you ran so many ECRs. And thats the problem, we aren't even getting THAT far before stuff breaks. We are breaking stuff before we reach the reasonable preventive maintenance points you mentioned before and above in this post. We started the year with brand new parts pretty much everywhere, and have already replaced damned near everything at least once after just 3 weekends.
It could just have been bad luck. We don't know yet.
Hopefully it was.
[/b]
Click to expand...
Well I am not sure that you are basing it off my data properly as I would have told you then, now and forever into the future that you cannot even sniff a brake pad before the start of an ECR at Kershaw in a CRX. And I never would have said anything but a set of stickers for the front of the car every weekend. Every ECR, as a rule, new brake pads, new front tires. That's how it was for us w/ the exception of the toyo weekends in 2003. Hell, if I were running your schedule, the left front wheel bearing would have already been replaced as a matter of course, the hub would have been mic'd (and replaced if coned), both front calipers would have been rebuilt once and then replaced either now or after the next race you run, the gear oil would have been replaced after every weekend along w/ motor oil, I would be on my .... 6th or 8th sticker Hoosier (or by 2003s tire wear, 3rd or 4th sticker toyo) and definitely 4th set of brake pads. And that's assuming nothing else needed to be addressed.

Now far be it me to be a snoop but I have read of you guys lunching one new halfshaft this year and that's all I have seen. If you are breaking something else, make sure it wasn't causally related to the halfshaft. And as for losing a new halfshaft - s**t happens, I got a bad one in 2002 and Tom replaced it for me.

But to the point I am trying to make here. I do not think there is possibly enough data to say the 110# addition has hurt the CRX YET. If it proves to, fine. But for now, the stuff you are citing doesn't make me think its anything different than the car at 2140#.


Sorry you are bagging the ECRs - I think its something the CRX can be quite competitive in despite the maintenance costs. But you have to preemptively spend to keep the car on the track, mind the track you are at and maybe look at knocking a few ticks off your pace to make sure it lasts - that's the cost of running ECRs in the car. And there is a greater cost at making sure you will be running at the end - sucks but them's the breaks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top