Del Sol VTEC - Please Contact me

Good commentary here. you guys are much better behaved than those in the other thread. Thanks for not calling all the ITAC guys names, LOL

I'm not an expert in things honda, so I will keep my comments general.

First, the Type R wasn't classed mainly because, (and I know you won't like the reason, LOL) because of it's handbuilt components. Proceduraly, it creates issues with enforcement. It will be impossible to prove in a protest situation, what was done by the competitor, and what was 'stock'. Now I know that the presumption is that anything we bozos (kidding, kidding!)would do to the car would actually hurt it, but, I am sure that you can see the potential for issues down the road on that one.


Some good arguements have been presented here, and it highlights the issues with a formulaic approach. Our "model" is not as sophisticated as the engineers at McLaren use for their predictive lap times. One of the struggles with the E36 has been that the proposed weight would have been significantly outside the "sweet spot" vis a vis the other cars in the class. The CRB felt that it wouldn't race well with the other cars, simply because it weighed so much more. Also, and more relevant to this discussion, is that the proposed weight fell outside the process's linear range. I think that might be what is going on here, but with the other components of the process, to a degree.

Perhaps, at the increased speeds that are found in ITS (vs the other classes) FWD, brakes and TQ need to be accounted for differently than the current "Adder/subractor" aspect of the process allows.

FWD is considered a "subtractor" in ITS. Based on cars like the 944 and the RX7, weight is removed from the number that the process spits out.

My question to you all is, should that weight be a fixed amount, like 50 or 75 or 100 pounds, for example, or a percentage of process weight, like 2.5%?? (Keep in mind that suspension design is a consideration as well, so the FWD aspect can be considered independently)

Keep in mind that the process needs to be kept simple, and somewhat flexible, but if the consensus is that the numbers aren't ending in an equivilent potential (Lets not dive in the "results pool) then perhaps a letter suggesting slight modifications would be in order.
 
Jake,

I'll comment mostly on the GSR because I know that VERY intimately. As I've said about 1000 times, thats a good ITS car at about 2575 to 2600lbs. But at 2700 it just cant get off a corner and just murders its front brakes (which are, BTW, the exact same brakes that are on much lighter 93 and up Civic models like the EX and Si currently classed in ITA at nearly 400 pounds less than the GSR.

There are quite a few GSR attempts out there. Some have been sold for pennies on the dollar and some are still trying to compete with them.
Guys (ITAC), TRY an experiment with the GSR. Take it down to 2600lbs and watch it closely. Scott Seck, a former ARRC podium visitor in ITC, is still trying to compete with his. Reduce the weight to 2600 and watch how he does. I KNOW Scott would be willing to share open and honest results with you guys.

TRUST ME!!!
At 2600lbs that car isn't going to suddenly go dominating anywhere unless its just raining buckets for every race. At 2600lbs you have yourself a GOOD (not great) ITS car. It'll still be hard on its little Civic brakes, and will still struggle with lack of tq, but it will be alot more competitive.


I've only seen one fully attempted del sol effort. It was a couple of years ago, and it failed and was abandoned by a top effort in the SEDIV. Given that it was abandoned at 2360lbs, I'm thinking you just killed it as even a remote option at nearly 2600lbs. Might as well go ahead an declassify it.

So... A percentage or a set number for FWD and low TQ?
The easy thing to do (I think) would be to just do a set number (50lbs?) subtractor for FWD cars that have a certain percentage more HP than TQ. I say this because the cars with high hp, fwd, and low TQ are the ones that seem to be getting screwed by the current process.
Maybe someone thats more math savy than I am can figure out what that formula looks like, but cars like the GSR (172/130) and del sol (160/110) are a good place to start.

Brakes... Maybe anything over 2500lbs should get a set subtractor (40lbs?) if their total rotor size is under a certain number?
The GSR is a good place to start with that number since its a proven weak point on that car.
 
Please lets not talk of DeClassifying the Del Sol. or Civic SI. I run mostly Blackhawk in Central Div. After running about 50 races there in a CRX, I can see what the ITS guys are capable of and with the right final drive, and setup it might surprise some people. A Del Sol it might be ok at 2360 to 2400. (200 pounds heavier than my CRX 2005 weight). Especially against the small ITS fields we seem to have here.

I have no plans to run ARRC in it or any illusions of it being a world beater at Road America.

Again my point is, I accept that the car won't ever be a equal to the front of the ITS field. And it sounds like everybody agrees it doesn't have the potential for ITS. All I ask is a weight assignment that is consistant with that perception and get a minimum that I can get the car legally to. My primary goal is needing to run Ballast in a car thats not really ever going to be a front runner in the class.

I'll weigh it this week and I will propose something in a couple of days.

thanks again

Bob Roth
 
How tight can you twist that GSR motor before it comes apart or drops out of the power band? That is the real limiting factor with the chance to make up for torque with final drive. Again it comes back to useable power band.
 
I'm going by memory Steve, so this may not be totally accurate.
But the issue with the GSR is that the power band is very narrow and way up high. At pretty much no time is the band flat. The term "peak horsepower" is just that. Its a peak. The 1.6 liter VTEC cars are the same.

I had a 4.7 final drive in mine, and Seck has a 4.9 in his. Not much difference.
You hit peak hp and you shift. There's really no such thing as a "power band" that you try to stay in. It hits its peak and then it starts falling off.

I looked for old dyno sheets but I apparently didn't keep them. If Seck sees this maybe he'll toss in some $.02.
 
Here is mine.

The final drive is a bit of a trade off with these cars since 5th gear is so tall. There is not enough pull from the motor to keep the rear end ahead of the front in 5th gear. RA turn 12, CMP turn 10, etc, cannot really be done in 5th gear.
 
And thats pretty typical of IT GSR dyno plots that I've seen. I know Zsolt has a Sunbelt head and a freshened bottom end, but I can't remember if he's done ECU work.
Both Scott Seck and I were 172/130, so Zsolt is right in the ballpark.

I have no clue how someone could legally get 15 more whp unless its just dyno differences.
[shrug]

Note where the HP peaks and where the TQ starts falling off. This is the penalty for high revving, high hp, low displacement motors.
And Zsolt is right about 5th gear. You pay a penalty for getting too aggressive with the FD.
Example... At VIR I was racing against an identical car (this was with Honda Challenge) except he had the stock 4.25 fd and I had the 4.7. Anywhere where the 4.7 was an advantage, I'd give that advantage back somewhere else. I'd come out of hogpen and have to grab 5th while still climbing the hill to the flag stand. Meanwhile the other guy could leave his car in 4th and motor right on past me. He didn't have to grab 5th until the downhill part of the straight.
Another example... CMP. With the 4.7 I was rowing the shifter all through the 11-12-13-14 complex. He just stayed in one gear and kicked my butt.
And you can't safely spin these things much past 8500. The power drops off horrbly anyway, so there's no real reason to do it.

Again, no whining and name calling here. But I think its important for the ITAC to understand these things. Here we have a car that *should* and *can* be right up there duking it out with the BMWs and RX7s and 240zs but its not. Its not because it's got 120lbs of lead in the floor and it legitimately can't handle it.

We shouldn't be doing this. It hurts everyone to have a 2 car class and it is fixable.

I'm sure there are other ITS cars that can be helped. I'm just going with what I know here.
 
I have posted this before, but here is another plot point that shows just how well Honda makes these engines from the factory. Here is my motor with 75K and has never been opened up.

Comptech Short Ram Intake
FPR
Hondata/Chrome Modified ECU
4-1 JDM 2.5" header with stright pipe 18" resonator

Torque_Plot.jpg


How again are we going to see more than 175 WHP?

We start at 162 HP, Zsolts 169 and Both Scotts @ 172HP
 
Jeremy,

Thats a tad higher that what I've seen from cars with similar modifications, but not alarmingly so. Not anything I'd credit outside of dyno or weather or "its just a good motor" variances.

It was a long time ago, but I think mine got 156whp before the IT build. I had everything you have listed there except the ECU modification.

So yeah, that sounds about right.
 
So to seckerich's point, look at the peak HP and peak TQ.

Peak Tq is at 5-6K. The peak HP is around 7.5K so this is where the arguements come in that the slow corners really hurt the GSR's.
 
Here is mine.

The final drive is a bit of a trade off with these cars since 5th gear is so tall. There is not enough pull from the motor to keep the rear end ahead of the front in 5th gear. RA turn 12, CMP turn 10, etc, cannot really be done in 5th gear. [/b]
Click to expand...

[attachmentid=365]

Look familiar? Best exhaust raised peak power to 175, dropped peak torque to 128 and RPM's stayed the same.

AB
 
If you shift at 7500 Hp peak and start the next gear 25% lower RPM, it resumes at 17% lower HP (135) If you run it higher and shift at 8000, the area gets better but your hp goes from about 152 down to about 140. Anybody got a curve for a B16?
 
One other comment, is notice of two how two dyno runs for different owners, how similar the shape of the curve is.

My opinion is that if you get a curve for similar engine types, for modern fuel injected engines and I suspect that the curves are about the same when matched pro HP peak. Ie a CRX Si curve is pretty close to the NX 2000 16 valve and the 16 valve GTI curves when you match the HP peaks. Same thing for the 8 valve golf and the 8 valve 4cyl Porche 944.

The point is,its ok to use HP to handicap the cars as long as you consider two aspects.

1) how strangled the original engine is compared to a rules limit engine. As the charts show, the Honda isn't very strangled.
2) What does the curve look like over the typical shift range. On a Honda, when you fall off the mountain, you fall a long way. Especially if you have to shift say 10% short of hp peak because its the end of a straight. These engines may put out impressive hp but the problem is, they don't make them very long!

The best of all worlds is an engine that has variable cam timing, Thats cause much less HP drop as RPM drops. Looking at HP only tells only part of the story.
 
I know most of you now this, but the dyno sheet I supplied is one from my old ITS RX-7...

I think the hard thing some of us are having to swallow is the cry's of 'narrow power band', 'lack or torque', 'peaky motor', etc. Your point above VVT is valid - and mitigates a tiny bit of your powerband issue. TINY bit, but still something. Nothing to really factor in for an 'adder' IMHO.

You have to work within the parameters of your situation and minimize the flaws and exploit the positives. And to think that 40lbs is going to make a craps bit of difference in the competitiveness of a car is just not going to happen IMHO.

AB
 
So in reading thru this thread I do find it curious that with front wheel drive cars competing very effectively in A, B and C I do not remember any doing very well in S.

The question is why.

Is it that the fwd cars in S tend to have small displacement peaky motors that do not have torque or broad power bands?

Is it that the “formula adders” need to be different with the regard fwd with the higher horsepower in ITS?

Is that no one has done a BMW/Rx7/240Z top flight effort on a fwd car in ITS?

Or am I all wet and there are fwd cars in other parts of the country that are doing well in ITS against strong rwd cars?
 
So in reading thru this thread I do find it curious that with front wheel drive cars competing very effectively in A, B and C I do not remember any doing very well in S.

The question is why.

Is it that the fwd cars in S tend to have small displacement peaky motors that do not have torque or broad power bands?

Is it that the “formula adders” need to be different with the regard fwd with the higher horsepower in ITS?

Is that no one has done a BMW/Rx7/240Z top flight effort on a fwd car in ITS?

Or am I all wet and there are fwd cars in other parts of the country that are doing well in ITS against strong rwd cars?
[/b]
Click to expand...
In the end I think it comes down to tires. Just can not get enough rubber to handle the power, brakes, and turning without killing the fronts. We transfer the weight to the rear off the corners which is good. Very bad on a front driver--tires light up and you are done.

PS I could lay my dyno chart on top of Andy's as far as curves are concerned!!
 
But Andy... Look at your torque curve between 5000 and 7000 and look at Zsolt's between 5500 and 7500.
Yours is nice and flat, his is dropping steadily.
I'm pretty sure this is where upshifts and corner exits are landing in both cars.

Factor in that the RX7 is transferring all that weight to the drive wheels while the Integra is doing the opposite and any mystery is solved.

And I agree that 40lbs won't make a huge difference, but 90 to 100 will, so I'll say it one more time...
ITS Integra GSR - 2600lbs.

Look guys, the ONLY thing the GSR has on the RS/LS (that is in ITA) is about 20ish peak hp at the top end. Thats it.
Chassis, brakes, aero... everything else is the same.
So riddle me this...
With just a 20 peak hp advantage (and the non VTEC ITA cars actually have a better TQ curve), why is the GSR not only in a higher class but also weighs more?
See... That doesn't make sense. And if it makes sense in the formula then I suggest that the formula is busted.
 
With just a 20 peak hp advantage (and the non VTEC ITA cars actually have a better TQ curve)[/b]
Click to expand...

That's true, my non-vtec ITA Integra makes about the same or more torque than all of the dyno graphs posted.
 
So, in ITS - where there is a broader range of fundamental layouts and engine configurations, AND higher weights/powers that amplify what would otherwise be small performance differences - how do you come up with a defensible, equitable system that doesn't count on lots of subjective assessments of potential?

It's a very small step from micro-adders/subtractors, or factors that apply to only one make/model of car, to gen-u-ine competition adjustments. One way that you can tell you have consensus is that EVERYONE is equally pissed off, which is what will happen if that process runs its logical route. Picture owners of all ITS models given the chance to have the same kind of persecution complex seen in e36 owners this winter, if the process isn't consistent and defensible.

K
 
I can't disagree with you Kirk.

The question is... How do we get ITS away from being a 2 car class?

I'm trying to provide answers to get it closer to a 4 or 5 car class. My knowlege doesn't extend far enough to the horizon to help any further. Sorry.

While I understand the counter-arguments, its painful to stand staring at 100lbs of lead in the floorboard of a perfectly good GSR knowing that if we took that stuff out the car would stand a chance.
So how do we make that happen?
Because we need to make that happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top