Integra LS class?
- Thread starter Will
- Start date
greg_umbay
New member
That is true! The best trick would be to copy all the things that Nick Theroux did to his car. I remember him talking about different inner and outer brake pads. I bet the list is long and expen$ive.
------------------
http://www.ita.hondapowered.com
------------------
http://www.ita.hondapowered.com
It is unfortunate that the previous precedent placing the non-Vtec LS in ITA and the VTEC in ITS has been ignored. The car was unchanged for the 3rd generation- same engine, suspension, etc. I have written the comp board on numerous occasions regarding this issue and unfortunately it has been denied time and time again. We need more members to write letters to accomplish this.
The LS is not competitive in ITS, nor do I think it will be in the future.
I race an LS in ITS in the SEDiv. I would love any support in placing the LS in its proper class-ITA.
The LS is not competitive in ITS, nor do I think it will be in the future.
I race an LS in ITS in the SEDiv. I would love any support in placing the LS in its proper class-ITA.
Both of the non-VTEC Integras should be in IT2!
They won't fly in S and seem artificially heavy as the 2nd gen cars are spec'd in A. Does anyone know how much ballast they take to get to 2480#, if any?
Kirk
www.2litre.itgo.com
They won't fly in S and seem artificially heavy as the 2nd gen cars are spec'd in A. Does anyone know how much ballast they take to get to 2480#, if any?
Kirk
www.2litre.itgo.com
Good luck getting reclassed in ITA - I agree 100% with you that your car should be in ITA. Unfortunately the process of classing cars is a well kept secret that SCCA doesn't want to share since they won't/can't provide any good reason why the 1st-gen CRX/Civic Si models are supposedly too hot for ITB. They don't deserve to be stuck in ITA any more that your non-vtec Teg should be in ITS. The entire IT class system needs a serious overhaul and we AS THE MEMBERSHIP need to have access to ALL INFORMATION AND DECIDING FACTORS that dictate what class our cars are grouped in. Not some hokey statement like a car (ITB Accord) was moved from one class to another based on "competition potential."
Sorry for the rant but it just seems that we should be able to do something as members and get a satisfactory answer from the comp board. Before anybody toasts me and says "well get off your butt and do something," I was/am planning on writing the comp board and trying to get a ball rolling to get a car reclassed. I had hopes of appealing to the comp board in the same vein as the ITA/ITB move for the 84-87 CRX/Civic Si guys had they succeeded, except my focus was to be the 1st-gen Integra that is currently in ITA. The car is basically a heavy 1st-gen CRX, all suspension is the same, it does have small discs in the rear (is that supposed to help, gee I wish there were drums back there
), I've got a 16v motor where the CRX is a 12v, but I have 400lbs more weight to carry around. The important thing for consideration in both arguments is there are cars currently classed in ITB that have larger or the same displacement engines, equal of greater factory hp and torque numbers, and the same or LESS weight. Justification? Look at the ITCS lines for the ITA 86-89 Integra 1.6 and then flip over to the ITB Geo Storm GSi - that's about as close in spec as 2 cars can be IMHO, and they are in different classes. This would indicate to me that there has to be some other arbitrary factory involved in determining class for a car. Pedigree maybe?
And FWIW, there are plenty of the 8v cars in ITB that produce plenty more hp and torque than my 16v DOHC, surely they wouldn't put the Teg in ITA due to the number of valves and ignore actual performance numbers? Who knows.
If there's anyone out there who shares the same feelings concerning the 84-87 CRX/Civic Si and Integra 86-89, maybe we can start this ball rolling again, and maybe make it even larger this time. Sooner or later we'll have to get at least a clear and definitive answer, even if it's shot down again. I just want to someday have the opportunity to be competitive in SCCA without selling my car and buying a different model. I know, perfect world, right? But at least the class system should be fair, the rest can be up to me. Otherwise, I guess NASA will be my first choice place to play, at least the classes make sense and I've got a level playing field.
Thanks for letting me vent..
Richard Floyd
SCCA 264761
ITA '86 Integra LS #90
NASA ECHC H5 #90
Sorry for the rant but it just seems that we should be able to do something as members and get a satisfactory answer from the comp board. Before anybody toasts me and says "well get off your butt and do something," I was/am planning on writing the comp board and trying to get a ball rolling to get a car reclassed. I had hopes of appealing to the comp board in the same vein as the ITA/ITB move for the 84-87 CRX/Civic Si guys had they succeeded, except my focus was to be the 1st-gen Integra that is currently in ITA. The car is basically a heavy 1st-gen CRX, all suspension is the same, it does have small discs in the rear (is that supposed to help, gee I wish there were drums back there
And FWIW, there are plenty of the 8v cars in ITB that produce plenty more hp and torque than my 16v DOHC, surely they wouldn't put the Teg in ITA due to the number of valves and ignore actual performance numbers? Who knows.
If there's anyone out there who shares the same feelings concerning the 84-87 CRX/Civic Si and Integra 86-89, maybe we can start this ball rolling again, and maybe make it even larger this time. Sooner or later we'll have to get at least a clear and definitive answer, even if it's shot down again. I just want to someday have the opportunity to be competitive in SCCA without selling my car and buying a different model. I know, perfect world, right? But at least the class system should be fair, the rest can be up to me. Otherwise, I guess NASA will be my first choice place to play, at least the classes make sense and I've got a level playing field.
Thanks for letting me vent..
Richard Floyd
SCCA 264761
ITA '86 Integra LS #90
NASA ECHC H5 #90
Welcome to the wars, comrade...
The system is in self-imposed gridlock. Culturally and organizationally, classification issues can only be considered on a model-by-model basis. This creates an adversarial setting wherein, if you are trying to work for a more favorable classing or specifications for one car, there are automatically a bunch of people set against you, trying to maintain their relative advantage...
Since this is a "club", the only way for an initiative to gain any traction is for it to have broad support. This can ONLY happen within the status quo if the proposal doesn't challenge anybody's competitiveness - witness the new class (IT7, Spec7, SpecNeon, Spec Miata et al.)
Now, my efforts to promote IT2 to the contrary, I do NOT think that club racing needs more classes. It needs to make poorly subscribed classes go away and create some kind of prescribed process for classifying and specifying cars in those that have sufficient volume to exist. This would, however, take a HUGE amount of political capital to pull off, would outrage more than a few club members - and is therefore not going to happen.
Kirk
The system is in self-imposed gridlock. Culturally and organizationally, classification issues can only be considered on a model-by-model basis. This creates an adversarial setting wherein, if you are trying to work for a more favorable classing or specifications for one car, there are automatically a bunch of people set against you, trying to maintain their relative advantage...
Since this is a "club", the only way for an initiative to gain any traction is for it to have broad support. This can ONLY happen within the status quo if the proposal doesn't challenge anybody's competitiveness - witness the new class (IT7, Spec7, SpecNeon, Spec Miata et al.)
Now, my efforts to promote IT2 to the contrary, I do NOT think that club racing needs more classes. It needs to make poorly subscribed classes go away and create some kind of prescribed process for classifying and specifying cars in those that have sufficient volume to exist. This would, however, take a HUGE amount of political capital to pull off, would outrage more than a few club members - and is therefore not going to happen.
Kirk
JohnW
New member
Richard,
I agree with you. Classification in the SCCA is a mess. I'm sure you've seen in the monthly FastTrack News the 85-87 12v Si's are shot down almost every issue. Someone is always writting in a addressing the problem.
SCCA: " the Following items are NOT RECOMMENED for implementation at this time"
and
" This issue has been addressed numerous times and the car is properly placed"
Since the car has been addressed numerous times why do members of the club continue to send in their requests? Why: "Because the SCCA is wrong on this one".
I guess I'll continue to race with NASA. Are you doing the next ECHC event at Summit? Had a good time at CMP and look forward to racing with you again.
John
I agree with you. Classification in the SCCA is a mess. I'm sure you've seen in the monthly FastTrack News the 85-87 12v Si's are shot down almost every issue. Someone is always writting in a addressing the problem.
SCCA: " the Following items are NOT RECOMMENED for implementation at this time"
and
" This issue has been addressed numerous times and the car is properly placed"
Since the car has been addressed numerous times why do members of the club continue to send in their requests? Why: "Because the SCCA is wrong on this one".
I guess I'll continue to race with NASA. Are you doing the next ECHC event at Summit? Had a good time at CMP and look forward to racing with you again.
John
Richard, welcome to the fight. I am in contact with the Comp Board on a monthy basis trying to get my Accord moved back to ITB. I believe that the CB does not want a honda to be competitive in ITB. I have proposed to them to let the first gen CRX, Accord, 2.0 liter Golf and a few others into ITB (forgot about the first gen Integra). I think the CB figures that Honda's control ITA and ITC, Mazda/BMW in ITS and therefore Volvo is the chosen make in ITB. If you looked in last months fast track there is a move to get the newer Volvo 242 some weight help to get them more competitive. I thought the 2001 ARRC was a excellent reason to leave the Accord in ITB. Due to my injury, I solicited Randy Pobst (I do not any other pro drive that would attend an IT race)to drive my Accord and he still finished 2nd behind the Volvo. If the turth was known he should have been third behind the Audi, but it broke on the last lap. Sorry for the rant, hopefully with enough pressure we can get things changed.
John-
Not going to make it to the next ECHC round at Summit, too much work to do on the car (needs clutch, heavier torsion bars, new tires, more air and fuel to engine, etc., etc) and I'm in the final stages of getting my house ready to go on the market this summer as we're relocating to the Conway/Myrtle Beach, SC area (my hometown). So, looks like the next CMP and Lowes dates are gonna be my next race dates. Hope you can make it back down then. OBTW - have you heard anything from Matt Bookler? email me off-line - he told me about the engine warning you gave him as you were leaving CMP. I want to get your input again, I think we all need to have a talk w/ Mr. Shultz, after watching my in-car I'm not so sure if I made the right decision after the race. Email me at [email protected], want to get your input.
C Ya
Richard
Not going to make it to the next ECHC round at Summit, too much work to do on the car (needs clutch, heavier torsion bars, new tires, more air and fuel to engine, etc., etc) and I'm in the final stages of getting my house ready to go on the market this summer as we're relocating to the Conway/Myrtle Beach, SC area (my hometown). So, looks like the next CMP and Lowes dates are gonna be my next race dates. Hope you can make it back down then. OBTW - have you heard anything from Matt Bookler? email me off-line - he told me about the engine warning you gave him as you were leaving CMP. I want to get your input again, I think we all need to have a talk w/ Mr. Shultz, after watching my in-car I'm not so sure if I made the right decision after the race. Email me at [email protected], want to get your input.
C Ya
Richard
P Keane-
email me at the above address - I want to know what I can do to help start the push over again. There's no logical reason that if there is an obvious problem with where a car is classed, and a logical case can be made for why is should be moved, that SCCA can't at least make the real reasons they refuse to reclassify cars known to all. I wasn't at the ARRC this year but I heard about it, and I'm in agreement with you, there's no stronger argument to be made for the Accord in ITB in my opinion than Randy Pobst finishing 2nd to a Volvo. Hell, lets move the 142 to ITA! It's strange how they'll move a car up a class only based on "competition potential" but not move cars down a class based on the very real and complete LACK of cometition potential with the concerned cars, the Accord, 1st-gen CRX/Civic/Integra et al, etc. They don't want to rock the boat and risk upsetting a very few people. The result is there are many more who will leave SCCA and spend most if not all of their money and time elsewhere.
I wait to hear from you..
Thanks
Richard
email me at the above address - I want to know what I can do to help start the push over again. There's no logical reason that if there is an obvious problem with where a car is classed, and a logical case can be made for why is should be moved, that SCCA can't at least make the real reasons they refuse to reclassify cars known to all. I wasn't at the ARRC this year but I heard about it, and I'm in agreement with you, there's no stronger argument to be made for the Accord in ITB in my opinion than Randy Pobst finishing 2nd to a Volvo. Hell, lets move the 142 to ITA! It's strange how they'll move a car up a class only based on "competition potential" but not move cars down a class based on the very real and complete LACK of cometition potential with the concerned cars, the Accord, 1st-gen CRX/Civic/Integra et al, etc. They don't want to rock the boat and risk upsetting a very few people. The result is there are many more who will leave SCCA and spend most if not all of their money and time elsewhere.
I wait to hear from you..
Thanks
Richard
1stGenBoy
New member
I,was one of the guys that started the last reclass try of the 84-87 civic/crx.We had 15+ letters written in but, no luck. We have aprox 5 cars here in milw,wi that would run scca but the odds are better in another club around here that classes the car in itb where it should be.They do not win every race but are competitive. I may have shot my self in the foot by winning an cen-div champ regional race in ita last year in a first gen car after the fast guys crashed out on the first lap. I do not think it helped that i finished second at another race later in the year due to the front pack of fast ita cars taking themselves out on the last lap. Let me know if i can help. The car should be in itb!!!
Bob Clark
Bob Clark
UltimateGSX
New member
I just finished building a 92 Integra LS for ITA. And im very impressed from the things the car can do.
Ok for the 94 up Integras to be used in ITA is denied Becouse Suspension Parts can be used from the TYPE-R model which are Lightweight aluminum.
ITA Integra
Ok for the 94 up Integras to be used in ITA is denied Becouse Suspension Parts can be used from the TYPE-R model which are Lightweight aluminum.
ITA Integra