IS300 in ITS?

I do agree that it costs money to lighten a car beyond where it sits when you finish it. Lightweight fasteners, 8 pound Volk Wheels... blah blah blah.

But it doesn't cost a damned thing to remove 100lbs of ballast from a car.
THAT is actually cheaper for everyone. And plenty of ITS cars are carrying ballast.

As Darrin said, bring everyone to the middle. Don't just add weight to one car, take the ballast out of others. This is a fairly easy opportunity guys, one trip around the ARRC paddock and rolling various cars across the scales with/without ballast answers a bunch of questions.

I don't want to seem like I'm harping on the Integra, its just that I used to own one so I know ALOT about its situation in S. The fastest one I've seen is still a good 3ish seconds AT BEST off the fastest BMWs (note that this is a fastest to fastest comparison). It also gives up about 30whp (conservatively) and GOBS of torque (about 70lb ft) to the BMW, same dyno, same day.
Yet, for some reason the Integra needs to weigh nearly 2700lbs.
Now, I'm a 200+ pound driver, and my Integra had an 8 point custom cage that looked like monkey bars from the local playground. Yet, it STILL needed nearly 100lbs of ballast to make minimum weight.
This is in a car that struggles to be even CLOSE to the top dog in the class.

This makes NO sense at all. NONE.
 
Scott, one thing you are not considering is that a front drive power train is almost 50% more efficient that a rear drive.

You are assuming all things being equal...same dyno...same day. That does not account for 1. driver 2. setup 3. track 4. weather 5. tires, etc. There are too many variables involved to just look at hp numbers. That is what the comp board is trying to SWAG.

One other question...who has made a 10tenths effort on the Integra AND had the driving ability of a Whittle or York? Until that happens, we have conjecture as to what could/should be. Chuck
 
Originally posted by chuck baader@Sep 17 2005, 01:50 PM
Scott, one thing you are not considering is that a front drive power train is almost 50% more efficient that a rear drive.

You are assuming all things being equal...same dyno...same day. That does not account for 1. driver  2. setup  3. track  4. weather  5. tires, etc.  There are too many variables involved to just look at hp numbers. That is what the comp board is trying to SWAG.
[snapback]60449[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


WHY do you guys keep assuming that everything is a "SWAG"?? That's insulting and simply inaccurate...

For the record, our research has shown that RWD configurations typcially have 15-18% drivetrain losses... Some will be more, some may be less, but that is a typical number...

For FWD, it's more like 12-15%...

We DO take that into consideration...

AND, the ACURA in ITS is classified almost perfectly, given all these parameters, and when compared to the "Bogey" cars... Don't tell me these cars can't win, because we have two of them here in the NW and they are freaking ROCKETS...

But, can they compete with the BMW... I keep saying over and over and over and over... that the BMW is an OUTLIER... When run through the classification process, NO other car is even close to this cars numbers... It's performance potential was CLEARLY underestimated when it was classified...

So, we don't GUESS... and there is nothing silly about it either... ;)

We analyze the information we have available and make the best estimations/proximations the data will allow us to make, and then go from there...


It's funny... two years ago, classifications were truely a best guess... You guys were clammering for a "formula"... Then, we develop a process that uses many of the ideas you guys suggested, retaining some of the necessary subjectivity, and now you are arguing against the results of that as well...
:blink:
 
Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 17 2005, 02:36 PM
For the record, our research has shown that RWD configurations typcially have 15-18% drivetrain losses...  Some will be more, some may be less, but that is a typical number...

For FWD, it's more like 12-15%...
[snapback]60450[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

For percentages, which I figure rough, this is correct. Chuck, a FWD drivetrain is not 50% more efficient than a RWD setup. And, it makes no difference if one is 10x more efficient than that other - all that matters is how much hp hits the pavement (dyno rollers). As an extreme example a 1000hp motor that puts 100hp and 100 ft/lb torque to the ground is still going to do the same amount of work that a 150hp motor putting down the same.

I think the board is doing their best to set things right and there is not doubt the BMW is an outlier. Maybe your BMW specifically isn't an outlier, but there are plently others that are.

R
 
Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 16 2005, 11:04 PM
Also, we have it on very good authority that the top notch BMW teams have found a legal way to GAIN 7hp WITH the restrictor... 
Click to expand...

I believe the current restrictor was a 15% percent reduction. So given this logic if we are given a 30% restrictor we'll gain 14 horsepower? Believe it or not, I did think you guys were rational until I read this.

I'm calling Sunbelt Monday morning for a 50% restrictor... :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by Bruce Shafer@Sep 17 2005, 03:58 PM
I believe the current restrictor was a 15% percent reduction. So given this logic if  we are given a 30% restrictor we'll gain 14 horsepower? Believe it or not, I did think you guys were rational until I read this.

I'm calling Sunbelt Monday morning for a 50% restrictor...  :rolleyes:
[snapback]60452[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Bruce,

I'm not even going to begin to think you are this naive... You are playing with numbers in an illogical manner and you know it... You aren't going to prove your point by doing this, only make yourself look like an ... well, you know...

Do some research and you'll find out that a flat plate restrictor, located under the throttle-plates, can EASILY be fooled... You can't size them based on simple % of restriction, because of where they are located... All you have to do is accelerate the air just ahead of them (like with a venturii), and shoot the air right past... Talk to the GT committee... They've done a TON of research on this... If you are getting the full volume of air to the throttle plates, all you have to do is accelerate it through, and the restrictor will not be seen...

That is why The GT classes are going with the SIRs... These are at the beginning of the airstream, and they absolutely limit the air entering the engine... Look at the ALMS or F3000 or ??? You'll notice a little aluminum inlet on their air intakes... Looks REALLY small... THAT's an SIR.

I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but I supsect that an SIR of around 30mm is what's going to be required to get a 2.5L engine like the BMW restricted to 220hp... based on what the GT guys use for a formula... We'd have to talk with the guys on the GT committee to get the exact formula for an IT engine... Fortunately for us, Bob Dowie, or CRB Liason, is also the CRB liason for the GT-committee, so we have direct information...
 
OOPS, I think I hit a nerve with SWAG. However when the parameters used to determine the classification of cars is published in the GCR, those of us not on the comp board will understand the process, not be frustrated by the process, and no longer use terms such as "SWAG".

As a side note, every engineer I have worked with used some form of SWAG. It comes from experience in designing everything from cars to fence posts. To me, it is not a bad thing. Chuck
 
Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 17 2005, 12:09 PM
Bruce,

I'm not even going to begin to think you are this naive...  You are playing with numbers in an illogical manner and you know it...  You aren't going to prove your point by doing this, only make yourself look like an ... well, you know...

Do some research and you'll find out that a flat plate restrictor, located under the throttle-plates,  can EASILY be fooled...  You can't size them based on simple % of restriction, because of where they are located...  All you have to do is accelerate the air just ahead of them (like with a venturii), and shoot the air right past...  Talk to the GT committee...  They've done a TON of research on this...  If you are getting the full volume of air to the throttle plates, all you have to do is accelerate it through, and the restrictor will not be seen...
Click to expand...

I understand the venturi effect, and everything you say I agree with if we could make changes to the intake tract. However, we can't make any changes.

I'm off this thread until Monday or Tuesday. Damn I swore up and down I wasn't going to read this over the weekend! :(
 
Jeez Bruce, it appears you don't actually read what some of us write, do you?

So, go back to my posts...do you prefer the idea of another form of "wing clippping"??

How can you not even discuss the numbers that show the car is an outlier?

Your head is in the sand, my friend....
 
50% Chuck?
Your arguments would hold more water if you'd stop just making stuff up.

The numbers above are more correct. In my Integra it was about 15%. The BMWs and RX7s appear to be around 20%.
More loss to be sure, but not anywhere close to 50% more.

And Darin... If the GSR is one of those cars thats right in the middle... Why?
What reasonably competitive cars are under it that it needs to add +/- 125lbs of ballast to hit that middle mark? I'm serious, I'm interested in this answer.
It can't be any of the heavy hitters in the class like the 240z, RX7 and of course the BMW.

And to answer your question Chuck... In 2002 my Integra had the extent of the rules under the hood. Anything else would have been illegal.
It was 30 WHEEL (so forget about driveline loss arguments) horsepower under more than one E36 that had sat on the same dyno. One of them on that same day. Torque wasn't even close.
It has about the same HP and torque as the RX7, but it is FWD, has a less than optimal F->R weight distribution and the EXACT SAME brakes that are on the (now) ITA Civics that weigh about 300lbs less. This is a huge disadvantage to the RX7. At 2700lbs you can quite simply destroy the braking components in this car in a 30 minute sprint race. I triple ducted mine... Didn't matter.
I like to be competitive, so I had a choice... Cheat, or sell the car. I sold it.

If its raining... Great ITS car.
Otherwise at 2700lbs its struggling to keep the ITA guys behind it
 
I asked the question on my forum on what a 56mm hole would flow. Two engineers answered, one is Fran Hall a GM engineer who has worked on many IRL engines and the other was Adam Christianson (you can find him on BMW forums too, he likes though) who is a Ph.D. engineer specializing in flow dynamics. He included some back of the envelope calculations and indicated he felt the maximum flow (not necessarily what the engine could do) was quite high and that the restrictor would not have an effect.

http://www.gt40s.com/ubbthreads/showflat.p...=true#Post47668

As I think I mentioned a long time ago, my old Ford 5L Cougar had a 55mm MAF meter and was able to generate in the neighborhood of 250 rwhp with that in place. Once I removed it power jumped a good bit, but it still supported a lot.

R
 
If the SIR works like you claim, sounds like a windfall for the BMW. They can have a well-developed car without putting many $thousands into develpment, and also not have the drawbacks of carrying the extra weight. Shouldn't be any complaints, either, since all the whiners claim they don't make anywhere near the HP you're talking about limiting them to.

Looks like your ITS bogey is about 15.5 Lbs/WHP, which seems consistent with what I've heard claimed for the top RX-7s. Looks about right compared with my car too, since I'm no better than mid-pack, and I have to add 25 WHP and drop 50 lbs to hit that bogey. Workin on it :happy204:
 
Scott, that is interesting info, and I like the objectivity. The brake comments are esp useful. I *Do* wish that the E-36s on the same dyno had been some of the known record setters and max effort cars from the east.

But that's great stuff regardless. Thanks for posting it.

(information like that is just one data point, but multiple data points can tell a story. As we have other data points, each new one can flesh out the picture to a greater degree.)
 
Originally posted by Eagle7@Sep 17 2005, 12:57 PM
If the SIR works like you claim, sounds like a windfall for the BMW. They can have a well-developed car without putting many $thousands into develpment, and also not have the drawbacks of carrying the extra weight. Shouldn't be any complaints, either, since all the whiners claim they don't make anywhere near the HP you're talking about limiting them to.

Looks like your ITS bogey is about 15.5 Lbs/WHP, which seems consistent with what I've heard claimed for the top RX-7s. Looks about right compared with my car too, since I'm no better than mid-pack, and I have to add 25 WHP and drop 50 lbs to hit that bogey. Workin on it  :happy204:
[snapback]60460[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


Marty, I agree, the SIR would be a freebie in my eyes, LOL....but the Bimmer crowd represented here seems to deny any form of a "problem" in the first place. My comments are totally ignored....

Go back and re-read my post regarding p/w ratios, and you'll get a pretty good idea of the RX-7 place, etc.
 
Originally posted by Catch22@Sep 17 2005, 04:47 PM
And Darin... If the GSR is one of those cars thats right in the middle... Why?
What reasonably competitive cars are under it that it needs to add +/- 125lbs of ballast to hit that middle mark?  I'm serious, I'm interested in this answer.
It can't be any of the heavy hitters in the class like the 240z, RX7 and of course the BMW.
[snapback]60458[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking here with regards to "other cars", but in the case of the Integra, and forgive me because I don't have the exact figures in front of me, when you run the numbers using the same classification process used to evaluate the RX-7, 240Z, BMW, etc., etc., the GSR actually comes in at a weight HIGHER than it's currently classified... This is the same process that has been used to classify/reclassify every car in IT for the past year or so... that yields the results that most seem to be very pleased with when they see the specifications for these cars...

I keep hearing complaints about the brakes, but I don't see how you are at anymore of a disadvantage than MANY other cars in the class. You have a favorable wt/pwr ratio, good gear ratios, a good suspension, etc... Your brakes are average, and the process takes that into consideration... The RX-7s specs, take into consideration it's braking advantage... That's all part of the process...

Like I said... the GSRs here don't seem to have any trouble staying out front for 30-minutes, against some VERY stout 240Zs, etc..., so I'm not sure I can totally sympatize with your braking situation... Your brakes are certainly larger than mine (240SX), and you have WAY more HP to boot... I have torque, and likely better balance. We have different advantages/disadvantages, and we will have to expoit them where we can...

Wanna race??? :023:
 
Originally posted by lateapex911@Sep 17 2005, 01:03 PM
Go back and re-read my post regarding p/w ratios, and you'll get a pretty good idea of the RX-7 place, etc.
[snapback]60462[/snapback]​
Click to expand...
OK, 14.9 lbs/WHP for ITS. So now I have to add 34 WHP :(
Any solid experience in comparing Mustang dyno numbers with DynoJet numbers? I keep hearing DynoJet is higher, and I suspect most of these conversations use DynoJet numbers.
 
Originally posted by Eagle7@Sep 17 2005, 05:19 PM
OK, 14.9 lbs/WHP for ITS. So now I have to add 34 WHP  :(
Any solid experience in comparing Mustang dyno numbers with DynoJet numbers? I keep hearing DynoJet is higher, and I suspect most of these conversations use DynoJet numbers.
[snapback]60464[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

You really can't work strictly from Chassis dyno numbers... They very too much from shop to shop... Might work well to help validate flywheel HP or estimates of such, but on their own, it's tough to trust them...
 
I'd race you in my Integra Darin, but remember... I sold it. I couldn't figure out where to find 30whp ;).

And the guy who bought it???
Converted it to E Prod.
<shrug>

Maybe the tracks up there favor FWD?
I dunno, but we have a former ARRC podium guy (ITC) down here thats been trying to race a GSR for 3 years. If its raining... Look out.
But at the ARRC last year, and at a Pro-IT this year at Road Atlanta... Well off the pace of the ITS leader and well off what top RX7s and 240zs run. Good driver, very well prepped car, new Hoosiers.
At VIR, the top BMWs have run 2:12s. A few RX7s have been in the 14s. The fastest Integra (again, a fully built and well piloted car) is in the 16s.
Maybe the Rocketship GSRs in your neck of the woods are cheating???
The Type R parts bolt right into the GSR, and are easy to buy on ebay any time you want.
Food for thought.
 
What about safety? At its current weight of 2850, the BMW is already heavier than most cars in ITS. Lets assume, for this debate, that the decision was made to either add weight to the BMW or reduce weight to the other cars - increasing the weight differential. What was once light contact, will turn into a big hit for the lighter weight non-E-36 driver.

Rob
 
Originally posted by Catch22@Sep 17 2005, 11:54 PM
I'd race you in my Integra Darin, but remember... I sold it.  I couldn't figure out where to find 30whp ;).

And the guy who bought it???
Converted it to E Prod. 
<shrug>

Maybe the tracks up there favor FWD?
I dunno, but we have a former ARRC podium guy (ITC) down here thats been trying to race a GSR for 3 years.  If its raining... Look out.
But at the ARRC last year, and at a Pro-IT this year at Road Atlanta... Well off the pace of the ITS leader and well off what top RX7s and 240zs run.  Good driver, very well prepped car, new Hoosiers.
At VIR, the top BMWs have run 2:12s.  A few RX7s have been in the 14s.  The fastest Integra (again, a fully built and well piloted car) is in the 16s.
Maybe the Rocketship GSRs in your neck of the woods are cheating???
The Type R parts bolt right into the GSR, and are easy to buy on ebay any time you want.
Food for thought.
[snapback]60469[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

integra data point from a labor day race at summit point... pole position was a 1:25.45, integra was 1:25.6 , third was 1:25.8. these three cars are the top three in the marrs series. the integra isn't off the pace, and the other two cars are bmw's.

i had asked the question a few pages ago about what dyno type is being used to come up with these mythical hp numbers for the ratios. still no answer.

when is the itac going to publish this "process" for classifying cars? why does it have to be such a mystery? all we see is insinuations of potential action from the members. why not publish the process and the intentions? why can't this process be more open?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top