ITS Acura Racer Input

One other point: the reason why the BMW and the RX7 are so fast, in my book,is due primarily to the fact that they are SO well-balanced. No real glaring weakness on either. The 7 is a bit down on torque and the BMW...uh...the BMW...uh...well, there has got to be something not quite up to snuff (aren't the brakes good, but not RX7 good?).

Every other S car is not as well balanced. But that is the choice we make, and the cross we bear, when we choose to build or buy a non-front runner.
 
Wow, that low? Amazing that people wring the performance out of that car on the "tighter" tracks in the SEDiv, but they do. Same is true with Lime Rock right? You would think that the RX7 wouldn't have a chance with no torque, but it is fast there?
 
Originally posted by JeffYoung:
You would think that the RX7 wouldn't have a chance with no torque, but it is fast there?
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that I believe the RX-7 have 4.88 or even 5.13 rear end gears avaialable for it... I know a lot of guys that run the 5.13s in EP... That would help a bit...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
And Lime Rock is a handling/drivers/momentum track. Torque helps, but good top end power makes a difference on the front straight as you enter it in the 80 MPH range.

Teh BMW really shines at places like Atlata, where you need grunt of the final corner before teh runway long straight.

I would think a well prepped and driven Acura would do very well in ITS at LimeRock...the ITA version has turned 1:01.8s there, and the ITS record is 1:00.9 if I remember correctly. Is 35 more Hp worth .9 second??

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
 
Thanks to all for your input. However, I'm still looking for ITS Integra competitors and their feedback with details about the weight of their cars. Do you know of anyone in your Region with a '94-'95 Interga?
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Do you know of anyone in your Region with a '94-'95 Interga?</font>
Click to expand...

Phil Phillips, http://www.philstireservice.com/ . He also runs Honda Challenge.

As an aside, I believe the GS-R is an excellent car for ITS. There's a lot of heretofore untapped potential in it, I think. If the E36 gets reigned in a little bit that Honda will be right up there. - GA
 
Phil's car used to be mine. I built it. I do kinda sorta actually know what I'm talking about.

But... Whatever.
 
The thing about the RX-7 and the Integra with regard to torque is that on an open track, the cars can get to 100% of their potential. When traffic plays a factor (like in every race), the torqier cars drop in potential only marginally while any momentum drop in a car such little torque is devestating.

The RX-7's do typically run either a 4.88 or a 5.12 rear gear. That helps keep the car in the 7-9K RPM range.

Saying that a car is 50-75 pounds off it's ideal weight is nit-picking IMHO. I think there are tons of issues more pressing/deserving, no?

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6 (ITA project)
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Thanks to all for your input. However, I'm still looking for ITS Integra competitors and their feedback with details about the weight of their cars. Do you know of anyone in your Region with a '94-'95 Interga?</font>
Click to expand...

I have one. Currently running in Honda Challenge H3 at 2575#. I ran one SARRC weekend in ITS this year and am planning to run some more next year. Region is SEDIV.

Feel free to contact me if you want. zsf at mindspring dot com.

------------------
Zsolt - #18 H3 GSR
http://www.SouthEastHondaChallenge.com
 
Chuck,
I agree with you, they did miss the weight by alot. When I built my 1998 GSR I too was way under. I made up for it by adding alot of bars to my cage, which now looks like cross between a rally cage and a nascar cage. I still had to add a 34lb weight to my floor board and have to start each race with full tank of fuel to make weight. Hopefully they will make a change, but we'll see.

Brian Vinson
1998 Acura Integra GSR #88 ITS
 
Originally posted by BVinson:
Chuck,
I agree with you, they did miss the weight by alot.
Click to expand...

Guys...

ONE MORE TIME... the weight was PURPOSFULLY SET where it is... It has not been "missed", or is otherwise NOT INCORRECT for the cars potential...

There is nothing in the ITCS that says the weight of your car will be set based on what it would really weight were it to be gutted, caged, or otherwise prepped for IT. The weights are set to create a car that is compeitive with other cars in the class.

This car, based on it's specifications, is set at a nearly IDEAL weight for ITS. In other words, the weight to "potential" power ratio is right in line with any number of other ITS front runners (even a litte better based on some of your numbers...)

I can't believe you guys are complaining, when you have cars that can actually be made to meet the minimum weight... You can't POSSIBLY know how good you have it!

By the way... we have a couple of these cars out here and they are REALLY freakin fast... A fully developed one should really turn some heads...

Go have some fun! I wish I had this kind of problem... SHEESH!
wink.gif


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited September 13, 2004).]
 
Didn't say we weren't havin fun. Yes, you are correct on power/weight. Try to stop though. The weak point is the brakes due to the weight. Maybe we could keep the weight the same, but upgrade to the type-r front brake system. Also the weight for the same car in SSB is 2725. You mean to say that you can take 35lbs out of a non-competitve car in SSB and make a competitive car for ITS, I don't think so.
The 240sx for example from SSB to ITS is 230lbs!
[This message has been edited by BVinson (edited September 13, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by BVinson (edited September 13, 2004).]
 
Will never happen. Alternative components are 'not within the philosophy of the category.'



[This message has been edited by grega (edited September 13, 2004).]
 
Originally posted by BVinson:
The 240sx for example from SSB to ITS is 230lbs!
Click to expand...

And the 240SX only makes 155 stock HP compared to 172hp for the Acura... With similiar smallish brakes (257mm)... AND, I'll take your problems any day, because I'm still 100lbs overweight, and it's going to cost BIG $$$ to try to get it any lighter than it already is...

The Big picture is taken into consideration when these classifications are made, and, based on the current weight of the Acura in question, I'd say that the brakes and FWD configuration were more than accounted for.

SS weights have NOTHING to do with IT weights, so again, this is a non-sense comparison, as it means very little. What matters is the stock weight of the car, and what we can reasonably expect the car to weight after IT prep... We start adjusting the weight after that...

The Acura is POTENT for ITS, and I just can't see ANYONE on the ITAC, CRB, or BoD being sold that this car needs any kind of weight brake... It looks really good right where it sits...

I know I sure do enjoy watching the back-side of the two we have up here go blasting by me on the straights...
mad.gif




------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
I know it was a "non-sense" comparison, and I agree that the Acura is fast on the straights. I just thought it was a little strange that the 240 can lose 230lbs and the Gsr 35lbs. Sounds like the 240 could use a weight adjustment as well if your over. In my region there is only a handfull of competitive cars and I have won as many races or more than the others. So I am happy and will take your advise and let it be.

Brian Vinson

[This message has been edited by BVinson (edited September 13, 2004).]
 
When was the current ITS weight of the GS-R set, and on whose watch? I honestly don't remember but if it wasn't done with the recommnedation of the current ITAC, what evidence do we have that the weight was actually decided based on its potential?

Now, whether or not it is in the right ballpark based on current thinking is another matter. It might be but only by sheer luck.

K
 
Originally posted by Knestis:
Now, whether or not it is in the right ballpark based on current thinking is another matter. It might be but only by sheer luck.

K
Click to expand...

Kirk... From what I can tell, it may have been luck, but I'll take that, since it's right about where the current "process" would place it. I ran it through our process and it actually comes up right about where it is.

I'll give credit where credit is due... the previous watch got this one "right"...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
Originally posted by BVinson:
I just thought it was a little strange that the 240 can lose 230lbs and the Gsr 35lbs.
Click to expand...

When you say "can lose 230lbs", what you are really saying is that you find it strange that the spec weight would be 230lbs LESS than it's SS weight... That doesn't really mean that the actually car itself is capable of losing that much weight with IT prep, only that the powers that be felt that the potential of the car warrented a spec weight of 2650lbs...

Perception has played a big role in the spec weights of many of these cars over the years, and it still has a small part in the process... That's why cars like the 944, with only 157hp stock, are spec'd at 2715lbs... because someone "perceived", or otherwise thought that the potential of the car warrented this much weight.

Today, we are looking at things a bit differently. We take into consideration the ability of the car to actually make weight, and use some reasonable methods of estimating power potential to try to classify the car in the correct class at an achievable weight. Our goal is to, #1, get the car in the right class to start with, and #2, to get competitiveness a little closer than it's been in the past...

This year may well be a year for finding out if we are getting in right, but, at least on paper, many of the recomendations we've made look to be along the right track...

Hopefully, we'll have IT grids full of happy competitors, all agreeing that we're doing a good job of this...
wink.gif


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited September 13, 2004).]
 
Hi Darin,
Kind of a generic question for you and the ITAC folks.
How early can someone request a car classification? I have a 2002 model in mind and I would love to start the build process now, so that it might be ready by the start of the 2007 season. When is "too early" to request a classification? Knowing that the proposed PCA's could be a factor in all of this I would hold off probably untill the first of the year anyway. But what's your thoughts on this or the rule?

------------------
Tristan Smith
Buffalo's Southwest Cafe
ITA Nissan 240sx #56
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top