Logic - If X is in A, Y should be in S

[Geo]

Originally posted by Catch22:
Ok. I need some help on this one.

You're changing the subject and not following up on what I asked, but OK.

Originally posted by Catch22:
Now it sounds like you're saying that someone COULD get 180ish horsepower out of a 944 if they applied the effort and cash. But you also seem to be saying that you feel the 944 should be in ITA.

Am I following you?

Once more, just to be sure I'm clear...
Your position is that a car that you agree could potentially see 180hp should be reclassed to ITA?

Yes. First of all, there are already cars there that will a full-on build will probably see near enough to that at a LOT less weight. I don't know the exact hp potential of the Acura Integra or the Nissan 240SX, but I'll bet it's easily 165 and possibly closer to 170. I do know the SR20DE in the SE-R and NX2000 and I know it's in the 160s.

The 944 weighs in at 185lbs more than the 240SX, a car whose specs are pretty close to the 944. I've even said that I could see the 944 gaining a little weight if this happened.

But lastly, all of my suggestion has been based upon comparing specs of the 944 to the 240SX. Taking it a step further, the twin cam 240SX is in ITS as is the twin cam 944. The single cam 240SX is in ITA and the single cam 944 is in.... ITS.

Comparison with similar cars is totally what drove me to support moving the Neon, SE-R, and NX2000 to ITA. So, if nothing else, you ought to at least recognize consistency.

That said, I can see where you and others are coming from. I'm not going to stomp my feet and throw a tantrum if you disagree. But I don't think it's insane and it's not without some comparison and thought.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

 

[Jake]

We should try to get back on topic here and stop arguing over cars on the fringe. To paraphrase Catch22 - what are the low hanging fruit that we CAN agree on? I thru out a pair of silly Porsches, lets work on a list!

 

[Catch22]

lets work on a list!

OK. I agree.
Andy, Darrin??? Taking notes?

Hondas are my thing, so I'll throw some out there...

94+ Integra LS/RS to ITA (2550lbs)
94+ Integra GSR to 2590lbs in ITS
88-91 Civic/CRX DX to ITB (2175lbs)
86-89 Integra RS/LS to ITB (2440lbs)
88-91 CRX HF to ITC (2140lbs)

And thats just the tip of the iceberg as far as low hanging fruit is concerned. Why in the world that poor CRX HF, with its whopping 65 stock HP, gas mileage gearing, and 8v head is in ITB... God himself doesn't even know. It isn't even a good ITC car.

The Integra GSR is wayyyyy overweight. Many of them are carrying 100ish pounds or more of ballast. Want to reel in the E36 BMWs? Start by pulling some lead out of the Integras.

The 94+ non-GSR Integra really has no discernable advantage over the Integra thats already in ITA. AND it weighs more. Duh... Move it to ITA. It isn't even a very good car there, its too heavy.

The 88-91 Civic/CRX DX cars match up almost perfectly to the ITB GTI hoard, yet they sit in ITA with nobody racing them. This is a shame because they are great cars that are cheap, sturdy, and plentiful. Lots of aftermarket support out there as well due to sharing alot of parts with the ITA cars.
Move this car to ITB and I'll build one immediately, cheap.

The 86-89 1.6 Integra also looks good in ITB. Like the DX CRX/Civics, a reclass could breath life into a car nobody currently holds an interest in because its useless in ITA. This could in turn breathe some life, and youth, into ITB.

And move the damned Accord back to ITB where it belongs. The board should be ashamed of moving that thing to ITA in the first place.

There's more, but just this stuff alone would make the Honda crowd happy.

Scott, who created NASAs Honda Challenge series in 2001 (really, I did) and from all indications did a damned good job.

PS - George, I do see what you are saying, but please understand that stuff like that does cloud the opportunity to really get stuff done with the gross misclassifications.
Again, thats potentially creating a big time ITA overdog (sure, its heavy, but it also potentially has the most power, best handling, and best brakes in the class (ITA), thats not fruit thats even remotely low on the tree), which is not at all the purpose of this exercise.

 

[lateapex911]

First, I did a little number crunching.

ITA Acura...(a solid ITA car, set fast race lap at the ARRCs in '03) 2480 lbs, 135 whp, =p/w of 18.5

ITS 944.. 2715 lbs, 158 whp (183 minus driveline losses), = p/w of 17

Second, who said the ITA 240SX was such a good idea in the first place for ITA?? ITA is fast enough thankyou, no need to add yet another overdog and continue the madness.

The 944s solution (and I agree that it isn't a good fit right now) has got to be weight loss. Or weight gain at the top of the class. (Highly recommended, with a bit of a restrictor) Or all three.


Big picture? I think some wholesale changes would be fine. Just a statistical analysis shows that ITC needs more cars, and lord knows there are plenty of dogs in B. Same goes for A, which around here has huge fields.

Third. The RX-7 won more than its share of races in ITA, not because of its performance, but because of it's popularity and numbers. There were plenty of models that could beat the 7, but there weren't showing up in enough quantity.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

 

[Geo]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
First, I did a little number crunching.

ITA Acura...(a solid ITA car, set fast race lap at the ARRCs in '03) 2480 lbs, 135 whp, =p/w of 18.5

ITS 944.. 2715 lbs, 158 whp (183 minus driveline losses), = p/w of 17

OK, this is a good point. I think the decent (not BMW or 944S) ITS cars are much lower, but you're right, this does look like it would create a prickly situation, at least as the category is configured today. But, IT as a category is speeding up. That's one reason I think we're seeing a bunch of movement right now. Who knows what the future holds?

Originally posted by lateapex911:
Second, who said the ITA 240SX was such a good idea in the first place for ITA??

240SX owners?

------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

 

[Jake]

Catch - GREAT STUFF!! - now we're getting somewhere!

 

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by Catch22:
lets work on a list!

The Integra GSR is wayyyyy overweight. Many of them are carrying 100ish pounds or more of ballast. Want to reel in the E36 BMWs? Start by pulling some lead out of the Integras.

I don't see where you are coming from here. The GS-R 1.8 is already developed enough to produce 170FWHP. This puts it EXACTLY at the power to weight of the 2nd gen RX-7. Well built cars of this ilk are FAST...TRUST me. I think you know that with your Honda experience. The second gen RX-7 also needs 50-100lbs to make weight.

This doesn't reel in the BMW at all. Adding weight to them does that. It just gets one car closer. I have new reports that thay are making more power than ever.

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">The 94+ non-GSR Integra really has no discernable advantage over the Integra thats already in ITA.  AND it weighs more.  Duh... Move it to ITA.  It isn't even a very good car there, its too heavy.</font>

Agreed. You should see an ITAC recommendation on this as soon as it makes it through the 'publishing pipeline'.

The 88-91 Civic/CRX DX cars match up almost perfectly to the ITB GTI hoard, yet they sit in ITA with nobody racing them. This is a shame because they are great cars that are cheap, sturdy, and plentiful. Lots of aftermarket support out there as well due to sharing alot of parts with the ITA cars.
Move this car to ITB and I'll build one immediately, cheap.

It's that statement that scares me a little. If you would build one immediately, then I think you think it could win the class out of the box. Is that a good thing for ITB? I hope that the moves you have seen lately from ITS (Neon and SE-R) at the recommended weight add more legitimate COMPETITION, not a class winner...

All good brainstorming IMHO. Great job.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com

 

[oanglade]

Remember a few months ago when I said that there are ITS BMWs already comfortably under 12 lbs/hp?

Can the 86-89 Integra lose some weight? I mean, those of you that have built one, have you had to ballast them? I think those cars are not that different than an 84-87 Civic, but with bigger brakes and motor. If they can lose the "80" out of the listed 2380, I think that they would make a decent ITA car. On paper they would not look worse than say, a Miata, but you can probably squeeze more power out of the Honda than out of the Mazda. Both are similar to the MR2, but as I understand it, the MR2 can't lose the weight, right?

------------------
Ony Anglade
ITA Miata
Sugar Hill, GA

 

[Catch22]

It's that statement that scares me a little. If you would build one immediately, then I think you think it could win the class out of the box. Is that a good thing for ITB? I hope that the moves you have seen lately from ITS (Neon and SE-R) at the recommended weight add more legitimate COMPETITION, not a class winner...

I would build one immediately because I could do so incredibly cheaply and have a competitive car. Nice, running examples of these cars can be had all over the SE for $1000 or less.
The car is a great match-up (on paper) with the ever popular GTI models. It has a 16valve motor, but it is also hindered by crappy Dual Point fuel injection.
In short, its a perfect ITB car. Not too fast... Just right.

And I never said that the ITS RX7 doesn't need a weight reduction as well. It does.
I was just focusing on the things that fall in my wheelhouse... Hondas.

I know the Acuras are fast, but they need to be faster in the current ITS world. Even if you add 100lbs to the E36 and maybe a little bit of a restrictor, the other current S cars still need some help. The BMWs were showing about a 3 second gap over the rest of the field at VIR last month, and word is that the infamous 2:12 (over 4 seconds under the previous track record)
BMW had a busted shock and a stock ECU. If I were an ITS driver in anything but a BMW that knowledge would put a "For Sale" sign on my car.

So the ITS field needs help. Its more than just adding weight to the BMW, other cars need to lose some.

And I know the GSR Integras can be fast. I also know exactly what kind of power they can put down with a fully built IT motor. And I also know that the brakes are just plain crap. I know this because I used to own one

.
If you want to know some IT GSR numbers and general info Andy, email me and we'll discuss it.
[email protected]

PS - For the record I don't own any of the cars I mentioned above. I drive an ITC Civic.

 

[Greg Amy]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">The GS-R (is) EXACTLY at the power to weight of the 2nd gen RX-7.</font>

BUT, it's front-wheel-drive. Which would you choose?

I know "parity" is not the goal in IT (I read the article, and agree with it) but to make any FWD car attractive versus a RWD, you've got to toss the front driver a weight advantage bone. Without it, there's no comparison. - GA

 

[ITSRX7]

I guess where I am coming from is this:

It is much easier (and smarter) to lop the head off the monster rather than trying to give all the warriors slightly better weapons so they can all attack at once.

Doing the latter is like full-blown comp-adjustments IMHO - and NOT what the SCCA wants to do.

And Greggie - I would always choose RWD, some would always choose FWD. The 'bone' the Integra needs is more development. The 240Z and RX-7 are all done!

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com

 

[Geo]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
First, I did a little number crunching.

ITA Acura...(a solid ITA car, set fast race lap at the ARRCs in '03) 2480 lbs, 135 whp, =p/w of 18.5

ITS 944.. 2715 lbs, 158 whp (183 minus driveline losses), = p/w of 17

BTW, do the math on the ITS GS-R and Gen II RX-7 as mentioned below. You will find them under/around 14. Doesn't the 944 look a bit more like an ITS car when you do that? Again, probably with some additional weight as I mentioned before.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

 

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Geo:
BTW, do the math on the ITS GS-R and Gen II RX-7 as mentioned below. You will find them under/around 14. Doesn't the 944 look a bit more like an ITS car when you do that? Again, probably with some additional weight as I mentioned before.

(Laughing...) Hey George...you should re-read your post...so, you're saying that the 944 looks like an ITS car?? Hee hee...

Yes, of course I did my math and I know that you are in a pickle there. Two thoughts...a year or so ago, you were saying that the 944 could be a winner in ITS. The E-36 was storming around the country at that point, as were the known quantities of the 7 and the Z.

Now, you're hedging on that. Why? Have you had yours out yet?

Second I will quote myself-

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> Originally posted by Lateapex911 The 944's solution (and I agree that it isn't a good fit right now) has got to be weight loss. Or weight gain at the top of the class. (Highly recommended, with a bit of a restrictor) Or all three. </font>

And finally, IF the 944 were to move to A would you want to make it weigh 2945?? (183 hp minus driveline = about 160, 2945 / 160 = 18.4) Sorry, the 944 gets a knock in the ratio of a couple tenths of a point due to great handling, and rear wheel dive.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited May 26, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited May 26, 2004).]

 

[Catch22]

It is much easier (and smarter) to lop the head off the monster rather than trying to give all the warriors slightly better weapons so they can all attack at once.

We are not disagreeing Andy.
I am just of the opinion, from what I know of the GSR and the BMW (which is a good bit), that the adjustments are going to need to be made at both ends. The monster needs its head chopped off AND the warriors need better weapons. I truly believe thats what its going to take, the BMW is that good and quite simply shouldn't have been ITS classed in the first place.

Again... 2:12s at VIR, 3 to 4 seconds faster than the rest of the field (which included some very fast RX7s and GSRs), with stock engine management. Yes, the monster can go even faster, and will be doing so by the time the ARRC rolls around.

So if the GSRs and RX7s are already carrying lead... Just take it out.
Why is it there in the first place?
You can't make every ITS car capable of running with the BMW, but why the hell wouldn't you speed up a couple of cars that have a legit chance???

 

[Karl Bocchieri]

Wait untill some one has the cash to build a fast 944 S. Then there will be 2 monsters.

 

[JeffYoung]

I was on track with the two fast BMWs (Ed York and Chet Wittel). Hard to describe what it was like being passed by them (I'm a slow driver in a slow S car) on the backstraight during practice. They went by nose to tail like two Speed Challenge cars. Whole different league.

And the problem is they are the complete package. Great brakes. Great handling (check out the picture of Wittel running the uphill esses in the SEDiv forum). Great motor.

I never really thought that the BMW was that much of an overdog until this weekend. RX7s are fully developed and have great drivers, and run 2:15s max. Wittel beat that by 3 seconds and York (not even his home track) by 2. Other BMWs were not as fast, so it clearly is driver dependent as well, but man are those things fast.

So what can compete? Best 240z lap times I've seen are 2:17s. 300zx at 2:19. GSRs around 2:19 or 2:20. There's a Alfa Milano that has motor to run with the BMWs, he's about the same I think. I'm at 2:24 (TR8) in my second season, with lots of development left in the car and driver (anticipate 2:20 being the car's upper limit).

So in reality, at VIR, the best BMW is three seonds a lap faster than the second best, completely developed, well driven RX7. It's 5 seconds ahead of the best 240, and there aren't many fast 240s out there any more. Everything else is EIGHT+ seconds behind. In a 10 lap SARRC race, that's 1 minute and twenty seconds, or over half a lap on a 3.27 mile course.

I never really thought that the BMW itself was the issue when the Bimmerworld cars where dominating. I always thought that the RX7s were close and the drivers of the BMW were top notch. After May at VIR though, I think the writing is on the wall. At least at horsepower tracks, a well-driven BMW will dominate.

I do know of one 944s in the SEDiv. He ran last fall at VIR but has not been back in the spring. I think the car is still in development - looked and sounded great but not in the BMW's league yet.

 

[Eagle7]

Originally posted by Geo:
BTW, do the math on the ITS GS-R and Gen II RX-7 as mentioned below. You will find them under/around 14.

Gen II RX-7 - 2680 lb / 170 RWHP = 15.8

------------------
Marty Doane
ITS RX-7 #13
CenDiv WMR

 

[Bill Miller]

Andy,

Not sure why I didn't think of this before, but VW differentiated the 1.7 cars from the 1.8 cars, in 1984, w/ different letters in the VIN#. I don't remember which digit, but it's easy enough to find out. This is one of the reasons why you can't use an '83 or '84 non-GTI tub to build an ITB GTI. For all the folks that are providing evidence that the '84 Scirocco came w/ a 1.7, have them produce a VIN tag or title that doesn't have the 1.8 liter engine digit.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

 

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by JeffYoung:
..... After May at VIR though, I think the writing is on the wall. At least at horsepower tracks, a well-driven BMW will dominate.....

Well, the writing was on the wall last year, but this year it's on the track.

The math: A top notch RX-7 is 2670 lbs, and puts 170 down at the wheels, for a p/w ratio of 15.7

A BMW E36 is 2850lbs, and while I haven't seen the dyno sheets, the word is they are putting enough power down to have a p/w ratio of high 12s. No exaggeration.

3 lbs LESS per hp than the next best.

Now IF the package had crappy brakes, a floppy chassis, a live rear axle, or other disadvantages, this wouldn't be the huge problem it is.

What to do?

Well, to bring it in line with the other front runners, it would have to weigh, are you ready??.....3500lbs!!!

Now of course, that weight would hurt it in all the other parameters, so it isn't needed to go nearly that high, but it points out the gulf that exists. I can hear the howls of protest if even 3000 (an increase of 5%) was suggested.

I don't know about the mood of the directors, but another class above ITS would be a solution, and the BMW and 944S might be good initial candidates....



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

 

[Geo]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
(Laughing...) Hey George...you should re-read your post...so, you're saying that the 944 looks like an ITS car?? Hee hee...

DOH!

You know... That is funny.

Originally posted by lateapex911:
Yes, of course I did my math and I know that you are in a pickle there. Two thoughts...a year or so ago, you were saying that the 944 could be a winner in ITS. The E-36 was storming around the country at that point, as were the known quantities of the 7 and the Z.

Now, you're hedging on that. Why? Have you had yours out yet?

First of all, no I haven't. Cage is 99% complete (just needs misc tabs and the rest of the mounting plates).

Second, all I ever talked about here was comparison with other cars technically (one of Kirk's favorites) and not on-track performance. FWIW, an SE-R has already been a winner in ITS at The Glen. It's moving too.

Hedging? Don't know. All I'm saying is when you look at the 944 compared with the 240SX it looks like an ITA car. Looking at pwr/wt which is certainly nowhere near the whole picture, it's in between, but clearly closer to ITA. That is one reason I conceed that if it were to be considered, additional weight would be part of the program.

I know you understand what I'm talking about here. You drive a car in much the same boat as the 944.

Originally posted by lateapex911:
Second I will quote myself-

Originally posted by Lateapex911 The 944's solution (and I agree that it isn't a good fit right now) has got to be weight loss. Or weight gain at the top of the class. (Highly recommended, with a bit of a restrictor) Or all three. (italics mine just to differentiate quotes - Geo)

And finally, IF the 944 were to move to A would you want to make it weigh 2945?? (183 hp minus driveline = about 160, 2945 / 160 = 18.4) Sorry, the 944 gets a knock in the ratio of a couple tenths of a point due to great handling, and rear wheel dive.

Also a good point Jake and one that has been on my mind. It would make on hell of a heavy ITA car. However, it would NOT be the heaviest ITA car. That distinction belongs to the Mustang. OK, it would be second heaviest.

Followed closely by the Supra at 15lbs less than you mention. And no, I don't mind at all adding a fudge factor for intangibles that cannot be calculated. The 944 is indeed a car that would need that if it did go to ITA.

BTW, I'll have to send you a few photos of the cage. Once that last 1% is done the harness will be bagged up and the interior painted.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com