Dave Gomberg
New member
Available now at http://www.scca.com/clubracing/content.cfm?cid=44472 near the bottom of the page.
Dave
Dave
Preliminary CRB Minutes/Tech Bulletin - November
- Thread starter Dave Gomberg
- Start date
Looks like a couple of key Process fixes in ITB - including some LONG OVERDUE attention to the Toyotas. Hooray!! Andy can build his Corolla GTS...
A 2800+ pound Acura RSX in ITA...?? I know what I'd build if I lived near a horsepower track.
The engine mount thing is going to be a beeotch in terms of details. It's about 4x as wordy as it should have been, which is a waste because it can't prevent what it says it's trying to prevent. My "stayrod" solution makes one of my mounts absolutely "rigid" in terms of the vague allusions in the new rule (i.e., not "non-metallic") but it DOES move. Thousandths of an inch, maybe, but it moves... If 1/2" of rubber donut is OK, how about 1mm? How about .002"? Just silly.
K
A 2800+ pound Acura RSX in ITA...?? I know what I'd build if I lived near a horsepower track.
The engine mount thing is going to be a beeotch in terms of details. It's about 4x as wordy as it should have been, which is a waste because it can't prevent what it says it's trying to prevent. My "stayrod" solution makes one of my mounts absolutely "rigid" in terms of the vague allusions in the new rule (i.e., not "non-metallic") but it DOES move. Thousandths of an inch, maybe, but it moves... If 1/2" of rubber donut is OK, how about 1mm? How about .002"? Just silly.
K
Ron Earp
Administrator
160 hp RSX, how come that car isn't squarely in ITS? FWD box brigade wants it in ITA with the others?
R
Last edited:
JeffYoung
New member
Achievable weight. We didn't think the RSX could make weight in ITS (2500 lbs or something).
More on engine mounts later. A lot of time went into that rule and we knew that some wouldn't be happy with it. The crux of the issue is that there was a strong feeling that solid mounts shouldn't be allowed, and a recognition that what a solid mount "is" would be hard to define.
More on engine mounts later. A lot of time went into that rule and we knew that some wouldn't be happy with it. The crux of the issue is that there was a strong feeling that solid mounts shouldn't be allowed, and a recognition that what a solid mount "is" would be hard to define.
Ron Earp
Administrator
The curb weight is listed at 2790 lbs +/- 75 lbs on numerous sites.....if true, even if the weight is 100 lbs higher, I suspect the car could hit 2500 lbs with some effort into the build.
and 160 stock hp is .....160x1.25x12.9 = 2580 lbs. What stock hp rating did the GSR in ITS have, 170? Is the Honda Civic Si in S?
Last edited:
erlrich
Super Moderator
Since when did that become a consideration?
lateapex911
Super Moderator
It always has been, Earl, but it's tough to tell what different cars can get down to. Old, cheap cars with cardboard interiors lose little. (think 80s MR2) Newer cars with power seats, motorized this and that, airbags, heavy noise matts and carpet, heavy AC systems, power windows, etc etc etc, (think BMWs) can lose a bunch. But there are lots of exceptions and individual quirks. My gut would think the car could be an S car, but, I haven't looked into it closely at all, and at that HP level, it is a lower S car, at least by 'classic' standards.
And IIRC, there was a brouhaha over the 'sister' Honda that was debated as an A or S car. Matching that would be consistent.
But new cars aren't 'classic'....
And IIRC, there was a brouhaha over the 'sister' Honda that was debated as an A or S car. Matching that would be consistent.
But new cars aren't 'classic'....
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Re: Mounts.
My opinion: This worry over solid mounts is misplaced.
As the rule is technically written, I can:
-Use a delrin mount (hardish) but not lead (softish, but metalic)
-Use a granite mount (really hard) but not aluminum (softer, yet metalic)
I can take a stock mount and gut it, and fill it with super hard epoxy. I'd argue that's legal, and would be effectively a solid mount.
Now, IF a well meaning dude does that and uses some middle ground pretty hard epoxy, he may get protested. And the protest committee will be screwed.
One guy will think it's just fine. Another guy will think it's clearly too hard. The third guy will be scratching his head. heck, I bet if you took the ITAC members, and put THEM on the protest committee, and blind polled them, you'd get different answers! IF that is even remotely possible the rule is not well written.
If somebody wants to solid mount their production car engine that wasn't designed to be a stressed member, and they like blowing up bearing 5 (or whatever) in exchange for 'stiffening up' the front clip (which will STILL be disconnected (by any real structure) from the main cage.....let them!
As it stands, we let people weld a rod from the engine to the chassis, and the sky hasn't fallen.
Andys idea of disallowing stayrods when optional mounts are used is great, if the chassis stiffness issue is a great concern. (and vice versa)
My opinion: This worry over solid mounts is misplaced.
As the rule is technically written, I can:
-Use a delrin mount (hardish) but not lead (softish, but metalic)
-Use a granite mount (really hard) but not aluminum (softer, yet metalic)
I can take a stock mount and gut it, and fill it with super hard epoxy. I'd argue that's legal, and would be effectively a solid mount.
Now, IF a well meaning dude does that and uses some middle ground pretty hard epoxy, he may get protested. And the protest committee will be screwed.
One guy will think it's just fine. Another guy will think it's clearly too hard. The third guy will be scratching his head. heck, I bet if you took the ITAC members, and put THEM on the protest committee, and blind polled them, you'd get different answers! IF that is even remotely possible the rule is not well written.
If somebody wants to solid mount their production car engine that wasn't designed to be a stressed member, and they like blowing up bearing 5 (or whatever) in exchange for 'stiffening up' the front clip (which will STILL be disconnected (by any real structure) from the main cage.....let them!
As it stands, we let people weld a rod from the engine to the chassis, and the sky hasn't fallen.
Andys idea of disallowing stayrods when optional mounts are used is great, if the chassis stiffness issue is a great concern. (and vice versa)
JeffYoung
New member
It's always been a consideration. It's just that sometimes reasonable people disagree on what a car that has never been built can achieve weight wise. A guessing game in many cases.
erlrich
Super Moderator
Jake - sorry, I forgot to put the [sarcasm][/sarcasm] brackets around my post. I was just commenting on the fact that one car was deemed to be "competitively classed" at a weight almost 500 lbs below its curb weight, while another was deemed to be "unachievable" at a weight some 250 lbs below its curb weight.
You gotta love the consistency...
Ron Earp
Administrator
The 2006 RSX classification seems odd.
Seems to me a 160hp car is an S classification for sure. What else in ITA is at 160 stock hp?
- The 2006 Honda Civic Si with 197 hp is classed in S at 3000 lbs. The curb weight on that car comes in at 28XX lbs. (+150 lbs curb wt)
- The 1999-2000 Honda Civic Si is rated at 160hp and is classed in S at 2430 lbs. The curb weight on the car is listed at around 26XX lbs. (-200 lbs curb wt)
- The 1999-2004 Acura Integra is rated at 170 hp and is classed in S at 2590 lbs. The curb weight on the car is listed at around 26XX lbs. (-60 lbs curb wt)
- The 2006 Acura RSX is rated at 160hp and is classed in A at 2800 lbs. The curb weight on the car is listed at around 2790 lbs. (at curb wt, if in S it would be -200 lbs curb wt)
Seems to me a 160hp car is an S classification for sure. What else in ITA is at 160 stock hp?
Last edited:
JeffYoung
New member
Don't you think it MIGHT be possible that cars are different enough that some can shed more curb weight than others?
Or do you really think that we ought to be classing cars because some guy on the internet (not knocking Psherm, there have been others) just got to thinking that a car in the ITCS looked like it might not make weight in its present class?
We class as consistently and as objectively as possible. One of the areas where we have some judgment is whether to class light in the higher class, or heavy in the lower. A number of factors go into that thinking that are not part of the Ops manual.
Right now we have one guy building an ITS V6 Mustang and after a lot of work and a lot of research he thinks it can be competitive in S.
Or do you really think that we ought to be classing cars because some guy on the internet (not knocking Psherm, there have been others) just got to thinking that a car in the ITCS looked like it might not make weight in its present class?
We class as consistently and as objectively as possible. One of the areas where we have some judgment is whether to class light in the higher class, or heavy in the lower. A number of factors go into that thinking that are not part of the Ops manual.
Right now we have one guy building an ITS V6 Mustang and after a lot of work and a lot of research he thinks it can be competitive in S.
JoshS
New member
Mazda3. Also could never get to its ITS weight.
Newer cars are just simply harder to get light for the same horsepower. It's not just interior stuff like seats and airbags that are heavy in new cars. It's also the structure.
Yes, it does, simply because it starts out with 160hp and lots of torques*. But one thing you're missing is that curb weight is totally irrelevant to the Improved Touring classification process, except whether it "can" make it or not.
Way too many ponies for ITA.
...and has a 1.6L V-Tec engine with no torque. If anything was ripe for ITA...
There are rumors of 175-ish wheel in ITS trim. We had to run lead to get it to its classified ITS weight.
Oink, oink.
Let's not forget a very crappy strut suspension (a la NX2000) that was so bad people ran from it in droves in Grand-Am and World Challenge.
Me, too.
Nuttin', Honey.
I think the RSX would be interesting *only* if you already had one (SSB? SSC?) and had no place to play. But at 2800 piggies I'd not even bother, given the Miata is over 400 pounds lighter. I don't care how much more power you're making, that's like carrying two large people as ballast.
Move it to ITS and let Nature take its course.
GA
*The NX2000, also a 2L car, starts out with 140 ponies and 132 torques. I don't recall the torques increase (145-ish?) but we were putting 152 ponies to the ground when we were done with it.
ShelbyRacer
New member
Wow, looks similar to some of the wording I sent in last year. I'm not sure exactly what the issue is...
"Solid" is a relative term. If the ITAC is seriously that concerned, then consider restricting the filling material to a certain type (rubber, poly, etc.) and place a durometer limit of no higher than 50D on the material (a somewhat arbitrary number at this point, but it could be refined...), thereby eliminating . Keep in mind I am NOT advocating for this, but simply offering it as an option that may not have been considered.
I will ask- what does anyone out there feel is the inherent evil in "solid" (read- even metallic) mounts, so long as location and geometry are not changed?
chuck baader
New member
"These items may be corrected and will not be official until published
on the Fastrack page of the scca.com web site on or about October 20."
I understand that to mean the mounts will be legal Oct 20. Have I missed something? CB
on the Fastrack page of the scca.com web site on or about October 20."
I understand that to mean the mounts will be legal Oct 20. Have I missed something? CB