Preliminary CRB Minutes/Tech Bulletin - November
- Thread starter Dave Gomberg
- Start date
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
With the only difference being the ECU? No problem.
Why does the Civic have a better chance at making S weight than the RSX and why do you think it handles better? I would think the RSX would be the better race car as it'll have better aero, a lower COG and they are otherwise identical suspension-wise (to my knowledge).
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Heavier curb weights are the window into that assumption. Given the size of the chassis and what can be removed, I would think they would be of similar weight when prepped to IT rules.
The Civic has DW's, the RSX has struts.
[/B]
I certainly didn't say that. The curb weights are tens of pounds different... The rsx has more glass, a slightly bigger body, likely more attention to nvh attenuation (more structure), etc... I think the civic simply has less to it in IT trim. Its in A now, though, and it can certainly make that weight.
Both cars are strut fronts. Rsx has steering arms up by the top of the strut while ep ismore conventional. Rear on the rsx also has odd motions, and the civic does not share this either. They are pretty significantly different chassis.
Andy, I think the car belongs in a. Period. Can it make weight in s? I don't kno. Should it be in s? That's subjective. Ep was in a. Rsx with same motor went in a. Pretty simple.
I certainly didn't say that. The curb weights are tens of pounds different... The rsx has more glass, a slightly bigger body, likely more attention to nvh attenuation (more structure), etc... I think the civic simply has less to it in IT trim. Its in A now, though, and it can certainly make that weight.
Both cars are strut fronts. Rsx has steering arms up by the top of the strut while ep ismore conventional. Rear on the rsx also has odd motions, and the civic does not share this either. They are pretty significantly different chassis.
Andy, I think the car belongs in a. Period. Can it make weight in s? I don't kno. Should it be in s? That's subjective. Ep was in a. Rsx with same motor went in a. Pretty simple.
mossaidis
New member
The EP civic (02-05) has Struts...
JeffYoung
New member
Oh please. Settle down. You've been offering your opinion -- opinion -- that the GSR can't be competitive in ITS for a while, or that it is classed heavy.
I was just explaining that is not correct for others interested in this car who might read the thread. There are plenty of guys developing this car who are doing very well with.
If by your definition of competitive, you mean a chance to win any track against any competition, I think there are a number of chassis in ITS that can do that and I think the evidence pretty clearly shows the GSR is one of them. None of that takes away from what Huffmaster is able to accomplish with an RX7 -- something no other RX7 driver (including the likes of David Haskell, Sylvain Tremblay, Nick Leverone, Steve Eckerich, Kent Thompson, etc.) have done. I chalk that up to driver and while it's certainly a "guess," my personal opinion is he could turn similar lap times in top prep Integra.
And while that is a guess, it's no more or less accurate than your guess after what a year's development on the car? that the GSR can't compete for an ARRC win against Huffmaster.
I was just explaining that is not correct for others interested in this car who might read the thread. There are plenty of guys developing this car who are doing very well with.
If by your definition of competitive, you mean a chance to win any track against any competition, I think there are a number of chassis in ITS that can do that and I think the evidence pretty clearly shows the GSR is one of them. None of that takes away from what Huffmaster is able to accomplish with an RX7 -- something no other RX7 driver (including the likes of David Haskell, Sylvain Tremblay, Nick Leverone, Steve Eckerich, Kent Thompson, etc.) have done. I chalk that up to driver and while it's certainly a "guess," my personal opinion is he could turn similar lap times in top prep Integra.
And while that is a guess, it's no more or less accurate than your guess after what a year's development on the car? that the GSR can't compete for an ARRC win against Huffmaster.
IIRC, Jeremy got that exact number with a dead-stock longblock. And some very basic evaluation revealed that there was not a significant amount remaining, legally. Oh my godz, could I be wrong? Of course, silly. But I've yet to see documented proof otherwise.
Anyone with a calculator can add 25% to 180, Jeff, that's no major insight. The argument here is whether it's being attained.
If only the Integra has a lower-rated engine from a prior year that we could use for base competition weight...<sigh>...
If Blake is publicly claiming that he's making 180+ from an ITS Integra engine, then I'll stand corrected. The Internet apparently know more about this than we do...
Jeff, don't be an ass. You may apparently infer such nonsense, but I never said nor even remotely implied it.
No, Jeff, it's not. It's only a "red herring" to you because it doesn't neatly fit into your paradigm.
In your mind "competitive" may mean winning once in a while at your local track(s), but to many in the community a "competitive" car means being able to have a consistent chance of winning at any place, against any competition, they may choose to go. That's not consistently illustrated here. You yourself have publicly declared that in order to be used as a yardstick you must spend countless amount of time, effort, and development, both in terms of the car and the driver, but yet at the same time hold out one driver as some special piece of unattainable access, no matter the car? If that truly exists, is that truly "competitive"?
I constantly have to remind myself to avoid getting Internet pissing matches with you, as you just illogically grind down people until they just give up. Well, I'm calling "uncle" now, Jeff, as you've apparently got it all figured out...
GA
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
My bad on the Civic with struts. I knew there were some years that had them but didn't think that version did. None of those design eliments noted between Civic and RSX , front or rear, has any spot in the 'process' if I am not mistaken.
It's not really subjective if it can make weight in ITS. Cars are to be classed in the 'fastest' possible class at the lowest possible weight, right? If you honestly don't feel it can make ITS weight, then ITA is 'more right'.
Just some info for you to consider, I know the racers campaiging the RSX in STU are having a hard time coming within 300 pounds of their weight for that class.
Ron Earp
Administrator
Why not? The A and S weights are shown above (before and modifiers) and the curb weight seems to be around 2740 lbs. A weight is above the curb weight, the S weight is below the curb weight.
Ron Earp
Administrator
As is pretty much everyone on this thread unless they have specifically built an RSX for ITS.
Isn't the RSX STU spec weight 2200 lbs?
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
The Grand Am cars we ran out of our shop was spec'd at 2500 without driver or fuel. Used about 40lbs or ballast to get there. They were 'over-caged' so an estimate on SCCA weight?
Probably about 2425 without driver, maybe 2400. About 2575-2600.
So philisophical discussion aside, when the ITAC asks for info, this is what you get.
Probably about 2425 without driver, maybe 2400. About 2575-2600.
So philisophical discussion aside, when the ITAC asks for info, this is what you get.
Last edited:
Bill Miller
New member
Careful Chip. All the 2.0 8v VW's were in ITB until the New Beetle came along. It was deemed that it couldn't make ITB weight, so it landed in ITC, even though the curb weight was less than the Jetta, which landed in ITB.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
And the ITB Golf/Beetle was a decent excersize also in 'what people want'. Nobody built a Beetle for ITC at the much higher weight.
mk1 MR2. stock the car weighs mid 22xx (85'-86')range and low to mid 23xx(87'-89') depending on options. You could get down to ITA weight (2270) if you started with an 85' chassis, had a minimal cage and weighed less than 160lbs.
My my late 86 chassis completely gutted per the rules, gutted wiring harness, around 2 gallons of gas, light wheels, 180lb driver scalled at 2340. I could further reduce some weight by a trick used in Motocross racing (Ti-bolts) and some other small things. My dad's late 87' chassis that is gutted similiar with no weight weighs in around 2390lbs.
so long and short of it in IT trim they weigh more. It doesn't pertain to the conversation at hand, more of an Educational/FYI/Informative post.
Last edited:
jumbojimbo
New member
Someone in FL did build an ITC new beetle about 3 years ago. Never raced it and sold it to a waterford hills/GL driver. It has raced once in GL (2010 ITFest) that I know of. I have no idea how it is on weight, it ran ok but not great. Could be a rocket or a dog. Likely not even close to a 100% build, but it is very pretty and I want it.
In your opinion C is dying. Which may or may not be supported by the numbers, especially when compared to entry trends in A and B which are also down. C is just an easy target regardless of the reality.
I agree that no one is going to spend that kind money to build a C car. But no one is going to spend that kind of money to build a B car either. And no one is going to spend that kind of money to build an A, S or R car. Even if a car is clearly a slight overdog, we're talking about miniscule numbers of potential builds best case. IMO all the teeth gnashing about classing is just moving the deck chairs around and wasting energy.