So about these Pony Cars for ITR...

[Bob Roth]

As to the question of where would the cars come from if we changed the rules, I've run CRX's from '94 to 2004. At its peak, there were a ton of CRX's out there, much like the Miata's today. But people don't want to run the same car forever, and if you are front drive, there is no step up FWD ITS car that had comparable competitiveness and interest unless you happen buy the only ex world challenge prelude.

For ITS and above, the GSR is a mid pack car, S2000 is fragile and rear drive, the Type R is not really the car for ITR but is a good endurance car. Its not like Honda VTEC cars don't exist, NASA has a ton of them in Honda challenge, and there are a bunch of cheap street cars and there are always SSC Civic Si's. But seriously, running a 1.8 against 2.8 liter cars? Who wants to invest in that?

There is no cheaper, more reliable, faster for the dollar race car than a B series honda. And you can buy all the parts from a catalog. My opinion is if you made the B series Honda VTEC cars competitive, there would be more than a few CRX runners who would enjoy the old CRX experience with 50 more Hp.

I think the real factor is, if we make the VTECs competitive in ITS, where do the Porsche/BMW/Nissan rear drive guys get to play? I am sympathetic, but at the same time, you have to agree, if they made so many B series hondas out there and they are such good cars, why is nobody racing them in IT?

If its distastefull to try to make Fwd Honda VTEC cars competitive in ITR and ITS , give us our own Honda B series Class in IT for 1.6 and 1.8 Civic, Del Sol, and Integra. just like Spec Miata. There are a lot of B series VTEC cars out there built between 95 and 01. If you did that, I bet there are several several Honda builders who would sign up in a second to write the rules.

 

[Ron Earp]

I think the real factor is, if we make the VTECs competitive in ITS, where do the Porsche/BMW/Nissan rear drive guys get to play?

Weeellllll.....

If you are talking about making the VTEC cars competitive in ITS then the Porsche/BMW/Nissan rear wheel drive cars will run in ITS.

Is "making VTECs competitive" a euphemism for "make the VTEC cars an overdog"?

 

[lateapex911]

Its not like Honda VTEC cars don't exist, NASA has a ton of them in Honda challenge, ........

Bait taken....

I'll go dig up the real entries and numbers, but the term "A ton" is a far cry from what I've been aware of.

Frankly, I'm having difficulty here because your premise is so self motivated, and your numbers are skewed to serve that purpose. Bringing in "getting passed" into the discussion really spins things into a hugely subjective mode, and it strikes me that you're grapsing to make your point. And I actually think you have a point!

The thread started with you stating that the V8 cars should be kept out of ITR, to protect the Hondas, but that thinking is exclusionary, and on top of that, the promised windfall of Hondas just doesn't exist in the numbers that I think you're envisioning....even if that were a route that anyone wanted to follow.

I think you need to look at this from other angles....

 

[tnord]

I don't like the prospect of changing a process that has been such a success, but i think i'm getting closer to an alternative based on specific output of the stock powerplant that works. the only other thing i'm thinking of is maybe a floor of 10% minimum multiplier, and a maximum of 35%. maybe the Z will make 260whp, but i kinda doubt it.

Class-----Make-----Model------Dspl-----Output---- HP/L-----# cyl-----HP/L/cyl-----Baseline-----Delta-----New Multiplier-----WHP
ITS-----Acura ---Integra GSR---1.8------ 170---- ---94.4----- 4.0------ 23.6--------- 19.44----- (-7.15)-------- 17.85----------- 170
ITA ----Acura---- Integra------ 1.8------ -140------- 77.8----- 4.0------ 19.4--------- 19.44----- (-0.01)------ 24.99----------- 149
ITA ----Mazda---- Miata------ 1.6------- 116------- 72.5----- 4.0------ 18.1--------- 19.44------ 2.25-------- 27.25----------- 125
ITA---- Mazda---- Miata------ 1.8------- 126------- 70.0----- 4.0------ 17.5--------- 19.44------ 3.33-------- 28.33----------- 137
ITS ----BMW----- 325-------- 2.5------ -190------- 76.0---- 6.0------ 12.7---------- 19.44----- 11.61------- 36.61------------ 221
ITR ----Acura--- Type-R------ 1.8------- 195------ -108.3---- 4.0------ 27.1--------- 19.44---- (-13.11)------- 11.89------------ 185
ITA ---Nissan---- SE-R-------- -2-------- 140------ 70.0------ 4.0----- 17.5---------- 19.44------ 3.33-------- 28.33----------- 153
ITA---- Dodge-- Neon ACR---- 2------- 150------- 75.0----- -4.0----- 18.8-----------19.44----- 1.18--------- 26.18---------- 161
ITA---- Honda--- CRX Si----- 1.6------- 108------- 67.5----- 4.0------ 16.9--------- 19.44------ 4.40 --------29.40----------- 119
ITR ----Honda---- S2000------ 2-------- 240------- 120.0---- 4.0------ 30.0--------- 19.44---- (-18.11)-------- -6.89----------- 218
ITR---- Honda---- S2000----- 2.2------- 240------- 109.1---- 4.0------ 27.3--------- 19.44---- -(-13.43)-------- 11.57------------ 228
ITR---- Nissan---- 300ZX----- -3-------- 222------- 74.0----- 6.0------ 12.3-------- 19.44------ 12.19---------- 37.19----------- 259

 

[lateapex911]

I think the real factor is, if we make the VTECs competitive in ITS, where do the Porsche/BMW/Nissan rear drive guys get to play? I am sympathetic, but at the same time, you have to agree, if they made so many B series hondas out there ......

??????

"Where do the Porsche/BMW?Nissan guys get to play?? I am sympathetic..."

Sympathetic to what??? Are you suggesting that there are more Hondas so the currently classed cars get ...what...tossed?? I an not imagine that's what you are suggesting, yet I'm scratching my head on another read.

The more I read, the more this starts smelling really really self centered. Tell me I'm wrong...please.

 

[Bob Roth]

I agree that 175 Whp is right for a teg, but its OEM hp is 170. What gets me is people advertising over 200 whp from their ITS Alfas when their OEM stock was not much more than mine. But then again 200 Whp isn't too hard (8- hp/liter) when you start with 2.5 liters. With mine at about 153, I am already knocking on 100 hp/liter.

Some cars respond to IT tuning and some don't, the fact that we have tons of ITS BMW, Mazda, Porsche ITS car but virtually no honda VTECs should tell us something. If you would like, I'd be glad to lead an exploritory committee on the B series challenge.

 

[Bob Roth]

What I meant, is if the weights were fixed for ITS VTEC's and all the sudden by shear numbers of increased GSR's, the VTEC honda's started winning, there are a lot of ITS rear drive guys guys who will say, where is my place to play, you ruined my class.?

Look, I am just trying to figure out a way to make a 160 hp VTEC sol fit and not get blown by down the straight, and also look like a joke when I see class dyno numbers discussed. I like the specific output idea, but then there will be those who will not be happy if VTEC cars are suddenly competitive. Perhaps, a B challenge class is a way to keep everybody happy.

Gotta go.
will check in later!

 

[JeffYoung]

Bob, I think you are missing a fair amount of IT history in reaching the conclusion that Hondas must be classed wrong because there are so many Porsches/BMWs/Mazdas out there in S. Those cars, especially the Mazdas and Zs have been classed for many years -- the S Hondas/Acuras are mostly newer. Plus, there was a stretch of about 4-5 years that ended recently where before the Great Realignment, I agree, it made little sense to build anything other than a BMW.

I have yet to see many fully developed Honda/Acura products in S, but the changes to S are still new -- and the ones that I have seen have done well.

Travis, on your model, I still think focusing solely on specific output per cubic inch to "anticipate" horsepower is a mistake, as we ignore too many factors. Valves per cylinder, number and quality of cams, compression ratio, etc.

It may be the case that a 305 Chevy motor with 8.5 to 1 compression or whatever, 2 valves per cylinder, and crappys cams and induction system might not make 25% either.

 

[Knestis]

...give us our own Honda B series Class in IT for 1.6 and 1.8 Civic, Del Sol, and Integra. just like Spec Miata. There are a lot of B series VTEC cars out there built between 95 and 01. If you did that, I bet there are several several Honda builders who would sign up in a second to write the rules.

If your region can support something like that, there's absolutely no reason for them to not do it.

...but then there will be those who will not be happy if VTEC cars are suddenly competitive. ...

Sorry. Sure, some individuals with [competitive Brand X] will be cranky if [Brand Y] gets a break but it SOUNDS LIKE you're suggesting that there's some plan in place to keep V-tac (yo) out off of the podiums. That just isn't so.

K

 

[tnord]

Travis, on your model, I still think focusing solely on specific output per cubic inch to "anticipate" horsepower is a mistake, as we ignore too many factors. Valves per cylinder, number and quality of cams, compression ratio, etc.

we ignore it now, no?

 

[JeffYoung]

Vaguely account for it in determining if a motor makes 10%, 15%, 20%, 25% (default), 30% or 35% in IT trim.

 

[tnord]

and the current process either ignores or "vaguely accounts for" a whole bunch of other things right? i thought we were trying to keep this simple?

 

[JeffYoung]

Yessir. If it were up to me -- and it's not, I only get one vote -- I would use:

25% unless we have conclusive dyno proof from sources who are willing to go public that something else is true.

A torque adder, of 50 or 100 lbs..

A FWD subtractor, of 50 or 100 lbs.

And that's it.

A lot of the above are good exercises, and I appreciate the thinking, but if we adopt something like that, what do we do with the next guy who wants a "brake deductor" based on a formula using swept area? Or a "aero adder" based on a formula using frontal area, etc.?

I see these exercises as far more dangerous to the balance we have achieved in IT than "removing the washer bottle" or "removing passenger glass," and FAR further "down the path to production." They are formulaic, complicated attempts to balance 300 disparate car chassis.

 

[Knestis]

I'm warming even more to the idea. Travis - Between my fiddling with it and yours, I've lost track: How did you get your New Multiplier, again...?

EDIT - The beauty of this kind of approach, Jeff is that it gets us "closer" - allows us to consider additional factors - without resorting to either (1) BS "what we know numbers" or (2) big chunk adders. Based on physical attributes of the car. It's something of an oversimplification I'll admit but I'm intrigued by the consideration that number of cylinders might play into the math. It's not a crazy idea to suggest that torque is influenced by that value.

K

 

[JeffYoung]

Maybe my understanding is wrong, but torque is influenced by displacement, not number of cylinders.

I am willing to listen to this but I think we are headed towards a very complicated formula to "predict" horsepower in IT trim that will result in a lot of argument over the necessarily subjective factors that go into it. Just how much gain do we give a 4 valve motor? Etc. It's the same discussion (and problems) we are having now, just broken down into many smaller and just as divisive pieces.

But I am open to listening to this.

I'm warming even more to the idea. Travis - Between my fiddling with it and yours, I've lost track: How did you get your New Multiplier, again...?

EDIT - The beauty of this kind of approach, Jeff is that it gets us "closer" - allows us to consider additional factors - without resorting to either (1) BS "what we know numbers" or (2) big chunk adders. Based on physical attributes of the car. It's something of an oversimplification I'll admit but I'm intrigued by the consideration that number of cylinders might play into the math. It's not a crazy idea to suggest that torque is influenced by that value.

K

 

[Ron Earp]

I agree that 175 Whp is right for a teg, but its OEM hp is 170. What gets me is people advertising over 200 whp from their ITS Alfas when their OEM stock was not much more than mine.

How do you know their ITS Alfa is IT-legal?

How do I know your HonduhB11VTECYoTypeArrrgghhhhITSheetbox is maxed out and you have a 100% IT-build on the motor?

How do we know if the dynos are even of the same type and somewhat comparable?

Ron

 

[Knestis]

...Just how much gain do we give a 4 valve motor? Etc. It's the same discussion (and problems) we are having now, just broken down into many smaller and just as divisive pieces. ...

It's not a consideration, directly. Remember, the first assumption of this idea is that engines with higher stock specific powers outputs have less potential to gain in IT preparation. (I'm willing to conditionally accept that proposition, even as I admit we don't know enough to be sure about quantifying it at this point.) That's all.

On the torque/cylinders issue, how would a 2.5 liter four compare to a six of the same displacement and technology? Are there comparisons that are fair? I admit I don't know off-hand.

K

 

[JeffYoung]

I really need to get off this forum and do some work...lol...but this is a good discussion.

I do agree with you that it is possible a motor with a very high stock specific output might not gain much in IT trim. It's interesting to me though that the poster child for this -- the GSR -- shows what, 20% gain, on the Blake Meredith motor? Which just goes to show we have a lot to learn.

I think you have a decent example of 4 cylinder and 6 cylinder motors in the 2.5 range, and the 4s (Porsches, primarily, but the Prelude 2.3 is close) make decent torque. The 3.0 liter 4 cylinder Porsche motor makes really good torque.

 

[Knestis]

...I do agree with you that it is possible a motor with a very high stock specific output might not gain much in IT trim. It's interesting to me though that the poster child for this -- the GSR -- shows what, 20% gain, on the Blake Meredith motor? ...

I have no reason to distrust Blake's judgment but do we accept his numbers but not Bob's? We just can't reasonably decide.

K

 

[Ron Earp]

On the torque/cylinders issue, how would a 2.5 liter four compare to a six of the same displacement and technology?
K

You can find numerous examples but typically torque per liter is most constant regardless of technology (within reason) while hp really changes considerably. For example if we looked at four ITR cars Ford 5L Mustang, 300zx, BMW 330i, and a Porsche 968 S2 we'd have the following hp/liter and torque per liter outputs:

If we normalize to the lowest output engine in the class, the Ford, then we end up with a 32% change in absolute torque per liter across these four cars. But with horsepower per liter we end up with a 61% change. Three of the cars are four valve per cylinder designs, DOHC, while the Ford is an OHV pushrod engine.

Now if we remove the Ford we get a different result, one that has larger changes in HP than in torque:

Interesting. I think I could probably pull a subset of cars and go either way on this situation. Have to look at them in depth when I have time. In general a 4 valve NA motor is doing well at 75 ft/lbs per liter in mild trim while a 2 valve NA design is doing really well at 60-65 ft/lbs per liter.