ITS Acura Racer Input

C

Chuck Davis

New member
I'm looking for all those racing '94-95 Acura GSR. The issue is the finished weight of a car fully prepared by the rules. (FYI, in my first outting this weekend I discovered I was 170 lbs. underweight.) You know the attitude expressed by the board is that they don't make mistakes determining car weights. I think they missed this one by 100 lbs. You can call me anytime at 913 484-5510 or reply here. Thanks.
 
Try honda-tech.com too.

The issue of weights of cars has been beat to death here and at honda-tech.com so you should be able to find some info with a search. I don't recall anyone being happy with the way SCCA does things with car weights.

------------------
Bob Pinkowski
Atlanta Region SCCA
ITS Honda Prelude (no longer for sale, I think)
 
And the caveat to such a discussion is that just because you can get below the required weight doesn't mean that you have to, or should.

------------------
Lesley Albin
Over The Limit Racing
Blazen Golden Retrievers
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">You know the attitude expressed by the board is that they don't make mistakes determining car weights. I think they missed this one by 100 lbs.</font>
Click to expand...

Based upon what?


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

[This message has been edited by Geo (edited September 08, 2004).]
 
Chuck,

ssssshhhhhhh...don't complain. If they get rid of the minimum ballast rule you will be in good shape, assuming you can be competitive at the minimum weight.

Not trying to fling poo. You seem to be mad at the board because you came in underweight, how do you fully prep an IT car without it ever seeing a set of scales first?
Put in 100# of ballast, some extra cage tubing, a cool suit system, an accusump if you don't already have one. You'll be rocking.

It could be worse. You could have the minimum required cage, gutted all you legally can and still be 50# over weight.



------------------
Daryl DeArman
 
Keep in mind that the CRBs goal in setting weights has as its primary objective, to have the cars potential performance hit an imaginary "perfromance" target (for a specific class), and part of that calculation is the math involving the actual weight of the car, (curb), and the amount of "stuff" you can remove (stripped weight) and the amount you will likely add (race weight).

If the resulting number is close to the desired target, all is good. If that number is lighter than the desired target, no problem, adding weight is easy. If the number is higher than the desired target, there is a problem, and perhaps the car might be a better fit in a lower class.

(ITAC guys chime in here if I mis-stated the classing process)

Now, you COULD argue that the weight that they have assigned your car is unreasonable because the car can't be competitive at that weight, but you building a legal car and coming in underweight is a dream most of have!

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
 
To be fair, however most of the current IT spec weights were NOT determined under the current, light-of-day specification process.

Evidence suggests that previous Comp Boards have made their decisions assuming that spec weights were (a) based on the curb weight, (B) NEVER set to adjust competitiveness, © determined by a formula, (d) NOT determined by a formula, or (e) set by pixies in the dark of night, in a wooded glen in Northampton.

K
 
Are we talking about the ITS Acura Integra 3-Door GS-R with 172 stock HP?? If so, assuming a meager 25% increase with IT prep, I'd have to say that this one is SPOT ON for the class... In fact, I'm thinking it's a little on the light side, if the HP numbers work out correctly...

Compare this to the '95-'98 240SX, which has to weight 2650lbs and only makes 155hp stock, or the 944, which has 157hp stock and has to weight 2715lbs...

I'm not sure I'd be complaining if I were you...

Keep in mind that stock weights have very little to do with final weight these days... except to try to help determine if the final weight can be achieved with legal IT prep...

Looking at the numbers, the Acura being discussed looks like a really NICE choice for an ITS car...

Good Luck!



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
Originally posted by Knestis:
To be fair, however most of the current IT spec weights were NOT determined under the current, light-of-day specification process.

Evidence suggests that previous Comp Boards have made their decisions assuming that spec weights were (a) based on the curb weight, (B) NEVER set to adjust competitiveness, © determined by a formula, (d) NOT determined by a formula, or (e) set by pixies in the dark of night, in a wooded glen in Northampton.

K
Click to expand...

True K man, but I didn't say it twas always so....

Actually I like the image of the past comp boards getting together, drinking some (a lot?) of spirits, then getting a wall, a bunch of 'Post-its' with weights wriiten on them, a spinning stool and a blindfold.

You can figure out how it went from there, but one hint is that all but one member ducked for cover when it came time to "pick" a weight!

(Sorry Kurt, (W) some of the weights have been spot on, but others...well, you know what I mean!)



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
 
You are spot-on in terms of HP for this car Darin. But you need to take into account that the brakes are the same units that come on the (future ITA) Civic EX at around 300lbs lighter, making this a SERIOUS weak point on this car. Its also seriously lacking in torque, which again hurts like hell when you're trying to pull a 2700lb car off of a slow corner.
5th gear also kind of sucks. This along with the lack of torque can sometimes see the car actually slow down on a long straight with a headwind (seriously).

But I agree, the raw top-end HP is there. Its also a dead nuts reliable car as long as you don't mind constantly working on the front brakes.

I'm going by memory here, but I think Grand Am used to spec this car at 2575lbs, running against cars very similar to what is in ITS. I think Honda Challenge currently has it at 2575 as well.

I've always felt that 2625 was the proper ITS weight for this car. In direct comparison to the 13B RX-7, the HP is about the same and torque is pretty close with a slight edge actually going to the RX-7. But the RX-7 has a HUGE advantage in braking and tire conservation.
Right now the GSR looks great in the rain. But its doubtful you'll see them do much anything in the dry against stiff competition.

It really is something you guys might want to look at Darin. Look at the whole car, not just the power numbers. I have plenty of info if you'd like it, just give me an email address.

Scott, who used to own an OPM prepped '94 GSR that was prepped to IT rules but ran in Honda Challenge (at 2600lbs).

[This message has been edited by Catch22 (edited September 09, 2004).]
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Compare this to the '95-'98 240SX, which has to weight 2650lbs and only makes 155hp stock, or the 944, which has 157hp stock and has to weight 2715lbs...</font>
Click to expand...

Very true. Honda makes a fine engine with great top end power, but also keep in mind that the GSR is a 1.8L in a class of 2.3L+ RWD cars. The GSR makes 128 lbs/ft of TQ. The RX7 140, 240SX 160, E36 181, etc. The car also has very small brakes.

Every weapon has pros and cons. The GSR is a fine S car, but it will never come close to being competitive at 2700#. At 50-100# less, it has as good of chance to win as any RX7.

Looking at the HP alone, yea 2700# sounds okay, but for a car with small brakes and a small engine, it is a bit over weight to be competitive.

------------------
Zsolt - #18 H3 GSR
http://www.SouthEastHondaChallenge.com
 
The car is right in the mix with the non-E36 cars.

The 'small' front brakes are only smaller than the RX-7's by 15mm (277mm vs. 262mm). Some guys are running the S4 brakes on the RX-7 that are actually 250mm.

Built 1.8 VTEC's have made 170whp without sweating it. This is also supposed to be one of the best handling FWD chassis out there.

It may not be at a perfect weight, but sure isn't so far out it needs to be corrected - IMHO. Based on what we are doing now as far as calculations, it is within 22 pounds.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6 (ITA project)
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
Andy is right on.... against all but the E-36 the Integra is a top contender in the right hands.

As an example, the results from the Labor Day Double at Summit Point shows that there would be little difference between all the makes (even the 944) if it weren't for the rest of the pack being overshadowed by the E-36's.
http://www.wdcr-scca.org/results/results.c...ndex.htm?040704
 
Careful w/ those numbers, you're gonna make the case that an S13 240SX and the Civic Si's are good ITS cars as well!!!
biggrin.gif




------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Errr, well...... Maybe since so many people are trying to make a case for the 944 to be moved down to ITA, perhaps they should move all the "old guard" ITS cars down to ITA and put other cars into ITS that actually have a chance against the E-36's...
If you notice, the top S13's and SI's are running nearly identical times as the 240Z's and the rest of the ITS cars...
rolleyes.gif
 
Easy now!!!!
smile.gif


Let's all remember you can't look at a single Regional without having all the info.

Sit back and watch some football!

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6 (ITA project)
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
Folks are asking us to look at the whole car, but are not talking about the car's strength... chassis. The car has double wishbone suspension, clearly among the best in the field. Not only that, but compared with many others in the field it still has decent suspension travel when lowered to the legal limit.

IMHO the car is close enough. By close enough I mean I don't think we missed anything that we could add a number to that would dramatically alter the weight.

BTW, just for clarification, I was the only person making a case for moving the 8v 944, based upon technical specs compared with other ITS cars and ITA cars. I haven't mentioned it for some time now. I think there is still something to be said for it, BUT, I think that some things are happening in IT that I'll just wait to see how they shake out (nothing that hasn't been discussed here in some form or another, so it's nothing secret). My biggest gripe right now (not to thread hi-jack) is that there is a huge power to weight gap between the 944 and 944S yet they share the exact same chassis. Something is NOT right with that.

Back to our regularly scheduled Acura discussion.
smile.gif



------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
Andy, look through the results for the DC region for the last 4 years and you'll start to see a pattern. It's not just one regional.

The Integra is the only car that has even come close to keeping up with the top 2 or 3 E-36's.
I don't know the Integra well, but I'd say it might have a bit more in it since it's still a fairly new car to the class.
 
I'm not suggesting that it is far off. Yes, it is a great chassis and yes, 170ish whp is just about dead-on.

But 128 wheel torque is also dead-on. Which is quite low in a 2700lb car. And you'll never see this chassis win ITS at the ARRC (unless it rains) because 20 laps of competition that tight will result in both the brakes and front tires being burned off the car. Even with a very very good driver.

As far as the RX-7 brake comparison, how about taking the fact that the RX-7 is RWD, has better weight distribution, and has significantly larger rear rotors... Oh, and dual piston calipers.

I'm not saying the GSR is far off, but I am suggesting that it is off by at least 50lbs, maybe 75. Should it rise to the top of the ITAC's list... Maybe not. But its something you guys should keep an eye on IMO.

Again...
Great Chassis
Great HP
Good Aero

Terrible Brakes (in comparison to other ITS cars in its weight range)
Terrible Torque
Very front heavy

And as I've said before, maybe one of the E36 solutions is to lighten up several S cars. GSRs and RX-7s are both typically running a good bit of lead. Heck, take some weight out of both of them <shrugs>.
 
Lots of S cars are in the GSRs' boat. Good in one category, weak in others. I've got 135 hp stock, 175 ft./lbs of torque, so I'm the exact opposite of you. And my front brakes are worse, trust me.

So what's the board to do? I think the simplest answer is to move the 325 back to the realistic weight at which it was first classed (approx. 3000 lbs) and be done with it.

The other alternative is trying to adjust the 7-8 second tier S cars that are out there running consistently (190E, GSR, 280z, 240sx, TR8, Alfa Milano/GTV, 944, 924s) and that sounds a lot harder than making a single weight correction to the BMW.

Jeff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top