In 2003.

The only reason we don't already have them is due to the lack of consistent access to scales (a completely unenforcable rule is kind of silly). Mr. Eric Rosen has eliminated that problem by offering his scales for use at all events for the 2003 season.

Karl and I will do alot of research in establishing these weights including what other governing bodies are using and home grown data obtained by weighing some of our current cars.
What you will NOT see is ridiculous minimums like <cough> some <cough> clubs like to attach to Honda products.

The intention is solely to help level the field and promote competition. Since our cars are already pretty evenly matched within classes, we won't need to adjust very much at all.

Note: nothing is firmly decided yet, but weights will likely not apply to H1 Hybrids

 

Scott:
In our Conference up here in the NW, we run a Production group who's minimum weight is based on weight/horsepower ratios. The cars are classed based on this and has been very popular and has eliminated a ton of debate over the different weight and hp differnces in the eligible cars...

I'm sure NASA or others have simular formulas but I can e-mail you a page or two of the class weight ranges, if you need 'em.

Greg

 

You do realize you are opening pandora's box with this one? Check recent issues of the SCCA's tech updates or ImprovedTouring.com ... minimum weights are always a contentious issue.

And, yes, the SCCA weights are ridiculous. The CRX weighs hundreds of pounds less than it's rivals... CRX Si 2140lbs vs. RX-3 2280lbs vs RX-7 2380lbs vs 240SX 2530lbs. Or those svelte GS-Rs at 2690lbs vs. BMW 325s at 2950lbs or RX-7 at 2680lbs or 944 at 2865lbs.

 

Both CRXs and GSRs are lighter compared to their rivals because of their power. If they CRX had 30 more hp at the wheels, it would be in the Integra/240sx power's league, therefore it would weight in the 2400-2500 range also. The GSR is down on power and most certainly on torque compared to the BMWs, so it gets a lighter weight.

I agree that some people will heavily contest the minimum weights, but that is unavoidable. I think a bigger problem would be if there are no minimum weights at all. As this series keeps expanding, you can't just run without minimum weights. It is just something every legitimate series has. Plus, if some people show up who have the necessary resources to take advantage of not having minimum weights, they can easily start abuse it to an extreme.

 

how about checking everyone at the next 2 races and recording the weights for "info" purposes...?

Will

 

I can't commit to "everyone," but we're working on a similar scheme. Just so we have an idea.

 

 

I know of a completely legal ITS RX7 with 210hp at the wheels.
Try to get that out of a "svelt" GSR.

As far as the "pandora's box," We don't have to worry about things like making a Honda competitive with a Nissan or BMW. Should make things a tad easier I think.

And oh yeah... I realized a few months back that anything we do will likely **** somebody off, make someone unhappy, or convince someone that they could do it better. I don't really concern myself with that stuff anymore.

 

Forgive me here, but screw the whiners. Both Karl, yourself, and NASA are the reason this series is taking off. I love this group, and I'm beginning to love racing. If they don't like it, they can find somewhere else to play. Just my opinion, and I know I don't matter, but...

Jason-
who will say that the whining is the ONLY negative he can remember from his first race weekend.

 

Having watched the series' progress this year, it will be cool to see how the next step pans out.

Before making any detailed decisions, it might be a good idea to define - and make public - a philosophy (e.g., weights will be based on the stock weight of the car OR weights will be adjusted to regulate/equalize performance among cars in a class). If some mathematical guidelines/formula is going to be applied, then that too should be made available for all to see. This is where the SCCA went horribly wrong and you guys can do a better job of this.

Frankly, it doesn't really matter WHAT the guidelines are, as long as they are consistently applied and public information. It is hard for folks to be PO'd about something that everyone understands, particularly since with Hondas, you have a reasonably homogenous group of cars (all front drive, no rotaries, mostly fairly recent technology).

Keep up the good work.

Kirk

 

VtEc y0??!!??

 

What about weight penalties for the winners so it's more competitive? Like the Speedvision WC does. I like that idea. It's no fun seeing the same person win. This way it gives the guys with less of a budget and maybe not as many hp to have a chance. Someone with the money and resources is no fun seeing win all the time. I don't know if that's the case this season, it might just be a broad range of driving skill and the more skilled drivers are winning but as the series gets bigger that will be less of an issue. It would make the series more competitive.

I think you need to make some sort of minimum weight to. It seems as thought the hp/weight ratio is the way to go. You can always adjust later if a particular model is slower.

Keep up the good work. You guys are doing a great job so far!

Just my 2 cents.

s


[Modified by stevel, 1:46 AM 8/17/2002]

 

Who's his engine builder (b/c if he can best SpeedSource by ~20hp, I'd love to cut him a check next time #88 needs a motor).

 

No way am I going to mention that here. You have IM.

As far as RX-7s go, some of you have seen Greg Summerlin's blue #91 PS1 car at NASA events. It has 170K on the dial and has never been rebuilt. The only modifications are the intake and exhaust. It has 162 (dynojet) at the wheels.

Weights will likely start at current Grand Am and SCCA minimums and then we'll adjust them based on P/W potential of each car. Many cars, like the GSR and ITR will very likely carry the same weight since they are in different classes.
This actually won't be very hard for us.

 

So, when are we going to start having a dyno at every race so that everyone in every class is putting out the same HP to weight ratio? In my opinion, with starting minimum weights you just start people trying to figure out ways to get more and more horsepower and more torque. Which in turn starts...who ever has the most money will start winning. If you guys are serious about this, want to level the playing field, then start adding weight to the cars that win races (like Speedvision World Challenge races [yes, I know it is called Speed World Challenge but I refuse to call it that because it sounds stupid]). Just my $.02 worth.

 

Can my car weigh any more? The way the rules are writen, you can only take SO much weight out of the car in the first place... Its not like we can legally get my car to 2200 or a Teggie to 2100...

Whatever you decide, I would be up for.. I really don't like adding weight, Jack would have to add 200lbs by now....

 

<< What about weight penalties for the winners so it's more competitive? Like the Speedvision WC does. I like that idea. It's no fun seeing the same person win. This way it gives the guys with less of a budget and maybe not as many hp to have a chance. Someone with the money and resources is no fun seeing win all the time. I don't know if that's the case this season, it might just be a broad range of driving skill and the more skilled drivers are winning but as the series gets bigger that will be less of an issue. It would make the series more competitive.>>

Yahoo! lets make Yack tow a trailer during the next race at Lowes!!!!!

seriously, though, weight penalties would be way too much work to figure out fairly for our group at this time (or even a year from now). Poor Karl and Giles would be inundated with complaints, protests, etc., and would probably never have time to make it out to drive! no one wants that kind of hassle.

whatever is decided, it is ok with me. racing is for fun -- thats all.

see ya'll at Lowes.

Todd
#11 H1 Honda Civic DX-LS (overweight and underpowered!)

 

We are totally NOT opposed to the suggestion of minimum weights for next year- it is needed- but at the same time as you guys know one of the main reasons that we (as well as others) are involved in ECHC and stepped back from SCCA was due to unrealistic classes- according to SCCA our car was supposed to be ITS- ridiculous due to the fact that the weight of the car to the horsepower/ torque wasn't at all competitive in the class (everytime we went to race people would tell us to run ITA as everyone except corporate rule creating officials in Denver- seemed to understand the car was inappropriately classed- and yes we filed many protests to try to get it changed to no avail- nutshell as long as we didn't win ITA too often we were ok but if we did win too much we could have been protested with no defense possible coming from us as we were running the wrong class per instruction to do so by track officials and fellow racers)- BUT ECHC has done a great job at making fair classes so there should be no fear of minimum weight rules for the following year being unjust- Danielle/Lyonel

 

Seems like it shall be an interesting change for 2003...

lucky me to be starting out with weight restriction next year... oh well

 

With driver or without? Having played (a lot) with SCCA IT weights, I would recommend that you be VERY cautious about using them for any baseline that you establish. They were not created with any consistent philosophy or guidelines. Frankly, you have a more defensible position (the key to limiting the whining) if you just start from scratch!

K

 

OK everyone (those with ECHC cars), in the interest of research...shoot me an email (karl@honda-challenge.com) and tell me four things.

1. How much your car weighs
2. How extensively gutted it is
3. How much you weigh
4. How far off SCCA minimum weight you are (if you know)

We really need to move towards minimum weights as the series goes forward. Regardless of whether we use someone else's already-published weights, or create our own, this data will be most helpful to Scott and I.

Thanks in advance.

 

e-mail sent

 

king rat
#06 (scca summit point scales)
1.) wehicle weight 2544lbs with driver and 3/4 tank of gas
2.) gutted - very
3.) my weight -150lbs (yes Im a skinny brit0
4.) scca its weight is 2690lbs

I will also have scales in 2003 for the 944 cup. we use a rewards weight system and after 2 rounds the leader is carrying 120lb extra. it certainly has slowed him down, but he's still winning. Im not sure the rest of the field has fully taken advantage of the rules and lightened their cars completely. I cant say the rewards weight is working yet, but I intend to look closely at the results at the end of the season.

all i can say with minimum wieghts is work em out but be prepared to change them.... It would be interesting to see what the cars are at when we get to VIR.

 

I like the idea that American Iron has HP/W
But that only leaves 2 classes
But break that down further into 4 classes
That way you can still fit you car into the budget you want

Just the thoughts of some one who has a what will be a hybrid but highly uncompetitive

H1 Unlimited HP/W ratio (forced induction or NAAAAWZZZ Allowed)
H2
H3
H4 The price of a full prepped competitive ITC car's HP/W ratio

Of course this would have to open up all the mods you could do to your car
But I think this would still be an affordale way to race
And would bring some serious racing

ECHC RULES
There is nothing more that I anticipate more on a race weekend than the ECHC
Keep up the good work, driving, and wonderful videos

 

Plus this way when we do AI vs HC we have a seriuos chance