2006 SCCA Solo-II Pax Released
Thread Starter
Junior Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 584
Likes: 0
From: MA
2006 SCCA Solo-II Pax Released
http://www.scca-chicago.com/so....html
Changes:
SS 0.84 0.003
AS 0.831 0.003
BS 0.822 0.001
CS 0.813 0.003
DS 0.798 0.002
ES 0.806 0
FS 0.805 0
GS 0.794 0.012
HS 0.78 0.003
ASP 0.852 0.002
BSP 0.843 0.004
CSP 0.838 0
DSP 0.829 0.007
ESP 0.828 0.002
FSP 0.814 0.003
STS 0.797 -0.002
STS2 0.802 -0.001
STX 0.804 0.002
STU 0.82 0.002
SM 0.845 0.003
SM2 0.854 0.002
AP 0.868 0.003
BP 0.862 0.001
CP 0.856 0.001
DP 0.853 0.009
EP 0.858 0
FP 0.863 0.001
GP 0.844 0.844
AM 1 0
BM 0.944 0.002
CM 0.909 0.001
DM 0.885 0.006
EM 0.881 -0.005
FM 0.887 0.003
FSAE 0.948 0
F125 0.937 -0.002
FJ1 0.781 0
FJ2 0.796 -0.001
FJ3 (FJB) 0.83 0.007
FJ4 (FJA) 0.837 0.005
Notes:
STS.... softer? Hey Nate... still wanna leave?
DSP not much harder in relation to many other classes.
GS gets NAILED TO THE WALL.
Modified by KC at 1:18 PM 12/6/2005
Changes:
SS 0.84 0.003
AS 0.831 0.003
BS 0.822 0.001
CS 0.813 0.003
DS 0.798 0.002
ES 0.806 0
FS 0.805 0
GS 0.794 0.012
HS 0.78 0.003
ASP 0.852 0.002
BSP 0.843 0.004
CSP 0.838 0
DSP 0.829 0.007
ESP 0.828 0.002
FSP 0.814 0.003
STS 0.797 -0.002
STS2 0.802 -0.001
STX 0.804 0.002
STU 0.82 0.002
SM 0.845 0.003
SM2 0.854 0.002
AP 0.868 0.003
BP 0.862 0.001
CP 0.856 0.001
DP 0.853 0.009
EP 0.858 0
FP 0.863 0.001
GP 0.844 0.844
AM 1 0
BM 0.944 0.002
CM 0.909 0.001
DM 0.885 0.006
EM 0.881 -0.005
FM 0.887 0.003
FSAE 0.948 0
F125 0.937 -0.002
FJ1 0.781 0
FJ2 0.796 -0.001
FJ3 (FJB) 0.83 0.007
FJ4 (FJA) 0.837 0.005
Notes:
STS.... softer? Hey Nate... still wanna leave?
DSP not much harder in relation to many other classes.
GS gets NAILED TO THE WALL.
Modified by KC at 1:18 PM 12/6/2005
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,223
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere, doing a rain dance.
Re: 2006 SCCA Solo-II Pax Released (KC)
My thoughts:
AS still got faster AFTER the addition of the S2000... interesting
GS... wow. But mostly justified, imo.
HS... look at the difference from GS.... OVER a second slower on a 60 second course... hmmm.... the local PAX champs should pay attention...
Question: What made BSP so much faster this year? Is Piccone pushing the vettes that much harder? Or are they anticipating the arrival of the AWD gorillas?
DSP... good. about time they were hiked a bit.
STS... again justified, IMO. considering the amount of talent in that class, it's gotten CRUSHED by PAX this year.
Good to see FJ4 move faster.... it just wasn't even CLOSE to fair locally (to me). The AM champion couldn't beat our local FJ4 guy (who is VERY, very good, but not completely dominant like he has been this year).
AS still got faster AFTER the addition of the S2000... interesting
GS... wow. But mostly justified, imo.
HS... look at the difference from GS.... OVER a second slower on a 60 second course... hmmm.... the local PAX champs should pay attention...
Question: What made BSP so much faster this year? Is Piccone pushing the vettes that much harder? Or are they anticipating the arrival of the AWD gorillas?
DSP... good. about time they were hiked a bit.
STS... again justified, IMO. considering the amount of talent in that class, it's gotten CRUSHED by PAX this year.
Good to see FJ4 move faster.... it just wasn't even CLOSE to fair locally (to me). The AM champion couldn't beat our local FJ4 guy (who is VERY, very good, but not completely dominant like he has been this year).
Trial User
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 7,722
Likes: 0
From: Plotting My Revenge
Re: 2006 SCCA Solo-II Pax Released (TeamSlowdotOrg)
I honestly don't understand the gap between STS and STS2.
If you look at the top chassis in each class, its basically the same car (Civic and CRX). The CRX aero advantage is negated at autocross speeds, and many might argue that the slightly longer wheelbase on the Civic makes it easier to drive.
Scott, who thinks that as in ITA, all those cars (Civic, CRX, Miata, Integra) should be in the same class anyway.
If you look at the top chassis in each class, its basically the same car (Civic and CRX). The CRX aero advantage is negated at autocross speeds, and many might argue that the slightly longer wheelbase on the Civic makes it easier to drive.
Scott, who thinks that as in ITA, all those cars (Civic, CRX, Miata, Integra) should be in the same class anyway.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,223
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere, doing a rain dance.
Re: 2006 SCCA Solo-II Pax Released (Catch 22)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Catch 22 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I honestly don't understand the gap between STS and STS2.
If you look at the top chassis in each class, its basically the same car (Civic and CRX). The CRX aero advantage is negated at autocross speeds, and many might argue that the slightly longer wheelbase on the Civic makes it easier to drive.
Scott, who thinks that as in ITA, all those cars (Civic, CRX, Miata, Integra) should be in the same class anyway.</TD></TR></TABLE>
What is the difference in min weights between Civic Si and CRX in ITA?
If you look at the top chassis in each class, its basically the same car (Civic and CRX). The CRX aero advantage is negated at autocross speeds, and many might argue that the slightly longer wheelbase on the Civic makes it easier to drive.
Scott, who thinks that as in ITA, all those cars (Civic, CRX, Miata, Integra) should be in the same class anyway.</TD></TR></TABLE>
What is the difference in min weights between Civic Si and CRX in ITA?
New User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,678
Likes: 0
From: Philadelphia, PA, PBR
Re: 2006 SCCA Solo-II Pax Released (maxQ)
Ah ha it all makes sense now! See, there was really no reason at all to bump the 2005+ Mini Cooper S from GS up into DS. All you needed to do was give GS and DS the same PAX. Problem solved! 
Andrew
Andrew
Trial User
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 7,722
Likes: 0
From: Plotting My Revenge
Re: 2006 SCCA Solo-II Pax Released (maxQ)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by maxQ »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
What is the difference in min weights between Civic Si and CRX in ITA?
</TD></TR></TABLE>
The Civic is actually 35 pounds heavier, which is a mistake, but not one big enough for anyone to care about.
Both cars should weigh the same. If anything the Civic should be a tad lighter because the CRX has an aero advantage up above 90ish mph.
Something obviously meaningless in autocross.
What is the difference in min weights between Civic Si and CRX in ITA?
</TD></TR></TABLE>
The Civic is actually 35 pounds heavier, which is a mistake, but not one big enough for anyone to care about.
Both cars should weigh the same. If anything the Civic should be a tad lighter because the CRX has an aero advantage up above 90ish mph.
Something obviously meaningless in autocross.
Trending Topics
Member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,605
Likes: 0
Re: 2006 SCCA Solo-II Pax Released (aklucsarits)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by aklucsarits »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Ah ha it all makes sense now! See, there was really no reason at all to bump the 2005+ Mini Cooper S from GS up into DS. All you needed to do was give GS and DS the same PAX. Problem solved!
Andrew </TD></TR></TABLE>
Remember that SCCA does not make the pax though. Some guy in chicago region makes it. Its not related at all to the SCCA's classing decisions.
Andrew </TD></TR></TABLE>
Remember that SCCA does not make the pax though. Some guy in chicago region makes it. Its not related at all to the SCCA's classing decisions.
New User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,678
Likes: 0
From: Philadelphia, PA, PBR
Re: 2006 SCCA Solo-II Pax Released (ryan12321)
^^^ I know. I was joking. ...Well, half-joking anyway.
Kinda funny to have two classes with the same kinds of cars in them. And then evaluate them both to have essentially identical performance indices...
ES and FS, I get. There are distinct differences in the vehicle classifications for those two. And both would be very course dependant, despite the close PAX.
But GS and DS? Where is the class differentiator? What is the overall classing strategy?
Andrew
Kinda funny to have two classes with the same kinds of cars in them. And then evaluate them both to have essentially identical performance indices...
ES and FS, I get. There are distinct differences in the vehicle classifications for those two. And both would be very course dependant, despite the close PAX.
But GS and DS? Where is the class differentiator? What is the overall classing strategy?
Andrew
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,159
Likes: 0
From: Richmond VA
Re: 2006 SCCA Solo-II Pax Released (maxQ)
With '06 PAX, STS2 needs to go 0.3 faster than STS on a 60 second course.
With the lighter weight of the CRX, I feel that's pretty doable. It may be harder to drive, but it's still lighter. I've seen one example of comparably well-prepared STS2 CRX vs. STS Civic where the 2 Civic drivers were just a smidge slower than the CRX driver, but I don't think there was much of anything for the 2 Civic drivers to do to catch the CRX. It's not a big gap, but the CRX DID seem to have an advantage, particularly on the straight portions where it's dragging less weight.
With the lighter weight of the CRX, I feel that's pretty doable. It may be harder to drive, but it's still lighter. I've seen one example of comparably well-prepared STS2 CRX vs. STS Civic where the 2 Civic drivers were just a smidge slower than the CRX driver, but I don't think there was much of anything for the 2 Civic drivers to do to catch the CRX. It's not a big gap, but the CRX DID seem to have an advantage, particularly on the straight portions where it's dragging less weight.
I said I don't want a title!
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 11,506
Likes: 2
From: OH
Re: 2006 SCCA Solo-II Pax Released (Catch 22)
On a roadcourse wheelbase and length may not be an issue, but on a SoloII course the much shorter (length and wheelbase) CRX is a huge advantage.
Setup needs to work around the wheelbase issue, but there is absolutely no reason a CRX should not beat a 89-91 Si hatch on any type of autox course, assuming both cars are 100%.
An 88 CRX Si in STS trim is also lighter than a 89 Civic Si by about 100 lbs. That's a huge difference in itself.
No way these 2 cars should be in the same class IMO.
Setup needs to work around the wheelbase issue, but there is absolutely no reason a CRX should not beat a 89-91 Si hatch on any type of autox course, assuming both cars are 100%.
An 88 CRX Si in STS trim is also lighter than a 89 Civic Si by about 100 lbs. That's a huge difference in itself.
No way these 2 cars should be in the same class IMO.
Trial User
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 7,722
Likes: 0
From: Plotting My Revenge
Re: 2006 SCCA Solo-II Pax Released (Todd00)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Todd00 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">An 88 CRX Si in STS trim is also lighter than a 89 Civic Si by about 100 lbs. </TD></TR></TABLE>
Really?
I'm not arguing, because I don't really know, but that seems kinda high.
The notable differences I can think of are the back seat (but the CRX does have the bulkhead and storage bins) and a few inches of wheelbase. The Civic has more roof area, but the CRX has that huge piece of rear glass.
I know the CRX is lighter, but I wouldn't have guessed it was THAT much lighter.
What is the manaufacturers listed weight on each of them?
Really?
I'm not arguing, because I don't really know, but that seems kinda high.
The notable differences I can think of are the back seat (but the CRX does have the bulkhead and storage bins) and a few inches of wheelbase. The Civic has more roof area, but the CRX has that huge piece of rear glass.
I know the CRX is lighter, but I wouldn't have guessed it was THAT much lighter.
What is the manaufacturers listed weight on each of them?
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,223
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere, doing a rain dance.
Re: 2006 SCCA Solo-II Pax Released (Catch 22)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Catch 22 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
What is the manaufacturers listed weight on each of them?</TD></TR></TABLE>
1988 CRX Si: 2011 lbs.
1989 Si Hatchy: 2161 lbs.
What is the manaufacturers listed weight on each of them?</TD></TR></TABLE>
1988 CRX Si: 2011 lbs.
1989 Si Hatchy: 2161 lbs.
I forgot more about hondas then you will ever know....
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 5,310
Likes: 1
From: hop,skip, and a jump from the city,, new friggin york, USA
Re: 2006 SCCA Solo-II Pax Released (Catch 22)
wtf? sm going through the roof... bullshit! there is no reason SM pax should be anywhere near prepared pax....
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
From: Austin, Tx
Re: 2006 SCCA Solo-II Pax Released (Todd00)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Todd00 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">On a roadcourse wheelbase and length may not be an issue, but on a SoloII course the much shorter (length and wheelbase) CRX is a huge advantage.
Setup needs to work around the wheelbase issue, but there is absolutely no reason a CRX should not beat a 89-91 Si hatch on any type of autox course, assuming both cars are 100%.
An 88 CRX Si in STS trim is also lighter than a 89 Civic Si by about 100 lbs. That's a huge difference in itself.
No way these 2 cars should be in the same class IMO.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Todd's info is right on. Here's a few more points:
1) STS2 is still a supplemental class and the level of prep/depth of talent does not yet rival that of the more established STS. That's why STS keeps beating STS2 at so many national events.
2) The fastest STS2 CRX's are not even the lightest car. Seelig's car is the heavier 89, not an 88. He did it to save money since he had a bunch of parts from his STS Civic to use.
3) Some would argue that the CRX isn't even the best car for the class. Two years ago we had two good early Miatas campaining in STS2 nationally and doing well relative to other benchmark classes. But those guys both took a hiatus. In the meantime, some folks built CRX's since the development is trivial given the head-start from all the Civic knowledge. When the Miatas come back, watch out!
4) Back in the day, when the 88 CRX Si and 89 Civic Si competed in the same Stock class, the difference was typically five tenths. Which is about right given the weight differential.
So, IMO, STS2 should actually be faster than the new PAX requires. Five tenths faster than STS.
--Andy
Setup needs to work around the wheelbase issue, but there is absolutely no reason a CRX should not beat a 89-91 Si hatch on any type of autox course, assuming both cars are 100%.
An 88 CRX Si in STS trim is also lighter than a 89 Civic Si by about 100 lbs. That's a huge difference in itself.
No way these 2 cars should be in the same class IMO.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Todd's info is right on. Here's a few more points:
1) STS2 is still a supplemental class and the level of prep/depth of talent does not yet rival that of the more established STS. That's why STS keeps beating STS2 at so many national events.
2) The fastest STS2 CRX's are not even the lightest car. Seelig's car is the heavier 89, not an 88. He did it to save money since he had a bunch of parts from his STS Civic to use.
3) Some would argue that the CRX isn't even the best car for the class. Two years ago we had two good early Miatas campaining in STS2 nationally and doing well relative to other benchmark classes. But those guys both took a hiatus. In the meantime, some folks built CRX's since the development is trivial given the head-start from all the Civic knowledge. When the Miatas come back, watch out!
4) Back in the day, when the 88 CRX Si and 89 Civic Si competed in the same Stock class, the difference was typically five tenths. Which is about right given the weight differential.
So, IMO, STS2 should actually be faster than the new PAX requires. Five tenths faster than STS.
--Andy
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 4,200
Likes: 0
From: One by one, the penguins steal my sanity.
Re: 2006 SCCA Solo-II Pax Released (Catch 22)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Catch 22 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I honestly don't understand the gap between STS and STS2.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
The PAX is generated by looking at results from several (many?) events over the course of a season. STS2 was faster than STS. Why? Does the CRX weigh less in street trim? Weight is a huge performance issue in autocross (you should see the silly things people do to Miatas in CSP).
</TD></TR></TABLE>
The PAX is generated by looking at results from several (many?) events over the course of a season. STS2 was faster than STS. Why? Does the CRX weigh less in street trim? Weight is a huge performance issue in autocross (you should see the silly things people do to Miatas in CSP).
Trial User
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 7,722
Likes: 0
From: Plotting My Revenge
Re: 2006 SCCA Solo-II Pax Released (maxQ)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by maxQ »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
1988 CRX Si: 2011 lbs.
1989 Si Hatchy: 2161 lbs.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
That just doesn't seem right.
That back seat and extra few inches of wheelbase can't possibly weigh that much.
1988 CRX Si: 2011 lbs.
1989 Si Hatchy: 2161 lbs.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
That just doesn't seem right.
That back seat and extra few inches of wheelbase can't possibly weigh that much.
I said I don't want a title!
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 11,506
Likes: 2
From: OH
Re: 2006 SCCA Solo-II Pax Released (Catch 22)
You seen the bumpers on an 88 CRX vs an 89 Civic? Quite a difference. The 89 CRX Si received all of these heavier components the next year.
That and all the other stuff you mentioned really adds up.
88 CRX Si is the only way to fly in STS2, if one were serious about the class.
That and all the other stuff you mentioned really adds up.
88 CRX Si is the only way to fly in STS2, if one were serious about the class.
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,014
Likes: 2
From: Shiny side up dammit, MO
Re: 2006 SCCA Solo-II Pax Released (TeamSlowdotOrg)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by TeamSlowdotOrg »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Looks like HS is a good PAX class again. Makes me want an Si again. </TD></TR></TABLE>
*glances at avatar*
Why drive a Si when you could have some two-wheeled fun in the Great Pumpkin!
*glances at avatar*
Why drive a Si when you could have some two-wheeled fun in the Great Pumpkin!
Junior Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
From: High Point, NC, USA
Re: 2006 SCCA Solo-II Pax Released (Catch 22)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Catch 22 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
That just doesn't seem right.
That back seat and extra few inches of wheelbase can't possibly weigh that much.</TD></TR></TABLE>
My 91 Civic hatch was 2017 in full STS trim. We did some weighing in Atlanta at the Tour last year and if I remember correctly our STS2 89 CRX weighs in at 1940 with a slightly heavier driver seat mount. I also have to run 2-3 more gallons of gas in the CRX vs the Civic. Everything else was transferred directly over. Fineberg's 88 was about 20# lighter and he still had a full exhaust, stock front sway bar, and a stock passenger seat. Fully prepped I think an 88 should go a little under 1900 without getting too crazy.
That just doesn't seem right.
That back seat and extra few inches of wheelbase can't possibly weigh that much.</TD></TR></TABLE>
My 91 Civic hatch was 2017 in full STS trim. We did some weighing in Atlanta at the Tour last year and if I remember correctly our STS2 89 CRX weighs in at 1940 with a slightly heavier driver seat mount. I also have to run 2-3 more gallons of gas in the CRX vs the Civic. Everything else was transferred directly over. Fineberg's 88 was about 20# lighter and he still had a full exhaust, stock front sway bar, and a stock passenger seat. Fully prepped I think an 88 should go a little under 1900 without getting too crazy.
Junior Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 968
Likes: 0
From: Atlanta, GA
Re: 2006 SCCA Solo-II Pax Released (Rodney)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Rodney »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">wtf? sm going through the roof... bullshit! there is no reason SM pax should be anywhere near prepared pax....</TD></TR></TABLE>
They had to keep it faster than BSP...
With some of the faster Prepared guys running DOT R rubber this past year, I don't see how a class with open drivetrain and some allowances on suspension geometry should be too far off the Prepared cars.
They had to keep it faster than BSP...
With some of the faster Prepared guys running DOT R rubber this past year, I don't see how a class with open drivetrain and some allowances on suspension geometry should be too far off the Prepared cars.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 992
Likes: 0
From: USA
Re: 2006 SCCA Solo-II Pax Released (Catch 22)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by TeamSlowdotOrg »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Looks like HS is a good PAX class again.</TD></TR></TABLE>
I can't wait until spring.
I can't wait until spring.
Junior Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
From: Knoxville, TN, USA
Re: 2006 SCCA Solo-II Pax Released (Coach Crack Monkey)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Coach Crack Monkey »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
The PAX is generated by looking at results from several (many?) events over the course of a season. STS2 was faster than STS. Why? Does the CRX weigh less in street trim? Weight is a huge performance issue in autocross (you should see the silly things people do to Miatas in CSP).</TD></TR></TABLE>
STS2 very rarely went faster than STS last year. Why? STS is deeper and further along the development path. STS2 has a tougher RTP/PAX for the reasons mentioned in this thread. It should and WILL be faster. Give it time. The "T" in RTP/PAX stands for theoretical, no?
The PAX is generated by looking at results from several (many?) events over the course of a season. STS2 was faster than STS. Why? Does the CRX weigh less in street trim? Weight is a huge performance issue in autocross (you should see the silly things people do to Miatas in CSP).</TD></TR></TABLE>
STS2 very rarely went faster than STS last year. Why? STS is deeper and further along the development path. STS2 has a tougher RTP/PAX for the reasons mentioned in this thread. It should and WILL be faster. Give it time. The "T" in RTP/PAX stands for theoretical, no?