Realtime RSX from Sebring
Thread Starter
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
From: Orlando, FL
Realtime RSX from Sebring
In probably the final year of campaigning the RSX, it appears Realtime finally figured it out. As you can see, the front suspension is completely reworked, with the upper strut mount relocated (moved higher in the car, sorry I didn't take a pic of that). I think the strut design itself is brand new as well. No front sway bar up front either, apparently they can control camber better now. The spring rates are somewhere around 800# still. The big news is out back. The shock is mounted completelely different, and an entirely new trailing arm was fabricated. The huge anti-roll bar is now located inside the car. The rear spring rate is now 600# (3000# last year), but obviously the motion ratio has completely changed. I'm going back tomorrow, so if anyone wants a particular shot of some car, just let me know.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,596
Likes: 0
From: Between Willow, and Button Willow, CA, USA
Re: Realtime RSX from Sebring (Smurf BNMS)
WOW! When I look at that, I see a couple hundred thousand dollars! The level of prep for WCTC these days is just crazy! 
Member
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,440
Likes: 2
From: Elkton, MD, 21921
Re: (ITRbroham)
remember when you could win a race with a "barely more than H1" car? remember Roger Foo?
i miss those days, when the Speed WC Touring cars were much closer to the actual factory cars. nowadays, as seen in those pics above, they are getting farther and farther away from the actual cars and closer and closer to a BTCC car. i'm not for it; now you have to be a millionaire or a factory team to produce a competitive car. folks like Foo would have no chance building their own car on a reasonable budget and hope to run up front. Foo's old car would probably get lapped (maybe several times) during today's races....
i don't understand why, either? it doesn't make for more interesting racing; just more expensive racing (or more inventive racing?). the races from yesteryear in Speed WC Touring were very exciting to watch; at least i thought so!!!!! oh well, i guess thats progress!
todd
i miss those days, when the Speed WC Touring cars were much closer to the actual factory cars. nowadays, as seen in those pics above, they are getting farther and farther away from the actual cars and closer and closer to a BTCC car. i'm not for it; now you have to be a millionaire or a factory team to produce a competitive car. folks like Foo would have no chance building their own car on a reasonable budget and hope to run up front. Foo's old car would probably get lapped (maybe several times) during today's races....
i don't understand why, either? it doesn't make for more interesting racing; just more expensive racing (or more inventive racing?). the races from yesteryear in Speed WC Touring were very exciting to watch; at least i thought so!!!!! oh well, i guess thats progress!
todd
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,035
Likes: 0
From: Greensboro, NC, USA
Re: (Todd Reid)
"...I guess that's rules creep."
It takes a lot of will - in the sanctioning body and among racers - to keep this from happening. I've officially given up trying to slow it down in IT, with a couple of recent decisions that demonstrate a lack of that will among current series reformers and entrants.
Just plan on starting over ever 10 years or so, and you'll be fine. Nibble away incrementally at budgets by pushing or tweaking the rules little by little, and at some point the only way to fix it is to throw up arms and call a Mulligan.
IT was a Production Mulligan, when the rules were perceived to have gotten prohibitive to new racers so SCCA called a "do-over." LP Prod was the same ol', same ol' when even the guys in Production decided that it was out of hand. The GT classes repaced the Sedan classes when someone decided that a whole different approach - the "stock car" tube chassis - should replace the old TransAm style "ship-in-a-bottle" cage design. (The one that's the same as we use in IT now.)
In the "pro" classes, the dynamic is typically that the series dies completely, and is reborn around a new rules set. The IMSA GTP prototypes (themselves a economist-revisionist vesion of Group C) got so expensive that they have subsequently been replaced by several iterations of sports cars, each of which has died off. That line branched into the ALMS and DP cars - which do you think will survive under current racing/marketing Darwinian pressures?
HC's top class has signed its own death warrant by pushing the envelope. The USTCC is just a different group of people, doing exactly the same thing to the same end - applying the same strategies to make the same mistakes as did IMSA's Radial Sedan, Champion Spark Plug Challenge, and International Sedans; the North American Touring Car Championship (NATCC or "Not Sees" - still one of the less fortunate racing acronyms); and a whole genology of "showroom stock" endurance series.
While it is absolutely true that spending cannot be controlled directly by rules, it IS true that straightforward rules - and their vigorous enforcement - can dictate that the law of diminishing returns kicks in earlier, discouraging more and more spending. Cheaper, less-costly-to-run cars SHOULD increase participation. The current GrandAm/GAC rules are a good example of this, and I have some faith in the iron fist of the France family and NASCAR-influenced culture there to keep things in check. There's evidence of some weirdness creeping (sorry) into the GAC rules model specs but someone might actually be in contol there.
Racers who don't understand history are just as likely to repeat it, as are politicians.
K
It takes a lot of will - in the sanctioning body and among racers - to keep this from happening. I've officially given up trying to slow it down in IT, with a couple of recent decisions that demonstrate a lack of that will among current series reformers and entrants.
Just plan on starting over ever 10 years or so, and you'll be fine. Nibble away incrementally at budgets by pushing or tweaking the rules little by little, and at some point the only way to fix it is to throw up arms and call a Mulligan.
IT was a Production Mulligan, when the rules were perceived to have gotten prohibitive to new racers so SCCA called a "do-over." LP Prod was the same ol', same ol' when even the guys in Production decided that it was out of hand. The GT classes repaced the Sedan classes when someone decided that a whole different approach - the "stock car" tube chassis - should replace the old TransAm style "ship-in-a-bottle" cage design. (The one that's the same as we use in IT now.)
In the "pro" classes, the dynamic is typically that the series dies completely, and is reborn around a new rules set. The IMSA GTP prototypes (themselves a economist-revisionist vesion of Group C) got so expensive that they have subsequently been replaced by several iterations of sports cars, each of which has died off. That line branched into the ALMS and DP cars - which do you think will survive under current racing/marketing Darwinian pressures?
HC's top class has signed its own death warrant by pushing the envelope. The USTCC is just a different group of people, doing exactly the same thing to the same end - applying the same strategies to make the same mistakes as did IMSA's Radial Sedan, Champion Spark Plug Challenge, and International Sedans; the North American Touring Car Championship (NATCC or "Not Sees" - still one of the less fortunate racing acronyms); and a whole genology of "showroom stock" endurance series.
While it is absolutely true that spending cannot be controlled directly by rules, it IS true that straightforward rules - and their vigorous enforcement - can dictate that the law of diminishing returns kicks in earlier, discouraging more and more spending. Cheaper, less-costly-to-run cars SHOULD increase participation. The current GrandAm/GAC rules are a good example of this, and I have some faith in the iron fist of the France family and NASCAR-influenced culture there to keep things in check. There's evidence of some weirdness creeping (sorry) into the GAC rules model specs but someone might actually be in contol there.
Racers who don't understand history are just as likely to repeat it, as are politicians.
K
Trending Topics
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 12,092
Likes: 2
Re: (Knestis)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Knestis »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> The IMSA GTP prototypes (themselves a economist-revisionist vesion of Group C) got so expensive that they have subsequently been replaced by several iterations of sports cars, each of which has died off. That line branched into the ALMS and DP cars - which do you think will survive under current racing/marketing Darwinian pressures?</TD></TR></TABLE>
Ahhh, the old 956/962/935 days!
I've been meaning to go to one of the historic reunions.
Ahhh, the old 956/962/935 days!
I've been meaning to go to one of the historic reunions.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,596
Likes: 0
From: Between Willow, and Button Willow, CA, USA
Re: (azian21485)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by azian21485 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">is there any reason to run the shock upside down? To be able to put the weight of the spring lower to the ground or something?</TD></TR></TABLE>
The theory is that your putting less weight on things that move (suspension), and mounting the weight to things that don't! Make sense?
The theory is that your putting less weight on things that move (suspension), and mounting the weight to things that don't! Make sense?
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
From: Chesapeake, VA, US
Re: (Knestis)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Knestis »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">"...I guess that's rules creep."
It takes a lot of will - in the sanctioning body and among racers - to keep this from happening. I've officially given up trying to slow it down in IT, with a couple of recent decisions that demonstrate a lack of that will among current series reformers and entrants.
Just plan on starting over ever 10 years or so, and you'll be fine. Nibble away incrementally at budgets by pushing or tweaking the rules little by little, and at some point the only way to fix it is to throw up arms and call a Mulligan.
IT was a Production Mulligan, when the rules were perceived to have gotten prohibitive to new racers so SCCA called a "do-over." LP Prod was the same ol', same ol' when even the guys in Production decided that it was out of hand. The GT classes repaced the Sedan classes when someone decided that a whole different approach - the "stock car" tube chassis - should replace the old TransAm style "ship-in-a-bottle" cage design. (The one that's the same as we use in IT now.)
In the "pro" classes, the dynamic is typically that the series dies completely, and is reborn around a new rules set. The IMSA GTP prototypes (themselves a economist-revisionist vesion of Group C) got so expensive that they have subsequently been replaced by several iterations of sports cars, each of which has died off. That line branched into the ALMS and DP cars - which do you think will survive under current racing/marketing Darwinian pressures?
HC's top class has signed its own death warrant by pushing the envelope. The USTCC is just a different group of people, doing exactly the same thing to the same end - applying the same strategies to make the same mistakes as did IMSA's Radial Sedan, Champion Spark Plug Challenge, and International Sedans; the North American Touring Car Championship (NATCC or "Not Sees" - still one of the less fortunate racing acronyms); and a whole genology of "showroom stock" endurance series.
While it is absolutely true that spending cannot be controlled directly by rules, it IS true that straightforward rules - and their vigorous enforcement - can dictate that the law of diminishing returns kicks in earlier, discouraging more and more spending. Cheaper, less-costly-to-run cars SHOULD increase participation. The current GrandAm/GAC rules are a good example of this, and I have some faith in the iron fist of the France family and NASCAR-influenced culture there to keep things in check. There's evidence of some weirdness creeping (sorry) into the GAC rules model specs but someone might actually be in contol there.
Racers who don't understand history are just as likely to repeat it, as are politicians.
K</TD></TR></TABLE>
that's probably once of the best posts i've ever read.
It takes a lot of will - in the sanctioning body and among racers - to keep this from happening. I've officially given up trying to slow it down in IT, with a couple of recent decisions that demonstrate a lack of that will among current series reformers and entrants.
Just plan on starting over ever 10 years or so, and you'll be fine. Nibble away incrementally at budgets by pushing or tweaking the rules little by little, and at some point the only way to fix it is to throw up arms and call a Mulligan.
IT was a Production Mulligan, when the rules were perceived to have gotten prohibitive to new racers so SCCA called a "do-over." LP Prod was the same ol', same ol' when even the guys in Production decided that it was out of hand. The GT classes repaced the Sedan classes when someone decided that a whole different approach - the "stock car" tube chassis - should replace the old TransAm style "ship-in-a-bottle" cage design. (The one that's the same as we use in IT now.)
In the "pro" classes, the dynamic is typically that the series dies completely, and is reborn around a new rules set. The IMSA GTP prototypes (themselves a economist-revisionist vesion of Group C) got so expensive that they have subsequently been replaced by several iterations of sports cars, each of which has died off. That line branched into the ALMS and DP cars - which do you think will survive under current racing/marketing Darwinian pressures?
HC's top class has signed its own death warrant by pushing the envelope. The USTCC is just a different group of people, doing exactly the same thing to the same end - applying the same strategies to make the same mistakes as did IMSA's Radial Sedan, Champion Spark Plug Challenge, and International Sedans; the North American Touring Car Championship (NATCC or "Not Sees" - still one of the less fortunate racing acronyms); and a whole genology of "showroom stock" endurance series.
While it is absolutely true that spending cannot be controlled directly by rules, it IS true that straightforward rules - and their vigorous enforcement - can dictate that the law of diminishing returns kicks in earlier, discouraging more and more spending. Cheaper, less-costly-to-run cars SHOULD increase participation. The current GrandAm/GAC rules are a good example of this, and I have some faith in the iron fist of the France family and NASCAR-influenced culture there to keep things in check. There's evidence of some weirdness creeping (sorry) into the GAC rules model specs but someone might actually be in contol there.
Racers who don't understand history are just as likely to repeat it, as are politicians.
K</TD></TR></TABLE>
that's probably once of the best posts i've ever read.
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
The problem with even very limited rule sets is that suddenly the little things start to cost alot of money and those little things put your car on top.
I'd personally like annother sell-you-the-racecar series like the Mini Cooper challenge in the UK. Sell the customer the car, seal the hell out of everything and just let them paint it. A pure spec series. Of course this sucks for spectators a bit but from a low budget racer perspective it's a helluva deal.
I'd personally like annother sell-you-the-racecar series like the Mini Cooper challenge in the UK. Sell the customer the car, seal the hell out of everything and just let them paint it. A pure spec series. Of course this sucks for spectators a bit but from a low budget racer perspective it's a helluva deal.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 4,073
Likes: 1
From: The Dirty Hotness
Re: (Garrett)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Garrett »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">SO they don't still used the TSX double wishbone setup </TD></TR></TABLE>
teH huh?
"So they still don't use the TSX double wishbone setup?"
I've never been a fan of the RSX in general just because of the suspension from the start and I'm glad they are finally retiring this car.
It looks like Honda finally figured it out for mac setups on the new Si though
</TD></TR></TABLE>teH huh?
"So they still don't use the TSX double wishbone setup?"
I've never been a fan of the RSX in general just because of the suspension from the start and I'm glad they are finally retiring this car.
It looks like Honda finally figured it out for mac setups on the new Si though
Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,637
Likes: 0
From: Northern, CA, USA
Re: (Knestis)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Knestis »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">"...I guess that's rules creep."
It takes a lot of will - in the sanctioning body and among racers - to keep this from happening. I've officially given up trying to slow it down in IT, with a couple of recent decisions that demonstrate a lack of that will among current series reformers and entrants.
Just plan on starting over ever 10 years or so, and you'll be fine. Nibble away incrementally at budgets by pushing or tweaking the rules little by little, and at some point the only way to fix it is to throw up arms and call a Mulligan.
IT was a Production Mulligan, when the rules were perceived to have gotten prohibitive to new racers so SCCA called a "do-over." LP Prod was the same ol', same ol' when even the guys in Production decided that it was out of hand. The GT classes repaced the Sedan classes when someone decided that a whole different approach - the "stock car" tube chassis - should replace the old TransAm style "ship-in-a-bottle" cage design. (The one that's the same as we use in IT now.)
In the "pro" classes, the dynamic is typically that the series dies completely, and is reborn around a new rules set. The IMSA GTP prototypes (themselves a economist-revisionist vesion of Group C) got so expensive that they have subsequently been replaced by several iterations of sports cars, each of which has died off. That line branched into the ALMS and DP cars - which do you think will survive under current racing/marketing Darwinian pressures?
HC's top class has signed its own death warrant by pushing the envelope. The USTCC is just a different group of people, doing exactly the same thing to the same end - applying the same strategies to make the same mistakes as did IMSA's Radial Sedan, Champion Spark Plug Challenge, and International Sedans; the North American Touring Car Championship (NATCC or "Not Sees" - still one of the less fortunate racing acronyms); and a whole genology of "showroom stock" endurance series.
While it is absolutely true that spending cannot be controlled directly by rules, it IS true that straightforward rules - and their vigorous enforcement - can dictate that the law of diminishing returns kicks in earlier, discouraging more and more spending. Cheaper, less-costly-to-run cars SHOULD increase participation. The current GrandAm/GAC rules are a good example of this, and I have some faith in the iron fist of the France family and NASCAR-influenced culture there to keep things in check. There's evidence of some weirdness creeping (sorry) into the GAC rules model specs but someone might actually be in contol there.
Racers who don't understand history are just as likely to repeat it, as are politicians.
K</TD></TR></TABLE>
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by lightningd »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
that's probably once of the best posts i've ever read.</TD></TR></TABLE>
I agree best post of 2006 by a far
It takes a lot of will - in the sanctioning body and among racers - to keep this from happening. I've officially given up trying to slow it down in IT, with a couple of recent decisions that demonstrate a lack of that will among current series reformers and entrants.
Just plan on starting over ever 10 years or so, and you'll be fine. Nibble away incrementally at budgets by pushing or tweaking the rules little by little, and at some point the only way to fix it is to throw up arms and call a Mulligan.
IT was a Production Mulligan, when the rules were perceived to have gotten prohibitive to new racers so SCCA called a "do-over." LP Prod was the same ol', same ol' when even the guys in Production decided that it was out of hand. The GT classes repaced the Sedan classes when someone decided that a whole different approach - the "stock car" tube chassis - should replace the old TransAm style "ship-in-a-bottle" cage design. (The one that's the same as we use in IT now.)
In the "pro" classes, the dynamic is typically that the series dies completely, and is reborn around a new rules set. The IMSA GTP prototypes (themselves a economist-revisionist vesion of Group C) got so expensive that they have subsequently been replaced by several iterations of sports cars, each of which has died off. That line branched into the ALMS and DP cars - which do you think will survive under current racing/marketing Darwinian pressures?
HC's top class has signed its own death warrant by pushing the envelope. The USTCC is just a different group of people, doing exactly the same thing to the same end - applying the same strategies to make the same mistakes as did IMSA's Radial Sedan, Champion Spark Plug Challenge, and International Sedans; the North American Touring Car Championship (NATCC or "Not Sees" - still one of the less fortunate racing acronyms); and a whole genology of "showroom stock" endurance series.
While it is absolutely true that spending cannot be controlled directly by rules, it IS true that straightforward rules - and their vigorous enforcement - can dictate that the law of diminishing returns kicks in earlier, discouraging more and more spending. Cheaper, less-costly-to-run cars SHOULD increase participation. The current GrandAm/GAC rules are a good example of this, and I have some faith in the iron fist of the France family and NASCAR-influenced culture there to keep things in check. There's evidence of some weirdness creeping (sorry) into the GAC rules model specs but someone might actually be in contol there.
Racers who don't understand history are just as likely to repeat it, as are politicians.
K</TD></TR></TABLE>
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by lightningd »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
that's probably once of the best posts i've ever read.</TD></TR></TABLE>
I agree best post of 2006 by a far
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
From: Bethlehem, PA
Re: (Knestis)
Amazing pics. Thanks.
Nice post Mr. K and I agree with 95%. I'd like to know what you consider the "death warrant" of H1.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Knestis »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">"
HC's top class has signed its own death warrant by pushing the envelope.
K</TD></TR></TABLE>
Being a member of the National HC rules committee for 3+ years I don't see H1 in the same fashion. I'll concede the point, the days of having a simple "B-series swap in a hatch" and being competitive are long over.
The HC rules committee entertains many, many requests and frankly very few make it into the book. Each member is fully aware of the impact of rule creeps and how a unstable rule set will damage the series. We discuss such things repeatedly on conference calls.
2002- introduction of HC- first rule book
2003- wording cleaned up/ car weights established H1-H5
2004- significant changes in the rule book due to unifying the ECHC with National rules. (composites and lexan in H1, very few changes to H2-H5).
2005- additional cars classed, introduction of HU, weight adjustments, wording clarifications, not many changes. Again very few changes to H2-H5.
2006- RR shocks added to H1 and a few other minor adjustments and wording clarifications (ex. disallowing canards).
In that five year span I do see adjustments but not wholesale changes.
Take RR shocks. The rules committee has been declining RR shock requests since 2003. Only after multiple requests by multiple drivers the committee agreed to incorporate them with a rather significant weight penalty. RR shocks were not included on a whim.
Is H1 expensive? You're damn right. This next gen H1 car is super reliable, 230+ HP, great brakes and includes many trick parts. However, these cars & the H1 rules, in no way, shape or form are heading down the SWC path. The RC will not allow that to happen.
I'd like to know your thoughts.
Thanks-
John
Nice post Mr. K and I agree with 95%. I'd like to know what you consider the "death warrant" of H1.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Knestis »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">"
HC's top class has signed its own death warrant by pushing the envelope.
K</TD></TR></TABLE>
Being a member of the National HC rules committee for 3+ years I don't see H1 in the same fashion. I'll concede the point, the days of having a simple "B-series swap in a hatch" and being competitive are long over.
The HC rules committee entertains many, many requests and frankly very few make it into the book. Each member is fully aware of the impact of rule creeps and how a unstable rule set will damage the series. We discuss such things repeatedly on conference calls.
2002- introduction of HC- first rule book
2003- wording cleaned up/ car weights established H1-H5
2004- significant changes in the rule book due to unifying the ECHC with National rules. (composites and lexan in H1, very few changes to H2-H5).
2005- additional cars classed, introduction of HU, weight adjustments, wording clarifications, not many changes. Again very few changes to H2-H5.
2006- RR shocks added to H1 and a few other minor adjustments and wording clarifications (ex. disallowing canards).
In that five year span I do see adjustments but not wholesale changes.
Take RR shocks. The rules committee has been declining RR shock requests since 2003. Only after multiple requests by multiple drivers the committee agreed to incorporate them with a rather significant weight penalty. RR shocks were not included on a whim.
Is H1 expensive? You're damn right. This next gen H1 car is super reliable, 230+ HP, great brakes and includes many trick parts. However, these cars & the H1 rules, in no way, shape or form are heading down the SWC path. The RC will not allow that to happen.
I'd like to know your thoughts.
Thanks-
John
H-T Order of Merit
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 96,327
Likes: 37
From: Siege Perilous
Re: (RagingAngel)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by RagingAngel »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
It looks like Honda finally figured it out for mac setups on the new Si though </TD></TR></TABLE>
The funny thing is that the earlier McPherson Honda designs would have been better than the DC5/EP3 version.
I can understand why a modern small car would need to be a McPherson design (lower cost and ability to design a five-star-crash crush zone in a very small car).
What I don't understand is why the short stroke design with no caster and the tie rod on the strut would be used. Still scratching my head about that, and not getting any specific answers.
As you said, they listened to the complaints and learned, and the new Civics are much, much improved. But even the Ridgeline has a better strut design than the DC5 had. I dunno. Just don't know why common sense didn't tell them that our major racing partners weren't going to buy into it long term.
It looks like Honda finally figured it out for mac setups on the new Si though
</TD></TR></TABLE>The funny thing is that the earlier McPherson Honda designs would have been better than the DC5/EP3 version.
I can understand why a modern small car would need to be a McPherson design (lower cost and ability to design a five-star-crash crush zone in a very small car).
What I don't understand is why the short stroke design with no caster and the tie rod on the strut would be used. Still scratching my head about that, and not getting any specific answers.
As you said, they listened to the complaints and learned, and the new Civics are much, much improved. But even the Ridgeline has a better strut design than the DC5 had. I dunno. Just don't know why common sense didn't tell them that our major racing partners weren't going to buy into it long term.
H-T Order of Merit
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 96,327
Likes: 37
From: Siege Perilous
Re: (Garrett)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Garrett »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">SO they don't still used the TSX double wishbone setup </TD></TR></TABLE>
I just want to make sure you know that just about every one of the major organisations has moved to either the CL7 or CL9 (depending on their home market).
It's not clear to me if you were suggesting they should have put a double wishbone setup on the DC5 (!) or if you were saying that they were using the DC5 in the US instead of the CL9.
They are, in fact, using mostly the CL9 now.
</TD></TR></TABLE>I just want to make sure you know that just about every one of the major organisations has moved to either the CL7 or CL9 (depending on their home market).
It's not clear to me if you were suggesting they should have put a double wishbone setup on the DC5 (!) or if you were saying that they were using the DC5 in the US instead of the CL9.
They are, in fact, using mostly the CL9 now.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,035
Likes: 0
From: Greensboro, NC, USA
Re: (JohnW)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by JohnW »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">...Being a member of the National HC rules committee for 3+ years I don't see H1 in the same fashion.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Not surprising. The people making the rules almost never see creep, because they are too close to it when it's happening. All KINDS of changes make sense when viewed in a micro sense but it's the cumulative effect that catches up with us.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
2004- significant changes in the rule book due to unifying the ECHC with National rules. (composites and lexan in H1, very few changes to H2-H5).
2005- additional cars classed, introduction of HU, weight adjustments, wording clarifications, not many changes. Again very few changes to H2-H5.
2006- RR shocks added to H1 and a few other minor adjustments and wording clarifications (ex. disallowing canards).
</TD></TR></TABLE>
Extrapolate what H1/HU will look like in 10 years, if the rate of change continues.
I'd argue that making changes requested by actual entrants might actually be the problem. You make it sound like it's a good thing to be responsive to entrants, when in fact drivers may be anty given class' worst enemies. Consider for a minute that most drivers will only propose a change that they think benefits them individually in some way - or at least certainly, does NOT hurt their individual competitiveness.
It might be best in the long run for the rules-makers to "just say no."
Picture this: How many top-flight cars could RTR field on their current budget if the touring rules were exactly the same as IT/H2-H5? Do we honestly think that they could spend $200K building what amounts to an ITS TSX?
This is all purely academic at this point, since I know the situation won't change but it is something to think about.
K
Not surprising. The people making the rules almost never see creep, because they are too close to it when it's happening. All KINDS of changes make sense when viewed in a micro sense but it's the cumulative effect that catches up with us.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
2004- significant changes in the rule book due to unifying the ECHC with National rules. (composites and lexan in H1, very few changes to H2-H5).
2005- additional cars classed, introduction of HU, weight adjustments, wording clarifications, not many changes. Again very few changes to H2-H5.
2006- RR shocks added to H1 and a few other minor adjustments and wording clarifications (ex. disallowing canards).
</TD></TR></TABLE>
Extrapolate what H1/HU will look like in 10 years, if the rate of change continues.
I'd argue that making changes requested by actual entrants might actually be the problem. You make it sound like it's a good thing to be responsive to entrants, when in fact drivers may be anty given class' worst enemies. Consider for a minute that most drivers will only propose a change that they think benefits them individually in some way - or at least certainly, does NOT hurt their individual competitiveness.
It might be best in the long run for the rules-makers to "just say no."
Picture this: How many top-flight cars could RTR field on their current budget if the touring rules were exactly the same as IT/H2-H5? Do we honestly think that they could spend $200K building what amounts to an ITS TSX?
This is all purely academic at this point, since I know the situation won't change but it is something to think about.
K
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 30,826
Likes: 0
From: RIP Craig Jones
Re: (JohnW)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by JohnW »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I'll concede the point, the days of having a simple "B-series swap in a hatch" and being competitive are long over</TD></TR></TABLE>
And that is where the road started, IMO.
Unfortunately the fact that there's any rules creep is going to create a bit of instability in the class, even if its a little bit every year - because at some point it will have gone too far and you sit down, scratch your head and say "well, **** now what?". The premise of HC was to create a grassroots series for the hondas to race in - at the time SCCA had not classed, or not classed a lot of hondas competitively in IT.
For H1, as I've always thought should be no lexan, no cf, no rediculous spoilers, no RR shocks, no cage through the firewall, no $1500 AEM ECU's, and keep the engine to all OEM honda parts - including the head, cams, etc. Making such a move right now might make some people unhappy because they need to back track on development, but i think in the end it would be best for series growth to keep the rules simpler and more grounded. At some point it will turn into a battle of the bank accounts.
There have been little changes here and there in the rest of the classes, but that has remained fairly stable - although the weight changes in H4 was put in fairly late in the offseason, and I was going to throw a lot more cage into the car than I did thinking I would have room to work with under minimum weight.
And that is where the road started, IMO.
Unfortunately the fact that there's any rules creep is going to create a bit of instability in the class, even if its a little bit every year - because at some point it will have gone too far and you sit down, scratch your head and say "well, **** now what?". The premise of HC was to create a grassroots series for the hondas to race in - at the time SCCA had not classed, or not classed a lot of hondas competitively in IT.
For H1, as I've always thought should be no lexan, no cf, no rediculous spoilers, no RR shocks, no cage through the firewall, no $1500 AEM ECU's, and keep the engine to all OEM honda parts - including the head, cams, etc. Making such a move right now might make some people unhappy because they need to back track on development, but i think in the end it would be best for series growth to keep the rules simpler and more grounded. At some point it will turn into a battle of the bank accounts.
There have been little changes here and there in the rest of the classes, but that has remained fairly stable - although the weight changes in H4 was put in fairly late in the offseason, and I was going to throw a lot more cage into the car than I did thinking I would have room to work with under minimum weight.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 7,126
Likes: 1
From: Culpeper, VA
Re: (.RJ)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by .RJ »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">For H1, as I've always thought should be no lexan, no cf, no rediculous spoilers, no RR shocks, no cage through the firewall, no $1500 AEM ECU's, and keep the engine to all OEM honda parts - including the head, cams, etc. Making such a move right now might make some people unhappy because they need to back track on development, but i think in the end it would be best for series growth to keep the rules simpler and more grounded. At some point it will turn into a battle of the bank accounts.</TD></TR></TABLE>
If you want that, welcome to spec CRX/k20....
Lexan/CF is cheap
Spoiler - not ness. required
RR shocks - not required (yet - dunno if the 75lb weight hit is enough)
Fire wall cage - not required (again, its a weight hit)
AEM - Not required, most can do what they want w/ 200$ hondata (which can be done in IT)
If anything should have regulated in the head, it should have been the amount of porting that could be done, and that all VTEC systems must function (IE. No VTEC Killas)
If you want that, welcome to spec CRX/k20....
Lexan/CF is cheap
Spoiler - not ness. required
RR shocks - not required (yet - dunno if the 75lb weight hit is enough)
Fire wall cage - not required (again, its a weight hit)
AEM - Not required, most can do what they want w/ 200$ hondata (which can be done in IT)
If anything should have regulated in the head, it should have been the amount of porting that could be done, and that all VTEC systems must function (IE. No VTEC Killas)
H-T Order of Merit
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 96,327
Likes: 37
From: Siege Perilous
Re: (Honda318dx)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Honda318dx »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">...all VTEC systems must function (IE. No VTEC Killas)</TD></TR></TABLE>
That would take a lot of regulating. You could essentially obey the normal common sense wording and be on the high cam from the moment you hit second gear coming out of the pit.
That would take a lot of regulating. You could essentially obey the normal common sense wording and be on the high cam from the moment you hit second gear coming out of the pit.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,882
Likes: 0
From: Future Site of the Runoffs, USA
Re: (Honda318dx)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by george knighton »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Each member is fully aware of the impact of rule creeps and how a unstable rule set will damage the series. We discuss such things repeatedly on conference calls. </TD></TR></TABLE>
i disagree. HC is a very new series which has brought many new drivers into racing that wouldn't have been there otherwise. Congratulations on this, it's what SCCA is still trying to do. But until you've been racing for 10+ years (like Kirk), i honestly don't think you can fully understand what rules creep is, how to recognize it, or how it will affect the longevity of the class.
i personally think it's unavoidable. it's just the life cycle of a group of cars from a certain era. First they start out in SS, then move to IT, then Prod, then vintage, then the scrapyard. I agree with Kirk's assessment of the lifecycle of classes as something quite similar.....IT will turn into production in 10 years, and a new class called something else will pop up to fill the void. I'm also in full agreement that you pretty much have to go into this expecting to switch cars every 10 years or so if you want to stay at the same relative prep level, we won't be racing 1990 Mazda Miata's in SM or 1988 CRX's in ITA 15 years from now. But I think you get the idea, it's the circle of racing life.....hakuna matata.
[/quote=honda318dx]
Lexan/CF is cheap
Spoiler - not ness. required
RR shocks - not required (yet - dunno if the 75lb weight hit is enough)
Fire wall cage - not required (again, its a weight hit)
AEM - Not required, most can do what they want w/ 200$ hondata (which can be done in IT)
If anything should have regulated in the head, it should have been the amount of porting that could be done, and that all VTEC systems must function (IE. No VTEC Killas)
[/quote]
but they will be if the class becomes popular/competitive enough. I've witnessed this in SM over the last 4 or 5 years. In the beginning you could legitimately go racing and win with a car built for 7g's. Now, it's going to take you somewhere around 15-20g's. This is not a result of rules creep, it's just more people with more disposable money coming into the sandbox.
for example.....
in the beginning Sunbelt motors were not a prereq to victory.
in the beginning toyo's shaved to 2/32nd and used for 1-2 weekends were not a prereq to victory.
in the beginning $1200 clutches, REM'd gears, blueprinted hubs, etc were not a prereq to victory.
it's not that if you add any one of these items it will better your finishing position, it's the package of everything that makes the difference.
it'll be the same in H1 once the money starts rolling in....the consistant winners will have lexan to make up for their added weight of the cage extending through the firewall, a functional spoiler, RR shocks, and an AEM ECU with 100's dyno pulls worth of testing and tuning on it.
i could go on, but it's time for pancakes.
Each member is fully aware of the impact of rule creeps and how a unstable rule set will damage the series. We discuss such things repeatedly on conference calls. </TD></TR></TABLE>
i disagree. HC is a very new series which has brought many new drivers into racing that wouldn't have been there otherwise. Congratulations on this, it's what SCCA is still trying to do. But until you've been racing for 10+ years (like Kirk), i honestly don't think you can fully understand what rules creep is, how to recognize it, or how it will affect the longevity of the class.
i personally think it's unavoidable. it's just the life cycle of a group of cars from a certain era. First they start out in SS, then move to IT, then Prod, then vintage, then the scrapyard. I agree with Kirk's assessment of the lifecycle of classes as something quite similar.....IT will turn into production in 10 years, and a new class called something else will pop up to fill the void. I'm also in full agreement that you pretty much have to go into this expecting to switch cars every 10 years or so if you want to stay at the same relative prep level, we won't be racing 1990 Mazda Miata's in SM or 1988 CRX's in ITA 15 years from now. But I think you get the idea, it's the circle of racing life.....hakuna matata.
[/quote=honda318dx]
Lexan/CF is cheap
Spoiler - not ness. required
RR shocks - not required (yet - dunno if the 75lb weight hit is enough)
Fire wall cage - not required (again, its a weight hit)
AEM - Not required, most can do what they want w/ 200$ hondata (which can be done in IT)
If anything should have regulated in the head, it should have been the amount of porting that could be done, and that all VTEC systems must function (IE. No VTEC Killas)
[/quote]
but they will be if the class becomes popular/competitive enough. I've witnessed this in SM over the last 4 or 5 years. In the beginning you could legitimately go racing and win with a car built for 7g's. Now, it's going to take you somewhere around 15-20g's. This is not a result of rules creep, it's just more people with more disposable money coming into the sandbox.
for example.....
in the beginning Sunbelt motors were not a prereq to victory.
in the beginning toyo's shaved to 2/32nd and used for 1-2 weekends were not a prereq to victory.
in the beginning $1200 clutches, REM'd gears, blueprinted hubs, etc were not a prereq to victory.
it's not that if you add any one of these items it will better your finishing position, it's the package of everything that makes the difference.
it'll be the same in H1 once the money starts rolling in....the consistant winners will have lexan to make up for their added weight of the cage extending through the firewall, a functional spoiler, RR shocks, and an AEM ECU with 100's dyno pulls worth of testing and tuning on it.
i could go on, but it's time for pancakes.