Official Racing Chat Thread
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,482
Likes: 3
From: Wylie, TX
Official Racing Chat Thread
[QUOTE=Scot,Sep 17 2007, 01:45 PM] before you get the KW3's..... they are a 75lb weight penalty due to the front having the external reseviours (the rear ext reserviour is legal with no weight penalty, but the front is not).
just letting you know.
just letting you know.
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 17,288
Likes: 39
From: Nashville
Originally Posted by mxt_77,Sep 17 2007, 03:08 PM
Actually, I think even just the rears get the weight penalty, too, if I read the regs right. Only shocks with OEM-like designs are allowed (i.e., the Tein RAs are OK because the "external" reservoir is hard-mounted directly to the shock, instead of being connected via a tube/line).
From Section 9.2 of the NASA Honda Challenge Rules:
d) S2000, NSX, and TL are permitted the use of Remote Reservoir Shocks with a 75lbs weight penalty.
e) S2000 may use any rear shock of same design as OEM (attached external canister) without weight penalty. Note: Use of remote canister that is not attached to the main shock body will necessitate weight penalty.
(Edit: Ignore this comment if the KW3 reservoirs are the same design as OEM... I haven't actually seen them, so I assume they come with "real" external reservoirs).
From Section 9.2 of the NASA Honda Challenge Rules:
d) S2000, NSX, and TL are permitted the use of Remote Reservoir Shocks with a 75lbs weight penalty.
e) S2000 may use any rear shock of same design as OEM (attached external canister) without weight penalty. Note: Use of remote canister that is not attached to the main shock body will necessitate weight penalty.
(Edit: Ignore this comment if the KW3 reservoirs are the same design as OEM... I haven't actually seen them, so I assume they come with "real" external reservoirs).
The S2000 hopefully will get some kind of favorable adjustments for Honda Challenge in 2008 or it will really not be competitive!
I won 1 race this year and it was purely due to traffic. I had almost no chance in every other race due to the power of the B and K series and their lighter weights.
There was a B20 that puts down 230+hp to the wheels and weighs 500lbs less than my car.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 8,754
Likes: 0
From: Anaheim, Orange County
Penalizing remote reservoir shocks, normal width R-cpd tires, and brake upgrades is ludicrous when they won't let our cars weigh the same as theirs. It's a known that the K-series motors make significant HP gains over the F-series.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 1
From: Staten Island, NYC
Originally Posted by Asura,Sep 17 2007, 05:35 PM
The FWDs won't come out and play up a class. I wish I had Will's FWD diatribe from his TV appearance...
Trending Topics
Administrator
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 20,274
Likes: 4
From: Toronto, Canada
It's a well known fact that in any series with any kind of classing (not ITE which is essentially unlimited) the S2000 is not competitive nor ever will be. Here is why:
1) It looks faster than it is. Those classing the cars assume the S2000 is faster than it is. They don't rank the car on it's real performance capability.
2) Short wheelbase, 6" shorter than an RSX
3) Small engine. I have a 2.0 litre engine but I'm bumped a class up to fight with 2.8L engines (see #1)
4) Weight. Has there ever been a convertible which has ever been competitive in any GT racing series? Nope.
I've got a 2700# (including driver) car with a short wheelbase, a 2L engine putting down 205whp which can't easily be tuned any higher and 163ft/lb of torque. If you forget for a moment what model of car it is or what it looks like where should it be classed in a GT racing series? Probably a class lower than it is.
I'm 6s/lap slower than the leader in my class on a 2.2 mile lap. With a top rank driver it can be no faster than 3s/lap slower. I get lapped by the lead cars in class like they are a class above me, 30-40MPH faster on the back straight of Mosport, 10-15MPH faster through almost every corner, I get passed on the outside it's so bad.
I race against Honda Canada who's idea of a factory motor is a blueprinted crate K20 shipped from Honda Racing in Japan in a series which is trying to grow and who won't penalize big budget teams in favor of independents for fear of driving them off.
The S2000 gets no factory race support or development and is shunned as a racing platform entirely by Honda. I understand why and don't necessarily disagree with the reasoning but it doesn't help me much. To break into the top 10 I need to spend about $50K more than I have already, I need a full on race car, because that's what it takes to compete in my series. I don't think I or the S2000 can win races in my series because it's simply not that fast a race car and there is always someone out there willing to spend more on a lighter, more flexible platform.
As a competitive racecar the S2000 platform is not the greatest. It is however one hell of a lot of fun to drive, pretty reliable and the sexiest car on the grid. People love to see it out there on the track and in the paddock I have a constant stream of people coming over to take pictures and drool over it. There is something to be said for that.
1) It looks faster than it is. Those classing the cars assume the S2000 is faster than it is. They don't rank the car on it's real performance capability.
2) Short wheelbase, 6" shorter than an RSX
3) Small engine. I have a 2.0 litre engine but I'm bumped a class up to fight with 2.8L engines (see #1)
4) Weight. Has there ever been a convertible which has ever been competitive in any GT racing series? Nope.
I've got a 2700# (including driver) car with a short wheelbase, a 2L engine putting down 205whp which can't easily be tuned any higher and 163ft/lb of torque. If you forget for a moment what model of car it is or what it looks like where should it be classed in a GT racing series? Probably a class lower than it is.
I'm 6s/lap slower than the leader in my class on a 2.2 mile lap. With a top rank driver it can be no faster than 3s/lap slower. I get lapped by the lead cars in class like they are a class above me, 30-40MPH faster on the back straight of Mosport, 10-15MPH faster through almost every corner, I get passed on the outside it's so bad.
I race against Honda Canada who's idea of a factory motor is a blueprinted crate K20 shipped from Honda Racing in Japan in a series which is trying to grow and who won't penalize big budget teams in favor of independents for fear of driving them off.
The S2000 gets no factory race support or development and is shunned as a racing platform entirely by Honda. I understand why and don't necessarily disagree with the reasoning but it doesn't help me much. To break into the top 10 I need to spend about $50K more than I have already, I need a full on race car, because that's what it takes to compete in my series. I don't think I or the S2000 can win races in my series because it's simply not that fast a race car and there is always someone out there willing to spend more on a lighter, more flexible platform.
As a competitive racecar the S2000 platform is not the greatest. It is however one hell of a lot of fun to drive, pretty reliable and the sexiest car on the grid. People love to see it out there on the track and in the paddock I have a constant stream of people coming over to take pictures and drool over it. There is something to be said for that.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,689
Likes: 2
From: Farmingdale, NJ
I have never understood why series with different platforms are based on equivalent power to weight ratios. Allow mild aero and set a max tire size (everyone will run max anyway) and allow the FWD unlimited suspension to get them on par with the RWD handling advantage. Would this not be competitive? For instance, look at Grand Am GT, they have RX-8 competitively running with GT3. It does not seem that hard to me, am I missing something?
Forgive the ignorance, if any, as I do not know the "politics" of racing yet
Forgive the ignorance, if any, as I do not know the "politics" of racing yet