Honda Challenge (H4) Tire Question (allow both RA1s and R888s?)

mikecolangelo

mikecolangelo

Well-known member
I'll be racing in H4 (Honda Challenge 4) this coming season and just realized that the current ICSCC rules (and proposed changes) don't address the recent NASA Honda Challenge 2010 rule change requiring Toyo RA1s for this season with a grace period allowing the R888s for the first three scheduled races.

The current ICSCC rulebooks states this:
"1322 Honda Challenge 4. This class shall compete under current year NASA rules except Toyo RA-1 tires will be allowed for the 2009 season. (Fall 2008)"

Note that the above 2008 rule change came about after NASA adopted the R888 as its HC spec tire for 2008.

If none of the H4 competitors mind, I'd like to propose doing what the Pro3 folks have done and allowing both the RA1s and R888s for the entire 2010 season.

For full disclosure, I bring up this issue as I see many racers in other classes (e.g., Spec Miata) dumping their R888s at very decent prices and I wouldn't mind picking up a set or two.

Thanks and I look forward to racing with the H4 folks this year! :D
 
Last edited:
I planning on running Hoosiers.

I don't care. But realize that you are asking for gentlemens agreement to ignore the rules. Usually works up to a point. NASA changes the rules for Honda Challenge just about every other week which is a pain in the A**. Every HC car was illegal by mid season. It is really not worth it unless you're planning on running a wing, lightened flywheel, adjustable suspension components, etc. Run ITX and it is a non issue. Plus you'll get to beat up on BMW's, Nissan's, BMW's, Dodge's, and BMW's? I'll help you get up to speed if you want.

R
 
Hi Rick,

I'm not ignoring the rules, I just noticed that the ICSCC HC4 rules weren't updated for the 2010 season and thought I had a reasonable solution.

ITX sounds like a great class but I think I'll stick with HC4 and ITA for the time being. Maybe I can beat up on the slower BMWs, LOL! See you at the track!
 
Ugh... I hate to agree with Rick but choosing to stay in HC4 seems illogical at this point.

Just looking at the figures. If you run group 2 you will have about 40% of the drivers running ITX now and only 1-5% of the drivers running HC4 (1-3 cars). Where's the value in that?

I'll be re-branding the car to run in ITX because I was tired of being in a field full of cars and only 3 of them were in my class... no fun, so I'm understandably having a hard time looking at it from your perspective.

Also, the contingency program from TOYO Bucks in Honda Challenge won't apply either, as Group 2 won't have enough HC4 entrants to meet TOYO's minimum requirements to receive TOYO bucks (I think the group has to have 5 minimum competitors). So there's not advantage there either.

Just because people run ITX doesn't mean they are all running Hoosiers either. I won't be, just because it will be that much sweeter to beat Rick when he's on much more expensive/faster tire. :p


Either way you go, I look forward to seeing you out there!
 
Good to hear from you Colin.

What separates an ITX CRX from an ITA one? Is it a substantial leap or something that can be quickly changed back to ITA for the Group 5 races? The car I have now is pretty well setup for ITA and I'd hate to change much. At least right away. Of course, if I stay in ITA trim I will get to play with my Spec Miata friends in Group 5. I expect my new car to do well against most SMs but we'll see if the driver is up to the task :)

See you out there!
 
That is the point - an ITA car runs in ITX COMPLETELY UNCHANGED! At the current time it is no more than a mirror class to ITA. Brace yourself for the coming proposal for Pro Drei in Group 2, Pro III in Group 4, and Pro XXX in Group 5.

Traditionally, Conference has attempted to offer multiple race group opportunities to those who want to fit more track time into a week-end. In the past it was understood that a car could be built to the limit of the rules in one class and be a front runner and also run in higher prep classes and deal with not being as competitive. It's a slippery slope when you make mirror classes where the same car is optimized for the rules in both classes.

If we are going to do that, perhaps we should just make three race groups and run them all twice? That way everybody gets twice as many races in a season and more people to race against head to head in class?
 
Thanks for chiming in Rick. Where are the ITX rules? I can't find them anywhere. There's nothing in the proposed rule changes for 2010 and the online rulebook is for 2009 and has nothing about ITX.
 
It's not a rules change, it was a proposed new class. The new rulebook will contain info about the class, but the short answer is: It's a class for ITA/ITB/ITC-classed cars in Group 2. If your car is legal for one of those classes, it's also legal for Conference ITX. (Note: This is NOT the same as SCCA SFR's ITX class.)
 
Thanks Steve! That's the info I was looking for. I probably was reading too much into Rick B's post.

I guess I'll be running in ITX then :D
 
Rick B. You may have misinterpreted the intent of the ITX class. The inclusion of ITX does have some benefit for the current ITA crowd but that was not the intention of it. The ITA Crowd can pretty much double session competitively without changing a thing with H4 and E/F Prod. The point of ITX is to get cars that were in groups with very little competition (or number of cars in their class) and give them an opportunity to have a 2nd class entry in which they didn't have to make major modifications to double enter OR that their second entry wasn't spent only racing 2 other cars.

Double entering = Fun
Double entering but with only a few or none other cars in your class = Not fun, cheaper to do a lapping day or take up go-karting.

There may also be the expectation for HC4 to disappear thus ITX would simply be replacing a class at some point.

I believe Rick Delamare can explain the intention of the proposal of ITX better then me but perhaps we should start a new thread. Turfer, can you chime in?
 
Double entering but with only a few or none other cars in your class = Not fun, cheaper to do a lapping day or take up go-karting.
Click to expand...

Colin, I think you just said the same thing that Rick did.

Most of us who have traditionally double- entered have built a car to the rules in the slower group, which is
where we really go at it, and get more track time in the faster group where we're less competitive.
Good races may break out, but that's not guaranteed by car performance.

Like Mr Bostrom, I do wonder where this will end...

t
 
Actually, I had that very conversation with Mr Delamare just before he presented the "last-minute" class proposal before at the E-board meeting which I was attending. Rick Delamare and Mike Conatore made a compelling proposal to have it included as a provisional class in the upcoming year in spite of having to provide a hastily scribbled petition that lacked a few important things like a solid description of the class and ruleset of any kind. I have the great pleasure of knowing and liking both Mr Delamare and Mr Conatore and both are knowledgable and detail oriented individuals so I have to assume that the proposal was light on info because they probably had to hustle to throw it together at the last minute. The E-board decided to give it a try in their winter meeting citing that it would have to live or die on it's own merits regardless - if it doesn't make the required numbers it is eliminated automatically.

Between the winter meeting and spring meeting several people looked into the decision a bit and realized that the class as approved was for ITA cars and ITA cars only - not the grouping of ITA,ITB,ITC, and Showroom Stock cars of specific description as run by SFR SCCA ITX, which the class was to be patterned after. It was in essence no more than placing a mirror ITA class in Group 2 so ITA cars (and only ITA cars) would basically get two virtually identical races per day. At the spring meeting further "testimony" was heard and the E-board was left with trying to make a better class than the one created at the winter meeting from the hurried proposal. I believe that the resulting class now includes ITA, ITB, ITC cars, but not any of the others specified in the SFR SCCA ITX class - so the rules will likely take more tweaking when those who are running the class refine the package as a part of the normal post season rule making process.

The E-board bent over backwards to try to accomodate the requests of the racers becasue they realize that anything that increases entries and encourages more participation is worth taking a shot at. I, like them. hope it has a positive effect on total entries and hepls make our members happy. That being said - most cars that are likely to be affected already have a class in Group 2. ITA in Group 5 is certainly one of our 2 or 3 largest and best attended classes. It is often run as a second class by Spec Miatas, Club Spec Miatas, Pro-7 cars, all of which already run in Group 2 as their primary full preparation class. This would seem to means that relatively few look like they will run ITX as their secondary class. The argument was made that the few that run ITA as their primary class currently are forced to run their cars as SPU or SPM cars in Group 1 which is currently a very full group and in which they are not particularly competitive. These are certainly valid points, particularly having cars with a lower competitive potential in an overcrowded and fast Group 1. As to them not being competitive - it is traditional in Cinference to not worry much about helping with competitive balance in a secondary group. Usually cars are built to be competitive in their primary group and expected to be underprepared in their secondary group.

At any rate, good luck to ITX becasue it is in all of our best interest that any group succeeds and by increasing entries supports both the local clubs and ICSCC as a whole. I will watch to see how it turns out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top