Toyota Corolla ITA or ITB?

[MMcCaughey]

Hello, I heard from a friend that the 86-89 Corolla was just recently reclassed from ITA to ITB. Can someone confirm this if possible?

Thanks alot,
Mark M.

[Jake]

It's just the front-drive '87 FX16. The 86-89 Corolla GTS is still stuck in ITA purgatory.

[Jake]

I have all the classings on my site, and I have filters so you can see classings for all Toyotas for instance.

www.racerjake.com (http://www.racerjake.com)

[MMcCaughey]

Thanks for the quick reply Jake, I thought it was to good to be true.

[ITANorm]

FWIW - I think the FX16 would make a very solid B car. It's relatively heavy, but if you hang the right parts on it, it should be quick. Same engine as the ITA GTS and MR-2 (in fact same drivetrain as the MR2 - just stuck in the "wrong" end of the car). The only downside might be that the brakes are a tad small.

[MMcCaughey]

Do you guys know anyone who runs a FX16?

[Knestis]

That WOULD be a cool B car. I didn't know that it had been moved when I saw one a week or so ago, abandoned on I40 between Greensboro and Durham, NC...

K

[Jake]

How about a proposal/petition to move all 4AGE Toyota to ITB @ 2450lbs? Who's with me?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Gimme some stock HP to work with...and a drivetrain layout...and a suspension design (ie: MCPH struts etc..)

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[ITANorm]

All had ~112HP, stock. 1587cc DOHC, 16-valve, Bosch L-jetronic.

All except the AE86 Corolla (front engine, rear drive) were all-strut. AE86 had a coil spring rear w/IRS.

All the other Corolla's were FWD. The MR2 is mid engine, RWD.

The NUMMI-made first cousin, the '90 Geo Prizm GSi, is already in B. It is the same chassis as the '88 and later Corolla GTS - except it is a 4-door. It also has the later small-port head, which had ~130HP from the factory.

------------------
Norm - #55 ITA, '86 MR2. [email protected]
http://home.alltel.net/jberry/img107.jpg
Website: home.alltel.net/jberry (http://home.alltel.net/jberry)

[Andy Bettencourt]

A resonable request I would estimate...

http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
A resonable request I would estimate...

http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

AB




I'm not trying to start anything Andy, really. But, when has the 'reasonableness' of a request had anything to do w/ anything? I'll have to go back through back FasTracks, but I thought the request to move the AW11 MR2 and the AE86 Corolla were already shot down? People have been trying to get the AW11 MR2 moved since the mid/late 90's.


------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[tschwenke]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">The NUMMI-made first cousin, the '90 Geo Prizm GSi, is already in B. It is the same chassis as the '88 and later Corolla GTS - except it is a 4-door. It also has the later small-port head, which had ~130HP from the factory.</font>

Yes, and there used to be 2 of them in CenDiv, both of which were well prepped and FAST. Off the top of my head if you give that thing larger ports it might be a little much. Getting the weight right the first time would be the trick.

Dick Cole from Detroit had a really nice looking red one, don't know where it is now.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bill,

I guess I didn't realize we were talking about the MR2. I was talking about the Corolla with the aforementioned specs.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[Bill Miller]

Andy,

Jake had mentioned moving all the 4AGE Toyotas to ITB, and Norm gave specs on both the Corolla and MR2. I guess that's why I thought we were talking about both cars. Like I said, I'm really not trying to start anything. I'd love to see a more objective process that would eliminate the need to even ask questions as to why one configuration is in one class, and another is in a different class.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Jake]

Bill's right. But I've seen many previously shot down requests go through recently. Heck, Greg's Nissan was shot down several times before it moved to ITA. There was a serious push to move the MR2/AE86, but that was well before PCA.

Norm - If I'm not mistaken, Peter has a built-to-the-letter-of-the-IT-law 4AGE with Dyno results. This may prove valuable background info.

[Andy Bettencourt]

No issues...a question is a question.

The FWD cars seem to me to be ITB material. The MR2 met with a split ITAC vote and was not recomended. The combination of RWD and mid-engine (GREAT under breaking) make it a tweener for B.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[Jake]

Well, if mid-engined cars are that wonderful, how come there isn't a single competitive mid-engined IT car in the country and the CB just moved the 914's down a class? Plus, the 4AGE's resistance to power gains more than compensates for the brakes. In either case, the Corolla GTS is front engined, and should be considered for ITB. For the sake of argument, just look at the cars that were recently moved from ITA to ITB:

Volkswagon Golf III (93-97)....2350lbs 115hp 2.0L
Nissan Sentra Non-SER (91-94)..2250lbs 110hp 1.8L
Honda Accord Lxi (86-88).......2550lbs 120hp 2.0L
Toyota FX16(87)................2445lbs 112hp 1.6L
Honda Prelude Si(87)...........2450lbs 110hp 2.0L
Honda Civic Si (86-87).........2040lbs 91hp 1.6L
Porsche 924 (77-82)............2600lbs 115hp 2.0L
Porsche 914-4 (73-76)..........2230lbs 95hp 2.0L

And compare that to the ITA 4AGE's:
Toyota MR2 (85-87).............2370lbs 112hp 1.6L
Toyota Corolla GTS (86-89).....2410lbs 112hp 1.6L

This looks like a no-brainer to me.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Never said they were all that wonderful...just said there is a split on the ITAC as to the viablility for B. I would say it is a tweener for sure...

Would you be happy with 2550+ lbs in ITB?

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[Jake]

IMHO, it would do better in ITB at 2550 than ITA at 2370 - but that would be a lot of weight to carry. You mentioned the split ITAC decision - for those who favored the move - what kind of weight did they propose?

[MMcCaughey]

I did think about the Corolla.

[zracre]

I think they should all be in ITB along with the first gen Integra. The fields need to be larger and there are plenty of donor cars running around for aspiring racers to get started cheap...of course there will be many people complaining that their cars are no longer competitive with new cars to the class, but thats racing...nothing good lasts forever...a car you ran 5 to 10 years ago shouldnt be expected to be extremely competitive unless very well sorted and well driven. I think that is the nature of the sport. I dont expect my second gen integra to be competitive 5 years from now just as the 2nd gen CRX is starting to get left behind on the pointy end of the field...

------------------
Evan Darling
ITA Integra

[This message has been edited by zracre (edited June 08, 2005).]

[Jake]

I think the CB/ITAC makes too much about FWD/RWD. With cars with such little power and so much grip, RWD is not really much of an advantage.

[Andy Bettencourt]

How much "weight" do you think we put on it?

http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

It's a factor, but not huge. But in a class made up of predominantly FWD, when you add RWD and mid-engine, you get an animal that must be considered VERY closly before you let it free in the ITB woods.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by zracre:
I think they should all be in ITB along with the first gen Integra. The fields need to be larger and there are plenty of donor cars running around for aspiring racers to get started cheap...of course there will be many people complaining that their cars are no longer competitive with new cars to the class, but thats racing...nothing good lasts forever...a car you ran 5 to 10 years ago shouldnt be expected to be extremely competitive unless very well sorted and well driven. I think that is the nature of the sport. I dont expect my second gen integra to be competitive 5 years from now just as the 2nd gen CRX is starting to get left behind on the pointy end of the field...


OK, it's late, I must be tired...but is the Integra you refer to the same one that won the ARRCs last year???

And the CRX...is that the same one that was top 5?



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[ITANorm]

Originally posted by Jake:
If I'm not mistaken, Peter has a built-to-the-letter-of-the-IT-law 4AGE with Dyno results. This may prove valuable background info.

Peter's engine is the twin of mine, and from the same builder - so, yes, that would be valuable.

The only other major difference between our cars is my suspension is more updated (and a whole lot more $$). http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif

2550#? I'd have to carry about 250# of ballast.



------------------
Norm - #55 ITA, '86 MR2. [email protected]
http://home.alltel.net/jberry/img107.jpg
Website: home.alltel.net/jberry (http://home.alltel.net/jberry)

[zracre]

Im talking about the 1.6 cars (first gen ZC) not the one I drive (B18A) http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif... and yes the CRX is still brutally fast in ITA but there are now faster cars in ITA that are going to push the CRX back.

------------------
Evan Darling
ITA Integra

[Andy Bettencourt]

Jake,

Let's talk about car prep. Can you outline for us how well developed your car is? The reason I ask this is because when I compare your (ITA) times at Lime Rock this past weekend and the top ITB times, your fast lap would have been a 1/2 second faster than the ITB winner...and equal to the perrennial front running Volvo that came in second.

Anything else left in the #28? http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

While it looks to be a B car on paper (as does the Gen 1 RX-7) we have to be careful of wrecking the competitive balance in a class...as you know.

AB



------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[Jake]

Yeah, I ran well this last weekend besting my own personal best. I've done a lot of tweaking with the suspension, and I was running Auto-x tires at that race - so I'm not sure how consistantly I was running those times towards the end of the race. But I did get a few laps around the track drafting an SE-R early in the race.

I'm glad you noticed! http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif

Norm's really built a fully developed car - mine's not. I haven't worked on the engine - but you can't get a whole lot of the 4AGE's. Maybe one of these days Norm will drag his car up to Lime Rock so I can see if it could get anywhere near those pesky integras!

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Jake:
I'm glad you noticed! http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif


Let's put it this way, I watch the cars I like that I think would be THE cars to have...should they move...call it window shopping...

http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[Spinnetti]

Originally posted by Jake:
It's just the front-drive '87 FX16. The 86-89 Corolla GTS is still stuck in ITA purgatory.


You mean where I live? http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif (1985 Corolla GT-S IT/A)

[Spinnetti]

Well, reading through everything, here's my take as a current Corolla Driver (if anybody cares).

> I have raced a 85 GT-S since 1993.

> The car is minimum weight and prepped to the limit in all areas.

I think I'm the only one left in Cen-div (and haven't run the last few years) simply because for most folks its just not worth being last. I've run much faster than any other Corolla that has tried, and I can't run front of the pack anymore either. I've done well with it for a long time (regular top 5 through most of the 90's), but it is simply outclassed, and has been for a number of years, just like the MR2 (Of which I have had several). Its time to move it.

However: I think I'd rather run at the top of mid-pack in IT/A than at the same spot in IT/B because it now is carrying too much weight and eating brakes! The best B cars in Cen-div are just as fast as the Best Corollas in A as it stands already. There are also not a lot of them left, so its not like everybody would mob the class with them.

BTW, the AE86 is NOT IRS. Its standard solid axle.

I'm sure my car will end up as a drift car or in vintage before SCCA ever does anything!

[Spinnetti]

Sorry for all the Off Topic stuff, but this is a little amusing.

In the listing for the Corolla GT-S, its 84-85 (in Jakes list anyway), but should be 85-87. Reason for this is a certain somebody went to race the first one in IT/A, but it didn't actually exist as an 84 (was an 85 model year) in the US, so wasn't actually eligable.. Other than minor stuff, 85-7 are the same, then it went FWD in 88...

[Knestis]

As an ITB guy, I think that the entire family of 1.6 twincam Toyotas would be a good addition to the class. I agree that the FWD/RWD distinction is not much of a factor down here in 120hp land.

K

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Knestis:
As an ITB guy,...... I agree that the FWD/RWD distinction is not much of a factor down here in 120hp land.

K

You got 120hp??? And I bet your torque is killer too!



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[Jake]

LOL - The Jake's with 1.6 and 1.3 liters aspire to the displacement of a 2-liter bottle of cola. Thanks for chiming in Kirk - too bad the IT2 think didn't happen - probably would have solved this stuff quicker.

And yes - making us weeney 112hp cars run with much over 2500lbs would make us mid-pack ITB cars that now chew up tires and brakes - probably not an improvement.

BTW - a few of us were talking about the Hummer H3 - amazed at how GM thinks 220hp is sufficient to cart around 4750lbs. What a pig! Trying to brainstorm ANY other vehicle with that poor of a power to weight ratio, we could only think of one - My MR2 http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/frown.gif

[Knestis]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
You got 120hp??? ...

No way. I was just making a generalization about the median kind of ITB power.

Interesting thing about the 2.0 Golf - I finally saw a dyno sheet (for a stock engine, like mine) and was a little surprised that peak power happened all the way down at 5200-5400rpm. Torque peaked at about 4000.

YMMV but wheel HP was around 100, with 109 ft-lbs of torque. That compares with the factory's stated numbers of 112 and 122.

I'm actually going to do a pull on mine to baseline it before Cameron starts building an IT engine this summer and I'll share what we learn.

K



[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited June 17, 2005).]

[Renaultfool]

Well, not many "street" cars truely pull very well above 6,000 rpm. The factorys put cams in them to be useful in the rpm range where we normally use them for their intended purpose, the street. Just because you pull it onto a race track doesn't mean that it will now "pull strong to 7 grand". Well, at least not with the stock componants in place. If you keep your ears open it is pretty easy to pick out the ones that do.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Knestis:
No way. I was just making a generalization about the median kind of ITB power.

Interesting thing about the 2.0 Golf - I finally saw a dyno sheet (for a stock engine, like mine) and was a little surprised that peak power happened all the way down at 5200-5400rpm. Torque peaked at about 4000.

YMMV but wheel HP was around 100, with 109 ft-lbs of torque. That compares with the factory's stated numbers of 112 and 122.

I'm actually going to do a pull on mine to baseline it before Cameron starts building an IT engine this summer and I'll share what we learn.

K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited June 17, 2005).]

Kirk, interesting...I'd KILL for 100 and NINE lb ft of tq! LOL

What is the conventional wisdom on the output of your motor in a top notch build?


------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[lateapex911]

...sorry, watching F1 qualifying, and was distracted...dbl post!

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited June 18, 2005).]

[Knestis]

So far as I know, nobody has any data on a "real" IT 2.0 VW engine yet.

The car that I've just acquired is one of the early ones, with the forged crank, so it's going to be the basis for the build. It won't be anything exotic but at least all of the cylinders will have more than 155 pounds of squeeze.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Knestis:
So far as I know, nobody has any data on a "real" IT 2.0 VW engine yet.

The car that I've just acquired is one of the early ones, with the forged crank, so it's going to be the basis for the build. It won't be anything exotic but at least all of the cylinders will have more than 155 pounds of squeeze.

K

I do believe that Tim Mullen's car up here in the NE has a full-bore Shine Racing Services effort. A call to them may bet you the info you need.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[gran racing]

2500 lbs would chew up brakes and rotors (at least on an MR2)??? http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/rolleyes.gif

------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si

[Andy Bettencourt]

An aditional 130lbs would render the car dangerous? Come on guys, let's get real.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[Knestis]

The 2500 pounds of Golf we drag around for hours isn't hard on brakes. I drove the car home from SP on the pads that went the distance at the 12 hours. I'll probably get at least a couple more regionals out of them.

That said, I don't know how big the rotors are on the Toyotas. Ours are 256mm front, 226mm rear.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Knestis:
The 2500 pounds of Golf we drag around for hours isn't hard on brakes. I drove the car home from SP on the pads that went the distance at the 12 hours. I'll probably get at least a couple more regionals out of them.

That said, I don't know how big the rotors are on the Toyotas. Ours are 256mm front, 226mm rear.

K

244mm F, 239mm R
or
257mm F, 262mm R

AND a much better weight distribution for braking...Jake will tell you his car is PRIMO under braking...

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[Knestis]

Oh, wah. 130# won't mean squat, then.

Is someone going to make me sorry that I support this idea? It really bugs me when people play the safety card when arguing for their own competitive advantage.

K

[Jake]

For the record I hadn't meant to imply a safety concern. At least at 2500lbs it wouldn't be a safety issue. Something like another 100lbs to the spec weight of the RWD Toyotas would probably be a prudent move, and move them from being a "tweener" to a no-brainer ITB car.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Jake:
For the record I hadn't meant to imply a safety concern. At least at 2500lbs it wouldn't be a safety issue. Something like another 100lbs to the spec weight of the RWD Toyotas would probably be a prudent move, and move them from being a "tweener" to a no-brainer ITB car.


Jake,

This is what I tried to get done w/ the Rabbit GTI. I suggested adding 170# to it, and moving it to ITC. The response was that it fell w/in the performance parameters of the class. I actually laughed out loud when I read that. IIRC, even some of the ITAC members have said it's a 'tweener' car.

Be interesting to see what the response to my request for publishing the performance parameters of the class is.


------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Andy Bettencourt]

Performance parameters for ITB:

Too slow for ITA and too fast for ITC.

http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/tongue.gif

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[lateapex911]

Ahhhh...the always present, "bottom line"... http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[lateapex911]

why won't my post refresh?? errr...it's on the second page...sorry... http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited June 20, 2005).]

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
Performance parameters for ITB:

Too slow for ITA and too fast for ITC.

http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/tongue.gif

AB



Hey Andy, aren't the SM folks calling you? http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/biggrin.gif



------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Jake]

Bill, to be honest I haven't been following your GTI issue, but at 2350lbs and 90hp it sounds like a good fit for ITC. Especially considering that the 914 1.7L was just moved from ITB to ITC at 2080lbs and 80 hp which is a better power to weight ratio. And that car is mid-engined, rear wheel drive, and has four-wheel disks - all that is is worth like an extra 25-50 hp! http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

On the other hand, the 1st gen CRX Si has similar weight and power and only recently moved from ITA to ITB. I would imagine putting nearly 200lbs on most cars would make them candidates for a move down.

[This message has been edited by Jake (edited June 20, 2005).]

[Spinnetti]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
How much "weight" do you think we put on it?

http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

It's a factor, but not huge. But in a class made up of predominantly FWD, when you add RWD and mid-engine, you get an animal that must be considered VERY closly before you let it free in the ITB woods.

AB



What about the volvos? They arent FWD, and are just as fast as any Toyota I've seen in ITA....

[Spinnetti]

Originally posted by Jake:
LOL - The Jake's with 1.6 and 1.3 liters aspire to the displacement of a 2-liter bottle of cola. Thanks for chiming in Kirk - too bad the IT2 think didn't happen - probably would have solved this stuff quicker.

And yes - making us weeney 112hp cars run with much over 2500lbs would make us mid-pack ITB cars that now chew up tires and brakes - probably not an improvement.

BTW - a few of us were talking about the Hummer H3 - amazed at how GM thinks 220hp is sufficient to cart around 4750lbs. What a pig! Trying to brainstorm ANY other vehicle with that poor of a power to weight ratio, we could only think of one - My MR2 http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/frown.gif

The Hummer is a pig? You would love the Touareg that I tow the Corolla to the track with.. 220hp and 5086lbs! I'd kill for the hummers P/W!

Actually, its just fine towing the 'Rolla at speed in 6th gear with little loss of economy

[Andy Bettencourt]

"AND MID-ENGINED"

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[Jake]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
"AND MID-ENGINED"

AB



OK - don't make me do research! FWIW, the August 85 issue of Consumer Reports tested an MR2:

weight: 2375, braking from 60mph: 150ft

The July 87 issue tested an FX16:

weight: 2365, braking from 60mph: 145ft

The October 89 issue tested a CRX Si:

weight: 2170, braking from 60mph: 140ft

[Andy Bettencourt]

Of course you have ALL the data:

- test track temp
- brand of tires
- equipment used to test

Jake, you and I both know that the MR2 KILLS under braking...

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[Jake]

If you really want I can get that data for you. (need to go through some archives) But I wouldn't say KILLS. To tell you the truth, at the last LRP race I couldn't outbrake anyone - at least into big bend. I need to get all my braking done before the first apex or the thing swaps ends. FWD cars can do the better line by slowing through the first apex. That's not to say that in a straight line I don't have some advantage - but there isn't the advantage you may think in all situations.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Look, it's simple...the configuration of the car warrents an extra look. It's very different than most cars in the class and the last thing the ITAC wants is to insert a class killer.

Easy, young Jedi....

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[zracre]

someone should go to mylaps.com and check all MR2's times against the top ITB times...see what kind of weight adjustment would be neccesary...i think it would be good competition for the CRX there now...i think braking mid engine to FF to FR is irrelevant...front drive can go later and deeper on many corners where a mid engine car would be on the edge...a mid engine car may transition better getting on the throttle but that is splittting hairs...like someone wrote abt the ITC 914 1.7...mid engine 4 wheel discs...

------------------
Evan Darling
ITA Integra

[Knestis]

I haven't had a chance to beat this drum in a while (although i still know how, I think) but laptime comparisons are meaningless unless you know that all of the cars involved are legal, they are all fully prepared, and they are being driven to their actual limits.

The ITAC's current stance is that some mathematical prediction - even if it isn't completely scientific - is a more valid starting point of how competitive any given make/model should be.

How fast any given example actually IS, is a function of a bunch of variables that the ITCS doesn't specify.

K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited June 20, 2005).]

[zracre]

im just saying for comparative reasons....just out of curiosity. the car has been run for a while(MR2) so if someone has their data from specific tracks, an off the record comparo could be made for fun...(that is why we are here right??) if the data is there to play with then....

------------------
Evan Darling
ITA Integra

[Dave Patten]

One thing that should be considered when trying to equate performance is the the B cars are using 6" rims and the A's are 7".

I would assume there is a performance drop that should be considered due to the required narrower rim width in moving a car from A to B. This has yet to be mentioned.

[gran racing]

I really feel that there is a minimal drop from 7" rims to 6" rims. Either way, most people would still be using 225s (if Hoosiers). As we've discussed in previous posts, the type of track also influences this as well. At Watkins Glen, I've been told by many fast drivers that 6" rims are actually faster. Wheither that is true or not??

As Kirk said, you need to take a look at the car itself and keep driver, track condition, ect. influences out of it. And for the record, I'd more than welcome the MR2 in ITB with the appropriate specs.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si

[Andy Bettencourt]

Evan,

While fun, the data is meaningless. Without the knowledge of prep levels and driver talent levels, there is no way make the numbers dance.

Up here, ITA MR-2's look worse than they are. We have the top ITA Integra in teh country running around along with a gaggle of Integra's - prepped by that same gentleman (Serra) sku-ing the results.

Then you have to see how deep your ITB field is...

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[lateapex911]

Wait a minute Andy...they don't look "worse" in the NE, ....the NE covers all the other cars in the most accurate light....ITA is defined by the top nothch Integras, CRXs and 240SXs, and Serra dirves the most top notch Integra there is....

If you can run with Serra, you're in the hunt...if you can't, something has to change....

(Which is another way of saying that just because a car wins doesn't mean that it is a competitive car.)

((And yes, the flipside is: just because it *doesn't run at the front is no guarantee that it can't either...))

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Jake:
Bill, to be honest I haven't been following your GTI issue, but at 2350lbs and 90hp it sounds like a good fit for ITC. Especially considering that the 914 1.7L was just moved from ITB to ITC at 2080lbs and 80 hp which is a better power to weight ratio. And that car is mid-engined, rear wheel drive, and has four-wheel disks - all that is is worth like an extra 25-50 hp! http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

On the other hand, the 1st gen CRX Si has similar weight and power and only recently moved from ITA to ITB. I would imagine putting nearly 200lbs on most cars would make them candidates for a move down.

[This message has been edited by Jake (edited June 20, 2005).]

Jake,

The 1.7 914 is a good example. Sure would like to know how that car didn't fit w/in the performance parameters of ITB, but the Rabbit GTI does. Actually, I do know how. It's because there are no defined performance parameters, and it's a bunch of subjective "I think car X is too fast for class Y". If this wasn't the case, these guys wouldn't be hiding behind it.

I'll have to go back through the posts/emails, but IIRC, when I asked where the 'process' [sic] would put the Rabbit GTI, and at what weight, it was ITC @ 2275# or ITB @ 2000#. If those numbers are not correct, would someone on the ITAC please post the correct ones?

Then you've got guys like Andy B. that would rather give smart-ass answers than actually deal w/ the issue. But, since that's the answer he gave, maybe he'll define exactly what he means by "Too slow for ITA". Is that too slow to win? too slow to finish in the Top 5? Top 10? too slow to finish on the same lap as the rest of the field? ???



------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Jake,

The 1.7 914 is a good example. Sure would like to know how that car didn't fit w/in the performance parameters of ITB, but the Rabbit GTI does. Actually, I do know how. It's because there are no defined performance parameters, and it's a bunch of subjective "I think car X is too fast for class Y". If this wasn't the case, these guys wouldn't be hiding behind it.

I'll have to go back through the posts/emails, but IIRC, when I asked where the 'process' [sic] would put the Rabbit GTI, and at what weight, it was ITC @ 2275# or ITB @ 2000#. If those numbers are not correct, would someone on the ITAC please post the correct ones?

Then you've got guys like Andy B. that would rather give smart-ass answers than actually deal w/ the issue. But, since that's the answer he gave, maybe he'll define exactly what he means by "Too slow for ITA". Is that too slow to win? too slow to finish in the Top 5? Top 10? too slow to finish on the same lap as the rest of the field? ???



Actually Bill, you have guys like me who are tired of your posts. I am happy to discuss this stuff. The 'process' incorporated enough subjective factors that are debated and voted on by the ITAC, that a formula can not be produced. We use an estimate of HP in IT trim as the very foundation of our process, then target a power to weight and then add or subtract based on advantages and handicaps. If a formula was provided (there is none) everyone would be running their car through it and crying wolf. Not a good idea.

In the case of some cars where ACTUAL dyno numbers are know, we can make more accurate estimations. In the case of your (10th?) request of the ITAC, the REAL numbers we have at our disposal show us it reacts well enough to IT prep that it is much more an ITB car than an ITC car.

It isn't alone in that regard. The ITA RX-7 is the poster child for being 'more than what it is on paper'. At 108 stock hp, it should easily be an ITB car but the REAL dyno numbers show it's a tweener.

We HIDE NOTHING. There are just some things that WOULD NOT benefit the members if we tried to FORCE them into a formula.

If you can't understand that 'faster than the benchmark in ITC' is outside the ITC envelope, I can't help you.

AB


(Edit) Typed ITS RX-7 instead of ITA...
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[This message has been edited by Andy Bettencourt (edited June 20, 2005).]

[Jake]

Bill – let’s not make this a gang up on AB thread. Back on topic: to Jake’s point, the NER does not make the MR2 look bad. I should probably take offense to that! http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif I AM the MR2 field in NER and I usually can beat most RX7’s – this is not the case most places. Andy, it is interesting that you state that the RX7 should be an ITB car if it didn’t benefit a lot from IT improvements – ‘cuz the MR2 has very similar power and weight and has nearly no power gain from the IT stuff. (header does nothing, match porting loses power, etc.) I think I can get you real DYNO numbers from a cost-no-object 4AGE IT build if you would like. It is not impressive!

While I totally agree with Kirk and AB’s points about taking results for what they are, I would invite people who are interested to take a look at the MARRS series results:

http://www.wdcr-scca.org/results/index.htm

WDC is a large region with virtually no Integra’s, few CRX’s, and a few MR2’s. Take a look at Art Jaso and Peter Doane’s results. These are excellent drivers with highly prepped MR2’s. Both have been racing for many years and I know at least Peter has done pro racing as well.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
Actually Bill, you have guys like me who are tired of your posts. I am happy to discuss this stuff. The 'process' incorporated enough subjective factors that are debated and voted on by the ITAC, that a formula can not be produced. We use an estimate of HP in IT trim as the very foundation of our process, then target a power to weight and then add or subtract based on advantages and handicaps. If a formula was provided (there is none) everyone would be running their car through it and crying wolf. Not a good idea.

In the case of some cars where ACTUAL dyno numbers are know, we can make more accurate estimations. In the case of your (10th?) request of the ITAC, the REAL numbers we have at our disposal show us it reacts well enough to IT prep that it is much more an ITB car than an ITC car.

It isn't alone in that regard. The ITA RX-7 is the poster child for being 'more than what it is on paper'. At 108 stock hp, it should easily be an ITB car but the REAL dyno numbers show it's a tweener.

We HIDE NOTHING. There are just some things that WOULD NOT benefit the members if we tried to FORCE them into a formula.

If you can't understand that 'faster than the benchmark in ITC' is outside the ITC envelope, I can't help you.

AB


(Edit) Typed ITS RX-7 instead of ITA...


More double talk Andy. And where did the 'faster than the benchmark in ITC' phrase come from? First time I've seen it in this discussion. I thought we were talking about the performance parameters for a given class?

And who said anything about FORCING anything? From day one, I've supported using a published formula as a GUIDELINE.

And as far as these dyno numbers that you're basing decisions on, the comments on lap times, etc. pretty much hold true. Are the motors legal? Have you looked at the same motor on different dynos? Were the numbers corrected for atmospheric conditions? Etc. Etc.

You "HIDE NOTHING"? Hubberbucket!


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">There are just some things that WOULD NOT benefit the members if we tried to FORCE them into a formula.</font>

The arrogance of that statement is simply amazing. :roll:


------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Jake]

Andy - please don't bite. Bill - please don't hijack this thread.

[This message has been edited by Jake (edited June 20, 2005).]

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:

More double talk Andy. And where did the 'faster than the benchmark in ITC' phrase come from? First time I've seen it in this discussion. I thought we were talking about the performance parameters for a given class?

And who said anything about FORCING anything? From day one, I've supported using a published formula as a GUIDELINE.

And as far as these dyno numbers that you're basing decisions on, the comments on lap times, etc. pretty much hold true. Are the motors legal? Have you looked at the same motor on different dynos? Were the numbers corrected for atmospheric conditions? Etc. Etc.

You "HIDE NOTHING"? Hubberbucket!


There are just some things that WOULD NOT benefit the members if we tried to FORCE them into a formula.

The arrogance of that statement is simply amazing. :roll:




Bill,

I used a new phrase to help you understand what I am trying to tell you. Your request asked about ITB and ITC. If we think that GTI would be faster than the benchmak cars in ITC, it would obviously exceed that performance envelope. No double talk, just simple logic. You forget I have a top VW builder in my backyard that I can call at anytime for info.

From now on, let's just agree not to communicate. We don't see things on the same wavelength - I have received many e-mails suggesting the same.

I will say this in closing to you; my statement was far from arrogant. You don't seem to understand this simple fact: You can't expect anyone to use a formula or process without all the data/variables/information - whatever. I couldn't do it, you couldn't do it, who could? All it would do would frustrate the members who tried. These missing bits of info are moving targets...it's food for conversation on a one-on-one level because you can explain every little nuance and thought process...it's not for general consumption where you would get a bad taste in your mouth for lack of the full picture.

I am done. Take your personal shots, it doesn't matter. Keep up the great work. Seen much activity from other ITAC members here lately? I am right behind them.

AB

(Edit: Sorry Jake - too late, but done... http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif )
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[This message has been edited by Andy Bettencourt (edited June 20, 2005).]

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Jake:
Andy - please don't bite. Bill - please don't hijack this thread.

[This message has been edited by Jake (edited June 20, 2005).]

Sorry Jake.

Andy,

Don't let the door hit you! http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/biggrin.gif

/edit/

Jake, I think all the 4AGE Toyotas should be in ITB (hasn't changed since I raced my AW11 MR2)

Andy, Nice job. You hooked me w/ your troll. I should have known better.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited June 20, 2005).]

[gran racing]

This is getting a bit old. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/frown.gif Having members from the ITAC that are willing to share their thoughts and opinions on this board is a great thing and takes some guts. I wish more members would be willing to participate here. Bill, the board is making progress and is doing what they believe to be best for the club even if you personally don’t agree with their decisions. Yes there is always room for improvement but by consistently forcing the board to be defensive here really is not productive. Fine, you don’t agree with Andy or Darin - we ALL get it. It is too bad Darin no longer posts here because with the exception of one person everyone enjoyed and benefited from his perspective.

Anyway, back to the topic...

Since the MR2’s lime rock park time was brought up it made me think a bit more. I wonder how much extra weight would have to be added to the car before Jake had to switch from the Hoosier autocross tires back to the road race compound? And how much did the switch to the autocross tire attribute to the quicker lap times this year?

------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si

[charrbq]

Interesting...even checked the ITCS to make certain. Four wheel discs on a 914. My buddy's, that he bought new in 1971, has drum rear brakes. I've even seen others with drum rears, but not many. There aren't that many left on the road that haven't been consumed by rust.
Of course, we know that the GCR and ITCS are mistake and flaw free.


------------------
Chris Harris
ITC Honda Civic

[ITANorm]

Originally posted by charrbq:
Interesting...even checked the ITCS to make certain. Four wheel discs on a 914. My buddy's, that he bought new in 1971, has drum rear brakes.

The 1.7 was available until late '73, IIRC. The '72 and later (at least) as well as the '70 - '71 914-6 (I know - not in the ITCS) had all discs. So, through update / backdate, all disc systems are de rigeur.

In all fairness - comparison of a 914 and an MR2 is not, well . . . fair. I've raced both. The Porsche is more forgiving - handling-wise, due to a higher polar moment and different (torsion bar) front suspension than the Toyota; but the 4 cylinder VW-based engine is just not a match for the much better Toyota twin-cam. I think a properly sorted 2.0L could be very competitive in ITB.

Sorry for the hijack - BTT . . ..



------------------
Norm - #55 ITA, '86 MR2. [email protected]
http://home.alltel.net/jberry/img107.jpg
Website: home.alltel.net/jberry (http://home.alltel.net/jberry)

[ITANorm]

BTW -

Jake - I sent Peter's dyno plots to Andy, since we are running identical engines.

David - You went from ITA to ITB in the same car. How much of a detriment do YOU see from dropping an inch in wheel width?

FWIW - I usually run 205's anyway. I can't get the 225's hot enough to work.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by gran racing:
It is too bad Darin no longer posts here because with the exception of one person everyone enjoyed and benefited from his perspective.


A bit melodramatic are we? Or, is it possible that someone suggested that he not shoot his mouth off quite so much, given his position? Or maybe his life is just too busy right now to spend much time here?

If one person's comments are enough to keep someone from posting, their skin is probably a bit too thin to be on an advisory committee.



------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[HOOSER 99]

Anyone care to guess what kind of car finished 2nd in ITB this weekend at Summit?


jerry monaghan

[gran racing]

Norm, I had the car classified a few years ago and learned it was put into ITA at 2,450 lbs (which I thought it was pretty silly). But the guys at headquarters told me that within the first two years it can be re-classed if deemed appropriate so who knows. I made an attempt to find some inexpensive 7” rims but found it difficult with the backspace I needed (no diamond rims would fit legally) so I just used some VW 5.5” rims. So the very long winded answer is I do not know first hand.

What type of car placed 2nd in B? The results are not up yet...



------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si

[dickita15]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
A bit melodramatic are we? Or, is it possible that someone suggested that he not shoot his mouth off quite so much, given his position? Or maybe his life is just too busy right now to spend much time here?

If one person's comments are enough to keep someone from posting, their skin is probably a bit too thin to be on an advisory committee.


No Bill it is not melodramatic. your behavior to Andy and Darin has been rude and obnoxious. If I were them I would not be as nice to you as they have been.

Dick Patullo

[ITANorm]

Bill, in all fairness, there's a difference between posting useful information and using every thread as a venue for an all-out frontal assault.

Sometimes you DO post useful information - it just gets lost amid all the confrontationalism.

[lateapex911]

Bill, it's interesting.... in person I know you as a nice and engaging guy, but on the net, I have become frustrated with your comments. It always seems as though you have a chip on your shoulder or a cross to bear.

We all know the SCCA isn't perfect, but we all also know that it's a freaken club! I know you volunteer in other organizations, and hold yourself to high standards, and that's great. But what most folks around here see is progress with the ITAC, and the SCCA in general, you see as inadequate. In comparision to as little as two years ago, we see significant direction changes. And while we get frustrated by the glacial nature of the change (And look at the car I drive, if anyone has a right to moan and whine, it's me), we are all generally thrilled that the big ship is changing direction.

If you expect perfection and huge massive overnight changes, it aint gonna happen.

My advice? (Worth less that the electricity needed to convey it, but here it is nonetheless)...chill. Sometimes people write things that appear too strong or whatever. Let it slide once or twice. Be less confrontational. These guys are volunteering their time and trying to help...really, I strongly feel that the biggest ITAC posters here, K, Andy and Darin, are VERY nuetral....and just want to help. Let it go once in awhile....

And ...I guarantee that Darin saw this thread with you commentating and said..."ohhh nooo...not me! I aint TOUCHING that!" LOL...

You DO have excellent points, but they get lost in the spicy sauce, I am afraid..

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited June 21, 2005).]

[lateapex911]

OK, sorry, once in awhile I have to do something I regret...I hope that last post wasn't it!

Back on topic...the subject IS interesting as it has evolved a bit into a "what REALLY belongs in B, and not A?" (and to an extent,C?) The "trickle down concept.

I think the MR2 isn't a real ITA car, and I hate the term "tweeners"

So, my question is, in general, do we have to have popular well documented cars that are "tweeners"??? Or can we find a way to place them where they have a chance?

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[Bill Miller]

Jake,

Wasn't aware that Kirk (I assume that's who you meant by K) was on the ITAC. Had a great time w/ those guys at Summit Point, and the subject never came up. In fact, I don't think we 'talked shop' at all.

Notice that I didn't say anything when the July FT came out, and the request (actually Andy, only the 3rd or 4th one) to move the Rabbit GTI was shot down. I didn't really say anything about it in this thread either. All I did was mention that I wrote a letter about publishing the performance parameters for the given classes. I didn't direct it to anyone at all. Wasn't looking for a response from anyone. Andy figures he can make some smart-ass comment about it (pretty much a textbook case of trolling).

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the work that people are doing to make things better in IT. What I have a problem with, is the selective, subjective, and inconsistent way things are applied. I don't want to see fairness and equity traded away to get change. It's one of the reasons I've been such a strong proponent of an open, defined process. It minimizes the perception of inequity or favoritism, and it helps maintain consistency when committee members change. I get really nervous when people say that it's bad if people know how things are done. And the stronger that people argue against an open process, the more it appears that they're trying to hide something.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited June 22, 2005).]

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:

Notice that I didn't say anything when the July FT came out, and the request (actually Andy, only the 3rd or 4th one) to move the Rabbit GTI was shot down.


Ahhh, you got me. I took a quick look. 5 letters with 9 seperate requests for action...my bad! http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/rolleyes.gif

Onto the Toyotas. How much extra weight should an MR2 weigh than a FX16 if they were to be in ITB together? Just a debate question.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[Bill Miller]

You know what Andy, never mind. I'm not going to let you bait me into that.

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited June 22, 2005).]

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Ok Andy, you want to play that game. Maybe you'll tell people what those specific requests were (weren't some of them related to the 1.7 VWs going to ITC?). And maybe then you can tell me why not all of them have gotten responses. So much for you being 'done'. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/rolleyes.gif

Side note about moving cars down AND increasing the weight on them. Would seem that if lead were required to move them, that w/o the lead they 'fit w/in the performance parameters' of their current class.



I'll send them to you offline, complete with their log numbers dating back to December of 2003. Drop me an e-mail.

To your last point...it's a good one to consider. I think there are difinate 'tweeners' that could be lightened and fit better in current class or weighted down and be moved.

Specific action would depend on demand and availability. For instance, I think the Neon to ITA was brilliant. Many SS cars out there and drivers ready to move into Club Racing that may have had experience in SOlo with them. One that might be questionable...(choose your brand) a rare car that no letters have come in on.

A risk is taken anytime a move is made. Taking that risk is worth it is there is a reward...some cars just wouldn't provide that reward IMHO.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[RacerBill]

Jake: I like your suggestion for examining car classifications, but would like to add that results from as many tracks as possible be examined, as well as the driver (is the car being driven as fast as it can in that stage of prep.) In order to do that, someone would have to gather all the results from all the divisions. (OK, I'll stop there, as that could easily lead to a thread hijack!)

------------------
Bill Stevens
Mbr 103106
BnS Racing
83 ITA Shelby Dodge Charger
www.motorpride.com/BnSRacing

[bodyshop]

deleted..


[This message has been edited by bodyshop (edited June 22, 2005).]

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
... A risk is taken anytime a move is made. Taking that risk is worth it is there is a reward...some cars just wouldn't provide that reward IMHO.

Andy makes a VERY important point here. I pondered this when I read that the 914 was in B, thinking that it is never going to provide fodder for growth or lasting participation in the class. It will, no doubt, inject some variety which is arguably a good thing - I believe, anyway - but having an oddball end up being a really competitive option creates more problems than it solves in terms of the "good of the class." Read your SCCA history on the Turner in the (pre-LP) Production ranks.

All that said, this conversation starting to give me the willies, as I worry that we are getting close to crossing the line where "performance compensation adjustments" functionally become "performance adjustments."

PS - If I AM on the ITAC, I missed the memo making the appointment. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

[Jiveslug]

Hey, wait a minute, I thought this thread was about ITB Corollas! It made me re-think the 80-82 1.8L hemi cars. I decided to recheck my specs in the 2005 rulebook, and I discover that they are not listed anymore! What happened? I got one that is sitting around and can be had for next to nothing and now I cant run it? Was this a official declassification or just an oversight during the printing of the new rulebook? Help? Anyone? Bueller??

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Jake,

Wasn't aware that Kirk (I assume that's who you meant by K) was on the ITAC.

Bill, thanks for your measured response. My bad. I hit K instead of G...not sure why..they aren't even close! Meaning Geo, or george Roffe, who sometimes appears to be opininated, but does have the ability to change his position.

Sorry Kirk! (but you would be a great addition)



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[Banzai240]

I'm going to spill the beans on you Jake...

Gentlemen, as of a few weeks ago, Jake Gulick is now an official member of the SCCA ITAC... taking the place of Chris Camadella in helping to represent the Northeastern part of the country...

I'm sure he'll do fine... (carrying the target for awhile! http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif )

Carry on guys... http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/biggrin.gif

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[JeffYoung]

We're doomed....

Seriously, congratulations Jake. Glad you are on the ITAC. Maybe see you at the ARRC this year....

[Jake]

Congradulations Jake!!! You'll make a great addition.

[Bill Miller]

Congrats Jake!

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Spinnetti]

Originally posted by Jiveslug:
Hey, wait a minute, I thought this thread was about ITB Corollas! It made me re-think the 80-82 1.8L hemi cars. I decided to recheck my specs in the 2005 rulebook, and I discover that they are not listed anymore! What happened? I got one that is sitting around and can be had for next to nothing and now I cant run it? Was this a official declassification or just an oversight during the printing of the new rulebook? Help? Anyone? Bueller??

Yeah, I second that!
Am I going to be stuck in pergatory forever?
I don't actually want to go to B, but would rather be able to run faster in A...

The MR2 and Corolla GT-S are very similar in performance.. for all the touted mid-engine advantages of the MR2, I find them the same (Having both) - each has its advantages, and I actually prefer the Corolla (RWD mind you) on the race track, and the MR2 for street or auto-x...

Jake/Andy et. al, these are 'tweener' cars, and generally don't run with the rx-7 OR the crx/integra, etc, etc.. in A.. what to do?

My buddy calls me the lover of the 'one eyed orphan', but I like the cars, and would like a reasonable home to race them in. Its kept me out of racing here in Cen-div the last couple years.


[This message has been edited by Spinnetti (edited June 23, 2005).]

[Jake]

So the question comes down to this. MR2 and Corolla GT-S - do they make sense in ITB at current weight, the FX-16 weight, or a higher weight - and if so, what?

Andy posed the question as "how much more than the FX-16", but that assumes that the FX-16 is weighted perfectly. It's probably not far off. Is the FX competitive in B?

[lateapex911]

Thanks guys....

My haz mat suit is being talored as I type. Give me until Monday befire cussing me out, OK? http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif

THis is an interesting thread, and the question brings up other questions.

I saw a comment about not wanting to go to B. WHy not? The expense of new wheels? The local B crowd is too stron/not strong enough?? Curious...

THe bigger question here is, can the "tweeners" be given allowances suitable that would get them in the front with the CRX, Integra and 240SX? Or is that just not possible. (THink top flight cars here..)

Would you be satisfied with getting closer as opposed to going to B? Or do you advocate slowing down the fast A cars....all 5 or 6 of them?

I'm trying to get a big picture concept here...

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[Jake]

It seems to me that the flood gates have opened and there are many compatible cars now in ITA. Some are new, but many came down from where they were outclassed in ITS. The field is beginning to look like Kirk’s IT2 utopia. At this point, I wouldn’t propose anything to reign in any of them.

As for the back-packers of ITA, I’m not aware of anything that could be done to speed ‘em up, but of course it must be a case by case basis. As for the MR2 – lowering its weight would do nothing, because 2370 is already very hard to get down to within the ITA rules. I believe that is the same story for the GT-S. I’m not aware of anything else that could be done in the framework of IT.

I'm not sure why anyone would be opposed to a move to ITB, unless it comes at a such a weight penalty that it doesn't do much to help competitiveness. In that case the sole effect would be to slow the car, and make people buy new wheels. That would be a shame.

[MMcCaughey]

I agree Jake, more and more cars will be coming into ITS and ITA. The current SS cars are faster than they used to be, not that there is anything wrong with this.

I wouldnt mind starting the 88 GTS at 2450 and working with that, I think it would be better lighter, but this is a good starting point.

[ITANorm]

I could live with 2450 in B for the MR2.

And since you opened (or at least looked at) that can of worms - how about moving the MkII ('91 - '95) MR2 from S to A. It has both less power and more weight than the SOHC Neon that was just moved.

[MMcCaughey]

^ 88 GTS ITB I forgot to say. I think this is a sign that I should be in bed

[MMcCaughey]

That reminds me, I saw a nice ITS mk2 mr2 at Roebling.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by ITANorm:
I could live with 2450 in B for the MR2.

And since you opened (or at least looked at) that can of worms - how about moving the MkII ('91 - '95) MR2 from S to A. It has both less power and more weight than the SOHC Neon that was just moved.

On the plate already. I advocate it.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[Jiveslug]

Of course, at this point, I would have to interject my feeling that the Toyotas are, generally speaking, classed poorly. They seem to either be classed too high (Celicas in ITS???) or WAAAAAYYYY too heavy (86-88 Celicas in ITA at 2680lbs and 135hp stock). I personally really like the Toys. They are bulletproof cars and can be had for relatively little cash outlay. Look at the second gen MR2 in ITS at 2500+ lbs. That only has 130hp stock. It reminds me of what a lot of folks used to say about the comp board having issues with anything made by Porsche. Is there a reason why all of the cars from one manufacturer get classed so poorly? Now that we have moved the Sentra SE-R and Neons to ITA with similar stock horsepower and much better weight, why cant we revise the spec sheets on some of these Toyotas that CAN be viable racers IF spec'd correctly?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Jive,

They should. Can't ever explain how some of the weights got the way they are. Maybe a letter to the CRB with the cars you want reviewed would be in order.

I would think that if some are WAY off, they could be corrected on a one-time basis...

MHO,

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
Maybe a letter to the CRB with the cars you want reviewed would be in order.




Is anyone else bothered by this? People asking for things for specific cars is tantamount to requesting a comp. adjustment. Kirk already commented that he was worried that this was the way things were headed. Andy (and others on the ITAC) have already said that they don't know how weights were determined, prior to their tenure on the ITAC.

As I've said before, if there's a new process that's implemented, that's supposed to be a more objective method of determining spec weights, shouldn't all the cars be run through that process? If this PCA really isn't going to turn into comp. adj., it needs to be an ITAC/CRB driven initiative, not a response to member requets.



------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Matt Rowe]

Bill and I don't usually seem to agree on much, but I think we are on the same page here. When PCA's were brought in the stated intent (oh no I said the "i" word) was that they would only be used in extreme cases to correct gross classification errors. By soliciting letters for adjustments of cars with a long stable history I think you are opening the flood gates. It's rare to find a racer that doesn't think his car is somehow at a disadvantage and now you are asking for everyone to write in with what they want changed. It might be one thing for the ITAC to independantly note cars that seem well out of line and act to correct the RARE error. But trying to use PCA's to achieve class parity is another thing entirely. One of the things I have always liked about IT is the relative stability of the classifications, even if that means my car is further from the new class frontrunners every year.

On that note, I think dropping 200 lbs of my minimum weight would restore my competitivness in ITA. Any chance the ITAC is going to do that? http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/eek.gif

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Is anyone else bothered by this?

Doesn't bother me in the least... Who said anything about using PCAs to "restore parity"???

PCAs are intended for reigning in overdogs, and for making classification adjustments when a car was misclassified...

I can assure you that Andy, I, or any other ITAC member... (well, maybe not Jake yet, but he will! http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif ) knows exactly what PCAs are intended for, and we will use them for exactly that...

If any "parity restoration" is to take place, any cases that don't fall within the intent of PCAs will be handled by other means/methods, with CRB/BoD approval, and on a one-time, or limited time basis...

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one here who believes that there needs to be some adjustments made to all the classes to get things back in "check"... Getting a list of cars together that need consideration is part of the research for any action that may help with this. THAT is what Andy solicited...

The suggesting that PCAs would be used to accomplish this was NOT introduced by any ITAC member that I can recall... so make sure you know the source before running off down this trail... because the ITAC has not suggested or otherwise said that this is what would happen...

Finally, "parity" is not really an achievable goal for IT... there simply isn't enough data (real hp, etc.) or leway in the rule allowances to truely achieve this, if it were even possible... Our goal is to create classifications that make "sense"... putting cars in the classes they belong in, in configurations (weights) that make sense... We'll get the cars as closely matched as simple weight adjustments will allow, and leave the "competitiveness" up to those building and driving these cars... In other words, we are trying to get the mechanical properties of these cars matched up as much as possible by estimating IT prep hp and making some eductated assumptions about handling, reaction to IT-prep, etc... Getting them up front is going to up to you...

All we can do is hope that's good enough... I think you'll find it's better than it has been...


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited June 24, 2005).]

[Andy Bettencourt]

I just wanted to point out that a letter might be in order if you think your car has a serious issue. we just got a request for a 50lb break - THAT is just not what PCA's are for. If you think your car is a couple hundred - some would consider that extreme - then write. No promises or guarantees, just get your self on the radar. Plenty of squeeky wheels on this site but the question never asked will always go unanswered.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[Matt Rowe]

I'm guessing that Andy's comment was made as a quick response that is getting blown out of proportion. But, to some people it will read like an open invitation to get their car adjusted and I didn't think you guys had a shortage of requests and complaints? http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/biggrin.gif

In particular Andy's comment was in response to issues with Celicas and 2nd Gen MR2's. Possibly just toyotas in general. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif Both of those cars have been classified years ago so talking about using PCA's to adjust their performance now seems a little outside of what the original PCA scope was. And of course once you start moving a couple cars everyone will want an adjustment. We stand at the top of the slippery slope.

And Darin, I am sorry if I implied that any ITAC member was trying to make parity adjustments. You're right that hasn't been stated here. But it does appear to be a recurring theme that you guys are trying to come up with a plan to restore balance. I would be all for that as long as every car is considered, not just the ones writing in letters. That's really what concerns me and Andy's comment stike's a nerve in that respect.

While nobody has come out and said adjustments are on the way several people (including ITAC memebers) are hinting about the writing on the wall. I have a lot of confidence in the ITAC eventually finding a good solution but until they do any perceived change in policy is going to make a lot of us nervous.

Sorry for the long winded response. Can we now get back to the usual arguments. Oh wait this is one of the usual arguments. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/biggrin.gif

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
Doesn't bother me in the least... Who said anything about using PCAs to "restore parity"???

Actually Darin, I don't think anybody did, until you mentioned it. However, the ITCS does say that PCAs will be used to restore equity within a class. But, I'm not going to get into a debate w/ you about the differences between 'parity' and 'equity', although they're synonyms.


PCAs are intended for reigning in overdogs, and for making classification adjustments when a car was misclassified...

I can assure you that Andy, I, or any other ITAC member... (well, maybe not Jake yet, but he will! http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif ) knows exactly what PCAs are intended for, and we will use them for exactly that...
Actually Darin, don't you think it would be nice if all the IT racers (and potential IT racers) knew what PCAs were intended for, and how they will be used? You make it seem like it's only something you get let in on when you're "in the club".



If any "parity restoration" is to take place, any cases that don't fall within the intent of PCAs will be handled by other means/methods, with CRB/BoD approval, and on a one-time, or limited time basis...

Which is it Darin, PCAs will be used for parity restoration, or they won't?


I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one here who believes that there needs to be some adjustments made to all the classes to get things back in "check"... Getting a list of cars together that need consideration is part of the research for any action that may help with this. THAT is what Andy solicited...

Darin,

Please let Andy speak for himself.




The suggesting that PCAs would be used to accomplish this was NOT introduced by any ITAC member that I can recall... so make sure you know the source before running off down this trail... because the ITAC has not suggested or otherwise said that this is what would happen...

What suggestion was that? I lost you on that one.


Finally, "parity" is not really an achievable goal for IT... there simply isn't enough data (real hp, etc.) or leway in the rule allowances to truely achieve this, if it were even possible... Our goal is to create classifications that make "sense"... putting cars in the classes they belong in, in configurations (weights) that make sense... We'll get the cars as closely matched as simple weight adjustments will allow,
Guess that's why the E36 got an inlet restrictor instead of lead.
and leave the "competitiveness" up to those building and driving these cars... In other words, we are trying to get the mechanical properties of these cars matched up as much as possible by estimating IT prep hp and making some eductated assumptions about handling, reaction to IT-prep, etc... Getting them up front is going to up to you...

All we can do is hope that's good enough... I think you'll find it's better than it has been...



------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited June 24, 2005).]

[Knestis]

Yup. I got more worried rather than less when I saw the suggestion that letters be written.

Whatever the intent - and shared understanding of the ITAC - the point at which members are requesting adjustments for cars, based on grounds that they are not competitive, the minor semantic differences are noise lost in a powerful signal.

The point at which the CRB responds positively to these requests - when someone gets what they want - then the horses are well and truly out of the barn.

If that's what everyone wants, that's great but it can't be explained away if functionally, that's what happens.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

People writing letters requesting that their car be made more competitive or another be made less...are not new. We have received them almost every month since I started this. They will never stop.

How did the ITS SE-R, Neon, 2.0 16V VW, etc go to ITA? We looked at the classes and saw what we perceived to be gross issues. That, coupled with some supporting letters promted a move.

I would like to continue to ferret out the 'issues', both proactively and with the help of membership. Some will get consideration if they make sense, some will get rejected based on a variety of reasons. *I* don't want to mess with small shifts here, and small shifts there...it just isn't the scope, nor is it practical or possible...but I'll be danged if I vote to let the MR2 in ITS flounder around there when it fits perfectly in ITA with the current crop. It's just plain mis-classed. It ain't a tweener, it can NEVER be competitive in ITS. I think that would be a good move for the car, the class, and IT.

What I won't do is vote to lighten a car by 50 lbs because someone writes in and thinks it could move them to the podium. 50lbs??? That ain't IT, thats PROD. But what I also won't do is discourage ANYONE from writing in and expressing their opinion...about their car or any other - on any topic. I may not agree, but it is ALWAYS good to be heard if you believe in what you are saying...THAT was my point.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[Jake]

Hmmm... so maybe an MR2 class change is in the future. Wait, I got an idea... put the 87-92 MR2 in the same spec line and I can loose my 1.6L enigine and pop in a 2.2L! http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif (sorry - had to say it)

Andy - very well said.

[Knestis]

I think we actually agree, Andy. There's a world of difference between...

1. The ITCS looking at the ITS MR2, deciding that it is clearly wrong based on physical attributes, and re-examining the placement (and weight, most likely) because - among other things - pretty much nobody is dumb enough to try to run one. That's how I understand PCA's as intended to work.

2. Somone writing a letter asking for a break - class move, weight break - on their (whatever), on the basis that it isn't competitive. That's a [competition] adjustment.

It sounds like Andy has clarified the difference for himself but how about a few years from now, when the ITCS is populated by people without the institutional memory of where the idea started?

K

Edit - I typed "performance" when I meant "competition." The language matters in this case.

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited June 25, 2005).]

[Jiveslug]

Ok, since Andy got skewered because of my comment, I feel the need to clarify. Im not talking about a "competition adjustment." I was just suggesting that several of the cars from one manufacturer seem to be classed either in the wrong class, or at such a high weight that they will never be raced by anyone other than a diehard fan who doesnt care about winning. How is that good for IT? Its not. The more cars that people feel they can run, the better. I would NEVER ask for an unfair advantage. I believe that would be akin to cheating and I have way too much self-esteem to stoop that low. What I WAS suggesting is that, when several cars have been reclassed from ITS into ITA that have the 130-140hp, 2400-2500lbs specs, why do the other cars that have been in ITA the whole time get to labor along at such a high weight? My best example is that the 86-88 Celica GTS is specced at 2680lbs at 135hp. The SOHC Neon is 132hp at 2450lbs and has better brakes to boot. The Sentra SE-R has 140hp at 2490lbs. Why is it unreasonable for someone to ask the question, "Hey, why isnt my Celica specced at 2450-2500lbs?" If you look at it from the perspective that NO ONE seems to have any idea how cars got classed at the weights they did, why dont we look at everything over again and make some changes that make sense? Not competition adjustments, just getting everything classed so that it makes sense. One car classed in ITA at 140hp and 2490lbs and another with the same basic layout at 135hp and 2680lbs? That does NOT make sense. I mean, I have definate likes and dislikes when it comes to marques of cars (dont like Honda, for example, so dont want to run one), so if Im going to spend the wad of cash required to procure a racecar, it had better damn well be something I at least like! My prefence for Toyota over Honda, for example, should not exclude me from being able to, with good driving and careful prep, run at the front of the group.....

Ok, so that probably came off a bit soapbox-ish. Sorry about that. I personally like the job that Andy and the other ITAC guys are doing and I got a bit annoyed when they were being given a hard time for making a helpful suggestion.

[Knestis]

The question makes perfect sense to me, 'slug. The problem becomes the precedent set and its longterm impact on the category. I'm not saying that I know the answer but it's a question that has to be asked if we have any chance of falling into the comp adjustment vortex.

Acutally, I think I *do* know the answer but when I proposed it, there was a lot of screaming and yelling about how "formulas won't work." In the last 2+ years, since I quit jousting at that windmill, I've only come to believe more firmly that the degree to which a formulaic weight-setting process "misses" some mythical form of true parity is far exceeded by other factors - budget, driver skill, and engineer ability.

A comprehensive review of ALL spec weights would be ideal but the ITAC's CURRENT APPLICATION of PCA's is at least an improvement over the paralysis of the past. Problem is, the PCA is a blunt instrument - it can only be applied to the "big misses" so a car like the Celica example is kind of stuck between policies.

K

Edit - "Skewered?" I hardly think, skewered. "Poked" perhaps, or "jabbed" but there was hardly any actual penetration of flesh. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited June 25, 2005).]

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
People writing letters requesting that their car be made more competitive or another be made less...are not new. We have received them almost every month since I started this. They will never stop.

How did the ITS SE-R, Neon, 2.0 16V VW, etc go to ITA? We looked at the classes and saw what we perceived to be gross issues. That, coupled with some supporting letters promted a move.

I would like to continue to ferret out the 'issues', both proactively and with the help of membership. Some will get consideration if they make sense, some will get rejected based on a variety of reasons. *I* don't want to mess with small shifts here, and small shifts there...it just isn't the scope, nor is it practical or possible...but I'll be danged if I vote to let the MR2 in ITS flounder around there when it fits perfectly in ITA with the current crop. It's just plain mis-classed. It ain't a tweener, it can NEVER be competitive in ITS. I think that would be a good move for the car, the class, and IT.

What I won't do is vote to lighten a car by 50 lbs because someone writes in and thinks it could move them to the podium. 50lbs??? That ain't IT, thats PROD. But what I also won't do is discourage ANYONE from writing in and expressing their opinion...about their car or any other - on any topic. I may not agree, but it is ALWAYS good to be heard if you believe in what you are saying...THAT was my point.

AB





------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[racerb]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:




I am currently building an '86 Celica GTS, and have recently contacted SCCA comp board
for correct specs. The current listings are
not consistent with factory specs. The ITCS
lists the 86-88 on one line, with 89 listed
seperately. From all info I've gathered, the
line listing 89 specs are the correct ones, with proper weight, brake diameters, and gear ratios. If you go by the 89 listing, then the GTS would only need to weigh 2615, or 2435 minus driver. As I stated earlier, I'm building this car, but am not extremely
concerned with it's competetiveness, as I'm sure it will hold it's own in our area.

racerb

[Jiveslug]

Im very seriously considering doing an 86 Celica GTS as well. I really love those cars. Durable as hell. I noticed the same thing about the 86-88 models being on a different spec line than the 89. I was doing some research on it as well and found the same thing you did. Actaully, I was about to post on the Rules and Regs forum on how to properly put together a comp board petition. Heh. I was also going to include a request to drop the weight by 100-150# to get it more in line with the SE-R, NX2000, and Neons that were moved into ITA. Perhaps I should send that as separate request?

[racerb]

Originally posted by Jiveslug:
Im very seriously considering doing an 86 Celica GTS as well. I really love those cars. Durable as hell. I noticed the same thing about the 86-88 models being on a different spec line than the 89. I was doing some research on it as well and found the same thing you did. Actaully, I was about to post on the Rules and Regs forum on how to properly put together a comp board petition. Heh. I was also going to include a request to drop the weight by 100-150# to get it more in line with the SE-R, NX2000, and Neons that were moved into ITA. Perhaps I should send that as separate request?

Hey I was going to give my GTS the World-Challenge touch, by putting my name on the windsheild with a plus 175lbs above, referring to the next lightest car in ITA. If you are serious about a letter and or petition, I'm interested, but mostly to get the specs corrected. I have been in contact with a West Coast driver currently running a GTS, and he has been very helpful with set-up ideas. I will warn you, there isn't a lot of performance parts availible for this car, so I'm soarcing custom peices as we speak, items like headers, coil-over kits, bushings, and wheel studs come to mind as some of the tuffer items to find.

racerb

[Jiveslug]

Yeah, I know of that west coast drive. Im in that region. Dont know him personally, however. Parts are a little hard to come by, thats for sure. The fact that you can get a real limited-slip is good tho. I know that coilovers are hard to come by because of a funky design on the rear shocks. There is a tech article on this website that talks about how to make external coils fit:
http://www.4gcelica.net/v5/diyindex.html
There is also some info about suspension mods for these cars in general. One thing that I had thought about doing was contacting the guys at the Danny McKeever racing school. They use former Long Beach Grand Prix celebrity race cars that have been Toyota Celicas for 20 years. This is the school that the celebs to go before the race. They are Toyota people and may have some good info.
http://www.raceschool.com/
The only real problem Im having with the Celica right now is that my partner in crime, the dude who has all the mechanical skills, HATES FWD cars. Dagnabit. Anyway, let me know if you are gonna do the petition. My email is [email protected]

Ryan

[racerb]

[quote]Originally posted by Jiveslug:

Yeah I've actually already been apart of the 4th gen Celica page, in fact I'm a moderator on there. As for coil-overs, it looks like Ground-Control makes them for the 90-94s which will fit our cars also. In reguards to struts, I've already gotten a set of struts with Koni sports adjustible inserts installed, just have to cut off spring perches and install coil-overs. The LSD I purchased from Phantom-Grip, with their optional heavier spring kit. I am presently having the cage installed in my 86 chassis, while I'm stripping all my engine, tranny, and suspension system peices from my 88. I also have an 87 which is being converted into my daily driver/auto-x car. The West Coast driver I mentioned, has been in contact with ARP about producing longer wheel studs, and I'm looking into having delron or nylatron bushing made by a local fabricator. I hope to have this same fabricator make camber plates for my cars, as Ground-Control would have to have templates sent before they could produce anything, meaning higher cost than their normal off the shelf peices.

racerb

[dazzlesa]

i would love my 85 corolla gts be moved to ITB. just some past times to chew on. in the past 5 years my car has run 1:043 at lime rock,1:30 at summit,2:24 at watkinsglen. i know the car can be made faster with todays tires and some computer and tunning. the brakes have never been an issue and i doubt the weight would hurt it. at least not anymore then occurs in my ITA integra, the integra creates crazy heat. the car runs 205 tires. Rick

[RSTPerformance]

Originally posted by dazzlesa@Oct 17 2005, 12:20 PM
i would love my 85 corolla gts be moved to ITB. just some past times to chew on. in the past 5 years my car has run 1:043 at lime rock,1:30 at summit,2:24 at watkinsglen. i know the car can be made faster with todays tires and some computer and tunning. the brakes have never been an issue and i doubt the weight would hurt it. at least not anymore then occurs in my ITA integra, the integra creates crazy heat. the car runs 205 tires. Rick

62812



It is not very easy to get an ITB car to run a 1:04.3 at Lime Rock. The track needs to be perfect, as well as the car and driver. Not many people are getting into the 1:04&#39;s at all in ITB and we are all very close in times... seems to me like the car is a bit to fast :( especially since you mention that the car can still be made faster!!!

Raymond I would love to see more cars, but we need to get you slowed down a bit first ;)" Blethen

[gran racing]

Those are very, very quick times and would get you pole on many, many days. At Summit, 1:31 is a very quick time but 1:30... LRP, if I get a mid/high 1:04 I&#39;m pushing it pretty darn hard. I&#39;ve raced against a prepped Corrola at the Glen and the power he had really impressed me.

[dazzlesa]

i have to admit that the 1:043 was not my time. the best i ran was a 1:05 flat at lrp. all the other times were mine. added weight and 6" rims should slow here down. i had a mr2 and the corolla is 10 times easier to drive. rick

[Spinnetti]

Originally posted by ITANorm@Jun 8 2005, 02:56 AM
All had ~112HP, stock. 1587cc DOHC, 16-valve, Bosch L-jetronic.

All except the AE86 Corolla (front engine, rear drive) were all-strut. AE86 had a coil spring rear w/IRS.




Close, The AE86 is Front strut, SOLID AXLE rear end.. Nice stone age stuff :)

[Jiveslug]

Originally posted by Spinnetti@Nov 15 2005, 02:59 AM
Close, The AE86 is Front strut, SOLID AXLE rear end.. Nice stone age stuff :)

65393


Hey, I LIKE that stone-age stuff. Its helping me keep my racing costs down! Hehe. However, if you want to sell some of the suspension parts and/or diff off that AE86, let me know because they are a direct bolt-on for my TE72. :happy204:

[AE86ITA]

Well going back to the subject of the 4AG powered cars. Apparently there are some people afraid of this engine due to it&#39;s potential(i.e. Formula Atlantic).

It is good to point out that this engine in order to produce power needs to be reved past 10,000rpm and in IT this cars will never see those rpms.

The 4AG engine is old technology and it would be fear to move it to ITB.

Thanks,

[AE86ITA]

Well:
Apparently I am the lone rider as the people who previously wrote this subject moved on towards other car.

Is there anyone else racing any 4AG powered car in IT?

Better yet, Is there any Corolla GTS (84-87) racing in IT?

Suposed everyone went to drifting...


Thanks,


Efrain

[Spinnetti]

Well:
Apparently I am the lone rider as the people who previously wrote this subject moved on towards other car.

Is there anyone else racing any 4AG powered car in IT?

Better yet, Is there any Corolla GTS (84-87) racing in IT?

Suposed everyone went to drifting...
Thanks,
Efrain
[/b]

I&#39;m still here..
Got it, totally prepped it, love it.
Still get whupped in A, but I ran at least in the lead pack for a decade.
Anything you want to know about the Corolla I can probably tell you, but I can tell you for sure that there is no real power to be had.. they don&#39;t respond to ecu tuning like Hondas..