ITB MR2 – straw poll time….

[Jake]

1. Where should the 85-89 MR2 go.

A. ITA where it is. (2270lbs)
B. ITB at ______lbs (please fill in weight)

2. Who are you.

A. MR2 driver.
B. ITB driver.
C. None of the above, just want to weigh in.

[gran racing]

1. Option B - at process weight.
2. B - ITB driver.


do to the fact that the MR2 may benefit from mid-engined configuration. If the MR2 was FWD, the number would be around 2450.[/b]

May benefit? You said no debating, and I won't. There's NO debate that the MR2 DOES benefit from the having the engine in there rear of the car and being RWD.

[924Guy]

Same answers as Dave - put it in B, at the process weight, and I'm a current ITB driver

If someone would actually put an ECU in it EVEN UNDER THE CURRENT RULES and prove no improvement, then I'd be willing to consider a lower-than-current-process weight. Till that point, it's kinda hard to really argue a full 10/10ths build, even if the motor internals have been done.

[dickita15]

ITB at process weight, or Dual Classed both at process weight.

C: ITA Rx7 driver who cares about the integrity of the IT Rules

trust the process

[dazzlesa]

make it a B at 2550. i had a mr2 and a corolla gts. i always felt that the mr2 was way more dificult to drive then anyother race car i have driven. i race A and B

[JamesB]

Dual class or ITB at process weight. ITB driver.

[Dave Zaslow]

1. B at process weight. Adjust later if needed.

2. ITB driver

Note 1: I did my drivers schools in an MR2 (circa 1989-90) and have spun them at Pocono and Nelson Ledges ;-) . If you can cope with that polar moment, more power to you.

Note 2: I raced a VW Rabbit for many years. It originally was an ITA car then was moved to B. It has also had a number of weight changes; lightening the car to keep it semi-competitive.

DZ

[erlrich]

1. Ask the MR2 drivers (all 10 of them) what they want. If they all want to move to B then let them go there at 2450 lbs.

2. C; ITA driver.

[Doc Bro]

B
2500-2550


ITA driver...just barely

R

[Knestis]

ITB at process weight, or Dual Classed both at process weight.

C: ITA Rx7 driver who cares about the integrity of the IT Rules

trust the process
[/b]

Eggs-actly.

K

[steve b]

1.
Note 1: I did my drivers schools in an MR2 (circa 1989-90) and have spun them at Pocono and Nelson Ledges ;-) . If you can cope with that polar moment, more power to you.

DZ
[/b]


Option B, process weight, then take a look at that mid engine adder if necessary.

I'm starting IT in an MR2 next season.

[mustanghammer]

ITB at process weight, or Dual Classed both at process weight.

C: ITA Rx7 driver who cares about the integrity of the IT Rules

trust the process
[/b]

Ditto

[JLawton]

1) A - at the process weight or duel class. But would be interested in seeing the results of a 10/10ths build.

2) C - No horse in this race..........


Jake,
For being a survey with no debate, your throwing in a few "extras".

"Currently most MR2s are lapped traffic"??? (sorry, was having trouble with the quote button on edit......)

You're going back to on track performance. Every Ford Escort I know gets lapped (true fact). Every Laser I know gets lapped (true fact) I also lap most of the RX7s, Integras and Miatas I run with in the Northeast. Maybe we should do comp adjustments for all of them?? :rolleyes:

[Jeremy Billiel]

1) A - at the process weight or duel class. But would be interested in seeing the results of a 10/10ths build.

2) C - No horse in this race..........
[/b]
Ditto on this sediment.

Why shoudl the MR2 get anything other than the process wieght? IF the car is still not competive with a 10/10ths build (which has still not been done IMO) then we can talk about the Mid Engine Adders/subtractors.

[JamesB]

Jeremy my thoughts exactly. if process says 2550 let it be that.

[gran racing]

For being a survey with no debate, your throwing in a few "extras".[/b]

LOL, I was thinking the same exact thing.

[shwah]

Put it in B at process weight. Don't dual class. Any changes to the process overall (ie if down the road adders are revisited for any aspect of an ITB car - mid engine, suspension design, # of valves, etc.) then apply that to this car as well. Don't make a special consideration for one single car.

ITB driver here.

[Jake]

I edited to the first post to remove debatable topics since this isn't about debates....

[Stan]

1. MR2 is classed at 2270lbs in ITA, most cars can’t get anywhere near that weight – the best ones can get within 100lbs.

4. The majority of MR2’s are lap traffic in ITA currently.[/b]
If these points are generally true, then does the car belong in ITA at all?


2. It’s been argued that the MR2 doesn’t make much power in IT. Best dyno’d example to date makes 109rwhp, but had a stock ECU. The new ECU rule may unlock more power.[/b]
Unrestricted ECU is a tide that floats all boats equally, so there is no need to pick on the MR2 in particular. If the ITAC wants a process penalty on aftermarket ECUs, IMO it should be universally applied.

Stan (C...no dog in the fight)

[Jake]

At this point...

15 in favor of moving to ITB at process weight. 16 if I voted.
0 Against.

Interesting that about half the responses are from ITB drivers.

[dickita15]

If these points are generally true, then does the car belong in ITA at all?
[/b]
Because this is not Prod and we do not use on track performance to generate adjustments



Unrestricted ECU is a tide that floats all boats equally, so there is no need to pick on the MR2 in particular.
[/b]

Uh, I do not believe that to be true.



If the ITAC wants a process penalty on aftermarket ECUs, IMO it should be universally applied.
[/b]
Huh

[dazzlesa]

maybe it should be dual. 2550 is alot to hike around.

[Stan]

Dick, nobody mentioned Prod, but it would be incorrect to think that weight (too heavy or too light) or on-track potential are not factors in classifying cars. The ITAC turned down a request this summer to classify a car because the process weight was considered too heavy for the class. Why should "too light to attain" be treated any differently? And the ITAC also turned down a car this summer because even though it met all objective criteria for the class, it was considered too powerful. So yes, on-track potential IS considered when classifying cars.

Whether you or I "believe" an aftermarket ECU helps any particular engine is immaterial. My point was that picking on the MR2 for that is inappropriate IMO. Hence, if the ITAC is concerned about the potential advantage of aftermarket ECUs, they should treat them like any other adder/subtracter in the "process".

Stan

[Andy Bettencourt]

Dick, nobody mentioned Prod, but it would be incorrect to think that weight (too heavy or too light) or on-track potential are not factors in classifying cars. The ITAC turned down a request this summer to classify a car because the process weight was considered too heavy for the class. Why should "too light to attain" be treated any differently? And the ITAC also turned down a car this summer because even though it met all objective criteria for the class, it was considered too powerful. So yes, on-track potential IS considered when classifying cars.[/b]

Let's clarify here. Stan is coming in a little late...

On-track ACTUAL is NOT considered. On-track POTENTIAL is the goal of the Process. How it shakes out in practical application is what it is.

I don't recall car #1. I don't remember EVER thinking that a car was too heavy for a class. I think car #1 and car #2 are the same car in Stan's recollection....car #2 'looked' like it could fit in ITR, but then when run through the process, it was determined that it would need to weigh WAY more than reasonable and what people would even consider reasonable (like +300 over curb weight). The car was an ITR candidate - and would have to wait for a class above ITR - if one ever materializes. So there was no place to 'move it up' to, at a lower weight.


Whether you or I "believe" an aftermarket ECU helps any particular engine is immaterial. My point was that picking on the MR2 for that is inappropriate IMO. Hence, if the ITAC is concerned about the potential advantage of aftermarket ECUs, they should treat them like any other adder/subtracter in the "process".

Stan [/b]

You aren't understanding the context. People are claiming that the car can't make the predicted power that allows it to be fairly classified in IT. No current claims have a programmable ECU (currently legal), so these power claims are 'soft'. When trying to prove or disprove engine outputs, we need to know a 100% effort has been made - and we have not seen that data yet in the MK1 MR2.

[dickita15]

Stan you quoted the following two items from Jake's post:

1. MR2 is classed at 2270lbs in ITA, most cars can’t get anywhere near that weight – the best ones can get within 100lbs.

4. The majority of MR2’s are lap traffic in ITA currently.

It is the second one that we tend to not want part of a IT classing discussion. That is the kind of thing that starts a adjustment discussion in Prod. sorry if my brevity was interpreted as being flip.

Andy handled the second part.

[shwah]

At this point...

15 in favor of moving to ITB at process weight. 16 if I voted.
0 Against.

Interesting that about half the responses are from ITB drivers.
[/b]

Hey we like good competition as much as the next guy. If this move will pull cars that could not make ITA weight (and thus were not able to meet the specified performance envelope they were classed to) out of garages and into ITB, where they can run at their specified weight (and thus on paper will be more competitive with no other changes to prep level), then we get more cars that can contend in ITB. That sounds like fun to me. :eclipsee_steering:

[Rabbit07]

1. Where should the 85-89 MR2 go.

A. ITA where it is. (2270lbs)
B. ITB at ______lbs (please fill in weight)

2. Who are you.

A. MR2 driver.
B. ITB driver.
C. None of the above, just want to weigh in.
[/b]
1 B at 2270
2. B

[gran racing]

1 B at 2270 [/b]

:blink:

[Knestis]

I just noticed that I quoted Dick and while he runs ITA, I obviously run ITB. Do the math, class the car.

K

[RSTPerformance]

I am sure everyone knows my position... Dual Classification at proper weights as per the process and proper wheel sizes... It will allow more options for drivers, and it will allow the actual racers determine what class it should be in.

I am an original ITB driver not an tweener guy whom moved from A :unsure:

Raymond "I have spun a few times in an MR2 also, sorry dad about the those old dents :wacko: " Blethen

[AE86ITA]

Hello guys:
While at it why not include the Corolla GTS (84-87) as well? Fun car but no longer competitive in ITA with less powerfull motor that in the MR2.

Thanks,

Efrain

[m glassburner]

1. b at processed weight
2. b


I have also driven one....

[dickita15]

Hello guys:
While at it why not include the Corolla GTS (84-87) as well? Fun car but no longer competitive in ITA with less powerfull motor that in the MR2.

Thanks,

Efrain
[/b]
If the Corolla has a very hard time making process weight in ITA, then yes I could be moved to ITB at process weight.
If however the car just does not live up to expectations of the process then the move would most likely not help it.

[awdbandito]

I say moving it to B at 2450 would be the fair way to start, then adjust weight from that point. Dual class would be great, but I really don't see that happening.

Currently driving an MR2 in ITA.

[Banzai240]

1) Move it to B at Process Weight
2) Former Chairman of the ITAC who fought for this to happen every time it came up! :dead_horse:

[pimpm3]

I would like to see the MK1 MR2 in ITB

I am one of the 10 people who drives one.

And as stated before it is impossible to make weight, my car is quite a bit over weight and I can't come up with anything else to remove.

[Chris Wire]

1. ITB at process weight. No 'gimmies' until it is proven warranted.

2. S-car driver

Believe in the process and the notion that the club ought to try to bolster fields through thoughtful application of same. Most new car adds are going to be in the higher classes, let's keep B & C fields full too.

[zracre]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al2rqEltoog yes the MR2 needs to be in B...

ITA driver

[pimpm3]

Didn't that MR2 endup flipping over in the busstop?

[Jake]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al2rqEltoog yes the MR2 needs to be in B...

ITA driver
[/b]


LOL - if only to prevent traffic issues for real ITA cars. (dangerous closing speeds)

At this point, the poll sits at 24-0, all in favor of moving the poor thing to ITB. Hmm....

[iambhooper]

1) ITB at a weight between the current weight and the process weight.
2)Current ITC driver, but looking to move up to A or B.

I believe I have only raced against 3 MR2's since 2004, one of which I have been on the track with regularly. For several of my races, I have been running with an MR2. If I can hang with em in my ITC Honda, then either there cars are not set up correctly, the car is miss classed, or I'm a more capable driver in a slower car. Either way, I think it would be best to have the car in B.

As for the "Mid-Engine benifit"... it's a matter of being able to master the mid-engine setup, and being comfortable with it's quirks (anyone that has ever spun a midengine car knows what I'm talking of). Every car has its benifits and drawbacks. FWD cars have unique characteristics compared to RWD cars.

hoop

[zracre]

Didn't that MR2 endup flipping over in the busstop?
[/b]

I am not sure if it is the same one...

[AE86ITA]

If the Corolla has a very hard time making process weight in ITA, then yes I could be moved to ITB at process weight.
If however the car just does not live up to expectations of the process then the move would most likely not help it.
[/b]

The weight is almost impossible to make and once they move the MK1 MR2 to ITB the Corolla will be the only 4AG powered car left in ITA.

Thanks,

Efrain

[Knestis]

So my vote is to move the Corolla GTS to B as well, at its process weight. If there are any left that haven't been drifted to death. :)

K

[x1/9racer]

I'm an ITC driver in a Fiat x1/9, and I think the "benefits" of a mid-engine design in a production-based race car versus front wheel drive are highly over rated. The more central location of the powertrain mass means that when pushed beyond the limit of grip, it will tend to spin on its axis like a top. Also, with no weight to speak of over the front wheels and the weight bias towards the rear, rain races are interesting. Given this, I don't believe there is any real advantage of mid-engine/rear drive over front engine/front drive. And as all the other Toyota 1600 dohc front drivers have been reclassed to ITB, I believe the MR2 should also be classed there, with a similar weight as the reclassed Toyota front drivers.

[cherokee]

I own one. And I think they are a great little car....if you drive it correctly.

I would bet if you move the car to B it might end up being a popular car.

[RFloyd]

1. B. ITB at 2450-2500 lbs

2. B. ITB Driver

[Spinnetti]

1. Dual class, if B, then use process weight (whatever that is).

1a. Take the Corolla with it... Yes, there's still one that hasn't been drifted to death - Mine! I've had both for a long time, and looped the MR2 way too many times. I do think the Corolla is a bit superior on track, but neither has a prayer in ITA anymore (I consider my car a 9/10ths build, and it wasn't that competitive 5 years ago either against a decent honda. What's more, ECU rules help honda a lot, and Toyota not at all)

2. I'm a Corolla driver, but don't have a dog in the fight really. I'm ok to stay in A and see what I can do, or be able to dual in B, but don't really want to be forced to B.



I'm an ITC driver in a Fiat x1/9, and I think the "benefits" of a mid-engine design in a production-based race car versus front wheel drive are highly over rated. The more central location of the powertrain mass means that when pushed beyond the limit of grip, it will tend to spin on its axis like a top. Also, with no weight to speak of over the front wheels and the weight bias towards the rear, rain races are interesting. Given this, I don't believe there is any real advantage of mid-engine/rear drive over front engine/front drive. And as all the other Toyota 1600 dohc front drivers have been reclassed to ITB, I believe the MR2 should also be classed there, with a similar weight as the reclassed Toyota front drivers.
[/b]


PS, I second the comments above...

[ScotMac]

1. Where should the 85-89 MR2 go.

A. ITA where it is. (2270lbs)
B. ITB at ______lbs (please fill in weight)

2. Who are you.

A. MR2 driver.
B. ITB driver.
C. None of the above, just want to weigh in.
[/b]

1. B: process weight

2. B: ITB Fiero driver that knows a bit about driving a mid-engine'd/rear-weighted car. Yes, they don't give you much margin for error.

Oh, and yes, they are REALLY interesting in the rain...don't try it w/out rain tires...i have, and it wasn't pretty!! :blink:

[msogren]

I prepped two MR2s, both legal. and slow for ITA, about right for ITB.
I raced and raceds against the MR2. The brakes are weak and they are overweight. The engines are weak on power, if they are legal. fast only if they have some old F/A stuff inside. At stock/lega; compression they dont make enoughjt power for ITA. Legal ones will still be top 3 to/midpack in ITB. The prices will go up, if they go to B tho.
They handle well @ transition style tracks.
ITB is the place for all of the 4AG cars, IMHO.
Mike Ogren , old ITB racer, again ITB race crew. Michael Ogren, driver, 2008

[JoshS]

Mike, they'd be even heavier in ITB.

[88YB1]

Heavier yes, but added ballist can be used to balance the car. IE: more weight on the front wheels equates better handling. <_<

[Jake]

So here&#39;s where we stand....

34 in favor of moving the car to ITB
0 in favor of keeping it in ITA

Wow... this really is a controversial one! :P

[Knestis]

...and you&#39;d think that the same kind of logic would have applied to the Chrysler guys, but when we tried to advocate for the right thing for them, some of them got all pissy.

It shouldn&#39;t be about "controversial" or even what individual drivers want. There&#39;s an obligation to the category to use standard practices - now that we finally HAVE THEM.

K

[Spinnetti]

...and you&#39;d think that the same kind of logic would have applied to the Chrysler guys, but when we tried to advocate for the right thing for them, some of them got all pissy.

It shouldn&#39;t be about "controversial" or even what individual drivers want. There&#39;s an obligation to the category to use standard practices - now that we finally HAVE THEM.

K
[/b]


Yeah, but nobody likes not having a choice... its basic human nature. Thats why dual class is attractive. Use a process, but allow both ways...

[Knestis]

Okay, then - I want an Oompa Loompa and I want it now. :happy204:

K

[erlrich]

I would like to change my answer to 1; add C. "do nothing and wait until the MR2 drivers get fed up and start their own class like the RX7 drivers did". Just got back from the vineyards.

Kirk, you didn&#39;t register that IT2 logo, did you?

[Knestis]

That would have had to be a trademark registration but no, I didn&#39;t. Why?

K

[spnkzss]

Okay, then - I want an Oompa Loompa and I want it now. :happy204:

K
[/b]

Just go find Matt Yip.

[MattP]

Is there any proposal out or anything on the horizon on this potential reclassification?

[Knestis]

Seems like nothing is more likely to move this idea along than independent requests from a bunch of different people, all asking for the same thing...

"Please re-examine specifications of the 19XX-19XX Toyota MR2 (reference ITCS page), to determine the degree to which it fits current parameters defined for ITB. If in fact it does fit, please consider moving this car from ITA to ITB."

Or words to that effect. Don&#39;t need to make a case, do any research, or present any data.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

ITB at 2515?

[gran racing]

Andy, YES!!!!

[Knestis]

Someone is going to bee-otch about getting moved and having to buy new wheels but at that weight, it&#39;s the only thing that makes any sense. Can we be done now?

:)

K

[Bill Miller]

ITB at 2515?
[/b]

Make it so No. 1! :026:

[gran racing]

You&#39;re right K, people will be unhappy no matter where the car is. The key is where should the car actually should be in IT - A or B when evaluating it. I fail to see how it isn&#39;t an ITB car.

[lateapex911]

What if....the car can more than make ITA weight??? Then what?

[gran racing]

I&#39;m joining K.

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/uploads/av-346.png

[Knestis]

What if....the car can more than make ITA weight??? Then what?
[/b]

It borders on blasphemy but the Process probably fails to COMPLETELY address cars that are WAY out on the ends of the distribution, in whatever factor is being examined, once it translates into the real world.

That, and based on the limited input here, there&#39;s evidence of a dominant PERCEPTION that the car would be better served in ITB. And perceptions matter.

I&#39;m just feeling all warm and fuzzy since it&#39;s Friday, I guess...

K

[lateapex911]

Coming from you kirk, that&#39;s a very interesting point, and one that I am happy to read. i think theres more between the lines of that statement, and that&#39;s good to see as well.............

You all have to remember that somebody needs to play devils advocate once in awhile, right?

[Bill Miller]

What if....the car can more than make ITA weight??? Then what?
[/b]

I suppose you could ask the same question of the New Beetle and its ITB weight.

[Knestis]

Coming from you kirk, that&#39;s a very interesting point...[/b]

Clean out your mailbox there, Jake. I&#39;m trying to send you a note to say "yes."

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

I suppose you could ask the same question of the New Beetle and its ITB weight. [/b]

But the new Bettle has a &#39;twin&#39; that is already in ITB. It was an experiment...guess what? Nobody like to race a heavy car.

[Bill Miller]

But the new Bettle has a &#39;twin&#39; that is already in ITB. It was an experiment...guess what? Nobody like to race a heavy car.
[/b]

How the hell is that related to the question at hand? And you needed something like that to tell you that people don&#39;t want to race heavy cars? The ITCS is full of plenty of other examples.

[Knestis]

As someone who actually looked into this option, the primary argument against an ITC NB is that donor cars aren&#39;t cheap enough yet. That and frankly, building an expensive, new car for ITC is silly since competition is on a downward slide and completely competitive C cars can be had for a song.

K

[lateapex911]

Clean out your mailbox there, Jake. I&#39;m trying to send you a note to say "yes."

K [/b]

Mailox skimmed....but you can always use my email in my sig, or lateapex911 at gmail works too!

[Bill Miller]

As someone who actually looked into this option, the primary argument against an ITC NB is that donor cars aren&#39;t cheap enough yet. That and frankly, building an expensive, new car for ITC is silly since competition is on a downward slide and completely competitive C cars can be had for a song.

K
[/b]

Interesting comment Kirk. I wonder how the cost of a NB donor compares to the cost of ITS and ITR donors. Are people willing to spend more for a donor because it&#39;s a faster class, or because it&#39;s a &#39;healthier&#39; class?

[shwah]

There are New Beetles out there w/manual trans under $5k. I could see folks building them for ITB, but not at all for ITC around here. There would be no one to race with.

EDIT I just found one for sale for $4400 that is in &#39;good condition&#39; in Cincinnati.

[JeffYoung]

Bill, I would think it is both. I think C is perceived to be an entry level, "slow" (not that it is) class, where you can (as Kirk notes) buy an ARRC win capable car for say $4,000 to $5,000. If someone (new especially) puts $20,000 in a build, I think they at least want to believe the are going faster in an A, S or R car.

But the bottom line for most people I think is that C just doesn&#39;t seem all that competitive right now. Most fields at the SEDiv tracks I race at (CMP, Roebling and VIR primarily), you rarely see more than an handful of them. So, if so, why build any car for C, much less an expensive one (or perceived to be expensive)?

[Knestis]

... Are people willing to spend more for a donor because it&#39;s a faster class, or because it&#39;s a &#39;healthier&#39; class?[/b]
Yes. :D

Seriously - it depends on their priorities but the idea of buying that 944 S2 from Ron makes me giggle more than buying a high-miles NB for about the same money. Yeah, the ITR car would cost something more than the ITC car to build to the same level but since many of the pieces (rollcage, paint, etc.) cost the same regardless, I would feel like I were getting more value with the Porsche.

It would sure as hell be more attractive to enduro co-drivers than would the Beetle, dontcha think?

K

[Bill Miller]

Yes. :D

Seriously - it depends on their priorities but the idea of buying that 944 S2 from Ron makes me giggle more than buying a high-miles NB for about the same money. Yeah, the ITR car would cost something more than the ITC car to build to the same level but since many of the pieces (rollcage, paint, etc.) cost the same regardless, I would feel like I were getting more value with the Porsche.

It would sure as hell be more attractive to enduro co-drivers than would the Beetle, dontcha think?

K
[/b]

Ron&#39;s selling a 944 S2???

[Knestis]

Yeah, bay-bee. Don&#39;t think this hasn&#39;t had my little brain scheming...

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...showtopic=13794 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13794)

K

[Jake]

I appreciate the bumps, but a little off topic guys.

Back on topic:

Where the poll sits:

34 people on this board support a move to B at the process weight.
0 support leaving it in A

Where the car sits:

1. The process supports a move to B
2. People (at least here) seem to support a move to B (including lots top ITB people)
3. There have been many requests written to the CB to move the car to ITB (that have all been denied)

What I want to know - who the hell so desperately wants this car to continue to die in ITA?!?!?!