Toyota MR-2 in ITB?

[Greg Amy]

Ok, I'm going to restart this discussion.

Recent updates in the classifieds has gotten me to thinking about another potential project, and that's the first-gen Toyota MR-2. I'd always thought it was a potential ITA car, but as I understand it the general consensus was it could not get to its ITA weight. fine, so folks pushed to move it to ITB.

Well, I just looked up in this year's Fastracks, and I see it was moved to ITB, but at 2525 pounds?? Is that a misprint??

The stock horsepower on this car is 115, right? For comparison, the stock horsepower on the Mk3 Golf is also 115, but it's in ITB at 2350#? Stock horsepower on the Honda Civic DX is 92 ponies yet it's in at 2240#? What's the horsepower on Dave's Honda Prelude Si at 2450 pounds?

This has GOT to be a mistake, otherwise I think the ITAC has basically told the car to go straight to hell. *I* certainly wouldn't consider buying/building one at that weight.

175 pounds weight penalty (almost 8%!!!) with only 115 ponies and less torque?

Fuggedaboutit.

GA

[steve b]

Word has it, the CRB was suppose to discuss the MR2 weight on 9/2. I'm hoping to see something about it in the October Fasttrack

[924Guy]

Well... it is a good bit more balanced than the Wabbits and Goofs... Stock HP on my car is 115 too, but I'm up at 2495 - do you think I need to lose another 150# too? I doubt the VW guys would agree with that... ;)

I, for one, am glad that the IT "formula" takes into account more than stock HP and weight. Sorry, I don't think you're comparing apples here...

[Greg Amy]

Are you guys are REALLY trying to justify a 175-pound - 8% !! - weight penalty for a strut-equipped(?) car, just because it's a mid-engine design?

Then, how come no outcry for an 8% weight penalty for the mid-engine Mazda Miata, that has very nice multi-link suspension? That's right, kids: the Mazda Miata is a mid-engine car, just like the Toyota MR-2; the only difference is the engine's in front of the driver, not behind her. In fact, not only does it have superior suspension, but the Miata has a much better weight distribution than the Toyota!!!

Vaughn, you have a near-mid-engined car, too. With silly strut suspension, as I recall (and torsion bars!!!)

So, let your minds be free of irrational pre-conceived notions, and let's talk reality. As far as the MR-2 is concerned, the reality is that it would be silly to seriously build a mid-engined 115-hp car that carries an 8% weight penalty versus otherwise-similar competition. And of you want that car to be competitive, this will have to change.

Just sayin'. :shrug:

[Doc Bro]

Then, how come no outcry for an 8% weight penalty for the mid-engine Mazda Miata, that has very nice multi-link suspension? That's right, kids: the Mazda Miata is a mid-engine car, just like the Toyota MR-2; the only difference is the engine's in front of the driver, not behind her.Just sayin'. :shrug:


Greg,

Pick a better arguement that one's water tight....:cool:

I know when I open my GCR, when I get to the Miata page a light shines brightly and I hear the most beautiful choir singing.......It really is inspirational, and a testament to the spirituality of the car. It's made me a believer. Amen.

R

[924Guy]

Vaughn, you have a near-mid-engined car, too. With silly strut suspension, as I recall (and torsion bars!!!)


Correct; in fact, I have the exact suspension you'll find in the A1 Wabbits. Mid engined? Not really - quite a stretch there, by pretty much any published standard - but more to the point I do have a good weight distribution.

Seems to me that by your rationale I should be weighing in a good 100-150# lower? Or did I miss something?

Back to the MR2 - I've never heard any hue and cry that the engine can't make IT-normal power gains, either... indeed, everything I've heard about that engine, as the basis for the Atlantic engine, has been pretty favorable... :blink:

[chewy8000]

Wow I thought the VW MK3 was heavy at 2350...

[Greg Amy]

Seems to me that by your rationale I should be weighing in a good 100-150# lower?
Sure, why not? Do you think your near-perfect weight distribution (partial, mid-engine, transmission in the back forward of the rear axle, with tubular structural member) and rear wheel drive is worth a 150# penalty?

Has your car actually been through "the process"? If so, why so different from the Golf?


....everything I've heard about that engine, as the basis for the Atlantic engine, has been pretty favorable... Well, comparing that engine to a Formula Atlantic engine is like comparing your engine to the 924GTS engine...:shrug:

But, to the point at hand, no one's contending anything about the horsepower potential vis-a-vis the IT rules. It's expected that it can/will make IT power over stock. My interest is in why a car with a similar-hp base engine (actually 3 less ponies than the Golf; I found the actual published hp was 112, but a buttload less torque), similar suspension design, but mid-engine (is there an objective "adder" for that?), and rear-wheel-drive is 175# heavier.

And, if mid-engine and rear-wheel drive is worth 175# (or more?), especially in a field of front wheel drive cars, why is that not being consistently applied across the board (e.g., the Miata in ITA)?

That's it. Nothing more.

[Xian]

mid-engine (is there an objective "adder" for that?), and rear-wheel-drive is 175# heavier.

I remember reading in a prior 1st Gen MR-2 thread that there is some kind of added for mid-engine but I don't recall an exact figure... I seem to remember (imagine?) that it was a bunch more than I would have thought. Maybe it actually is a 175# adder?


And, if mid-engine and rear-wheel drive is worth 175# (or more?), especially in a field of front wheel drive cars, why is that not being consistently applied across the board (e.g., the Miata in ITA)?

Personally, I think the ITA Miata's are undoubtedly "light" for ITA as all the FWD cars will burn down the front tires and brakes during a race. The only major "disadvantage" I can think of with the Miata is aero (and supposedly aero isn't worked into the "formula"). I do know that if I were a smarter person, I'd have built a 1.8 Miata for ITA... :shrug:

[JeffYoung]

It SHOULD, of course, be simple. Run the process number and what do you get?

What's the torque number on the 1.6? May have been an adder for the MR2

Did the VW get a deduct for FWD?

My guess is a combination of those two account for the 75 lbs, and the remaining 100 lbs is for mid enginedness.

[Greg Amy]

What's the torque number on the 1.6? May have been an adder for the MR2
From memory, MR2 is 110 ft-lbs, Golf is 122 ft-lbs. Golf is 2.0 liters, MR-2 is 1.6 liters. Only advantage the MR-2 offers - specious at best since its implementation in IT is unknown - is 16 valves versus the Golf's eight.

Is there a subtractor in there for the MR-2's lack of torque? What about lower displacement?


Did the VW get a deduct for FWD?I sure hope so.

I'm assuming the MR-2 got an adder for RWD.

Did the Golf also get a subtractor for struts? I sure hope so.

Did the Toyota get the same subtractor for struts? I sure hope so...


My guess is ...the remaining 100 lbs is for mid enginedness.I sincerely hope that's not true, because then it's not being applied equitably.

I'll bring it up again: the Miata is a mid-engine car. Plain and simple, in all sense(s) of the word. If there is an adder for REAR mid-enginedness, there should be an adder for FRONT mid-enginedness, ESPECIALLY for one that has rear wheel drive (which enhances both of those features).

This is not even a debatable point. In fact, the Miata has an even more-clear advantage, in that its front enginedness allows it to be placed longitudinally, allowing the remaining parts of the drivetrain, such as heavy the transmission and driveshaft, to be RIGHT in the middle of the car. That is why it, from the factory, has a perfect 50/50 weight distribution, versus the MR-2's (from memory) 44F/56R (which is as bad as a FWD car, but in reverse).

Strut suspension, a poor "mid-engine" implementation, low torque, unknown horsepower quantity in Improved Touring trim. And yet it's 175# heavier than the class standard?

What's good for the gander is good for the goose here, folks. If there is an adder for midenginedness, let's apply it equitably. But if there's not, something smells fishy with this car's implementation... - GA

[Knestis]

I was involved in the MR2 reclassification discussions - lots of them. In fact, I was a huge proponent of getting the car moved from the outset.

Do you honestly believe that the ITAC, including Jake, myself, Josh, and the rest - are all collaborating to cook the process...?

Yeah, sometimes in the name of consensus building, individual members agree to stuff that's not exactly the way they individually want it to be. I've grown to appreciate that attenuation process - the damping of reactivity, that keeps us from going all willy-nilly sometimes. It's frustrating for all of us sometimes, because nobody ever gets to impose their personal vision 100% of the time, but I think that might be a good thing.

I confess that it has NEVER come up, to think about the Miata as mid-engined for the purpose of specification. It makes complete sense but it's hasn't been part of any discussion since I've been on board, nor have I ever heard mention of it from "the old days." It's a great point and it deserves consideration.

FWD cars get a weight break - 50# in ITB. Rear drive cars get no adjustment. Strut cars get no break but A-arm cars get a 50# adder. The MR2 got a 1.3 engine multiplier, after substantial discussion, and a 50# penalty for the low-polar-moment layout. That's it. There was - and continues to be - all variety of anecdotal information about power potential (high, low, somewhere in between?), none of which was verifiable enough to warrant busting the model over.

We continue to talk about how to consider torque in the process. (Again, personal opinion warning) I think it bears a long look but we don't have a compelling answer yet re: how to include it.

I'm on record in this community (do a search) in believing from my time pre-ITAC, that the Golf III is about 50# light of where it should be, based on the formula. The ITAC - both pre-Kirk, and post-Kirk with him abstaining from the vote, determined based on past practices that it is "close enough" and doesn't warrant re-specification. It's not a great point of comparison for current changes or additions.

The Civic DX is under review. The current weight doesn't fit the process so isn't a good data point either. That and a couple of other cases catalyzed a bigger discussion and review of current practice, including the "how close is close enough?" question...

...and THAT seems to be the most discussed topic in the ITAC right now. Jake has done some polling here and elsewhere on the subject. There is substantial internal and external support for applying a different practice (I'm a fan, again public knowledge) but until such time that a formal decision is made, we go with the loose tolerances.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Kirk got there.

(Edit: I believe the adder for 'rear mid-enginedness' was to provide an addition 50 punds of subjective weight based on the perceived braking advantage a car with this layout would have when compared with other ITB cars)

[JeffYoung]

So just to sum up:

1. The VW is "process light." The DX is process "heavy." Neither a good data point.

2. The MR2 is process weight plus 50 for braking advantage of rear/mid engine, and polar moment improvement.

We could probably go through this haggling process with every car, to be honest.

[Greg Amy]

Do you honestly believe that the ITAC, including Jake, myself, Josh, and the rest - are all collaborating to cook the process...?
Of course not, Kirk; where did I imply that? I'm simply saying you're either dead wrong, you're missing or overlooking key information to reach your decisions, and/or the process is already bustificated.

Don't "you guys" ever, after coming to a conclusion, throw that decision up on a wall of common sense and see if it sticks? I can't find a person-one that either didn't shake their head or raise their eyebrows when told how much weight this little car has to carry in ITB. Which was the same exact reaction I got three summers ago.


I confess that it has NEVER come up, to think about the Miata as mid-engined for the purpose of specification.And that simply makes me shake my head...here I was, all this time, thinking it was obvious and intentionally being ignored. That, at least, is one datapoint towards the "missing or overlooking key information" data point.


The MR2 got a 1.3 engine multiplier, after substantial discussion...Another head shaker, assuming that's not standard for ITB. If not, why? Why, when none of these engines seem to have been built in I.T. - not even variants of it in other cars - would the process even be considered to vary from the standard? Because it was the basis for Formula Atlantic? Hell, your engine was the basis for Super Vee, and Andy's is the basis for Formula Mazda (or is that the rotary?), and even Jeff's was probably the basis for some oddball Brit and/or USAC dirt track series...

Why was there even ANY level of "substantial discussion"? I can't imagine what the discussion was even about! It's these kinda things that make "us" wonder if the process isn't well into the "bustification" level, only 2-3 years in...

For now, unless otherwise informed, I'm going to infer that 1.3 is the ITB standard. But it's still confusing that it was even under discussion.

This has, obviously, melded into Yet Another Treatise on "The Process" and is yet another data point to make me wonder if "The Process" hasn't simply devolved into yet another group of guys making subjective decisions behind closed doors, based on what they "think" is right. Which is exactly where we were 10 years ago.

It's situations like the above that really, really make me wonder, guys. - GA

[Spinnetti]

The MR2 should do ok in ITB, but I think its "Advantages" are a myth. The low polar moment means its way easy to spin, and the front end often doesn't have enough bite. You can do all legal mods to the motor, and still will be under almost any Honda or VW in usable power. I'd say run it and see, but my experience over the last 15 years has been that almost no Toyota was ever classed such that it could be competitive, but maybe it will be in ITB? Easy thing to do is just compare lap times from the long history of ITA MR2's and ITB cars on a given weekend.

[joeg]

I agree with Andy about potential braking advantages in the "mid-engine" layout.

However, I am not quite sure why we are beating this to death. That MR2 is approaching "vintage" material. They are getting scarce as would necessary replacement parts. Unlike the almighty Miata, you will see no manufacturer support and little from the after-market.

There must have been a zillion more Miatas sold than MR2(S). I simply cannot envision any mass rush to the MR2 even with a 200+lb weight drop.

[spnkzss]

I agree with Andy about potential braking advantages in the "mid-engine" layout.

However, I am not quite sure why we are beating this to death. That MR2 is approaching "vintage" material. They are getting scarce as would necessary replacement parts. Unlike the almighty Miata, you will see no manufacturer support and little from the after-market.

There must have been a zillion more Miatas sold than MR2(S). I simply cannot envision any mass rush to the MR2 even with a 200+lb weight drop.
We ALREADY have 4 or 5 MR2s in the WDCR that run in ITA with us that will be moving to ITB next year. Don't use the vintage concept as a basis for argument. It still affects quite a few people. :shrug:

[924Guy]

Seems pretty apparent to me that Amy's ready to move to a cheaper, if slower, class... :D

I'd also take that as anecdotal proof that the ITAC did a good job moving the MR2 to ITB! LOL

Some direct answers for Greg - yes, it would appear that my penalty is appropriate, from what I've seen on-track recently. Oh, yeah - my trans is not forward of the rear axle, but rather completely overhangs it like a 911's engine. And my car has indeed been through the process, back in May. For which I thank the ITAC!

I do think the MR2's weight is appropriate, or close enough to it to be within the noise. Having a horse in this race, and direct 1-on-1 experience of the pace at the front of ITB, I have no doubts that a well-prepped MR2 can run at the front.

Now of course we'll get into the inevitable next problem, where a bunch of MR2's, which have been under-built to run in ITA ('cause no-one in their right mind would build a 10/10ths MR2 for ITA!) move to ITB and have trouble keeping pace, then complain...

...or maybe we won't!

I too am in agreement about the advantages of the layout for braking... and if any questions remain, please review my IT-Fest video from Mid-O. Despite having a good bit more mass to slow than the VW's, I still have an advantage in braking. And then there's tire degradation, over the course of a run...

Toyotas never been competitive, huh? Same used to be true for Porsches... ;)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Hey, my Tiger has 'front mid-enginedness' too! Awesome!
http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1&pictureid=195

[shwah]

So just to sum up:

1. The VW is "process light." The DX is process "heavy." Neither a good data point.

2. The MR2 is process weight plus 50 for braking advantage of rear/mid engine, and polar moment improvement.

We could probably go through this haggling process with every car, to be honest.
I agree with this Jeff.

[gran racing]

My interest is in why a car with a similar-hp base engine (actually 3 less ponies than the Golf; I found the actual published hp was 112, but a buttload less torque), similar suspension design, but mid-engine (is there an objective "adder" for that?), and rear-wheel-drive is 175# heavier.

The Golf III also has quite large brakes – add that to the list when comparing to ITB cars. When looking at it the way you are, the majority of ITB cars should have their weight reduced. Why? The Golf III, IVs are classed too light (I believe ~ 75 lbs). It’s that simple. Because of this we really shouldn’t compare the MR2 to the Golfs unless doing that for all other cars at the same time.

You originally mentioned my Prelude as a comparison, and there are many other cars in ITB that fit what I’d consider the target. When using these, the MR2 isn’t far off it is at all. Maybe it could have been classed at 2,500 instead of 2,525. When comparing it to these cars Greg, do you honestly think the MR2 should be between 2375 – 2425?

The MR2s weight distribution is a big plus in many ways. (Feel free to create a separate Miata thread if you want to get into that car.) The MR2 can brake later than most out on the track and that’s at a ~ 2,450 weight not at the impossible/extremely hard to reach weight now in ITA. In fact, I can’t think of another car in ITA or ITB that can out brake it. The thing just doesn’t consume tires. While my Prelude could do just fine comparing lap times during qualifying, put the two cars in a 30 minute race and see how nice and fresh the MR2s tires are towards the end of the race compared to many other cars. I don’t think adding 50 – 75 lbs to the target ITB cars is unreasonable given the attributes of the MR2.



However, I am not quite sure why we are beating this to death. That MR2 is approaching "vintage" material. They are getting scarce as would necessary replacement parts. Unlike the almighty Miata, you will see no manufacturer support and little from the after-market.

Same reason the ITAC spent time on the numerous other older cars – because people will race them.


I simply cannot envision any mass rush to the MR2 even with a 200+lb weight drop.

I’d put my Prelude up for sale so fast the moment I knew this was in stone and buy an MR2.

[lateapex911]

Random thoughts/reactions:

Mid engine: Define mid engine. I bet big money that the RX-7s fall into that definition if the Miata is considered a mid engine car. Should we be adding 50 or 100 for them?

Weight: Not one person isn't astounded by the (heavy) weight?? I could dig up letters to the ITAC and posts here begging that the car be put in ITB at 2550. Not that that number was used in the calcs, but SOMEbody, who incidently, owns an MR2 is just fine with it.

Engine potential: Factors are done by genre, not by class. ie: rotary engines get different factors than 16 valve or old American smoggers, etc.

[Greg Amy]

Just to tidy this thing up and close it down...

I could very well be wrong (no way!) and I'll be glad to help anyone willing to tilt this windmill, but in the end I'm willing to wager there's a perfectly good ITB candidate in the classifieds here for only $3k that's not going to eventually be turned into a winner. I'd sooner attempt at getting the ITA version down to its "old" I weight (a project I honestly believe is achievable, all the more making me sorry to see that the "dual classification" request was met with "not within the philosophy of the class"; which, of course, made me and a lot of BMW E36 owners go "uuuhh....whaaaaaa....?")

Theories are nice and all, but then comes the bitch of reality. And the reality is, I'm not willing to use my money to test your theories. If one of you proves me wrong (bookmark this topic!) I'll be more than happy to let you tell me "I told you so". Until then... :shrug:

[Knestis]

Sorry, Greg. I read too much into "something fishy going on," I guess.

>> Don't "you guys" ever, after coming to a conclusion, throw that decision up on a wall of common sense and see if it sticks? ...

There's a fundamental problem with that, which you allude to here:

>> ...make me wonder if "The Process" hasn't simply devolved into yet another group of guys making subjective decisions behind closed doors, based on what they "think" is right.

The biggest traps that we get in, we get in because we "think [whatever] is right." Or we listen to people who "KNOW that [whatever] is right." I've made no secret of the fact that I'd like to take all but the barest, tiniest little opportunity for subjectivity out of the process - I think you know that - but I'm in the minority both on the ITAC and among the membership, I think. There's a LOT of support for using "common sense" or "common knowledge" when listing and classifying cars, but it's just the tiniest little step from that to the smoke filled room.

OK, so it would be a non-smoking chat room now but same diff.

I'm not John Bishop and this isn't IMSA, so we have a process that captures compromise. Oh, yeah - I forgot to mention that it's all Andy's fault. :D

Jake's chimed in on the multiplier thing. Some of us think that's where we need to do more work to "get the process right," in terms of really understanding what the various "genre" of engines (architecture, age, etc.) are likely to do. We can't get in the business of coming up with a separate factor for every car - that's de facto, subjective, proactive competition adjustments (bleah, bleah!) again - but there might be room to do that better.

>> Easy thing to do is just compare lap times from the long history of ITA MR2's and ITB cars on a given weekend.

With respect, that might be the very possible worst way to go about it.

There's absolutely NO way to know if we're comparing apples and apples, in terms of preparation, tire budget, testing, dyno time, build quality, and driver talent. That, and it's the shortest way to real competition adjustment (bleah!) hell that I can think of. Feedback from IT racers seems to say that they don't want weights adjusted based on finishes, since it just takes one really fast guy running a make/model in key races to get lead for everyone who owns that car.

>> Now of course we'll get into the inevitable next problem, where a bunch of MR2's, which have been under-built to run in ITA ('cause no-one in their right mind would build a 10/10ths MR2 for ITA!) move to ITB and have trouble keeping pace, then complain...

They can complain all they want but all they can do is ask for the car to be run through the process again. BUT (for those of you getting ready to holler about repeatability) we've made one very important change, in that we're documenting the how and why of current listings. It's made it easy for us to spot irregularities so we're trying to figure out how best to address them. It's going to be a VERY tough sell if current ITAC members are still around, if MR2 owners whine about being uncompetitive.

And I believe I'm safe in saying that pretty much all of the ITAC members are in agreement that "My car's not fast enough" is NOT sufficient rationale for a change.

K

[JeffYoung]

Isn't the engine so far backin these cars that you have to change the rear 2 spark plugs via a trap door in the firewall?

Andy, I tell ya, the 260 motored car with stock carb....it's an ITS car......


Hey, my Tiger has 'front mid-enginedness' too! Awesome!
http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1&pictureid=195

[JoshS]

... all the more making me sorry to see that the "dual classification" request was met with "not within the philosophy of the class"; which, of course, made me and a lot of BMW E36 owners go "uuuhh....whaaaaaa....?")

I'll say it again.

The E36 was different. A WHOLE NEW CLASS WAS CREATED, and an existing listing was placed into it. Rather than move a pretty popular car into a class that might or might not ever really take off, a dual classification was approved. My opinion is that there should have been an expiration date placed on the ITS listing (good through 2010 or something).

That's totally different than moving a listing from one class to a well-established class. The philosophy is that dual-classifications will only be considered when new classes are established (and one of the classifications is in the new class.)

[BruceG]

Looks like those of us with turds(ITB Mustangs) will have to work even harder to take out the competition early in the race.

[steve b]

I agree with Andy about potential braking advantages in the "mid-engine" layout.

However, I am not quite sure why we are beating this to death. That MR2 is approaching "vintage" material. They are getting scarce as would necessary replacement parts. Unlike the almighty Miata, you will see no manufacturer support and little from the after-market.

There must have been a zillion more Miatas sold than MR2(S). I simply cannot envision any mass rush to the MR2 even with a 200+lb weight drop.

They may be approaching vintage status, but they'd still be new compared to this field http://www.wdcr-scca.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=K74TB39eboo%3d&tabid=75&mid=1911

Six different MR2s attended races at Summit Point this season and that number could go as high as 9 next season if the car is classed and weighted competitively.

[924Guy]

They may be approaching vintage status, but they'd still be new compared to this field http://www.wdcr-scca.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=K74TB39eboo%3d&tabid=75&mid=1911


Hey, I resemble that remark!!! :D

[JamesB]

That your vintage or that they are newer then most of the cars whomping my butt in ITB?

[JeffYoung]

We had an iTS race at CMP earlier this year that I think had no cars newer than the 80s:

80s 2nd Gen RX7s
70s Z cars
80s Porsches
1980 TR8!

[JamesB]

As long as people didnt have flashbacks to wearing some of the worst ideas in 80's fashion that is not a bad thing.

[924Guy]

LOL... I'm slightly older than my car, but it can buy its own beer!

[JamesB]

Now if you could teach it to pay for its own gas and entry fees!

[RSTPerformance]

ok, I am late on my opinion but I have a few questions...

First, an ITB Audi Coupe GT is classes at 2540 and has 115hp stock. It has A-arms, but also has struts. It has a solid rear axle, but the best part about these tanks is that the ENTIRE engine is infront of the front axle... talk about a well balanced car!!! The car is technically a FWD car, but in reality it is a 2 wheeled vehicle as the rear tires have so little weight on them and don't really do much. Just about the only thing going for the car is that all the Golfs and Miatas will just bounce off :) So with all this where should IT weigh in at???

Second... Greg do you really care about the MR2 or is this really all about the Miata? (semi seriouse joke)

Raymond "I wish I had the money, I know an MR2 would be faster than an Audi (in the dry) and I think we do darn good considering" Blethen