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.
Printable View
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.
1. Option B - at process weight.
2. B - ITB driver.
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.Quote:
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]
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.
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
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
Dual class or ITB at process weight. ITB driver.
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
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.
B
2500-2550
ITA driver...just barely
R
Eggs-actly.Quote:
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]
K
Quote:
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.
DittoQuote:
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]
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:
Ditto on this sediment.Quote:
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]
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.
Jeremy my thoughts exactly. if process says 2550 let it be that.
LOL, I was thinking the same exact thing.Quote:
For being a survey with no debate, your throwing in a few "extras".[/b]
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.
I edited to the first post to remove debatable topics since this isn't about debates....
If these points are generally true, then does the car belong in ITA at all?Quote:
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]
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.Quote:
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]
Stan (C...no dog in the fight)
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.
Because this is not Prod and we do not use on track performance to generate adjustmentsQuote:
If these points are generally true, then does the car belong in ITA at all?
[/b]
Uh, I do not believe that to be true.Quote:
Unrestricted ECU is a tide that floats all boats equally, so there is no need to pick on the MR2 in particular.
[/b]
HuhQuote:
If the ITAC wants a process penalty on aftermarket ECUs, IMO it should be universally applied.
[/b]
maybe it should be dual. 2550 is alot to hike around.
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
Let's clarify here. Stan is coming in a little late...Quote:
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]
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.
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.Quote:
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]
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.
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:Quote:
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]
1 B at 2270Quote:
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]
2. B
:blink:Quote:
1 B at 2270 [/b]
I just noticed that I quoted Dick and while he runs ITA, I obviously run ITB. Do the math, class the car.
K
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
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
1. b at processed weight
2. b
I have also driven one....
If the Corolla has a very hard time making process weight in ITA, then yes I could be moved to ITB at process weight.Quote:
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 however the car just does not live up to expectations of the process then the move would most likely not help it.
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.
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:
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.
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al2rqEltoog yes the MR2 needs to be in B...
ITA driver
Didn't that MR2 endup flipping over in the busstop?
Quote:
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....