Toyota Corolla ITA or ITB?

[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!

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

[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'.

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

[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.

[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! )

Carry on guys...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

[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).]