ITB MR2 – straw poll time….

**iambhooper** · 09-16-2007, 09:55 PM

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** · 09-16-2007, 10:10 PM

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

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

**AE86ITA** · 09-16-2007, 10:13 PM

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** · 09-17-2007, 09:22 AM

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** · 09-22-2007, 04:32 PM

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** · 09-28-2007, 03:56 PM

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** · 10-17-2007, 01:36 PM

1. B. ITB at 2450-2500 lbs

2. B. ITB Driver

**Spinnetti** · 10-18-2007, 09:51 PM

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** · 10-19-2007, 12:06 AM

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!!

**msogren** · 10-21-2007, 11:12 PM

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** · 10-21-2007, 11:28 PM

Mike, they'd be even heavier in ITB.

**88YB1** · 10-22-2007, 10:08 AM

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

**Jake** · 10-22-2007, 08:08 PM

So here'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** · 10-23-2007, 12:32 AM

...and you'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't be about "controversial" or even what individual drivers want. There's an obligation to the category to use standard practices - now that we finally HAVE THEM.

K

**Spinnetti** · 10-25-2007, 07:28 AM

...and you'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't be about "controversial" or even what individual drivers want. There'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** · 10-25-2007, 09:06 AM

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

K

**erlrich** · 10-26-2007, 01:13 PM

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't register that IT2 logo, did you?

**Knestis** · 10-26-2007, 01:51 PM

That would have had to be a trademark registration but no, I didn't. Why?

K

**spnkzss** · 10-26-2007, 03:22 PM

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

K
[/b]

Just go find Matt Yip.

**MattP** · 12-06-2007, 03:13 PM

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

Thread: ITB MR2 – straw poll time….

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions