September Fastrack

[IPRESS]

Hey there fellas.....Gary, Travis, and I race with Chris a lot of weekends and have done so for a lot of years.
I would suggest you pick a different target. Chris is an IT guy to the core. His kind are the backbone of SCCA racing. I and several others are very happy with his work on SCCA committees.
As always this bunch will never be happy until their exact,agenda is put in place. That is fine, keep on beating the drum, just don't make wild accusations about folks who are good guys and trying to do the best for the club.
Peter is plenty tough enough to take all this crap that is thrown at him here. It is a shame that it gets slung at him just the same.

Josh, great job. Don't let the guys with old axes to grind get you down. IT is healthy.

[Bill Miller]

Hey there fellas.....Gary, Travis, and I race with Chris a lot of weekends and have done so for a lot of years.
I would suggest you pick a different target. Chris is an IT guy to the core. His kind are the backbone of SCCA racing. I and several others are very happy with his work on SCCA committees.
As always this bunch will never be happy until their exact,agenda is put in place. That is fine, keep on beating the drum, just don't make wild accusations about folks who are good guys and trying to do the best for the club.
Peter is plenty tough enough to take all this crap that is thrown at him here. It is a shame that it gets slung at him just the same.

Josh, great job. Don't let the guys with old axes to grind get you down. IT is healthy.

Mac, If Peter is going to make incorrect accusations, he should at least have the sack to address it when he's proven wrong. BTW what exactly is this 'agenda' that people are trying to implement? If you're talking about an objective, open classification process that treats everyone equally, and doesn't rely on the 'I know a guy who knows a guy who thought he saw something once' methodology and can support why deviations from the process were made with solid data, yeah, I guess you're right.

[pfcs]

Sounds pretty good! Very reasonable-good news for a change. This unbearable stasis is gonna change and for the better........AHA! He's full of shit!
And Raymond-get a life. And, please , don't get on any rulesmaking boards. And learn some 2nd grade grammar.
Agenda? Maybe a naive belief that democratic ideals can sensibly drive a necessarily rigid racing ruleset?

[quadzjr]

and for what it's worth - the 1ZZ-FE motors were downrated along with a host of other motors built by toyota and others when the SAE "certified horsepower" standard was released. turns out they used to use thinner oils, modified calibrations, basically anythign they could to make an otherwise as-delivered motor produce more power. this was not the "stock" configuration, though, and certified hp requires that.
the 1zz with VVT-i was at some point rated 138-140 hp peak, others at 130 (matrix etc..). the final version for sale here dropped 4 hp in one year from testing - to 126 (2006 matrix).

That makes a lot more sense. I was having issues with beleiving a 30+% drivetrain loss, however if the stock flywheel is roughly 126hp that makes the 106whp that you see from stock MR-S dyno's make sense with roughly a 18% drivetrain loss.

any chance of correcting this new classification with the data available? Just thinking, and it may have been brought up before, but what if before classifications go out there is a request from the ITAC for factual documentation on said cars. This could make the ITAC's job easier I would think.

[steve b]

I took a double take on the MR2-S classification as well. In my experience, the 2nd gen MR2 and the MR2-S are VERY similar performance wise in stock form. The MR2-S may do slightly better in IT trim, but should still fit squarely in ITA.

Just for the record... I don't have an MR2-S... not that there's anything wrong with that.