May 2011 Fastrack

[ajmr2]

It was great to finally get 95 lbs off the ITB MR2 at the beginning of this season, which was a good step in the right direction, but I have to say I'm stunned by the weight adjustments on some of these cars. Kinda feel like we're back to square one with the car as the Hondas & VWs literally disappear over the horizon.

[Knestis]

Remember that you're still getting dinked by the 1.3 multiplier. I submitted a request that the MkIII Golf get reviewed, fully expecting that it should GAIN about 50#. That should contribute to some additional parity.

K

[Chip42]

Remember that you're still getting dinked by the 1.3 multiplier. I submitted a request that the MkIII Golf get reviewed, fully expecting that it should GAIN about 50#. That should contribute to some additional parity.

K

the current ITB (AW11) MR2 classification follows the published process math for a 25% gain perfectly. it WAS at 30%, the differnece being 95 lbs. we now have "parity" with the baseline number. the car needs some time at this level to build the case further that it's still too heavy. I hope that one day everyone will be on really equal footing but "pretty close" is a good target too, and I'm happy to see progress on multiple fronts toward that.

[Knestis]

ORLY...? Sorry - I guess I'm behind the curve on that.

K

[lateapex911]

the current ITB (AW11) MR2 classification follows the published process math for a 25% gain perfectly. it WAS at 30%, the differnece being 95 lbs. we now have "parity" with the baseline number. the car needs some time at this level to build the case further that it's still too heavy. I hope that one day everyone will be on really equal footing but "pretty close" is a good target too, and I'm happy to see progress on multiple fronts toward that.

Chip, normally I agree with your points, but here I don't.
You're suggesting that 'we see how it does".

Well, that sounds way too 'prod like' for me.
I suggested when I was on the ITAC, and since, that there is AMPLE evidence that this car can't come CLOSE to the gains the process predicts. I AM grateful the ITAC and CRB somehow busted out of the whole 30% scam, but, as far as I'm concerned, this car is still being dealt a disservice.

[Flyinglizard]

Ihave the mk 3
Golf @ 2400 , to match the mk 2. (based on RPM, cam, and compression)
The MR2 has very little left @ 7000rpm, from the factory,. It doesnt go any faster than stock, maybe 8hp with a header and some chip help.
MM

[Chip42]

Chip, normally I agree with your points, but here I don't.
You're suggesting that 'we see how it does".

Well, that sounds way too 'prod like' for me.
I suggested when I was on the ITAC, and since, that there is AMPLE evidence that this car can't come CLOSE to the gains the process predicts. I AM grateful the ITAC and CRB somehow busted out of the whole 30% scam, but, as far as I'm concerned, this car is still being dealt a disservice.

My position as an MR2 guy is that I'm glad there was some movement, period. do I think that it's likely to be the last movement we see, while we know the car to still be heavy? I worry that it might be, yes.

the large port 4AGE makes maybe 12% gains in IT, on a good day with a BIG wallet. thats pretty well known, though I understand there's still some uncertainty in the data presented. the formulae are in place to make process adjustments of power to weight and have the car land square on the target. but there's some fear about it (atlantic motor, "the deal", whatever). If having it sit at the process default position (+25%) for a while will help calm the fears and allow further discussion, I'm good with that. if it's a gimme to shut up the 4AG crowd by some who know full well that it still can't be competitive at this weight but are being protectionist, well I've no patience for that. I'm willing to believe the former.

I am not "satisfied" by the current weight. My previous post could have been worded differently, I see where you're coming from.

[quadzjr]

I feel the same as AJ. how much data was presented to get the cars recently changed? I admit they are/were heavy. however in teh CRX's case they were closer to the spec weight than the MR2. I have challenged ANYONE to come up with valid data finding the information that I presented to the ITAC false. A dozen dyno plots were presented, some of prod level one a full tilt buggie 10/10ths build (making 108whp which like mentioned above is below 15% and below 20%).

If you have a person that is open with their information, has an open invitation to prove them wrong, and still believe that I might be trying to do something in moral?

The new classification is not even close to what should be,"closer" is a better word, I appreciate all that have listened to me on the ITAC, CRB, and BOD. Yes the MR2 will be more competitive. But the numbers do not lie. Yes Power to weight is not the end all be all of a competitive car, but it does play a role, a large role. It is physics that governs how and what our cars do on a track. Using the CRX as an example you reduce the weight of the CRX by more weight than the MR2 (which you couldn't keep up with before.) So as far as competition level goes between the CRX and the MR2 the performace gap between the two has increased. Both needed the weight brake.. Just don't see why I worked so hard to get the result I did, compared to what others have. I am sure that others on the CRX side of the boat say they cannot get 30% with big $$$ or even if they only get 25%. that pust them either 0-5% off potential.. Even with money the MR2 is 13% off it's classed expected gain. For those that think that is not that big of a deal. roughly every 5% equals 95lbs of balast on the car.. so if the car is roghly 12-13% off it maxium recorded IT build.. you can do the math.

IMHO MR2 should be classed at 15%.. it couldn't get down to that weight very easily at all.. mine is 2340 with driver and no balast.. but that is another story.

Jsut finished my engine build.. full 10/10ths build.. (couldn't believe how much I paid for "custom" piston rings to try to gain a few tenths of a hp ) going to dyno next week. hoping to get 108whp! fingers crossed.

/end rant.

(Yes I know that in code speak that says end end rant.. )

[lateapex911]

I hear ya! ITB is a funny place for some reason.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Yes Power to weight is not the end all be all of a competitive car, but it does play a role, a large role.

And it's what the whole Process is based on.

[quadzjr]

And it's what the whole Process is based on.

That is why I have faith and believe in the process.. Maybe it is the engineer in me? However, data out is only good data in. I tried during both yours and Josh's terms to be as open and as helpfull as possible. Since the weight break I have kinda given up.. I guess that is what some wanted me to do. I know we all are probably tired of my broken record.. I am too. I spent many many hours and days gathering data, time on the dyno, making calls to all sorts of people for any insight or knoledge, and talking to anybody would listen.. IMHO I have proved what the car can make in IT trim, and submited a somewhat engineering paper on it to the ITAC. Maybe a different result would of come from a more inffluncial person? Maybe a signed and notary sealed paper from the top 4AGE builder in the country (joking.. but would persue it if I thought it would help)?

I submited as much data as possible. showing not only numbers below 25% (or 30% as was the percent at the time) but below 10% in most cases.

it is fairly well documented in that reguard.. header,CAI (as best you can), fresh rebuild will net you between 103 and 106 hp. If you have a ECU you can get up to 108 hp.. (only one person has done this and in addition to utilized "grey area" but in my opinion cheating to do so.)

So why was the process not used as written and a 15% or 20% not applied? It may have already been said on here. I have heard of the reasons for why it was stuck at 30%, I am glad that is over.

Once again thank you to all that listened.. maybe one day I will have enough time and energy to try again. But, as of right now I am out of ideas on anything else to do. Other than buying a different car.

[quadzjr]

Ihave the mk 3
Golf @ 2400 , to match the mk 2. (based on RPM, cam, and compression)
The MR2 has very little left @ 7000rpm, from the factory,. It doesnt go any faster than stock, maybe 8hp with a header and some chip help.
MM

just an FYI, and a sad and laughable truth, but the when installing a header (say a TRD for example) you often find you will see no gains or loose 1 hp. A custom header built on a dyno will give you a better curve and easier to drive, but little to no hp gain for the expense involved. Talked to burns stainless and they used there header program. I have also done the math to guesitmate the lengths for the harmonics, as well as the 3rd degree equations for gas accelerations to determine size and diameter (keeping the speed of sound constant even though it does change with temperature.. so sue me) I was happy to see I got nearly the exact same result as burns program within 0.5". No chip available for the MR2 computer, however you can do some work to increase RPM limit but it also adversely affects other aspects.

I have no idea why I cannot be consise.. I blame Chip.

[lateapex911]

Steve, for what it's worth, the MR2 situation was one of my biggest peeves when I was on the ITAC. Looking back, I accidentally used the wrong factor that infamous night in the Watkins Glen hotel room, when I was running the con call and acting as secretary in Andy's absence, BUT, I know darn well that if I had used the 'RIGHT' factor (25%) there were those on the call who would have spoken right up and said "hold on there, boy, that cars a 4 valve, and 4 valvers get 30% in ITB!".

So, realistically speaking while I feel bad for this in some ways, I know it would have been at 30% anyway.

Those on the ITAC also know that I argued that the car should REALLY have a 15% or, reasonably a 20% factor. I felt the case was made effectively. But it never got to the point where we could have a confidence vote while I was there. It was stuck at 30%.

I give credit to Josh (I presume) for breaking the logjam that was the ridiculous "30% deal"....but, I don't know if they had a review of the evidence or not to arrive at 25%. The old days of the ITAC being more open seem to have passed, and internal votes and records aren't being disclosed.

If I were still onboard, I'd be arguing for 20%, as the evidence I've seen has given me enough confidence that it's a reasonable number. (I admit even that is high, but that's a conservative position, and one that I'd take with confidence, knowing I'd never get agreement on less)

But...ITB has been fought over hard, and I worry this is a vestige of that.
Not sure what else to tell you, not that any of that makes you feel better.

[ajmr2]

IMHO MR2 should be classed at 15%.. it couldn't get down to that weight very easily at all.. mine is 2340 with driver and no balast.. but that is another story.

Thanks again Steve for all the work you put into presenting your data over the past few years. As I've said here before, I certainly appreciate all of you on the ITAC & CRB who listened to and read our "rants" and got this issue back into the daylight. The correction or adjustment or whatever it actually was is appreciated and it helped, particularly in a safety sense.
I raced my MR2 in ITA for 14 years. The ITA weight eventually was lowered to 2270. The lowest I ever got the car in ITA was 2360 with driver and no ballast. Granted I left the windows in for outside winter storage, but only one driver I know of was able to get down to 2270, how he did it I don't know. I also have raced countless laps at Summit Point and documented my lap times over the years, and even at ITA weight and a fresh engine the car would not be any threat to the current ITB front runners. Some of that is probably the driver, but dyno results make the power gains quite clear.

[gran racing]

I'm not saying the MR2 isn't still a bit heavy; don't really know at this point any more.

even at ITA weight and a fresh engine the car would not be any threat to the current ITB front runners.

Doug has done pretty well with his in the past. I know he gave me quite a bit of trouble and that was when he was using his stock motor.

It's been extremely slow going, but things are moving in the right direction. Hey, not long ago I was racing Jake Fisher in his MR2 for our mid-pack win. And to think the MR2 drivers gave so much resistance to moving the car to ITB. Doesn't make any of this right, just some perspective.

[ajmr2]

And to think the MR2 drivers gave so much resistance to moving the car to ITB. Doesn't make any of this right, just some perspective.

Dave, I personally don't know any MR2 drivers who were resistant. In fact, I had been advocating the move since the late 90's and encouraged others to send in letters as the MR2 slowly faded to obscurity in ITA.
Doug certainly was a hell of a driver, no doubt about it. A similar situation existed in the MARRS series in ITA last year. Miatas have been coming into ITA for a couple of years now. One Miata driver literally left the other Miatas and former ITA front runners in his dust, leaving the others shaking their heads. Track records were shattered. The car was apparently completely legal so it was all driver. Such talent evetually goes pro and the rest of us continue to duke it out with our other friends.
The point is that the process is supposed to fairly assess the build potential of any given car through known data, regardless of the driver's talent. That's all we've been asking for, and hopefully we'll get some further movement.

[Chip42]

I have no idea why I cannot be consise.. I blame Chip.

Thanks buddy. you definately have born a lot of this burden on behalf of the comunity. I almost feel sorry for getting you into these cars. almost.

I've said it before - I think 2370 is the bogey weight for the MR2: 112hp*120%*17lbs/hp+50lb (mid engined). it's close enough to actual power numbers while still being high, weight's not so low as to be unachievable (at least in the older chassis, the 88-89 cars seem much heavier) and it should make for fairly balanced on track performance due to better than class average brakes and handling. A car needs a driver, and the MR2 can reward a good one. fwiw this would put the FX16 at 2270 and the Corolla at 2320. I don't know how realistic those numbers are but I think they are not unachievable.

BUT as I said above, I think it's ok to let ITB's other major outliers get "fixed" before readdressing the 4AGE siblings. if there's not general parity, it's hard to make an argument for a specific classification (undertsanding that on-track performance isn't an input to the process)

[shwah]

ITB and ITC are going to be tough for the ITAC to get much more right, as long as they are limited to 5% increments of power adder. Most of the B cars are in the 100hp neighborhood. 5% = ~5hp = 85lbs. That is a pretty coarse adjustment IMO.

The thing is, I don't know that I feel confident in the level of data used to justify many of the power adders today, so how can we expect the process to be administered based on 2.5 or 2% increments? Now you are into the 'noise' of a given single dyno on a single day, with a single car.

The things that the process does not take into account are what will make the CRX the car to have. Small frontal area, low polar moment of inertia combined with competitive power to weight and gear spacing will make it a killer choice IMO. That said, I don't think it is reasonable for the process to take those things into account. When someone really builds one of those cars with a top flight suspension, motor, driver combo look out.

[Chip42]

ITB and ITC are going to be tough for the ITAC to get much more right, as long as they are limited to 5% increments of power adder. Most of the B cars are in the 100hp neighborhood. 5% = ~5hp = 85lbs. That is a pretty coarse adjustment IMO.

absolutely. The problem with B is the legacy and the "agreement" more than anything else - and that there are BIG HEAVY cars along with the 2200lbs super-ITC cars. ITC is (currently) very much as you describe, and the effects of a 5% change are even greater there.

also I just checked my math and I used 116 not 112 as the MR2 base power number, which is incorrect (will edit). same numbers I got above areto be had with 120%. that's being really optomistic on power but realistic about minimum weight (higher than many have managed but not by 5% at 17lb/hp).

I still think the Geo Storm GSi is the car to have at the moment.

[JeffYoung]

I can only speak for myself on the MR2. We do have a fair amount of dyno data, but (in my view) we still don't have a full title 100% IT build dyno sheet.

My personal view is the car is a 15% car. Others disagree, and without someone doing a balls to the walls full ECU tune, crank scraper, lightweight rings, exhaust dyno tested, Burns merge collector whole gee whiz shebang there will always be room for someone to legimitately say we should use the 25% default. I can't say their conclusion is outside the range of reason. I disagree with it, but I understand it.

I do not think (personally) the MR2 will get another look without the submission of new data. What that means (in my mind) is someone spends a LOT of dollars on an IT build, and is able to disclose to the ITAC exactly what they did.

This car is a poster child for what can go wrong with the Process, and it's a shame because it should be a mainstay of ITB.