ITB MR2 – straw poll time….
- Thread starter Jake
- Start date
gran racing
Super Moderator
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.
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.
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.
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.
Dave Zaslow
New member
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
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
mustanghammer
New member
Ditto
JLawton
New member
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??
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??
Jeremy Billiel
New member
Ditto on this sediment.
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.
gran racing
Super Moderator
LOL, I was thinking the same exact thing.
shwah
New member
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.
ITB driver here.
If these points are generally true, then does the car belong in ITA at all?
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.
Stan (C...no dog in the fight)