January Fastrack

[JeffYoung]

VERY tough for that car to be competitive in STL. Or any rotary for that matter.

Darn - 6 oz over the ITS weight.

[Greg Amy]

VERY tough for that car to be competitive in STL. Or any rotary for that matter.

"Competitive" is not the short-term priority right now; "inclusion" is. Long-term this is not "the final answer".

Multiply the 12A weight by 1.025; try guessing at the answer before you do.

Donja worry, there's a long-term plan and outlook. Just sayin'.

GA

[Chip42]

Donja worry, there's a long-term plan and outlook. Just sayin'.

In the mean time, people could be spending money going the wrong way, and more and more the ST category has people scratching their heads more than licking their lips.

is it even worth writing in with ideas? there has to be SOME place I can run an AW11 MR2 where it wont suck, I'd like ST to be that place.

[JeffYoung]

Bad refrain I know, but working on ITB...working on ITB.....

In the mean time, people could be spending money going the wrong way, and more and more the ST category has people scratching their heads more than licking their lips.

is it even worth writing in with ideas? there has to be SOME place I can run an AW11 MR2 where it wont suck, I'd like ST to be that place.

[Chip42]

Bad refrain I know, but working on ITB...working on ITB.....

Jeff - I appreciate all that you and the others on the side of the mkI MR2 adjustment have done. I'm not asking for the ITAC to fix it. there are those in this world who cannot rationalize the differences between a 1985-89 street car motor and it's full-bore Atlantic counterpart. some of these people are on the comittees and boards that need to validate a change. I've come to terms with that. for the sake of those who HAVE ITB cars, I hope you are successful.

at the moment my car is in limbo. ITB? likely as it's the easiest path to the track, but the goal had switched to STU until august, when the kybosh was put on my JDM 2.0L (MkII 94-97 MR2 2.0L NA, not a BEAMS) plans with the fastrack release. STL seemed a good alternative, but that motor is a grenade and there's very little I like about L when compared to U. toyota has nothing else (viable) that fits in the 2 in these classes unless I go turblow and I wanted to stay NA. so i'm kinda feeling like a man without a country.

[JeffYoung]

Understood. I'm speaking totally from a personal perspective here: I think the MR2 should be one of the group of cars that make up the "core" of ITB. I'm perplexed why we can't get to that point, as based on the dyno sheets I've personally seen the car is overweight and doesn't stand much chance in ITB.

Steve Ulbrik submitted a very detailed summary of why the (is it 4AGE?) motor is very different mechanically from the Atlantic motor. It persuaded me.

Again, personally, I am doing what I can to fix what I perceive is an issue with the MR2, but this is committee work and others can reasonably disagree with me. I hope you guys will stay in ITB with these cars, and that once the process plays out they have as fair a chance as any other car in ITB, but I understand if the frustration level has reached its limit.

Thanks guys.

Jeff - I appreciate all that you and the others on the side of the mkI MR2 adjustment have done. I'm not asking for the ITAC to fix it. there are those in this world who cannot rationalize the differences between a 1985-89 street car motor and it's full-bore Atlantic counterpart. some of these people are on the comittees and boards that need to validate a change. I've come to terms with that. for the sake of those who HAVE ITB cars, I hope you are successful.

at the moment my car is in limbo. ITB? likely as it's the easiest path to the track, but the goal had switched to STU until august, when the kybosh was put on my JDM 2.0L (MkII 94-97 MR2 2.0L NA, not a BEAMS) plans with the fastrack release. STL seemed a good alternative, but that motor is a grenade and there's very little I like about L when compared to U. toyota has nothing else (viable) that fits in the 2 in these classes unless I go turblow and I wanted to stay NA. so i'm kinda feeling like a man without a country.

[Greg Amy]

In the mean time, people could be spending money going the wrong way, and more and more the ST category has people scratching their heads more than licking their lips.

I completely recognize that, which is why I am asking that we finalize and publish the philosophy as well as where we think the category will go in 12-18 months.

is it even worth writing in with ideas?

Short-term micro ideas and long-term macro ideas, absolutely. To think that a group of a half-dozen guys have it all figured out, and can come up with all the answers with complete objectivity is silly. Fresh ideas are always a good thing... - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

With all due respect to the ITAC, you MUST remove the 30% for multi-valve rediculousness from ITB. It MAKES ZERO SENSE.

All you have to do is ask yourself this simple question when the topic comes up:

Why does a multi-valve car in ITB have more power potential than a multi-valve car in ANY OTHER CLASS? Because of the 'ITB' sticker? Come on.

You guys are doing a great job of being consistant lately (maybe to a fault IMHO) and this sticks out as one of the last glaring evidences of ITB protectionism. There is simply zero data to back up the MR2 at 30% nevermind a class-based policy that differs from the others in the entire category. It's based on architechture - yet not applied evenly across the category - which is a core value in IT, no?

Just. Fix. It.

[Knestis]

With all due respect to the ITAC, you MUST remove the 30% for multi-valve rediculousness from ITB. It MAKES ZERO SENSE.

All you have to do is ask yourself this simple question when the topic comes up:

Why does a multi-valve car in ITB have more power potential than a multi-valve car in ANY OTHER CLASS? Because of the 'ITB' sticker? Come on.

You guys are doing a great job of being consistant lately (maybe to a fault IMHO) and this sticks out as one of the last glaring evidences of ITB protectionism. There is simply zero data to back up the MR2 at 30% nevermind a class-based policy that differs from the others in the entire category. It's based on architechture - yet not applied evenly across the category - which is a core value in IT, no?

Just. Fix. It.

SHENANIGANS.

Who championed that policy, Jeff? Josh? The membership deserves to know. Hell, we deserve to know who voted on it and how.

K

[Ron Earp]

There is simply zero data to back up the MR2 at 30% nevermind a class-based policy that differs from the others in the entire category. It's based on architechture - yet not applied evenly across the category - which is a core value in IT, no?

Just. Fix. It.

Why is this so damn hard to fix? It seems that everyone knows it was done poorly and wants the cars "fixed". Hell, I want it fixed so I don't have to read about it anymore. From reading these boards one would get the impression that ITB has tied the entire ITAC up for a year.

[JeffYoung]

My guess is, as to individual cars, we've spent more time on the ITA Miata and ITB in general than all other issues combined.