Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 1 2005, 12:58 AM
Anything that has been recently classified:
SE-R
Neons
NX2000
2.0 16V GTI
etc.
AB
[snapback]64138[/snapback]
Originally posted by dickita15@Nov 2 2005, 12:22 PM
well jeff, and bill we can all speculate on where the center is based on results but PCAs are not calculated by results so I am looking to get a feel of cars that are right on target by the calculations used by the ITAC.
[snapback]64272[/snapback]
Originally posted by Knestis@Nov 2 2005, 09:23 AM
It's not likely that the archives have survived but it would be fun to resurrect all of those "a formula just WON'T WORK" strands.
[snapback]64277[/snapback]
Originally posted by Knestis@Nov 2 2005, 09:23 AM
There's no question one end of the A continuum has been defined by newly listed S orphans but the top of B is pretty much where it's been for a long time. This leaves a lot of options awash at the bottom of A and - I'll say this for Jake's benefit - there is NO question that the MR2 and its cousins are included there.
K
[snapback]64277[/snapback]
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 2 2005, 02:31 PM
I say ITB but differing opinions exist. Anbody race one in ITB on 6" wheels at 2500lbs? Is that better than a "corrected" ITA?
AB
[snapback]64285[/snapback]
Originally posted by Knestis@Nov 2 2005, 09:23 AM
This did indeed seem to be the case - what Darin describes - back when we started doing what was referred to as "Miller Ratio" math. That was the first year I was back in school (so 5 years ago?), and the CRX was emerging a the apple-cart-upsetter. It's a little shocking to me as I sit here that we've actually gotten to a point where the ITAC is using a derivation of those same scribblings.
It's not likely that the archives have survived but it would be fun to resurrect all of those "a formula just WON'T WORK" strands.
There's no question one end of the A continuum has been defined by newly listed S orphans but the top of B is pretty much where it's been for a long time. This leaves a lot of options awash at the bottom of A and - I'll say this for Jake's benefit - there is NO question that the MR2 and its cousins are included there.
K
[snapback]64277[/snapback]
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 2 2005, 07:12 PM
I think ITA is the best class we have.
AB
[snapback]64328[/snapback]
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 2 2005, 07:12 PM
Bill,
- I am just asking MR2 guys what their preference is.
- I would buy new 6" wheels...gladly.
- I am a proponent of the MR2 in ITB.
- I would move it if I were King.
- I am not King.
- There is no King - only Knights at a round table.
- Knights at this round table disagree on wenches, kingdoms, RX-7's and MR2's.
![]()
AB
[snapback]64328[/snapback]
of course in the pole i did of cages in the mazda section half had bigger cages.Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 2 2005, 12:33 PM
There is still the cage issue to deal with on this one...
[snapback]64306[/snapback]
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 2 2005, 03:12 PM
Bill,
- I am just asking MR2 guys what their preference is.
- I would buy new 6" wheels...gladly.
- I am a proponent of the MR2 in ITB.
- I would move it if I were King.
- I am not King.
- There is no King - only Knights at a round table.
- Knights at this round table disagree on wenches, kingdoms RX-7's and MR2's.
![]()
Jeff,
I think ITA is the best class we have.
AB
[snapback]64328[/snapback]
Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 2 2005, 07:22 AM
I know, I know! Pick me! Pick me!
It's the AMC Spirt!!!![]()
![]()
![]()
Seriously, given that the ITAC folks have stated that the Acura/Nissan/CRX are above the target, I'm somewhat at a loss as to what the existing examples are. My best guess is the 1st gen. RX7.
[snapback]64262[/snapback]
I know it's a not new idea, but I SERIOUSLY think we/you should consider optional classing for "tweener" cars and those who may/may not either wish to change wheels and/or cages. Class these tweeners cars in BOTH classes with different weights and cage requirements, and let "the market" decide where they work best. This solves two issues:Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 2 2005, 12:33 PM
There is still the cage issue to deal with on this one...
[snapback]64306[/snapback]
Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 2 2005, 05:34 PM
Wenches? You guys have wenches? Damn!!!
[snapback]64365[/snapback]
Originally posted by GregAmy@Nov 3 2005, 09:37 AM
I know it's a not new idea, but I SERIOUSLY think we/you should consider optional classing for "tweener" cars and those who may/may not either wish to change wheels and/or cages. Class these tweeners cars in BOTH classes with different weights and cage requirements, and let "the market" decide where they work best. This solves two issues:
- does not obsolete those cars with the "wrong" wheels and/or tires
- gives the competitor the choice if they DO want to move
There's nothing in the rules against it, it's VERY easy to police (you can easily see the wheels and the cage construction), and it fits very nicely in the philosophy of the class. - GA
[snapback]64461[/snapback]
Originally posted by GregAmy@Nov 3 2005, 06:37 AM
I know it's a not new idea, but I SERIOUSLY think we/you should consider optional classing for "tweener" cars and those who may/may not either wish to change wheels and/or cages. Class these tweeners cars in BOTH classes with different weights and cage requirements, and let "the market" decide where they work best. This solves two issues:
- does not obsolete those cars with the "wrong" wheels and/or tires
- gives the competitor the choice if they DO want to move
There's nothing in the rules against it, it's VERY easy to police (you can easily see the wheels and the cage construction), and it fits very nicely in the philosophy of the class. - GA
[snapback]64461[/snapback]