Toyota Corolla ITA or ITB?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Look, it's simple...the configuration of the car warrents an extra look. It's very different than most cars in the class and the last thing the ITAC wants is to insert a class killer.

Easy, young Jedi....

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

 

[zracre]

someone should go to mylaps.com and check all MR2's times against the top ITB times...see what kind of weight adjustment would be neccesary...i think it would be good competition for the CRX there now...i think braking mid engine to FF to FR is irrelevant...front drive can go later and deeper on many corners where a mid engine car would be on the edge...a mid engine car may transition better getting on the throttle but that is splittting hairs...like someone wrote abt the ITC 914 1.7...mid engine 4 wheel discs...

------------------
Evan Darling
ITA Integra

 

[Knestis]

I haven't had a chance to beat this drum in a while (although i still know how, I think) but laptime comparisons are meaningless unless you know that all of the cars involved are legal, they are all fully prepared, and they are being driven to their actual limits.

The ITAC's current stance is that some mathematical prediction - even if it isn't completely scientific - is a more valid starting point of how competitive any given make/model should be.

How fast any given example actually IS, is a function of a bunch of variables that the ITCS doesn't specify.

K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited June 20, 2005).]

 

[zracre]

im just saying for comparative reasons....just out of curiosity. the car has been run for a while(MR2) so if someone has their data from specific tracks, an off the record comparo could be made for fun...(that is why we are here right??) if the data is there to play with then....

------------------
Evan Darling
ITA Integra

 

[Dave Patten]

One thing that should be considered when trying to equate performance is the the B cars are using 6" rims and the A's are 7".

I would assume there is a performance drop that should be considered due to the required narrower rim width in moving a car from A to B. This has yet to be mentioned.

 

[gran racing]

I really feel that there is a minimal drop from 7" rims to 6" rims. Either way, most people would still be using 225s (if Hoosiers). As we've discussed in previous posts, the type of track also influences this as well. At Watkins Glen, I've been told by many fast drivers that 6" rims are actually faster. Wheither that is true or not??

As Kirk said, you need to take a look at the car itself and keep driver, track condition, ect. influences out of it. And for the record, I'd more than welcome the MR2 in ITB with the appropriate specs.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Evan,

While fun, the data is meaningless. Without the knowledge of prep levels and driver talent levels, there is no way make the numbers dance.

Up here, ITA MR-2's look worse than they are. We have the top ITA Integra in teh country running around along with a gaggle of Integra's - prepped by that same gentleman (Serra) sku-ing the results.

Then you have to see how deep your ITB field is...

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

 

[lateapex911]

Wait a minute Andy...they don't look "worse" in the NE, ....the NE covers all the other cars in the most accurate light....ITA is defined by the top nothch Integras, CRXs and 240SXs, and Serra dirves the most top notch Integra there is....

If you can run with Serra, you're in the hunt...if you can't, something has to change....

(Which is another way of saying that just because a car wins doesn't mean that it is a competitive car.)

((And yes, the flipside is: just because it *doesn't run at the front is no guarantee that it can't either...))

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

 

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Jake:
Bill, to be honest I haven't been following your GTI issue, but at 2350lbs and 90hp it sounds like a good fit for ITC. Especially considering that the 914 1.7L was just moved from ITB to ITC at 2080lbs and 80 hp which is a better power to weight ratio. And that car is mid-engined, rear wheel drive, and has four-wheel disks - all that is is worth like an extra 25-50 hp!

On the other hand, the 1st gen CRX Si has similar weight and power and only recently moved from ITA to ITB. I would imagine putting nearly 200lbs on most cars would make them candidates for a move down.

[This message has been edited by Jake (edited June 20, 2005).]

Jake,

The 1.7 914 is a good example. Sure would like to know how that car didn't fit w/in the performance parameters of ITB, but the Rabbit GTI does. Actually, I do know how. It's because there are no defined performance parameters, and it's a bunch of subjective "I think car X is too fast for class Y". If this wasn't the case, these guys wouldn't be hiding behind it.

I'll have to go back through the posts/emails, but IIRC, when I asked where the 'process' [sic] would put the Rabbit GTI, and at what weight, it was ITC @ 2275# or ITB @ 2000#. If those numbers are not correct, would someone on the ITAC please post the correct ones?

Then you've got guys like Andy B. that would rather give smart-ass answers than actually deal w/ the issue. But, since that's the answer he gave, maybe he'll define exactly what he means by "Too slow for ITA". Is that too slow to win? too slow to finish in the Top 5? Top 10? too slow to finish on the same lap as the rest of the field? ???



------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Jake,

The 1.7 914 is a good example. Sure would like to know how that car didn't fit w/in the performance parameters of ITB, but the Rabbit GTI does. Actually, I do know how. It's because there are no defined performance parameters, and it's a bunch of subjective "I think car X is too fast for class Y". If this wasn't the case, these guys wouldn't be hiding behind it.

I'll have to go back through the posts/emails, but IIRC, when I asked where the 'process' [sic] would put the Rabbit GTI, and at what weight, it was ITC @ 2275# or ITB @ 2000#. If those numbers are not correct, would someone on the ITAC please post the correct ones?

Then you've got guys like Andy B. that would rather give smart-ass answers than actually deal w/ the issue. But, since that's the answer he gave, maybe he'll define exactly what he means by "Too slow for ITA". Is that too slow to win? too slow to finish in the Top 5? Top 10? too slow to finish on the same lap as the rest of the field? ???

Actually Bill, you have guys like me who are tired of your posts. I am happy to discuss this stuff. The 'process' incorporated enough subjective factors that are debated and voted on by the ITAC, that a formula can not be produced. We use an estimate of HP in IT trim as the very foundation of our process, then target a power to weight and then add or subtract based on advantages and handicaps. If a formula was provided (there is none) everyone would be running their car through it and crying wolf. Not a good idea.

In the case of some cars where ACTUAL dyno numbers are know, we can make more accurate estimations. In the case of your (10th?) request of the ITAC, the REAL numbers we have at our disposal show us it reacts well enough to IT prep that it is much more an ITB car than an ITC car.

It isn't alone in that regard. The ITA RX-7 is the poster child for being 'more than what it is on paper'. At 108 stock hp, it should easily be an ITB car but the REAL dyno numbers show it's a tweener.

We HIDE NOTHING. There are just some things that WOULD NOT benefit the members if we tried to FORCE them into a formula.

If you can't understand that 'faster than the benchmark in ITC' is outside the ITC envelope, I can't help you.

AB


(Edit) Typed ITS RX-7 instead of ITA...
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

[This message has been edited by Andy Bettencourt (edited June 20, 2005).]

 

[Jake]

Bill – let’s not make this a gang up on AB thread. Back on topic: to Jake’s point, the NER does not make the MR2 look bad. I should probably take offense to that!

I AM the MR2 field in NER and I usually can beat most RX7’s – this is not the case most places. Andy, it is interesting that you state that the RX7 should be an ITB car if it didn’t benefit a lot from IT improvements – ‘cuz the MR2 has very similar power and weight and has nearly no power gain from the IT stuff. (header does nothing, match porting loses power, etc.) I think I can get you real DYNO numbers from a cost-no-object 4AGE IT build if you would like. It is not impressive!

While I totally agree with Kirk and AB’s points about taking results for what they are, I would invite people who are interested to take a look at the MARRS series results:

http://www.wdcr-scca.org/results/index.htm

WDC is a large region with virtually no Integra’s, few CRX’s, and a few MR2’s. Take a look at Art Jaso and Peter Doane’s results. These are excellent drivers with highly prepped MR2’s. Both have been racing for many years and I know at least Peter has done pro racing as well.

 

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
Actually Bill, you have guys like me who are tired of your posts. I am happy to discuss this stuff. The 'process' incorporated enough subjective factors that are debated and voted on by the ITAC, that a formula can not be produced. We use an estimate of HP in IT trim as the very foundation of our process, then target a power to weight and then add or subtract based on advantages and handicaps. If a formula was provided (there is none) everyone would be running their car through it and crying wolf. Not a good idea.

In the case of some cars where ACTUAL dyno numbers are know, we can make more accurate estimations. In the case of your (10th?) request of the ITAC, the REAL numbers we have at our disposal show us it reacts well enough to IT prep that it is much more an ITB car than an ITC car.

It isn't alone in that regard. The ITA RX-7 is the poster child for being 'more than what it is on paper'. At 108 stock hp, it should easily be an ITB car but the REAL dyno numbers show it's a tweener.

We HIDE NOTHING. There are just some things that WOULD NOT benefit the members if we tried to FORCE them into a formula.

If you can't understand that 'faster than the benchmark in ITC' is outside the ITC envelope, I can't help you.

AB


(Edit) Typed ITS RX-7 instead of ITA...

More double talk Andy. And where did the 'faster than the benchmark in ITC' phrase come from? First time I've seen it in this discussion. I thought we were talking about the performance parameters for a given class?

And who said anything about FORCING anything? From day one, I've supported using a published formula as a GUIDELINE.

And as far as these dyno numbers that you're basing decisions on, the comments on lap times, etc. pretty much hold true. Are the motors legal? Have you looked at the same motor on different dynos? Were the numbers corrected for atmospheric conditions? Etc. Etc.

You "HIDE NOTHING"? Hubberbucket!

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">There are just some things that WOULD NOT benefit the members if we tried to FORCE them into a formula.</font>

The arrogance of that statement is simply amazing. :roll:


------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

 

[Jake]

Andy - please don't bite. Bill - please don't hijack this thread.

[This message has been edited by Jake (edited June 20, 2005).]

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:

More double talk Andy. And where did the 'faster than the benchmark in ITC' phrase come from? First time I've seen it in this discussion. I thought we were talking about the performance parameters for a given class?

And who said anything about FORCING anything? From day one, I've supported using a published formula as a GUIDELINE.

And as far as these dyno numbers that you're basing decisions on, the comments on lap times, etc. pretty much hold true. Are the motors legal? Have you looked at the same motor on different dynos? Were the numbers corrected for atmospheric conditions? Etc. Etc.

You "HIDE NOTHING"? Hubberbucket!

There are just some things that WOULD NOT benefit the members if we tried to FORCE them into a formula.

The arrogance of that statement is simply amazing.  :roll:

Bill,

I used a new phrase to help you understand what I am trying to tell you. Your request asked about ITB and ITC. If we think that GTI would be faster than the benchmak cars in ITC, it would obviously exceed that performance envelope. No double talk, just simple logic. You forget I have a top VW builder in my backyard that I can call at anytime for info.

From now on, let's just agree not to communicate. We don't see things on the same wavelength - I have received many e-mails suggesting the same.

I will say this in closing to you; my statement was far from arrogant. You don't seem to understand this simple fact: You can't expect anyone to use a formula or process without all the data/variables/information - whatever. I couldn't do it, you couldn't do it, who could? All it would do would frustrate the members who tried. These missing bits of info are moving targets...it's food for conversation on a one-on-one level because you can explain every little nuance and thought process...it's not for general consumption where you would get a bad taste in your mouth for lack of the full picture.

I am done. Take your personal shots, it doesn't matter. Keep up the great work. Seen much activity from other ITAC members here lately? I am right behind them.

AB

(Edit: Sorry Jake - too late, but done...

)
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

[This message has been edited by Andy Bettencourt (edited June 20, 2005).]

 

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Jake:
Andy - please don't bite. Bill - please don't hijack this thread.

[This message has been edited by Jake (edited June 20, 2005).]

Sorry Jake.

Andy,

Don't let the door hit you!

/edit/

Jake, I think all the 4AGE Toyotas should be in ITB (hasn't changed since I raced my AW11 MR2)

Andy, Nice job. You hooked me w/ your troll. I should have known better.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited June 20, 2005).]

 

[gran racing]

This is getting a bit old.

Having members from the ITAC that are willing to share their thoughts and opinions on this board is a great thing and takes some guts. I wish more members would be willing to participate here. Bill, the board is making progress and is doing what they believe to be best for the club even if you personally don’t agree with their decisions. Yes there is always room for improvement but by consistently forcing the board to be defensive here really is not productive. Fine, you don’t agree with Andy or Darin - we ALL get it. It is too bad Darin no longer posts here because with the exception of one person everyone enjoyed and benefited from his perspective.

Anyway, back to the topic...

Since the MR2’s lime rock park time was brought up it made me think a bit more. I wonder how much extra weight would have to be added to the car before Jake had to switch from the Hoosier autocross tires back to the road race compound? And how much did the switch to the autocross tire attribute to the quicker lap times this year?

------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si

 

[charrbq]

Interesting...even checked the ITCS to make certain. Four wheel discs on a 914. My buddy's, that he bought new in 1971, has drum rear brakes. I've even seen others with drum rears, but not many. There aren't that many left on the road that haven't been consumed by rust.
Of course, we know that the GCR and ITCS are mistake and flaw free.


------------------
Chris Harris
ITC Honda Civic

 

[ITANorm]

Originally posted by charrbq:
Interesting...even checked the ITCS to make certain. Four wheel discs on a 914. My buddy's, that he bought new in 1971, has drum rear brakes.

The 1.7 was available until late '73, IIRC. The '72 and later (at least) as well as the '70 - '71 914-6 (I know - not in the ITCS) had all discs. So, through update / backdate, all disc systems are de rigeur.

In all fairness - comparison of a 914 and an MR2 is not, well . . . fair. I've raced both. The Porsche is more forgiving - handling-wise, due to a higher polar moment and different (torsion bar) front suspension than the Toyota; but the 4 cylinder VW-based engine is just not a match for the much better Toyota twin-cam. I think a properly sorted 2.0L could be very competitive in ITB.

Sorry for the hijack - BTT . . ..



------------------
Norm - #55 ITA, '86 MR2. [email protected]

Website: home.alltel.net/jberry

 

[ITANorm]

BTW -

Jake - I sent Peter's dyno plots to Andy, since we are running identical engines.

David - You went from ITA to ITB in the same car. How much of a detriment do YOU see from dropping an inch in wheel width?

FWIW - I usually run 205's anyway. I can't get the 225's hot enough to work.

 

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by gran racing:
It is too bad Darin no longer posts here because with the exception of one person everyone enjoyed and benefited from his perspective.

A bit melodramatic are we? Or, is it possible that someone suggested that he not shoot his mouth off quite so much, given his position? Or maybe his life is just too busy right now to spend much time here?

If one person's comments are enough to keep someone from posting, their skin is probably a bit too thin to be on an advisory committee.



------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608