Toyota Corolla ITA or ITB?

So the question comes down to this. MR2 and Corolla GT-S - do they make sense in ITB at current weight, the FX-16 weight, or a higher weight - and if so, what?

Andy posed the question as "how much more than the FX-16", but that assumes that the FX-16 is weighted perfectly. It's probably not far off. Is the FX competitive in B?
 
Thanks guys....

My haz mat suit is being talored as I type. Give me until Monday befire cussing me out, OK?
wink.gif


THis is an interesting thread, and the question brings up other questions.

I saw a comment about not wanting to go to B. WHy not? The expense of new wheels? The local B crowd is too stron/not strong enough?? Curious...

THe bigger question here is, can the "tweeners" be given allowances suitable that would get them in the front with the CRX, Integra and 240SX? Or is that just not possible. (THink top flight cars here..)

Would you be satisfied with getting closer as opposed to going to B? Or do you advocate slowing down the fast A cars....all 5 or 6 of them?

I'm trying to get a big picture concept here...

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
 
It seems to me that the flood gates have opened and there are many compatible cars now in ITA. Some are new, but many came down from where they were outclassed in ITS. The field is beginning to look like Kirk’s IT2 utopia. At this point, I wouldn’t propose anything to reign in any of them.

As for the back-packers of ITA, I’m not aware of anything that could be done to speed ‘em up, but of course it must be a case by case basis. As for the MR2 – lowering its weight would do nothing, because 2370 is already very hard to get down to within the ITA rules. I believe that is the same story for the GT-S. I’m not aware of anything else that could be done in the framework of IT.

I'm not sure why anyone would be opposed to a move to ITB, unless it comes at a such a weight penalty that it doesn't do much to help competitiveness. In that case the sole effect would be to slow the car, and make people buy new wheels. That would be a shame.
 
I agree Jake, more and more cars will be coming into ITS and ITA. The current SS cars are faster than they used to be, not that there is anything wrong with this.

I wouldnt mind starting the 88 GTS at 2450 and working with that, I think it would be better lighter, but this is a good starting point.
 
I could live with 2450 in B for the MR2.

And since you opened (or at least looked at) that can of worms - how about moving the MkII ('91 - '95) MR2 from S to A. It has both less power and more weight than the SOHC Neon that was just moved.
 
Originally posted by ITANorm:
I could live with 2450 in B for the MR2.

And since you opened (or at least looked at) that can of worms - how about moving the MkII ('91 - '95) MR2 from S to A. It has both less power and more weight than the SOHC Neon that was just moved.
Click to expand...

On the plate already. I advocate it.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
Of course, at this point, I would have to interject my feeling that the Toyotas are, generally speaking, classed poorly. They seem to either be classed too high (Celicas in ITS???) or WAAAAAYYYY too heavy (86-88 Celicas in ITA at 2680lbs and 135hp stock). I personally really like the Toys. They are bulletproof cars and can be had for relatively little cash outlay. Look at the second gen MR2 in ITS at 2500+ lbs. That only has 130hp stock. It reminds me of what a lot of folks used to say about the comp board having issues with anything made by Porsche. Is there a reason why all of the cars from one manufacturer get classed so poorly? Now that we have moved the Sentra SE-R and Neons to ITA with similar stock horsepower and much better weight, why cant we revise the spec sheets on some of these Toyotas that CAN be viable racers IF spec'd correctly?
 
Jive,

They should. Can't ever explain how some of the weights got the way they are. Maybe a letter to the CRB with the cars you want reviewed would be in order.

I would think that if some are WAY off, they could be corrected on a one-time basis...

MHO,

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
Maybe a letter to the CRB with the cars you want reviewed would be in order.
Click to expand...

Is anyone else bothered by this? People asking for things for specific cars is tantamount to requesting a comp. adjustment. Kirk already commented that he was worried that this was the way things were headed. Andy (and others on the ITAC) have already said that they don't know how weights were determined, prior to their tenure on the ITAC.

As I've said before, if there's a new process that's implemented, that's supposed to be a more objective method of determining spec weights, shouldn't all the cars be run through that process? If this PCA really isn't going to turn into comp. adj., it needs to be an ITAC/CRB driven initiative, not a response to member requets.



------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Bill and I don't usually seem to agree on much, but I think we are on the same page here. When PCA's were brought in the stated intent (oh no I said the "i" word) was that they would only be used in extreme cases to correct gross classification errors. By soliciting letters for adjustments of cars with a long stable history I think you are opening the flood gates. It's rare to find a racer that doesn't think his car is somehow at a disadvantage and now you are asking for everyone to write in with what they want changed. It might be one thing for the ITAC to independantly note cars that seem well out of line and act to correct the RARE error. But trying to use PCA's to achieve class parity is another thing entirely. One of the things I have always liked about IT is the relative stability of the classifications, even if that means my car is further from the new class frontrunners every year.

On that note, I think dropping 200 lbs of my minimum weight would restore my competitivness in ITA. Any chance the ITAC is going to do that?
eek.gif


------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Is anyone else bothered by this?
Click to expand...

Doesn't bother me in the least... Who said anything about using PCAs to "restore parity"???

PCAs are intended for reigning in overdogs, and for making classification adjustments when a car was misclassified...

I can assure you that Andy, I, or any other ITAC member... (well, maybe not Jake yet, but he will!
wink.gif
) knows exactly what PCAs are intended for, and we will use them for exactly that...

If any "parity restoration" is to take place, any cases that don't fall within the intent of PCAs will be handled by other means/methods, with CRB/BoD approval, and on a one-time, or limited time basis...

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one here who believes that there needs to be some adjustments made to all the classes to get things back in "check"... Getting a list of cars together that need consideration is part of the research for any action that may help with this. THAT is what Andy solicited...

The suggesting that PCAs would be used to accomplish this was NOT introduced by any ITAC member that I can recall... so make sure you know the source before running off down this trail... because the ITAC has not suggested or otherwise said that this is what would happen...

Finally, "parity" is not really an achievable goal for IT... there simply isn't enough data (real hp, etc.) or leway in the rule allowances to truely achieve this, if it were even possible... Our goal is to create classifications that make "sense"... putting cars in the classes they belong in, in configurations (weights) that make sense... We'll get the cars as closely matched as simple weight adjustments will allow, and leave the "competitiveness" up to those building and driving these cars... In other words, we are trying to get the mechanical properties of these cars matched up as much as possible by estimating IT prep hp and making some eductated assumptions about handling, reaction to IT-prep, etc... Getting them up front is going to up to you...

All we can do is hope that's good enough... I think you'll find it's better than it has been...


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited June 24, 2005).]
 
I just wanted to point out that a letter might be in order if you think your car has a serious issue. we just got a request for a 50lb break - THAT is just not what PCA's are for. If you think your car is a couple hundred - some would consider that extreme - then write. No promises or guarantees, just get your self on the radar. Plenty of squeeky wheels on this site but the question never asked will always go unanswered.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
I'm guessing that Andy's comment was made as a quick response that is getting blown out of proportion. But, to some people it will read like an open invitation to get their car adjusted and I didn't think you guys had a shortage of requests and complaints?
biggrin.gif


In particular Andy's comment was in response to issues with Celicas and 2nd Gen MR2's. Possibly just toyotas in general.
smile.gif
Both of those cars have been classified years ago so talking about using PCA's to adjust their performance now seems a little outside of what the original PCA scope was. And of course once you start moving a couple cars everyone will want an adjustment. We stand at the top of the slippery slope.

And Darin, I am sorry if I implied that any ITAC member was trying to make parity adjustments. You're right that hasn't been stated here. But it does appear to be a recurring theme that you guys are trying to come up with a plan to restore balance. I would be all for that as long as every car is considered, not just the ones writing in letters. That's really what concerns me and Andy's comment stike's a nerve in that respect.

While nobody has come out and said adjustments are on the way several people (including ITAC memebers) are hinting about the writing on the wall. I have a lot of confidence in the ITAC eventually finding a good solution but until they do any perceived change in policy is going to make a lot of us nervous.

Sorry for the long winded response. Can we now get back to the usual arguments. Oh wait this is one of the usual arguments.
biggrin.gif


------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96
 
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Doesn't bother me in the least... Who said anything about using PCAs to "restore parity"???
Click to expand...
Actually Darin, I don't think anybody did, until you mentioned it. However, the ITCS does say that PCAs will be used to restore equity within a class. But, I'm not going to get into a debate w/ you about the differences between 'parity' and 'equity', although they're synonyms.
PCAs are intended for reigning in overdogs, and for making classification adjustments when a car was misclassified...

I can assure you that Andy, I, or any other ITAC member... (well, maybe not Jake yet, but he will!
wink.gif
) knows exactly what PCAs are intended for, and we will use them for exactly that...
Click to expand...
Actually Darin, don't you think it would be nice if all the IT racers (and potential IT racers) knew what PCAs were intended for, and how they will be used? You make it seem like it's only something you get let in on when you're "in the club".
If any "parity restoration" is to take place, any cases that don't fall within the intent of PCAs will be handled by other means/methods, with CRB/BoD approval, and on a one-time, or limited time basis...
Click to expand...
Which is it Darin, PCAs will be used for parity restoration, or they won't?
I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one here who believes that there needs to be some adjustments made to all the classes to get things back in "check"... Getting a list of cars together that need consideration is part of the research for any action that may help with this. THAT is what Andy solicited...
Click to expand...

Darin,

Please let Andy speak for himself.

The suggesting that PCAs would be used to accomplish this was NOT introduced by any ITAC member that I can recall... so make sure you know the source before running off down this trail... because the ITAC has not suggested or otherwise said that this is what would happen...
Click to expand...
What suggestion was that? I lost you on that one.
Finally, "parity" is not really an achievable goal for IT... there simply isn't enough data (real hp, etc.) or leway in the rule allowances to truely achieve this, if it were even possible... Our goal is to create classifications that make "sense"... putting cars in the classes they belong in, in configurations (weights) that make sense... We'll get the cars as closely matched as simple weight adjustments will allow,
Click to expand...
Guess that's why the E36 got an inlet restrictor instead of lead.
and leave the "competitiveness" up to those building and driving these cars... In other words, we are trying to get the mechanical properties of these cars matched up as much as possible by estimating IT prep hp and making some eductated assumptions about handling, reaction to IT-prep, etc... Getting them up front is going to up to you...

All we can do is hope that's good enough... I think you'll find it's better than it has been...
Click to expand...

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

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited June 24, 2005).]
 
Yup. I got more worried rather than less when I saw the suggestion that letters be written.

Whatever the intent - and shared understanding of the ITAC - the point at which members are requesting adjustments for cars, based on grounds that they are not competitive, the minor semantic differences are noise lost in a powerful signal.

The point at which the CRB responds positively to these requests - when someone gets what they want - then the horses are well and truly out of the barn.

If that's what everyone wants, that's great but it can't be explained away if functionally, that's what happens.

K
 
People writing letters requesting that their car be made more competitive or another be made less...are not new. We have received them almost every month since I started this. They will never stop.

How did the ITS SE-R, Neon, 2.0 16V VW, etc go to ITA? We looked at the classes and saw what we perceived to be gross issues. That, coupled with some supporting letters promted a move.

I would like to continue to ferret out the 'issues', both proactively and with the help of membership. Some will get consideration if they make sense, some will get rejected based on a variety of reasons. *I* don't want to mess with small shifts here, and small shifts there...it just isn't the scope, nor is it practical or possible...but I'll be danged if I vote to let the MR2 in ITS flounder around there when it fits perfectly in ITA with the current crop. It's just plain mis-classed. It ain't a tweener, it can NEVER be competitive in ITS. I think that would be a good move for the car, the class, and IT.

What I won't do is vote to lighten a car by 50 lbs because someone writes in and thinks it could move them to the podium. 50lbs??? That ain't IT, thats PROD. But what I also won't do is discourage ANYONE from writing in and expressing their opinion...about their car or any other - on any topic. I may not agree, but it is ALWAYS good to be heard if you believe in what you are saying...THAT was my point.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
Hmmm... so maybe an MR2 class change is in the future. Wait, I got an idea... put the 87-92 MR2 in the same spec line and I can loose my 1.6L enigine and pop in a 2.2L!
smile.gif
(sorry - had to say it)

Andy - very well said.
 
I think we actually agree, Andy. There's a world of difference between...

1. The ITCS looking at the ITS MR2, deciding that it is clearly wrong based on physical attributes, and re-examining the placement (and weight, most likely) because - among other things - pretty much nobody is dumb enough to try to run one. That's how I understand PCA's as intended to work.

2. Somone writing a letter asking for a break - class move, weight break - on their (whatever), on the basis that it isn't competitive. That's a [competition] adjustment.

It sounds like Andy has clarified the difference for himself but how about a few years from now, when the ITCS is populated by people without the institutional memory of where the idea started?

K

Edit - I typed "performance" when I meant "competition." The language matters in this case.

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited June 25, 2005).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top