shwah
New member
I agree with this Jeff.
Toyota MR-2 in ITB?
- Thread starter Greg Amy
- Start date
gran racing
Super Moderator
The Golf III also has quite large brakes – add that to the list when comparing to ITB cars. When looking at it the way you are, the majority of ITB cars should have their weight reduced. Why? The Golf III, IVs are classed too light (I believe ~ 75 lbs). It’s that simple. Because of this we really shouldn’t compare the MR2 to the Golfs unless doing that for all other cars at the same time.
You originally mentioned my Prelude as a comparison, and there are many other cars in ITB that fit what I’d consider the target. When using these, the MR2 isn’t far off it is at all. Maybe it could have been classed at 2,500 instead of 2,525. When comparing it to these cars Greg, do you honestly think the MR2 should be between 2375 – 2425?
The MR2s weight distribution is a big plus in many ways. (Feel free to create a separate Miata thread if you want to get into that car.) The MR2 can brake later than most out on the track and that’s at a ~ 2,450 weight not at the impossible/extremely hard to reach weight now in ITA. In fact, I can’t think of another car in ITA or ITB that can out brake it. The thing just doesn’t consume tires. While my Prelude could do just fine comparing lap times during qualifying, put the two cars in a 30 minute race and see how nice and fresh the MR2s tires are towards the end of the race compared to many other cars. I don’t think adding 50 – 75 lbs to the target ITB cars is unreasonable given the attributes of the MR2.
Same reason the ITAC spent time on the numerous other older cars – because people will race them.
I’d put my Prelude up for sale so fast the moment I knew this was in stone and buy an MR2.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Random thoughts/reactions:
Mid engine: Define mid engine. I bet big money that the RX-7s fall into that definition if the Miata is considered a mid engine car. Should we be adding 50 or 100 for them?
Weight: Not one person isn't astounded by the (heavy) weight?? I could dig up letters to the ITAC and posts here begging that the car be put in ITB at 2550. Not that that number was used in the calcs, but SOMEbody, who incidently, owns an MR2 is just fine with it.
Engine potential: Factors are done by genre, not by class. ie: rotary engines get different factors than 16 valve or old American smoggers, etc.
Mid engine: Define mid engine. I bet big money that the RX-7s fall into that definition if the Miata is considered a mid engine car. Should we be adding 50 or 100 for them?
Weight: Not one person isn't astounded by the (heavy) weight?? I could dig up letters to the ITAC and posts here begging that the car be put in ITB at 2550. Not that that number was used in the calcs, but SOMEbody, who incidently, owns an MR2 is just fine with it.
Engine potential: Factors are done by genre, not by class. ie: rotary engines get different factors than 16 valve or old American smoggers, etc.
Just to tidy this thing up and close it down...
I could very well be wrong (no way!) and I'll be glad to help anyone willing to tilt this windmill, but in the end I'm willing to wager there's a perfectly good ITB candidate in the classifieds here for only $3k that's not going to eventually be turned into a winner. I'd sooner attempt at getting the ITA version down to its "old" I weight (a project I honestly believe is achievable, all the more making me sorry to see that the "dual classification" request was met with "not within the philosophy of the class"; which, of course, made me and a lot of BMW E36 owners go "uuuhh....whaaaaaa....?")
Theories are nice and all, but then comes the bitch of reality. And the reality is, I'm not willing to use my money to test your theories. If one of you proves me wrong (bookmark this topic!) I'll be more than happy to let you tell me "I told you so". Until then...
I could very well be wrong (no way!) and I'll be glad to help anyone willing to tilt this windmill, but in the end I'm willing to wager there's a perfectly good ITB candidate in the classifieds here for only $3k that's not going to eventually be turned into a winner. I'd sooner attempt at getting the ITA version down to its "old" I weight (a project I honestly believe is achievable, all the more making me sorry to see that the "dual classification" request was met with "not within the philosophy of the class"; which, of course, made me and a lot of BMW E36 owners go "uuuhh....whaaaaaa....?")
Theories are nice and all, but then comes the bitch of reality. And the reality is, I'm not willing to use my money to test your theories. If one of you proves me wrong (bookmark this topic!) I'll be more than happy to let you tell me "I told you so". Until then...
Sorry, Greg. I read too much into "something fishy going on," I guess.
>> Don't "you guys" ever, after coming to a conclusion, throw that decision up on a wall of common sense and see if it sticks? ...
There's a fundamental problem with that, which you allude to here:
>> ...make me wonder if "The Process" hasn't simply devolved into yet another group of guys making subjective decisions behind closed doors, based on what they "think" is right.
The biggest traps that we get in, we get in because we "think [whatever] is right." Or we listen to people who "KNOW that [whatever] is right." I've made no secret of the fact that I'd like to take all but the barest, tiniest little opportunity for subjectivity out of the process - I think you know that - but I'm in the minority both on the ITAC and among the membership, I think. There's a LOT of support for using "common sense" or "common knowledge" when listing and classifying cars, but it's just the tiniest little step from that to the smoke filled room.
OK, so it would be a non-smoking chat room now but same diff.
I'm not John Bishop and this isn't IMSA, so we have a process that captures compromise. Oh, yeah - I forgot to mention that it's all Andy's fault.
Jake's chimed in on the multiplier thing. Some of us think that's where we need to do more work to "get the process right," in terms of really understanding what the various "genre" of engines (architecture, age, etc.) are likely to do. We can't get in the business of coming up with a separate factor for every car - that's de facto, subjective, proactive competition adjustments (bleah, bleah!) again - but there might be room to do that better.
>> Easy thing to do is just compare lap times from the long history of ITA MR2's and ITB cars on a given weekend.
With respect, that might be the very possible worst way to go about it.
There's absolutely NO way to know if we're comparing apples and apples, in terms of preparation, tire budget, testing, dyno time, build quality, and driver talent. That, and it's the shortest way to real competition adjustment (bleah!) hell that I can think of. Feedback from IT racers seems to say that they don't want weights adjusted based on finishes, since it just takes one really fast guy running a make/model in key races to get lead for everyone who owns that car.
>> Now of course we'll get into the inevitable next problem, where a bunch of MR2's, which have been under-built to run in ITA ('cause no-one in their right mind would build a 10/10ths MR2 for ITA!) move to ITB and have trouble keeping pace, then complain...
They can complain all they want but all they can do is ask for the car to be run through the process again. BUT (for those of you getting ready to holler about repeatability) we've made one very important change, in that we're documenting the how and why of current listings. It's made it easy for us to spot irregularities so we're trying to figure out how best to address them. It's going to be a VERY tough sell if current ITAC members are still around, if MR2 owners whine about being uncompetitive.
And I believe I'm safe in saying that pretty much all of the ITAC members are in agreement that "My car's not fast enough" is NOT sufficient rationale for a change.
K
>> Don't "you guys" ever, after coming to a conclusion, throw that decision up on a wall of common sense and see if it sticks? ...
There's a fundamental problem with that, which you allude to here:
>> ...make me wonder if "The Process" hasn't simply devolved into yet another group of guys making subjective decisions behind closed doors, based on what they "think" is right.
The biggest traps that we get in, we get in because we "think [whatever] is right." Or we listen to people who "KNOW that [whatever] is right." I've made no secret of the fact that I'd like to take all but the barest, tiniest little opportunity for subjectivity out of the process - I think you know that - but I'm in the minority both on the ITAC and among the membership, I think. There's a LOT of support for using "common sense" or "common knowledge" when listing and classifying cars, but it's just the tiniest little step from that to the smoke filled room.
OK, so it would be a non-smoking chat room now but same diff.
I'm not John Bishop and this isn't IMSA, so we have a process that captures compromise. Oh, yeah - I forgot to mention that it's all Andy's fault.
Jake's chimed in on the multiplier thing. Some of us think that's where we need to do more work to "get the process right," in terms of really understanding what the various "genre" of engines (architecture, age, etc.) are likely to do. We can't get in the business of coming up with a separate factor for every car - that's de facto, subjective, proactive competition adjustments (bleah, bleah!) again - but there might be room to do that better.
>> Easy thing to do is just compare lap times from the long history of ITA MR2's and ITB cars on a given weekend.
With respect, that might be the very possible worst way to go about it.
There's absolutely NO way to know if we're comparing apples and apples, in terms of preparation, tire budget, testing, dyno time, build quality, and driver talent. That, and it's the shortest way to real competition adjustment (bleah!) hell that I can think of. Feedback from IT racers seems to say that they don't want weights adjusted based on finishes, since it just takes one really fast guy running a make/model in key races to get lead for everyone who owns that car.
>> Now of course we'll get into the inevitable next problem, where a bunch of MR2's, which have been under-built to run in ITA ('cause no-one in their right mind would build a 10/10ths MR2 for ITA!) move to ITB and have trouble keeping pace, then complain...
They can complain all they want but all they can do is ask for the car to be run through the process again. BUT (for those of you getting ready to holler about repeatability) we've made one very important change, in that we're documenting the how and why of current listings. It's made it easy for us to spot irregularities so we're trying to figure out how best to address them. It's going to be a VERY tough sell if current ITAC members are still around, if MR2 owners whine about being uncompetitive.
And I believe I'm safe in saying that pretty much all of the ITAC members are in agreement that "My car's not fast enough" is NOT sufficient rationale for a change.
K
JeffYoung
New member
Isn't the engine so far backin these cars that you have to change the rear 2 spark plugs via a trap door in the firewall?
Andy, I tell ya, the 260 motored car with stock carb....it's an ITS car......
Andy, I tell ya, the 260 motored car with stock carb....it's an ITS car......
Hey, my Tiger has 'front mid-enginedness' too! Awesome!
JoshS
New member
I'll say it again.
The E36 was different. A WHOLE NEW CLASS WAS CREATED, and an existing listing was placed into it. Rather than move a pretty popular car into a class that might or might not ever really take off, a dual classification was approved. My opinion is that there should have been an expiration date placed on the ITS listing (good through 2010 or something).
That's totally different than moving a listing from one class to a well-established class. The philosophy is that dual-classifications will only be considered when new classes are established (and one of the classifications is in the new class.)
steve b
New member
They may be approaching vintage status, but they'd still be new compared to this field http://www.wdcr-scca.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=K74TB39eboo=&tabid=75&mid=1911
Six different MR2s attended races at Summit Point this season and that number could go as high as 9 next season if the car is classed and weighted competitively.
RSTPerformance
New member
ok, I am late on my opinion but I have a few questions...
First, an ITB Audi Coupe GT is classes at 2540 and has 115hp stock. It has A-arms, but also has struts. It has a solid rear axle, but the best part about these tanks is that the ENTIRE engine is infront of the front axle... talk about a well balanced car!!! The car is technically a FWD car, but in reality it is a 2 wheeled vehicle as the rear tires have so little weight on them and don't really do much. Just about the only thing going for the car is that all the Golfs and Miatas will just bounce off
So with all this where should IT weigh in at???
Second... Greg do you really care about the MR2 or is this really all about the Miata? (semi seriouse joke)
Raymond "I wish I had the money, I know an MR2 would be faster than an Audi (in the dry) and I think we do darn good considering" Blethen
First, an ITB Audi Coupe GT is classes at 2540 and has 115hp stock. It has A-arms, but also has struts. It has a solid rear axle, but the best part about these tanks is that the ENTIRE engine is infront of the front axle... talk about a well balanced car!!! The car is technically a FWD car, but in reality it is a 2 wheeled vehicle as the rear tires have so little weight on them and don't really do much. Just about the only thing going for the car is that all the Golfs and Miatas will just bounce off
So with all this where should IT weigh in at???Second... Greg do you really care about the MR2 or is this really all about the Miata? (semi seriouse joke)
Raymond "I wish I had the money, I know an MR2 would be faster than an Audi (in the dry) and I think we do darn good considering" Blethen
Last edited: