MR2 Classing for PHA events

Racer79 · Post by **Racer79** » Tue May 17, 2011 10:38 pm

Over the winter the SCCA Solo Events Board moved the turbo MR2 and the non turbo to the same line in the rule book... By doing this they have created a good opportunity for the turbo to be competitive in BSP at the national level..(turbo was in ASP)......I for one think a properly built MR2 turbo could have a chance nationally in BSP.

For autocross its a great idea...........No chance for the turbo in ASP, and the non turbo cant compete in CSP,so nobody bothered
to build for those classes........Moving both to BSP consolidates the car into "Best of Breed" and could increase the number of MR2s seen outside of stock class at National autocross events.

But, for TT and Hillclimb events why not leave 20 year old 100hp MR2s in a class with other 20 year old 100hp 2 seater cars?

I found the below quote on your forums from a couple of years ago.......Does this mean that since the non turbo MR2 was thrown out of CSP because its so uncompetitive that it would still be able to run in CSP at hillclimb events?.(I drive a non turbo MR2)

"I just wanted to point out that SSA is no longer a class, so we shouldn't be running it. It is the same as when GT4 and GT5 were eliminated - we no longer run those classes. Now don't get confused by the rule that we have followed for years that if your car is thrown out of a class (say a 1990 MR2 no longer eligible for SSB), we still allow that car to run in SSB. That will be the same for all 1995-99 Neons when they are thrown out of SSC next year. They can still run in SSC. But if a class is completely eliminated from Club Racing rules, we should not run it any more."

camaroz1985 · Post by **camaroz1985** » Wed May 18, 2011 9:16 am

You should run in your current autocross class, so BSP in this case.

The quoted text refers to Showroom Stock classes which have an age restriction for club racing. I'm not sure on how this is handled for hillclimb, but I am guessing that they are allowed to continue running in the class even if they are no longer eligible for the club racing class. The cars haven't been moved to another class, but are no longer eligible for the class because of age, not performance.

Racer79 · Post by **Racer79** » Wed May 18, 2011 2:12 pm

Oh ok .I get it about Show Room Stock.........

..The Non turbo MR2 was a CSP class car, but it was SOOOO uncompetitive that they deemed it worthless as a CSP car..BUT if they put it on the same line in the rule book with the Turbo it would make more MR2 chassis available for engine swaps...Thus making it easier to find a good donor car to stick a turbo engine in......All done to help the MR2 Turbo at its new lower BSP class at National autocross events..........But for Hillclimb events the Non turbo Mr2 is at even more of a disadvantage......I know at one time the PHA had talked about combining BSP and ESP into one class....Did that ever happen?.........I can hold my on at a autocross event against 300hp+ BSP car but there is no way my 115hp non turbo MR2 can touch them at a hillclimb...............

Have you had any non turbo MR2 guys running in PHA events?

Mazdahead · Post by **Mazdahead** » Wed May 18, 2011 6:22 pm

I don't wanna touch this one, is Jeremy watching?
I remember that we had this issue in 2009 when Tony Ford used hid grandfathers car and he started in CSP and I think by the end of the weekend he was in ESP?
I remember that Alvey was quite upset about the change. I think he added the turbo during the weekend.
I am not sure if Rich Rock might remember or Kurt Eichenberg, but those would be the guys to talk to.
If you want more information please select the following link and contact one of the folks listed there.
http://pahillclimb.net/contact/contacts/

Dale Witman

03

jerdeitzel · Post by **jerdeitzel** » Wed May 18, 2011 10:19 pm

FIrst off i'm confused about putting them both on the same line in the book? Does this mean that you can build your NA MR2 into the turbo version? If not i'm confused as to why moving them to BSP is good if they are not even competetive in CSP?

You really just have to run in what ever class your car is in. There are plenty of cars that are not competetive in certain classes and plenty that change classes. Hell next year all the classes are changing i hear. (solo reclassing)

I do also kno that Glen Hoffman runs a NA MR2 and had classing issues last year in regards to the road race classes.

mrevilracing · Post by **mrevilracing** » Thu May 19, 2011 5:09 am

Putting them on the same line gives you a great opportunity to change to the turbo. May be something to consider.

As Jeremy said, there are many cars that are not competitive in hillclimbing due to classing. If it were up to me, I'd break theOpen wheel, FWD, AWD and RWD cars out and make some sub classes with the FI and non FI cars and call it a day. Maybe make like 12 - 20 classes tops.

I think it's just awesome we can race like this on a public road and NOT get a ticket. I'm having one hell of a time testing my car right now cause i need a bunch of roads shut down! So I guess I'll spend a bunch of time in the infield at Jefferson. LOL! That is, IF it even runs. I think that Mike put some shut off somewhere in that roll cage. I'm still looking........

jerdeitzel · Post by **jerdeitzel** » Thu May 19, 2011 8:17 am

Okay, i recieved an email from Glenn. I'm sure he will post when he gets a chance but from what he is telling me.

The First and second gen non-turbo, Spyder and Supercharged MR2 all go into CSP! The turbo goes into BSP! unless the turbo is modified then it goes into SSM.
http://www.scca.com/documents/2011%20Te ... 0Rules.pdf Pages 178 and 179.

As for the whole quote.
The quote was from Dave Yeager telling Alvy Ford cant run in SSA because there is no SSA in the GCR. In my case I cant run SSB because it is too old and isn't listed in the current GCR. Tell him I was running on street tires last year and the MR2 is competitive!

FWIW, the PHA did not bend the rules to allow Glenn to run SSB. (he wanted too)

Racer79 · Post by **Racer79** » Thu May 19, 2011 12:18 pm

OHH MAN thats GREAT news for everyone with a non turbo 2gen MR2............2nd gen non turbo here..........

Its great to use Solo car classes as a base line for Hillclimb or TT events as long as you also consider
SCCA Time Trial Rule 10.1......

"The Time Trials program shall use a class structure which will maximize participation potential and enhance local competition.This allows each local series to tailor its classes to suit, so long as the following minimum requirements are met:"

2 of the 4 requirements have to do with level 2 events....1 has to do with Vintage legal cars. the 4th one states "Other classes may be adopted locally as needed so long as safety requirements are met"

Racer79 · Post by **Racer79** » Mon May 23, 2011 11:50 am

jerdeitzel....I guess I should have clicked and looked at the link...What Glen told you is different then what the link says....The link has all 2nd gen in BSP...........

And yes the reason they put them both on the same line in the rule book is so it would make more chassis available for engine swap..........They essentially "sacrificed" the non turbo in a effort to help the turbo in its new lower class of BSP........All this was done for autocross with no regard for HC or TT events..But a CSP MR2 can compete with a CSP Miata at HC/TT events....Heck, a Civic won CSP at Duryea last year but a doubt anyone even competes at autocross tour events in one...Glen Hoffmans Non turbo MR2 would have been the only BSP car (under the current classing). But in CSP he was able to have one heck of a battle with a RX7 and a Fiero........

The autocross PAX for BSP is 0.859 and the PAX for CSP its 0.858......Shows that both cars are the same in a parking lot.....But we know that a BSP car would destroy a CSP car on the track or at a HC.

My hope is that PHA board members will discuss leaving the NON Turbo 2nd gen MR2 as a CSP car for 2012........Thanks for your input

dspgti · Post by **dspgti** » Mon May 23, 2011 10:49 pm

Rule #1 Sorry that I'm too lazy to look it up, but you will find in every level of racing in SCCA the wording that goes something like " there is no gaurantee that all cars will be competitive, just that all cars will have a place to run".

#2 I will fight tooth and nail that PHA makes no changes to any SCCA ruling on classification in the GCR and SOLO II Rule book. If they want to make up some classes, that's okay, but no bending of Nationally and Regionaly recognized classes should be allowed, PERIOD.

#3 PAX has no place in Time Trials. Okay, there was some form of it used for the Tire Contingency program, but other than that, "It's mono o mono". (I don't think I spelled that right).

If anyone was using my quotes, let me make this clear. In the past I have tried to be flexable and reasonable in my opinions regarding the application of the rule book. Keep in mind, I have no official capacity in PHA or any level of SCCA. But, time after time I have been burned by those that have choosen to take a stance on some principle or another. So my position is this, "it better be by the letter of the GCR or SOLO Rule Book or there is going to be a battle.

Fair enough?

Dave Yeager

dspgti · Post by **dspgti** » Tue May 24, 2011 7:48 am

I'll give you a couple more of my opinions.

In autocrossing, competitiveness might be 50% car, 50% driver.

In hillclimbs, it might be 60 to 70% driver and 30 to 40% car. That being said, the level car preperation is very important. A bone stock car with only minor upgrades for Street Prepared won't have a chance against any car that has been fully preped with blue printed motor, limited slip differential, coil over suspensions and the best wheels and tires money can buy.

But then again, horse power always goes a long way.

Dave Y

Racer79 · Post by **Racer79** » Tue May 24, 2011 9:29 pm

Only used the PAX reference as a example of how 2 cars from different classes and horse power potential could be capable of the same times in a parking lot but, be so different on Track or Hill. The EVO being top BSP car and Miata the top car in CSP at the top level of autocross...(maybe 5sec or more depending on event)

Dave, thanks for your input and, I respect your "it better be by the letter of the GCR or SOLO Rule Book or there is going to be a battle" stance...Its along those lines that I ask you to read 2011 SCCA Time Trial Rule 10.1 for Level 3 or 4 TT events...

SCCA Time Trials Rule 10.1
The Time Trials program shall use a class structure which will maximize participation potential and enhance local competition.
This allows each local series to tailor its classes to suit as long as the following minimum requirements are met:

> All classes listed in the current GCR (both National and Regional) must be accommodated. This rule is to allow a place to compete for any car prepared to a GCR class but does not restrict classes from being consolidated because of limited participation.

> It is strongly recommended the Solo Street Prepared and Street Mod class cars are accommodated provided that they have the required Time Trials safety equipment.

> SCCA Vintage legal cars will also be eligible for Time Trials. These cars may be prepared to current SCCA Vintage rules, and the burden of proof of legality fall to the competitor.

> Other classes may be adopted locally as needed, so long as safety requirements are met. These classes may include Specials, Rally, Legends, or other classes. All such classes will be listed in the Supplemental Regulations for the series or event.

Racer79 · Post by **Racer79** » Tue May 24, 2011 9:47 pm

Its only in Level 2 Events(Club Trials) that the SCCA requires the current National Solo Rules be accommodated.........

In my opinion its the first sentence that could allow the NON turbo MR2 in CSP class for HC events without any rules being bent.......

dspgti · Post by **dspgti** » Wed May 25, 2011 8:30 am

Oh what a tangled web we weave.....

I'm sorry for sounding a little blunt but there is a long history of trying to "mess" with the classes only to have it come back and bite us. The classes that have turbo cars are the worst to control competitiveness. The problem comes from trying to enforce or monitor boost controls. Once we tried to have all turbo cars bumped to Street Mod. That was a total disaster and we had protests taken to the National level and we had to withdraw the rule.

Talk about combining classes. Wait till you hear the howling on that one. Bumping or class consolidation means slower cars get bumped up, not down. Also, think about the ones in the slower class that have a car bumped down into their class. Won't happen.

So all I can say is "refer to Rule #1"

Always stirring the pot,

Dave Y

dspgti · Post by **dspgti** » Wed May 25, 2011 9:16 am

One thing that everybody should understand is that only "you" (the person asking the questions) and those that have "your" type car, knows anything about the specifics of "your" particular car. So when you ask questions, state year, make and model. Most of us don't know 1st Gen something to 2nd Gen anything else.

I finally took the time to look at the SOLO classifications. I, personnaly don't know what year or configuration is being discussed here. I see Turbo's, Spiders, supercharged, 1st Gen, yada, yada, yada.

Fill us in.
Dave Y

jerdeitzel · Post by **jerdeitzel** » Wed May 25, 2011 3:56 pm

Like Dave said i have no idea about Mr2's. I posted what Glenn sent me!

So, a few things.

First, we cannot change classing rules that are national classes. If your car is in BSP nationally then that is where you are going to run. That is unless PHA decided to form a (hillclimb CSP class , were we make the classing ruless). Which is allowed, but i'd lay a bet that it won't happen.

Second, If your telling me that the reason your car is now in BSP is so people have decent cars to make the turbo mode.l Then, Turbo the car! Its not the PHA problem that your car is not fully prepped for BSP.

I fully agree with all your arguements but, your barking up the wrong tree. If you think you have a class of people who want to race in the same class. That all can be competetive. Then get them all together and approach the PHA to make your own little class of cars.

Just come on out and race.

dspgti · Post by **dspgti** » Wed May 25, 2011 5:44 pm

Racer79 wrote:Its only in Level 2 Events(Club Trials) that the SCCA requires the current National Solo Rules be accommodated.........

In my opinion its the first sentence that could allow the NON turbo MR2 in CSP class for HC events without any rules being bent.......

Is there something we missed here?

Why does someone think that the rules only apply to Level 1 and 2? When it comes to driver and car safety eqiupment, that is true but why are the car classifications being questioned??

Enlighten us,
Dave Y

dspgti · Post by **dspgti** » Wed May 25, 2011 10:33 pm

jerdeitzel wrote:I fully agree with all your arguements but, your barking up the wrong tree. If you think you have a class of people who want to race in the same class. That all can be competetive. Then get them all together and approach the PHA to make your own little class of cars.

Better yet, take your issue up with SOLO National. They are the ones screwing up all the classes. I could go on and on about unfair classes. How about putting the 5th gen (MK 5)Rabbit with a 2.5 liter, 5 cylinder, cross flow, direct Injection engine in FSP along with a 1st gen (A1) Rabbit, 1.8L, 4 cyl, 8 valve, non cross flow, CIS injection. That's like horse drawn buggies against Indy Cars.

Dave Y

Racer79 · Post by **Racer79** » Wed May 25, 2011 10:48 pm

jerdeitzel wrote:Like Dave said i have no idea about Mr2's. I posted what Glenn sent me!

So, a few things.

First, we cannot change classing rules that are national classes. If your car is in BSP nationally then that is where you are going to run. That is unless PHA decided to form a (hillclimb CSP class , were we make the classing ruless). Which is allowed, but i'd lay a bet that it won't happen.

Second, If your telling me that the reason your car is now in BSP is so people have decent cars to make the turbo mode.l Then, Turbo the car! Its not the PHA problem that your car is not fully prepped for BSP.

I fully agree with all your arguements but, your barking up the wrong tree. If you think you have a class of people who want to race in the same class. That all can be competetive. Then get them all together and approach the PHA to make your own little class of cars.

Just come on out and race.

The Solo rule change effected all 91 to 95 non turbo MR2s (as shown in the Solo link you posted from Glen)

First.........I completely understand that my car and all non turbo 91 to 95 MR2s are now in BSP according to the SCCA 2011 Solo Rule Book.....Key word is "Solo" Rule Book..........All I'm asking is that the PHA board consider The SCCA TIME TRIAL Rules for Time Trial level 3 and 4 events...Its the TIME TRIALS rules and when you read the first sentence of Rule 10.1 why would what I'm suggesting be so crazy? The SCCA Solo events board are always making changes to car classes in order to create closer competition for autocross based on input from membership. Why would you not consider the same thing for TT events.

Second.....I understand that its not a PHA problem that the 91 to 95 non turbo MR2 are not fully prepped as BSP cars.....I hope I didn't come across that this was their problem....If so, it was not my intention....

As for as putting the turbo engine in a non turbo car in order to make it "fully" prepped.......Anyone with a Non turbo MR2 could have easily won BSP last year in 4 of the 6 hillclimbs...........BUT, they would have been the only car in the class....This brings me back to TT rule 10.1.......

I,m glad you agree with my arguments on this issue..Thanks very much for your input...

As for as a class of people who want to race in the same class that all can be competitive?? CSP..Maybe CSP drivers could in some way have input to this issue......Hey guys I'm not trying to start trouble just wanted to put this issue out there. The fact that there is not many CSP prepped 91 to 95 MR2s running make it easy to get swept under the rug...

Racer79 · Post by **Racer79** » Wed May 25, 2011 10:59 pm

dspgti wrote:
jerdeitzel wrote:I fully agree with all your arguements but, your barking up the wrong tree. If you think you have a class of people who want to race in the same class. That all can be competetive. Then get them all together and approach the PHA to make your own little class of cars.
Better yet, take your issue up with SOLO National. They are the ones screwing up all the classes. I could go on and on about unfair classes. How about putting the 5th gen (MK 5)Rabbit with a 2.5 liter, 5 cylinder, cross flow, direct Injection engine in FSP along with a 1st gen (A1) Rabbit, 1.8L, 4 cyl, 8 valve, non cross flow, CIS injection. That's like horse drawn buggies against Indy Cars.

Dave Y

Dave look again at Time Trail rule 10.1................That rule takes it out of National's hands for Time Trials and Hillclimbs....Oh and I like your comparison of Horse drawn buggies to Indy cars..........Kinda sounds like a non turbo MR2 vs. EVO on the track....

It looks like more class changes are coming again in SP for next year.

PA Hillclimb

MR2 Classing for PHA events

MR2 Classing for PHA events

Re: MR2 Classing for PHA events

Re: MR2 Classing for PHA events

Re: MR2 Classing for PHA events

Re: MR2 Classing for PHA events

Re: MR2 Classing for PHA events

Re: MR2 Classing for PHA events

Re: MR2 Classing for PHA events

Re: MR2 Classing for PHA events

Re: MR2 Classing for PHA events

Re: MR2 Classing for PHA events

Re: MR2 Classing for PHA events

Re: MR2 Classing for PHA events

Re: MR2 Classing for PHA events

Re: MR2 Classing for PHA events

Re: MR2 Classing for PHA events

Re: MR2 Classing for PHA events

Re: MR2 Classing for PHA events

Re: MR2 Classing for PHA events

Re: MR2 Classing for PHA events