MR2 Owners Club Forum banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,751 Posts
wow a 100 lb break! Maybe I should go back to IT LOL ;)

But how ya gonna legally take the weight out? I'd removed just about everything that was legal in IT and I only weight 120 and we were only slightly under weight with an empty fuel tank.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,626 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Mine's legal. I weigh 195, and with no fuel and no ballast it scales at 2295#. And I have 20# too much in wheels, alone.
 

·
Next Race 4/12/14
Joined
·
1,563 Posts
I was hoping this thread was going to announce the introduction of the MKII to ITA
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,626 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
It's one of those things . . .. AFAIK, the ITAC is in favor of that move - it's just that no one has written in formally requesting it. Put together a good letter requesting the move and send it to them!

And David: I was amazed at how much weight we lost (over 100#) when we rebuilt the cage (very innovative design using 1.5" x .095" tubing and figuring out how to legally eliminate the petty bar without going to the rear towers), installed the fuel cell, and re-did the suspension with coilovers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,027 Posts
Wow - this is awful news. The MR2 could have been a great ITB car - but at this weight it will never happen. My 87 never could get to the old spec weight, the new one is ridiculous. FWIW, my entire cage only weighs 110lbs.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,626 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
One of the reasons it did not go to ITB, I was told, was because of the cage rules. As it is, the rules allow a 1.5x.095 cage. If it went to B, the base weight would increase and require the next larger tubing (1.75x.095 or 1.5x.120). I told them I didn't have a problem with that, and I have a less than a year old cage. But they decided that this was the best compromise.

I know of at least 2 legal ITA cars that weigh ~2100 without driver and fuel. Mine and one more. I used to say getting to that weight was impossible, too. But it's not.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,751 Posts
ya Norm, it is kinda strange how we keep finding ways to remove weight from the mr2 legally. But I've also noticed some cars (not necessarly years) weigh more/less than others. Guess could be cage differences accounting for a lot.

Still I am real happy with FP. 2nd place out of 10 competitors aint' bad ;) and I'm not at max prep level .. no where near it.

Nationally I should be front/mid pack depending on who shows up.

Do tell on how to do the cage without petty bar or strut bars? My car had neither, and while I felt that may not have been legal - no one seemed to care, and since on 3rd log book....

I've actually considered what it would take to cut out the existing cage and redo - though my design is quite good.

Pissed I had to replace perfectly good belts this year grrr.

-David
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,626 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
The secret is that the GCR requires a minimum 30* angle with respect to the rear hoop on the supporting tubes. If you're short-legged (like me - and I know you are ;)) you can attach the rear bars to the firewall and still get the 30* by moving the hoop, and the vertical attachment point, slightly forward. Coilovers will save you about 50#. I know the stock tank isn't very heavy - but I have an 8 gallon aluminum cell, which is about 5# lighter, with the mounting hardware - not counting about 5# of metal we removed from the frunk to mount it. My old cage was a beefed-up Autopower bolt-in - 1.5x.120, with an added Petty bar. The new one, despite the "spiderweb" or "star of David" rear diagonal / crossbracing, the dash undertube, and the footwell protection, is almost 40# (net) lighter since we did the NASCAR trick on the driver's side and gutted the door. The chassis is noticeably stiffer, too.

If it had been legal to do the passenger side when we did it, I would have done that one too - saving probably another 25#. I may do that later this year. If my calculations are correct, that would bring the weight to almost exactly 2270# with a 195# driver and no gas. My chassis, in case you don't remember, is an '86 sunroof car - with the sunroof assembly still there, but the glass removed and replaced with an aluminum panel; thus making a de-facto "aftermarket" sunroof - which is bolted in per the GCR. If I decide to go to lighter wheels after that (both the Rev's and the OZ's weigh in at about 14#) , I'll be ballasting even at the new weight. ;)
 

·
Next Race 4/12/14
Joined
·
1,563 Posts
ITA-MR2 said:
It's one of those things . . .. AFAIK, the ITAC is in favor of that move - it's just that no one has written in formally requesting it. Put together a good letter requesting the move and send it to them!
.
I doubt that they want to hear from someone who does not yet have a competition license and who has only been a member of SCCA for about 2 years.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,751 Posts
Steve - all members can have input...

Norm - hmm, we have always believed that as the years progress the cars got heavier. But both your car and my car are very light. Lighter than the '85 ones I've checked. FWIW, I've got an '86 sunroof car with same configuration as you and it seems to be the lightest mr2 in the area (of course now it's beyond that.. but without removing everything that was legal - we were already underweight if we didn't have a couple gallons of gas when we were running ITA)

I've got very beefy nascar bars, and very happy with those. I can still cut away the door more for FP and the pass. door right now is fully intact minus window and that stuff. I have trouble cutting metal out from areas that protect me LOL.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,626 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
One of the places the '87 and later cars gained weight was in the rear suspension. I'll bet the suspension console "triangles" alone are a good 5#, each, heavier.

Amazing where you find stuff. I've been thinking about making ballast plates for a while (currently running drilled barbell weights ;)). This week I had to buy some steel plate stock - 1/4"x4" - to manufacture the plates and saddles for the lam-beams we are installing for the mezzanine in the shop. The stuff essentially costs about a buck a pound, and is extremely easy to work. Which got me to thinking - they sell scrap plate for ~$0.50/lb. 1" plate, is right at 41# per square foot. If you made a ballast sub-retainer out of 12"x12"x1/4" plate and installed it under the floor for a backing plate, and bolted it in place with a matching plate on top, and used a combination of G8 bolts to hold that in place and then provide a set of stacking pins . . . you would have a 20+# base, and could add 10# increments as necessary in individual plates.

Of course, now that we won't need ballast for a while . . .. Any how - just a thought.

BTW, due to a handful of additive errors, the happy outcome is that the shop office will now have a built-in wet bar! :D
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top