August 2012 Fastrack

[pfrichardson]

...are posted:

http://www.scca.com/clubracing/content.cfm?cid=44472

[Greg Amy]

Thanks Pam!

(Not unexpected...)


Improved Touring
ITA
1. #8502 (Raymond Yergler) Explanation of Weight Increase for ITA 1.8 Miata The ITAC and CRB are aware of the numerous discussions related to the recent change in weight for the ITA 1.8 Miata. Both bodies wish to make it clear this was not "reward" weight. Rather, a majority of both bodies felt that the incorrect stock horsepower number was used when using the IT process for setting the weight on the car. This has been corrected, and the resulting weight is within a small margin of that produced by using actual horsepower figures from dyno testing of IT builds.Hmmmm....what's this boy up to...?

ITR
1. #4181 (Demetrius Mossaidis) Classify the 2004‐06 Acura TSX in IT
Classify the Acura TSX in ITR as follows:

[StephenB]

I hate to say this but I think we need to have some type of communication to know if a letter is still being looked at or not. To be honest if a letter is over a year old the person that put in the request may no longer care and it may be waisting valuable time that the ITAC and CRB probably doesn't have.


Also who should I contact on the ITAC if they messed up giving an explanation on a letter that was submitted. I assume the ITAC makes up the verbage that goes into the fasttrack.

Thanks,
Stephen Blethen

[JeffYoung]

Danny Doern is the ITAC chair. His e-mail is on the SCCA website I think.

If not, post here and Chip or I will pick it up. What did we get wrong on the Audi?

[StephenB]

Jeff,

Thanks for the reply.
1.) The 2.3 ITA car has 10.0 compression.
2.) They didn't change the weight on the lower HP rated engine in ITB they left both engines on the same spec line rather than splitting them and put a random response to refer to another letter which had nothing to do with the request.

I am honestly focused on the RX8 nowadays so I don't want to waist to much of your time on it. a year ago I probably would have been more concerned. Either way we should fix it, I know a few people still racing coupes and the 2.2 listed is significantly a better engine but very difficult to come bye. It would be nice to have the option to use the other engine and still be able to keep up.

[Chip42]

There are a few different audi coupe motors in the coupe / coupe GT ITB classifications. Steven was looking at the 2.114L, not the 2.226L GT, and I swept that letter up with the rest of the Audi stuff by accident. I've already started internal dialogue on the ITAC forum to readress the smaller engine. I'll take the heat for that one, and I appologize to Steven or anyone else with an interest in the earlier Audi Coupe in ITB.

[tom91ita]

Chip,

fyi. i have no interest in the audi but certainly DO appreciate you being prompt and explaining what happened.

everyone can make a mistake but the folks that will admit it are few and far between.

:happy204:

thanks,

tom

[StephenB]

Chip, do me one BIG favor. Don't spend a lot of time on my behalf. If it becomes an internal argument then don't bother waisting resources on it. I WAS going to do more racing with the Audi but I can't afford to run the Audi and the RX8. If I ever do anything with it I am certainly not building a new engine (unless I blew it up!)

Thanks for the quick response and explanation,
Stephen

How should I go about fixing compression on the ITA car? We are considering that option for Raymonds car. In the past we knew it would never compete and never noticed the error but maybe we will reconsider it now

[Rabbit05]

Chip ,
Good catch on the letters ....mistakes happen.



Now that the board has the factory manual...I am just curious as to why nothing was done with the 2.2 coupes ? :shrug:

I wonder who I can contact to get a copy of the information the board is using to determine HP ?

It would be great to set myself, and the other 1000's of Audi CGT owners, straight on the stock hp of the KX...:rolleyes:

[JeffYoung]

John, I still have that manual -- did I promise it to you? I'll still send, just got lazy and didn't mail it.

Is the KX the same motor that is in the Blethen's car? If so, all factory documentation was 110 I think, except for that one factory service slide that said 120.

[Rabbit05]

Jeff,

Yes, I am certain they run the KX.

I am almost positive, I don't have the book with me, that from 84 to 87 Coupes came with the KX engine (110hp). The earlier cars , according to the 81 to 83 manual...these coupes came with a WE code motor (100 hp). The 87.5 is the "special coupe" that is in ITA , that has the 2.3 and fancy rear disc brakes.

A factory service slide , I'd like to see that ,if possible ? Could I get a picture or copy of it ? (please :D )


While I appreciate the offer of the manual, I dont really need another one. Maybe Steve or Ray wants it ...or I think maybe Greg A had some interest in it as well ? My garage is too small for another book.

[mossaidis]

Thanks Pam!

(Not unexpected...)

Hmmmm....what's this boy up to...?

Quote:
ITR
1. #4181 (Demetrius Mossaidis) Classify the 2004‐06 Acura TSX in IT
Classify the Acura TSX in ITR as follows:
Actually, it's the 04-08 TSX now! I also requested the 03-05 Accord as well. I think both are good candiates for IT, though the TSX over the Accord considering their IT classifications. There are GOBS of these cars out there and LOTS of aftermarket support - why not?!?!

[StephenB]

Actually, it's the 04-08 TSX now! I also requested the 03-05 Accord as well. I think both are good candiates for IT, though the TSX over the Accord considering their IT classifications. There are GOBS of these cars out there and LOTS of aftermarket support - why not?!?!

I am not a Honda guy but I think this is an awesome addition!
What about the new civics?

Stephen

[mossaidis]

I am not a Honda guy but I think this is an awesome addition!
What about the new civics?

Stephen

Thanks Stephen - The 06 civic Si is listed in GCR under ITS at 3000 lbs, albeit a little heavy IMO. Where you suggesting non-Si civic as well?

[preparedcivic]

I am not a Honda guy but I think this is an awesome addition!
What about the new civics?

Stephen

The only issue I see with the classification is I don't think a TSX is going to get anywhere near weight (2760 IIRC). Stock curb weight is 3150. Loosing the sunroof and interior will bring it down to 2650 at the least, then adding a cage and even an average weight driver puts it back to around 3000.

I think it makes way more sense as a heavy ITS car at that weight, which is what E46 323's are.

For full disclosure, I've owned one as a street car for 7 years and 120k miles.

[mossaidis]

The only issue I see with the classification is I don't think a TSX is going to get anywhere near weight (2760 IIRC). Stock curb weight is 3150. Loosing the sunroof and interior will bring it down to 2650 at the least, then adding a cage and even an average weight driver puts it back to around 3000.

I think it makes way more sense as a heavy ITS car at that weight, which is what E46 323's are.

For full disclosure, I've owned one as a street car for 7 years and 120k miles.

I tend to agree as well. I initially placed my request for this car in ITR, yet changed my mind to ITS after evaulating the weights here. My only hestitiation on my opinion is that, I don't have the experience SCCA has with TSX as it relates to WC config and setup, etc. I figure the ITAC and CRB would have a LOT more information than I as far as ultimate weight after sunroof, interior, stereo, seats (lbs...), etc are riped out once they talked to the SCCA Pro racing.

I owned an 04 for 3 years and put on 50K miles. I loved it.

Any insight from the ITAC that could be spelled out here?

On edit: SCCA Pro racing has the 04-08 TSX classified at 2850 and 2725 lbs (limited prep), min weight with driver, in GTS and 2800 lbs with driver in TC. Interesting.

http://www.world-challenge.com/files/competitors/Appendix_A_Ver_50.pdf

[JeffYoung]

D & Rob:

We kicked that one around for a long time. Our general preference is to put it in the higher class at the lower weight if at all possible on the theory that most folks like to race lighter cars.

However, we have in the past considered requests to move cars, even ones just classed (MX5 is an example) if there is good data supporting a "it can't make weight" argument, and we do NOT require an actual build before doing so.

[mossaidis]

D & Rob:

We kicked that one around for a long time. Our general preference is to put it in the higher class at the lower weight if at all possible on the theory that most folks like to race lighter cars.

However, we have in the past considered requests to move cars, even ones just classed (MX5 is an example) if there is good data supporting a "it can't make weight" argument, and we do NOT require an actual build before doing so.

kewl - thanks Jeff! now, who has $ to build one? :)

[preparedcivic]

Mine has to go through the next 8 years as the son's then daughter's car first.

[Knestis]

Mine has to go through the next 8 years as the son's then daughter's car first.

...at which point it will be WAY ready for an easy retirement in IT. :)

K

[Chip42]

Chip, do me one BIG favor. Don't spend a lot of time on my behalf. If it becomes an internal argument then don't bother waisting resources on it. I WAS going to do more racing with the Audi but I can't afford to run the Audi and the RX8. If I ever do anything with it I am certainly not building a new engine (unless I blew it up!)

I promise - I won't :D but it was caught and will be looked at. no promises beyond that, it's still a committee.

on the TSX - I think the weight is not absurdly low, and like jeff said, general preference has been "better a little lower than realistic than carying a floorboard full of lead." again, if desired, we'll look at moving it down to S at added weight (default 3175#). of note, this car WAS run using the published process, which differs from the "old" process that was used on most ITR listings. as such, it lost 6% rather than a flat 100#, and gained weight for having wishbones. works out to something like 25# lighter than it would have been a few years ago. we're still reviewing all of ITR and might move all listings to the published process, the old process, or a hybrid. whatever we choose will 1) be the answer that seems most balanced and requires the lowest number of spec line changes and 2) be updated into the ops manual.

The 03-05 Accord we actually went the other direction on, because they really didn't seem to have a prayer of getting to ITS weight (2490#). the CL was a pretty obvious fit in A.

[Andy Bettencourt]

and gained weight for having wishbones.

So it's official that the ITAC has decided to go with the DW adder in ITR?

[Chip42]

So it's official that the ITAC has decided to go with the DW adder in ITR?
read on...

we're still reviewing all of ITR and might move all listings to the published process, the old process, or a hybrid. whatever we choose will 1) be the answer that seems most balanced and requires the lowest number of spec line changes and 2) be updated into the ops manual.

[Knestis]

Sigh.

It's WAY the heck too early for some kind of re-do of ITR, particularly if we're going to start picking and choosing from among the factors considered for each individual listing.

There's no other class that captures that narrow range of model years - so technologies. There isn't a lot of oddball crap that you have to accommodate. The only motivation for doing otherwise is because someone has qualitatively decided - individually or collectively - that some cars are faster than others if that's done.

THAT IS PERFORMANCE ADJUSTMENTS. THAT IS WRONG.

Run them all through the process initially used when the class was developed and step away.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

read on...

My fault Chip, I skimmed the original post. Thanks. I THINK (and hope) you will find that cars like the 944's, 968's etc that don't have DW's are just as capable as the cars that do in ITR. It would accomplish many things IMHO: Keep weights the lowest they can be and also result in the fewest spec line changes. I really do think that the DW adder has value in classes where 'econo-boxes' with strut designs engineered for packaging - is the right thing to do. But not in ITR.

[JeffYoung]

Chip and I rarely disagree but I would not support a redo of ITR unless it used the existing process, with no changes.

If that is what we are doing, I support it whole heartedly. ITR right now is a mess, a hodge podge of different versions of the process.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Chip and I rarely disagree but I would not support a redo of ITR unless it used the existing process, with no changes.

If that is what we are doing, I support it whole heartedly. ITR right now is a mess, a hodge podge of different versions of the process.

Yes, set the process and go. Looking at ITR, if it were me, I would 'correct' the error that left out the codifying of no DW adder in ITR, and then redo it. There is certainly language in there that allow some of the multipliers to stay the same. It's a GREAT class so the issue is to make sure you don't stick so hard and fast by the 25% that you crush cars that can't make it and allow cars that overachieve to get light. REALLY do the homework for any change.

[Chip42]

One process, all cars. Whatever we decide, all spec lines in ITR will get run through. We already had this discussion here and on the box. I agree that most of the strut cars are not at a measurable detriment to the DW cars, except FWD, where struts ARE a detriment. Ditto stick axles. But its just concept phase now, and only 2 cars are "off" (tsx and vette). We also need to run it through committee and CRB. So everyone calm down.

[StephenB]

Thanks Stephen - The 06 civic Si is listed in GCR under ITS at 3000 lbs, albeit a little heavy IMO. Where you suggesting non-Si civic as well?

I guess I don't know my Hondas well at all. I think/thought I was racing against the SI in Pirelli World Challenge a few weeks back. certainly a lot more HP than the other ITR cars but I am guessing it could be classed correctly with weight in ITR. I know they are running in the Castrol Canadian Touring Car Series as well

Stephen

Some other cars I was wondering about
Solstice and the Scion Tc?

[mossaidis]

I guess I don't know my Hondas well at all. I think/thought I was racing against the SI in Pirelli World Challenge a few weeks back. certainly a lot more HP than the other ITR cars but I am guessing it could be classed correctly with weight in ITR. I know they are running in the Castrol Canadian Touring Car Series as well

Stephen

The Si's in WC you noticed are probably the 2012 models with the K24Z7 (2.4L) and not the K20Z3 (2.0L) which were available on the 06-11 models. There's heaps more torque in the K24Z7, at least, relative in the Honda world, 201chp and 170 ctq vs 195 chp and 139 ctq in the K20Z3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Civic_Si#2006.E2.80.932011

So, the K24Z7 in the 2012 Si is very similar to the 04-08 TSX engines, K24A2, though I don't know all the differences between the motors, they're some and some of those are overcome in IT prep.

Tangentially, the other obvious difference between the all TSX models and all 06-12 Civics are that the TSX has front DW and the 06-12 Civics do not.

Last, the curb weight of the 06-12 Si's varies from 2877 and 2954 lbs.

Mickey

PS. It's very early in the am, so other Honda guys should feel free to correct my references if need be. :)

[Andy Bettencourt]

One process, all cars. Whatever we decide, all spec lines in ITR will get run through. We already had this discussion here and on the box. I agree that most of the strut cars are not at a measurable detriment to the DW cars, except FWD, where struts ARE a detriment. Ditto stick axles. But its just concept phase now, and only 2 cars are "off" (tsx and vette). We also need to run it through committee and CRB. So everyone calm down.

Agreed on all counts.

[mossaidis]

on the TSX - I think the weight is not absurdly low, and like jeff said, general preference has been "better a little lower than realistic than carying a floorboard full of lead." again, if desired, we'll look at moving it down to S at added weight (default 3175#). of note, this car WAS run using the published process, which differs from the "old" process that was used on most ITR listings. as such, it lost 6% rather than a flat 100#, and gained weight for having wishbones. works out to something like 25# lighter than it would have been a few years ago. we're still reviewing all of ITR and might move all listings to the published process, the old process, or a hybrid. whatever we choose will 1) be the answer that seems most balanced and requires the lowest number of spec line changes and 2) be updated into the ops manual.

The 03-05 Accord we actually went the other direction on, because they really didn't seem to have a prayer of getting to ITS weight (2490#). the CL was a pretty obvious fit in A.

Thanks ITAC!

[Greg Amy]

http://www.scca.com/assets/12-fastrack-aug.pdf

[mossaidis]

Talk about technicalities...

Cooper MacNeil vs. SOM COA Ref. No. 12-07-GL

[John Nesbitt]

Talk about technicalities...

Cooper MacNeil vs. SOM COA Ref. No. 12-07-GL




I read that a little differently.

As clunky as the system sometimes appears to be, it is strongly committed to providing due process and fairness in rules enforcement.

I was not in any way a party to this case, but, from the outside, it appears that the Court of Appeals decided that the original process was so flawed that Mr. Cooper did not get a complete/fair hearing. Hence their decision to overturn the original judgment.

Nobody wants to go through the stress and bother of filing an appeal. And I write as one who has been party to a fair number. However, I read this judgment as the system's working, correcting an error, and actually delivering justice. A Good Thing.

[Rabbit05]

" IT
1. #4315 (Raymond Blethen) Where to get stock HP numbers?
Thank you for your letter. The committees consider all credible data collected when reviewing a request.
2. #4317 (Stephen Blethen) Reprocess the weight of the 1981-1984 Coupe with the WE engine.
Thank you for your letter. Please see letter #4315.
3. #4360 (John VanDenburgh) Please re-run 84-87 Audi Coupe GT
Thank you for your letter. Please see letter #4315.
4. #4361 (John VanDenburgh) Please classify/rerun 80-83 Audi Coupe GT
Thank you for your letter. Please see letter #4315."



A waste of time I guess....:(

Can I request a copy of whatever HP is being used to class the Audi's please ? If I show up to tech with my factory manual and, I guess, has the wrong info ..I don't want to be DQ'ed.

Thanks,

[jumbojimbo]

I read that a little differently.

As clunky as the system sometimes appears to be, it is strongly committed to providing due process and fairness in rules enforcement.

I was not in any way a party to this case, but, from the outside, it appears that the Court of Appeals decided that the original process was so flawed that Mr. Cooper did not get a complete/fair hearing. Hence their decision to overturn the original judgment.

Nobody wants to go through the stress and bother of filing an appeal. And I write as one who has been party to a fair number. However, I read this judgment as the system's working, correcting an error, and actually delivering justice. A Good Thing.

I didn't get that at all. As I was reading I was seeing "ok, so the paperwork wasn't perfect..." and I never really saw "your right to a fair judgement was compromised". So I was a little surprised everything was dropped in the end. At the very least I expected a strong waggy finger and a word of warning about the driving.

Now we need the video so the court of public opinion can weigh in.

[JeffYoung]

" IT
1. #4315 (Raymond Blethen) Where to get stock HP numbers?
Thank you for your letter. The committees consider all credible data collected when reviewing a request.
2. #4317 (Stephen Blethen) Reprocess the weight of the 1981-1984 Coupe with the WE engine.
Thank you for your letter. Please see letter #4315.
3. #4360 (John VanDenburgh) Please re-run 84-87 Audi Coupe GT
Thank you for your letter. Please see letter #4315.
4. #4361 (John VanDenburgh) Please classify/rerun 80-83 Audi Coupe GT
Thank you for your letter. Please see letter #4315."



A waste of time I guess....:(

Can I request a copy of whatever HP is being used to class the Audi's please ? If I show up to tech with my factory manual and, I guess, has the wrong info ..I don't want to be DQ'ed.

Thanks,

No, it's not a waste of time. We have explained in long detail here what happened with the Audi, why and where the information used came from.

You won't be DQ'ed for having a factory manual. The question is the accuracy of the listing in it. I/we've explained before that there is an internal Audi document that shows 120 for that motor. Is that enough to bump the number used in the process up? For some it was.

[Rabbit05]

Jeff,
Yeah I know ...beating a dead horse here...but just for argument sake...if what you are telling me that the factory manual information cannot be trusted..does that make the whole manual..well, an unreliable source of information ?

If so ...then in my case ...what reference should I use for factory torque specs and the such ??...considering this is/was the manual used in Dealers country wide. See where I am coming from ? :shrug:

Also would/could you or someone on the board email me a copy of this internal Audi document ? My email is [email protected] .

Thanks,

[JeffYoung]

Yes, this is a dead horse, beat. There are a number of factory manuals with incorrect info, including stock hp (the RX8 among others). It doesn't invalidate the whole manual; let's stay rational here.

I do not have a copy of the microfiche sheet in question. I saw it once or twice. I can't remember if that was online or from someone on the committee.

[StephenB]

John,

I believe peter Keene and Chris Howard are the ones with the info. They also know of a trick head for the car but we where never able to get that info from them either. Those two are your ticket to the info your searching for...

I am not sure how good this forums search function is but lots of long threads on this. I promise that the itac of the past tried to make it right but it just isn't happening ever. Caused enough drama to last a decade!

[Rabbit05]

Jeff,
If I could get a copy that would be fantastic......

....and I Stephen,....yeah I know this isn't going to happen. I looked at some of those old threads.. the Audi thing has been "around the Block" a few times. What disturbs me the most is that, in looking at the old threads , IMO, people on the board made decisions about cars within there own class. Not to say that it should sway a members input , but I find that to be a conflict of interest . I'm sure they are all good people trying to do the right thing...but looking into the glass bowl ..it just doesn't feel right to me .

[Chip42]

Jeff,
If I could get a copy that would be fantastic......

....and I Stephen,....yeah I know this isn't going to happen. I looked at some of those old threads.. the Audi thing has been "around the Block" a few times. What disturbs me the most is that, in looking at the old threads , IMO, people on the board made decisions about cars within there own class. Not to say that it should sway a members input , but I find that to be a conflict of interest . I'm sure they are all good people trying to do the right thing...but looking into the glass bowl ..it just doesn't feel right to me .

we sort of have to make decisions about cars in our own class, there are only 5 of us, 2 competing in and/or with serious ties to ITB. the ITAC is a fair and very reasonable group, so I wouldn't let this part bother you too much.

FWIW, the original 120hp decision and fact finding predates my time on the committee, but based on the summary I've been presented, which I believe was entierly fair to all sides, what I've read over the years and again when this came up from this forum, and the littlle data we do have about output from these audis, I voted to leave it as is and wait for more / better information. basically an atheist position, rather than a positive statement about absolute potential.

remember, the final classification of any fully developed car in the ITCS should be "known hp" or close to it. if you can supply us with enough information to take a firm stance on that, we don't need to worry about OEM published numbers.

[Rabbit05]

Ok ...so if I had a fresh/new motor put in...and put the car on a dyno , do you think this would be sufficient to have a re-look at the Audi ? I do need a new motor anyways...and dyno work would be nice for tuning purposes...but it's the $$$ involved to do it.

I curious to what is considered a fully developed car ? On-track performance isnt a criteria for classing cars..is it ? ...just looking for clarification...

[JeffYoung]

On track performance is not explicitly part of the process. It is used as a "gut check" to observe and see if there is something wrong with our numbers.

On the Audi, here's how I remember it going down.

1. I collected a ton of data on the motor all showing 110 stock hp.
2. Someone had a legitimate, valid 120 hp listed on an internal Audi microfiche.
3. With the conflicting data, we went to see if there was actual dyno data out there. I don't think the Blethens had dyno data. I do think there was a sheet from an Irish Mike car from a while back that supported more torwards to the 110 stock hp figure.
4. There was a LOT of discussion of on track performance that I think most of us dismissed, related to Raymond and Stephen having excellent runs in qualifying one year at the ARRC (I believe before were mechanical DNFs though).

I can't say that others did NOT use on track to justify the higher weight. For me, it seemed to me the cars were competitive as is and thus I supported 'splitting' the two reported stock hp figures and use that, which resulted in I think a 100ish pound weight reduction in the car.

[Ron Earp]

Holy smoke, this ITB Audi thing isn't dead yet?

Seriously, how much of a difference in horsepower stock are we talking about, and, what weight does that translate into?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Holy smoke, this ITB Audi thing isn't dead yet?

Seriously, how much of a difference in horsepower stock are we talking about, and, what weight does that translate into?

10hp stock in ITB = 213lbs.

On edit - it IS a tough topic. Two different stock HP numbers in publication and very limited dyno numbers to validate.

[Knestis]

Members of the CRB had made their decision about what the Audi should weigh based on on-track performance. Period. All actions that followed, including the ITAC shut-down, came out of that. Several members of the then-ITAC were, by their own admission, swayed by anecdotal - heck, legendary - on-track performance of the car.

If you had been there, knowing what I know about your approach, Chip, I wager you would have had reason to be bothered. It may be a new day on the ITAC but some of the key players are still playing.

K

EDIT - and this was never about one car. It was about ad hoc and CRB roles and responsibilities, transparency, objectivity, and repeatability.

[JeffYoung]

To clarify, I agree with Kirk that is what happened the first time on the looksee at the Audi. It was not changed and not reprocessed due to perceived on track performance.

There was a second look later on after the shutdown and the weight was dropped. That is what I am referring to above. Still not "perfect" in that we didn't have really good dyno data for a actual power figure, and the stock hp number is in doubt. Tough call as Andy says.

[StephenB]

Zero weight drop has happened on the Audi coupe. The gt received a 50lb break. Truth is that back when it was classed it was given extra weight for bigger breaks and better aero. Both not part of the process so the gt was just made equal.

Raymond and I have the coupe.

The story of the ARRC has already been posted on this site...

[StephenB]

HP was not the reason given in the original request. Tourque was.
HP was the reason in the newest request (from John)

only person with access to this"internal document" has been listed on this site before. I think a copy was even posted. (it was not audi/vw) HP differences are the same type of situation as the maita...

[RSTPerformance]

On track performance was/is so old it was BEFORE the golf III was even classed and before all other cars we "realigned.". That performance was 1 second off the then track record and at least 2 - 3 seconds behind the current track record. Also we had Hoosier and Koni support at that race with new shocks and tires for just about every session. It was an all out effort.

Chris Howard is not the correct name... He is the cage builder from the northeast. It is Chris Albin who was 100% against the Audi's. For some reason he never liked us and made this personal.

And with that I can say we have had a lot of great people on the ITAC and CRB but we have also had a lot if terrible people on the boards as well... Unfortunatly some still are.

I would like a copy of that factory information as well... Including the engine specs.

Now the good news... John your a kick ass driver and we have already proven an I'll classed car can still win.

Now what is the issue with the RX8 manual??? That's what I am building now!

Raymond Blethen

[Ralf]

It is Chris Albin who was 100% against the Audi's. For some reason he never liked us and made this personal.


Raymond Blethen

100% against the AUDI's? Looking at the track records for Heartland Park, he set the record in an AUDI GT in 2006.

[RSTPerformance]

Ralf-

Interesting... But you do know that he is a huge advocate for the Golf III correct???

Moving on-

I personally don't care much about the weight of the Audi. I do care about the behind closed doors/retaliation/rumorville/whatever you want to call it crap that has happened. Members of the CRB and ITAC including my own regions (not mentioning names) flat out lied throughout the process. Additionally people on the ITAC such as (not mentioning names) and (not mentioning names) said we were cheating but failed to help us understand how when we reached out to them. Then out of the blue probably 2 years after all the crap started someone (not mentioning names) comes up with a factory document that the members (myself and anyone reading this) don't have access to and contradicts everything anyone ever knew about the cars.

1) If someone presented this document and shared it in the beginning I personally would have never said a word and been happy that I got an explanation for the classification... Problem is we never received an explanation.

2) If members of the ITAC and CRB think something is fishy they should not be spreading rumors. They should be taking action and they certainly should not be using the individuals performance as a basis for anything. It ruins it for others.

3) This entire thing is a great example of why things should not be personal... Back when this first started it seemed to me like this was all about the "Blethens" and we never wanted it to be nor should it be from anyone’s point of view. Simply because of our performance others such as John have been screwed and pulled into issues they shouldn't have had to have been pulled into. In retrospect what would have happened if we didn't go to the ARRC?

Again I really don't care about the weight... why??? I personally don't think at our level of racing (club regional’s) 100 lbs makes a difference that can't be made up with driving and pure luck. Sure we can't win every race but we can still win some with the cars how they are.

I truly hope that the current ITAC & CRB that were given this hornets nest is able to just figure out a way to get out of this and move on. All around this situation was very poorly handled. It is a great example how not to handle car classifications and should be used to teach new folks on the boards how to handle things behind closed doors and in front of the members in the club.

Raymond "Lets forget about the Audi and talk about MR2's, Miata's, BMW's in ITS or some other hot topic!" Blethen

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think the Audi issue is dead. It was certainly a pivot point in ITAC history as some of us were too stubborn to accept the CRB reasoning/mandate at the time. The current committees have seen the conflicting data, made their assumptions and 'corrected' the weight. The only thing that is left is to scan a copy of the documents that helped make the decision, publish them and it will be a closed issue, like it or not.

Not sure what else we could want on a car that has this type of documentation. We have to understand that some of these issues came to a head during a funky time in ITAC/CRB history and put that to bed. I have. Allowing the ITAC to have a Ops manual and allowing them/making them follow it is all we ask for.

[gran racing]

In retrospect what would have happened if we didn't go to the ARRC?

From the weight perspective, it sure would be interesting to know. Imagine how much weight would have been added it you both finished 1 & 2? LOL


"Lets forget about the Audi and talk about MR2's, Miata's, BMW's in ITS or some other hot topic!"

Oh gesh. :dead_horse: