Published today.
http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastra...rack-april.pdf
Printable View
Published today.
http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastra...rack-april.pdf
So with the letter sumbited.. about the process..
"Thank you for your input. The CRB has opened communication channels with the ITAC. The ITAC chairman will communicate
with the membership."
is this any different than before? We talk to ITAC then they talk to CRB? is there guidlines in place fo rthe CRB to listen and consider openly to ITAC decisions?
looks like we have our first AWD.. and from the quick look at it, the weight seems right.
Translation: We are going to ignore the membership and continue to do what we want.
No. The CRB is free to ignore ITAC recommendations/requests. Though, now that the Vichy ITAC is installed, I'm certain the ITAC and CRB will be of one mind.Quote:
is this any different than before? We talk to ITAC then they talk to CRB? is there guidlines in place fo rthe CRB to listen and consider openly to ITAC decisions?
New rule:
That's us IT guys.. So, with that, a number of cars I know are now legal, and the way cars are built will change. How does this rule line up with NASA?Quote:
Seat mounting
Merideth/Sheridan, motion to approve the following GCR change: Approved: Butler, Creighton, Gordy, Kephart, Langlotz, Lewis, Lybarger, Merideth, Noble, Sheridan, Wannarka. Abstain: Patullo Effective immediately 3/9/10.
To allow secure mounting of racing seats in categories where a limited number of cage attachment points are allowed, the CRB recommends the following change.
In 9.3.41, add a new second paragraph as follows: Mounting structures for racing seats may attach to the floor, cage and or center tunnel. Seat mounting points forward of the main hoop, between the center line of the car and the driver’s side door bar and rearward of the front edge of the seat bottom are not considered cage attachment points in classes with limitations on the number of attachments.
Well, that was an interesting Fastrack.
On one hand I can see that there has been an effort for the responses to be more than "yes" or "no. That's something the old ITAC was working on. And that's good. Up to a point.
On the other hand, I can see it's being used when the CRB wants to use it. Case in point, the 8 letters written in protest of the CRB ITAC blow up. The letters are listed and the summation is "CRB-ITAC relationship", which tells the reader who knows nothing of what transpired, exactly nothing.
Then FURTHER, the response is very misleading. "Communication has been opened" ?!?!?!?! As if to say that CRB/ITAC communication was closed before!?!? That's really wrong. Communication was open, for sure. But the communication the ITAC was getting was inconsistent, flip flopped and was at times misrepresented.
It also states that the "Chairman will communicate". This I take to be a new limitation on public discussion, in that only the Chairman is allowed to communicate.
Thankfully the Chairman is Josh. But, it's still a gag order to my way of thinking.
Finally, (not really, but ...;) ) the response to the guy asking for the Golf 2.0 weight in ITA to be reviewed made me chuckle. By the Process the cars (1.8 and 2.0 Golfs) are heavy. (The 2.0 is 2475, about 70 heavy IIRC..I'd have to dig up my notes to be sure) During the con call I was on where the cars were discussed (Our recommendation to adjust them had been rejected by the CRB ). The CRB cited the displacement as being key. They stated the cars compared well to other similar cars in the class. When pressed, they looked through the GCR, and, in the case of the 2.0, they used a Toyota with a 2.0 engine (2615lbs) as a justification that the 2.0 at 2475 was fine, and didn't need to be changed. (Horsepower be damned) As a matter of fact, they stated the car "Is competitive", that it had "Won the ARRC"*, and that it was actually a bit light in their eyes.
NOW they cite HP as the determining factor, and compare it to the 1.8.
It's this kind of story changing inconsistent behavior that got the ITAC all confused, and created the divide.
Further, they trot out the Great Reorg, and state that it was considered fine at that point.
This is the SAME CRB that, at the time of the Great Reorg, advised the ITAC, and was complicit with the ITAC, in creating a "Top 20 (plus minus)" list of the worst offenders, and it was understood at the time that IF the GR went through, we'd see how it played, and take a look at the other cars that weren't AS BAD later. The entire goal was to get some changes made, NOT to do EVEY car ..and NOT recommending a car for adjustment was NOT saying it that it was on Process.
But now it's convenient to trot that out. Which is very misleading.
:shrug:
*No lie, it did, FOURTEEN years ago. Yea, THAT's relevant.
"Consideration is being given to revisiting ITR as a whole during 2010."
What's going on here?
"Errors" being operationalized as...?
K
Umm I'm willing to guess there could be some glaring errors... but I'm not sure how anybody thinks they are going to find them any easier now than they could have 3 years ago, or when a new car was classed. You certainly can't tell anything by ontrack performance yet(New CRB/ITAC position)... I'm 99% sure an RX-8 can be made to handle better than a second gen rx-7 of similar weight, I know for sure it makes about 30 more whp in IT trim and can/and is allowed to in ITR fit a bigger wheel and tire than ITS... yet huffmaster went faster than anyone in IT at the arrc. You have no DATA to go by. Period.(unless someone has offered up dyno sheets for multiple similar builds showing something doesn't make expected power) Not to mention that nobody has yet tried to build a serious front wheel drive car and see how it stacks up at all(they could all be off)
Only thing I can think of is that the v6 mustang is probably not going to be able to make weight... maybe not within 50lbs with a 180lbs driver. However, several more are being built I believe so it would seem foolish to change those cars before more people come to that conclusion.
use the formula Daniel-san.... use the formula...
The car was run through the process and a weight comes out. At that point a decision is made to possibly drop it a class at a higher weight, however, for that car, and a few others in that 190hp range, the S weight is just too high compared to other cars in the class and the mechnical aspects of the car in question. 26XX in R or around 3000+ in S, a bit of a tweener.
I weigh 175 lbs and if I can get my Mustang to be within 50lbs of weight I'll be plenty happy. I need to lose 20 lbs anyhow, that'd make it even closer! :)
I think that is right -- they ran a 2:12 or something?
Grafton, how fast has your 944S2 gone? I don't think Ricky has been under 2:15 yet, although I know he is still doing a lot of development work. Didn't Skeen get a ITR 325 in the 11s?
Our best at VIR is a 2'12.5. Ben hit a 2'12.7 at the March race, while Mark got the Acrua to 2'13.3. Mike Skeen ran a 2'10 in Moorefield's E36 BMW last year in qualifying (2'11.2 is his true, but not yet recorded lap record). We all have a lot of improvement to go it seems.
Skeen is my hero! He passed me in the up hill esses on that 2:10 lap.
I'd love to run against him there again: Makes me feel all inadequate. Maybe one day I'll be cool like him. (We have found some time since we raced him but only about half of what we need.)
(On a side note I think ITR is perfect except for one Mazda car that needs weight. :rolleyes: )
Ben Robertson
Might have something to do with it being the only car with an assumed negative power gain when built to IT spec. Or maybe that nasty gear box that is supposedly to weak to run a single race. Or it might be I don't like how it turned the "process" political.
Jake I know I lost the fight with that car, but I don't plan on stopping my complaining.
Ben,
Complaining is never a problem but it would be great if you used some facts to back up your statements. Using LOADS of data from GAC to Pro Formula Mazda, 215whp potential was used. That is a POSITIVE power adder of 10%.
The Process didn't turn political at all. The RX-8, like many other cars were treated the same. Take a step back and admit to yourself that it's the facts.
What Andy said - again. The ITAC busted its collective ass on that decision because we KNEW it was going to be examined under an electron microscope. It's squeaky clean.
K
PS to Andy - Did you get your ITAC severance check from "M" yet? Mine came just in time to pay off the house last month. ;)
Ben to further what Andy said, not only did we have a bunch of data, but the data was from NON interested parties, AND it was very consistent. On top of that, we used the higher extremes of that data (an actual diservice to the car). No allowance was given for the transmission that is reported to be suspect.
Further, that evidence was brought in, and vetted by the entire ITAC, and then voted on. I have the voting records, person by person. To me, that one car was perhaps the apogee of the Process, and now that the CRB has pushed back, we may never see a weight so properly processed again.
It's a high water mark for the IT car classification system, if you ask me.
Too bad that System has been abandoned.
Complain if you want Ben, but saying it has a negative power factor is either a joke lacking a smiley, or sour grapes and a misrepresentation...you KNOW it didn't get a negative factor.
Stephen you should know by now that the CRB is a piss poor group of people who have absolutely no idea how to research decisions properly or understand that consistency has something to do with member support and/or growth. The "rules" will change from month to month until we change the members of that committee. Unfortunately those members are not voted on so we have not options as members to replace them.
Raymond "not bitching, just being a realist when it comes to how SCCA handles member input and change" Blethen
PS: I really need to get that VTS sheet into the ITAC to see how the CRB deals with the Audi 4000 Quattro... According to the process it should weigh a good 200lbs less than the FWD version so it will be interesting to see how the ITAC and CRB handle that one:shrug:! If you have the info can you fill it in and e-mail it to me? Thanks!
Exact same car other than the AWD, independant rear suspension and the disc brakes in the rear...
They (ITAC and CRB) have no data from the Audi Coupe so they need me to complete a VTS sheet. Amaizingly the CRB was able to justify the coupe in ITB soley on the on-track performance as it aparently did not have a VTS sheet so it did not have ANY data to back up its decisions...
Raymond "Yup, my comments about the CRB are harsh, but it is how I feel" Blethen
So, if I read between the lines, you're saying that the Process for that car is 200 or so less than the currently classed version. And therefor the current one is wrong. yea, we did that dance. ;)
You aren't going to let it go, LOL, you're trying to get more guys to leave the ITAC? ;)
I will let it go once we have consistancy and the bull shit stops where the CRB gives one excuse and less than a month later does the exact opposite. They need to treat customers (so called members) and thier cars the same. It goes far beyond the Audi, MR2, VW Golfs or the varios other cars people have had problems with. I would like to say it isn't personal, I just have absolutely zero respect for Bob Dowie or the other members of the CRB. I don't ever expect that to change... Bob Dowie has zero leadership skills and the BOD doesn't seem to concerned with the performance of the group as a whole so it is a no win situation IMO.
Raymond
I am not trying to get more ITAC member to leave...
No disrespect to Josh, he is a nice guy and has been very good at communicating with me but I wish that the ITAC members that left never did. They had a backbone and the bold moves they made were ignored by SCCA. I am suprised you are all still members to be honest.
Raymond
An interesting point: If another car with exactly the same mechanical attributes as the Coupe "processed out" 200 pounds less - absent on-track performance to justify the heavier weight - it wouldn't get that "kicked ass at the ARRC reward weight," would it? That's the AWD version of the car, right there...
This should be interesting, seeing how the extra lead gets rationalized.
K
Believe it or not I have been out of the loop now for almost a 1/4 of a year but here is my perception of what will happen.
1. The ITAC will run the Process. It will come out to the same numbers run on the GT.
2. Someone will say that it's the same motor. The CRB will thumb through the ITCS and find 'similar' cars and reference that weight.
3. They will set the weight at the weight listed on the current car under that theory (assuming there is no adder for AWD)
*If this is the way it actually pans out, it's one of the main reasons I left.
I know where i'm putting my money!
Follow that chain of events further, Kirk. The ITAC has stated* that ('for now") they will only change existing cars that are mechanically identical.
So, IF the AWD version goes in at process, POOF, the FWD version gets a letter to reprocess, and then they are going to look at that. However, it's not mechanically identical....although, based on the previous process output of AWD cars, the differences aren't factored, so, ostensibly it IS mechanically identical.
Of course, i'm not the only guy that can see the path of events unfolding, so, I imagine the obvious play will be to class it "Appropriately" based on the known performance of it's mechanical twin, thereby avoiding the ugly and embarrassing letter to reprocess the FWD version...again..
*And, based on what I've read and what I saw behind the curtain before I left, I'm thinking that statement was based on direction from the CRB. But, I could be wrong, and it might be an ITAC initiative to get back in the good graces of the CRB....)
Even if we had data from the Audi Coupe, I'd still be asking for a VTS sheet for the 4000Q. It's NOT the same car, it wouldn't go on the same line, it's got plenty of differences, even if the engine itself is shared. We are just simply not going to classify any new cars without VTS sheets. I explained that to you on the phone. I don't think that should be a tough policy decision to swallow. We don't to make sure that someone has done due diligence on any new listing, and that we have a record of it.
yea, there should always be a VTS sheet, either in the existing records, or submitted. And the car does have brake differences for example to warrant it's VTS need. That's something that I'm glad Josh is pushing.