In need of a guidance for CRB letter.

Other than a quick email in recent support of the ITAC's new process, I have never sent an email or letter that requests action. I know that it just might fall on deaf ears and they may sit on it, or just refuse to acknowledge it, however it is all that I can do at the moment.

I am trying to write a letter to the CRB asking them to please review the weight of the recently re-classed ITB MK1 MR2, as the original move to ITB had an error in the calculations, that is omitted by ITAC members along with other cars, and has been requested to be fixed. however, it seems that due to other issues these request have been dropped and has little to do with (at least from my understanding) the new process the CRB has denied. I have multiple reasons to support the request that is in limbo from the ITAC, the biggest concern of mine is that with the added weight associated with the move to ITB, people running MK1 MR2's are all of a sudden breaking hubs. With the car classed hundreds of lbs heavier than it came rolling off the showroom floor, and the age of the car, it is easy to see. However, that issue entirely is getting submitted separately asking for action to see what can be done by another author.

My question is this..

Is there a certain format that they like to see? what kind of facts do they want? do you mention the level of effort you have in the car? do you give race results for the model driven by other people? do I bring up the hub issue as a safety concern?

Things I am trying to avoid are sounding like a whiny bitch, as this is my first letter to them, and not sound biased (however, with relatively very few people running the car you don't seem to see other people that are not MR2 drivers or members of the ITAC speaking up.)

Thanks for any help or guidance.

Simply put, (and sorry to be the bearer of bad news) the CRB will refer the matter to the ITAC. We will look a the letter, and will be forced to respond with something along the lines of (Ok as is). (We're trying to come up with a better response than that).
In short, your request is for a car that has been classed more than 5 years ago. Our mandate from the CRB is that we must honor the rules on the first two pages in the ITCS section of the GCR. Past practices have used the "errors and omissions" clause to adjust cars to align them with the standard process, but the CRB has told us that the BoD has cracked down on such actions, and that all such requests will be denied.

Sorry, I don't like it any more than any of you. Less probably.

The crux of the issue needs to be how to get the 'ban' lifted, either through a wording change or through talking with your BoD persons.

As far as I'm concerned, you guys are ostensibly my boss. But you're way up the line, and my immediate boss is the CRB, then the BoD. While I might KNOW what you want, I have to answer to them. So, we need them to change their stance. You are their boss. I just don't know what else that I can constructively add.

Summation? If you don't like current practices (or you like), send your comments to the BoD. (At this point, I'm hearing that the emails don't get through to everyone. I cc everybody directly when I can, but it's come to my attention that some of our guys in charge are old school, and emails etc don't always register. Call 'em if you don't get a response.)

Maybe because this car was just recently reclassed, it can be considered as a 'new' classification. Send in your letter.

As andy has mentioned the car was just recnelty re-classed (this last year) and that re-class is when the error happened. AS kirk has mentioned in the other post they have not acted on yours (ITAC's) current request to fix the ITB MR2.

as for my orignal question. What content should I include?

Whom do I address it to? just the CRB Chair? Should I snail mail it? email? obvsiulsy phone call to all members is a bit extreme.

If the CRB is just going to send it laterally to the ITAC and then they won't act on request from the ITAC how does that work? My hope is that since this car was classed less than 5 years ago, and is not about the process, maybe I can get them to look at it again.. or atleast that is my hope.:shrug:

Ah, I misread the part about the particular car. oops. thats a lucky break. Send it on in, to the CRB, mention (of course) the IT nature, it will get sent to us and assigned a number. Cite the error, and we'll take a look, and if we see the error, we'll do our best to push it through.

so no favored format? long and descriptive or short and bulleted?

the reason why I mention it is becuase I am one that will start reading what someone writes about a single topic, but after a while I start hearing.. blah.. blah.. blah.. I want to avoid this. I can go into as little or heavy detail as you would like. from referenceing a bank of dyno plots on 4AGE motors to just saying hey here is the issue.

BTW thanks for the help

I've never written a letter so I have no input on the format, but...

Stick to the facts and the error. Don't mention the hubs, that's not germaine and will just confuse the issue. The weight could cause ruts on the track and it wouldn't be pertinent.

Send to crb AT SCCA.com

********************
Dear ITAC,

During the recent reclassification of the MKI MR2 from ITA to ITB, it is my understanding the wrong power multiplier was used resulting in a weight that is about 100lbs higher than it should be.

Using 112 stock hp and the 50lb mid-engine adder, I figure the ITB weight to be around 2430lbs, down from the current listing of 2525. If you could address this under errors and ommissions for the 2010 season, I would appeciate it.

Thanks.

************
How's that for guidance? :D

I think I can work with that. :D

Read this thread tonight...interesting issues..passed on as a link, to others with following note:

This was an interesting discussion on the IT forum..concerning reclassing the early MR2's from ITA to ITB with more weight, then having issues with breaking front hubs due to heavier weight and older parts... Requestor tired to "fix" problem thur normal channels (CBR)...but got hung up in wording of procedures and bureaucracy concerning request and changes...

Seems that issue may be getting resolved via a convient "loop hole" due to reclassification timing in that case, but problems mentioned bring into light more possible issues, particularly when no reclassification is involved:...one, weight changes alone may not be best solution; two: when changes are made, not much seems to be cycled back about results those changes in a "formal" manner (ie. make a change, monitor results, recalibrate); and finally, it is not very easy to correct changes or errors within the existing system.

I thought discussion might be of interest to others, but didn't really know who to "dial-in"....so, you get this email + link... FYI... Making me rethink running my 86 MR2 for time being in IT...but that's not the issue...

Bob L.

Based on the CRB's most recent edict, I wonder if you could argue that the move of the MR2 from A to B was contrary to the clause that they are invoking now - that the ITAC and CRB broke the rules by changing it.

What a stupid freaking situation.

K

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt

Send to crb AT SCCA.com

********************
Dear ITAC,

During the recent reclassification of the MKI MR2 from ITA to ITB, it is my understanding the wrong power multiplier was used resulting in a weight that is about 100lbs higher than it should be.

Using 112 stock hp and the 50lb mid-engine adder, I figure the ITB weight to be around 2430lbs, down from the current listing of 2525. If you could address this under errors and ommissions for the 2010 season, I would appeciate it.

Thanks.

************
How's that for guidance? :D

---

ITB – (Multiple) Review ITB weight of MR2

The car is classed appropriately.


^ from February Fastrack. I and several of the other MR2 drivers did just as suggested. So what happened guys?

Steve, send me an e-mail at [email protected] and we can talk off line a bit.

Thanks.

Jeff

Jeff may get into more specifics but the ITAC recomendation was for a weight correction.