ITAC News.

[Andy Bettencourt]

no offense intended, but it's an easy to follow conversational reference to the process for which you are arguing, and which determined the bulk of existing ITR classifications. and believe me, I've kept up on the history. THANK YOU (and kk and jg and js etc..) fo getting us here. please don't be upset when we try to use the tool you worked so hard to leave us with.

I'm just trying to explain to you why the weights 'make sense' amongst posts that they don't match up and are 'embarrassing'. Knowing how they were done brings most everything into line sans calculation errors.

[JeffYoung]

The individual car advocacy is starting to get a bit old honestly, along with the insinuation we are not trying to be consistent, don't know the history of ITR (Ron and I did the initial pass at that the spreadsheet and EArl Richards and I did the first attempt at a clean up in a lot of the inconsistencies in it after it was adopted) or just don't know what we are doing.

And yes, all of this is over 50 lbs and you are FAR too worked over it.

We'll do this the right way, in the best interests of the class, and as consistently as possible. Just like you guys tried to do when you were on the ITAC.

I'll also bet you $100 that motor makes more than 25%. I actually saw ZERO gain -- none -- with the individual cylinder tuning. Ron posted it in the Mustang thread, but the real gains with these low revving, high displacement motors is on the exhaust side.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Old to you maybe. But when a new car classification is done, differently than what has been done in the past, and it results in extra weight, it's an issue that needs to be resolved. We have discussed either of the ways it could be resolved. Neither are of consequence, just that applying the classing fairly is the ultimate goal. Not making a change either way - in the short term is, like it or not, a fail in consistency.

1lb or 200, it doesn't matter. You want to strive for consistency, here is your chance. Sorry if you are taking offense, but you guys made an error you didn't know you made and it would be nice if you fixed it.

I know you will fix it, with the best intentions of the class, but if you think it's going to be 6 months to a year to get ITR cleaned up, the fair thing to do would be to admit you applied the DW in ITR not realizing that's not how the class was created and give the car a break so you don't double-whack it, until a class-wide correction is done.

The individual car advocacy is starting to get a bit old honestly, along with the insinuation we are not trying to be consistent, don't know the history of ITR (Ron and I did the initial pass at that the spreadsheet and EArl Richards and I did the first attempt at a clean up in a lot of the inconsistencies in it after it was adopted) or just don't know what we are doing.

And yes, all of this is over 50 lbs and you are FAR too worked over it.

We'll do this the right way, in the best interests of the class, and as consistently as possible. Just like you guys tried to do when you were on the ITAC.

I'll also bet you $100 that motor makes more than 25%. I actually saw ZERO gain -- none -- with the individual cylinder tuning. Ron posted it in the Mustang thread, but the real gains with these low revving, high displacement motors is on the exhaust side.

I would happily pay on behalf of the builder. It would be awesome! I guess all of these motors will act exactly the same so I hope to get the same gains you got.