ITAC News.

[jjjanos]

Jeff, Josh is trying to do what ever he can to make inroads in getting things consistent. I think the BMW 320 issue was that the same basic car, the 2002, has the same engine and suspension, essentially, and to the Process, they are the same car. So, both got examined, and one was considered to be right on the Process weight, so the other was adjusted to match.

But it isn't making things more consistent. It is doing exactly the opposite. It moves us from a situation where cars have been classified under 3(?) different systems but at least every car classified under a regime was done so consistently to a world where cars are classified under the same number of systems plus those who have close dopple gangers.

Can the CRB/ITAC provide evidence that the original weights weren't set using different HP factors for some reason? That's not an error. Can the ITAC/CRB provide evidence that aero qualities weren't used either explicitly or implicitly when both cars were classified - if not, there is no error, just different regimes. Can the ITAC/CRB demonstrate that the differences in compression and brake sizes weren't originally considered and the lack of a written, consistent classification process aren't to blame? If not, there is no error, just difference in the gut-feeling factor used.

That is the purist way of looking at it, and I actually agree if we're going to be precise, believe it or not. Except ... there is a recourse that is okay with all parties involved, which is the handling of these things as errors.

Well I'm darn well not OK with it. My car and others are carrying too much weight too and we are getting punished because the CRB and ITAC are misusing the errors clause.

Maybe less pure but I think you might be the only one who has a problem with at least making some changes under the current ruleset. At least, you are the only one who I have actually heard voice a concern. I'm sure if the ITAC proposes a rule change then during the member input phase we'll hear from more people who would like to see no changes at all.

I have no problem with correcting errors under the current ruleset. The MR2 is an error - the math guy punched in the wrong number and that can be demonstrated. The BMW, however, has no evidence that the weight as set by the ITAC wasn't exactly what was intended under the then current loosey-goosey classification process.