ITAC News.

[tom91ita]

.....A lot of the letters coming in requesting adjustments to existing listings are of one of the following forms (all of which were present on this month's agenda):
- "My car can't compete at its current weight, please reduce the weight"
- "The weight my car was assigned doesn't look consistent with the weights that other cars were assigned." These don't typically outright SAY "I can't keep up at the current weight and I need help, and this is a way to justify a weight break" but I think that's behind at least a few of them.
- "My car was assigned a weight based on the most recent process, but there's no way I can make that much power."

In other words, there are definitely people out there who think we should be looking at racing results and adjusting weights based on that. There are others who think things just need to be consistent as long as some elements of the cars in question are similar. And there are some that have might have never gotten their car on the track, and are just challenging the assumptions used in the weight assignment process. It's pretty much all over the map.

I'd remind you all to look at the current rules. There is only one justification in the rulebook right now to change the weight of or reclass a car: "racing performance relative to other vehicles in its class". Changes are only permitted within the first five years of a classification, and then after that only "on rare occasion and after careful review of the actual racing performance of a particular vehicle."

.......................

.........Right now, as JJJ points out, there's huge opportunity to play favorites, picking and choosing based on flexible personal definitions of that word. Mr. Keane will defend the process-derived weight of one car as being "without error" but will argue against applying that same process to a different make/model because, well, it would be "wrong." .......

i highlighted the sections which i think are related to my concerns:

i think my 1st gen crx si was not given an achievable factor based on others that have much more experience with the car/ motor. plenty of folks have told me publicly and privately numbers of 31% or 30-33% and even 35% for an all out build. no one will commit to over 35% and certainly not over 40%.

i can't use on track performance at Road Atlanta since the ITC crx's have passed me. obviously i am not preparing/driving the car to its potential. although i have had one for 25 years, i have not developed it for 25 years. more like for one year 25 times.

the car is near its 5 year reclassification from ita to itb and i wanted it looked at again before that limit expires.

and yes, there would seem to be a case where the 12Valve Accords and Preludes are treated much differently from the 12V crx si's.