Please help me understand the Audi issue...

[RSTPerformance]

Sorry, I saw that Keane had won... Terrible assumption i should have looked furthethro se if it was his brother... Still doesn't look good IMO for the CRB.

At least we know that a car can compete with the Golf III!

Raymond "Does weight really matter - my fiancé says it doesn't " Blethen

[Bill Miller]

120*1.25=150*17=2550

-50 for FWD +50 for DW. Exactly on process weight.

Raymond - like Kirk, I agree with you on the Audi issue. Although we can see now why it can be considered dangerous to make changes on that car when the owners can't even agree on stock hp.

But to come on here, not even KNOW who won the race, and shout out stupididty, doesn't do you any good. Really. And the tone of your recent letter to the CRB is totally disrespectful.

Well Andy, there's "process weight" and then there's "process weight". I think even a casual observer would wonder why the Accord gets a 1.25 power factor when other Hondas from the same time period are getting 1.30 - 1.35 power factors. Use the 1.30 power factor that other Hondas (as well as the Golf II) use, and that car comes in at 2750#.

I think one of the reasons why the BoD & CRB think that IT is 'just fine the way it is', is that they're just out of touch w/ the IT community. Which is really hard to understand, given at least 2 members of the CRB are IT racers (not to mention ex-ITAC members). They don't think that questions like Bob's (and others) matter to anyone.

We've been told by ITAC members that there is no aerodynamic 'adder'. Yet you've got cases where two cars that are the same mechanically, yet have different bodywork weigh the same, and cases where they don't weigh the same. Besides Bob's Mustang / Capri example, here's a couple more. '86-'87 Civic Si and '84-'87 CRX Si both weigh 2130# yet an '83-'84 Rabbit GTI comes in at 2080# but the Scirocco from the same time comes in at 2130#. There's a similar 50# difference between the ITC Rabbits and the ITC Sciroccos. The ITA 1.8 16v Golf weighs 60# less than the corresponding Jetta (2220# vs 2280#), yet the 2.0 16v versions weigh the same (2475#). And both the 1.8 and 2.0 cars are the SAME BODY WORK! This kind of stuff is all over the place.

Then you get cases where you've got significantly different power factors across the same mfg.

'83-'84 Rabbit GTI, 2080#, 90hp stock = 1.39 power factor
'83-'88 Scirocco II 8v, 2130#, 90 hp stock = 1.42 power factor (since we're told there's no aero adder)
'85-'91 Golf 8v, 2280#, 103-105hp stock = 1.33 - 1.30 power factor
'93-'97 Golf III 2.0, 2350#, 115hp stock = 1.23 power factor (in fairness, it has been stated by ITAC members that the car is 50# light)


Even a blind man can see that this stuff is just wrong. For the CRB and BoD to claim that correcting things like this is 'highly risky' and could upset the balance of the class says one of two things. Either they don't have a clue what they're talking about (and subsequently shouldn't been in the positions they're in), or they're looking for an excuse as to why they shouldn't fix things. I doubt it's the former (although based on what Kirk posted about Mr. Drago et. al., I'm not so sure).

Bottom line is that this stuff should be fixed, and as Steve pointed out, you can't take no for an answer.

[JeffYoung]

There is no aero adder, never was.

This is pretty simply actually. "Back in the day," IT cars were assigned weights using a very rough formula that focused on curb weight. Then came the great "realignment" in which the Miller ratio (yes that Miller!) was applied to a fair amount of cars to change the focus to power to weight. For a variety of reasons, this was not done with all cars at once.

We have since been trying to make corrections to the remaining cars as we have had time/requests to do so have come in. We've now been told not to do that.

So, we have some cars whose weight was set by the curb weight "process" and some by the power to weight.

I agree that doesn't make any sense, but it is what it is for now.

Bob, we voted to correct the Capri weight, I think, on one of my first calls on the ITAC back in January. It's one of the corrections hung up "up the chain."

[Bill Miller]

There is no aero adder, never was.

This is pretty simply actually. "Back in the day," IT cars were assigned weights using a very rough formula that focused on curb weight. Then came the great "realignment" in which the Miller ratio (yes that Miller!) was applied to a fair amount of cars to change the focus to power to weight. For a variety of reasons, this was not done with all cars at once.

We have since been trying to make corrections to the remaining cars as we have had time/requests to do so have come in. We've now been told not to do that.

So, we have some cars whose weight was set by the curb weight "process" and some by the power to weight.

I agree that doesn't make any sense, but it is what it is for now.

Bob, we voted to correct the Capri weight, I think, on one of my first calls on the ITAC back in January. It's one of the corrections hung up "up the chain."

Can ya fell the love????

Jeff, I know it's all in good fun. Made me chuckle. It's all good!

[JeffYoung]

Hey, I was actually trying to clue in some of the new folks (of which I consider myself one) that you came up with the core idea behind the "process."

It may sound stupid to say it, since it is amateur club racing, but it really was revolutionary, at least for our category.

[Bill Miller]

Hey, I was actually trying to clue in some of the new folks (of which I consider myself one) that you came up with the core idea behind the "process."

It may sound stupid to say it, since it is amateur club racing, but it really was revolutionary, at least for our category.

No worries Jeff, and thanks for the credits. I sure didn't come up w/ it in a vacuum, as there was lots of good discussion around it at the time. I _think_ I may have been the first one to verbalize it (or at least Kirk ascribed it to me). It was one of those things that just seemed to make sense to me.

A little background on how it all came to pass, at least for me. I got to thinking about the fact that there seemed to be no rhyme or reason as to how IT cars were classed when the SEDiv IT folks came up w/ IT7 (not sure which Region started it first). Cars were prepared to ITA specs, but ran as their own class. What really raised my eyebrows, was that they were grouped w/ the ITB cars, and not w/ the ITA cars. I wanted to know why the system had failed a group of racers so badly that they had to resort to going w/ their own class. Fortunately (for them), the 1st gen. RX7 had such a HUGE following, as well as 'installed base', that they had the numbers to reach 'critical mass' to pull it off. That's what got me to thinking that there needed to be some way to _try_ and get the cars close when they were put into a given class. And then the ITS E36 BMW issue just kind of gelled the whole thing.

That's it for today's history lesson, we now return you to your regularly scheduled bickering!

[jdrago1]

Guys I figured I would tune in as I heard I was attaining near villian status here this weekend at the ARRC. I don't know many in IT, but there are several in IT who know me fairly well, Andy being one of them. I think Andy will agree if I am anything, it is a guy who is rational and willing to listen to anything and despite popular opinion have a lot of common sense. I often ask Andy's advice on SM items that come up from time to time.
I really don't want to rehash the entire debate, but what Andy said above was on right on target. I also don't feel we rule over the ITAC with an iron fist, nor would I have any desire to do so. If anything was brought to us that made sense( not that the new process didn't)regardless of process etc, I feel certain the CRB would listen, I guarantee we would. This process,new and old, has been discussed more than anything, and I do mean any single issue that has come up during the year I have been on the CRB. This wasn't something we took lightly. So much so we even spent a good 90 minutes of our call with Andy explaining it and going over test cases etc. The CRB we have now is comprised of a lot of racers, real racers not once a year guys. Believe it or not, we want what is best for IT, nothing more, nothing less. There are no hidden agendas, I don't even own an IT car.

I have never had any email or phone conversations with Mr Kinesis or Mr. Miller, so I am not certain where or how they formed their opinions? To think I was just about to put Mr Miller on my x mas card list too

I rarely check this forum, however, I respond to ALL emails until they become you are an idiot and ruining IT My email is [email protected]

Sincerly,
The above mentioned bag of rocks

[Knestis]

I am anything, it is a guy who is rational and willing to listen to anything and despite popular opinion have a lot of common sense. ...

...I have never had any email or phone conversations with Mr Kinesis or Mr. Miller, so I am not certain where or how they formed their opinions? ...

Go back and review your responses to me on the SCCA ITAC board, Jim.

I obviously no longer have access to that resource but you appeared completely UNwilling to consider the most basic first principle of the ITAC's processes and practices - that weights should be spec'd based on the physical attributes of the cars unless substantial evidence was available to convince those making the decision to use something other than the default 1.25 power multiplier.

You position - unequivocally - was that basing weights on on-track performance worked for Spec Miata, so it should be applied to IT. You used as your argument a (misapplied) example of what weights would be for the various SM options, and how far they were off relative to the actual specs determined by the system applied to that class - which you contend on-track parity proves are "right."

Your arguments suggested that you labored (at least at that time) under the misconception that the process was a formula that blindly locked the ITAC into sticking the category with weights that might be "wrong."

Any of this sounding familiar? How about "I guess we'll have to disagree" (I think that's pretty close) as your response re: my trying to explain that the ITAC's practices reflected what we heard members asking for over and over again - a repeatable, transparent process to specify IT car weights that minimizes the opportunity for bias or manipuluation.

Feel free to quote any and all of what I said there, along with your responses. It's been a couple of months so my memory may be flawed but it's all there in the record.

K

[seckerich]

Guys I figured I would tune in as I heard I was attaining near villian status here this weekend at the ARRC. I don't know many in IT, but there are several in IT who know me fairly well, Andy being one of them. I think Andy will agree if I am anything, it is a guy who is rational and willing to listen to anything and despite popular opinion have a lot of common sense. I often ask Andy's advice on SM items that come up from time to time.
I really don't want to rehash the entire debate, but what Andy said above was on right on target. I also don't feel we rule over the ITAC with an iron fist, nor would I have any desire to do so. If anything was brought to us that made sense( not that the new process didn't)regardless of process etc, I feel certain the CRB would listen, I guarantee we would. This process,new and old, has been discussed more than anything, and I do mean any single issue that has come up during the year I have been on the CRB. This wasn't something we took lightly. So much so we even spent a good 90 minutes of our call with Andy explaining it and going over test cases etc. The CRB we have now is comprised of a lot of racers, real racers not once a year guys. Believe it or not, we want what is best for IT, nothing more, nothing less. There are no hidden agendas, I don't even own an IT car.

I have never had any email or phone conversations with Mr Kinesis or Mr. Miller, so I am not certain where or how they formed their opinions? To think I was just about to put Mr Miller on my x mas card list too

I rarely check this forum, however, I respond to ALL emails until they become you are an idiot and ruining IT My email is [email protected]

Sincerly,
The above mentioned bag of rocks

Thanks for posting Jim. I had a good talk with Peter K this weekend at the ARRC, but did not get a chance to speak with you. I was in the tech shed most of the day. Does this mean you will be willing to come to some middle ground besides the 5 year limit expressed by the CRB? Do you believe that all cars currently running in IT are properly classed? Lets move forward with a little more give and take on the part of the CRB. So you did not like V2 of the process as it was described to you so you killed the only avenue we had in IT to make corrections---why? Please explain. Thanks.

[RSTPerformance]

Jim-

I sent you an e-mail but I do have two questions...

Q1: What didn't you like - let's all get the truth instead of second hand info.

Q2: Why doesn't the CRB respond to requests made? Or put another way.. Why do you leave members (what I refer to as customers now) in the dark requiring them to get second hand info on your decisions from the ITAC or other members gossip?

As mentioned in my e-mail, thanks for your time... I do appreciate it.

Raymond "hoping the CRB starts to Listen and better yet communicate" Blethen

[Bill Miller]

Guys I figured I would tune in as I heard I was attaining near villian status here this weekend at the ARRC. I don't know many in IT, but there are several in IT who know me fairly well, Andy being one of them. I think Andy will agree if I am anything, it is a guy who is rational and willing to listen to anything and despite popular opinion have a lot of common sense. I often ask Andy's advice on SM items that come up from time to time.
I really don't want to rehash the entire debate, but what Andy said above was on right on target. I also don't feel we rule over the ITAC with an iron fist, nor would I have any desire to do so. If anything was brought to us that made sense( not that the new process didn't)regardless of process etc, I feel certain the CRB would listen, I guarantee we would. This process,new and old, has been discussed more than anything, and I do mean any single issue that has come up during the year I have been on the CRB. This wasn't something we took lightly. So much so we even spent a good 90 minutes of our call with Andy explaining it and going over test cases etc. The CRB we have now is comprised of a lot of racers, real racers not once a year guys. Believe it or not, we want what is best for IT, nothing more, nothing less. There are no hidden agendas, I don't even own an IT car.

I have never had any email or phone conversations with Mr Kinesis or Mr. Miller, so I am not certain where or how they formed their opinions? To think I was just about to put Mr Miller on my x mas card list too

I rarely check this forum, however, I respond to ALL emails until they become you are an idiot and ruining IT My email is [email protected]

Sincerly,
The above mentioned bag of rocks

Glad I was able to save you the stamp.

And while you may not have been on the phone with, or exchanged emails with Kirk, it does look like you had dialog with him on the ITAC site. Your comment, while it may be technically correct, implies that you've had no dialog / interaction w/ Kirk. Based on Kirk's comments, that certainly does not seem to be the case. It also makes me wonder where else you use deception and half-truth to present your position.

[Knestis]

In the interest of full disclosure, Jim got back to me by PM/email. I'm waiting for an additional reply to an email that might have gone AWOL but he DID contact me re: my question above.

K

[Bill Miller]

Hey, while I may not be on Mr. Drago's Christmas card list, he did feel the need to send me a private IM. Whodathunk?

Jim,

As I said in my response, anything you've got to say to me can be said in a public forum. And spare me your disingenuous comments. Save them for somebody that gives a crap who you are.

[tnord]

Hey, while I may not be on Mr. Drago's Christmas card list, he did feel the need to send me a private IM. Whodathunk?

Jim,

As I said in my response, anything you've got to say to me can be said in a public forum. And spare me your disingenuous comments. Save them for somebody that gives a crap who you are.

ya know who doesn't give a crap who you are bill?

anyone who actually has an SCCA membership/competition liscense.

get a life.