Please help me understand the Audi issue...

[tom91ita]

i guess my basic take on all of this is that if the CRB is going to "trump" the ITAC and its recommendations, they should have a detailed rationale that amounts to something more definitive than "because......."

and when it comes to "passing the sniff test" portion of this, it does not look good if a CRB member has a car that appears to be very close to or less than the "process" weight and the CRB then tells others that they cannot have the process weight or needs 200#'s more (or 196#'s more in my case). and yes i am taking literary license is stating what they said inasmuch as it is actions or lack of actions that seem to be speaking and being interpreted.

ray, fwiw, i thought you were pulling away from me very much like the 2002's at mid-ohio a couple of years ago and you were not quite as good in the corners as i recall. i don't think some were as good in the turns (e.g., T1) as i was but honestly i chalked most of that up to it being many folks first time at mid-ohio for the IT Fest.

it was the classic power vs. handling trade-off in my opinion.

[RSTPerformance]

Tom-

I would say that in that race I did pull you a slight bit if I got the turn right... but the 2002's, and Golf III kill both of us. And from what I remember the 924 did also. I agree that in that race it was the classic power vs. handling trade-off between us, but if we were both 200lbs lighter maybe that trade off would have been battling closer to the frontend of the pack instead.

Raymond

[RSTPerformance]

PS: Tom... that is your smoke in my sig!!!

Raymond

[gran racing]

Ray, off to LRP and I honestly don't remember all the differences off the top of my head. One thing is the engines are different with the Accord starting off with more HP. Sorry, gotta run...

[Knestis]

>> i guess my basic take on all of this is that if the CRB is going to "trump" the ITAC and its recommendations, they should have a detailed rationale that amounts to something more definitive than "because......."

It might get rationalized in any number of ways but any "trumping" will be done based on on-track observation. Conversations about the Audi - and I was in them - spun around and around about various questions, like this thread, but for those who thought it should stay too heavy, it ALL came back to the observation that "they are already fast." The quote from CRB members was that they would become "class killers," and "I'll build one tomorrow" if the 200# recommended decrease came through from the ITAC.

It did.

K

[Bill Miller]

And that's the point Kirk (as I know you know), they've (CRB ) got the tools they need to address it, should that come to pass. The fact that they folks (CRB ) are willing to trade repeatability, objectivity, and fairness for some level of perceived stability says a couple of things.

They have no faith in their own ability to handle an issue, should it arise.

The don't want to give up the power & control, and are hiding behind strategic ambiguity.

They've got something else up their sleeve

BTW, did they CRB members that this would directly impact, recuse themselves from the discussions? Just lilke you pointed out that Andy went out of his way to stay out of the 1.8 Miata discussions, did Mr. Albin and Mr. Keane stay out of the Audi discussion, or the plan to run all of ITB through the process? If not, that would seem to be a pretty clear-cut case of conflict of interest, if they voted against it.

[seckerich]

I think you all assume that ALL the members of the CRB actually see and are part of these decisions. You would be wrong. Most times they are just dealt with by the Liason to the specific ADHOC. Starting to get the picture? You need to pick up the phone and speak directly with those members in your area. They need to be informed. Please don't assume that this entire group has it out for you. I did until I got deeper into this. They need to be given both sides of the arguement. Some that made these decisions will try to hide behind the letter you have posted about "errors and omissions" used in error. It has been proven repeatedly that the entire ITCS before the GR was nothing but a dart board SWAG with no repeatable process. We were given the go ahead to do that and so far it has worked well. It is an error that they were classed under 10 different criteria over the years and now are getting fixed. This will be an agenda item for them Tuesday night so now is the time to act. Do you care enough to pick up a phone?

[Knestis]

I think you all assume that ALL the members of the CRB actually see and are part of these decisions. You would be wrong. ...

I'm having a really big DUH moment here.

The natural way for the CRB - as a whole - to deal with the challenge of managing car-level decisions for such a diverse list of categories is to count on its members who are "in the know" about each one.

In all my time on the ITAC, I ASSUMED - naively, perhaps - that the CRB as a body knew what we were doing. If that's not the case, I think I am back in the game. I've been reluctant to get involved in communication to the BoD because I don't want to distract discussion with what could be perceived as my personal issues re: the mandate to not communicate publicly, and subsequent resignation. BUT maybe the ENTIRE CRB needs to know what was communicated to me through Andy, as representing their position...

K