Please help me understand the Audi issue...

[robits325is]

ITS:

Porsche
944S
(4V) (87-88)
2850
Change weight to 2990, or restrict to 220hp (flywheel)

BMW
325i/is E36
(2 & 4 door)
(92-95)
2850
Change weight to 3300, or restrict to 220hp (flywheel)

That's it.

K

Interesting

[JeffYoung]

Yes it is. I wonder why the 944S didn't get a restrictor?

Also, I didn't realize the ITAC recommendatin included an alternative -- weight or restrictor? I thought the ITAC always recommended weight?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Yes it is. I wonder why the 944S didn't get a restrictor?

Also, I didn't realize the ITAC recommendatin included an alternative -- weight or restrictor? I thought the ITAC always recommended weight?

The ITAC NEVER recommended a SIR on either car. Not sure where Kirk got those two but they didn't come from a direct ITAC recommendation. I remember the 944S topic and in the end it ended up getting a lower power multiplier. The two were not tied at the hip even though they had within 1 stock hp.

The E36 325i/is weight recommendation was derived from 210whp potential in IT trim. That number is actually known to be low now.

[JeffYoung]

Got it, thanks for the clarification.

[Knestis]

The ITAC NEVER recommended a SIR on either car. Not sure where Kirk got those two but they didn't come from a direct ITAC recommendation. I remember the 944S topic and in the end it ended up getting a lower power multiplier. The two were not tied at the hip even though they had within 1 stock hp.

The E36 325i/is weight recommendation was derived from 210whp potential in IT trim. That number is actually known to be low now.

That information came from the document titled "2005_IT_letter_to_the_CRB," that Darin drafted to " send to Bob and the CRB." I pulled it from the SCCA ITAC board back when I was first getting up to speed on the history of the committee's work.

It may well have been that the SIR bits got edited out in subsequent conversation inside the ITAC but I didn't see evidence of any later versions. I apologize if this is muddled but it's another case where there should be a clear paper trail of the committee's communication to the CRB, but isn't.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

That information came from the document titled "2005_IT_letter_to_the_CRB," that Darin drafted to " send to Bob and the CRB." I pulled it from the SCCA ITAC board back when I was first getting up to speed on the history of the committee's work.

It may well have been that the SIR bits got edited out in subsequent conversation inside the ITAC but I didn't see evidence of any later versions. I apologize if this is muddled but it's another case where there should be a clear paper trail of the committee's communication to the CRB, but isn't.

K

And knowing the history of this stuff, putting something out as fact without checking first is misleading.

[Knestis]

And knowing the history of this stuff, putting something out as fact without checking first is misleading.

So help fix the problem, Andy.

I was on the inside for 18 months and still obviously had trouble sorting the wheat from the chaff. That's the best information I had on the subject, having taken it at face value based on the evidence in the record at hand. The problem is that the record is sparse, poorly documented, and easily manipulated.

Go ahead - dig into the history documented there, find the actual recommendation that was sent up to the CRB, and share it. If my interpretation of the record is incorrect, it should be easy to rectify it.

Absent any official process for documenting and disseminating the work of the Ad Hocs, CRB, and BoD, we're stuck with informal channels through which information gets out. And it WILL get out. And before someone suggests that the GCR and Fastrack serve that purpose, consider how our state and federal legislative processes would be different if the public only got to see any new law only in its final form as signed and enacted. That is not transparancy.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

So help fix the problem, Andy.

I was on the inside for 18 months and still obviously had trouble sorting the wheat from the chaff. That's the best information I had on the subject, having taken it at face value based on the evidence in the record at hand. The problem is that the record is sparse, poorly documented, and easily manipulated.

Go ahead - dig into the history documented there, find the actual recommendation that was sent up to the CRB, and share it. If my interpretation of the record is incorrect, it should be easy to rectify it.

Absent any official process for documenting and disseminating the work of the Ad Hocs, CRB, and BoD, we're stuck with informal channels through which information gets out. And it WILL get out. And before someone suggests that the GCR and Fastrack serve that purpose, consider how our state and federal legislative processes would be different if the public only got to see any new law only in its final form as signed and enacted. That is not transparancy.

K

Nobody said it was good Kirk, what I was trying to say is that you KNOW it wasnt good, you could have validated with someone who was on the committee at the time the info - or posted that what you found and where you found it first, then we could come in and correct it, should it have been wrong. I just don't like it coming off as fact, when it indeed was not. Before you post what you have saved from your 'pre-tenure', do us all a favor and validate it as what you think it is.

The documentation process we have now is light years better than whatever was in play before. As you state, it was a DRAFT Darin did. Presented to the ITAC and final recomendations were taken directly by the CRB after debate.

The Feb addendum was tGR. We wanted to do more, we were convinced by the CRB that anything outside the +/- 100lbs barrier was going to raise flags with the BoD.