What's going on with IT and the CRB?

[RSTPerformance]

Thanks for that Mac!



Take a deep breath ... breathe ... breathe ...

Something will happen, namely, we'll continue to class new cars, change the weights of misclassed old cars, and maintain the ruleset (allowances) in an evolutionary fashion to keep IT from turning into vintage.

Are you saying that I should send in a new request for the review of the Audi Coupe GT and the Golf III in ITB? The only thing I was told after the year it took the CRB to find something in the GCR to hide behind was that it was against the rules. You are saying the CRB has changed its mind again and will at least give an honest review of the weights of old cars???

Raymond "Thank you Josh for communicating my recent requests on e-mail, you are to date being very responsive" Blethen

[Andy Bettencourt]

Are you saying that I should send in a new request for the review of the Audi Coupe GT and the Golf III in ITB? The only thing I was told after the year it took the CRB to find something in the GCR to hide behind was that it was against the rules. You are saying the CRB has changed its mind again and will at least give an honest review of the weights of old cars???

Raymond "Thank you Josh for communicating my recent requests on e-mail, you are to date being very responsive" Blethen

I highly doubt it Ray. Your car was not rejected under some phantom rules clause, it was rejected under the new way of thinking that "Based on the track performance we have seen, the car is classed competitively"

Your car also poses a unique problem that there is conflicting information on stock hp.

[lateapex911]

Well, actually, Andy, as far as Raymond was told, it was rejected under the guise of a rule clause...

In reality, it was rejected because it appeared competitive, and the engine was a 5 cylinder.

[Knestis]

Sorry - was an official response to the ITB Audi request actually published? Have responses to ALL of the "please review" requests been published? My primary grouse when I called the CRB out on the board here was that they just weren't DOING anything with that backlog. Is it cleared?

K

[gran racing]

I never heard anything official about my request or many, many others. That is, beyond the sit tite, something is forthcoming...

[RSTPerformance]

Sorry - was an official response to the ITB Audi request actually published? Have responses to ALL of the "please review" requests been published? My primary grouse when I called the CRB out on the board here was that they just weren't DOING anything with that backlog. Is it cleared?

K

It was in the December Fasttrack... Says that the car is classed appropriately... I recieved personal notification from Bob Dowie the chairman of the CRB on October 1, 2010 stating several issues IMO, but here is some exerpts from the e-mail.

"Being a Steward that is active in IT racing I'm sure you're aware that such an action would require a rule change (current rule below) and would have to go through the rule change process. *It would also require that all cars go through the same procedure since it would be unfair to adjust some cars and not all.

Online GCR pge 332

During the initial vehicle classification process, the Club shall assess vehicle performance factors such as-but not limited to-manufacturer's published specifications for engine type, displacement, horsepower, and torque; vehicle weight; brake type and size; suspension design; and aerodynamic efficiency. Based on such factors, a minimum allowable weight shall be established. At the end of the second, third, and fourth years of classification, the vehicle's racing performance relative to other vehicles in its class shall be evaluated. If the Club deems that, in the interest of fostering greater equity within a class, a vehicle should be reclassified to another Improved Touring class, such a reclassification shall be made. Alternatively or additionally, if the Club deems that an upward or downward revision in the minimum allowable weight is warranted, such a "performance compensation adjustment" shall be made. Any performance compensation adjustments made after the second and third years of classification shall be provisional. At the end of a vehicle's fourth year of Improved Touring classification, an assessment of class equity shall be made and the vehicle's minimum weight shall be established.

On rare occasion-and only after careful review of the actual racing performance of a particular make/model/year of vehicle-the Club may reclassify a vehicle, revise a vehicle's minimum allowable weight, and/or in the most extreme situation an intake restrictor may be required. Such an action shall be taken solely for the purpose of restoring equity within the vehicle's class."

not sure this helps or not... Just thought I would answer the question.

Raymond

[lateapex911]

Okay.
Just to provide two sides to the story, if THAT was the reason your car was denined, then why are there FIVE years of changes that precede it? The "Operative method" was to change cars that didn't fall under that allowance, (ie, cars classified for more than 5 years) under the "errors" clause that I am told exists in the CRBs operations manual.

We ran the numbers on yours, and other cars via the Process, (the one used for 5 years) and determined that the car was significantly off it's process weight.
But, THESE requests were suddenly denied citing (and I must say the reasons were rather slow in coming) the GCR, finally. Internally we had been told that there was strong objection to change the weight of that car because it was "obviously a front running car... clearly competitive".


And IF the GCR section IS to be followed, then WHY did the ITAC JUST recommend adjusting the BMW 320i to Process weight, which the CRB approved!??* It too has been classed for more than 5 years, and it too has shown signs of front running competence. (A number of them beat down some stiff ITB competition at the IT Fest, etc)

One could deduce that the real reason is variable, but centers on a desire to follow "what we know" when it comes to adjustments and weight setting, and appears to be most prevalent in ITB.

*THAT call went like this:

ITAC: "I didn't see all those 'denials" we wrote up in Fastrack. what happened to those?"
CRB: "We didn't approve them, what's the first car on the list?"
ITAC: "Um.. (looking thru notes) the 320i"
CRB: "OK, what's the stock HP? What's the engine? What's the current weight"?
ITAC: "Wait, we just DID this, and we were told we can't adjust cars like this? My notes show you said 'yada yada yada (5 yr GCR rule) etc etc etc', so this car can't be adjusted"
CRB: "Jake, Do you want to adjust cars or not?"
ITAC (me): " Um...well, yeah, but..."
CRB: "Well, then lets get to work. What are the numbers on the car??"

And that was that............

[924Guy]

(from Dictionary.com)

ca⋅pri⋅cious

–adjective 1. subject to, led by, or indicative of caprice or whim; erratic: He's such a capricious boss I never know how he'll react. 2. Obsolete. fanciful or witty.

Origin:
1585–95; < It capriccioso capriccioso

Related forms:
ca⋅pri⋅cious⋅ly, adverb
ca⋅pri⋅cious⋅ness, noun

Synonyms:
1. variable, flighty, mercurial. See fickle.


Antonyms:
1. steady, constant, consistent.

[Z3_GoCar]

Sorry - was an official response to the ITB Audi request actually published? Have responses to ALL of the "please review" requests been published? My primary grouse when I called the CRB out on the board here was that they just weren't DOING anything with that backlog. Is it cleared?

K

I don't know about the other requests, but my request was heard and published in the last FT. The new tracking system does seem to add to at least knowing where in the river your request has floated off to.

[RSTPerformance]

K-

I was wondering the same thing...

A) who runs the club, Manufacturers or Members?

is it possible to protest the CRB decisions? The way I see it is that we have until 12:30am o. The 20th right? Who do we file the protest with? My protest and the others mentioned with the BOD haven't gone for from what I can tell... Real bummer.

C) now people know why I kept asking how they were able to change the weight on the BMW in the other threads... It isn't because I am against it, it is because cars like the Audi and MR2 on one side and Golf III on the other are not being treated equally.

Raymond

[gran racing]

In all fairness, there could be some valid reasons why a manufacturer issue or whatever it is would make sense to be given priority. My problem continues to be a total lack of communication. They wouldn't need to go into detail but a message that we're not being pushed aside, some information, and when we can expect to hear from them. Really? Is is all that difficult for them to do?