Butch, I'm with Andy on this one, but I'd go a step further, I wanted to know "how" we would proceed. I'll give two examples (no new news here for those who have read the details)
1- When we recommended the MR2 and it's brother the AE86 RWD Corolla be corrected (the former) and moved to ITB (the latter) we did so based on a 25% IT hp gain factor, correcting an earlier mistake that the committee (me) made by using a 30% factor. The recommendation was shot down by the CRB on the MR2, and the AE86 had 95 pounds added to it.
So, upon reading that, we asked, "WHY?", and the CRB responded with: "Because the original process sold to the BoD had 16 valve engines listed as using a factor of 30% and that's the way the listings have been done."
I countered with "The original process also said, right after that, 'Check to make sure those make sense and match reality' (paraphrased), and we have 8 dyno sheets showing IT builds that struggle to get to 17%. Further, we haven't been using the 30% figure as the norm for a long time as it just doesn't reflect reality on those engines most of the time".
A point was raised that "All 16V cars going into ITB get that factor, that was the deal to get those cars in the class."
Huh?? But WHY??? Why class cars incorrectly KNOWING all the time that they are incorrect??
It was told to us that we were to be considering other factors, and the 5+ yeas of using stock hp was no longer in favor with the CRB. WHY?
But......"OK", I said, "what factors and how should they be incorporated consistently?"
The key figure was displacement according to the CRB.
Example 2: We recommended a weight shift to a couple Golfs in ITA. In short, the CRB disagreed, and thought our recommendations were light. "Compared to other 2.0L engines of the same architecture in ITA, these listings don't fit". We asked which ones, and several were eventually identified. The cars listed were heavier, yes, but, they also had more base HP.
"I again asked, "How can we do this consistently and with repeatability? A; We don't know off the top of our heads whether those listings are current, and B, how do we accommodate the difference in actual HP those engines make??" This was a serious question, in other words, "Help me do what you want in a proper manner"
The answer: "You're the experts, ....you should know".
Well, I DO know, we run the process based on stock hp, and when we have real evidence that shows that needs to be deviated from, we present that evidence, vote on it, document it, and move forward.
(this whole process was born from 'experts'...(like me!) "englishing" weights so they 'felt right' and matched what people 'think they know"...and was a mess of weights that didn't make sense. How can we avoid that, and why are we going back to that?)
It is clear, and the CRB has stated so, that they wish to "wiggle room" listings, and it's also obvious that that is NOT what the members want. (nearly two dozen letters, AGAIN, unanimous, indicate this)
While having a mediator would be interesting, unless one side makes unwanted concessions, I can't see an outcome.....and really, that mediator should consider the members first principals above all else.
For the ITACs part, I strongly feel they have been consistent in their direction, and responsive to the overwhelmingly clear member wishes.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by lateapex911
Bookmarks