off topic discussion about current IT issues and more specifically ITB.

[Knestis]

I've got a theory - that I can't substantiate with anything other than anecdote and hearsay - that might bear on your perspective, Charles:

I think that the ITB Volvos are the victim of perceptions, going back to the days pre-(not so)-Great-Alignment. A few, key, cheater examples raised perceptions of what that car could do "on the track," that persisted and got considered during what I think of as the "soft use" of the very first (nsGR-era) process.

I think it's damned hard to make a legal Volvo competitive now because current weights are a legacy of codfying observed performance of a few illegal cars into the 142 spec line, and beyond into the other "Scary Volvos" in the book...

As Andy explains, v.2 would have allowed the ITAC to address issues like that, that exist all the way through the ITB section of the ITCS.

And as I've tried to explain elsewhere, WHOSE results should be used to establish "balance in the class?" How about my performances at the IT fest and SIC in 2008? (Nice, high profile events like the RubOffs, that establish the benchmarks for National cars.) The Golf III would weigh 200# less than it does by that standard. Sure, you say - a couple other Golfs ran really well at Mid-O but what if (as Dave alludes to) I had been driving the only Fiat Brava, and that it had been prepared to what is arguably a pretty damned high standard by Cameron Conover?

Surely it would deserve to get lighter, right?

K

PS - I personally think a Fiat Brava would be a kick-ass cool ITB car, and if I had $40K of spare dough laying around, I'd build one. Then having proved it's too heavy, I'd lobby for a weight reduction with another basket full of dough...

EDIT - A little napkin math suggests that the 2.1 version of the 242 needs a power multiplier of something like 1.65(!) to get to its current ITCS spec weight. REALLY...? In IT-legal form, we think that's going to happen...?? NFW. Version 2 would be on that like stink on a Road Atlanta porta-john in mid-August.

[rsportvolvo]

EDIT - A little napkin math suggests that the 2.1 version of the 242 needs a power multiplier of something like 1.65(!) to get to its current ITCS spec weight. REALLY...? In IT-legal form, we think that's going to happen...?? NFW. Version 2 would be on that like stink on a Road Atlanta porta-john in mid-August.

So can anyone on the BoD, CRB, ITAC explain why a 98 hp 2.0L OHV Volvo 240, a 107 hp 2.1L SOHC Volvo 240, and a 114 hp 2.3L SOHC Volvo 240 all have the same curb weight? If they're all going to have the same weight, wheelbase & brakes they might as well be one line item.

[Knestis]

So can anyone on the BoD, CRB, ITAC explain why a 98 hp 2.0L OHV Volvo 240, a 107 hp 2.1L SOHC Volvo 240, and a 114 hp 2.3L SOHC Volvo 240 all have the same curb weight? If they're all going to have the same weight, wheelbase & brakes they might as well be one line item.

<sigh>

BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T ALL BEEN THROUGH THE SAME SPECIFICATION PROCESS.

(Yes, I was hollering but for Pete's sake, people - we've been saying this over and over and OVER here for MONTHS.)

That kind of situation was right on the table in front of the ITAC last spring, as we finalized and codified "version 2" of the Process. We wanted to address these glitches systematically, the CRB (it seemed) wanted to retain the option of picking race weights they were more comfortable with, than those that the Process determined.

We had people theoretically doing the due diligence on several of the Volvos at the time but I fear that may all have gone PFFFTT! in the ensuing months. Or who knows? Maybe it will all get ironed out with the April Fastrack...

K

[rsportvolvo]

<sigh>

BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T ALL BEEN THROUGH THE SAME SPECIFICATION PROCESS.

(Yes, I was hollering but for Pete's sake, people - we've been saying this over and over and OVER here for MONTHS.)

That kind of situation was right on the table in front of the ITAC last spring, as we finalized and codified "version 2" of the Process. We wanted to address these glitches systematically, the CRB (it seemed) wanted to retain the option of picking race weights they were more comfortable with, than those that the Process determined.

We had people theoretically doing the due diligence on several of the Volvos at the time but I fear that may all have gone PFFFTT! in the ensuing months. Or who knows? Maybe it will all get ironed out with the April Fastrack...

K

So my request last spring to review the Volvo 240 line items was just for corrections? What was the point of digging up all the data and filling out the VTS forms? That's really disappointing if my request was not taken seriously. I know Les Chaney helped me out a bunch getting all of the info situated.

[Knestis]

So my request last spring to review the Volvo 240 line items was just for corrections? What was the point of digging up all the data and filling out the VTS forms? That's really disappointing if my request was not taken seriously. I know Les Chaney helped me out a bunch getting all of the info situated.

Again, we loop back to definitions. The ITAC at the time defined "correction" in terms of the degree to which any given car's weight didn't square with what the Process said it should be. What "correction" means now - not to be too much of a bitch about it - seems to be, "How different it is from what some key members of the CRB think it should be."

To be fair though, the CRB never actually GOT a recommendation from the ITAC on the Volvi. They got sucked into the "do we call a do-over on ITB?" vortex, then the "nothing is getting approved turmoil," then the "I just can't be part of this anymore" hoedown.

K