April Fastrack

[lateapex911]

......the Audi 4000 Quattro... According to the process it should weigh a good 200lbs less than the FWD version ....

Why? Same engine or different?

[RSTPerformance]

Why? Same engine or different?

Exact same car other than the AWD, independant rear suspension and the disc brakes in the rear...

They (ITAC and CR have no data from the Audi Coupe so they need me to complete a VTS sheet. Amaizingly the CRB was able to justify the coupe in ITB soley on the on-track performance as it aparently did not have a VTS sheet so it did not have ANY data to back up its decisions...

Raymond "Yup, my comments about the CRB are harsh, but it is how I feel" Blethen

[lateapex911]

So, if I read between the lines, you're saying that the Process for that car is 200 or so less than the currently classed version. And therefor the current one is wrong. yea, we did that dance.

You aren't going to let it go, LOL, you're trying to get more guys to leave the ITAC?

[RSTPerformance]

I will let it go once we have consistancy and the bull shit stops where the CRB gives one excuse and less than a month later does the exact opposite. They need to treat customers (so called members) and thier cars the same. It goes far beyond the Audi, MR2, VW Golfs or the varios other cars people have had problems with. I would like to say it isn't personal, I just have absolutely zero respect for Bob Dowie or the other members of the CRB. I don't ever expect that to change... Bob Dowie has zero leadership skills and the BOD doesn't seem to concerned with the performance of the group as a whole so it is a no win situation IMO.

Raymond

[RSTPerformance]

I am not trying to get more ITAC member to leave...

No disrespect to Josh, he is a nice guy and has been very good at communicating with me but I wish that the ITAC members that left never did. They had a backbone and the bold moves they made were ignored by SCCA. I am suprised you are all still members to be honest.

Raymond

[JeffYoung]

Raymond, trying to get back up to speed on this.

Which engine went in the 4000? The 2.2 or the 2.3?

Which is in your Coupe?

Is it the 2.3?

Stock hp rating?

Thanks --again, just trying to get my numbers right.

I am not trying to get more ITAC member to leave...

No disrespect to Josh, he is a nice guy and has been very good at communicating with me but I wish that the ITAC members that left never did. They had a backbone and the bold moves they made were ignored by SCCA. I am suprised you are all still members to be honest.

Raymond

[RSTPerformance]

I agree with all it is MY responsability to do a VTS sheet and Josh has gone above and beyond IMO with friendly reminders that I appreciated... He has been excellent.

Jeff they both have the 2.22

Raymond "Living the dream world with a nice house, hot fiancé, and $7 bank account at the end of the month!" Blethen

[Knestis]

An interesting point: If another car with exactly the same mechanical attributes as the Coupe "processed out" 200 pounds less - absent on-track performance to justify the heavier weight - it wouldn't get that "kicked ass at the ARRC reward weight," would it? That's the AWD version of the car, right there...

This should be interesting, seeing how the extra lead gets rationalized.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Believe it or not I have been out of the loop now for almost a 1/4 of a year but here is my perception of what will happen.

1. The ITAC will run the Process. It will come out to the same numbers run on the GT.

2. Someone will say that it's the same motor. The CRB will thumb through the ITCS and find 'similar' cars and reference that weight.

3. They will set the weight at the weight listed on the current car under that theory (assuming there is no adder for AWD)

*If this is the way it actually pans out, it's one of the main reasons I left.

[lateapex911]

I know where i'm putting my money!

Follow that chain of events further, Kirk. The ITAC has stated* that ('for now") they will only change existing cars that are mechanically identical.

So, IF the AWD version goes in at process, POOF, the FWD version gets a letter to reprocess, and then they are going to look at that. However, it's not mechanically identical....although, based on the previous process output of AWD cars, the differences aren't factored, so, ostensibly it IS mechanically identical.

Of course, i'm not the only guy that can see the path of events unfolding, so, I imagine the obvious play will be to class it "Appropriately" based on the known performance of it's mechanical twin, thereby avoiding the ugly and embarrassing letter to reprocess the FWD version...again..

*And, based on what I've read and what I saw behind the curtain before I left, I'm thinking that statement was based on direction from the CRB. But, I could be wrong, and it might be an ITAC initiative to get back in the good graces of the CRB....)

[JoshS]

They (ITAC and CRB have no data from the Audi Coupe so they need me to complete a VTS sheet.

Even if we had data from the Audi Coupe, I'd still be asking for a VTS sheet for the 4000Q. It's NOT the same car, it wouldn't go on the same line, it's got plenty of differences, even if the engine itself is shared. We are just simply not going to classify any new cars without VTS sheets. I explained that to you on the phone. I don't think that should be a tough policy decision to swallow. We don't to make sure that someone has done due diligence on any new listing, and that we have a record of it.

[lateapex911]

yea, there should always be a VTS sheet, either in the existing records, or submitted. And the car does have brake differences for example to warrant it's VTS need. That's something that I'm glad Josh is pushing.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Even if we had data from the Audi Coupe, I'd still be asking for a VTS sheet for the 4000Q. It's NOT the same car, it wouldn't go on the same line, it's got plenty of differences, even if the engine itself is shared. We are just simply not going to classify any new cars without VTS sheets. I explained that to you on the phone. I don't think that should be a tough policy decision to swallow. We don't to make sure that someone has done due diligence on any new listing, and that we have a record of it.

Which is 100% true. Brake sizes, wheelbase, whatever needs to be documented. Good policy. If you don't want to fill out the sheets, then you don't want a car classed that bad.

[Knestis]

Like anyone cares but yeah - what they said. Someone "told" the ITAC that the MkIV Golf was the "same" as a MkIII Golf under the skin, but then after it was listed we found out that the front brakes are substantially larger. Lesson learned.

K

[RSTPerformance]

Even if we had data from the Audi Coupe, I'd still be asking for a VTS sheet for the 4000Q. It's NOT the same car, it wouldn't go on the same line, it's got plenty of differences, even if the engine itself is shared. We are just simply not going to classify any new cars without VTS sheets. I explained that to you on the phone. I don't think that should be a tough policy decision to swallow. We don't to make sure that someone has done due diligence on any new listing, and that we have a record of it.

Josh-

I agree with you and the others that it is not unreasonable to have a VTS sheet done on every car. I was suprised though that some of the basic information needed was not available from the FWD version of the car, especially after the CRB looked things over so well - or so thay said. When you told me that no VTS sheet existed on the Coupe it was the icing on the cake for me that the CRB is an unresponsable group of individuals that should not be in the position they are.

Also Josh, I would like to point out that you have been excellent at communicating and you have sent me SEVERAL e-mail reminders to complete the VTS sheets for the quattro. I keep forgetting to ask my brother to get me the shop manual and/or fill out the sheet for me. Last night I posted it because I came on here for the first time in several weeks to put up an update for the Impact Racing issues and read this thread which reminded me about it. I know my brother lurks and posts so he would see it. We don't live that close to each other so we don't get to see each other everyday like we used to.

Thansk again for your commitment Josh, if I get the VTS sheet in on time we will see how this all plays out;

Raymond

[seckerich]

This has to be a 2 way street. If we are going to hammer the CRB and ITAC to some extent on car classing, we have to hold ourselves to the same standard. That standard requires a VTS and any related material needed to class a car regardless of what was done in the past. Lets do our part to do it the right way and EXPECT them to do the same.

[lateapex911]

Josh-

. I keep forgetting to ask my brother to get me the shop manual and/or fill out the sheet for me. Last night I posted it because I came on here for the first time in several weeks to put up an update for the Impact Racing issues and read this thread which reminded me about it. I know my brother lurks and posts so he would see it.

Raymond

Psst..Raymond. This Dude...named Bell, says he invented this device called a telephone. Yea, somebody elses disputes him, but whatever. And now, it's actually wireless! So you could like, ummmm CALL your brother?? Or, and this is another "phone" thing, you can type a little message to him and send it from your phone to his!! Wild, I know! It's called 'texting"...all the kids are doing it.

Then there's this other invention, which I know you have, cuz you typed on it to post here, called a computer. You can even use it to send a message to him! Sooo many options...it's just mind boggling!