April Fastrack

[JoshS]

Published today.

http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastra...rack-april.pdf

[quadzjr]

So with the letter sumbited.. about the process..

"Thank you for your input. The CRB has opened communication channels with the ITAC. The ITAC chairman will communicate
with the membership."

is this any different than before? We talk to ITAC then they talk to CRB? is there guidlines in place fo rthe CRB to listen and consider openly to ITAC decisions?

looks like we have our first AWD.. and from the quick look at it, the weight seems right.

[jjjanos]

"Thank you for your input. The CRB has opened communication channels with the ITAC. The ITAC chairman will communicate with the membership."

Translation: We are going to ignore the membership and continue to do what we want.

is this any different than before? We talk to ITAC then they talk to CRB? is there guidlines in place fo rthe CRB to listen and consider openly to ITAC decisions?

No. The CRB is free to ignore ITAC recommendations/requests. Though, now that the Vichy ITAC is installed, I'm certain the ITAC and CRB will be of one mind.

[lateapex911]

New rule:

Seat mounting
Merideth/Sheridan, motion to approve the following GCR change: Approved: Butler, Creighton, Gordy, Kephart, Langlotz, Lewis, Lybarger, Merideth, Noble, Sheridan, Wannarka. Abstain: Patullo Effective immediately 3/9/10.
To allow secure mounting of racing seats in categories where a limited number of cage attachment points are allowed, the CRB recommends the following change.
In 9.3.41, add a new second paragraph as follows: Mounting structures for racing seats may attach to the floor, cage and or center tunnel. Seat mounting points forward of the main hoop, between the center line of the car and the driver’s side door bar and rearward of the front edge of the seat bottom are not considered cage attachment points in classes with limitations on the number of attachments.

That's us IT guys.. So, with that, a number of cars I know are now legal, and the way cars are built will change. How does this rule line up with NASA?

[Marcus Miller]

New rule:



That's us IT guys.. So, with that, a number of cars I know are now legal, and the way cars are built will change. How does this rule line up with NASA?

For PT, I believe they have a maximum of 8 points; ask Ken Brewer on the brown board, he'll know off the top of his head.

[GKR_17]

"Consideration is being given to revisiting ITR as a whole during 2010."

What's going on here?

[lateapex911]

Translation: We are going to ignore the membership and continue to do what we want.





No. The CRB is free to ignore ITAC recommendations/requests. Though, now that the Vichy ITAC is installed, I'm certain the ITAC and CRB will be of one mind.

Well, that was an interesting Fastrack.
On one hand I can see that there has been an effort for the responses to be more than "yes" or "no. That's something the old ITAC was working on. And that's good. Up to a point.

On the other hand, I can see it's being used when the CRB wants to use it. Case in point, the 8 letters written in protest of the CRB ITAC blow up. The letters are listed and the summation is "CRB-ITAC relationship", which tells the reader who knows nothing of what transpired, exactly nothing.
Then FURTHER, the response is very misleading. "Communication has been opened" ?!?!?!?! As if to say that CRB/ITAC communication was closed before!?!? That's really wrong. Communication was open, for sure. But the communication the ITAC was getting was inconsistent, flip flopped and was at times misrepresented.

It also states that the "Chairman will communicate". This I take to be a new limitation on public discussion, in that only the Chairman is allowed to communicate.

Thankfully the Chairman is Josh. But, it's still a gag order to my way of thinking.

Finally, (not really, but ... ) the response to the guy asking for the Golf 2.0 weight in ITA to be reviewed made me chuckle. By the Process the cars (1.8 and 2.0 Golfs) are heavy. (The 2.0 is 2475, about 70 heavy IIRC..I'd have to dig up my notes to be sure) During the con call I was on where the cars were discussed (Our recommendation to adjust them had been rejected by the CRB ). The CRB cited the displacement as being key. They stated the cars compared well to other similar cars in the class. When pressed, they looked through the GCR, and, in the case of the 2.0, they used a Toyota with a 2.0 engine (2615lbs) as a justification that the 2.0 at 2475 was fine, and didn't need to be changed. (Horsepower be damned) As a matter of fact, they stated the car "Is competitive", that it had "Won the ARRC"*, and that it was actually a bit light in their eyes.

NOW they cite HP as the determining factor, and compare it to the 1.8.
It's this kind of story changing inconsistent behavior that got the ITAC all confused, and created the divide.

Further, they trot out the Great Reorg, and state that it was considered fine at that point.

This is the SAME CRB that, at the time of the Great Reorg, advised the ITAC, and was complicit with the ITAC, in creating a "Top 20 (plus minus)" list of the worst offenders, and it was understood at the time that IF the GR went through, we'd see how it played, and take a look at the other cars that weren't AS BAD later. The entire goal was to get some changes made, NOT to do EVEY car ..and NOT recommending a car for adjustment was NOT saying it that it was on Process.

But now it's convenient to trot that out. Which is very misleading.


*No lie, it did, FOURTEEN years ago. Yea, THAT's relevant.