Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 63

Thread: April Fastrack

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Silicon Valley, CA
    Posts
    1,381

    Default April Fastrack

    Josh Sirota
    ITR '99 BMW Z3 Coupe

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    774

    Default

    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.
    Track Speed Motorsports
    http://www.trackspeedmotorsports.com/

    Steven Ulbrik (engineer/crew/driver)
    [email protected]

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    907

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by quadzjr View Post
    "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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Black Rock, Ct
    Posts
    9,594

    Default

    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?
    Jake Gulick


    CarriageHouse Motorsports
    for sale: 2003 Audi A4 Quattro, clean, serviced, dark green, auto, sunroof, tan leather with 75K miles.
    IT-7 #57 RX-7 race car
    Porsche 1973 911E street/fun car
    BMW 2003 M3 cab, sun car.
    GMC Sierra Tow Vehicle
    New England Region
    lateapex911(at)gmail(dot)com


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Black Rock, Ct
    Posts
    9,594

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jjjanos View Post
    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.
    Jake Gulick


    CarriageHouse Motorsports
    for sale: 2003 Audi A4 Quattro, clean, serviced, dark green, auto, sunroof, tan leather with 75K miles.
    IT-7 #57 RX-7 race car
    Porsche 1973 911E street/fun car
    BMW 2003 M3 cab, sun car.
    GMC Sierra Tow Vehicle
    New England Region
    lateapex911(at)gmail(dot)com


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Camas, WA
    Posts
    531

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lateapex911 View Post
    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.
    Marcus
    miller-motorsports.com - Its always an Adventure (and woefully outdated)
    1.6 ITE/SPU/ST2 Turbo Miata (in pieces... err progress)

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Tijeras, NM
    Posts
    579

    Default

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

    What's going on here?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Silicon Valley, CA
    Posts
    1,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GKR_17 View Post
    "Consideration is being given to revisiting ITR as a whole during 2010."

    What's going on here?
    We're 3 full years into ITR competition. We just want to follow up and make sure that the weights are consistent and that there are no glaring errors.

    The ITAC is still trying to get caught up on letters, but we'll get to this.
    Josh Sirota
    ITR '99 BMW Z3 Coupe

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    "Errors" being operationalized as...?

    K

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JoshS View Post
    We're 3 full years into ITR competition. We just want to follow up and make sure that the weights are consistent and that there are no glaring errors.

    The ITAC is still trying to get caught up on letters, but we'll get to this.
    Umm I'm willing to guess there could be some glaring errors... but I'm not sure how anybody thinks they are going to find them any easier now than they could have 3 years ago, or when a new car was classed. You certainly can't tell anything by ontrack performance yet(New CRB/ITAC position)... I'm 99% sure an RX-8 can be made to handle better than a second gen rx-7 of similar weight, I know for sure it makes about 30 more whp in IT trim and can/and is allowed to in ITR fit a bigger wheel and tire than ITS... yet huffmaster went faster than anyone in IT at the arrc. You have no DATA to go by. Period.(unless someone has offered up dyno sheets for multiple similar builds showing something doesn't make expected power) Not to mention that nobody has yet tried to build a serious front wheel drive car and see how it stacks up at all(they could all be off)

    Only thing I can think of is that the v6 mustang is probably not going to be able to make weight... maybe not within 50lbs with a 180lbs driver. However, several more are being built I believe so it would seem foolish to change those cars before more people come to that conclusion.
    Last edited by frnkhous; 03-23-2010 at 06:58 PM.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Silicon Valley, CA
    Posts
    1,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frnkhous View Post
    Umm I'm willing to guess there could be some glaring errors... but I'm not sure how anybody thinks they are going to find them any easier now than they could have 3 years ago, or when a new car was classed.
    Well, for example, it appears that the Mitsu 3000GT/Dodge Stealth didn't get any sort of break for FWD, although it should have. Just want to do a complete audit.
    Josh Sirota
    ITR '99 BMW Z3 Coupe

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    raleigh, nc, usa
    Posts
    5,252

    Default

    Kirk, it appears some process factors were not correctly applied to ITR cars -- some of the weights can't be backed into using the process.

    As I understand it, those are the errors we would be looking at. Josh's example of the 3000GT and Stealth are prime ones.

    Quote Originally Posted by Knestis View Post
    "Errors" being operationalized as...?

    K
    NC Region
    1980 ITS Triumph TR8

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JoshS View Post
    Well, for example, it appears that the Mitsu 3000GT/Dodge Stealth didn't get any sort of break for FWD, although it should have. Just want to do a complete audit.
    So it sounds like "error" as in, not to the process that should have been used when they were initially listed...

    K

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JoshS View Post
    We're 3 full years into ITR competition. We just want to follow up and make sure that the weights are consistent and that there are no glaring errors.

    The ITAC is still trying to get caught up on letters, but we'll get to this.
    Seriously? Already we are messing around... Is it documented that a member requested a specific car to be looked at?
    Stephen

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Tijeras, NM
    Posts
    579

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frnkhous View Post
    Not to mention that nobody has yet tried to build a serious front wheel drive car and see how it stacks up at all(they could all be off)
    Paul Dubinski and Mark Masters have their "Part Time" Acura RSX moving very well now. I've heard of another in Ohio, but haven't seen it.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Sunnyside, NY
    Posts
    1,197

    Default

    use the formula Daniel-san.... use the formula...
    Demetrius Mossaidis aka 'Mickey' #12 ITA NESCCA
    '92 Honda Civic Si
    STFU and "Then write a letter. www.crbscca.com"
    2013 ITA NARRC Champion and I have not raced since.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Black Rock, Ct
    Posts
    9,594

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GKR_17 View Post
    Paul Dubinski and Mark Masters have their "Part Time" Acura RSX moving very well now. I've heard of another in Ohio, but haven't seen it.
    I think I met those guys at VIR last fall?. NICE guys. SWEET looking car!
    Jake Gulick


    CarriageHouse Motorsports
    for sale: 2003 Audi A4 Quattro, clean, serviced, dark green, auto, sunroof, tan leather with 75K miles.
    IT-7 #57 RX-7 race car
    Porsche 1973 911E street/fun car
    BMW 2003 M3 cab, sun car.
    GMC Sierra Tow Vehicle
    New England Region
    lateapex911(at)gmail(dot)com


  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frnkhous View Post
    Only thing I can think of is that the v6 mustang is probably not going to be able to make weight... maybe not within 50lbs with a 180lbs driver. However, several more are being built I believe so it would seem foolish to change those cars before more people come to that conclusion.
    The car was run through the process and a weight comes out. At that point a decision is made to possibly drop it a class at a higher weight, however, for that car, and a few others in that 190hp range, the S weight is just too high compared to other cars in the class and the mechnical aspects of the car in question. 26XX in R or around 3000+ in S, a bit of a tweener.

    I weigh 175 lbs and if I can get my Mustang to be within 50lbs of weight I'll be plenty happy. I need to lose 20 lbs anyhow, that'd make it even closer!

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    raleigh, nc, usa
    Posts
    5,252

    Default

    That's the one. It is a nice car, and nice guys.

    Quote Originally Posted by lateapex911 View Post
    I think I met those guys at VIR last fall?. NICE guys. SWEET looking car!
    NC Region
    1980 ITS Triumph TR8

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Tijeras, NM
    Posts
    579

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lateapex911 View Post
    I think I met those guys at VIR last fall?. NICE guys. SWEET looking car!
    They found somewhere near four seconds at VIR since last season. Quite impressive.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •