April Fastrack

[JeffYoung]

I think that is right -- they ran a 2:12 or something?

Grafton, how fast has your 944S2 gone? I don't think Ricky has been under 2:15 yet, although I know he is still doing a lot of development work. Didn't Skeen get a ITR 325 in the 11s?

[GKR_17]

Our best at VIR is a 2'12.5. Ben hit a 2'12.7 at the March race, while Mark got the Acrua to 2'13.3. Mike Skeen ran a 2'10 in Moorefield's E36 BMW last year in qualifying (2'11.2 is his true, but not yet recorded lap record). We all have a lot of improvement to go it seems.

[Super Swift]

Skeen is my hero! He passed me in the up hill esses on that 2:10 lap.

I'd love to run against him there again: Makes me feel all inadequate. Maybe one day I'll be cool like him. (We have found some time since we raced him but only about half of what we need.)

(On a side note I think ITR is perfect except for one Mazda car that needs weight. )

Ben Robertson

[lateapex911]

Skeen is my hero! He passed me in the up hill esses on that 2:10 lap.

I'd love to run against him there again: Makes me feel all inadequate. Maybe one day I'll be cool like him. (We have found some time since we raced him but only about half of what we need.)

(On a side note I think ITR is perfect except for one Mazda car that needs weight. )

Ben Robertson

based on?

[Super Swift]

Might have something to do with it being the only car with an assumed negative power gain when built to IT spec. Or maybe that nasty gear box that is supposedly to weak to run a single race. Or it might be I don't like how it turned the "process" political.

Jake I know I lost the fight with that car, but I don't plan on stopping my complaining.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Might have something to do with it being the only car with an assumed negative power gain when built to IT spec. Or maybe that nasty gear box that is supposedly to weak to run a single race. Or it might be I don't like how it turned the "process" political.

Jake I know I lost the fight with that car, but I don't plan on stopping my complaining.

Ben,

Complaining is never a problem but it would be great if you used some facts to back up your statements. Using LOADS of data from GAC to Pro Formula Mazda, 215whp potential was used. That is a POSITIVE power adder of 10%.

The Process didn't turn political at all. The RX-8, like many other cars were treated the same. Take a step back and admit to yourself that it's the facts.

[Knestis]

What Andy said - again. The ITAC busted its collective ass on that decision because we KNEW it was going to be examined under an electron microscope. It's squeaky clean.

K

PS to Andy - Did you get your ITAC severance check from "M" yet? Mine came just in time to pay off the house last month.

[lateapex911]

Ben to further what Andy said, not only did we have a bunch of data, but the data was from NON interested parties, AND it was very consistent. On top of that, we used the higher extremes of that data (an actual diservice to the car). No allowance was given for the transmission that is reported to be suspect.

Further, that evidence was brought in, and vetted by the entire ITAC, and then voted on. I have the voting records, person by person. To me, that one car was perhaps the apogee of the Process, and now that the CRB has pushed back, we may never see a weight so properly processed again.

It's a high water mark for the IT car classification system, if you ask me.

Too bad that System has been abandoned.

Complain if you want Ben, but saying it has a negative power factor is either a joke lacking a smiley, or sour grapes and a misrepresentation...you KNOW it didn't get a negative factor.

[GKR_17]

No allowance was given for the transmission that is reported to be suspect.

There is one of my major complaints on this car. The transmission should have been taken into account. The ratios are phenomenal in that box, and it negates the 'low torque' (100lb deduction) of this motor.

[RSTPerformance]

Seriously? Already we are messing around... Is it documented that a member requested a specific car to be looked at?
Stephen

Stephen you should know by now that the CRB is a piss poor group of people who have absolutely no idea how to research decisions properly or understand that consistency has something to do with member support and/or growth. The "rules" will change from month to month until we change the members of that committee. Unfortunately those members are not voted on so we have not options as members to replace them.

Raymond "not bitching, just being a realist when it comes to how SCCA handles member input and change" Blethen

PS: I really need to get that VTS sheet into the ITAC to see how the CRB deals with the Audi 4000 Quattro... According to the process it should weigh a good 200lbs less than the FWD version so it will be interesting to see how the ITAC and CRB handle that one! If you have the info can you fill it in and e-mail it to me? Thanks!

[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

[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.