March 2014 Fastrack

[Greg Amy]

3. Maybe not the 'details' but at least the 'subject'. Seems very selective.

Not necessarily "selective", it's that any details are just not useful information. You know that, you've been there. Nothing was changed, nothing new was decided, its publication in Fastrack was just a courtesy, confirming considering and printing the results. If it had a title of "I don't like how you're setting RWD weights" you'd probably want more info anyway...

We can't publish everything in Fastrack - it would take too much time and space - so the CRB focuses on the details of those letters that result in changes to the regs. Everything else is, well, pretty much "thanks for your input."

If you really want the details, I'm sure the author of the letter would be glad to send them to you....but we won't publish that as a courtesy to the submitter. - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Not necessarily "selective", it's that any details are just not useful information. You know that, you've been there. Nothing was changed, nothing new was decided, its publication in Fastrack was just a courtesy, confirming considering and printing the results. If it had a title of "I don't like how you're setting RWD weights" you'd probably want more info anyway...

We can't publish everything in Fastrack - it would take too much time and space - so the CRB focuses on the details of those letters that result in changes to the regs. Everything else is, well, pretty much "thanks for your input."

If you really want the details, I'm sure the author of the letter would be glad to send them to you....but we won't publish that as a courtesy to the submitter. - GA

We will agree to disagree. I see nothing wrong with "Please reduce RWD penalty" or "Please increase % for RWD in STL" with the resultant "The STAC has made a recent change and will continue to monitor the class competitiveness." As it was published, it serves zero purpose other than to the author. Hardly a productive use of space. If the SCCA wants to communicate with just one person, do it in email.

Each letter can, and should, be summed up in one sentence, with the appropriate answer. I have seen a lot of improvement in this area lately and this one seems in-congruent with that progress.

[Greg Amy]

I see nothing wrong with "Please reduce RWD penalty" or "Please increase % for RWD in STL" with the resultant "The STAC has made a recent change and will continue to monitor the class competitiveness."

If all request letters were as pleasant, well-written, and straightforward as you describe ("please sir, may I have another?") then that would be fine. They rarely are. And I think you know that.

GA, suddenly wondering if Andy is new to this "Internet thing"...or to article comments sections, or to the kinds - and format - of letters that the CRB gets...

[Dano77]

AHHHHHH Yet another car with more factory HP than the first gen RX7 gets moved from A to B. So happy all the cars I used to be racing with are now moved to a class that will enable them to remain viable race cars....

Kinda half joking here...........

[Andy Bettencourt]

AHHHHHH Yet another car with more factory HP than the first gen RX7 gets moved from A to B. So happy all the cars I used to be racing with are now moved to a class that will enable them to remain viable race cars....

Kinda half joking here...........

While I agree that the 12A RX-7 would be a solid candidate for ITB, lets remember that the factory HP rating is just the first step in the calculation. What REALLY matters is what it makes (or is estimated to make) in IT trim. That is the number that creates your multiplier for your class factor.

[mossaidis]

Looks like Brian Blizzard is going to ITB... confirm? If so, great for ITB, bad for ITA. That boy can move at LRP.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Looks like Brian Blizzard is going to ITB... confirm? If so, great for ITB, bad for ITA. That boy can move at LRP.

You'd be surprised to know the price of tea in ITB at LRP is a mid-low 1:03...

And let's also remember that these 'recommended' changes are for 2015.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Like I said, there has been a lot of improvement in this area in recent history. I know that it's something the ITAC has focused on improving with nice results.

It really isn't that hard to summarize a letter in a concise and polite manner, it just takes some effort. The entry we are talking about was a total waste of space.