ITAC Math..... where would this fall??

[jimmyc]

>> ...Not listing car make / model for unbiased guesses.....

I don't have the spreadsheet (I'm at work) and Andy will probably turn the math around pretty quick, but can we PLEASE get past silliness like the above?

If you HONESTLY think the current ITAC is doing business like you infer by this comment, (1) don't ask questions like this (because you should NOT trust our answers), and (2) petition the Board for our removal...

...or stop perpetuating stupid myths.

K

I have seen it happen.

"Well that is an XYZ MKR3 with X.XXL and car XYZ MRZ6 with X.XXL is currently classed at 2,500lbs. NO way in heck I would class XYZ MKR3 at 2400lbs, even though that is what the formula says and that is using the "base" multiplier"

So maybe make and model isn't everything, but it is clear that some members can't just look at the data and give a number.

[Knestis]

That was then, this is now. CURRENT ITAC members don't have that kind of latitude, to POOMA a number based on what they are feeling.

K

[ulfelder]

. . . to POOMA a number based on what they are feeling.

K

POOMA - I love it! Fully plan to steal this one. As far as you know are you the first to use the acronym, or have you seen it elsewhere? (If you're not sure, feel free to POOYA.)

Steve Ulfelder
Flatout Motorsports

[Knestis]

I *think* I coined it but I thought the same thing about an entirely accidental allusion I wrote in a junior high school English paper, about people being players on a stage...

I probably just soaked it up somewhere without actually noticing.

K

[JeffYoung]

You mean the one that Neil Peart wrote?

Dewhurst, lay off the Jake! He's a good man, and I mean that.

I've followed this thread with interest. I do want to say that, my personal position (and not that of the ITAC) is a bit different in some regards. I do think that member driven requests, supported by membership, with appropriate evidence of that support, that do not go to what I call IT "core values" (stock engines, stock bodies, stock suspension pickup points, stock trannies, etc.) are things the ITAC should look into and, barring any obvious unintended consequences, support for the sole reason that membership wants it and it doesn't hurt the core of the category.

I see washer bottles and properly defined (I hear Greg wincing now..lol) jacking plates as being examples of this.

But, I am just one voice on a committee and there is a reason for that. We should necessarily move slowly and deliberately, and a committee generally ensures that we do. Also, amazingly enough, I'm not always right -- more reason to have committee members there with more knowledge and foresight than me.

[lateapex911]

Sweet! I don't even feel "violated" at all, either.
Now pass the beer bong.

Ha ha! What is this, a swim team??

And Jeff, thanks! Nice sentiment, wrong thread...Mr Dewherst made his objections and such known in the other thread.
(probably better left untouched, I can see the direction isn't peachy, LOL)

[JLawton]

Was trying to avoid the "It's a Mitsubishi.... so it can't be fast, ITC." or "why even try with that"...type comments.
.

I think one of the reasons we all like to run IT is becasue the difference in the cars. The "odd balls" are cool! (OK, so I'm a little biased!)

POOMA*......... I like it!!




* Kirk Knestis