Well thanks for the support on the jack points, for those in favor, write the letter, see if it ever gets another day in court. Frustrating that so little response comes from it and that the CRB can define detail down to wrist pin diameter for AS, but can't find a way to word a proposal for jack points that works. Even after I wrote 90% of it for them.

My letter on the process didn't ask for the process to be published, it asked why it wasn't offered up when asked for. So when they say it was previously addressed they either didn't read the question or don't have a real answer.

Andy provided a polite & well written answer a few posts up. Is it too much for the CRB to do the same in the FT? Its OK to respond by saying "its subjective & we don't have time or attention span to deal w/ the resulting questions" but not responding is unprofessional and creates more questions.

I still say that even w/ Andy's response it would not be out of the question to document what cars were reviewed (or which ones not reviewed, which ever is easier) target class pwr/weight ratio, estimated power, list the adders included and indicate how the adders were applied.


Matt