Originally posted by Banzai240:
Matt,

The reason this was added back is because it was brought to our attention that there are some cars out there that were made "illegal" by this sections elimination... Many out there still use a variance in resistance from the water temp sensor to help control/correct their fuel mixture on ECU controlled cars...

As for Bill's question, which as everyone here knows is a no-win to try to answer here, the ITAC does not deny that the GTI is not the most competitive car in ITB... HOWEVER, it's TOO much car for ITC. Let's not forget that one of the ITAC members is a VERY successful and well respected ITB Rabbit GTI driver, so it's not like we are making this stuff up...

There are some cars that some of us on the committee feel should have some in-class adjustments, and this may be one of them. However, it hasn't been decided as to whether or not these kinds of adjustments are part of the "strategic plan" for IT. Again, I am meeting with the CRB shortly to discuss this very issue...

Freak out if you must, but realize that you don't know everything that is going on behind the scenes, so draw your conclusions with an understanding of that...
Darin,

All well and good. You keep bringing up Chris' prowess w/ a VW, which I agree, is top notch, and to be commended. And not to get into a pissing contest w/ you, but when was the last time he ran a Rabbit GTI as his main ITB car? He moved from the A1 to the A2, and now to the A3. But that really doesn't matter. But hey, why not let Chris speak for himself?

As far as it being 'too much' car for ITC, you folks (ITAC) had no problem dropping the NB in ITC. IIRC, you, George, and Andy have all indicated that the 'process' puts the Rabbit GTI in ITC at ~2250#. That's 70# over its ITB weight. Put another 100# on the car (2280#), and move it to ITC and see what happens. If it's too fast, add some more weight.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">There are some cars that some of us on the committee feel should have some in-class adjustments, and this may be one of them. However, it hasn't been decided as to whether or not these kinds of adjustments are part of the "strategic plan" for IT. </font>


Darin,

I'm really confused by this comment. Isn't that what PCA's were for? PCA's were approved, and put in place, now you're saying that using them is not part of the "strategic plan" for IT??? Or, are you only going to use them to slow cars down?

And I go back to part of the original post. I sent in a request, and it essentially got thrown in the trash, w/ no response. What's up w/ that?

/edit/ I guess you just can't resist editorializing, can you?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited February 26, 2005).]