Big Picture of IT - Share Your Opinions

[RSTPerformance]

Two MAJOR problems with SCCA/IT now...

ITAC/Comp board should at least publish how a weight was arrived at when a new car comes on board.

How f'ing hard is it to acknowledge that you have a letter (other than an e-mail that only says you have been waiting 8 (or isit 9) months a few more won't be to bad... If there is a question that has been put in front of either the ITAC or the comp board, it should be mentioned in every Fast Track until it gets closed.

Raymond "Matt I am with ya" Blethen

[RSTPerformance]

I would also be interested to k ow who's requests have been worked on and who's are still on the shelf... 20 weight adjustment requests??? Get member feedback if you guys can't figure it out!

Oh wait you ask for member feedback then do nothing with it should I mention AWD???

Raymond

[JeffYoung]

There has been and continues to be significant discussion about AWD. There are basically three 'camps" I see on the ITAC on this issue:

1. One group says class the cars, at least 2-3 people have written in wanting specifically to class an N/A AWD car so they can build it. That group feels like that is enough to justify doing it.

2. A second group sees it as a cost benefit analysis. There are so few N/A AWD cars as to create only a small benefit by classing them. On the downside, classing AWD cars will be difficult because we don't fully understand their handling dynamics, and whether (a) there actually is a handling "penalty" in the dry and (b) how much of an advantage AWD is in the wet.

3. A third group is adamantly opposed based on the perceived advantage AWD has in the rain.

Right now, it's stalled due to the significant split into the three groups I list above.

[Spinnetti]

There has been and continues to be significant discussion about AWD. There are basically three 'camps" I see on the ITAC on this issue:

1. One group says class the cars, at least 2-3 people have written in wanting specifically to class an N/A AWD car so they can build it. That group feels like that is enough to justify doing it.

2. A second group sees it as a cost benefit analysis. There are so few N/A AWD cars as to create only a small benefit by classing them. On the downside, classing AWD cars will be difficult because we don't fully understand their handling dynamics, and whether (a) there actually is a handling "penalty" in the dry and (b) how much of an advantage AWD is in the wet.

3. A third group is adamantly opposed based on the perceived advantage AWD has in the rain.

Right now, it's stalled due to the significant split into the three groups I list above.

Why not class it "normally" then? the disadvantage in the dry gets cancelled out by the wet advantage?

I've been racing right about 20 years now, most of that in IT, and for me it mostly trying to keep up with the constant rule changes and the incredibly anal debate over so much of them. Right now, I'm having more fun in Lemons where its my driving and pit work that matters, not the car.