Feb Fastrack

[Knestis]

...There was some confusion on one con call and 30% was used erroneously.

That resulted in the car racing at that weight for the last season or so.

We recommended a new weight on the MR2, and other cars using the same engine, based on 25%.
The CRb rejected that, they feel that we classed it at 30% only a year ago, and see no reason to change it. ...

We have new evidence and will try again.

Jeebus.

If there's room for something called "Errors and Omissions," one would think that "We were dumbasses and used the wrong number by mistake in a committee call in April 2008, and would like to fix it" would qualify.

We started making noise about that mistake inside the ITAC literally 20+ months ago.

But as far as "new evidence" goes, there's no provision to consider it. If there is, someone explain how and why, and based on whose decision.

In public, for the membership.

K

[JeffYoung]

There is not a "public" one. There is something we have been quoted in a CRB "operations manual" of some sort that allows E&O corrections. But I agree, there is nothing in the present ITCS that would allow it.

[jjjanos]

There is not a "public" one. There is something we have been quoted in a CRB "operations manual" of some sort that allows E&O corrections. But I agree, there is nothing in the present ITCS that would allow it.

And isthat operations manual public? IIf not, it damn well should and needs to be.