Quote Originally Posted by Matt Rowe View Post
Finally, and the reason for my packing, is I am off to Las Vegas for the national convention where the CRB, BOD and National staff will all be in one location. I would imagine I won't be the only one looking for some information/answers.
I'm going to go out on a limb, and say, depending on how "in" you are will determine the answer. I think that some of the CRB feel we got "too big for our britches" and "went off the reservation" with some of our process based recommendations.

I can see that on a couple cars. They appeared to be "in the mix competition-wise", but they were underweight when the numbers were run. We probably made an error in recommending them at the process weight, and should have tabled it to explore them more closely, to dig further past the basic assumptions. Frankly, I thought we'd get a "Really guys? Can you dig deeper and do some research on this one" from the CRB if there was an issue.

Instead, the recommendation and others that were in line but related were put in a kind of limbo.

What came out of that period was the ITAC rolling out the 9 month polishing up of the process ("V.2.0")(see RRAX for an interesting discussion regarding that) and the converging distaste of the Process by the CRB. During that time we then were "shut down" on all such weight changes, being told that it was against the rules, then a month after I had drafted "thankyou for your input but the ITAC is not able to make changes to cars classed for more than etc etc" verbiage, (which never hit Fastrack) we were told that we should look at some of the cars we had just 'deprocessed".

I think that the two events became inter related, and the confluence caused the CRB to 'check up" and they felt that the "old school way" was the better option. The Process V2 tightened things up in ways, but was more open to outside evidence. it required a committee sign off to use though. The ITAC was strongly in favor of documentation, and every step through the procedure was voted on and roll calls were documented. We felt that having such standards would head off fears of the members that insiders could 'game' the system. On the other hand, the CRb was staring at a couple recommendations the "just seemed wrong". So the comfort zone was the old ways.

Now, if you are not in the "in" I suspect the answer will be more along the lines of: that we insisted on a too tightly structured process that had too little flexibility, and they thought it flat didn't work in rare cases, and could endanger class equity. That we didn't consider displacement, and that we based it on stock hp. And that we thought it had resolution down to 10 pounds.

We felt it had loopbacks to handle the situations that were unique, and that our members clearly wanted repeatable and transparent weight setting, and that if we ran the numbers on a car that resulted in a minor weight change, we just went with it, so that it would be in line from there on out. We also wanted "born on dating" in the GCR, but never got to that point...never even proposed it. And some of us wanted to publish it. (the process) I think that would have required a culture change though.

I could be wrong, but I think that presents both sides.