April Fastrack

[StephenB]

We're 3 full years into ITR competition. We just want to follow up and make sure that the weights are consistent and that there are no glaring errors.

The ITAC is still trying to get caught up on letters, but we'll get to this.

Seriously? Already we are messing around... Is it documented that a member requested a specific car to be looked at?
Stephen

[RSTPerformance]

Seriously? Already we are messing around... Is it documented that a member requested a specific car to be looked at?
Stephen

Stephen you should know by now that the CRB is a piss poor group of people who have absolutely no idea how to research decisions properly or understand that consistency has something to do with member support and/or growth. The "rules" will change from month to month until we change the members of that committee. Unfortunately those members are not voted on so we have not options as members to replace them.

Raymond "not bitching, just being a realist when it comes to how SCCA handles member input and change" Blethen

PS: I really need to get that VTS sheet into the ITAC to see how the CRB deals with the Audi 4000 Quattro... According to the process it should weigh a good 200lbs less than the FWD version so it will be interesting to see how the ITAC and CRB handle that one! If you have the info can you fill it in and e-mail it to me? Thanks!

[lateapex911]

......the Audi 4000 Quattro... According to the process it should weigh a good 200lbs less than the FWD version ....

Why? Same engine or different?

[RSTPerformance]

Why? Same engine or different?

Exact same car other than the AWD, independant rear suspension and the disc brakes in the rear...

They (ITAC and CR have no data from the Audi Coupe so they need me to complete a VTS sheet. Amaizingly the CRB was able to justify the coupe in ITB soley on the on-track performance as it aparently did not have a VTS sheet so it did not have ANY data to back up its decisions...

Raymond "Yup, my comments about the CRB are harsh, but it is how I feel" Blethen

[lateapex911]

So, if I read between the lines, you're saying that the Process for that car is 200 or so less than the currently classed version. And therefor the current one is wrong. yea, we did that dance.

You aren't going to let it go, LOL, you're trying to get more guys to leave the ITAC?

[RSTPerformance]

I will let it go once we have consistancy and the bull shit stops where the CRB gives one excuse and less than a month later does the exact opposite. They need to treat customers (so called members) and thier cars the same. It goes far beyond the Audi, MR2, VW Golfs or the varios other cars people have had problems with. I would like to say it isn't personal, I just have absolutely zero respect for Bob Dowie or the other members of the CRB. I don't ever expect that to change... Bob Dowie has zero leadership skills and the BOD doesn't seem to concerned with the performance of the group as a whole so it is a no win situation IMO.

Raymond

[RSTPerformance]

I am not trying to get more ITAC member to leave...

No disrespect to Josh, he is a nice guy and has been very good at communicating with me but I wish that the ITAC members that left never did. They had a backbone and the bold moves they made were ignored by SCCA. I am suprised you are all still members to be honest.

Raymond

[Knestis]

An interesting point: If another car with exactly the same mechanical attributes as the Coupe "processed out" 200 pounds less - absent on-track performance to justify the heavier weight - it wouldn't get that "kicked ass at the ARRC reward weight," would it? That's the AWD version of the car, right there...

This should be interesting, seeing how the extra lead gets rationalized.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Believe it or not I have been out of the loop now for almost a 1/4 of a year but here is my perception of what will happen.

1. The ITAC will run the Process. It will come out to the same numbers run on the GT.

2. Someone will say that it's the same motor. The CRB will thumb through the ITCS and find 'similar' cars and reference that weight.

3. They will set the weight at the weight listed on the current car under that theory (assuming there is no adder for AWD)

*If this is the way it actually pans out, it's one of the main reasons I left.

[lateapex911]

I know where i'm putting my money!

Follow that chain of events further, Kirk. The ITAC has stated* that ('for now") they will only change existing cars that are mechanically identical.

So, IF the AWD version goes in at process, POOF, the FWD version gets a letter to reprocess, and then they are going to look at that. However, it's not mechanically identical....although, based on the previous process output of AWD cars, the differences aren't factored, so, ostensibly it IS mechanically identical.

Of course, i'm not the only guy that can see the path of events unfolding, so, I imagine the obvious play will be to class it "Appropriately" based on the known performance of it's mechanical twin, thereby avoiding the ugly and embarrassing letter to reprocess the FWD version...again..

*And, based on what I've read and what I saw behind the curtain before I left, I'm thinking that statement was based on direction from the CRB. But, I could be wrong, and it might be an ITAC initiative to get back in the good graces of the CRB....)

[JoshS]

They (ITAC and CRB have no data from the Audi Coupe so they need me to complete a VTS sheet.

Even if we had data from the Audi Coupe, I'd still be asking for a VTS sheet for the 4000Q. It's NOT the same car, it wouldn't go on the same line, it's got plenty of differences, even if the engine itself is shared. We are just simply not going to classify any new cars without VTS sheets. I explained that to you on the phone. I don't think that should be a tough policy decision to swallow. We don't to make sure that someone has done due diligence on any new listing, and that we have a record of it.