Quote Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt View Post
Stephen,

Focus for a second and hear me. When the CRB was giving you the 'reasons' for not reducing the weight 2 years ago, they were all over the board. It was a very tense time in IT-land - a time which resulted in my resignation because or many issues coming from that group. That is the past, this is the present. What the CRB said than is moot.

Help them find the correct stock hp, and if they find documentation showing 120, either accept it or help prove it is wrong.

Just don't mix and match policies and committees. It's innacurate and simply the wrong thing to do. And if you think the committee that originally classed these cars had ANY idea on how to make classifications any other way than by POOMA, you be worng. The Process isn't ridged, it's just using inputs you don't agree with and a result you don't like. If those can be proven wrong, it will adjust.
Andy,

I accepted the reason then and I will accept it now.

What I do have a problem with is that I don't think that the Improved Touring Catagory within the SCCA should "mix and match policies" (your words) with different committees over a span of only 2 years. If they were "all over the board" then maybe we just got the wrong excuse. no problem with that now that I know.

I never said I didn't like the inputs.

What I did say is that I think my car is at a distinct disadvantage to the later coupes because I have smaller brakes. I also posted that I didn't think this was taken into consideration. Jeff stated "We didn't view the brake sizes as significant enough to warranty any adder/subractor." so therfor I accepted that response and I will most likely request for the spec lines to be combined since the two cars no longer have a difference.

I think you are wrong about the orignal comittee. They created one of the best catagories in SCCA and amateur racing in the US. If they didn't class the cars in a reasonable way the class never would have succeeded.

Stephen