Originally Posted by
Chip42
Look, Jake/Andy / Kirk (And Steve)
the objective is not to change anything. that's not the same as the objecting being to not change anything.
we followed the book. the book didn't match the old classes. we noted that difference and in trying to figure out what was going on, found many more discrepancies between the book and the old process. (thanks for your help sorting that out) we will evaluate the cars past, current, and some potential future (throw some at me!) and see what makes the most sense with the least impact to the ops manual and existing classifications, is amenable to the future, and supported by facts about the cars, not about history.
this is a case where there is no one right answer, and there is no perfect solution. we just want the best we can manage, and think the membership deserves as much, and to know why whatever we recommend is recommended, even if that's to re-run the newer listings and leave the rest as is.
if that's the dark ages, fine with me.
Fair enough Chip. Lets review a few things to give basis to some of our frustration. ITR was started under many of the current and a few past ITAC members posting on this forum. This was to be a new class, and a new day in classing transparency with real record keeping and a process that was fair to everyone as best we could given the granularity of IT racing.
Now I sit and see posts from many involved in this creation that can not agree on the math or the process used to class these cars. Multiple pages of "I think I have it in a spreadsheet somewhere" or "I seem to remember", etc. You fill in the excuses but in all due respect this is sad that we are back here again in such a short time. Spin it how you like but either record keeping sucks or data was not passed on to current ITAC. Either way you need to get your ducks in a row before you screw with any more cars weight.
Steve Eckerich
ITS 18 Speedsource RX7
ITR RX8 (under construction)
Bookmarks