Nov '12 Prelim Minutes & Tech Bulletin

[JoshS]

So why are they allowed to hold up unsubstantiated information, or not have to explain/justify why their number is valid, and one that shows up in a lot more official places isn't?

That's the real issue Jeff. And reading Kirk's last post is pretty disconcerting.

Alright, fine, lifting my embargo on this thread.

This was NOT a CRB vote that overrode an ITAC vote. It was the ITAC that recommended the weight based on 120hp, and the CRB accepted the recommendation.

And I personally voted for making that recommendation. I have explained my thought process several times, John (and Bill), in this thread and the previous one back when the weight was changed. I can't speak for the others that voted for it.

[Ed Funk]

Alright, fine, lifting my embargo on this thread.

This was NOT a CRB vote that overrode an ITAC vote. It was the ITAC that recommended the weight based on 120hp, and the CRB accepted the recommendation.

And I personally voted for making that recommendation. I have explained my thought process several times, John (and Bill), in this thread and the previous one back when the weight was changed. I can't speak for the others that voted for it.

Huh!!

[Knestis]

Alright, fine, lifting my embargo on this thread.

This was NOT a CRB vote that overrode an ITAC vote. It was the ITAC that recommended the weight based on 120hp, and the CRB accepted the recommendation.

And I personally voted for making that recommendation. I have explained my thought process several times, John (and Bill), in this thread and the previous one back when the weight was changed. I can't speak for the others that voted for it.

But that was the LAST recommendation to the CRB re: the Coupe. I'm pretty sure that we made an earlier recommendation, based on the lower stock power figure, that led to the gears of the Process getting busted prior to my quitting.

In fact, it was that very situation - the CRB not making an up-or-down vote on a recommendation because we were "blindly adhering to a formula" or some such - that pushed me to my "contact your board member" post here. That in turn resulted in the gag order, which tipped me completely over the edge.

I've still got email exchanges somewhere with Jim Drago about that exact topic...

My recollection - without digging into the archives - is that the 120hp solution was a later and more palatable answer, so it got approved. That's how the Board liked the system to work, so they didn't HAVE to vote to override the ad hoc.

K

[JoshS]

But that was the LAST recommendation to the CRB re: the Coupe. I'm pretty sure that we made an earlier recommendation, based on the lower stock power figure, that led to the gears of the Process getting busted prior to my quitting.

My memory is fuzzy about that, but it's certainly possible that that's how it went down. I recall the last discussion pretty well, but not the earlier one.

[StephenB]

Yes Kirk is right. That was a year our so later than the first THREE reasons. No reason to dig it all up, let's move on since all that is in the past and John wants a better future!

Bill I do agree with you and also an even bigger problem than that IMHO. I think a lot of the cars listed in the 2000 and earlier GCR are now out classed. HOWEVER, the new ITB is pretty well classed and has some awesome racing! I still think it is the coolest, closest, and best amateur class in the country!

Stephen

[Bill Miller]

Alright, fine, lifting my embargo on this thread.

This was NOT a CRB vote that overrode an ITAC vote. It was the ITAC that recommended the weight based on 120hp, and the CRB accepted the recommendation.

And I personally voted for making that recommendation. I have explained my thought process several times, John (and Bill), in this thread and the previous one back when the weight was changed. I can't speak for the others that voted for it.

Well Josh, that question was directed at Jeff, since he made the comment. Nice of you to not only speak for him, but throw him under the bus as well. Also, this issue isn't just about the Audi, it's also about the A1 and A2 VW's. After all this time, I sill haven't gotten a straight answer as to why the A1 GTI (and more recently the Scirocco II 1.8 8v) are saddled w/ a weight that corresponds to an ~38% power factor.

A while back, the response was that a former ITAC member "had seen ones that put down 100whp". Even if that were true, that math doesn't get you to the current weight. As I've said before, that car (A1 Rabbit GTI) was one of the first cars that was adjusted (I guess it's 5 or 6 years ago by now). The process hadn't been fully formalized at that time, but still, no one could come up w/ any math that got those cars to that weight. The one comment I got from someone on the ITAC at the time (I wish I could remember who said it), was that no car was going to loose more than 100#. Coincidentally, the Rabbit GTI weight went down by 100#.

And no disrespect to Raymond, Stephen, John, and anyone else that's raced an Audi GT, but there have been a lot more Rabbit GTI's on the track. I'm guessing the main reasons why the Audi has gotten more play here, is two-fold. A) Raymond and Stephen are active and vocal members of this community, and the Audi was the first case that came to light where a decision was made based on the performance at 1 race.

[JoshS]

Well Josh, that question was directed at Jeff, since he made the comment. Nice of you to not only speak for him, but throw him under the bus as well.

Sorry, Jeff, if I did that. Not only did I not mean to, I don't even see where I did that.

[JeffYoung]

Sorry, Jeff, if I did that. Not only did I not mean to, I don't even see where I did that.

No problem, I didn't read your post that way either.