ITAC News.

[Bill Miller]

My intent was to send something on the Friday before each call, but just for Jake, this month's will go early:

The next call is next Monday, 3/22/10.

In the March Fastrack, the CRB published a request for member input about engine mount allowances in IT, and the response has been fantastic. We have 40+ letters on the topic, which I think may be more than we ever got in response to requests for input about the ECU rules, and that request was published over many months. A new record, I'm pretty sure. I expect to close out this issue during next week's call.

Overall, the letters to be discussed (as of today) include 2 rule changes, 7 requests to look at existing listings, and 7 requests for new listings.

I know you're all wondering how we're going to operate with respect to the adjustments of existing listings. For the moment, we will be following the rules. That means that listings that have been around for a long time are not really adjustable, unless it can be shown that there is a real error. One example of such an error would be two cars that are, for all practical purposes, the same as each other, yet have wildly different weights (or even different CLASSES, as is highlighted in one of this month's letters.) By "same," I don't mean '88 Honda 1.6L vs. '99 Mazda 1.6L here. I mean ... the same parts in the drivetrain, the same or essentially identical chassis, etc. Recently, both Honda and BMW listings have fallen into this category and have been adjusted as errors, and we will continue to correct such errors as they are identified.

There is also a mechanism to change the rules, and I know that a lot of you are in favor of doing that (and I think that many of you are not, as well). As chair of the committee I will certainly be open to such a request, but please understand that any rule change of that nature will be conducted with due care, with input from the committee, from the CRB, from the members, and ultimately, from the BOD.

Josh

Thanks for the update Josh. Would something like the VW New Beetle in ITC and the Mk IV Golf in ITB but an example of what I bolded?

[JoshS]

Thanks for the update Josh. Would something like the VW New Beetle in ITC and the Mk IV Golf in ITB but an example of what I bolded?

Without totally understanding the differences between those two cars, they could be. One reason why they might be in different classes appropriately though is if their achievable weight in IT trim is dramatically different. I think that might have been the belief with those cars but I'm not sure.

Also, in my opinion the Volvo/Alfa examples mentioned above could also be considered similar errors (speaking as an individual, not as the ITAC here), but we'd need to discuss them in committee. We have some letters regarding the Volvos so we'll see where that goes.