Feb Fastrack

[Xian]

Sounds like the "formula" was re-run on them under the Errors and Omissions allowance? The really odd thing is that I thought the BOD put the kibosh on this recently...

Christian

[spnkzss]

I'm kind of confused. At the beginning they are talking about wanting feedback and item #471 is GCR and Vintage CR changes. They want to mandate any car with a log book registered after 1/1/11 have a fuel cell? Is that just a Vintage thing or a full GCR thing. It may be too early in the morning and not enough caffeine yet, but is that how others read it as a full GCR thing?

[quadzjr]

"ITB – (Multiple) Review ITB weight of MR2
The car is classed appropriately."

"IT – #236 (Grafton Robertson) December weight reduction violates ITCS
Thank you for your input. The weight was not a competition adjustment; it was a correction because an error in the initial
classification was found."

The MR2's weight was was an error that was agreed upon. Do they actually think that the motor can make 30%? I mean in 25 years years they think that not a single person made an attempt? I know of two guys that have over 10k each in there motors and netneir is making 25%. So on top of that we get another 50lb adder for balance? you don't think that balance is affected when you classify the car nearly 20% more than the factory weight?

I wish I got more than the traditional response.

[Z3_GoCar]

That's a real shame Steve, and I feel for you and anyone else in the same situation. What worked for me was a direct request for what issue I wanted to considered, why I thought it should be considered, and supporting evidence. Then once I submitted it, if it was denied I was preparing myself for the "not advisable at this time" response. The web-based tracking worked well and kept me informed of who was considering my request. Maybe you can submit it again in a few months.

[Knestis]

Sounds like the "formula" was re-run on them under the Errors and Omissions allowance? The really odd thing is that I thought the BOD put the kibosh on this recently...

Christian

Prior to my leaving the ITAC, we were explicitly told that adjustments precisely like were applied in these two cases were in violation of the GCR. The term that was floating around conversations among committee members was that we "got our hand caught in the cookie jar."

The CRB has asked that we not hash some of this out in public, but will tell you what I know privately. ...

And you are now officially part of the problem rather than the solution, Jeff. Welcome to the Secret Car Club of America. If there's information you can share one-on-one with anyone who will ask - IT'S PUBLIC. If it's PUBLIC, it should be hashed out, uh, IN PUBLIC.

What utter crap.

K

[JeffYoung]

I won't delete the below, but screw it, it's wrong. Kirk is right, at least on the fact that this stuff should be discussed in public.

Here's where things stand. Note that I do not think the CRB is out to screw IT, etc. I just think we have a disagreement on some basic principles with the CRB in general, and on this car in particular. They are:

1. GENERAL: When can we apply errors and omissions to correct car weights? The CRB's position on this now seems to be that they will allow fixes to "gross" mistakes (my word, not theirs). There is no real definition of what triggers this.

2. GENERAL: The CRB does not like the use of stock hp in the process.

3. GENERAL: The CRB does not like the 25% default IT gain multiplier we use.

4. SPECIFIC: The CRB thinks that 16V motors have the potential for more than 25% gain, and also that there is no reason to change the weight on this car as it was just classed in ITB last year (? year before?).

The ITAC's position is simple. The car may make 25% at best, and the classification at the higher weight was an error.


*******************

Or, the "problem" is that good folks give up the fight at the first sign of trouble.

But I digress.

I agree that most of this stuff should be discussed in public. There are some things about the MR2 that are in the grey area for me as to whether internal committee discussions -- it was heated -- should be made public.

The board we report to has asked that we not disclose this stuff on the internet boards right now. I am willing to abide by that for now, and at the same time tell people who ask what I know. I see that as the lesser of two evils, the other evil being that we have an ITAC with NO members on it that believe in the process, etc. I agree that's not logically consistent, but it is the best I can do right now.

I do think it is an entirely fair question to ask of the CRB, and discuss in public, why errors and omissions adjustments were made to some cars, even after we were told no.

[Knestis]

Or, the "problem" is that good folks give up the fight at the first sign of trouble. ...

The first sign of trouble for me happened in about 1981, Jeff. I made the mistake of believing we'd learned from the past almost 30 years. Call this past summer "Kirk's LAST sign of trouble."

K

[JeffYoung]

Kirk, you are right about one thing -- the technical aspects of this should be discussed in public. I changed my post above, based solely on yours. I realzed you were right.

But, and I wish we were talking face to face over this, I really wish you had stayed on the ITAC. I know you have a lot of years of frustration with the SCCA, and that builds over time. I've been there. Committee work does that.

But I am now convinced that there was a lot of miscommunication and just misunderstanding that led to the dust up between the ITAC and the CRB last year. I think the situation is very fixable, and I think you could have been a big part of the fix.

[chuck baader]

Dammit Evan....now I'm going to have to build a motor and loose the weight just to see which is faster:026::026::026: Chuck

[GKR_17]

The ITCS is very clear that the weights of the cars are not to be changed except under very strict circumstances. Jake's post (now deleted) seemed to say that the 'error' corrections wouldn't apply except for 'recently' classed cars. So the ITAC chose not to run every car through the process the first time (which wasn't legal either), and now they're fixing errors? I've seen a lot of weights changed, and none of it complies with the rules in my opinion.

At least before the 'process' no one was pretending that this system wasn't political. Back to business as usual.

[Ron Earp]

The ITCS is very clear that the weights of the cars are not to be changed except under very strict circumstances.

The ITCS reads:

"Entrants shall not be guaranteed the competitiveness of any car,
and competition adjustments, other than as outlined in section 9.1.3.C,
are not allowed."

"On rare occasion—and only after careful review of the actual racing
performance of a particular make/model/year of vehicle—the Club may
reclassify a vehicle, revise a vehicle’s minimum allowable weight, and/or
in the most extreme situation an intake restrictor may be required. Such
an action shall be taken solely for the purpose of restoring equity within
the vehicle’s class."

Does the GCR mean rare (unique) such as the Tuskunga Event, or rare in the case of six toed cats? It simply says on rare occasions, and after reviewing a few things, then the weight may be revised and/or a vehicle reclassified. Rare is sort of subjective to the eye of the beholder isn't it?

Now that bold italic part might be a problem since that spells out only for equity purposes. Doh.

[JeffYoung]

This is a problem. The weight change wording in the ITCS is clear, but doesn't match up with what is being done in real life.

The CRB has pointed us to a procedures manual that allows errors and omissions weight corrections, but that is not in the ITCS and it should be.

While I think fixing weights on cars via the process is "right," I agre with Grafton it is technically "wrong" per the ITCS. Something needs to be fixed, or at least openly published.

The ITCS is very clear that the weights of the cars are not to be changed except under very strict circumstances. Jake's post (now deleted) seemed to say that the 'error' corrections wouldn't apply except for 'recently' classed cars. So the ITAC chose not to run every car through the process the first time (which wasn't legal either), and now they're fixing errors? I've seen a lot of weights changed, and none of it complies with the rules in my opinion.

At least before the 'process' no one was pretending that this system wasn't political. Back to business as usual.

[Ron Earp]

I won't delete the below, but screw it, it's wrong. Kirk is right, at least on the fact that this stuff should be discussed in public.

Glad that you caught the error of your ways with Kirk's assistance. This is a club, by members for members. Members, including committee members, should be able to discuss what they wish as it pertains to the racing classes that they, and we, John Q Public, participate in.

[gran racing]

Committee work does that.

I don't belong to an SCCA committee and feel plenty annoyed and frustrated with the antics. So will the CRB at least have the balls to print "we won't allow these weights to be adjusted under this one rule although we've done it in the past"?

I know...

[Greg Amy]

Ow. My head hurts.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The MR2 issue is simple in my mind. We re-ran it under the errors and ommissions clause (which is in CRB documentation). The CRB denied the request based on their belief that it was correctly classed on the 30% multiplier. Simple.

As to any other change (like the RX-8), those corrections were submitted based on improper numbers being used. The ITCS language is specific to what happens when you see abnormal on-track performance. Not the case here. I would hope that people are flexible enough to know that mistakes or misprints can happen and we should have a mechanism to fix them.

Our definitions of 'competition adjustments' are also different from person to person. To me, its a change made based on what you see on track...and we do not do that except like the ITCS says, on rare occasion.

[JeffYoung]

Exactly. Except for guys like Grafton, there is no erros and omissions clause because they don't get to see it.

Should be published or in the ITCS......

The MR2 issue is simple in my mind. We re-ran it under the errors and ommissions clause (which is in CRB documentation). The CRB denied the request based on their belief that it was correctly classed on the 30% multiplier. Simple.

As to any other change (like the RX-8), those corrections were submitted based on improper numbers being used. The ITCS language is specific to what happens when you see abnormal on-track performance. Not the case here. I would hope that people are flexible enough to know that mistakes or misprints can happen and we should have a mechanism to fix them.

Our definitions of 'competition adjustments' are also different from person to person. To me, its a change made based on what you see on track...and we do not do that except like the ITCS says, on rare occasion.

[steve b]

The MR2 issue is simple in my mind. We re-ran it under the errors and ommissions clause (which is in CRB documentation). The CRB denied the request based on their belief that it was correctly classed on the 30% multiplier. Simple.

As to any other change (like the RX-8), those corrections were submitted based on improper numbers being used. The ITCS language is specific to what happens when you see abnormal on-track performance. Not the case here. I would hope that people are flexible enough to know that mistakes or misprints can happen and we should have a mechanism to fix them.

Our definitions of 'competition adjustments' are also different from person to person. To me, its a change made based on what you see on track...and we do not do that except like the ITCS says, on rare occasion.

I'm one of the new kids on the block, so fill me in. What 30% multiplier? I have been under the impression that it is a 25% multiplier. I know some cars have a 30% multiplier but I thought that arose from "on track performance". No such performance has been witnessed of an MR2.

When the car was in ITA, we were trying to prove that the car didn't gain 25%. Now we are assumed to be making 30%?

What was the power gain assumed in "the process" when the car was in ITA? Wasn't it 25%? Did the "B" stickers give me 5% more gain that I don't know about?

[MMiskoe]

Currently, a standard 25% is used when no actual data is present. Other percentages are used when there is supporting documentation and ITAC members are willing to put there names next to the data.

So Andy, why is the 300zx in ITS at a 30% multiplier? It is not a 4 valve car, nor is there any indication that the 30% is correct based on measured amounts. Or if there are cars that were measured I'd be curiuos to talk to the guys that own these cars.

This is aimed at the point that the process is not transparent, never has been, it has always been subjective. The difference is that now not only is it not only not transparent but it appears that the CRB isn't bothering to listen to what the members are asking for.

But on the other hand in the northeast there are few choices on who to go racing with. So in March we'll pay our entry fees and continue to show up and go race. What else are we to do. In two years we'll bring our HANS devices.

[seckerich]

Just one comment here:

I personally and many others here raised hell at the CRB and BOD for taking away the only process we had in IT for getting to fix some of the misclassed/outclassed cars. We got the answer that nothing was to be looked at. Then they said only cars 5 years old or less. Because of more time to cool off and look at the bigger picture they are showing a willingness to look at some of these cars. If you are sitting pretty now and have a good classification this is bad news and you bitch. If your car was not fixed this time around you bitch. Lets try working with the CRB a little before you go out and hang them. I got so pissed at some of this last year I about sucked the fun out of my racing. I will not make that mistake again. Take a deep breath Kirk and have some fun again.