Feb Fastrack

[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.