April Fastrack
- Thread starter JoshS
- Start date
So with the letter sumbited.. about the process..
"Thank you for your input. The CRB has opened communication channels with the ITAC. The ITAC chairman will communicate
with the membership."
is this any different than before? We talk to ITAC then they talk to CRB? is there guidlines in place fo rthe CRB to listen and consider openly to ITAC decisions?
looks like we have our first AWD.. and from the quick look at it, the weight seems right.
"Thank you for your input. The CRB has opened communication channels with the ITAC. The ITAC chairman will communicate
with the membership."
is this any different than before? We talk to ITAC then they talk to CRB? is there guidlines in place fo rthe CRB to listen and consider openly to ITAC decisions?
looks like we have our first AWD.. and from the quick look at it, the weight seems right.
Translation: We are going to ignore the membership and continue to do what we want.
No. The CRB is free to ignore ITAC recommendations/requests. Though, now that the Vichy ITAC is installed, I'm certain the ITAC and CRB will be of one mind.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
New rule:
That's us IT guys.. So, with that, a number of cars I know are now legal, and the way cars are built will change. How does this rule line up with NASA?
That's us IT guys.. So, with that, a number of cars I know are now legal, and the way cars are built will change. How does this rule line up with NASA?
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Well, that was an interesting Fastrack.
On one hand I can see that there has been an effort for the responses to be more than "yes" or "no. That's something the old ITAC was working on. And that's good. Up to a point.
On the other hand, I can see it's being used when the CRB wants to use it. Case in point, the 8 letters written in protest of the CRB ITAC blow up. The letters are listed and the summation is "CRB-ITAC relationship", which tells the reader who knows nothing of what transpired, exactly nothing.
Then FURTHER, the response is very misleading. "Communication has been opened" ?!?!?!?! As if to say that CRB/ITAC communication was closed before!?!? That's really wrong. Communication was open, for sure. But the communication the ITAC was getting was inconsistent, flip flopped and was at times misrepresented.
It also states that the "Chairman will communicate". This I take to be a new limitation on public discussion, in that only the Chairman is allowed to communicate.
Thankfully the Chairman is Josh. But, it's still a gag order to my way of thinking.
Finally, (not really, but ...
) the response to the guy asking for the Golf 2.0 weight in ITA to be reviewed made me chuckle. By the Process the cars (1.8 and 2.0 Golfs) are heavy. (The 2.0 is 2475, about 70 heavy IIRC..I'd have to dig up my notes to be sure) During the con call I was on where the cars were discussed (Our recommendation to adjust them had been rejected by the CRB ). The CRB cited the displacement as being key. They stated the cars compared well to other similar cars in the class. When pressed, they looked through the GCR, and, in the case of the 2.0, they used a Toyota with a 2.0 engine (2615lbs) as a justification that the 2.0 at 2475 was fine, and didn't need to be changed. (Horsepower be damned) As a matter of fact, they stated the car "Is competitive", that it had "Won the ARRC"*, and that it was actually a bit light in their eyes.NOW they cite HP as the determining factor, and compare it to the 1.8.
It's this kind of story changing inconsistent behavior that got the ITAC all confused, and created the divide.
Further, they trot out the Great Reorg, and state that it was considered fine at that point.
This is the SAME CRB that, at the time of the Great Reorg, advised the ITAC, and was complicit with the ITAC, in creating a "Top 20 (plus minus)" list of the worst offenders, and it was understood at the time that IF the GR went through, we'd see how it played, and take a look at the other cars that weren't AS BAD later. The entire goal was to get some changes made, NOT to do EVEY car ..and NOT recommending a car for adjustment was NOT saying it that it was on Process.
But now it's convenient to trot that out. Which is very misleading.
*No lie, it did, FOURTEEN years ago. Yea, THAT's relevant.
Marcus Miller
New member
For PT, I believe they have a maximum of 8 points; ask Ken Brewer on the brown board, he'll know off the top of his head.
JoshS
New member
We're 3 full years into ITR competition. We just want to follow up and make sure that the weights are consistent and that there are no glaring errors.
The ITAC is still trying to get caught up on letters, but we'll get to this.
Umm I'm willing to guess there could be some glaring errors... but I'm not sure how anybody thinks they are going to find them any easier now than they could have 3 years ago, or when a new car was classed. You certainly can't tell anything by ontrack performance yet(New CRB/ITAC position)... I'm 99% sure an RX-8 can be made to handle better than a second gen rx-7 of similar weight, I know for sure it makes about 30 more whp in IT trim and can/and is allowed to in ITR fit a bigger wheel and tire than ITS... yet huffmaster went faster than anyone in IT at the arrc. You have no DATA to go by. Period.(unless someone has offered up dyno sheets for multiple similar builds showing something doesn't make expected power) Not to mention that nobody has yet tried to build a serious front wheel drive car and see how it stacks up at all(they could all be off)
Only thing I can think of is that the v6 mustang is probably not going to be able to make weight... maybe not within 50lbs with a 180lbs driver. However, several more are being built I believe so it would seem foolish to change those cars before more people come to that conclusion.
Last edited:
JoshS
New member
Well, for example, it appears that the Mitsu 3000GT/Dodge Stealth didn't get any sort of break for FWD, although it should have. Just want to do a complete audit.
JeffYoung
New member
Kirk, it appears some process factors were not correctly applied to ITR cars -- some of the weights can't be backed into using the process.
As I understand it, those are the errors we would be looking at. Josh's example of the 3000GT and Stealth are prime ones.
As I understand it, those are the errors we would be looking at. Josh's example of the 3000GT and Stealth are prime ones.
So it sounds like "error" as in, not to the process that should have been used when they were initially listed...
K
StephenB
New member
Seriously? Already we are messing around... Is it documented that a member requested a specific car to be looked at?
Stephen
Paul Dubinski and Mark Masters have their "Part Time" Acura RSX moving very well now. I've heard of another in Ohio, but haven't seen it.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
I think I met those guys at VIR last fall?. NICE guys. SWEET looking car!
Ron Earp
Administrator
The car was run through the process and a weight comes out. At that point a decision is made to possibly drop it a class at a higher weight, however, for that car, and a few others in that 190hp range, the S weight is just too high compared to other cars in the class and the mechnical aspects of the car in question. 26XX in R or around 3000+ in S, a bit of a tweener.
I weigh 175 lbs and if I can get my Mustang to be within 50lbs of weight I'll be plenty happy. I need to lose 20 lbs anyhow, that'd make it even closer!
JeffYoung
New member
They found somewhere near four seconds at VIR since last season. Quite impressive.