April SIR ruling

[Andy Bettencourt]

Please provide all transcripts of ITAC meetings where you were present & this BMW issue was discussed.

There, I have followed your request exactly, asking you about a BMW issue.

Do you have something to hide in those transcripts, Andy? [/b]

What specific BMW related issue are we talking about, the SIR? Transcripts are not needed. I wil ltell you my thoughts on those and any other topic you want me to address. How many times are you going to ask me if there is something to hide? Ask me what topic you want my stand on, and I will give it to you. Or are you not done hiding behind your Black Helicopter?

 

[DoubleD]

Huh?? Please provide your factual backing for that statement. As an engineer, i am sure you understand the need to provide the backing facts for your conclusions.

[/b]

"Searching has been disabled. This is most likely automatic and due to high server load. Please try again later."

Gotta love Bimmerforums...

Andy specifically stated that ITAC offered two options in the recommendation to CRB: weight or SIR.

 

[Harry Balszac]

What specific BMW related issue are we talking about, the SIR? Transcripts are not needed. I wil ltell you my thoughts on those and any other topic you want me to address. How many times are you going to ask me if there is something to hide? Ask me what topic you want my stand on, and I will give it to you. Or are you not done hiding behind your Black Helicopter?
[/b]

Andy, with all due respect, transcripts are MOST DEFINITELY needed.

Will you please provide them, in their entirety?

 

[Geo]

Geo, I have, and thank you.
[/b]

Very good.

However, regarding your last sentence. If they feel I am "entitled" to it??? That holier-than-thou elitist mentality does NOT show the SCCA in its best light. Is this really how you see things, too, Geo?

Let me make this EXTREMELY clear: you had better frikking BELIEVE we are "entitled" to it.
[/b]

First off, ad hoc committees are not required to publish minutes. We serve the CRB in an advisory capacity on matters concerning Improved Touring (no secret there). I don't know why ad hoc committees are not required to publish minutes. I'm not sure what the policy is. You'll simply have to take it up with the CRB. I don't know what you are entitled to wrt to bylaws of the club.

Keeping this basic info secret will remove any remaining shred of credibility the vaunted poltroons in the CRB and ITAC have left, and will confirm, beyond any reasonabe doubt, the mass suspicions that underhandedness, skullduggery, corruption, and self-dealing was at play here.
[/b]

Are you always so melodramatic?

 

[Harry Balszac]

"Searching has been disabled. This is most likely automatic and due to high server load. Please try again later."

Gotta love Bimmerforums...

Andy specifically stated that ITAC offered two options in the recommendation to CRB: weight or SIR.
[/b]

Yup.

 

[lateapex911]

This has become a weird thread. Totally NOT like IT.com. Reading it has been like...well, in some ways a waste of time, but in others, a bit sickening. I feel as though I've had an out of body experience. But it left me with some questions.

Who are these guys who never posted before today? Why do they hate Andy?? He isn't the only ITAC member who posts, certainly he has a lot of patience...but why him??? Trust me, the SIR sure wasn't HIS idea, LOL.

Who ARE you guys?? Really...what do you drive?? Why the derisive comments? Why the rude behavior? The impossible demands?? In the big scheme of things, does anybody know what is REALLY going to happen? Are we rushing to judgement?
Can ONE guy influence an ADVISORY board of 9, which then influences a board of 7??

I'm also surprised at the total lack of big picture thinking here, and the short memory...just three years ago, you had to be friends or on a board to have half the info you now get on a daily basis from people who are in the process.

If you don't like the process, write a request for it to be changed. Sign your name, your member number and what you drive.

If you have a gripe or a charge against a member of any board, write a letter and ....you got it..sign your name.

 

[Harry Balszac]

Very good.
First off, ad hoc committees are not required to publish minutes. We serve the CRB in an advisory capacity on matters concerning Improved Touring (no secret there). I don't know why ad hoc committees are not required to publish minutes. I'm not sure what the policy is. You'll simply have to take it up with the CRB. I don't know what you are entitled to wrt to bylaws of the club.
Are you always so melodramatic?
[/b]

Geo, I am truly sorry you see this as melodramatic. Not my intent. I think you will see that a very large number of the BMW ITS community sees it the exact same way.

 

[stevel]

I think you will see that a very large number of the BMW ITS community sees it the exact same way.
[/b]

Is this a community you are a part of?

Are you an SCCA member?

Do you race, build cars, crew, corner work, volunteer on race weekends, build motors, setup cars?

Just wondering where your stance and position is coming from.

s

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, with all due respect, transcripts are MOST DEFINITELY needed.

Will you please provide them, in their entirety? [/b]

Funny, I see no specific question. 3 seperate PM's predicted as such. I guess you don't care to hear my position on the issues. Can't hear you over the whir of the engines.

AB

 

[lateapex911]

Yup.
[/b]

So Andy said we recommended weight or SIR? In what order?
Fact is that we recommended weight...and if they rejected weight, then SIR. As opposed to an FPR... Or nothing.

Our recommendations, (which is what we do, we advise) were, in this order:
1- Weight
2-SIR
3-FPR
4-Nothing

So, why not quote the exact statement of Andy's? (When they clear up the server)

 

[Harry Balszac]

Is this a community you are a part of?

Are you an SCCA member?

Do you race, build cars, crew, corner work, volunteer on race weekends, build motors, setup cars?

Just wondering where your stance and position is coming from.

s
[/b]

Yes, of course: I am an SCCA member. My membership expires 12/31/06.

I also have numerous racing licenses, including SCCA Pro (previously SCCA National), FIA, BMW Club, and others.

My stance is coming from being connected to a very large BMW community who is really...well, I think I have adequately expressed how I perceive they are feeling right now, especially in light of Bill's dyno sheet. This community--like many--has a wide variety of people in it with a wide variety of styles of expression, some of which you may like & some of which you may not. Just like any other subset of racers--or people.

My stance is that stuff like this snowballs when there is a perception that the process was based on favoritism benefitting ANYONE. And the snowball gets ever-bigger when all that has happened in this epic, and all that has been said to defend it at all costs, keeps making that perception more & more lifelike & real. And when nearly all requests for transparency are met with statements such as "they will decide if you are entitled to that information" and "transcripts are not needed", etc.

 

[Geo]

Geo, I am truly sorry you see this as melodramatic. Not my intent. I think you will see that a very large number of the BMW ITS community sees it the exact same way.
[/b]

While that may be, it doesn't mean it's not a snipe hunt.

Andy, Jake, and I have tried to be as open as possible. If you want official meeting minutes, you'll have to go through official channels. I see that as reasonable.

 

[Harry Balszac]

Funny, I see no specific question. 3 seperate PM's predicted as such. I guess you don't care to hear my position on the issues. Can't hear you over the whir of the engines.

AB
[/b]

And yet another dodge?

Andy, this is not helping. I have asked you SPECIFICALLY for SPECIFIC transcripts of SPECIFIC meetings.

Your refusal to willingly produce them is only adding to the broad perception that you have something to hide.

Do you?

Why will you not produce them?

 

[Geo]

And yet another dodge?

Andy, this is not helping. I have asked you SPECIFICALLY for SPECIFIC transcripts of SPECIFIC meetings.

Your refusal to willingly produce them is only adding to the broad perception that you have something to hide.

Do you?

Why will you not produce them?
[/b]

Did you study under McCarthy?

 

[Harry Balszac]

Did you study under McCarthy?
[/b]

No, Clinton.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

So Andy said we recommended weight or SIR? In what order?
Fact is that we recommended weight...and if they rejected weight, then SIR. As opposed to an FPR... Or nothing.

Our recommendations, (which is what we do, we advise) were, in this order:
1- Weight
2-SIR
3-FPR
4-Nothing

So, why not quote the exact statement of Andy's? (When they clear up the server)
[/b]

Because it may not serve his argument. Here is the quote from Jan 23rd:

Understand that the ITAC never recommended the 2005 implamentation of the restrictor plate, it was the CRB's decision. For 2006, when we found out that some were 'cheating' the RP in 2005, we asked the CRB to either set the weight were it should be, or give it an SIR.[/b]

And again here on the 24th:

While I do sympathize that year-to-year changes are hard to swallow, the CRB is doing it's best. For 2005, the ITAC did NOT recommend the restrictor, as a matter of fact, it wasnt even on our list. With SIR technology coming into acceptance within the SCCA, the ITAC gave it to the CRB as an option to a 'corrected' weight. They chose the SIR.[/b]

And the kicker on the 25th.

...and while I support the CRB because they tell us they know how to size this thing, the ITAC wanted the 'process' weight. We understood that it might not fly, so we suggested two options, *IF* they could accuratly restrict to the magic number. I am cautiously optamistic and confident at the same time.[/b]

How's that?

 

[lateapex911]

Because it may not serve his argument. Here is the quote from Jan 23rd:
And again here on the 24th:
And the kicker on the 25th.
How's that?
[/b]

it's good, except you mis-spelled "optamistic'...perhaps a preview of the future?

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

And yet another dodge?

Andy, this is not helping. I have asked you SPECIFICALLY for SPECIFIC transcripts of SPECIFIC meetings.

Your refusal to willingly produce them is only adding to the broad perception that you have something to hide.

Do you?

Why will you not produce them? [/b]

Maybe if I type slower........

They are not ours to give out. Ask the CRB for them. In the absence of my authority to get you any 'transcripts', I have offered to publically give you my stance on any BMW issue - and you have refused to ask any questions. Afraid you won't get an answer that paints me as the devil?

Yikes.

 

[stevel]

Yes, of course: I am an SCCA member. My membership expires 12/31/06.

I also have numerous racing licenses, including SCCA Pro (previously SCCA National), FIA, BMW Club, and others.

[/b]

Thanks for the background. I didn't realize Corporate Turnaround Consultants had such a sense of humor to sign up as Harry Balszac.

I think I have adequately expressed how I perceive they are feeling right now, especially in light of Bill's dyno sheet.

[/b]

All of this frustration and uproar over 1 dyno sheet? One? That's it? And he, what, lost 19rwhp? If someone told me we'll take 19rwhp or add 300lbs you bet your ass I'd take the 19rwhp loss. I don't see how that dyno sheet proves/disproves anything. It's a bad datapoint to base an argument on being that the baseline wasn't a good sample to begin with. And I don't even see what's so bad about it. To me that restrictor is still a gift. You'd be much worse off with the weight.

s

 

[seckerich]

Because it may not serve his argument. Here is the quote from Jan 23rd:
And again here on the 24th:
And the kicker on the 25th.
How's that?
[/b]

Probably not good enough --you didn't pet him and tell him what he wanted to hear. Lets see if he will ask again