Feb Fastrack

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.
 
Last edited:
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.:D
 
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......

Andy Bettencourt said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
steve b said:
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?
Click to expand...

When the car was in ITA, it was classed using methods unknown and not documented. There are a ton of cars on the ITCS that fall under this category. The power multiplier is not based at all in on-track performance, no matter what the number. 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.

In this case, the CRB voted that the 30% mutiplier was not in error.
 
Lets try working with the CRB a little before you go out and hang them.
Click to expand...

The problem is the message and what happens in reality changes. One minute they say it can't be done, next they say it can and approve changes, then no, then yes? Or are we still at no?

While I agree with you Steve that we shouldn't let this impact our racing fun, it's still frustrating to see us take steps backwards.
 
JeffYoung said:
...there is no erros and omissions clause because they don't get to see it. Should be published or in the ITCS......
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. If it's not published it's not a rule, period.

There should be a way to correct errors, and we should all know how it works.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
In this case, the CRB voted that the 30% mutiplier was not in error.
Click to expand...
What evidence was in support of that vote? In other words, why do they think it will do 30% over stock (even though they do not like to base it off of stock)?

I'm smelling a bit of POOMA here..."meet the new boss"...
 
Greg Amy said:
What evidence was in support of that vote? In other words, why do they think it will do 30% over stock (even though they do not like to base it off of stock)?

I'm smelling a bit of POOMA here..."meet the new boss"...
Click to expand...

Any such documentation is not on the ITAC site. The CRB does not work within the same 'documentation standards' the current ITAC does so if it exists, it is likely not in the same format.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
The Corolla GTS that is getting reclassed to ITB also went through at 30%. Same motor.
Click to expand...

I assume you are talking about the AE-86 corrolla right? I wondered why it was still in A and the MR2 in b.

I will compile as much data as possible, ans should be able to prove without a doubt that the car will not make 25% gains, and it sure won't make 30% gains. I am hoping with this new build I am in the process right now to make around 17% gain.
 
quadzjr said:
I assume you are talking about the AE-86 corrolla right? I wondered why it was still in A and the MR2 in b.

I will compile as much data as possible, ans should be able to prove without a doubt that the car will not make 25% gains, and it sure won't make 30% gains. I am hoping with this new build I am in the process right now to make around 17% gain.
Click to expand...

Because it was never requested. I did the request proactively.
 
GKR_17 said:
I agree 100%. If it's not published it's not a rule, period.
Click to expand...

And sometimes when it's published it's not the rule either.

Check out the proposed and approved change to the wording of 3.1.7 of the Sporting Regs (May 2009 and December 2009 Fastracks).

Now look at what is in the GCR.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
When the car was in ITA, it was classed using methods unknown and not documented. There are a ton of cars on the ITCS that fall under this category. The power multiplier is not based at all in on-track performance, no matter what the number. 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.

In this case, the CRB voted that the 30% mutiplier was not in error.
Click to expand...

I wonder what the supporting documentation was that determined the 30% was not in error. I wonder how well it would have supported the SAME arguement had I presented it...

"Dear CRB, last year you reclassed the MR2 into ITB and used a 25% gain when calculating the minimum weight. I race against MR2s and I feel this is too low. The MR2 has a 16v engine and we all know that the Honda 16v engines make 30%. Please recalculate using a 30% gain and add 95 pounds to the MR2."

Do you think that would have worked, or do you think they would have asked me to provide documention of a Toyota engine making 30%?

I will offer up my engine if they care to modify it to achieve a 30% gain for their documention.
 
The worst possible scenario - if the goal is a repeatable, transparent policy process - is in place when the decision-makers can invoke the same "rule" as permission to do something, or a prohibition against it, both with equal vigor. Change the operational definition of a word or two, and you can re-purpose any given policy to do whatever you want - if you're in charge. If you're NOT - or are not favored by those who are - you potentially get screwed by inequitable application of the rule.

Right now - IN PRACTICE - what we have is, "The CRB can do any damned thing it wants with Model X," and defend it with some twist of the written word. That's precisely what the Process (RIP) was intended to prevent. And before someone chimes in that the process (lowercase 'p') is still being used, I mean the Process as defined for systemic, repeatable, transparent review of race weights.

K
 
seckerich said:
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. ... Lets try working with the CRB a little before you go out and hang them. ...
Click to expand...

Sorry, Steve. If it was a contravention of the GCR to do it in August, then it's still not legal in January. The CRB needs more than "willingness" - they need codified permission. Otherwise, it's just a willingness to break a rule.

We DID that for a long time, with the CRB's and BoD's tacit approval. That should not be allowed to happen again. If they want to allow changes beyond what is specifically allowed by the ITCS, they need to be clear about how/when/why they they can happen.

I have the same definition of "competition adjustment" as Andy but the rules don't say what CANNOT be done to re-specify IT car: It says what CAN be done.

K
 
Who is the ITAC liason? The SCCA site says Peter Keane, but it doesn't list him on the CRB membership. I see one of my local guys is now on the CRB. I'll have to bend his ear at the track.
 
Knestis said:
The worst possible scenario - if the goal is a repeatable, transparent policy process - is in place when the decision-makers can invoke the same "rule" as permission to do something, or a prohibition against it, both with equal vigor. Change the operational definition of a word or two, and you can re-purpose any given policy to do whatever you want - if you're in charge. If you're NOT - or are not favored by those who are - you potentially get screwed by inequitable application of the rule.

Right now - IN PRACTICE - what we have is, "The CRB can do any damned thing it wants with Model X," and defend it with some twist of the written word. That's precisely what the Process (RIP) was intended to prevent. And before someone chimes in that the process (lowercase 'p') is still being used, I mean the Process as defined for systemic, repeatable, transparent review of race weights.

K
Click to expand...

Agree 100%

How did the ITA E30 318is and ITB 320i get a weight change over the MR2? I don't get it?

Raymond "Trying extreamly hard not to get sucked in and ruin another year with SCCA" Blethen
 
Chris Albin is on our calls. He has an ITB Golf. Peter Keane was on the CRB, he's moved to the ITAC now. Bob Dowie, chair of the CRB is on all our calls as well.

Regarding the MR2, here's the history, cliff notes style.
Back in the day, none of us were on board, they classed it in ITA. Not sure if quantum physics or grain alcohol was used. That's all water under the bridge now.
We (the ITAC ) got numerous requests, and debated many aspects of the car for a move to B.
We moved it to B.
Sidebar: The Process, in an early incantation, used 30% for 4 valve cars. That was amended to 25%, but 30% is/was used when evidence dictates it is needed. Certain 4 valve cars make 30% gains over stock.
There was some confusion on one con call and 30% was used erroneously.

That resulted in the car racing at that weight for the last season or so.

We recommended a new weight on the MR2, and other cars using the same engine, based on 25%.
The CRb rejected that, they feel that we classed it at 30% only a year ago, and see no reason to change it.

The majority position within the ITAC is that it should be corrected. A minority thinks it's fine. The CRB feels it's fine.

We have new evidence and will try again.
 
"Regarding the MR2, here's the history, cliff notes style.
Back in the day, none of us were on board, they classed it in ITA. Not sure if quantum physics or grain alcohol was used. That's all water under the bridge now"

Correction Jake... When the MR2 was classed it was at the front of the field in Northeast anyway. It was NOT a class killer but it was classed somewhat OK... The CRB/ITAC really started screwing things up after that when they destroyed what was ITA and classed a ton of cars in ITA that were much faster than a typical ITA car but slower than ITS. Instead of fixing the gap between ITS and ITA we stalled, classed cars wrong (even had restrictors) and then added ITR which is not much different (yet) than ITS... Now we are have the gap between the new ITA and the old ITB... ITB will be destroyed by the ITAC and CRB over the next 3 years because no consistancy will be used to figure out how to class cars correctly. 3 years from now ITB cars will get reclassed into a non existant ITC bringing the class back from the dead in a new form and maybe we will actually have 5 good classes of racing...

Time will tell!

Raymond "Sadly the Audi will be to slow for ITB and to Fast for ITC and the 80's era of Audi's slowly die off and will be out of our lives for good!" Blethen
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top