Originally posted by grjones1:
Can anyone tell me how members of the ITAC are chosen?
GRJ
I think I have a document on my work computer that discusses how the members are choosen... I'll try to find it and post it if I can...
Darin,Originally posted by Banzai240:
but I've since learned to be patient and work within the system, convincing people with information, data, and facts when we have them, rather than rediculous 400 post rants...
Originally posted by grjones1:
But if you are going to refer to a series of questions and rebuttals from very concerned club members and participants, a "ridiculous 400 post rant", maybe we should consider asking for people who may be in closer touch with the concerns of the whole IT community
Originally posted by grjones1:
Seems like when the questions get tough you guys resort to lambast and "we'll just have to wait and see" answers , rather than admitting that perhaps further study is warranted.
Originally posted by Geo:
We keep coming back.
Originally posted by Geo:
GR, regarding being in touch, I think the current ITAC has done more in the last year than any ITAC in recent memory. At least half of us post here regularly. I know a number of others (if not all) are lurkers. If nothing else, despite things sometimes getting a little out of hand here, if you are honest with yourself, you have to give it to us that we work hard to stay in touch.I can forgive and hope for the same.I'll concede that you are more accesible than others have been in years past.
GRJ
__________________________________________
Forgive us. Don't forgive us. I know I can speak for all of us here. We keep coming back.
[edit] spelling
GRJ
___________________________________________Originally posted by Banzai240:
That's a crock... The only study that's left to do is see how the car performs... All the information we have available, including that which you have provided, hasn't shown any concrete evidence that any mistake/misclassification has taken place. What has been shown is that the car would be a guaranteed DOG in ITB... It has yet to show that it's an overdog in ITC... Only some cars on the track are going to be able to provide us with that "further study"...
Interspersed with the "nonsense" were some valid arguments that were treated as nonsense. That's the rub.Also, I wasn't referring directly to your VW Beetle posts when I mentioned the "rediculous 400 post rants"... Those who know of my participation over the last 4 years know that I have been known to get these types of posts started myself, and that is the experience on which I was drawing with that statement... That being said, you can't tell me that the Beetle-in-ITC thread hasn't degraded into a bunch of non-sense, at least as far as the topic is concerned...
[/B]
Originally posted by grjones1:
Your own source, Eli, said he thought the car could be gotten to B weight (the reason you all posted for it not being competitive in B.
GRJ
[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 12, 2004).]
OK, Andy, I hope I'm wrong.Originally posted by ITSRX7:
Eli is my engine-power source. He has not tried to take a NB to 2250ish from 2750. He also thought ITA or ITB at first glance. Then listening to the thought process, digesting the factors and considering the weight, he said he also thought it was a dog in ITC.
We have 9 talented members on the ITAC and we consider a ton of factors when doing our job. We have received tons of positive feedback, both on this board and off.
AB
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">GR, regarding being in touch, I think the current ITAC has done more in the last year than any ITAC in recent memory. At least half of us post here regularly.</font>
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
C'mon now George! Andy just said that there are 9 members of the ITAC. The only ones I see posting 'regularly', are you, Andy, and Darin.
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
And don't sprain your arm patting yourself on the back!
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Still waiting for that engine info Darin!
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
You see, it's usually a good idea to have supporting data/evidence to back up your claims (especially if you claim to have said evidence).
Hey Bill... You are right... I had e-mails with said information, and I thought I'd saved them... My Bad... However, If having Chris Albin on the ITAC isn't evidence enough that we have an idea of what a VW is capable of, as well as having guys like Mark Coffin to contact if need be (and I have in the past), then I just don't know what to tell you...
Using the numbers you gave us previously, even if the 1.6L is ONLY making 100hp in IT trim, it's just about right at the weight it needs to be for ITC to put it on par with the 510... and since most of us know that the VW is quite capable against the 510, well... I'm willing to make some assumptions about what it's REALLY making under the hood...
You guys wanted us to come up with a standardized method for classifying cars, and we've done that... but sometimes, you still have to apply some common sense to get the numbers to work out correctly. Assuming a 20% increase for IT prep makes the 510 work out to be precisely at it's ITC weight. Not coincidently, that number also works out to dyno numbers we were given for a well prepped ITC L-16... You've given us numbers that indicate a 35% increase for VW power, which still brings it in at about 80lbs lighter than it's classified ITC weight. Other than you perhaps, how many people here REALLY believe the ITC VW needs to LOSE 100lbs to compete with a 510?
This is just one of the problems with using stock HP numbers, which, as someone pointed out in the other thread, could be Net, Gross, or otherwise adjusted for insurance purposes, etc... At some point, we have to rely on individuals who we believe we can trust to give us real world information (as many of you have done concerning the MR-2, which I happen to STILL belive works out to an ITB car with a little more weight...)
That's the best I can do on this for now, so hopefully you'll be satisfied with this answer...
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
And no, I'm not satisfied w/ your answer,.....