but like ray, i would like to know part of the "why; behind the decisions.
there seems to be things that are inconsistent such as the following;
Quote:
ITB/ITC – Run the ITM 914 and ITC 914 through the process (Meredith). These cars are classed appropriately.
Quote:
Touring/Showroom Stock
1. T3 – Reduce the BMW Z4 weight (Leithauser). The car is at the correct process weight. We will continue to monitor the car’s performance.
one request to use a process results in a response that simply says the car is correct whereas another request to change weight says the car is at the proper weight per a process. i realize that these are different classes but it still reads odd that a process is used or not used based on what?
and if i had just read the table of contents, i would have seen the CRB listed! Doh!
That's been my issue for a long time Tom. But I think you're incorrect in your assessment that there's a process used in Blake's request. Blake's request got the same, pat answer that they've been using for years. They will state that a car is "appropriately classified" or "correct as classified" but never provide the basis for that statement. There were several requests, several years ago, in FasTrack to let people know how IT weights were determined (this was all 'pre-process, IIRC), and there was NEVER an answer to any one of them. Nothing, nada, zip, zero. They just went into a black hole, never to be heard from again.
Blake's request was to run those cars through the process. There's no mention that they actually did.
Jeff and Raymond got the "The weight is appropriate as listed"
Dave, Blake, and Mr. Uhlinger got the "The car is classed appropriately"
But how does anyone know what that's based on, or if it is indeed true? I think in Raymond's case, it's anything but true. Due to the fact that if you had a new car come along w/ pretty much the same attributes as Ray's, it would more than likely end up at a different weight (200# lighter if you go by previous discussion re: process weight).
Until some information is provided as to how weights are determined, "correct/appropriate as listed" or "apprpirately classified" are nothing more than "go away kid, you bother me" answers.
And given the way things have been dorked up in the past (vis-a-vis IT weights), no one on the CRB or the BoD should be surprised that people are skeptical when they read crap like that.
Mac,
I'm not sure where you're getting your information (back-channel?), I think you paint too rosy of a picture. It's been shown in the past that people have used their positions or political connections to push things through that should have never been.
