March 2011 Fastrack
- Thread starter Greg Amy
- Start date
Eagle7
New member
Do NOT ship that thing without scanning that page.
Bill Miller
New member
Do NOT ship that thing without scanning that page.
Marty,
I think someone posted a scan of the page in this thread.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Aren't you supposed to be dialing into a concall to tell them that the engine mounts are a no brainer? That control of engine movement has been allowed since day 1? And that the current solution - fabricated stayrods attached to engine and chassis) is MORE Prod-like than the requested IT- like (bolt on) solution??
They say last minute campaigning gets the most votes
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Aren't you supposed to be dialing into a concall to tell them that the engine mounts are a no brainer? That control of engine movement has been allowed since day 1? And that the current solution - fabricated stayrods attached to engine and chassis) is MORE Prod-like than the requested IT- like (bolt on) solution??
They say last minute campaigning gets the most votes
Well, I got the update letter....
it's been....
tabled.
RSTPerformance
New member
I am glad some people are starting to get it...
Originally I got so upset because it took over a year and a half to get an answer... (Thankfully this seems to have improved with the online request process). Once I did get a reply it was that the car was not changing due to our suceess and because even though other cars were changed the CRB realized it was actually against the rules.
Then more recently the rules changed to allow weight changes and classifications. I submited my request a second time to see how much things actually changed. with disapointment my request was denied and I don't think I said a word, it was a timely response. However I realized not much had changed
Most recently I saw that a third review was done on the same car and again no change. I got upset this time because a new "excuse" was used after this new process came out. This time a number of 120hp was used to make the classification. None of the ITAC members seem to have the actual data to back that decision. It is interesting that it seems that the ITAC did not even use the ETKA data and actually relied only on Wilipedia... Afterall Jeff had to get the ETKA numbers from Phil Hunt a few pages back on this forum after the decision was published.
In reality I agree with Jeff L that 100lbs or maybe even 200lbs wont win you a race or even get you on the podium in most races... I also agree that the Audi's are competitive to reach podium with the right setup and driver (but they will never beat a Golf III with the same combination). However I do feel strongly about the Audi because I think it (and my experience) is a perfect example of a major problem in our class and unfortunatly the communication of our club. I have to wonder why this car is treated so different than the ITA and ITB cars that currently dominate and achieve far more success than a couple old Audi's. I am also 100% certain that other cars have similar issues and I would love to argue for those cars instead of my own but unfortunally I know a lot more about the Audi than all the other cars in the ITAC combined.
For the good of the class and our club I comend all those putting in thier 2 cents, $120.00, and most importantly time. I agree we have come a long way, but it seems we all (sorry about the earlier BS comments again) have a long ways to go. No matter what peoples opinions are, If we don't speak up things wont keep improving.
Raymond
JoshS
New member
Patience, patience ... a rule change can't be effective until 2012 due to the rules season, so there's plenty of time.
Last edited:
JoshS
New member
This is just not the case. It is unfortunate that Jeff didn't have the specifics -- he has had access to all of the same data that I have. I have seen both the 110 and 120 hp numbers myself and the ETKA was the source of the 120 number, and that's what I shared with the committee, and a screen shot like those posted here has been available to the committee for a while.
I can see you aren't happy. I'm really sorry about that. But we're not as dumb as you think we look.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
As long as the correct decision is reached, no problem.
Not that my RX-7 has enough power or torque to damage it's 25 yr old mounts, ...it's more about rules housekeeping to me.
RSTPerformance
New member
Josh- Never siad you were or anyone else was dumb... I am glad that you had the information, it is to bad it wasn't reviewed by the rest of the committee especially when the car has been through this process three times.
A precedent is about to be set, and it is being watched closely by a lot of people. I would not want to be on the committee that needs to decide to use information available to the public and its members or to use private dealer only informaiton. Either decision will not make everyone happy but I have to commend Jeff on his efforts to make things right now and in the future for everyone and every car.
I personally agree with what was said before... the ITAC should classify all cars based on the information avialable to the public using the process. Use actual on track performance at the process weight to make a comp adjustment if you create an overdog. Also make comp adjustments if someone is able to prove that with full IT prep more or less hp is created as compaired to the process multiplier
Raymond
Last edited:
Rabbit05
New member
Jeff,
I am not really in need of a book . But a nice new one would be really cool. I'll give Stephen or Raymond first dibs on the book. They have been fighting this Audi battle long before I came along.
Jeff are you sure you don't want to keep it ? At least until after the re-process of the vehicle. That way you , a neutral party, has the correct info moving forward . Or does the SCCA have a "library" of car info. Perhaps it could go into that ? But if no one wants it I would love a new book.
My question is this...what do I /we do from here . Do I write in a letter to the CRB ? Or is this an internal type thing ? I just want to make sure myself and/or the Blethens are kept in the loop on things.
Jeff I applaud your actions on this matter.
And thanks again for taking personal time and money looking into this mess.
-John
I am not really in need of a book . But a nice new one would be really cool. I'll give Stephen or Raymond first dibs on the book. They have been fighting this Audi battle long before I came along.
Jeff are you sure you don't want to keep it ? At least until after the re-process of the vehicle. That way you , a neutral party, has the correct info moving forward . Or does the SCCA have a "library" of car info. Perhaps it could go into that ? But if no one wants it I would love a new book.
My question is this...what do I /we do from here . Do I write in a letter to the CRB ? Or is this an internal type thing ? I just want to make sure myself and/or the Blethens are kept in the loop on things.
Jeff I applaud your actions on this matter.
And thanks again for taking personal time and money looking into this mess.-John
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Nope.
The only thing that happened here is that the ITAC knew of conflicting stock HP information, did extensive research and ran the car through at the number they thought was the most accurate.
Whether you or I agree with that number is a whole 'nother thread.
JeffYoung
New member
I'll go back and look but I don't think that is the case or if it is/was then the EKTA screenshot was old and not posted this last go round on the Audi. All I remember being discussed was that an "internal Audi document" showed the 120 number.
More importantly, a lot of the information that came out in this thread was not available to us when making our decision. I think that is a product of nothing other than we were too busy to dig as deep as we needed to on this car. But this car is a poster child for doing more digging when the numbers appear confusing.
We do need to improve our documentation procedures.
More importantly, a lot of the information that came out in this thread was not available to us when making our decision. I think that is a product of nothing other than we were too busy to dig as deep as we needed to on this car. But this car is a poster child for doing more digging when the numbers appear confusing.
We do need to improve our documentation procedures.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
The CRUX of my last letter.
JeffYoung
New member
I'll scan the page in and post it on the ITAC board so we have it.
Send me your address and I'll mail you the manual after that.
You can certainly write another letter but my guess is that original decision on this car will stand.
Send me your address and I'll mail you the manual after that.
You can certainly write another letter but my guess is that original decision on this car will stand.
Jeff,
I am not really in need of a book . But a nice new one would be really cool. I'll give Stephen or Raymond first dibs on the book. They have been fighting this Audi battle long before I came along.
Jeff are you sure you don't want to keep it ? At least until after the re-process of the vehicle. That way you , a neutral party, has the correct info moving forward . Or does the SCCA have a "library" of car info. Perhaps it could go into that ? But if no one wants it I would love a new book.
My question is this...what do I /we do from here . Do I write in a letter to the CRB ? Or is this an internal type thing ? I just want to make sure myself and/or the Blethens are kept in the loop on things.
Jeff I applaud your actions on this matter.
-John
gran racing
Super Moderator
For any cars that are run through the process (existing cars), do those weights change in 2012 or does that take place when announced?
dickita15
New member
I'm puzzled by that, Dick. It's either a "rule change" or a "correction." There should be definitions of each so that it's not discretionary, and the guidelines of what has to wait until next season seem pretty clear. Unless I'm missing something...?
K
Rabbit05
New member
When you say the original decision, do you mean that the most recent of classification weight/number that came out in this March Fast track ?
And I'll send my address via PM. That of course, if Stephen or Raymond does not want the new book.
-John