May Fasttrack is out

Andy,

The most recent examples that I can give you off the top of my head were the VR6 Corrado and VR6 Jetta in ITS. Both were listed in the '02 GCR. Corrado got changed last year, and the Jetta was w/in the last few months.

Jake,

I have no problem w/ letting bygones be bygones, just as long as they'll come out and officially admit how it was done in the past. And actually, the Jetta 'correction' was done under the current ITAC/CB's watch.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Andy,


I have no problem w/ letting bygones be bygones, just as long as they'll come out and officially admit how it was done in the past. And actually, the Jetta 'correction' was done under the current ITAC/CB's watch.
Click to expand...

Hope you're good at holding you're breath!



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Andy,

The most recent examples that I can give you off the top of my head were the VR6 Corrado and VR6 Jetta in ITS. Both were listed in the '02 GCR. Corrado got changed last year, and the Jetta was w/in the last few months.
Click to expand...

Here is my recollection:

As I always do in any form of racing I have done, I scour the rulebook to see if there are any unique cars that seem to have been untapped. While looking at the VR6 Corrado at 2680, it occurred to me that would be a GREAT car in IT trim at the same weight as an RX-7. I noticed in a previous GCR that the car was listed at 2850. I sent a letter in for clarification. Came back and an error/ommission and was corrected.

Then I saw that the Jetta was still at 2980!?!? THAT didn't seem correct either, so I pointed that out as well. To be honest, I hadn't looked at the Jetta this year as I think the Corrado would be the logical choice for the best of breed.

I would ASSUME the Jetta was a correction as well but if you need to know, I would ask the CRB on that one.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
Andy,

Where did you originally see the VR6 Corrado @ 2680#?

And, IIRC, the Corrado weight was 'corrected' [sic] based on a request, and information provided by a member that raced/wanted to race one. Yet similar requests have met w/ the 'correct as specified' canned response. All I've ever asked for is an explanation as to how these determinations are made. How can one car be correct and another not, if now details/explanation are given? And, a lot of people say that perception is reality. Well, w/o an open process, the door is open for the perception of impropriety.

And Jake, I'm not holding my breath for anything. I don't need to let bygones be bygones. But, that group will never get any credibility from me (not that they could care less) until they do. We keep hearing about how there's new blood on the CB/AC, etc. Well, it takes sack to stand up and say that the people the came before you made mistakes, but you're going to work to correct them. It's not about bashing anyone, just owning up to what happened.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Andy,

Where did you originally see the VR6 Corrado @ 2680#?
Click to expand...

I orginally saw it in the 2003 GCR. The 2002 version had it at 2850. That is why I asked for a clarification (which weight was the mistake). They came back to me with the answer that 2680 was correct. *I* am assuming that they made the correction under errors and ommissions the winter of 2002 - obviously before the 2003 GCR went to print.

That is the obvious answer. What else do you want to know that you think the current (18 mos) ITAC can answer on that subject.

I think you need to write the CRB a letter, asking them about the whole issue.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
Darin, why no weight reduction on the s-14 240sx in its? I see the ita s-13 got a break. The s-14 is 2650 as you know but 240z with same displacement something like 2400....thats with a six to boot! The s-14 in world challenge ran 2500 even, thats more like it. Any further changes in the works?
 
I apologize, severe mis-post on my previous reply! I misread, the weight change was in e-prod. I may not be able to read but I can count...we're (240sx) till too heavy!
 
Originally posted by slickS14:
Darin, why no weight reduction on the s-14 240sx in its? I see the ita s-13 got a break.
Click to expand...

The S-13 got a weight break for PRODUCTION... As far as I can tell, nothing in IT has gotten a "weight break" anytime recently...

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The s-14 in world challenge ran 2500 even, thats more like it. Any further changes in the works?</font>
Click to expand...

Well, if the WC cars were allowed to run at 2500lbs... I can all but guarantee you that they never achieved that weight... My car was one of the Nissan factory cars, and it crosses the scales at over 2700lbs, with more stuff removed than they ran in WC... I have very little doubt that these cars will NEVER get much below their minimum weight in ITS, if that is even achievable...

As for anything in the works... Not to my knowledge, and if there was, I would steer completely clear of it, other than to provide information/specs if asked...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited March 28, 2004).]
 
Andy,


The VR6 Corrado was listed in the '00 GCR at 2850# (although, there were no other specs for the car). And I guess the FasTrack notation was back in '02, I'd have to go look. Regardless, the car had been classified for over a year, outside the 'adjustment' window. Under the current rules, the 'correction' was not authorized. And, I did ask about it. Never got any kind of answer whatsoever.

And C'mon Darin, no recent weight breaks in IT? What else do you call what the ITS VR6 Jetta got? Of all the classes where the Golfs and Jettas run together, ITS is now the only class where they have the same spec weight. And that's only the VR6 cars. In ITS, ITA and ITB, the Jettas weigh more.

ITS - Golf II 2.0 16v 2220#
ITS - Jetta II 2.0 16v 2530#

ITA - Golf III 2.0 8v 2350# (now an ITB car)
ITA - Jetta III 2.0 8v 2480#

ITB - Golf II 1.8 8v 2280#
ITB - Jetta II 1.8 8v 2330#

ITB - Rabbit 1.7 8v 2000#
ITB - Jetta I 1.7 8v 2080#

Note: All of the above data are from the '02 GCR (what I had handy). How was matching the weight of the ITS VR6 Jetta to that of the ITS VR6 Golf anything else but a weight break (not to mention a violation of the rules)?

Also interesting to note, the A3 2.0 Golf was moved from ITB, to ITA, yet the Jetta version is still in ITA.


I'm really not trying to pick a fight here, but I'm tired of people pissing in my ear and telling me that it's raining.

Darin and Andy (and George),

The VR6 Jetta adjustment was made on your watch, how do you guys justify it, w/in the current rules, based on the above data?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
To be fair, Bill - this is the first time in IT history that there has been tacit confirmation that weights are set based on the competition potential of individual models, or to adjust them.

Until now, there's been a suggestion - or pretense - that the OE curb weight had something to do with the IT spec weight. This makes it logical that the Jetta consistently be heavier than the Golf, for each generation.

Because there has been no provision in the rule for adjustment to level competition, weight changes have been conveniently called "corrections," allowed under E&O even when the people making the correction have had NO way to explain why it was made or based on what data.

WRT the MkIII Jetta not being moved to B? Easy - nobody asked. This is where I have one big concern - that the PCA system still requires someone to pull the trigger: There is still no mandate for any comprehensive view of what is consistent and what isn't.

In addition, while we (may) have the system in place to actually make above-board weight adjustments to level competition, there is still no (a) quantitative system in place to do so, or (B) mandate that the people doing the adjustments - or denying them - explain their thinking.

I'm going to continue to be optimistic but I have my worries about the lack of change on these fronts, in concert with the proposed PCA allowance.

K
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller:

Darin and Andy (and George),

The VR6 Jetta adjustment was made on your watch, how do you guys justify it, w/in the current rules, based on the above data?
Click to expand...

This action was done independant of the ITAC. It never hit an agenda and was never a topic of discussion. While it did happen during our tenure, I would hardly say it happened on our 'watch'. We can only affect things that we bring to the CRB or they bring to us. This was something that was done before we knew it was an issue. I suspect the errors and ommissions are done at the CRB level.

Your not going to take the stance that the SCCA favors VW's are you?
wink.gif


AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
Because there has been no provision in the rule for adjustment to level competition, weight changes have been conveniently called "corrections," allowed under E&O even when the people making the correction have had NO way to explain why it was made or based on what data.
Click to expand...

Actually Kirk, I'm not sure how 'corrections', made more than a year after a car is classified, are allowed under E&O. And what happened when they 'corrected' the weight of the E36 BMW? The BMW folks screamed 'comp. adjustment', and the CB folded. What I do find interesting, is that you essentially agree w/ my position, that the people making the rules and decisions, disregard and circumvent those same rules. I'm inclined to agree w/ you, I'm not sure anything will be any different w/ PCA's.

Andy,

How many times have requests for weight changes been sent to the ITAC for review? Why would the CB all of a sudden, take it upon themselves to change the weight of the two cars in question? And one by 300#!

Also, just another reason why minutes of CB meetings should be published in FasTrack. And another reason why the classification/specification process needs to be open and public. This whole thing really is a fiasco, and I have no faith that any of that will change w/ PCAs. Subjective classification/specification process and subjective changes. To quote the Prod board, Hubberbucket!!!!

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Actually Kirk, I'm not sure how 'corrections', made more than a year after a car is classified, are allowed under E&O.
Click to expand...

If you read GCR section 17.1.12 (2004... was 17.1.11 in 2003), you'll realize that the provisions for changing specifications are in reference to the realization that the originally set "advanced estimates of performance prove to be "grossly inaccurate". That part has NOTHING to do with E&O... Now, I'm sure where in the GCR E&O is handled or addressed, if it is at all, but I find it difficult to believe that there is a time limit on fixing a mistake or making a correction...

If someone has the section of the GCR that handles E&O, could you please post it so I can go read up on this?

Thanks,




------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
This whole thing really is a fiasco, and I have no faith that any of that will change w/ PCAs. Subjective classification/specification process and subjective changes. To quote the Prod board, Hubberbucket!!!!
Click to expand...

Fiasco? What are you talking about? There is no magic formula that will make cars evenly matched every time. It takes the good-faith efforts of a bunch of people who now have better tools to work with to fix the obvious inequities in the system.

I know that starting this type of conversation is stupid. But I'm kind of tired of hearing this type of monotonous, angry, slander from someone who doesn't even race in IT. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but I really don't understand where you're coming from, and I don't understand how your remarks can be construed as positive.
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Andy,

How many times have requests for weight changes been sent to the ITAC for review? Why would the CB all of a sudden, take it upon themselves to change the weight of the two cars in question? And one by 300#!

Also, just another reason why minutes of CB meetings should be published in FasTrack. And another reason why the classification/specification process needs to be open and public. This whole thing really is a fiasco, and I have no faith that any of that will change w/ PCAs. Subjective classification/specification process and subjective changes. To quote the Prod board, Hubberbucket!!!!
Click to expand...

We get copied on numerous weight-change requests. This, as you know, is not currently allowed in the rules under normal circumstances so we recommend on very few. If, however, someone said that a certain car was WAY heavy and provided fresh VTN sheets, we would recommend that the CRB compare the two sets of sheets and determine if a mistake was made - if there was, a correction should be made, if not, then obviously no.

The CRB is 100% responsible for managing the VTN sheets and utilizing 'errors and ommissions' to correct mistakes. Not competition potential mistakes like some would argue the E36 Bimmer is, but let's say a spec is out of whack.

We just got a letter this round asking us to correct the front disc size of the ITA 2002tii. It looks like it is in the GCR wrong. If the CRB corrects it under errors and ommissions, are you going to freak out, or is THAT acceptable?

I disagree 100% that it is a fiasco. *I* think there are improvments to be made, and I will fight for them. If you have no faith in the system - and haven't had for some time apperantly - why waste your fingertips here?

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
I had to laugh at the request to add 150 pounds to ALL of the BMWs in ITS. I wasn't aware that my E30 had too much power for it weight!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top