Now that the MR2s are going to B...
- Thread starter erlrich
- Start date
Seems like an interesting addition. PLEASE make sure that any proposal requesting that it be listed come with VTS documentation. We (the ITAC) have been a little bit lax about putting the onus on submitters to provide that information and we're bogging down getting decisions made in a timely manner, because in many cases we're missing information and have to go looking...
K
K
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Did the car come with, or have available from Toyota, a hardtop?
erlrich
Super Moderator
Would the fact that the car is already classed in SSB help any with the VTS requirements? I would still be willing to do the leg work and put in the proposal, but I didn't know if the specs already on file would cut down on the required paperwork. I think this might be a good car for ITA, although I'll have to go find one and see if I can get my 6'-4" ass into the seat. The reviews I've read say that they're more spacious than a Miata, and I know there are some 6'+ dudes out there in the Mazdas.
As an aside, I can't imagine this car competing in SSB with the likes of the MX-5, Z4, Solstice, or even the V6 Camaros and Firebirds. I have to wonder how many of them were ever built.
As an aside, I can't imagine this car competing in SSB with the likes of the MX-5, Z4, Solstice, or even the V6 Camaros and Firebirds. I have to wonder how many of them were ever built.
You could contact the Club Racing office by email and ask if they have the VTS sheets available to provide to the ITAC. If that works, please make arrangements for someone there to send them to us. The ad hoc committees are external to the club office and our calls happen after office hours, so it can be a little tough connecting the dots on this end, resulting in delays in getting decisions out to the membership.
K
K
gran racing
Super Moderator
Since we've agreed in the past that the ITAC doesn't need several of the items on the VTS, is there any chance of changing it for IT cars or at least adding a note which items are not required?
That's come up once VERY briefly in the time I've been on the ITAC. I think it's a good idea but there's no plans in place to make it happen in the foreseeable future. When I did my request for the Civic EX a couple years ago, Jeremy T's request was to simply fill in everything I could. At the very least, you'd need to include the data that gets included in the ITCS of course.
Those should go to the club office with the request. It doesn't hurt to cc ITAC members but it's probably bad practice to shortcut the information around Topeka.
(Kirk-as-individual hat firmly on now...)
Part of the reason I want to be clear on this is that we have a history of using back-channel information - that "real world data" from sources who don't want to be named, or from informal conversations with folks who are OK with attribution - to make decisions. This isn't contributing to daylighting the process, which I hear from members is an important issue. I have a sense from some of you that you'd be less worried about outcomes if you knew how we arrived at them. I won't name specific examples but it's initials are R.X.
I (again, personally - this isn't an ITAC position) tend to think that it is desirable that we avoid even the appearance that secret stuff is influencing IT classification and specification processes, and maintaining official channels of communication is part of that.
K
Those should go to the club office with the request. It doesn't hurt to cc ITAC members but it's probably bad practice to shortcut the information around Topeka.
(Kirk-as-individual hat firmly on now...)
Part of the reason I want to be clear on this is that we have a history of using back-channel information - that "real world data" from sources who don't want to be named, or from informal conversations with folks who are OK with attribution - to make decisions. This isn't contributing to daylighting the process, which I hear from members is an important issue. I have a sense from some of you that you'd be less worried about outcomes if you knew how we arrived at them. I won't name specific examples but it's initials are R.X.
I (again, personally - this isn't an ITAC position) tend to think that it is desirable that we avoid even the appearance that secret stuff is influencing IT classification and specification processes, and maintaining official channels of communication is part of that.
K
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Those should go to the club office with the request. It doesn't hurt to cc ITAC members but it's probably bad practice to shortcut the information around Topeka.
(Kirk-as-individual hat firmly on now...)
Part of the reason I want to be clear on this is that we have a history of using back-channel information - that "real world data" from sources who don't want to be named, or from informal conversations with folks who are OK with attribution - to make decisions. This isn't contributing to daylighting the process, which I hear from members is an important issue. I have a sense from some of you that you'd be less worried about outcomes if you knew how we arrived at them. I won't name specific examples but it's initials are R.X.
I (again, personally - this isn't an ITAC position) tend to think that it is desirable that we avoid even the appearance that secret stuff is influencing IT classification and specification processes, and maintaining official channels of communication is part of that.
K
Right.
But, I think it's OK for you to contact us ITAC guys that make contacting us easy to seek guidance on how or why to submit a question, proposal or classification request. We often get letters from folks detailing race losses, lap times and stuff, and as we've said in the past, that's fine, knock yourself out, but if you are basing your case on it, it's a waste of time. I think we're more than happy to help point you in the right direction, but I agree that all such requests go to the big bosses for proper channel following.
(A friendly, but proper approach, I think)