Please help me understand the Audi issue...

gran racing said:
Post the great alignment, how many cars had weight adjusted in total?
Click to expand...

It's in FasTrack. I know I looked it up, and thought I posted it in one of the other threads where we were discussing it. I think shortly after Kirk announced his resignation, and the info about the CRB's new position on adjusting cars being in violation of the GCR.
 
Yeah, just hoping someone might know the total since that covers a few years now. A number was quoted to me and I'm just curious if that's actually correct.
 
gran racing said:
Post the great alignment, how many cars had weight adjusted in total?
Click to expand...

Is the question how many got changed during the GR (or not-so-great, as the case may be) or how many have been reviewed SINCE then? Note that the latter category includes some that were not recommended by the ITAC for a change based on the process, some that were and got changed, and some that were recommended but stalled out at the CRB.

K
 
gran racing said:
Yeah, just hoping someone might know the total since that covers a few years now. A number was quoted to me and I'm just curious if that's actually correct.
Click to expand...

I took the time to look through all of the Fastracks published since 2006.

There were a lot of changes in 2006, that I believe were effectively considered en-masse to be "the great realignment." They were published over the course of several Fastracks, from 2/06-12/06.

Assuming that everything prior to the January 2007 Fastrack was TGR and everything since was just corrections, I come to the following numbers:

- 8 weight adjustments to "old" listings (3 in 2007, 4 in 2008, 1 in 2009)
- 25 additions, all done via "the process". Actually more since I clumped like cars into one (Camaro/Firebird, for example.)

The 8 changes since 1/07 are to the following cars:
ITS Mazda MX-6 (1993)
ITS Mercedes 190E 2.3 12V (87-93)
ITA Honda Civic EX Coupe (96-00)
ITB Honda Civic DX (moved from ITA, then weight adjusted)
ITB Pontiac Fiero 2.5 (84-88) (actually 2 spec lines)
ITB Porsche 924/Sebring (77-82)
ITB Mercury Capri 2.3 (79-86)
ITB Toyota MR2 (moved from ITA)

Caveat: I only looked through the tech bulletins. Some things, like the MR2 move, were done in the BOD minutes but never had a tech bulletin. There might be more examples like that one that I didn't list. But if a weight changed through the basic errors-and-omissions thing, it would have been a tech bulletin.
 
Last edited:
I don't think that was all of them.

In ITS, the Z cars other than the 240z lost weight (the 260z, 280z and 300zx all lost significant poundage). Also the 944 and 924s lost weight, and I think the 944 did as well.
 
JeffYoung said:
I don't think that was all of them.

In ITS, the Z cars other than the 240z lost weight (the 260z, 280z and 300zx all lost significant poundage). Also the 944 and 924s lost weight, and I think the 944 did as well.
Click to expand...

I did not see any of those. Can you find the Fastracks that contain them?

EDIT: Jeff, I found them. Those were February '06, which yes, was part of TRA, not post-TGR. My list above was post-TGR.
 
Last edited:
History is interpreted of course but the "Great Realignment" was really just about the cars that were recommended for change en masse in the "Letter to the CRB" that changed the weights of...

** Seven (7) ITB cars
** Fifteen (15) ITA cars
** Fifteen (15) ITS cars, including those Z cars that Jeff remembers

That letter was drafted in 2005 as a recommendation from the ITAC to the CRB for the 2006 season. All of the changes you list Josh - including the Civic EX Coupe (which I requested) - were subsequent to and enabled by the busting of the logjam. Problem was, as a sop to make the "one-time adjustment" palatable to the Old Guard, that nasty clause was added to the "no guarantee of competitiveness" bit, about limiting future adjustments.

Of course, each of those changes represents a likely violation of that GCR clause, based on the re-interpretation just handed down. Doesn't it...?

K
 
There was another batch of 12 ITS cars (Del Sol, Calais, 92-93 GSR, Volvo 850, etc.) and 2 ITA cars in December of 2006.
 
JeffYoung said:
There was another batch of 12 ITS cars (Del Sol, Calais, 92-93 GSR, Volvo 850, etc.) and 2 ITA cars in December of 2006.
Click to expand...

Yes, I saw that. That's why I used 1/07 as my starting point for post-TGR.

For completeness, most of the changes happened 2/06, 4/06, 6/06, and 12/06. Between those four months there were BULK changes. I just assumed that this was TGR "phased in" or something. I think all of the changes were effective after the 2006 season. So I picked 1/07 as my starting point.
 
Although I wasn't on the ITAC at the time, I think it is a bit of a misnomer to split the adjustments up. As I understood it, cars were done in chunks -- and not just by popularity of the chassis -- with the ultimate goal being, at some point, to have them all done or to work on chassis that were grossly over or under weight.

Remember, this was during the time period where folks thought (myself included) that if the car was within 100 lbs either way of process weight, it was ok to leave it alone.
 
Interesting. I would've called "tGR" the Feb addendum, and everything after was business as usual, ut I can see the line being drawn elsewhere.

Any way you cut it, there have been a lot of cars adjusted, many proactively. Recently, most seem to be as a result of member requests.

Going forward, it appears those will be rejected unless the car is deemed an overdog.
 
Over the years the ITAC has requested some corrections on classifications that they felt were errors in the way they were treated during the realignment. I'm not sure I would say there has been numerous corrections, looking back at the master tech bulletins in 2007 there were two reclassifications from ITA to B, one weight correction in ITB and one in ITA, 2008 saw two weight corrections in ITB and one in ITS, 09 saw two corrections in ITB and one in A. That's a total of ten changes over three years in a category that has many cars.
Click to expand...
This is what I'm trying to determine how accurate of a statement it is. Even with the information posted here, I'm still a bit confused. Maybe I just need to re-read the information a couple more times.
 
>> That's a total of ten changes over three years in a category that has many cars.

Sorry, Dave - WHERE is this quoted from...?

K
 
Over the years the ITAC has requested some corrections on classifications that they felt were errors in the way they were treated during the realignment.
Click to expand...

The way that's phrased...it really is saying that the ITAC has requested corrections on car that it corrected in tGR.

I have to tell you, that over the years since the Feb addendum, it sure seems to me like we've discussed a LOT more than ten cars, and they all get processed, many with changes recommended.
 
Super awesome. More back-channel secret crapola.

The problem with communicating with more than one person at a time is, those damned lies are easy to spot. Look for the cultural patterns that persist in our organization: Back-channel, unofficial conversation drives the actual decision making, rather than documented committee discussion; information travels through poorly documented nexuses (nexes?) that rely on one person (e.g., the CRB liaison to an Ad Hoc); those "in the know" play the "you didn't hear it from me, but..." game; there's no actual provision for tracking INACTION on a member request item - they can literally go stale an NEVER be acted on without raising a red flag; etc.; etc.; etc. ...

And now you are part of the problem, Dave. Not for attribution. Great. A hint, if I might? Any time anyone tells you something but suggests that you can't share them as the source, they're - at best - spinning the answer to suit the needs of their communication with you. They almost certainly will tell someone else something different. Regardless, what the mystery person typed is factually innacurate.

ANY COMMUNICATION BY ANYONE IN ANY OFFICIAL CLUB CAPACITY SHOULD BE FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION. And that should *not* be interpreted as, "Well, we'd better not communicate with th members then..."

Screw "ad hoc." This is "post hoc" butt covering. It was convenient for the CRB to approve ITAC recommendations that were contrary to one interpretation of the letter of the rules, right up to the point when it wasn't anymore.

K
 
More back-channel secret crapola.
Click to expand...

No, not at all. I contacted the BOD in my region via e-mail expressing I had concerns about what's going on with IT. We weren't able to connect via phone but he was interested in listening to what I had to say so I sent him an e-mail. He inturn forwarded it on and I received a response.

The individual on the CRB who replied didn't suggest his reply be kept private and the answer certainly was not spun to my liking. Trust me.

I question a portion of the "facts" he provided and included that above in hopes of determining if in reality it's true or not. If it is accurate, then I'm a surprised. If it's not, it would be nice to provide him more information.

ANY COMMUNICATION BY ANYONE IN ANY OFFICIAL CLUB CAPACITY SHOULD BE FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION.
Click to expand...

I sent a personal e-mail expressing my displeasure and received a communication back. While his position and belief frustrates me, I still believe in showing him respect by not posting it all on a public forum like this. That's my "fault" - no one elses. While it may have taken a push by a BOD member, at least I received a thought out e-mail even though I don't like his position.

Dear BOD,
I have serious concerns with actions the CRB is taking related to the Improved Touring category. It is my hope that you will intervene with the recent decisions they have made.

The ITAC developed a process that takes much of the subjectivity out of the classification process. This process still has room for exceptions where if something doesn’t look right, additional research can be conducted and utilized to determine the appropriate results. In addition to using this process on new classification requests, it has also been used on existing cars to resolve previous classification errors. This is not a new thing and the CRB has approved / implemented numerous previous corrections. The ITAC recently submitted a batch of cars and now all of a sudden the CRB will not approve any of the recommendations as it can not be accepted under the “errors and omissions” clause. I honestly don’t care which clause allows the corrections but find it absurd that it has been allowed for so many cars before, now it can’t. The CRB also told the ITAC not to have open communication with the IT community on the Improved Touring.com or other public forums. For a club built on membership, this ongoing communication and interactions should be encouraged. I applaud the ITAC and support what they have been doing.

Don’t get me wrong, the IT category is quite good and “works” but there still are many inequalities and the category can be made truly great. We recognize that the classification process will never be perfect, but we should at least have cars classed by the same rules and methodology. As the ITAC receives requests for IT cars to be run through the classification process, review the cars and then make any applicable adjustments. Why is it that existing cars do not deserve the same treatment as a newly requested car being classed? It simply does not make sense.

Your support in approving the recent classification requests, utilization of this process for new and existing cars, and open communication would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this further, I can be reached during the day or evening at --listed my cell phone number ---. I have also included the e-mail I recently sent to the CRB related to this matter. Thank you for your time and attention.
Dave Gran
Click to expand...

 
Dave,

How do you not see that as back-channel communication? If you're getting an official position from someone that has influence on rules and policy, I would think that would be the same position that they would give everyone. Your comment indicates that you feel that it was a position that was not meant to be made public. Not sure what kind of 'respect' you're showing. I believe the old saying about birds of a feather applies here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top