Please help me understand the Audi issue...

lateapex911 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just for completeness, if we want to draw the line after the Feb addendum, then we will include everything from April 2006 onward (there were no changed weights in March.) But I'll reiterate that it seems that since these are so soon after TGR and that was (I'm told) billed as a one-time event, no more changes would occur, it shocks me that so many changes were apparently allowed to happen so soon and yet were not included in the original proposal. Are you all sure these weren't really part of that proposal? As I didn't join the ITAC until January 2007, it's hard for me to know what really was involved.

Anyway, moving the line back to March '06 adds the following cars to the list I posted above:

ITS Honda Civic Si (99-00) (CHANGED TWICE, 4/06, 12/06)
ITS Del Sol VTEC (94-96) (CHANGED TWICE, 4/06, 12/06)
ITS 300ZX 2+2 (86)
ITS 944 2.7L (89)
ITS Acura Integra GS-R (92-93)
ITS Acura Integra GS-R (94-00)
ITS Ford Probe GT (93)
ITS Ford Contour V6 (95)
ITS Honda Prelude Si (92-93)
ITS Mazda 626 LX/ES (93-97)
ITS Oldsmobile Calais (88-91)
ITS Pontiac Grand-Am (Quad 4) (88-91)
ITS Volvo 850 GLT (93-97)

ITA BMW Z3 1.9 (96-98)
ITA Ford Escort 1.8L 16V
ITA Honda Civic DX (92-95)
ITA Mazda Protege LX (90-93)
ITA Mazda Protege ES (95-98)
ITA Honda Civic DX (88-91)
ITA Honda CRX 1.5 Standard

ITB Toyota Celica 2.2 (74-77)
ITB Toyota Corolla SR-5 (80-82)

Those were all in 2006. Relisting the ones done in 2007-2009:

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)
 
Last edited:
There's a copy of the "GR Letter" somewhere in the SCCA IT board. It details precisely which cars were recommended as part of the "one-time adjustment" of the number of cars I listed above.

You can see, I think, why it's so dumbfounding for the CRB to suddenly decide to enforce a "rule" that they had encouraged the ITAC to ignore on a pretty substantial scale.

And I'm guessing that you have cataloged only those recommended - and voted on - for a change. Add the cars that the ITAC reviewed and found to be within whatever tolerance was applicable at the time and the list of cars actually ACTED ON during that time increases even more...

K
 
Last edited:
Knestis said:
There's a copy of the "GR Letter" somewhere in the SCCA IT board. It details precisely which cars were recommended as part of the "one-time adjustment" of the number of cars I listed above.

You can see, I think, why it's so dumbfounding for the CRB to suddenly decide to enforce a "rule" that they had encouraged the ITAC to ignore on a pretty substantial scale.

And I'm guessing that you have cataloged only those recommended - and voted on - for a change. Add the cars that the ITAC reviewed and found to be within whatever tolerance was applicable at the time and the list of cars actually ACTED ON during that time increases even more...

K
Click to expand...

Not the CRB guys, it was done by the BOD when they shut down "errors and ommisions" by the CRB for anything but a typo. Unfortunately that was all we had.
 
We were allowed in IT to run the changes through under errors and omissions because there was never any real formula or process used when these cars were classed. At the least they were classed many different ways under the various CRB/BOD over the years. A repeatable process that was fair to all was correcting that error. After the GRA all your changes were under that system. Then it was totally abused by the CRB in another catagory (see big brakes, etc) and changes were done that the BOD saw as comp adjustments that they never saw or voted on. IT got caught in the knee jerk reaction that hit about the same time as you decided to touch the golden child of ITB. Perfect storm and we got screwed. Now we either get on board to fix it or as the line in animal house goes "Thank you sir, may I have another". Your choice. :D
 
The cars listed by Josh above... Are those part of tGA or subsequent items that were acted on? If the CRB statement of 10 cars in 3 years is inaccurate, I'd like to follow-up with that. Looks like the majority were in '06 and the CRB is considering them as part of tGA.
 
Cars recommended for changes during the Great Realignment, by a memo to the CRB and BoD, dated 14 September 2005:
​


ITB:

Volkswagen
Rabbit
GTI (83-84)
2180
Change weight to 2080

Volkswagen
Scirocco
II 8V (83-88)
2270
Change weight to 2130

 Toyota
Celica
III 2.4 (83-85)
2530
Change weight to 2350

Toyota
Celica
III GTS (83-85)
2630
Change weight to 2425

Plymouth
Horizon
1.7 (78-79)
2280
Move to ITC @ 2050

Plymouth
Horizon
TC3 1.7 (79-80)
2320
Move to ITC @ 2110

Mazda
MX-6
(88-91)
2830
Change weight to 2530

Ford
Mustang
2.3 (79-93)
2640
Change weight to 2400


ITA:

Acura
Integra
(90-93)
2480
Change weight to 2595

Acura
Integra
(94-99)
2555
Change weight to 2620

 Acura
Integra
1.6 (86-89)
2380
Change weight to 2200

 BMW
325e/es
(2 & 4 door) (84-87)
2750
Change weight to 2500

 Honda
CRX
Si (88-91)
2140
Change weight to 2250

 Honda
Civic Si
(89-91)
2175
Change weight to 2250

 Mazda
RX-7
(12A)(79-85)
2380
Change weight to 2280

 Mazda
Miata
/ MX-5 (90-93)
2205
Change weight to 2255

Nissan
240-SX
/ S13(89-90)
2530
Change weight to 2630

Plymouth
Laser
/ Eagle Talon / Mitsubishi Eclipse 2.0L
2755
Change weight to 2500

 Mitsubishi
Eclipe
(95-98)
2700
Change weight to 2600

 Pontiac
Fiero
GT & Formula V-6 2.8 -1988
2780
Change weight to 2600

 Toyota
MR2
1.6L(85-89)
2370
Change weight to 2270

 Toyota
Celica
GTS (86-88)
2680
Change weight to 2500

 Toyota
Corolla
GTS (86-89)
2410
Move to ITB @2445lbs

More in another reply since I got cut off with too many characters...

K
 
ITS:

 Mazda
MX-3
V-6
2510
Move to ITA @ same weight (2510lbs)

 Mazda
RX-7
(13b) (84-85)
2530
Change weight to 2350

 Nissan
200-SX
V-6 -1987
2885
Change weight to 2585

Nissan
300-ZX
2+2 -1986
2865
Change weight to 2725

 Nissan
300-ZX
(84-88)
2865
Change weight to 2725

 Nissan / Datsun
260-Z
(73-74)
2610
Change weight to 2480

 Nissan / Datsun
280-Z
(75-78)
2730
Change weight to 2505

 Nissan / Datsun
280-ZX
(79-83)
2770
Change weight to 2530

 Nissan / Datsun
280-ZX
2+2 (79-83)
2820
Change weight to 2530

 Porsche
944
(2V) (83-88)
2715
Change weight to 2575

 Porsche
924-S
(86-88)
2715
Change weight to 2575

Toyota
Celica
GT Coupe & Liftback (89-93)
2590
Move to ITA @ same weight (2590)

Toyota
Supra
(82-85)
2890
Change weight to 2750


Porsche
944S
(4V) (87-88)
2850
Change weight to 2990, or restrict to 220hp (flywheel)

BMW
325i/is E36
(2 & 4 door)
(92-95)
2850
Change weight to 3300, or restrict to 220hp (flywheel)

That's it.

K
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
Then shame on the BoD for not taking the time to punish JUST the kids who were palying the game the wrong way. Booo.
Click to expand...

No Andy, shame on the BoD for not actually doing their jobs and paying attention to what's going on. Pretty sure that whenever I read the CRB minutes, there are always 1 or 2 BoD liaisons that participate in the con. call. It should be no big surprise when these things come up, as they would have been discussed in a con. call w/ a BoD member(s?) present. If the liaisons weren't informing the rest of the BoD what was going on, well, that's on them.

And if the CRB really believed in 'normalizing' all of IT, and the effectiveness of the process (we've already heard from ITAC members that some don't), I would think that that's what they would tell the BoD. Something to the effect of
CRB to BoD said:
There has been no standard method for classing IT cars over the years. The ITAC has worked to develop a classification process that is objective and repeatable. The IT community supports this, and we feel that it is in the best interest of IT to run all cars in the ITCS through this process.
Click to expand...
The thing is, it doesn't seem like the CRB (as a group) believes in the process. The BoD edict about not using E&O to correct cars gives them (CRB) a convenient 'out' w/o making them (CRB) look like the bad guys. Something to the effect of
CRB re: correcting IT classification errors said:
Hey, we'd love to correct all those cars, and run all the cars in the ITCS through the process, but the BoD has told us not to.
Click to expand...

I'm sure Kirk knows the 'official' term for this behavior, similar to the 'strategic ambiguity' that he mentioned before.

/edit

Kirk,

Do you have any other info behind that list? Like maybe how the various weights were arrived at?
 
Last edited:
Yes it is. I wonder why the 944S didn't get a restrictor?

Also, I didn't realize the ITAC recommendatin included an alternative -- weight or restrictor? I thought the ITAC always recommended weight?
 
JeffYoung said:
Yes it is. I wonder why the 944S didn't get a restrictor?

Also, I didn't realize the ITAC recommendatin included an alternative -- weight or restrictor? I thought the ITAC always recommended weight?
Click to expand...

The ITAC NEVER recommended a SIR on either car. Not sure where Kirk got those two but they didn't come from a direct ITAC recommendation. I remember the 944S topic and in the end it ended up getting a lower power multiplier. The two were not tied at the hip even though they had within 1 stock hp.

The E36 325i/is weight recommendation was derived from 210whp potential in IT trim. That number is actually known to be low now.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
The ITAC NEVER recommended a SIR on either car. Not sure where Kirk got those two but they didn't come from a direct ITAC recommendation. I remember the 944S topic and in the end it ended up getting a lower power multiplier. The two were not tied at the hip even though they had within 1 stock hp.

The E36 325i/is weight recommendation was derived from 210whp potential in IT trim. That number is actually known to be low now.
Click to expand...

That information came from the document titled "2005_IT_letter_to_the_CRB," that Darin drafted to " send to Bob and the CRB." I pulled it from the SCCA ITAC board back when I was first getting up to speed on the history of the committee's work.

It may well have been that the SIR bits got edited out in subsequent conversation inside the ITAC but I didn't see evidence of any later versions. I apologize if this is muddled but it's another case where there should be a clear paper trail of the committee's communication to the CRB, but isn't.

K
 
Knestis said:
That information came from the document titled "2005_IT_letter_to_the_CRB," that Darin drafted to " send to Bob and the CRB." I pulled it from the SCCA ITAC board back when I was first getting up to speed on the history of the committee's work.

It may well have been that the SIR bits got edited out in subsequent conversation inside the ITAC but I didn't see evidence of any later versions. I apologize if this is muddled but it's another case where there should be a clear paper trail of the committee's communication to the CRB, but isn't.

K
Click to expand...

And knowing the history of this stuff, putting something out as fact without checking first is misleading.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
And knowing the history of this stuff, putting something out as fact without checking first is misleading.
Click to expand...

So help fix the problem, Andy.

I was on the inside for 18 months and still obviously had trouble sorting the wheat from the chaff. That's the best information I had on the subject, having taken it at face value based on the evidence in the record at hand. The problem is that the record is sparse, poorly documented, and easily manipulated.

Go ahead - dig into the history documented there, find the actual recommendation that was sent up to the CRB, and share it. If my interpretation of the record is incorrect, it should be easy to rectify it.

Absent any official process for documenting and disseminating the work of the Ad Hocs, CRB, and BoD, we're stuck with informal channels through which information gets out. And it WILL get out. And before someone suggests that the GCR and Fastrack serve that purpose, consider how our state and federal legislative processes would be different if the public only got to see any new law only in its final form as signed and enacted. That is not transparancy.

K
 
Knestis said:
So help fix the problem, Andy.

I was on the inside for 18 months and still obviously had trouble sorting the wheat from the chaff. That's the best information I had on the subject, having taken it at face value based on the evidence in the record at hand. The problem is that the record is sparse, poorly documented, and easily manipulated.

Go ahead - dig into the history documented there, find the actual recommendation that was sent up to the CRB, and share it. If my interpretation of the record is incorrect, it should be easy to rectify it.

Absent any official process for documenting and disseminating the work of the Ad Hocs, CRB, and BoD, we're stuck with informal channels through which information gets out. And it WILL get out. And before someone suggests that the GCR and Fastrack serve that purpose, consider how our state and federal legislative processes would be different if the public only got to see any new law only in its final form as signed and enacted. That is not transparancy.

K
Click to expand...

Nobody said it was good Kirk, what I was trying to say is that you KNOW it wasnt good, you could have validated with someone who was on the committee at the time the info - or posted that what you found and where you found it first, then we could come in and correct it, should it have been wrong. I just don't like it coming off as fact, when it indeed was not. Before you post what you have saved from your 'pre-tenure', do us all a favor and validate it as what you think it is.

The documentation process we have now is light years better than whatever was in play before. As you state, it was a DRAFT Darin did. Presented to the ITAC and final recomendations were taken directly by the CRB after debate.

The Feb addendum was tGR. We wanted to do more, we were convinced by the CRB that anything outside the +/- 100lbs barrier was going to raise flags with the BoD.
 
This is an example of what I did when I took over as Chair but had no secretary. These were posted to the SCCA site and sent to Dowie for their calls.

Improved Touring Advisory Committee Con Call 8-28-06
AttendingITACCRBSCCANot AttendingBettencourtKeeneNoneRoffeAlbinDowieChaneyClaytonClarkGraserGulik
TopicITAC Input
06-069 ITRThank you for your input
06-070 ITRThank you for your input
06-071 Civic DX to ITBNo change of class recommended, change spec minimum weight to 2000lbs
06-072 Honda CRXNo change of class recommended, change spec minimum weight to 2000lbs
06-073 Dual classThank you for your input
06-074 323iThank you for your input
06-075 300zxThank you for your input
06-076 No dual classThank you for your input
06-077 Civic DX to ITBNo change of class recommended, change spec minimum weight to 2000lbs
ITS MR2 to ITA @ 2545Change listing from ITS to ITA @ 2545lbs and make sure years read 90-94
New members for 2006Ask CRB to put out a request for resumes for 2007 ITAC
2006-2007 Calendar4th Monday of each month to continue
ITAC Tent Meeting at the ARRCGood idea but not plausable
Honda Civic DX (3 & 4 door) 92-95Change minimum weight from 2330 to 2050lbs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top