Please help me understand the Audi issue...

hey bill,

i gotta wonder....you seem more wound up about this than anyone. what do you drive and where do you race?
 
Bill Miller said:
That's VERY interesting Phil, seeing as an ex-ITAC member(s?) claimed 100hp out of an ITB legal A1 GTI. Hard to believe that you're only getting 1 additional hp, w/ 2 pts of compression, and a larger throttle body.
Click to expand...

Now Bill, I would expect you to have a better understanding of dyno data than this. Actually all of you, as this has come up time and time again.

I can take my car and run it on one dyno and see 101hp, and take it to another and see 115hp. If the dyno operator does not manage the equipment and other variables consistently you could see swings of 5 and 10 hp on the same dyno. They are great tools for optimizing what you have, and validating improvements when you make them - provided you control the variables such that you are only measuring changes in the engine output and not environmental and/or dyno setup variables as well. However unless accompanied with equivalent data, in equivalent conditions on the same machine from a known good stock example, a dyno number tells me exactly nothing about the gains, or actual power that a car makes.

This is the root of my request, EVERY SINGLE TIME the conversation started up about the process, that we develop a minimum standard of acceptance for data that we use to say 'we know' something. The best answer I got was 'we have', which honestly isn't much of an answer.

The reality is that, in this light, on track side by side accelleration performance is quite possibly a more reliable source of data than dyno sheets from different sources. Put the club's DL1 boxes in the cars and go racing, and a good analyst will be able to deduce relative whp from the data and the weights from tech. BUT that is another story for another time because 'we don't do that' in IT.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not grousing. I'm over this issue completely. Some cars get fudged when the process is used by changing the inputs, some cars get fudged situationally by not being able to be reviewed/changed by the ptb, some cars get a benefit by being processed at std power gains when they make more, some cars get a weight break because of a clerical error when they were initially processed, some cars get extra weight because of a clerical error when they were initally processed. There is plenty of 'noise' to go around, and yet we have a class full of competitive cars with good racing.

Sure I think we can do better, and I still think at some point we will, but I am out of energy to pour into this debate and situation, and am just going to build the heck out of my car and try to win races.
 
Bill Miller said:
Uh, two of those guys race IT cars, and are former members of the ITAC. Hate to bother you w/ facts.
Click to expand...

Uh, hate to bother YOU with facts, but I'm told they don't vote on matters IT. (Abstain) And yes, I am aware they race IT cars, as I've spent time at the track with both of them.

The point is that the voting membership of the CRB come at this 180 degrees from the IT point of view.
 
shwah said:
This is the root of my request, EVERY SINGLE TIME the conversation started up about the process, that we develop a minimum standard of acceptance for data that we use to say 'we know' something. The best answer I got was 'we have', which honestly isn't much of an answer.
Click to expand...

Well, we are aware of such issues, but, more to the point, we now have to change the answer that didn't stisfy you from "We have" to "we did", LOL. Feel better?

The reality is that, in this light, on track side by side accelleration performance is quite possibly a more reliable source of data than dyno sheets from different sources. Put the club's DL1 boxes in the cars and go racing, and a good analyst will be able to deduce relative whp from the data and the weights from tech. BUT that is another story for another time because 'we don't do that' in IT.
Click to expand...

I'd love to do that in IT. Of course, we need to do it at events where we have some confidence in the legality of the cars we're measuring. But, Getting SCCA tech to Atlanta or Mid Ohio is problematic.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not grousing. I'm over this issue completely. Some cars get fudged when the process is used by changing the inputs, some cars get fudged situationally by not being able to be reviewed/changed by the ptb, some cars get a benefit by being processed at std power gains when they make more, some cars get a weight break because of a clerical error when they were initially processed, some cars get extra weight because of a clerical error when they were initally processed. There is plenty of 'noise' to go around, and yet we have a class full of competitive cars with good racing.

Sure I think we can do better, and I still think at some point we will, but I am out of energy to pour into this debate and situation, and am just going to build the heck out of my car and try to win races.[/quote]
 
jake i've suggested to andy multiple times (and CRB members) to take the "black boxes" they use at the runoffs and plop them in at the ARRC and IT Fest when they're not using them anyway.

i'd be willing to run one in my car next year.
 
Fine with me. Couldn't hurt to have data. But I *think* the issue is getting the brass to agree, and supply them, plus whatever tech support is needed.
 
lateapex911 said:
Uh, hate to bother YOU with facts, but I'm told they don't vote on matters IT. (Abstain) And yes, I am aware they race IT cars, as I've spent time at the track with both of them.

The point is that the voting membership of the CRB come at this 180 degrees from the IT point of view.
Click to expand...

Easy to back-track and qualify your statements when you get called on the, isn't it? And why would they abstain from all IT-related votes? If it's something that's at a category level, and doesn't impact their car specifically, or the class they race in, why abstain? As far as someone telling you how the CRB operates, it's nice to see that you're keeping your back-channel communication skills sharp.

If they published the CRB votes (wasn't there something FasTrack a while back about this?), you wouldn't have to speculate as to who abstains from what.


Chris,

Maybe it was hard to see my tongue firmly planted in my cheek, from halfway across the country. ;)
 
so this is maybe the third time i've asked you bill....

i'll take it from your silence that you don't actually race. which is just priceless.

are you even an SCCA member?
 
Travis, many people are extremely frustrated and have said what they needed to say. More people need to be vocal with the BOD and CRB but having the same people re-voice their opinions won't do much. I think this whole thing stinks. The lack of communication really bothers me. If they're not going to do anything about these, at least have the balls to post it in Fastrack.

News broadcast....I just heard a change was made to the rules which now all of sudden grants a brake upgrade just in time for the ARRC. Or was that for the Runoffs?

They'll do what THEY want to do.
 
Bill Miller said:
Easy to back-track and qualify your statements when you get called on the, isn't it? And why would they abstain from all IT-related votes? If it's something that's at a category level, and doesn't impact their car specifically, or the class they race in, why abstain? As far as someone telling you how the CRB operates, it's nice to see that you're keeping your back-channel communication skills sharp.

If they published the CRB votes (wasn't there something FasTrack a while back about this?), you wouldn't have to speculate as to who abstains from what.

.
Click to expand...

Bill, spare me your abuse, and stop shooting the messenger, you're lucky to have one.
 
lateapex911 said:
Bill, spare me your abuse, and stop shooting the messenger, you're lucky to have one.
Click to expand...

Given the choice, I'd rather read it in FasTrack. You're not that important. You are however, a legend in your own mind. The ITAC worked before you got there, and will work after you're gone. Speaking of which, isn't your tenure about up?
 
Oh cut the crap Bill. Jake is one of the guys we as IT AND SCCA members want on the ITAC or other boards. He puts a TON of effort into this, takes it seriously, puts his own good aside for the sake of the category, and is just a huge asset to the ITAC. Gesh, we're on vaca with a few friends and planning a fun activity. He's planning on where he can find WiFi to part take in a long con call. There's definately devotion there. Sometimes I think he takes it too seriously - but at the same time enjoys being able to add a positive contribution.Trust me, he's not happy with the way things went down and deserves some slack. Infact, he would be an ideal person to have on the CRB or whatever other advisory committee governs other categories. This isn't all being said just because he's a friend of mine either.
 
Last edited:
gran racing said:
Travis, many people are extremely frustrated and have said what they needed to say. More people need to be vocal with the BOD and CRB but having the same people re-voice their opinions won't do much. I think this whole thing stinks. The lack of communication really bothers me. If they're not going to do anything about these, at least have the balls to post it in Fastrack.
I agree 100% with this. This is the ONLY thing that pisses me off with this club. ZERO communication above the ITAC to club members. And the communication that they have given is BS to get you to shut up. Their is ZERO accountability at the CRB and BOD level and eventhough they are volenteers we still need accountability.

I think that ALL requests should be posted and ALL requests should be responded to in a time frame that makes sence and that time frame should be published in the GCR. Currently no official process exists for member input. I still think they should use the SCCA website for member input that has forums that are locked that would allow only 1 post as a request then a response would be posted by the CRB within a certain time frame. It's easy and accessable by all to see. you can even narrow it down by catagory and class to keep it organized. The best part is that it NEVER gets deleted so anyone anyplace can see everyones requests. No need to use fasttrack for this type of stuff. We could then use Fasttrack for ACTUAL rule changes and Findings of the court only.

And lastly I am happy that Jake, Jeff, Andy and others lurk here and give input here. YOU are the voice of SCCA for me and YOU are the middle man for me to understand the club and for the club to understand me. I applaud you for dealing with people like me for the better of the club.

Thanks,
Stephen
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Bill Miller said:
Given the choice, I'd rather read it in FasTrack.
Click to expand...

Evidently not. You ask questions pointed at ITAC or CRB actions/functions/protocol. You get answers, but object/disagree (nearly always in a hissy manner). You get a clarification, and then you complain and abuse the guy (if you don't like him regardless of the answer) who bothers to answer. THEN you say you'd rather read it in FASTRACK.

Trust me, from where I sit, you're a chronic malcontent with no stake (As in a non racer who's doesn't race or hold a membership) who will attack some people, yet applaud others who respond with the same message.

I ignore and don't respond to your comments 90% of the time, but, I'll make you happier, that's gone to 100% now.

Expect no further response from me, no matter how false your accusations and comments and other drivel might be. And don't accept the silence to be anything but refusal to play in your silly, forgot- to- take- your- drugs- today moody games.
 
tnord said:
so this is maybe the third time i've asked you bill....

i'll take it from your silence that you don't actually race. which is just priceless.

are you even an SCCA member?
Click to expand...

I can find autoX results for a "Bill Miller" but nothing in club racing?
 
i didn't find much of anything either.

what i did find had him in some STU car or the like turning obnoxiously slow times.

and now jake says he doesn't even have a membership. what a fucking joke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top