Originally posted by ed325its:
How can anyone, with a stright face, suggest that thie posting in Fasttrack was a typo?
Anyone know the real story?
The car makes 19 less HP than the E36, and we've classified it at 3000lbs. vs the E36's 2850lbs + 56mm restrictor (not enough, in my opinion...)...
Can anyone with enough success in life to own/race a BMW really come here with a suggestion that a group of people who have DEMONSTRATED over the past season that they are working in a logical and consistant manner would puposefully put a restrictor plate on a car than they MEANINGFULLY classified at a weight consistant with their classification process??? GIVE Me a freakin' break...
The facts are that, when the request came in to add the 2000 model year to the Spec line for this car, the question was asked as to whether or not the car needed the same restrictor that the E36 has. The opinion of the ITAC was that the car was correctly classified using our process and that there was no justification for putting a restrictor on a car that hadn't yet shown excessive performance potential for the class...
Someone who was taking notes (usually me, but not this time...) must have written down "add restrictor" and that got into the CRBs notes.
So YES, it WAS a "typo", or otherwise inadvertantly inserted into the addition of the model years that were added...
I talked to the CRB and clarrified this issue and it is being corrected...
I know you are all perfect... but there are still those of us out here who make mistakes on occasion...
Should this car generate enough data to show that it's performance potential exceeds the original estimates, rest assured that a restrictor or other PCA adjustment WILL be applied to the specifications...
Again... JUST ASK next time if you think something doesn't look right. We'll be more than willing to tell you the truth. We have no reason to hide behind false statements...
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
