THE BACK ROOM or ....
- Thread starter pfcs
- Start date
Bill Miller
New member
Wow, I go away for a couple of weeks, and I miss all the fun!
Really nice to see the Process documented, codified, and published. Hard to believe it's taken almost 10 years to get to this. Regardless,
I would like to see a clause in there that would require a note on the spec line as to the reasoning behind why a deviation from the process weight is used. For example "Power factor set a 1.29 based on dyno results of x (minimum 5) cars."
Looks simple and straight-forward, which is a good thing. I still think the 30% factor for multi-valve cars only in B & C is BS, but I'm guess that there are enough folks out there that feel the same way, so letters should be forthcoming. I honestly don't see how it can stand up to any kind of rigorous analysis as to why it was done.
I still laugh when I hear the "But it's an Atlantic motor" line. Funny that people only trotted that out for the MR2, but you never heard a peep when they moved the FX16 to ITB (which also runs a 4A-GE motor).
I feel for the Volvo guys, nothing solid to go on. Good thing nobody in ITC is running a Cortina! But, that's just one more reason why you need to be able to process cars where you have any kind of reliable, comparable published data.
I'm guessing that this guide was not in place prior to the issuance of the March FasTrack. Otherwise I would have expected more detailed explanation as to why the 2.3L Audi GT's lost 50# and the 2.2L version didn't change at all, yet both appear to be 200# above the process weight as determined by the formula in the Operations Guide.
As far as the main operations manual compelling people to remove themselves from discussions that would directly impact them (and to me, that's either their car, or a car in the their class), I think it's safe to say that that doesn't always happen.
Really nice to see the Process documented, codified, and published. Hard to believe it's taken almost 10 years to get to this. Regardless,
I would like to see a clause in there that would require a note on the spec line as to the reasoning behind why a deviation from the process weight is used. For example "Power factor set a 1.29 based on dyno results of x (minimum 5) cars."
Looks simple and straight-forward, which is a good thing. I still think the 30% factor for multi-valve cars only in B & C is BS, but I'm guess that there are enough folks out there that feel the same way, so letters should be forthcoming. I honestly don't see how it can stand up to any kind of rigorous analysis as to why it was done.
I still laugh when I hear the "But it's an Atlantic motor" line. Funny that people only trotted that out for the MR2, but you never heard a peep when they moved the FX16 to ITB (which also runs a 4A-GE motor).
I feel for the Volvo guys, nothing solid to go on. Good thing nobody in ITC is running a Cortina! But, that's just one more reason why you need to be able to process cars where you have any kind of reliable, comparable published data.
I'm guessing that this guide was not in place prior to the issuance of the March FasTrack. Otherwise I would have expected more detailed explanation as to why the 2.3L Audi GT's lost 50# and the 2.2L version didn't change at all, yet both appear to be 200# above the process weight as determined by the formula in the Operations Guide.
As far as the main operations manual compelling people to remove themselves from discussions that would directly impact them (and to me, that's either their car, or a car in the their class), I think it's safe to say that that doesn't always happen.
JeffYoung
New member
Bill Miller
New member
Hadn't gotten to the FasTrack thread yet.
I have to go back and check when the move dates were, but how many of today's top ITB cars were ITA cars in '05? I'm pretty sure the Prelude was still in ITA, and I don't remember when the moved the Accord, and I know the Golf III move was right around there (maybe '04).
I have to go back and check when the move dates were, but how many of today's top ITB cars were ITA cars in '05? I'm pretty sure the Prelude was still in ITA, and I don't remember when the moved the Accord, and I know the Golf III move was right around there (maybe '04).
iambhooper
New member
copy saved... thanks!
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
No more posts until Phil tells us where he got the document. Should be no problem if it was above board.
<---- Doubts that.
<---- Doubts that.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
It doesn't matter at all, just teh fact he refused to answer is a punk move.
And since it's ON the SCCA website, it's obvious nobody has anything to hide but him...and your smart money would be lost. It's not a BAD thing it got out. It was intended to be published.
preparedcivic
New member
That's what it has to be. Where else would the document have been in circulation? BoD level? That's a stretch.
I disagree. If I had an inside source to a body whose decisions historically have been shrouded, NFW would I reveal that source.
Well, the question is whether it's on the SCCA because it already was out or because SCCA was going to post it at some point.
Given that the document, created by Josh on 29November2010 at 4:27PM using Microsoft Word, had been kept underwraps for 2+ months, I do not think it is a slamdunk that this would have seen the light of day in time for the membership to discuss its merits.
That social imperative was driving the CRB-ITAC-Member dysfunction prior to The Schism and is THE key reason I left the ITAC. When you play that game, you are officially part of the problem, Jeff.
K
dickita15
New member
You would be wrong. I believe it was January (might have been December) that the ITAC voted to recommend the opps manual. February 1st the CRB voted to adopt and to publish and it was scheduled to be posted with fastrack on or about the 20th. On the 17th Phil posts it. Dumb.
I am certainly curious who gave it to Phil although Phil’s role here is unimportant, he is just someone’s pawn.
I would say the problem is neither having an inside source or being one. The problem would be the need for an inside source.
Just went by the information in the document as to the date it was created. NADA about it in Fastrack as far as I could tell.
No argument from me but if someone is playing the game, they perpetuate the need. There were several times when I was on the ITAC when I told people not to share anything with me that they didn't want everyone to know.
Regardless, your perceptions are smack on re: the issue...
K
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
We all can see Phil is just a pawn, it would just be nice to know the source to laugh at them too. It's obvious the document was intended to be published and to think the SCCA could/would react this quick is funny. "OMG, someone leaked the ITPD, we had better get it up on the SCCA site asap"... LMAO.
Who cares. It's finally out, cudos to the CRB for letting it happen.
JeffYoung
New member
Dick, thank you for making that clear.
I guess JJJ thought we were lying when we posted that we had voted to publish.
I guess JJJ thought we were lying when we posted that we had voted to publish.
Didn't recall seeing that.
Pretty sure that what the ITAC decides to do means dick. You answer to the Sith Lords of the CRB.
gran racing
Super Moderator
Me, me, me! Then again I'll just modify those pages to show 130 SAGran and sell it to Ray. Or shall I send it to John?