Grand Plan ?????

[seckerich]

Feb fastrack is out and still no plan from the IT board. Are we waiting till the year is done or will the CRB get off their collective aXXXX"s and get something done. Getting tired of being told to be patient and just getting the same old crap. With the list of production changes I see the old guard spends all their time kissing each other for their next championship as usual. Get something done or quit wasting discussion and tell us to move on as is. Any response from the board???

Thanks for the effort--same old SCCA :bash_1_: :bash_1_:

[Fastfred92]

Steve

Be patient!!! Some of the same old crap is forthcoming :lol:

[Geo]

Originally posted by Fastfred92@Dec 20 2005, 09:15 PM
Steve

Be patient!!! Some of the same old crap is forthcoming :lol:

68833


That's right.....

Thank you for your input. :P

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by seckerich@Dec 20 2005, 08:10 PM
Feb fastrack is out and still no plan from the IT board. Are we waiting till the year is done or will the CRB get off their collective aXXXX"s and get something done. Getting tired of being told to be patient and just getting the same old crap. With the list of production changes I see the old guard spends all their time kissing each other for their next championship as usual. Get something done or quit wasting discussion and tell us to move on as is. Any response from the board???

Thanks for the effort--same old SCCA :bash_1_: :bash_1_:

68807



FREAKING GROW UP guys! Read the dates on the "February" Fastrack sections... There is at least a 1-2 month flow time from the time decisions are made to the time they are printed... The DECEMBER BoD/CRB meetings have JUST concluded about a week ago, so anything that was determined from that will be coming to a Fastrack near you shortly... It's the same time-line we've been telling you about since you've started bitching...

Go wax your car or something... surely there is SOMETHING that needs to be done to it before next season besides whatever you might think it coming in the next Fastrack... :rolleyes:

[Fastfred92]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Dec 21 2005, 08:42 AM
FREAKING GROW UP guys! Read the dates on the "February" Fastrack sections... There is at least a 1-2 month flow time from the time decisions are made to the time they are printed... The DECEMBER BoD/CRB meetings have JUST concluded about a week ago, so anything that was determined from that will be coming to a Fastrack near you shortly... It's the same time-line we've been telling you about since you've started bitching...

Go wax your car or something... surely there is SOMETHING that needs to be done to it before next season besides whatever you might think it coming in the next Fastrack... :rolleyes:

68840


Darin,
Ease up man, I was just joking.... and as for Steve, well his car seems ready if it wasnt for those evil e36's down here in the south east :happy204:

[seckerich]

Originally posted by Fastfred92@Dec 21 2005, 09:50 AM
Darin,
Ease up man, I was just joking.... and as for Steve, well his car seems ready if it wasnt for those evil e36's down here in the south east :happy204:

68848

I usually wax it between sessions--so yes, it is ready. It just gets old after the last 2 years of being told quote "we are aware of the problems and they will be addressed" to still be waiting on something other than lip service. Yet we have time to make sure that every 40-50 year old midget wont have to race without a limited prep motor. :119: :119: Starting to get the picture?? I appreciate the work of the IT board but expect results from the comp board in a little more timely manner. I have paid my dues in this club and feel I have worked plenty to have grounds to complain. So please Darin--take your own advice. Or if bored you can help me wax while we wait!!!

[dj10]

Darin,
Anything ever happen with the weight placement? If I remember right you were going to suggest the weight placement be allowed where the passanger seat was along with the foot well area?
dj

[tderonne]

Man Steve, you haven't been around too long have you?

The IT advisory commitee has been working at lightning speed in SCCA terms. It's been a major project, and some details have taken some time to be sure, but overall it's happened quite quick. Remember when there were no competition adjustments of any kind in IT? As for the CRB. It's a fresh crew for 2006, two new faces and a new chair. If you have a burning concern, zap them a note, I know I am.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by seckerich@Dec 21 2005, 12:33 PM
I usually wax it between sessions--so yes, it is ready. It just gets old after the last 2 years of being told quote "we are aware of the problems and they will be addressed" to still be waiting on something other than lip service. Yet we have time to make sure that every 40-50 year old midget wont have to race without a limited prep motor. :119: :119: Starting to get the picture?? I appreciate the work of the IT board but expect results from the comp board in a little more timely manner. I have paid my dues in this club and feel I have worked plenty to have grounds to complain. So please Darin--take your own advice. Or if bored you can help me wax while we wait!!!

68863


Steve,

Any issues you are specifically looking for closure on?

[Fastfred92]

Actually, the more I think about ( I know scary ) if the board would just make public the magical formula used to class cars and the way they intend to determine what causes a comp adjustment ( results, bitching etc. ) and how a comp adjustment is applied we would resolve 90% of questions on this forum. Being a member driven club I still dont know why this stuff is so secret and why the board seems to think we cant handle it. We would find other things to complain about but hey it is a start.

[seckerich]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 21 2005, 02:40 PM
Steve,

Any issues you are specifically looking for closure on?

68876


I am helping some new people to get into racing and helping with a new Mazda for ITS. I was hoping that the weight issues (location and amount) would be final and we could get them ready for school. I know this is no problem to send them as is but I want to make decisions as to if I plan to run ITS myself this year. I spent a ton of money last year with a knife at a gunfight and have no plans to continue. I would think at this point we would know if "the plan" was accepted or not, even if details are to follow.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Fastfred92@Dec 21 2005, 02:49 PM
Actually, the more I think about ( I know scary ) if the board would just make public the magical formula used to class cars and the way they intend to determine what causes a comp adjustment ( results, bitching etc. ) and how a comp adjustment is applied we would resolve 90% of questions on this forum. Being a member driven club I still dont know why this stuff is so secret and why the board seems to think we cant handle it. We would find other things to complain about but hey it is a start.

68878


Fred,

There are many forums here where we have described the process. One more time, for you.

Stock hp * estimated increase in IT prep = Crank HP in IT prep.

Crank IT-prep hp * target pw/weight for class +/- variables.

The variables we call 'adders'. A subjective addition/subtraction of weight based on many potential factors including: brake size, aero, drivetrain layout, tranny ratios, suspension design, etc.

The reason we don't want to publish the pw/ratios for each class is simple. Everyone would start running their cars through the process without all the info we have and the letters would start coming in like gangbusters. You used "X" for HP and I have "Y". I get "X" for a weight and you tell me "Y".

You can extrapolate the general numbers by looking at what has currently been classified ie: NX2000, SE-R etc. Again, there is no 'formula', just a process that I could explain on any car we have worked on. In addition, all the cars in the GCR that have NOT been put through could stick out as overdogs or underdogs...that is what our proposal to the CRB hopes to correct.

There are no 'comp adjustments' in IT. We put PCA's into the rules to be able to correct an error in classification but in no way are we going to make small adjustments to try and balance each class on the head of a pin. The request before the CRB is a one-time "re-alignment" or "correction" in order to run the cars we have on track now through the process in an effort to eliminate class overdogs and underdogs. Not individual car specific, but a category-wide process.

And I disagree completely that it would eliminate 90% of the discussions. Ever since we have laid this out, as best we can, the classification topics have all but been eliminated - now it's Rules Nerd city. That is a good thing IMHO.

AB

[Banzai240]

What Andy Said!

:023:

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by seckerich@Dec 21 2005, 06:33 PM
It just gets old after the last 2 years of being told quote "we are aware of the problems and they will be addressed" to still be waiting on something other than lip service.
68863


Apparently all the reclassifications, PCA implementation, and other rule changes/adjustements we've put through over the past two years have just been "lip service"...

Sorry you feel that way...

Classic case of "what have you done for me lately..."... :rolleyes:

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by seckerich@Dec 21 2005, 04:04 PM
I am helping some new people to get into racing and helping with a new Mazda for ITS. I was hoping that the weight issues (location and amount) would be final and we could get them ready for school. I know this is no problem to send them as is but I want to make decisions as to if I plan to run ITS myself this year. I spent a ton of money last year with a knife at a gunfight and have no plans to continue. I would think at this point we would know if "the plan" was accepted or not, even if details are to follow.

68882


Steve,

We have not received anything back from the CRB on our proposal. It is not that they are moving slowly, just that they got it late as we kept tweaking and trying to do our best. I am sorry that it is putting a speedbump in your plans but I am confident we will hear something soon.

As far as weight, I don't know anything that is open. I will look into that for you. This is the 2006 GCR print.

"Ballast may be used. All ballast shall be located in the
front passenger footwell area, aft of the firewall and any
footwell angle, and forward of the OEM front passenger seat
location.
1. It shall be in segments no heavier than fifty (50) pounds,
and shall be capable of being removed to be weighed
apart from the car.
2. Each segment shall be fastened with a minimum of two
(2) one-half (1/2) inch bolts and positive lock nuts of
SAE Grade 5 or better, and shall utilize large-diameter,
load-distributing washers.
3. Holes may be drilled in the front passenger footwell
floorpan for purposes of mounting the ballast (only), and
said floorpan may be reinforced as required for the same
purpose."

[seckerich]

Thanks Andy, at least no answer is better than no. I am well aware of the current rule for ballast, but was under the impression that it was going to be allowed in the passenger seat area in the future.

Darin--The overdog is still there--PCA or not. The restrictor was a bad joke.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by seckerich@Dec 21 2005, 04:20 PM
Thanks Andy, at least no answer is better than no. I am well aware of the current rule for ballast, but was under the impression that it was going to be allowed in the passenger seat area in the future.

Darin--The overdog is still there--PCA or not. The restrictor was a bad joke.

68887


Darin and I are looking into any further ballast items on the block. Not sure there are any.

As to the RP, it wasn't a bad joke, it was a well meaning solution to a problem by the CRB that didn't turn out to work well. That issue is also on teh CRB's plate.

AB

[JeffYoung]

Guys, not to be a pest, but with the CRB timing on acting on the ITAC proposal soon is that this year, or for the start of next? No guarantees I know, but also trying to think through some things for a friend of mine who is trying to decide between S and A. Right now, A looks better. If the BMW problem is solved, S is a lot of fun.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Dec 21 2005, 04:58 PM
Guys, not to be a pest, but with the CRB timing on acting on the ITAC proposal soon is that this year, or for the start of next? No guarantees I know, but also trying to think through some things for a friend of mine who is trying to decide between S and A. Right now, A looks better. If the BMW problem is solved, S is a lot of fun.

68891


I hope that any changes would be for the 2006 season via Fast Track but it could very well be a 2007 implementation.

I think ITA is as good of a class as it gets...hence our entry in 2006! Having all the MSN Integra's, the BBR 240's and Greg's ultra-fast NX2000 up here will be a real nice yard stick.

AB

[Fastfred92]

What exactly does the "P" in PCA's stand for ? I thought positive??

[mlytle]

Originally posted by seckerich@Dec 21 2005, 10:20 PM
Thanks Andy, at least no answer is better than no. I am well aware of the current rule for ballast, but was under the impression that it was going to be allowed in the passenger seat area in the future.

Darin--The overdog is still there--PCA or not. The restrictor was a bad joke.

68887



bad news steve. if there is an overdog, then there are two of them and you are driving one. did you see the arrc its race? sure didn't look to me like the rx7 was handicapped in any way compared to the perceived "overdog"...

oh wait, the bmw did qualify 4(four) hundredths of a second quicker and was lapping most of the race about 2 inches in front of the second place rx7. yikes...the horror. :blink:

[mlytle]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Dec 21 2005, 08:42 AM
FREAKING GROW UP guys! Read the dates on the "February" Fastrack sections... There is at least a 1-2 month flow time from the time decisions are made to the time they are printed... The DECEMBER BoD/CRB meetings have JUST concluded about a week ago, so anything that was determined from that will be coming to a Fastrack near you shortly... It's the same time-line we've been telling you about since you've started bitching...

Go wax your car or something... surely there is SOMETHING that needs to be done to it before next season besides whatever you might think it coming in the next Fastrack... :rolleyes:

68840


just a thought, but all major changes to car classifications should be advertised to the members BEFORE 01jan of the year they go in effect. jan is when the racing season starts in some places. people build cars over the winter. people make "where to race" decisions over the winter. people modify cars over the winter. information which affects any of these activities in any significant way should be available and effective by the first of the year. even earlier would be better for those racers lucky enough to be running in the sunny south. set deadlines to enforce this. if the deadlines aren't met, too bad, so sad, the changes wait until the next year.

[p.keane]

Seckerrich, I have read this thread three times and still do not understand the reason for the sarcastic post. The current ITAC has cleaned up twenty years of inconsistancy and your biggest concern is where to place the ballast weight? I relize it is easy to sit back and pick an issue that is clear to you and say that the SCCA is not reacting. Most of the racing community thinks that this ITAC has been revolutionary, but it shows that you can't make everyone happy.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by mlytle@Dec 21 2005, 09:13 PM
just a thought, but all major changes to car classifications should be advertised to the members BEFORE 01jan of the year they go in effect. jan is when the racing season starts in some places. people build cars over the winter. people make "where to race" decisions over the winter. people modify cars over the winter. information which affects any of these activities in any significant way should be available and effective by the first of the year. even earlier would be better for those racers lucky enough to be running in the sunny south. set deadlines to enforce this. if the deadlines aren't met, too bad, so sad, the changes wait until the next year.

68920


Marshall,

I hear you loud and clear. Any place that can run 12 months of the year (those who can run on Jan 1 of any given year), have no time to digest a rule change should it come in December. I guess that is one of the few benefits of only being able run April to October here in the Northeast (plus paying off your credit cards!).

It's a fundamental ideal we have to deal with and I hope we can be better at it in the future...the BoD and CRB meetings are scheduled so as to try and be 'on-time' for the following years rules. We just did a rule for Spec Miata that didn't make it for 2006...will have to wait.

This proposal is a class-wide "correction" and could hit anytime as it isn't a rule change but a classification issue. We have received many letters asking us to push this thing through becasue it is in the best interest of all of IT and good-will amongst most is at an all-time high.


AB

[seckerich]

Originally posted by p.keane@Dec 21 2005, 09:20 PM
Seckerrich, I have read this thread three times and still do not understand the reason for the sarcastic post. The current ITAC has cleaned up twenty years of inconsistancy and your biggest concern is where to place the ballast weight? I relize it is easy to sit back and pick an issue that is clear to you and say that the SCCA is not reacting. Most of the racing community thinks that this ITAC has been revolutionary, but it shows that you can't make everyone happy.

68921

It is not about ballast or directed at the IT board. I am all for the work they are doing and if my car gets weight to even the field--so be it. My gripe is with the speed at which IT changes are handled as opposed to the instant changes other classes get through. I don't know you, and don't believe you know me, but this is not my first rodeo. If change is slow and correct--glad to wait. I just don't want to waste another year when it can get fixed now. New faces coming to the comp board so I will look for results before I form an opinion.

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by Fastfred92@Dec 21 2005, 10:29 PM
What exactly does the "P" in PCA's stand for ? I thought positive??

68916


P= post

Post-classification adjustment (if I remember correctly). Nice acronym for, "Oops, we calculated wrong. Here's the real answer..."

[seckerich]

Originally posted by mlytle@Dec 21 2005, 08:53 PM
bad news steve. if there is an overdog, then there are two of them and you are driving one. did you see the arrc its race? sure didn't look to me like the rx7 was handicapped in any way compared to the perceived "overdog"...

oh wait, the bmw did qualify 4(four) hundredths of a second quicker and was lapping most of the race about 2 inches in front of the second place rx7. yikes...the horror. :blink:

68918

I guess we can agree to disagree as to the equality of our chosen rides--I won't start another 10 page thread about it. Come by at the next race and I'll buy you a beer and we can argue some more. Good luck with your season. B)

[erlrich]

Originally posted by Fastfred92@Dec 21 2005, 10:29 PM
What exactly does the "P" in PCA's stand for ? I thought positive??

68916


Not sure if this was a serious question, but just in case - the "P" stands for performance. PCA = Performance Compensation Adjustment.

[JLawton]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 21 2005, 06:36 PM

I think ITA is as good of a class as it gets...hence our entry in 2006! AB

68896



Hello!!! Do you think he's trying to tell us something!!!!

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by JLawton@Dec 22 2005, 06:41 AM
Hello!!! Do you think he's trying to tell us something!!!!

68946


Ya, I coulda saved a crap-load of money and bought that Saturn!

AB

[p.keane]

I beleive that the sucess of IT over the years and it being a regoinal only class, IT has not recieved the national attention it deserved in the past. That is not true anymore, the CRB and BOD have been very supportive of the current ITAC. We do have time limits to get recomendations to the CRB and as Andy has said above, we were still double checking our recomendation past the time limit. I know all of the ITAC hope are recomendations are approved for the 2006 season.

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 21 2005, 07:36 PM
I hope that any changes would be for the 2006 season via Fast Track but it could very well be a 2007 implementation.

68896


Holy smokes Batman. I'm not critizing, but as a newbie people told me the SCCA moved slow. But to have suggestions made at the end of 2005 appear in 2007, that is definitely a lag time. I suppose if the ITU® proposal goes in Jan of 2006 it'll be 2008 or beyond before that gets considered or implimented? Glad I following this thread so that I could get an idea of how fast things on the FastTrack really were. Still thing the ITAC is doing a good job, sounds like the powers above that need a little focus. I'll hope that the holiday spirit will move them to action!

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 22 2005, 08:51 AM
Holy smokes Batman. I'm not critizing, but as a newbie people told me the SCCA moved slow. But to have suggestions made at the end of 2005 appear in 2007, that is definitely a lag time. I suppose if the ITU® proposal goes in Jan of 2006 it'll be 2008 or beyond before that gets considered or implimented? Glad I following this thread so that I could get an idea of how fast things on the FastTrack really were. Still thing the ITAC is doing a good job, sounds like the powers above that need a little focus.

R

68956


Not so Ron. The BoD only meets a certain amount of times per year on this type of stuff. They bust their collective butts to make decisions on each agenda item. The last meeting of the 2005 calendar year has to be early enough to get things into the 2006 GCR...if it doesn't make it, it may just have to wait until the following year...depending on what type of change it is. Rule chages I believe would fall under this but safety and classification changes can be addressed in Fast Track at any time IIRC.

As far as ITR, if we have all of our duck in a row for the fall meetings, it could go before the BoD and be voted on for 2007. If we (the ITAC) don't get it to them in time, it may have to wait.

The CRB and BoD have been very responsive over my tenure on the ITAC, as well as challenging us to take on more responsibility. So far, I think it is working very well. This big ship is turning now. Noobs may think it's too slow, but I can tell you there are some more 'tenured' members who think we are spinning out of control...........

AB

[1stGenBoy]

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 22 2005, 02:51 PM
Holy smokes Batman. I'm not critizing, but as a newbie people told me the SCCA moved slow. But to have suggestions made at the end of 2005 appear in 2007, that is definitely a lag time. I suppose if the ITU® proposal goes in Jan of 2006 it'll be 2008 or beyond before that gets considered or implimented? Glad I following this thread so that I could get an idea of how fast things on the FastTrack really were. Still thing the ITAC is doing a good job, sounds like the powers above that need a little focus. I'll hope that the holiday spirit will move them to action!

R

68956


You have to remember that the BOD votes on any rule/car classifications for the following year at the Aug BOD meetings. That means the CRB has to approve them before hand say June or July depending on the their meeting schedule, The IT Advisorary Committee would then have to have any changes they want to make to the CRB by May so the CRB has time to review them.
Someone writes a letter in April wanting a major change on their car, The It committee would put it on the Agenda to discuss at their next monthly conference call which would be in May. You can see where this is going right? :023:
If it is a major OOPs on a spec line or an obvious error it can be fixed in Fastrack with an errors or omissions rule change. If it requires more research by the committee or the letter writer it would be tabled until that info is recieved and when it is recieved it would be put on the agenda for the next scheduled conference call. This could take a couple of months by the time the needed info gets back to us and be scheduled for our next conference call.
Now in between we do work on other things like PCA's which took a year an half to get ironed out, The future of IT, read and discuss EACH and EVERY letter written in to SCCA( between 10-25 letters a month) about IT and formulate a response to that letter ( the popular "thank You for your Input" there really is more to it than that. No room in fastrack for more detailed response ),etc.
Each monthly conference call lasts between 3-5 hours (sometimes longer) so we try to make sure every letter is discussed thoughly. In addittion we discuss among ourselves by e-mail any other comments or issues that pop up so we can on our conference calls make good decisisons and stay on task.
There are also two BOD liasions that join us on our calls and a member of the SCCA tech staff is also present.
We do our best to quickly answer the letters we recieve. You can see the time frame involved here.
If you are interested in helping IT and would like to be considered for the next opening on the IT Advisorary Committee send a resume to the CRB.
Hope this helps!!

Bob Clark

[Bill Miller]

Hey Bob, not to hijack this thread, but does this

You have to remember that the BOD votes on any rule/car classifications for the following year at the Aug BOD meetings. That means the CRB has to approve them before hand say June or July depending on the their meeting schedule,
mean that the full-prep Spridgets w/ l-p 1275 motors, in HP, was already a done deal at the end of this past summer????

[1stGenBoy]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Dec 22 2005, 03:58 PM
Hey Bob, not to hijack this thread, but does this

mean that the full-prep Spridgets w/ l-p 1275 motors, in HP, was already a done deal at the end of this past summer????

68968

Bill,
I have no idea. We only see the IT stuff. Sorry.

Bob

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 22 2005, 11:10 AM

The CRB and BoD have been very responsive over my tenure on the ITAC, as well as challenging us to take on more responsibility. So far, I think it is working very well. This big ship is turning now. Noobs may think it's too slow, but I can tell you there are some more 'tenured' members who think we are spinning out of control...........

AB

68960


As you can tell, I don't understand the process, just commenting on results. Yo uare 100% correct - I can tell from comments here and there that there are those that think the ship has broken free and is out of control though. But, all organizations must change over time to stay alive and meet the needs of the users.

Ron

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Dec 22 2005, 03:58 PM
Hey Bob, not to hijack this thread, but does this

mean that the full-prep Spridgets w/ l-p 1275 motors, in HP, was already a done deal at the end of this past summer????

68968


Guys,

There are matters that the CRB is able to decide on/implement on their own, without BoD approval, and then there are other MAJOR rule changes or adjustments that require BoD approval... The F'd up Spridget LP 1275 BS is likely something that didn't require BoD approval, or maybe they did it at the August meeting... Not really sure, and I don't really care... (talk about taking a good idea in Limited Prep and just destroying it! Now its' being used it to create models... :rolleyes: )

Also, the Bod and CRB meet together twice... Once in August, and a follow-up meeting in December. The ITAC proposal wasn't ready for August, so it made it to the December meeting...

I still think it will be approved for the 2006 season... The adjustments aren't revolutionary or otherwise major in nature, just long overdue and necessary for us to move ahead... It's just a bunch of weight adjustments and a few reclassifications, so I hope you aren't expecting some completely new IT to be created... Just a bulk application of what has already been happening...

Some of the other items (ballast location, etc.) are being taken care of under normal processing, and will present themselves shortly...

Again, as I've told you before, what gets released in Fastrack is usually at least a month, sometimes more, after it's already been discussed and decided on...

Merry Christmas to all! (If that offends you, DEAL with it! Last time I checked, it wasn't a RIGHT to NOT be offended! :P )

Hopefully Santa doesn't leave Lead in your stocking! :blink: :D

[Bill Miller]

Darin,

The CRB has the authority to classify new cars/configurations w/o the appoval of the BoD?

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Dec 22 2005, 07:14 PM
Darin,

The CRB has the authority to classify new cars/configurations w/o the appoval of the BoD?

69002


I'm not completely clear on exactly which changes the CRB does and does not have the authority to do autonymously...

If I remember correctly, they can classify cars and reclassify cars without BoD approval. Keep in mind, however, that the idea of reclassifying cars in IT WITH weight adjustments is new, so that is why it needed BoD approval last year...

You newbies here who are bitching about how long things take apparently have NO idea what battles the current ITAC has had to face to get the tools in place to do what we are doing today... Two years ago you wouldn't even have SEEN an IT car getting reclassified with a weight adjustment, if at all...

Maybe when Peter gets acclimated to his new position, he can give us a rundown on how these processes work...

Minor rule changes or spec line adjustements don't need to go before the BoD in most cases, but again, if it's a major change, then it might...

Fuzzy enough for you?? :blink:

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Dec 22 2005, 03:23 PM
I'm not completely clear on exactly which changes the CRB does and does not have the authority to do autonymously...

If I remember correctly, they can classify cars and reclassify cars without BoD approval. Keep in mind, however, that the idea of reclassifying cars in IT WITH weight adjustments is new, so that is why it needed BoD approval last year...

You newbies here who are bitching about how long things take apparently have NO idea what battles the current ITAC has had to face to get the tools in place to do what we are doing today... Two years ago you wouldn't even have SEEN an IT car getting reclassified with a weight adjustment, if at all...

Maybe when Peter gets acclimated to his new position, he can give us a rundown on how these processes work...

Minor rule changes or spec line adjustements don't need to go before the BoD in most cases, but again, if it's a major change, then it might...

Fuzzy enough for you?? :blink:

69004


That's just it Darin, even prior to PCAs, reclassification w/ a change in weight, was allowed for in the ITCS. Just because it was there, doesn't mean that people read it or understood it.

Merry Christmas!

[Andy Bettencourt]

I know Bill has a question behind that question....I don't think we have that answer.

The process is fairly transparent to us (ITAC) as everything has to go to the CRB for approval. If it needs to go beyond them, so be it - but that doesn't effect the outcome other than add another layer of 'management'. I will learn about the official proceedures and report back.

AB

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Dec 22 2005, 07:27 PM
That's just it Darin, even prior to PCAs, reclassification w/ a change in weight, was allowed for in the ITCS.
69005


Yup, I obviously agree... and I know that YOU know how hard we had to work to get people to accept that is WAS already allowed... Having PCAs implemented didn't hurt in that process either...

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Dec 22 2005, 02:23 PM
I'm not completely clear on exactly which changes the CRB does and does not have the authority to do autonymously...

If I remember correctly, they can classify cars and reclassify cars without BoD approval. Keep in mind, however, that the idea of reclassifying cars in IT WITH weight adjustments is new, so that is why it needed BoD approval last year...

[snip]

Minor rule changes or spec line adjustements don't need to go before the BoD in most cases, but again, if it's a major change, then it might...

Fuzzy enough for you?? :blink:

69004


Substitute "ITAC" in place of "CRB" and "CRB" in place of "BOD" in the above sentence and things look much more logical. Do we really need 3 committees to approve changes even when they are major? Or 2 committees to approve a car classification? I agree oversight is needed when implementing major changes (PCA's, class realignment) but if we can't trust the ITAC to make the right decisions on alternate pulleys or classing a new car than find people we can trust. Of course it should go without saying I think the current ITAC is well suited to the job, but I'll say it anyway. Give them the authority they have earned and enable them speed up the process, when needed.

Then apply this model to all the groups and let the BOD and CRB use their new found free time to work on longer range issues like a class place for old touring cars (CRB) or a system to provide data on how many CRX's, Rabbits or whateber car are being raced and in which classes (BOD). Just a thought.

I'm not trying to bitch about the speed of changes because I know it has improved. But the current process limits how much faster things can go, so here's a possible way to move to the next level.

[Fastfred92]

Originally posted by Banzai240+Dec 22 2005, 06:35 PM-->

Merry Christmas to all! (If that offends you, DEAL with it! Last time I checked, it wasn't a RIGHT to NOT be offended! :P )

68997
[/b]

Darin, although we dont always agree you are right on this one!!!!!

<!--QuoteBegin-Banzai240@Dec 22 2005, 06:35 PM
Hopefully Santa doesn&#39;t leave Lead in your stocking! :blink: :D

68997


But if you are a BMW driver, lead is exactly what the board will be giving you :(

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Fastfred92@Dec 22 2005, 02:54 PM
Darin, although we dont always agree you are right on this one!!!!!
But if you are a BMW driver, lead is exactly what the board will be giving you :(

69015


Why the sad face Fred? I don&#39;t see in your signature that you even drive an IT car, nevermind a BMW. Even if you did, have we not explained time and time again that all we want to do is put everyone on the same playing field?

*IF* the BMW gains weight, it should lose it&#39;s restrictor. *IF* the BMW stays at 2850, it should get an SIR (actual RP that restricts all cars, not just the honest people)

Honestly, it is getting old.

Bah, humbug! :lol:

[mlytle]

Originally posted by seckerich@Dec 22 2005, 05:27 AM
I guess we can agree to disagree as to the equality of our chosen rides--I won&#39;t start another 10 page thread about it. Come by at the next race and I&#39;ll buy you a beer and we can argue some more. Good luck with your season. B)

68936


yo steve, i am just jealous &#39;cause you kicked my butt at vir last year! but our matching cars did look good next to each other in impound...:)

hmmmm....beer! :023:

[mlytle]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 22 2005, 04:00 AM
Marshall,

I hear you loud and clear. Any place that can run 12 months of the year (those who can run on Jan 1 of any given year), have no time to digest a rule change should it come in December. I guess that is one of the few benefits of only being able run April to October here in the Northeast (plus paying off your credit cards!).

AB

68925


wow, paying off the racing credit card over the winter is a novel concept andy! each year i hope to do that, but somehow big car maint items and restocking the comsumables just seems to hold that balance high! :bash_1_:

thanks for the reply.

marshall

[Fastfred92]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 22 2005, 09:25 PM
Why the sad face Fred? I don&#39;t see in your signature that you even drive an IT car, nevermind a BMW. Even if you did, have we not explained time and time again that all we want to do is put everyone on the same playing field?

*IF* the BMW gains weight, it should lose it&#39;s restrictor. *IF* the BMW stays at 2850, it should get an SIR (actual RP that restricts all cars, not just the honest people)

Honestly, it is getting old.

Bah, humbug! :lol:

69019


Just a sad face for the BMW drivers ( being a former one myself ) thats all...
also former 944 driver, Golf III when it was ITA, GTI, and even 914, all former IT rides.... currently considering a plunge back in.. Most likely ITA in a XXXXXXX.

Merry Christmas

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 22 2005, 03:33 PM
I know Bill has a question behind that question....I don&#39;t think we have that answer.

The process is fairly transparent to us (ITAC) as everything has to go to the CRB for approval. If it needs to go beyond them, so be it - but that doesn&#39;t effect the outcome other than add another layer of &#39;management&#39;. I will learn about the official proceedures and report back.

AB

69006



Yep Andy, you got me! :D

And of course I&#39;ve got a question behind that question. :happy204:

I&#39;m just trying to figure out why some things seem to sail right through, and others seem to take forever.

[dickita15]

My understanding is that when looking at this proposal from the ITAC the RRB had to decide if they were going to approve the plan and also they needed to decide if this required BOD approval or not.
If I understand the RRB may be able to make the changes as a correction or if uncomfortable with that they could elect to send it to The BOD.
In November they had not made that decision yet.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Fastfred92@Dec 22 2005, 08:54 PM
But if you are a BMW driver, lead is exactly what the board will be giving you :(

69015



Not necessarily...

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by mlytle@Dec 22 2005, 03:33 PM
wow, paying off the racing credit card over the winter is a novel concept andy!
69021

No, no, no, no, NO, NO. NO!!! DON&#39;T DO THAT!!! I heard rumors that if you don&#39;t carry a balance "THEY" (that group of people in Switzerland that make all the important world decisions) TAKE THE CARD WAY FROM YOU!!! It happened to a friend of my brother-in-law&#39;s sister&#39;s buddy&#39;s third cousin!

If they did that to me, I&#39;d be so screwed...I&#39;d have to, like, PAY for things and stuff...

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Dec 22 2005, 07:02 PM
It happened to a friend of my brother-in-law&#39;s sister&#39;s buddy&#39;s third cousin!


69047


haha.....A few states further south and that could be your aunt or yer wife.....or both B)

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 22 2005, 10:21 PM
haha.....A few states further south ...

Oooh! Fred! Defend your honor! I would but I&#39;m "not from around here." :D

K

[Geo]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 22 2005, 08:53 PM
Oooh! Fred! Defend your honor! I would but I&#39;m "not from around here." :D

K

69053


So yer sayin&#39; yer not family? ;)

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 22 2005, 08:53 PM
Oooh! Fred! Defend your honor! I would but I&#39;m "not from around here." :D

K

69053



LOL (dueling banjo&#39;s in the back ground)

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 22 2005, 09:53 PM
...but I&#39;m "not from around here."
69053

...as all the women circle him, looking for fresh DNA to add to the pool...

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Dec 23 2005, 08:05 AM
...as all the women circle him, looking for fresh DNA to add to the pool...

69080


Look Pa , eeez still got all his teeth..... :o

[Fastfred92]

I am half yankee myself, not sure what to do.......