SEDiv IT7 and regional SM tire questions

[Toni]

Hi,

Several days ago I took a new assignment as DA of tech for SEDiv. That includes being chiar of the regional car class rules. At the mid year meeting at the end of July I must make a proposal to the SEDiv REs on regional car class rules for the 2007 season. You are the racers and should have a voice in the rules.

So I'm asking questions

The regional car class rules cover all regional races, SARRC, ECR, Pro IT, plain regionals, any and all regional races in SEDiv (unless the supps of an even say other wise). The current rules are posted on www.sedivracing.org

IT7 and ITA cars eligible to run as IT7, your question is

Do you want an open tire rule? Do you want a spec tire?

SM regional cars

Do you want an open tire rule? Do you want to use the same tire used for SM for national races?

Send you response to me

[email protected]

Thanks for your input.

Toni Creighton

[crushed]

email sent, Thanks!

[it7rx739]

E-mail sent,tanks TONI !!!!!

ops!! THANKS!!!!!!!!

[tom_sprecher]

I have been spending way too much time on silly things like making a living and keeping my house from falling apart and not enough time staying up to date on the important stuff like this issue, the future of Road Atlanta and building my new IT7 from what's left of the wreckage.

Email sent. Thanks Toni, for taking this on.

[Hotshoe]

Hi Toni,

.... Thank you for the interest.



... Rick Thompson #99 ITA #98 SM

[instigator]

thanks Toni,
I put my round of wedge in.


Kurt Jackson
IT7 #59 & ITA #00

[Toni]

Bump

Replys may be submitted until July 6. After that I will send the tabulation to the committee (the Committee is the Chiefs of Tech for the regions listed in the rules for the Website) for opinion. The REs will approve or disapprove the proposal at the mid year meeting on July 29.

Please put a reply either in the text or the subject box. An empty email doesn't really say much.

Toni Creighton

[racerpepe]

dear Toni i have spoken to over 10 it-7 drivers that are unaware of this vote and have as yet to recieve their ballot. i have not recieved my ballot yet either. thanks

[Toni]

Last Call for your opinion. Replies must be received by me before July 6 at [email protected]

I certainly respect the need for driver input into the rules making process. That is why I have requested input on the spec tire issue. I placed the request on the public forum so that there would be no question as to who had access to giving an opinion. It is open for all to respond.

The process is that the advisory board for the class makes a recommendation. The recommendation is presented to the Class Review Board (the chiefs of tech for the racing regions) and then their opinion is presented to the REs for approval or disapproval at the midyear meeting on July 29.

I very recently (not much more than 2 weeks ago) became the DA for tech upon the resignation of the previous DA. One of the duties of the DA is to chair the class review board and make the proposal to the REs at their mid year meeting. All replies will be counted and sent to the advisory board. Their recommendation will be presented to the Class Review Board and ultimately to the REs. Documentation will be retained.

The chairman for this year’s IT7 Advisory Board is Sam Henderson. Other Advisory Board members are Stan Hines, Lee Graser, Joe Varble, and Alex Jackson.

If you are concerned as to who expresses an opinion, call those you race with and spread the word. Talk to those on the committee. If you are in a region that races, talk to the chief of tech. They make the final proposal. Talk to your RE. They have the final vote and will make a decision even without any racer input. I’m collecting opinions to give to the Advisory Board, to the Class Review Board, and then to the REs.

This isn't a formal vote any more than the last one was. Not everyone will be reached this time. Not everyone was reached last year. This is an opportunity to express your opinion, nothing more. I will pass the opinions along as I am doing for all the other regional classes.

One way or the other the rules for IT7 and the other regional classes will not be changed just before the championship race this year. The rules will either stand as it is or will be changed for the 2007 season.

Do you want a spec tire rule for IT7 for the 2007 season?
Do you want an open tire rule for IT7 for the 2007 season?

Simple questions. You may discuss this here and privately as much as you want. The tally of opinions will be taken from those sent directly to me.

[email protected]

Toni Creighton
SEDiv DA Tech

[sgallimo]

Toni, I have a couple of points regarding the spec tire for IT-7. Regardless of a given IT-7 driver's like, or dislike, of the current IT-7 spec tire, he or she has to acknowledge the clear fact that the actual IT-7 driving community elected to go with the spec tire. I absolutely respect, and appreciate, your support of the notion that the drivers should have a voice in the rules that affect their regional class. I don't know what you meant by "a formal vote" so I don't know how the phrase applies to the previous spec tire vote. But I do know that that vote was a real vote by the, then active, IT-7 drivers and passed by a 5 to 1 margin. The framers of the IT-7 spec tire rule were given specific instructions to set up a vote by the drivers. They did so and received ballots by a vast majority of the active drivers. Those ballots showed an overwhelming desire to have a spec tire. I can't imagine of a more clear and succinct example of racers having a voice in the rules.

Just like the previous poster, I have yet to talk to another IT-7 driver that was aware of your request for opinions (although I didn't contact Ricky because I'd seen his post). So there will be a very large question as to who had access to giving an opinion. While I agree that the question is open for all to respond, I have a problem with the very minimal exposure (on the part of the complete community) the question will receive. Simply put I don't see how a simple posting on a public forum, not officially associated with the SCCA or SEDIV, can even remotely be considered to revoke, revise, or reaffirm an actual written vote performed by all of the IT-7 drivers. While I find the Improved Touring website to be an invaluable tool, I have to point out that it serves in no official capacity nor are we in a position to gauge its coverage. I've been trying to get the word out to as many of the affected drivers that I can but that fails miserably in comparison to a direct mailing (as was done before).

I did talk to my fellow Board of Directors members, to my RE, and to my region's Chief of Tech. Now my RE is armed with one person's opinion. While informative, one person's opinion simply can't be compared to the force of a conclusion reached by over 3/4ths of the affected drivers.

As for me, do I support a spec tire for IT-7? Yes. Why? Because the drivers were asked to vote and they voted to have one.

The CRB required a complete vote by the drivers in order to add a spec tire rule to the class rules and, baring a safety issue, they should require the same complete vote to change that rule.

Scott Gallimore
worker, nat comp license, IT-7 driver,
North Carolina Region Board of Directors, Member at Large

[steve s]

as stated to toni .i personally think that some of the members of the review board????? is trying to railroad a vote to implement the open tire rule.iguess they 're not as competetive as they thought they would be in ITA.
the spec tire brought out a lot of new cars in florida and some of them are actually winning because of the spec tire.i also voted for the spec tire.
i also spoke to some of the drivers in it-7 and they were not aware of any tire rule change or vote to change it.
i guess this is how SCCA runs it's business. the minority with power will force their way on the majority. :bash_1_:

[tom_sprecher]

i guess this is how SCCA runs it's business. the minority with power will force their way on the majority.[/b]

If you think about that is how the world runs its business! I don’t know about the rest of you guys but I've learned you can't beat it. The best you can do it to make it work for you.

But, if you want pure democracy then be prepared for constant change based on current popular opinion. With that in mind there should not be a problem with reviewing the rule after a year of everyone running under it and having another vote. If it was a good idea then it will stand on its own merit. If not, and drivers do not like the results, it should be changed. Majority rules and chaos ensues.

I don't understand a need for a spec tire rule. Anybody who gets into racing thinking they can do it cheap is a fool and should consider another sport. If the price of one or two extra sets of tires a year is going to break your budget than you should consider other options.

Speaking of other options, who chose Toyo as the spec tire? They do not offer any contingencies that I am aware of. Free tires would seem like a good way to save money. Was there a vote on which tire?

It appears to me the logic used by the promoters of the IT7 spec tire rule is in line with what many others have done in our society over the past couple of decades. If there is a group who can not keep up then we all pay the price. For example…

Can’t compete – pass spec tire rule
Can’t make the grade - dumb down the curriculum
Can’t pay their own way – create welfare state
Can’t take care of themselves – take 15% payroll taxes from those who have to
Can’t drink responsibly – tougher DUI laws
Can’t keep from killing others – outlaw firearms for everyone
Can’t live off low pay – get a big union
Can’t pay for health care – raise premiums for those who do
Can’t do it – get the government to force those who can to do it.

It’s freaking BS. OK, rant over. We now continue with your regularly scheduled program.

[gprodracer]

Tom,

What a completely politically incorrect, while completely intelligent and completely correct post!

As for the spec tire deal, I don't know the history on how it came about, but I would presume that it was an attempt to keep the class costs down. Of course, look what cost containment has done for Spec Miata. :o
Look out if there is a push for IT7 to go National. We have seen the enemy, and he is us!! Just be glad you get a vote on the topic, not just handed down rules from a group in Topeka.. I like to think that everyone has good intentions for the club, we just need to vote in (or out) those that we feel don't have our best interests in mind when making those decisions for us. (Just for the record, this post is not directed at anyone... just rambling off my opinion)
Good Luck on the re-build...if this was easy, everyone would be doing it!

Mark P. Larson
CFR #164010

[lateapex911]

Speaking of other options, who chose Toyo as the spec tire? They do not offer any contingencies that I am aware of. Free tires would seem like a good way to save money.
[/b]

Contingencies pay to the few, while a spec tire that has a controlled price, and a longer life, benefits all.



It appears to me the logic used by the promoters of the IT7 spec tire rule is in line with what many others have done in our society over the past couple of decades. If there is a group who can not keep up then we all pay the price. For example…

Can’t compete – pass spec tire rule
Can’t make the grade - dumb down the curriculum
Can’t pay their own way – create welfare state...............
[/b]

That's stretch...to say the least! How is that even close to the other examples??? If the tire is the same for everybody, and the chassis and motor the same, how can the cream not rise??

If the tires are able to hold lap times for more sessions, doesn't it mean that, the drivers with less budget have more chances to compete...on a more equal footing???

Conversly, if, say, the savings amount to $800 or $1600 (a couple sets of tires) in a season, that budget amount is now availble for better hardware, or more actual racing, not wasted as marbles at the side of the track. How can that NOT be good?

How is a spec tire equivilent to a welfare state?? Are you being taxed to pay for someones tires?

I don't know the mechanics of the "poll" but it appears that last year it was done comprehensively...if this poll is any less comprehensive, then the drivers have a huge issue...but you need to seperate the methods from the spec tire concept.

I hope you all can sort this out, and get a fair representation of what the drivers..all the drivers...want.

[crushed]

How many you have actually tested with Hoosiers and kept track of how long they actually last? I have a set with over 18 heat cycles on them and they are still turning quick times. Talk to the front running SM guys and see how many of them will put 18 heat cycles on a set of Toyos.

New Hoosiers are not like the old Hoosiers, they last significantly longer. Plus the guys who win are rewarded with cheaper tires. Shouldn't the guys who win be rewarded?

Last years poll was nowhere close to comprehensive, most of the front running southeast drivers (read: guys who would vote against a spec tire) never received a ballot.

Toyo doesn't even make a properly sized 13" tire. I still can't imagine why anyone would want to run on a 60 series tire. I'm all for a spec tire, but why not spec a tire that doesn't suck and actually works on the car instead of jumping on the spec Toyo bandwagon?

[sgallimo]

snip...
Last years poll was nowhere close to comprehensive, most of the front running southeast drivers (read: guys who would vote against a spec tire) never received a ballot.

...snip
[/b]

Crushed, please list the front running southeast drivers that didn't receive a ballot last year?

[lateapex911]

..... Plus the guys who win are rewarded with cheaper tires. Shouldn't the guys who win be rewarded?

[/b]

Is this a Professional series??

Your other points are well taken, and you'll notice I discussed the philosophy rather than the actual manufacturers.

[crushed]

I'm not going to name names, but at the first race after this happened I think only 2 of the 7 or 8 IT-7 drivers at the track that weekend actually recieved a ballot.

My friend who drove my car for 1 race did recieve a ballot. I think that is terribly unfair as he doesn't really have a vested interest in what happens to the class.

If a driver doesnt do at least 3 races each year (and therefore not a contender for championship points anyway), they don't deserve the right to vote on this issue.

[Z3_GoCar]

How many you have actually tested with Hoosiers and kept track of how long they actually last? I have a set with over 18 heat cycles on them and they are still turning quick times. Talk to the front running SM guys and see how many of them will put 18 heat cycles on a set of Toyos.

New Hoosiers are not like the old Hoosiers, they last significantly longer.....


[/b]

I wonder why the new Hoosiers last longer... could it be because they've now got to take Toyo's seriously?? Without the Spec tires do you think Hoosier whould change their compounds to last longer? No more likely tire wear/compound going off were not an issues untill Toyo's became the spec tire du-jour.



Plus the guys who win are rewarded with cheaper tires. Shouldn't the guys who win be rewarded?....

....Toyo doesn't even make a properly sized 13" tire. I still can't imagine why anyone would want to run on a 60 series tire. I'm all for a spec tire, but why not spec a tire that doesn't suck and actually works on the car instead of jumping on the spec Toyo bandwagon?
[/b]

First you get the plastic bowling trophy and the checkerd flag, and now you want cheaper tires. :lol:
Spec tires DO work at cost containment, that's a proven fact. It's actually one of the area's that does work as advertised. Don't the guys who have no chance already subsidized the winners trophy enough? When I was Karting I ran the Bridgestone YBN's. Now if you want to run an open tire why not go to a class where the tires are open, a spec class shouldn't be an open tire class, unless the tire/compound of the day is part of spec racing. Even Pro's run spec tires, Speed World Challenge on Hankook's, need I say more?

James

p.s. I don't have a iron in this fire as I'm on the left coast, but I hate it when people bash spec tires just because their favorite tire did not make the cut.

[crushed]

Now if you want to run an open tire why not go to a class where the tires are open, a spec class shouldn't be an open tire class, unless the tire/compound of the day is part of spec racing. Even Pro's run spec tires, Speed World Challenge on Hankook's, need I say more?
[/b]

I was in a class with open tire, Has any IT class ever had a spec tire before? I don't think so.

Besides that, IT-7 is NOT a spec class! need I say more?

[lateapex911]

, Has any IT class ever had a spec tire before? I don't think so.

[/b]

But IT7 is NOT an IT class......IT philosophy does not make one marque/model classes.

IT7 is a class that specs ONE make/model, and sets ONE ruleset, the ITA ruleset, as their spec.

It isn't a pure spec class... (Arguabley those are VERY rare, spec Miata NOT being one), but it isn't IT either.

[Z3_GoCar]

But IT7 is NOT an IT class......IT philosophy does not make one marque/model classes.

IT7 is a class that specs ONE make/model, and sets ONE ruleset, the ITA ruleset, as their spec.

It isn't a pure spec class... (Arguabley those are VERY rare, spec Miata NOT being one), but it isn't IT either.
[/b]

I suspose that it takes sealed motors and transmissions to make a true spec class. But, in a class where only one chassis is spec'd with one motor and a given set of modifications, its as close to a spec class as my spec class Kart ever was. With Karts at least we could run different chassis, mine was an Emmick.

James

[instigator]

James as for your Speed Challenge comment. I can assure you hankook paid for that right as did toyo in the past years. Apples to oranges just do not seem to compare. Pro Raceing is paid by sponsors, and they buy your car one part at a time just to get their advertisement out to the public. I can assure you if they were given a choice you would see may different tire choices by the teams in that program.

Kurt Jackson

[tom_sprecher]

Contingencies pay to the few, while a spec tire that has a controlled price, and a longer life, benefits all.[/b]
God I despise socialism. Or is that Marxist and kind of sounds like "Capitalism benefits the few, while communism benefits all. It really doesn't matter as history has shown it does not work.



That's stretch...to say the least! How is that even close to the other examples??? If the tire is the same for everybody, and the chassis and motor the same, how can the cream not rise??
[/b]
In my opinion the “cream” is track records. With a spec tire that is a “couple of seconds slower” I don’t see any cream rising. You might get buttermilk at best.



How is a spec tire equivilent to a welfare state?? Are you being taxed to pay for someones tires?
[/b]
The list was offered as examples of how some of us are forced to accept less to aid those who, for one reason or another, can not keep up on the great road course of life.

Spec tires force me to turn slower lap times. Maybe it’s just me but going slower seems to go against the concept of racing.
Dumbing down the curriculum forces me to accept seeking out and paying for private schools for my children.
The welfare state forces me to accept taking care of someone else at the expense of my family.
15% payroll taxes, same thing.
Drunk drivers and tough DUI laws forces me to accept having only 1 and some fraction of my favorite libation and hoping I did my math right before I even think about driving home.
If some of us can’t keep from killing others the next thing you know they will revoke the 2nd amendment.
Get the picture.

I do not like to be forced to accept less than what I can get on my own. Although I offer to help on a regular basis, I very rarely ask for help so I get a little resentful when I am forced to so. Spec tire forces me to help with someone else’s racing budget. Not by paying an actual tax but being forced to accept less.

I have very little actual on track experience and am cursed with having higher ambitions that some others and but damn it I want a track record some day and tires that "are a couple of seconds slower, but they last longer" ain't gonna get it.

[lateapex911]

.....I want a track record some day and tires that "are a couple of seconds slower, but they last longer" ain't gonna get it.
[/b]

Well, thats some pretty interesting stuff, I'll say that.

I'm not involved enough to know whether the poll was fair or not, but it was a poll, and the masses voted (presumably). Thats not anything but democratic. (any claims of rigged polls aside...if you have such issues, then the real issue is not the philosophic ones but the methodological, or corruption ones).

Remember, you are free to run your car in ITA and collect track records and winners mugs until you have no room left on your trophy shelves.

[tom_sprecher]

Running my 1st gen in ITA won't work either as that would be way too much work. You see I've changed my whole outlook on life. Now, like everyone else, I want my cake, eat it and not have to work for it, too! Let's just reduce everything to the lowest common denominator and I’ll be happy swimming in a sea of mediocrity.

Great topic and in all honesty, there are pros and cons to both sides of this issue, and like I said before, if we vote again and a spec tire is wanted by the majority then so be it. Instead of tires I’ll just spend my budget on “better hardware”. First, I have to find the definition of the same in the GCR.

[JeffYoung]

While I'm not an IT7 driver, I do know and race with a lot of you guys (you see a lot of 1st Gen RX7s as a mid pack ITS driver...llol).

There are a lot of great arguments for the spec tire in IT7, and I appreciate them. I can make on empirical observation though: at least in the short term, it appears to me that there are far fewer cars running in IT7 this year than in year's past. Is that due to the spec tire rule? In some respects, yes -- 3 or 4 front running guys who liked running on Hoosiers went to A (and are doing pretty well).

Do you guys think IT7 will be repopulated? If so, the spec rule is probably a great idea as it keeps costs down. If not, and the class is dependent on attracting existing IT7s back to the class, maybe the open tire rule is the way to go.

Not advocating either side, just an empirical observation from someone whose only interest in the matter is the fact that I have a lot of friends running 7s.

[Hotshoe]

Speaking of other options, who chose Toyo as the spec tire?
[/b]

Tom,

... There was no choice given for a "Spec Tire". Toyo was the ONLY ONE listed on the ballot.

... Hardly even democratic if you ask me Jake. I told you after I drove all the way to your house what the deal was so acting like you do not know surprises me.

... I feel that the ballot that was sent out last year concerning the (Yes) or (No) for the "Spec Tire" rule was a very good idea. But: (Take note Jake) No Ballot was cast to determine which tire would be selected. So, ( Take note again) If you voted yes then it automatically voted for Toyo. And you call that fair????? Democratic ??? Not hardly.

... I hate to see changes made that do not take into account ALL that are concerned. Yes, ballots were sent out to drivers and car owners, but, Were ALL the Tire manufacturers given the same consideration? NO

... In all fairness, a separate vote should have been balloted ( even on the same ballot as the original ) and sent out as to which tire would be CHOSEN as the "Spec Tire"

... So, fire away. But, I am politically correct. LOL

[lateapex911]

Tom,

... There was no choice given for a "Spec Tire". Toyo was the ONLY ONE listed on the ballot.

... Hardly even democratic if you ask me Jake. I told you after I drove all the way to your house what the deal was so acting like you do not know surprises me.
[/b]

Well, Rick, forgive me, as it was late and some of the details of our talk may have slipped my mind. But do take note that in my comments I haven't stated any manufacturers, and I have specifically called out the differenence between a spec tire philosophy and the ballot methodology. And I stated I didn't know the whole story on the ballot situation. (I will always asume I don't know everything in a situation like this as there are often many "layers" of knowledge. In many cases, no one person actually knows all the facts)



... In all fairness, a separate vote should have been balloted ( even on the same ballot as the original ) and sent out as to which tire would be CHOSEN as the "Spec Tire"

... So, fire away. But, I am politically correct. LOL
[/b]

Agreed, IF the consensus was that a spec tire was desired by the majority, then the choice should have been discussed. (and not necessarily in that order) It's not easy to get a large group to respond and to get a consensus on the subject, which is why is rarely happens.

I agree that the choice and poll method are extremely important, but Ii differ with Tom's points and comparisons. I suspect Rick, that if you chose to give the same development to the spec tire chosen, that your success would have been very similar to your success on your previous tire. Thats what I meant by the "Cream rising" comment. I certainly respect your decision NOT to run IT7 as you have a tremandous investment in time and money tied up in your tire choice, and your level of development reflects that.

You guys in the south have an enviable situation, with enough cars to have an IT7 class, you can choose between running IT7 or ITA. But sometimes more choices brings more headaches, LOL.

I guess what confuses me is if there is so much disention, how was the poll mishandled in the first place, and more importantly, how can it be avoided again??

[Hotshoe]

... Jeopardy ...

Answer: Agreed, IF the consensus was that a spec tire was desired by the majority, then the choice should have been discussed. (and not necessarily in that order)

Question: I guess what confuses me is if there is so much dissention, how was the poll mishandled in the first place, and more importantly, how can it be avoided again??
[/b]


Jake,

.... You basically answered your own question.

.... Note: Hoosier Dirt Stockers were also listed on the original ballot as an alternate choice for rain tires. But that must have fallen through the cracks because it never made it into the rule change. Hmmmm ........ wonder why??????????

[Mike Guenther]

Hotshoe:
"... I hate to see changes made that do not take into account ALL that are concerned. Yes, ballots were sent out to drivers and car owners, but, Were ALL the Tire manufacturers given the same consideration? NO" [/b]

Not all owners received a ballot. I never got one. It is my opinion that even if you have a spec tire forced upon each driver, those with a larger budget will buy new tires more often than those with a smaller budget. So where is the equality in forcing a single tire on everyone? Even if the bricks last longer, new ones feel better and out perform the ones with 4 -6 heat cycles.

First we force a single tire manufacturer then a single shock manufacturer then a single spring rate, a single brake shoe, where does it end???

Freedom to choose any brand within a general spec. That's the American way.

[sgallimo]

Jake,

.... You basically answered your own question.

.... Note: Hoosier Dirt Stockers were also listed on the original ballot as an alternate choice for rain tires. But that must have fallen through the cracks because it never made it into the rule change. Hmmmm ........ wonder why??????????
[/b]

Nothing to hmmm about. The Hoosier Dirt Stocker is mentioned in the rules. The following was taken from the "2006SEDivRegionalClassRules.pdf" file found on the www.sedivracing.org website:

Improved Touring 7 (IT7)

July 1998 this class was initiated for MAZDA RX7s, model year 1979 through 1985 with
the 12 A motor. This class must comply with and be prepared to the IT A rules as
published by SCCA - GCR and Category Specifications.

|Effective October 1, 2005 the spec tire for IT7 is Toyo Proxes RA1 DOT – Shaved or
|unshaved. Optional rain tire, Toyo Proxes RA1 DOT, shaved or unshaved, OR Hoosier
|Dirt Stocker DOT.
|
|
|Ad-Hoc Committee, Joe Varble 678-482-0035, Lee Graser 423-494-7889, and Stan
|Hinds 423-588-9799

[sgallimo]

Tom,

... There was no choice given for a "Spec Tire". Toyo was the ONLY ONE listed on the ballot.

... Hardly even democratic if you ask me Jake. I told you after I drove all the way to your house what the deal was so acting like you do not know surprises me.

... I feel that the ballot that was sent out last year concerning the (Yes) or (No) for the "Spec Tire" rule was a very good idea. But: (Take note Jake) No Ballot was cast to determine which tire would be selected. So, ( Take note again) If you voted yes then it automatically voted for Toyo. And you call that fair????? Democratic ??? Not hardly.

... I hate to see changes made that do not take into account ALL that are concerned. Yes, ballots were sent out to drivers and car owners, but, Were ALL the Tire manufacturers given the same consideration? NO

... In all fairness, a separate vote should have been balloted ( even on the same ballot as the original ) and sent out as to which tire would be CHOSEN as the "Spec Tire"

... So, fire away. But, I am politically correct. LOL
[/b]

It may be mere symantics to some folks but last year's ballot was not a yes or no question on a spec tire for IT-7. It was a yes or no question on using the Toyo Proxes RA1 as the spec tire for IT-7. Answering that question was very straightforward. If you wanted the Toyo Proxes to be the spec tire for the class, you voted yes. If you did not want the Toyo to be the spec tire for the class, you voted no. If you did not want a spec tire for the class, you voted no. If you wanted the Cooper Tyres Lifeliner SLE to be the spec tire for the class, you voted no. Regardless of whether the limited alternatives attached to that question lined up with a given persons desired future for the class, that was the question that was asked and those were the possible answers that question evoked.

Was it a fair question? I think so. It was the question that the framers wanted to persue. Anyone that didn't agree to any or all aspects of the question only had to vote no. Was it a complete question? Yes, if the framers wanted to gauge folks reactions to using the Toyo as the spec tire. No so much, if the framers wanted to guage folks reactions to using any single tire as the spec tire. In "all completeness" a separate vote could have been balloted in order to ask all that wanted a spec tire to specify which tire they would like to see used. Unless the framers were only interested in gauging the reception of the Toyo.

[Hotshoe]

Optional rain tire, Toyo Proxes RA1 DOT, shaved or unshaved, OR Hoosier Dirt Stocker DOT.
[/b]
Well,

.... I see they updated the rules since I checked last. ( May 2006 )

.... Still doesn't change the fact that we did not get a choice as to which tire could have been the "Spec Tire"

.... Care to comment ?

.... Looks like you guys have a level playing field now that the "handful" (as you call them) are gone. But believe me ..... Toyo Tires didn't make the difference. Check the ECR results, the same driver that was leading the points last year on Hoosiers is leading this year on Toyos. And he could be leading the SARRC if he had the desire.

.... Say what you want about the ballot, but , if you voted yes to a "Spec Tire" you didn't have to choose Toyo. But that was the ONLY choice offered. Can we say "Trojan Horse"

[Andy Bettencourt]

.... Looks like you guys have a level playing field now that the "handful" (as you call them) are gone. But believe me ..... Toyo Tires didn't make the difference. Check the ECR results, the same driver that was leading the points last year on Hoosiers is leading this year on Toyos. And he could be leading the SARRC if he had the desire.

[/b]

Who said Spec tires would make slower guys faster? I think one of the primary goals os a ST (as long as you choose the one that meets your goals...) is lower cost to the whole class. It ain't about getting closer to the front.

[Hotshoe]

I think one of the primary goals of a Spec Tire (as long as you choose the one that meets your goals...)
[/b]

Andy,

... I keep trimming the answer down to the root of the problem.


............ No choice was given ................

[Hotshoe]

It may be mere semantics to some folks but last year's ballot was not a yes or no question on a spec tire for IT-7. It was a yes or no question on using the Toyo Proxes RA1 as the spec tire for IT-7.
[/b]

This is where I have to disagree. Since you like to publish the rules as they are written, then do this for ALL of us.

...Post a copy of the ballot in its original format, here on the forum and show us how you came up with your conclusions.

... There was two questions on the ballot. The first was a simple (Yes) or (No) as to whether or not you are in favor of a "Spec Tire " and nothing else was implied. So back it up.

... I'll admit when I'm wrong and I made a mistake about the Dirt Stockers, But I do know what I voted on.

[sgallimo]

This is where I have to disagree. Since you like to publish the rules as they are written, then do this for ALL of us.
[/b]
I did post the rule as it is in the file -- I can't say what it contained prior to a couple of weeks ago. So I don't know what you're getting at with that Ricky. Please explain.



...Post a copy of the ballot in its original format, here on the forum and show us how you came up with your conclusions.
[/b]
If I had a copy of the ballot, I would post it. I just sent Lee a note asking for a copy.



... There was two questions on the ballot. The first was a simple (Yes) or (No) as to whether or not you are in favor of a "Spec Tire " and nothing else was implied. So back it up.

... I'll admit when I'm wrong and I made a mistake about the Dirt Stockers, But I do know what I voted on.
[/b]
Hmm so you don't beleive the "you are in favor of a spec tire" question included a reference to the Toyo? Wish I could picture the darn thing. Based on your memory, what were the two questions that were on the ballot?

[Hotshoe]

last year's ballot was not a yes or no question on a spec tire for IT-7.

It was a yes or no question on using the Toyo Proxes RA1 as the spec tire for IT-7.

If you wanted the Toyo Proxes to be the spec tire for the class, you voted yes.

If you did not want the Toyo to be the spec tire for the class, you voted no.

[/b]

Scott,

... This is why I would like to see a copy of the ballot that you got. The one I received was not worded, or made references in this manner.

... So I guess we will wait until one is presented.

... Like I stated before: Voting on whether or not to have a spec tire was (and is) a good idea. Not giving the tire manufacturers an opportunity to participate, and then NOT giving ALL concerned a VOTE, is where the problem with all of this has originated.

[sgallimo]

[attachmentid=510]Sorry for the late reply but I spent the past 4 days at Roebling Road.

Here's a copy of the IT-7 spec tire ballot and information sheet. It clearly indicated the spec tire choice, the rain tire options, the reasons behind the desire for a spec tire, the reasons behind the choice of the Toyo, their optional status for the pre-2005 SIC races, and their required status for the post 2005 SIC races. It even pointed out that the proposal required a vote by the RE's and that the ballots were to be used to convince the RE's and the Class Review Board that a majority of the SEDIV IT-7 drivers wanted to adopt the spec tire rule.

I'm told ballots were mailed out to each of the 90 IT-7 drivers who had appeared on the SARRC, ECR, and Carolina Cup result sheets for that current year. 64 ballots were returned. That means roughly 72% of the community voted -- that's an exceptionally high return rate when compared to other SCCA elections. 52 people voted Yes and 12 people voted No. The No votes included two folks who had not received a ballot even though they were part of the original mailing and one person whose address was incorrect on the original mailing. Even if each of those remaining 28% of the drivers had voted No, the proposal would have received a 58% passing margin.

[happyjap]

I am Rex Deffenbaugh – driver first, NC Region administrator second. I became an administrator to protect my privilege to drive from errant administration meddling. Now I see another occurrence of this meddling threatening my class again.

I was at the first meeting when IT7 was proposed by Lee Graser and Stan Hines and where a vote was taken to establish IT7. I voted. I watched as administration fought the establishment of IT7 using every resource available. I watched while extensive research was executed to find the tire most likely to fulfill the need for a spec tire including tire cost, life, and track support. Then I voted. I watched as the results reflected by Scott Galimore were returned.

IT7 was started as a class of has been RX7 cars that couldn’t compete in ITA. Its inception was because some drivers wanted an inexpensive venue to compete in, in similarly prepared cars. It was to be a class where one couldn’t spend his way to a win, like many other classes then and now. It was never a class for the world’s fastest man. There are many other classes and even series for the world’s fastest man. The great thing about this country is that you have choices. Yours may be to run in one of these faster classes or series, but IT7 will never afford one the recognition the world’s fastest man deserves – only the recognition of the fastest IT7 car and driver. Some may want to set their sights higher and leave the drivers of this class to our selves. As reported by Scott Galimore, the results of a vote stated that the drivers of this class want the tire rule now in place. Every class and venue of racing has rules, and this is one for racing in IT7. If you can’t find the setup, or you think it costs too much to make your car go fast in this class then ITA may be better for you – again another great choice.

In the end none of these questions are the issue here. The issue is someone making an underhanded attempt to change a rule established by the majority of drivers in this class. Every rule will have some opposition, but in this case a small minority has the ear of an administrator who seems to have the power and willingness to slide a rule change into place without a majority vote. Toni says rules will be reviewed for change every year. This is not true because of the sheer volume of rules in place. Why did she choose this rule and not the countless others to review? She says she doesn’t have the resources or time to complete a good pole. This is understandable but not a good reason to execute an incomplete pole and change rules as a result. Administrators feign concern about falling participation in IT7, but this doesn’t hold water when ITA is almost nonexistent, except for the IT7 drivers who have defected there, and administrators don’t seem concerned about that class. The drivers of this class will not tolerate the unwanted and unneeded meddling that may jeopardize the quality of the racing now experienced in IT7.

Rex

[tom_sprecher]

After seeing the ballot for the first time I would have to say there was nothing unfair about how the topic was presented. Perhaps a choice of which spec tire would have made the vote more encompassing but it's really water under the bridge at this point.

I still stand by my earlier statement.



there should not be a problem with reviewing the rule after a year of everyone running under it and having another vote. If it was a good idea then it will stand on its own merit. If not, and drivers do not like the results, it should be changed.[/b]

There's nothing wrong with reviewing a rule change after a year or so to make sure the desired result was realized. Maybe after running on the Toyo's for a season everyone's opinion about the subject has changed. Also, with only 90 balllots, and having done it before, the logistics of having another vote do not seem overwelming. Hell, I'll do it. If SEDiv gives me the $ for postage and stationery and emails me the address database we'll have another vote. All you have to do is vote yes/no on a spec tire, choose for a list which tire and learn to live with the results.

Now that didn't hurt, did it?

[chumpy36]

I find it interesting that the same issues are being mirrored here as we've had in the SM spec tire decision (debacle). I'm on the advisory board for the SEDIV sm community and I must say I have SERIOUS problems with the way information was collected on this issue.

I'm wondering why this rule is up for change anyway? Why suddenly after the decision was made last year to use a spec tire are we now reconsidering it?
The method to collect driver input was completely flawed in the sm case. I can give details if people would like but let's say that it was not a fair representation of people's opinions. Or I should say, I believe that it wasn't since the voting procedures changed alot midstream and I don't really even know how the data was collected.


I have to believe there is some sort of impetus for open tires in the background. I just don't see why this change is coming along now.

Jason Holland
SM Advisory Board SEDIV

[sgallimo]

Following is the IT-7 specific proposal that Chairperson Toni Creighton and the Class Review Board have presented to the REs for their vote on the 29th. (Note that the formatting has changed as this was cut and pasted from the original Word document). If you have any comments or concerns, please contact your Regional Executive prior to their departure for the weekend's meeting.

========================================
========================================

IT7

The IT7 advisory board has three returning members and two new volunteers. They have canvassed drivers personally and there has been a request of opinion on the improvedtouring.com website. There was a recommendation from the ECR Administrator for no spec tire.

Conclusions drawn by the advisory committee: The IT7 community is almost equally divided on the issue of a spec tire for regional racing. There is a slight margin in favor of no spec tire.

The issues seem to be:
- There has been much discussion during the year of the spec tire requirement for IT7. It was enacted just before the SIC when there had been no spec tire requirement during the season. Drivers did not compete in the SIC and told the SARRC Administrator that it was a direct result of the way that the spec tire requirement was enacted.
- There have been drivers who have abandoned the class and are now competing in ITA because of the tire requirement.
- There was a poll taken last year that was said to have reached every IT7 Driver. There are drivers responding this year that say they were not canvassed last year and therefore had no voice in the issue.
- There were many who took part in the canvas of last year that were led to believe that drivers' opinion poll was the final decision making factor and that the rule would never be reviewed.
- The rule was not posted correctly for 2006 according to some.
- Others say the rule was changed mid year.
- The discussion on the improvedtouring.com website was in three different locations. Discussion was viscous at times. Ancestry, nepotism, and the accuracy of reporting of all requests for opinion have been discussed. There was much discussion on the spec tire itself, the canvas from last year, who it reached, who it didn't reach, and the timing of the enactment of the new rule.

Eliminating all items except the spec tire its self seem to be the only solution in determining the rule for 2007.

Issues about the spec tire
1. A spec tire eliminates the need for experimentation with other brands of tires
2. A spec tire is an equalizer of talent
3. A spec tire is an equalizer of budget
4. A spec tire sets the liability by requiring the tire
5. The fast drivers go fast on any tire. The spec tire is not an equalizer.
6. Toyos are in short supply from the at track dealer
7. There is only one source available to everyone
8. Trackside service is better with other brands
9. There is not a contingency program for regional racers with this tire only the requirement to use it
10. There is not a contingency program for regional racing from this distributor
11. Other brands are less expensive
12. Other brands have contingency programs for regional racers
13. Hoosier Dirt Stocker rain tire may not be available from this distributor
14. IT7 cars are legal ITA cars. IT classes are not spec classes and do not have spec tires.

Here are two versions of the proposal:

Version 1
July 1998 this class was initiated for Mazda RX7s model year 1979 through 1985 with a 12 A motor. This class must comply with and be prepared to the IT A rules as published by SCCA GCR and Category Specifications.
Effective October 1, 2005 the spec tire for IT7 is Toyo RA1 DOT - shaved or unshaved. Optional rain tire, Toyo Poxes RA1 DOT shaved or unshaved, or Hoosier Dirt Stocker DOT.

Version 2
July 1998 this class was initiated for Mazda RX7s model year 1979 through 1985 with a 12 A motor. This class must comply with and be prepared to the IT A rules as published by SCCA GCR and Category Specifications.
For the 2007 season any tire eligible for ITA may be used.

Advisory Board
Sam Henderson, Chair [email protected]
Lee Graser [email protected]
Stan Hines [email protected]
Alex Jackson [email protected]
Joe Varble [email protected]

========================================
========================================

[steve s]

if that is what toni is submitting for vote then i guess it's typical of SCCA volunteers to railroad everyone else.
what ever happened to - 'it will stay for 2007 until proper info has been compiled' ' ????????
from the people i have been talking to in fl region ,everyone wants the spec tire. you have about 10- 15 drivers in the GA, SC, NC ,VIR. area who wants the open tire rule and i guess they will have their way since they have infiltrated the class advisory board to make it their personal stomping grounds. and not representing what the it-7 driver's really want.
i want to point out to everyone that this is my opinion only .but i have been lobbied by some of these individuals or their friend to sway me to call for open tire rule and i told them flat NO. spec tire rule did a lot for the class,bringing new drivers with limited budget.i personally am losing because i was getting kumho bucks everyweekend . but they don't have great trackside support.so i support the toyo tire rule.

[Toni]

scott
that is what was sent to the class review board. Now go to your RE and ask what was sent to him. You should post that as well.

toni

[lateapex911]

Wow.

I have no stake in the matter, but if I did, I'd be pissed.

That "proposal" has so little documentable information in it, yet still draws "conclusions".

I was amazed as I read it how each point lacked facts & figures and by the time I was done I was dumbfounded at the lack of credibility.

In my opinion, I think a decision that affects such a large contingency needs to be thorough and documentable.

With conclusions like "The IT7 community is almost equally divided on the issue of a spec tire for regional racing. There is a slight margin in favor of no spec tire.", based on the polling method of "They have canvassed drivers personally and there has been a request of opinion on the improvedtouring.com website", it is sure to be a failure, no matter the result.

HOW many were talked to?? WHAT was the standard questions each was asked?? HOW MANY voted for what?? There is a LOT to polling a group...it seems simple, yet it isn't, and it takes time.

Nowhere is any of that information presented.

I'm sorry, but that's troubling, (to say the least) no matter what side of the debate you're on.

[sgallimo]

scott
that is what was sent to the class review board. Now go to your RE and ask what was sent to him. You should post that as well.

toni
[/b]
Toni, I got that information directly from my RE. It was taken from your note to him, and others, dated July 23, 2006, at 1:34 PM with a subject of "SM & IT7 GTA to be sent separtely". That note contained one attachment titled "SM and IT7 2007.doc". I posted the information from your note on this forum, which you chose as the desired communication vehicle, in the spirit of openness. I did this so that everyone would know what proposal you and the CRB were presenting to the REs for vote so that people would be able to apprise their REs of their opinions.

What are you implying? How is it that you didn't recognize your own letter? To jog your memory, I've attached your note and attachment below:

===================================
-----Original Message-----

From: Toni Creighton [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006 1:34 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; Senior, Mark; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Cc: Fred Schmucker; Rick Mitchell; Pete Magnuson
Subject: SM & IT7 GTA to be sent separtely

SM & IT7

GTA to be sent separately
===================================
attachment to the original message:
[attachmentid=533]
===================================

[sgallimo]

Toni, the Class Review Board's proposal to the RE's for the upcoming meeting slated for the 29th leaves several questions unanswered. As chairperson of the Class Review Board, please answer the following:

- What percentage of the current IT-7 driving community did you reach through your recent polling activity?
- What percentage of those favored an open tire rule?
- What percentage of those favored the current spec tire rule?
- What percentage of the previous IT-7 driving community were not reached by the previous hard copy ballot?
- How can you state that the current IT-7 spec tire rule was enacted just before the SIC when it actually went into effect the previous January? While the SIC was the first event where the spec tire was required, the spec tire rule, and the ballot, made it clear that the spec tire was optional for the races before the SIC. Regardless, why would the timing of the implementation of the rule matter since it was enacted exactly as specified on the ballots and in the proposal to the REs?
- The previous hard copy ballot specifically stated, in bold print, that the REs had to vote on the proposal and that the ballot was to be used only as input for the REs in that vote. With such an obvious explanation to the contrary, please explain how participants could have been confused? What percentage of those participants brought forth that complaint?
- What hard evidence do you have that shows the IT-7 spec tire rule changed mid year? My RE says the current online version of the IT-7 rules match those he voted on in the previous meeting. Do you have proof or was this heresay?
- What proof do you have that the spec tire rule was not posted correctly on the website during 2006? If you have hard evidence that the rule was posted incorrectly, which one of your fellow SEDIV staff corrected the problem and when because the correct rule is currently on the website? Regardless, why would incorrect wording on the website negate the vote by the membership and the vote by the REs?
- Why does the departure of a few drivers negate the vote by the membership and the vote by the REs? Why does the exit of a vocal minority overrule the legitimate votes of the majority that stayed behind?
- Finally, the framers of the spec tire rule were required to directly contact each of the IT-7 drivers before the spec tire rule was presented to the REs for vote. Why do the Chairperson of the Class Review Board and the IT-7 Advisory Committee feel that that level of canvasing is not required in order to remove that same spec tire rule?

[chumpy36]

Sgallino,

Don't expect good answers. The EXACT same thing happened with SM and the advisory board. The recommendation was worded the exact same way. (I can post it if you like).

There was no explanation to me (and I'm on the advisory board!) of how we got to this nebulous "slight margin if favor of no spec tire".

Several advisory board members are uncomfortable with this way this was done (I'll leave it up to them if they want to say anything, I won't speak for them). The process was wrong in every way. Allowing advisory board members to "canvas" is a BAD idea. Depending on who they are (in SM the board members were all front runners - another big problem) and their feelings about spec tire you are gonna get biased views.


You should read the email exchange with the SM adivosry board "discussing" the issue. It's a riot!



This process for sm and IT7 is completely bogus. We need to let the RE's know about this.

Call or email the re's I've included an email list of the RE's and Assistant RE's

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

[steve s]

i find it strange to say the least that on the it-7 advisory comittee you have drivers that do not race in it-7 .