When do you stop giving people what they ask for?

[ekim952522000]

Edit: I cross posted this on the roadraceatuox.com after seeing the discussion there was headed this way anyway.

Reading so many threads with people asking for things. This brings a question to my mind especially when someone suggest something and everyone seems to agree it's a good idea but it still does not happen.

When do you stop giving people what they ask for?

Seems like a simple question but then I've been thinking about it, and it's not. Is it the ITAC job to give the membership what they want?

If 20 people write a letter saying they would like wheel diameter to be unrestricted and the proposal is put into the Fastrack and no one writes in a letter saying no. Does that get sent straight to the CRB?

Does the ITAC get to simply reject what the members requested saying "nope we don't want open wheel diamter in IT" and never open it to to member comment?

How could I have a thread like this without bringing up the washer bottle thing, it seems pretty unanimous among IT racers that the thing does not need to be there so why not have the option to remove it? ( Isn't the ITAC job to represent the membership).

But all this bring back my first question.

When do you stop giving people what they ask for?

Should the ITAC step in and say NO even if all the current IT racers think a change should be made.

Disclaimer: This is not critisizing the ITAC this is just a question on how do you give the membership what they want with out letting a catergory end up like production? Does giving the membership what they want washer bottles/jacking plates/wheel diameter/cruise control/etc. really mean that IT ends up like production?

<----Mike who is bored at work and is just looking to have a good discussion and does not care that much about washer bottles and cruise control being in his racecar. :)

[JoshS]

At the risk of hatred from tens of people, I'd suggest reading this column I just read this morning. It's not about racing rules, but the principle is the same.

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/03/24/no-never-surrender-to-your-users-facebook/

[ekim952522000]

That's a great article!

[lateapex911]

Funny article.
[Rant mode ON]

A guy I know, is got to be the most ego centric dude in the world. he updates his stupid "Bob is" thing three, four , or even more times a day. "Bob is having salad for lunch with oil dressing"....."Bob can't wait for his new model boat to arrive in the UPS shipment".... "Bob is sweating at the gym".

WHO CARES!!!!!!!!!!!!????????

"Bob HATES the new Facebook"

Bob, step away from Facebook.
Sheeesh.
[Rant mode OFF]


here's a discussion the centers around that issue from another board:


Quote:
Originally Posted by tom_sprecher http://www.roadraceautox.com/images/styles/cruizn/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.roadraceautox.com/showthread.php?p=534957#post534957)
Basically, give me what I want and the system works for me. Otherwise, I see it as flawed and in need of a different basis to work from.

Like I said, selfish bastard, plain and simple.
(Tom was suggesting that the ITAC be staffed with people wha are elected to the position, to better reflect what the racers want)

my response:

Tom, that's where it gets tricky. The ITAC tries to walk a fine line between giving people what they want, and giving people what they think they want.

The ITAC has an easy job in many respects. While the IT category is large by club standards, it's not National, and with that comes the freedom of being a bit off the radar. In other words, the CRb and the BoD are more likely to let us "try" things that haven't been tried before. (Like "the Process")

Secondly, we can look back at the history of other categories in the club, and learn from their mistakes.

Which is to say: Prod.

Prod is a category that has had lots of troubled waters, and many of the issues stem from giving people what they wanted. it seemed like a good idea at the time, but the long term effects have proven to onerous, and have changed the way racing in the SCCA/Prod world is done.

(I should add that time and technology pose real challenges to racing categories and must be dealt with effectively by organizing committees. )


Trust me, we on the ITAC are always "feeling the pulse" of the membership. I've been to races and talked to hundreds of IT guys from California to Georgia to New Hampshire in just the past year or two. Guys who don't frequent web boards. From all the interface, we've boiled out some cornerstone philosophies. It's those philosophies, and the consistent application of them, that guides the category.

Replacing the ITAc yearly would, in my opinion, create inconsistency, and would ultimately (and quickly) hurt the category. People would run on "Platforms" then spend their time trying to enact their particular platform. Committee members should, in my opinion, always remember the core philosophies that guide the category/committee, and never forget that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

I know the current system could be seen as un American and rather dictatorship-like, but I think the benefits outweigh the possible downside and perceptions.
(Further, every racing organization that hasn't been run by a benevolent dictator has failed. Every time.)
__________________

[Ron Earp]

Trust me, we on the ITAC are always "feeling the pulse" of the membership.

And I might add you folks do so pretty well.

One comment about any ITAC crew I would like to suggest is that ITAC members be CURRENT IT racers, that is, having participated in at least one or two IT races in the last twelve months to remain on the committee. Seems that a vested interest would be a good thing.

[dickita15]

A question that anyone representing a group whether appointed or elected is always do you enact the will of those you represent or do you owe those people your best judgment.
Usually the people in positions of power have spent more time thinking about an issue and listening to arguments than the average man on the street. For proof check out any news show man on the street interviews.
To vote against a populist opinion you need conviction, thought and a bit of ego, but I have more respect for someone with consistent convictions than someone who blows in the wind even if I disagree on a given issue.

[tom_sprecher]

Jeez, all I want is a couple of freakin' jacking plates. That, and a way to influence people to get what I want. Is that so much to ask? ;)

[lateapex911]

Jeez, all I want is a couple of freakin' jacking plates. That, and a way to influence people to get what I want. Is that so much to ask? ;)

Three words of advice: be creative. be diligent, and be patient.:)

[dickita15]

Jeez, all I want is a couple of freakin' jacking plates. That, and a way to influence people to get what I want. Is that so much to ask? ;)

I feel your pain Tom. I got tired of waiting, when I retubed my car I built them into the front down tubes. I wish they were a little more to the rear but they work ok.

[Ed Funk]

Three words of advice: be creative. be diligent, and be patient.:)

---uh, that's seven words---:D

[D. Ellis-Brown]

I agree we should be able to install jacking plates. I don't know about anyone else, but the underside of my car, no matter how careful we are, is a dented, distorted mess. Maybe some of you in other parts of the country do not have to jack up your cars in sandy paddocks like we do in the Florida, but it is always tricky getting the jack in the right location. I know several of my compatriouts tried to work the "jacking plates" issue when Enduros were initiated many years ago. And it fell on deaf ears then. To me it is absolutley ridiculous that something so functional, so necessary, so logical has been resisted in the past. But, like our Federal Government, logic and common sense will not be tolerated, David Ellis-Brown

[Knestis]

>> ...logic and common sense will not be tolerated.

That's hyperbolic and not fair.

If the ITAC were "responsive" to the wishes of everybody, IT would no longer be IT in very short order. Everyone wants a different thing and the SUM of those things takes us way beyond the category as it's currently defined.

Now, if we required a majority of IT car owners to endorse a proposed change before we considered it, that would be one thing, but we tend to view a half dozen vocal members as substantial support. That's just not a good idea.

As an ITAC member, I very much view my first obligation as being to the long term health of the category, and that outweighs what current members want. (Remember that member turnover in the club is such that several HUNDRED THOUSAND have come and gone in the time I've been a member. Yes - that means that I (and the rest of the ITAC) have to apply what we think is our best judgement toward that goal, running the risk of being accused of neglecting "what the membership wants." But that's how it is.

K

[tom_sprecher]

Now, if we required a majority of IT car owners to endorse a proposed change before we considered it, that would be one thing, but we tend to view a half dozen vocal members as substantial support. That's just not a good idea...

...K

It's funny you mentioned this. I am in the process of putting together a ballot to allow internal engine coatings (Cermet) to be applied only to the wear surfaces of side and rotor housings of 12a Mazda engines in the SEDiv IT7 class. Every IT7 driver from last year and this will be mailed a ballot and personally called if it is not returned.

In SEDiv our CRB is composed of the Planning Committee and Class Advisory Committees (which unbeknownst to me until this Jan includes yours truly for IT7). The process is write a rule, gather support (ballots from class participants is preferred), present your case to the RE's at the mid year meeting where they will vote on passage or not.

After discussing the subject with members of the Planning Committee and IT7 Class Advisory Committees as well as with multiple IT7 drivers and a few RE's it would appear the rule change is a shoe in.

The funny part I mentioned came to me last night while doing a little drinkin' and thinkin'. If I polled every IT driver that registered for a Road Atlanta race, would the ITAC take that information into consideration on this jacking plate issue? Granted, it would not be a nationwide survey and you would have to trust my results, but is that kind of information helpful in deciding "on the fence" rule issues like this?

If so, I will try and help out along those lines. It will take a bit of work and to be honest I do not need the exercise if the long term health of the category completely outweighs what current members want. I understand that logic when properly applied and that in itself is not and easy task, but as anybody who works in the public sector knows, it is usually best to give your customers what they want or they tend to go elsewhere.

Let me know.

[1stGenBoy]

And I might add you folks do so pretty well.

One comment about any ITAC crew I would like to suggest is that ITAC members be CURRENT IT racers, that is, having participated in at least one or two IT races in the last twelve months to remain on the committee. Seems that a vested interest would be a good thing.

That is one of the reasons I stepped down from the ITAC , that and I have moved on to other duties within SCCA. I did not think it was right to make decsisions on a class I was not participating in very much.

Bob Clark

[EV]

---uh, that's seven words---:D
Who does he think he is, Joe Biden?

[D. Ellis-Brown]

If I understand correctly, Might and Numbers may overcome the resistence to change. Well I am going to try something. In about a month, we will have an Enduro at Daytona. We usually have a very high turn out of IT cars showing up for the two Enduros. Maybe it is time to take the Jacking Plate issue to the competitiors. I generate and circulate a "survey / petition" that polls the competitors whether they want and request the addition of Jacking Plates to IT cars or Not. I beleive that the results would accurately reflect the views of IT competitors. I will not use phrases like "If Jacking Plates were permitted fro IT cars, do you think the cost would out weigh the benefits, or" , or "if your competitor had jacking plates on his car, do you think they would have an "unfair advantage" over your car if you did not have them, or "do you think that by permitting "Jacking Plates" to be Welded to the underside of the IT car, it would compromise the current IT philosophy or add "scope creep". I will ask a simple question, "Do you support, and are in favor of permitting, Jacking Plates, being added to the underside of Improved Touring cars. Yes or No. Just That simple. I will post the results of the polling after race. If the competitors do not want it, or feel it is un-necessary, then so be it. But if there is a majority, from this snap shot of a typical IT population, then I will pursue it further and make sure the CRB / ITAC have copies of the results, with names, membership numbers and the class of IT car they race. If they do not want it, then it is another dead issue. If I am in the minority, I will end this diatribe as I believe that the will of the minority should not rule the majority. Iif some of you feel the same way as I do, about this or someother issue, maybe it is time we take control, and poll the competitors in your area about an issue you might be passionate about. There is power in the "silent majority" . Thank you, David Ellis-Brown

[Andy Bettencourt]

When you submit your findings, please also add the following:

A proposed rule that allows what you want but also does NOT allow any additional stucutural enhancement to the chassis other than what is already permitted in the ITCS...

THAT is the issue. Write it so that it won't be abused and so that it can't have unintended consequenses. If you find that impossible, it might just not be a good idea barring any other issues weighing on the 'need'.

[tnord]

I do not need the exercise if the long term health of the category completely outweighs what current members want. I understand that logic when properly applied and that in itself is not and easy task, but as anybody who works in the public sector knows, it is usually best to give your customers what they want or they tend to go elsewhere.

Let me know.

this REALLY bugs me. i think the "public sector" (read; government) is a huge catostrophic failure because of exactly this reason. they are so concerned about "giving the people what they think the want" in order to try and win the next election that they completely ignore the long term effects. well guess what, the overwhelming majority of the american public doesn't know what the fuck is going on with the economy, hasn't the slightest clue how we REALLY got to where we are, and has absolutely no grounds to be shouting from the roof tops how we should solve the problem, but that doesn't stop them.

i'm all for the ITAC considering what the members want, but i urge them to use their own brain to make the best decisions possible for the long term health of the class.

[ddewhurst]

***but as anybody who works in the public sector knows, it is usually best to give your customers what they want or they tend to go elsewhere. ***

IMHJ, there are two choices now. Stay in Improved Touring with the rules as the are now written or move to Production where the rules have been so screwed over over the last 40 years that there are basically no rules. Oh, you want to build a car to no rules, how about you build a Grand Touring car. DO YOU SEE THE PROGRESSION?

:006:

[dickita15]

When you submit your findings, please also add the following:

A proposed rule that allows what you want but also does NOT allow any additional stucutural enhancement to the chassis other than what is already permitted in the ITCS...


Also David for the survey to be valid the wording of the proposed should be part of the petition. That does not mean the powers that be could not change the wording be in order to “vote” on a change the drivers should know the real effect.
If you need help vetting the wording this board is actually pretty good at picking apart stuff.

[tom_sprecher]

Jeez! Leave this place for a day to get some real work done and look what happens. ;)


When you submit your findings, please also add the following:

A proposed rule that allows what you want but also does NOT allow any additional stucutural enhancement to the chassis other than what is already permitted in the ITCS...

"Two jacking plates are allowed, one welded under each side of the car at a balance point that must lift both front and rear tires of that side completely off the ground while having a total area of no more than 144 sqin each and shall not be less than .080" in thickness or exceeding .25" in thickness. Any other function or additional structural enhancement to the chassis is prohibited"

Now that that's done let's get on with it.


this REALLY bugs me. i think the "public sector" (read; government) is a huge catostrophic failure because...

Wow! I meant the private sector but I typed "public". My bad, and I do agree with you, but you have to admit the same does not apply to the private sector.


***but as anybody who works in the public sector knows, it is usually best to give your customers what they want or they tend to go elsewhere. ***

IMHJ, there are two choices now. Stay in Improved Touring with the rules as the are now written or move to Production where the rules have been so screwed over over the last 40 years that there are basically no rules. Oh, you want to build a car to no rules, how about you build a Grand Touring car. DO YOU SEE THE PROGRESSION?

:006:

I respectfully have to disagree with you in that there is a third choice which is what the topic of this thread has turned into.

[ddewhurst]

& I'll agree to disagree with you. :D

[Andy Bettencourt]

"Two jacking plates are allowed, one welded under each side of the car at a balance point that must lift both front and rear tires of that side completely off the ground while having a total area of no more than 144 sqin each and shall not be less than .080" in thickness or exceeding .25" in thickness. Any other function or additional structural enhancement to the chassis is prohibited"



Total of 144sq/in each or 72sq/in each?

How about 64sq/in on each side? How about not crossing over any seams?

I don't have any heartburn about jacking plates (although I don't understand why people get so worked up over it. Weld a plate to your freakin' jack...) but I do have an issue with people using your 144sq/in and correcting another problem with it (insert reinforcment, safety, repair, etc). What you have created is the need to judge a pieces 'intent to structurally enhance'...when that is exactly what it is for to begin with. How much enhancement is too much?

How have we been getting along for 20 years without these plates? Really? :shrug:

[Matt Rowe]

"Two jacking plates are allowed, one welded under each side of the car at a balance point that must lift both front and rear tires of that side completely off the ground while having a total area of no more than 144 sqin each and shall not be less than .080" in thickness or exceeding .25" in thickness. Any other function or additional structural enhancement to the chassis is prohibited"
Perfect, the balance point of my car just happens to fall exactly where there is a gap between the front subframe and the beams that run back to the rear subframe. Of course, no one would accuse me of reinforcing the frame because that is the literally the only spot that would allow me to add jacking plates.

[tom_sprecher]

Total of 144sq/in each or 72sq/in each?

How about 64sq/in on each side? How about not crossing over any seams?

I don't have any heartburn about jacking plates (although I don't understand why people get so worked up over it. Weld a plate to your freakin' jack...) but I do have an issue with people using your 144sq/in and correcting another problem with it (insert reinforcment, safety, repair, etc). What you have created is the need to judge a pieces 'intent to structurally enhance'...when that is exactly what it is for to begin with. How much enhancement is too much?

How have we been getting along for 20 years without these plates? Really? :shrug:

144 each, 72 each, 64 each, as you wish. Just give enough area so the typical jack used under the jacking plate will not crush or distort the .030" floor pan or frame the plate is meant to protect.

I understand your concern and have offered a suggested rule for it. If by chance the location of the jacking plate will correct another problem while still lifting both wheels off the ground, than bonus for the owners of that manufacture and model of car. The category is full of idiosyncrasies, large and small like you describe, yet no one bothers to prohibit a manufacture and model of car because of them.

How do you justify your fear of the possibility that someone may gain some small structural advantage while the GCR states that the purpose and intent of the class will give you a place to race your car but not guarantee you will be competitive? Having spent countless hours on the ITAC, what cars do you feel the addition of jacking plates based on the rule above could possibly benefit by instantly having a detectable advantage?

No need to judge 'intent to structurally enhance' has been created until someone protests someone else for their jacking plates. If that happens the guy might as well add "no washer bottle" to the protest as well.

Honestly, if you look at some of the other changes over the past 20 years (or the last 5 in particular) the allowance of jacking plates seems totally benign.

Maybe the answer is to do it on a Divsional basis using polling of drivers like I and Mr. Ellis-Brown have suggested. I'd prefer that the ITAC and CRB not lose control of the rule making process in such a manner, but if it's what the customer wants and he pays all the bills, who am I to say "no".

[lateapex911]

Maybe the answer is to do it on a Divsional basis using polling of drivers like I and Mr. Ellis-Brown have suggested. I'd prefer that the ITAC and CRB not lose control of the rule making process in such a manner, but if it's what the customer wants and he pays all the bills, who am I to say "no".

I'd be sad to see a response such as that, as I feel the localism* that already exists is excessive as it stands. We have national rulesets for good reasons, and regionally specific modifications can lead to even greater localism.

*Why, for example, at the ARRCs, arguably the biggest IT race of the year do we see more cars from Canada or Wisconsin or Michigan or New England or....(insert other 700 mile away tow location) than we do from Florida? Just sayin-

[Knestis]

...Maybe the answer is to do it on a Divsional basis using polling of drivers like I and Mr. Ellis-Brown have suggested. I'd prefer that the ITAC and CRB not lose control of the rule making process in such a manner, but if it's what the customer wants and he pays all the bills, who am I to say "no".

Go for it.

There's NOTHING keeping a region (or regions) from designing unique classes. Ignore the facts that (a) your drivers won't be able to take a legal car anywhere else (like the Festival), and (b) nobody will come spend their vacation racing dollars in your locale...

Personally, I would LOVE to have jacking plates but I understand how the long-term health of the category *might* be compromised by the change, and I have to put that ahead of what I want. Many marginal compromises make big changes over time.

David - and I'm serious when I ask this - as someone who submitted multiple proposals for rule changes this past year, how do you suggest we decide where to draw the line? I recall you had 8-10 (more?) specific new allowances that you asked the ITAC to consider...

How would you recommend that the ITAC should respond to that situation?

What if 30 other IT car owners each submit a similar number of requests...?

K

[lateapex911]

What if 30 other IT car owners each submit a similar number of requests...?

K

No, I can't...too easy... ;)...carry on..

[ddewhurst]

Been jacking up on the pich weld with the Spec Miata for two years. They still look great. :023:

[dickita15]

Tom, while I do not disagree that we should be able to have a jacking plate provision, I for one am not willing to allow it at all costs and you seem to be willing. There has to be a way to write a rule that would allow a cage tube to protrude below the floor with a plate on it to jack up the car without giving creative builders a way to come up with a design that does a lot of other reinforcing.

[tom_sprecher]

Besides the tradition, the championship status for IT, and who can forget the excellent group of friendly, understanding and good natured people who put on the race, I would wager the weather in the Southland in November compared to that of our beloved Yankee brethren might be a contributing factor regarding the draw of the ARRC.

Granted, it is not nearly as nice as in FL, where their racing season is just starting, possibly explaining fewer FL drivers at the ARRC, but typically the days are warm, the skies are clear and the beer is cold. Typically.

As much as I appreciated this discussion, even though it did lack pictures of hot babes, at this point I am though with the jacking plate issue and have decided it will not be resolved considering the current stance of the ITAC. Really my whole point was that new members should be elected versus the current method of replacement. That is the only way I can see where the majority can effect change over the stance of a few, besides an increase in localism* of the rules that ultimately hold us all together, a condition I too would like to avoid.

Besides the Cermet coating allowance in IT7 in the SEDiv, I do not feel strongly about any other rule changes, including jacking plates, to where I will push any harder for than what has been stated here. Thanks to everyone for your input about a few solutions to the problem, and while the one I prefer is not legal, I have some choices to make.

[lateapex911]

Dear Tom-
Sorry we couldn't help you with your jacking plate request. however, please keep these images in mind while jacking. We are sure they will bring a smile to your face.

Love,

The ITAC

http://www.zocotravel.com/images/photos/galleries/reef_girls/images/03.jpg
http://www.zocotravel.com/images/photos/galleries/reef_girls/images/ANGELICA.jpg
http://www.zocotravel.com/images/photos/galleries/reef_girls/images/18.jpg

[ddewhurst]

Jake, my guess is that the SCCA will not appreciate you signing off "Love, The ITAC". I may be the minority but I expect more from a committee member.

For all those that haven't taken a shot at me in a while let er fly.

[JLawton]

Jake,

I would like to send my formal approval to the ITACs response to "jacking".

Thank you

(if they can't take a joke, f*ck 'em)

[tom_sprecher]

David, chill dude, Jake's cool.

Thanks for the babes!

[Knestis]

Racers being politically incorrect? NO WAY...!!

Kirk (who has some insight into a few board members' personalities so, while generally bothered by sexism, tries to maintain proportional outrage and is not particularly worried...)

[tom_sprecher]

Funny how you rarely hear women who are good looking, and know it, complaining about sexism...

[ddewhurst]

For those of you who think you have a handle on what the SCCA believes is correct & what is not correct are any of you aware of a National GTL car owner that was put on the carpet for something similar. Along with being told to clean up his sponser advertisement on his car he was reminded that the SCCA is a family org.

How about when some SCCA kids read this site? :o

Tom, no one is questioning about Jake being cool. Jeff has a respone for anyone who thinks Jake is not cool. Jake, Tom, Jeff, do you or have you exposed your children to these cool pictures & words?

[tnord]

For those of you who think you have a handle on what the SCCA believes is correct & what is not correct are any of you aware of a National GTL car owner that was put on the carpet for something similar. Along with being told to clean up his sponser advertisement on his car he was reminded that the SCCA is a family org.


yes, and i think that is total BS.

[lateapex911]

For those of you who think you have a handle on what the SCCA believes is correct & what is not correct are any of you aware of a National GTL car owner that was put on the carpet for something similar. Along with being told to clean up his sponser advertisement on his car he was reminded that the SCCA is a family org.

How about when some SCCA kids read this site? :o

Tom, no one is questioning about Jake being cool. Jeff has a respone for anyone who thinks Jake is not cool. Jake, Tom, Jeff, do you or have you exposed your children to these cool pictures & words?

Fact-

"SCCA kids" aren't some weird religious cult...they're kids like every other American kid. Which means they:



Watch prime time TV and see more cleavage, underboob, side boob, ab, butt, and naked images on shows like Entertainment Tonight, TMZ, (and others I can't remember the name of) than I've posted here.
Watch prime time network comedies and have seen more sexually explicit sights and jokes on Two and a Half Men that I've posted here.
Go to American beaches like I do, and have seen more with their own eyes than I've shown here. As examples, I've seen similar, or greater sights at: The Cliffs in Norcal, Huntington, Newport, Balboa and Zuma Veaches in Southern California, Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and Tampa Bay area beaches in Florida, Compo, Southport, Fairfield, and Burying Hill Beaches in CT, and Nauset Beach in Cape Cod. ALL the above beaches are public beaches.
Go to surf contests, in broad daylight on public beaches and see "Reef Girl" contests, which are open to the public. (Where these pictures were taken)
Read teen magazines and other entertainment magazines, where pictures like this are the norm.
Go to SCCA Pro Racing events like "Speed World Challenge", and see girls in tight tanks tops and painted on shorts and other clothes parade around holding SCCA flags!
Go to Reef's website in numbers that would dwarf both this sites and the SCCA sites combined numbers.

and I could go on and on.....


Please, David. This was a clear response, in obvious humor, to a post directly above it....you are ripping it out of context.

If the BoD wishes to remove me from my duties due to the negative exposure I've given the club with my little joke to what....38 guys with an average age of 42 that frequent this site, well, I will gladly step down, because that will signal a BoD so out of touch with the realities of even 15 years ago, and so ignorant of the bigger issues and greater work being done, that it would signal the begining of the end.

[wbp]

To Tom's suggestion that election of the ITAC would fix things:
Our election of the officials in Washington proves that this system works great to solve all problems.
Oh, Wait!:eek:

[Knestis]

To that point, we do remember that the elected BoD actually MAKES the decisions for our category, right? The ITAC only makes recommendations.

K

[tom_sprecher]

Ummm...

David and Jake,

You guys both have good points, but as with truth and lies, the answer is usually somewhere inbetween.

:shrug:

[D. Ellis-Brown]

Well, I always find it interesting the responses that come out when something is suggested. I will respond to some of the responses addressed back to my posting to "Poll the IT Competitors at Daytona"..... To Kirk Knestis..... yes I have submitted some 8-10 change requests---- 2 were adapted, most were rejected..... I do not suggest, or even think for a moment that all will be adapted. If you don't ask, you won't get. Not everyone agrees with me, that's fine. I believe there are 3 types of people in the world... Those who make it happen, Those who watch it happen, and those who wonder what happened. I prefer to try to make it happen. I have no tolerance for the other two. Since you, and your other ITAC members have accepted the responsibility to solicit change requests, and maintain the rules to some level, then you have to do what you feel is best. I reserve the right to disagree. I do not know what your (ITAC) real charter is?.... I get the distinct feeling that there are numerous issues that the membership has submitted, the "What", that the ITAC feel are rationale and should be permitted. But the "How" seems to be the stumbling block. Am I right?, Yes?, No? Like the issue of the Jacking Plates. It's implementation (How) seems to be at issue. No matter "How" the request is implemented, not everyone will be pleased. That is a fact. But don't overengineer the How. A simple "it is permitted to weld up to 4 plates to the underside of the chassis, for the sole purpose of facilitating the jacking of the car. No single plate can exceed more that 6" X 6" . Here is an approach. Or there could be verbage to permit two points, attached to the roll cage and extend to the underside of the floor panel maybe added to facitate the jacking of the vehicle A statement must be included that this jacking point shall no other purpose. If the "How" is the issue, then come up with some verbage, request inputs, discussion, limit the discussion time frame, poll the IT competitors, and get it done. Do not permit decision paralysis keep good, rationale ideas from coming to fruition. Maybe a process for "user inputs" needs to be revised that will facilitate getting good ideas from dying. But remember, no matter the verbage, not everyone will be pleased. PS... I did submit my resume' to the ITAC, but I race an ITB car.


To Tom Specher.... we in the south must be a different breed, but I could not support a "divisional only" rule change, no matter how frustated I get with the CRB /ITAC. I am a revolutionary, and beleive the South was right in 1861, but it would be only at the last resort that I would suggest to break out on own. I would go to NASA before I would go in that direction. Fortunately, all of the folks that I race with and against here in Florida do think differently than some of the folks, ( that I have only read about) in other divisions. If the guy who beat me, did not have a windshield washer resevoir, horn, or heater core hoses, I would never consider protesting them. If I thought they were cheating, in the engine area or transaxle, I would talk to them first.

To Jake..... I can not answer why so many of the Florida guys by pass up the ARRC. Don't know....We have the SARRC championships in Savannah, .... we start racing in January / February and our last race is on Thanksgiving weekend. We have some 4 World Class tracks in the state, Sebring, Daytona, Homestead, and PBIR. All within 4 hours of almost all of us in Central Florida. I had entered the ARRC this year, only to see a huge financial loss in stock market that necessitated a cancellation. Fortunately Deuce and Pete Keane from CFR showed what our ITB cars were like, and I think Kip Van Steenburg also took honors in ITS in his 944. But as inferred, I don't beleive it is because we could not pass the tech shed.
Sincerely, David Ellis-Brown

[seckerich]

Before Jakes post I was opposed to jacking, and now it starts to look like I should take another look-----or 2. :cool:

[wcmcarlos]

CFR's Thanksgiving weekend race is the first race of the year, not the last.
[thread hijacks please forgiven.]
Carlos

[ddewhurst]

Hey Jake & all the other fools that ride with jake. Go to the production site & open the thread that starts with "cekc" under Race Reports. Enjoy because as your slipping that same crap will be accecpted by some of you. Darren will get rid of that crap on the production site as fast as he can if he can.

[lateapex911]

Hey Jake & all the other fools that ride with jake. Go to the production site & open the thread that starts with "cekc" under Race Reports. Enjoy because as your slipping that same crap will be accecpted by some of you. Darren will get rid of that crap on the production site as fast as he can if he can.

Classic,,,just had to quote for posterity....:eclipsee_steering:


yea, and thanks David...that's clearly comparable.....glad you brought it up. helped your case! :shrug:

[ddewhurst]

***helped your case!***

Made my case Jake. It's only one short step from what you believe is ok.

[tom_sprecher]

What if yer a fool that Jake laps? :D

[Z3_GoCar]

Classic,,,just had to quote for posterity....:eclipsee_steering:


yea, and thanks David...that's clearly comparable.....glad you brought it up. helped your case! :shrug:

Whoa don't click on DD's link; it's not work safe or kid safe. Maybe I'm just innocent, but I was expecting a Russian race report.

[lateapex911]

***helped your case!***

Made my case Jake. It's only one short step from what you believe is ok.

David, your beef is with the rest of the world. You just *think* I'm the devil himself. In fact, if Reef girls represent the devil, which obviously they do in your little world, then the devil is everywhere around you. I suggest you don't wake up and look around...you'll be horrified. In other words, it's not what I think is OK, it's what the entire American civilization has deemed OK. TV sensors, movie standards, etc etc, etc.

Me? I'm having a good chuckle.

[lateapex911]

What if yer a fool that Jake laps? :D

hey lets toss a seat in my car and you can ride with the head fool!

[ddewhurst]

***entire American civilization has deemed OK.***