Big Picture of IT - Share Your Opinions

[tnord]

And even if IT doesn't go National. What happens when a top-tier effort shows up in your area? You want to stay where you are on the grid, either pony up some more money, or figure out how to improve the nut behind the wheel. So, one more time (try and keep up), if you're against change because of the impact it may have on you, you're me-centric. You either don't see, don't want to see, or don't give a damned about the big picture. The more I read your posts, the more I am convinced that I hit the nail on the head when I said you like to be the big fish in the little pond.



fine bill, you successfully baited me into it....

you haven't read a god damn thing have you?

there is a certain someone in our division who is a multi-time runoffs champ with a 90% ITA Miata build. same suspension as in the Prather prod cars, motor by prather, ECU by megasuirt, many hours on the dyno, tires by hoosier. He also turned laps on par (slightly quicker in some sessions) with Cefalo and Hoppe at IT Fest. i qualified P1 in front of him my first race out in 2yrs with a new car i'd never even driven out of the driveway. i admit i had nothing for him in the race, but i was only a couple seconds behind on the last lap when he got taken out by an ITR BMW and took first in an ~17 car ITA field and first overall. i know i have plenty of room to improve in driving, and my car still has a solid 5hp to go....but i feel pretty damn good about that result.

guess who wasn't planning on attending the ARRC and IT Fest until next year but is now giving serious consideration to the ARRC this year? me. not quite too sure how all that fits into your "big fish in small pond" theory.

what i'm talking about is obviously so far over your head you're completely missing it, because the only issues i'm bringing up are issues that affect everyone in the class and the health of the category as a whole. i don't know how to dumb down what i'm saying anymore so you can understand it, but i couldn't care less. if you're so damned smart, why don't you explain to us all how exactly it will all go down if someone waved a wand tomorrow and said "IT is now a national class."

by the way, what do you drive anyway? i did some searching on mylaps and the only thing i could find for "Bill" or William Miller was some ITO/STO/whatever contraption that was 5s slower than an ITA car. tell me that's not you? :shrug:

[Knestis]

... They should have gone that route from the start. $1500 - $2000 crate motors from Mazda rather than $6000 - $8000 'pro' motors from (fill in your favorite engine shop). ...

Sorry, Bill - that won't help much.

If I have an annual engine budget for two $8000 engine builds, that buys me EIGHT $2000 crate engines that I can dyno - the six weakest of which I can sell essentially new for very close to the prevailing rate. At which point I STILL HAVE maybe $10K that I can spend on more engine shopping - or something else to make me go fast.

That was standard practice among the serious types in "stock" karting when we were doing that.

K

[lateapex911]

On a more pleasant note, awesome runs this weekend Mr. Gulick! I heard a track record fell.......

:):):)

yes, I was very fortunate, and even though it wasn't 50 degrees, sticker tires etc etc., I got almost a half second under the existing record on my last day. Never been there before, neat track. Scored a couple wins too. Had an awesome crew guy...that makes a huge difference.

[shwah]

Sorry, Bill - that won't help much.

If I have an annual engine budget for two $8000 engine builds, that buys me EIGHT $2000 crate engines that I can dyno - the six weakest of which I can sell essentially new for very close to the prevailing rate. At which point I STILL HAVE maybe $10K that I can spend on more engine shopping - or something else to make me go fast.

That was standard practice among the serious types in "stock" karting when we were doing that.

K

This happens today in SRF. Class seems healthy in my division, regionaly and nationaly.

[tnord]

actually, i heard it used to happen, but now enterprises doesn't put out motors with more than a 2hp difference.

[lawtonglenn]

.
.


we could always take an idea from NC Dirt Track Racing rules:

http://www.ncdirtracing.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4753

"23.ENGINE BUYOUT -Anyone in the top FIVE may buy the winning engine for $1000 without carb,
headers, front accessories or dist. Any driver refusing to sell will lose all points for the
evening and car plus driver will be banned for 4 weeks. After 4 weeks he/she will be able to
return. If they refuse to sell again they will be done for that racing season. If the winning
motor is claimed by more the one driver, then it will be awarded to the car farthest back."

:D


.

[IPRESS]

So what is actually broke about IT?

Not much if anything that I can tell. And as things are, IT is helping the club plenty just like it is without cluttering up the RunOffs.
So as a betting man I would probably say the only thing that is going to change (any time soon) about things in this thread is if Travis' "sweethart" Ping deal falls through and he is forced to deal with the devil yours truly!:happy204:
I really don't think IT is going to be a national class in today's grand scheme. It would be tough to push that through even if we were all for it. The PTB is pretty sick of us anyway, "dang bunch of rabble rousing no it alls":D

[Bill Miller]

Kirk,

Believe me, I understand that people buy tons of 'spec' motors to find the sweetest ones. Went on in SRF for years, and Enterprises advertised those w/in 2 hp for as long as I can remember (since the switch from Renault). Point I was trying to make, was that everyone didn't have to spend that kind of $$$, not to mention, you wouldn't (hopefully) find ones that were cheated up, but not caught due to no tear down.

Travis,

Bring your game to the ARRC this year, be interesting to see how you do. And if you've got an ITA Miata w/ a Prather Prod suspension under it, how come you aren't writing paper?

[tnord]

Kirk,

Believe me, I understand that people buy tons of 'spec' motors to find the sweetest ones. Went on in SRF for years, and Enterprises advertised those w/in 2 hp for as long as I can remember (since the switch from Renault). Point I was trying to make, was that everyone didn't have to spend that kind of $$$, not to mention, you wouldn't (hopefully) find ones that were cheated up, but not caught due to no tear down.



go ahead and ask the guys out in your area about how their whole sealed motor program is going.

[shwah]

There are some sealed motors in other places in SCCA. If you want to run World Challenge in a 1.8t powered VW/Audi you can run a sealed Mahle power plant, thus you could run that in DP as well.

[Z3_GoCar]

....The current "top programs" will migrate to National races, and their finite budgets will allow only limited Regional dipping. (All things are finite, to some degree). This means that the lesser desirable Regional events will be less 'competitive', which would encourage mid packers and newbies......

Speaking of finite, I had a short talk with Oli Thordarson who runs a C-5 in T1. He told me about the efforts of a certain Ferrari racer who ran test laps with C-5's C-6's, and Vipers as well as his own car. He paid to have one of the official FIA drivers come to Road America and drive all these cars and let him know how to set up his and figure out how to take advantage of the weakness of each. Maybe this is only an arguement for keeping any Ferrari's out of IT as they're the only ones that are this limited. I think this is the same racer who showed up last year with a double decker semi with spare cars and a full team of Ferrari trained technicians.

Sorry Jake, I don't mean to be picking on you today:D

[lateapex911]

Speaking of finite, I had a short talk with Oli Thordarson who runs a C-5 in T1. He told me about the efforts of a certain Ferrari racer who ran test laps with C-5's C-6's, and Vipers as well as his own car. He paid to have one of the official FIA drivers come to Road America and drive all these cars and let him know how to set up his and figure out how to take advantage of the weakness of each. Maybe this is only an arguement for keeping any Ferrari's out of IT as they're the only ones that are this limited. I think this is the same racer who showed up last year with a double decker semi with spare cars and a full team of Ferrari trained technicians.

Sorry Jake, I don't mean to be picking on you today:D

I agree, there will be those who decide to go whole hog. But the point of the above paragraph was that those whole hoggers, the top tier guys, won't bother with many regionals. Maybe the "Runoffs", or the Arrcs, or the IT-Fest, but the garden variety regional will belong to the mid packer. Unlike the usual weak Regional Prod fields, I think that, under the "IT is National" scenario, IT fields at Regionals would be healthy. Maybe healthier than now.

Why? IT is a popular ruleset, and having the car be sale-able to somebody who wants to go National racing is another market, one that doesn't exist today. Plus, if the top tier teams are hitting limited regionals, Joe Newbie, or Limited Budget Sam have a better change of grabbing a trophy once in awhile.

[tnord]

why do you think IT regional would be healthier under a national scenario? i'm really scratching my head on that.

[Knestis]

why do you think IT regional would be healthier under a national scenario? i'm really scratching my head on that.

** Newbies interested in moving up to a National program will have to start somewhere and enter Regionals

** Even a highly tweaked IT car is going to be viable for enough on-track hours to make running nearby Regionals a viable option for testing/training for a National effort

** Better resale market pool; larger knowledge- and supplier-base, with trickle-down externalities to new drivers

** Better economies of scale for shops like Flatout, CMS, et al.; better longterm health and viability of local support for regional racers

...but ultimately, I'm more interested in a healthy IT category and healthy Club racing programs, than I am healthy regionals.

K

[quadzjr]

It seems that the majority of people that have posted on here, seem to be against the idea of IT going national with a small handfull of people that say it might be a good idea. So with the fairly evident popularity of keeping IT a regional only class, why is this still an argument?

[Jeremy Billiel]

It seems that the majority of people that have posted on here, seem to be against the idea of IT going national with a small handfull of people that say it might be a good idea. So with the fairly evident popularity of keeping IT a regional only class, why is this still an argument?

Perhaps becasue the people who are against it going National are only fearful and have no concrete/known answer as to why not? :shrug:

I would love to see peoples investment portfolios cause' we sure have a lot of very conservative people here! :D

[JeffYoung]

I'll repeat my two concerns on going National here, again. I think they are fairly concrete:

1. There is no guarantee that doing so will increase IT fields. Instead, I'm pretty confident (but no guarantee I am right as well) that for the most part we will see a "split" into guys who run Nationals and guys who run Regionals. I see this as bad for IT with no real benefit for the Club. From what little information I have about SM, this is exactly what happened when they went National. THe high dollar programs run National races, the fair to middlin's stay Regional (or create regional "old school" splinter classes) and everyone suffers a bit.

2. I believe our ruleset and rule culture is fairly unique within the SCCA. The events of the last few weeks have really confirmed that in my mind. I am very fearful of melding the Regional IT ruleset with the "National" mindset of ensuring competitiveness of all cars.

I used to think 2 was a black helicopter concern, but more and more I see it as real.

I remain strongly opposed to a split National/Regional distinction, with IT being a National class. I would be less opposed to ending the distinction and just having the top 24 classes go to the runoffs.

[Knestis]

... I would be less opposed to ending the distinction and just having the top 24 classes go to the runoffs.

...at which point a couple of the IT classes for sure would become de facto "national" (lower-case 'n') classes, with the Big Show up for grabs. Accepting your theory-of-action for the moment.

K

[pfcs]

All this talk gets me to wondering-could someone drive an IT car to the runoffs and be competetive?? If that was the case, well,maybe,.............; hell no! bad idea. Keep it regional-too far to drive.

[JeffYoung]

Which is not a concern for me in regards to points 1 or 2. It would be a concern for those who think going national will raise the price of competitivenes, etc. I don't discount that entirely, but I do tend to lean towards your position and Bill's that it would not change most of our racing programs' cost structure all that much.

I'm most concerned about field dilution from allowing IT to run National and Regional events, and the ruleset issues I mention above.


...at which point a couple of the IT classes for sure would become de facto "national" (lower-case 'n') classes, with the Big Show up for grabs. Accepting your theory-of-action for the moment.

K

[ericblois]

as ITA racer thats races SCCA and ICSCC both in the northwest states. i find that i race more with ICSCC because they ave 20 cars per race and SCCA is up to 8 this year last year was only 4-5. my only win so far was at the Rose Cup races in 2008 (SCCA) even though i won i was not happy with that since only 3 showed up so much for the biggest amature race this side of the Mississippi . with ICSCC best is 4th a few times by no means should my car be competitive motors down i think 15-20 hp from what i think i can build one to. im running on NASA specE30 suspension because its cheap. and im 50lbs over min and i run the same set of NTTO's for this year all trackdays and races. me and a friend plan on going to the ARRC this year with our cars knowing they are not as fast as we could make them but to run on a fun track and see what happends. if IT goes national i will be able to visit more tracks + for me but not sure about everyone else. i know i can drive the wheels off the car( been told by fellow racers, people watching and the all important people in white) any car, thats just me i like beating people with better built cars thats it. i will make my car faster over time. i truly dont know IT as a whole what would happen good or bad ,better competition faster cars. oh and im at the track record for ITA from just 4 years ago and now its about 3 seconds in front of me. im fine with that because not every weekend is the track record in danger. because my car is preped the way it is when the leaders slow down 1-2 seconds for a bad track i dont and get to race with them and have fun. oh whats that word FUN yes i have fun isnt that why we choose to race was because it was fun. ok ive rambled long enough by for now.
Eric Blois

[quadzjr]

Perhaps becasue the people who are against it going National are only fearful and have no concrete/known answer as to why not? :shrug:

I would love to see peoples investment portfolios cause' we sure have a lot of very conservative people here! :D

Some people (like myself) don't have a portfolio. All I have is a yellow folder I call "keepers". <--It is just a stack of bills.

I have raced against national level teams (factory supported teams). Money will buy speed, it is quite simple. When I raced motorcross, it was the factory riders up front then the best of the rest following them, all us other people were just hoping to get a factory ride, untill then you have to be excited with finishing in the top ten.. lame.

Everyone seems to be in agreement that it will cost more money in the long run, so why bring that upon yourself? even you people with money, don't you want to keep as much as you can?

[Bill Miller]

As I've noodled on this whole "It will cost more, if IT goes National" argument, I've tried to look at what drives costs in Club Racing. What occurs to me, is that w/in a given class, what drives costs, is the 'density' of the competition, and the perceived reward. You have to analyze each class individually, as trying to do comparisons across classes doesn't take into account the intrinsic cost differences. And, as a general rule, the faster classes tend to cost more (spec classes notwithstanding). For example, I don't think anyone would think that it's valid to compare costs between a FC and a FA. Same basic kind of car (winged formula car), but there are some significant intrinsic cost differences between them, and as a rule, a FA is faster than a FC. Same would hold true for an ITS car vs. an ITB car.

Anyway, onto the key areas I see that drive costs. What I define competition 'density' as, is how many folks compete in a given class, in a given area. The IT classes seem to have a higher competition density along the East coast, than in other parts of the country. That's probably why you see more large-budget IT programs in the East. That's not to say that there aren't large-budget IT programs in other parts of the country, or in areas w/ lower competition density. But, if you look at the size of the grid in a given class, and look at how close the guys that run at the front are, I think you'll understand where I'm coming from.

Because of the differences between Regional and National racing (in terms of a recognized National championship), the geographic areas that you look at the competition desnisty over, are different. And it's not even a geographical thing, but really more of a specific series championship thing. The RO pull drivers from all over the country, and for the most part, the competition desnisty for a RO trophy is pretty high. I would say (in most cases) much higher than for the corresponding Divisional championship.

As far as the reward goes, or really, the value that people place on that reward, what you're really talking about are trophies. That could be a NARRC class championship trophy, a RO trophy, a Divisional championship, a MARRS race trophy, an ARRC trophy, etc. Everyone places their own value on these rewards. Some are happy w/ just finishing on the podium in a Regional race, others aren't satisfied until they've achieved what they believe is the pinnacle for their area. For National classes, that's generally accepted as a 1st place trophy at the RO. For Regional classes, some see it as a 1st place trophy at the ARRC, others may see it as winning the IT Triple Crown.

Race drivers, by their very nature, tend to be highly competitive. They want that 'pinnacle' reward. But it's each individual that decides what they're ultimately satisfied with. I don't think anyone will argue the fact that most folks that run a National-eligible car at the Regional level, spend less than their counterparts that run those cars at the National level. This isn't an absolute, but I think is a fair generalization of the situation. I think it becomes even more accurate when you talk about the folks that run at the front, in their respective arenas.

Where I'm going with this is, if you want to run at the front, for a championship where there is a high competition density, you better be prepared to spend some money. Or as others have put it, bring your 'A' game.

Going back to the differences in IT programs around the country. Some of you that have been around a while might remember a guy from the PNW that drove an ITS E36 BMW (IIRC, this was around the time that the E36 was either going to ITR, or getting a smaller SIR). This guy ran an essentially stock car, and IIRC, said he had a j/y motor in the car, yet he was winning or running at the front in the ITS races in his area. Here was a car (and driver) that were running at the front in a car that was far from one of the top-level E36's in the country. Why? Because of low competition density.

For the most part, the guys battling for RO trophies have significant budgets. But I think the same holds true for those batting for ARRC trophies. If IT were to become RO eligible, the competition density probably will go up for those shooting for that RO trophy. You have some people that will argue that a 1st place trophy at the ARRC is every bit as significant as a 1st place trophy at the RO. And while it may be, w/in that specific community, I feel that the general perception is that it's not. Yes, it's an accomplishment, but you're really not getting all the best cars / drivers there.

So, if you have a perceived higher reward, you more than likely will attract more people that will want to go after it. That's going to up the competition density for that class (or group of classes). If you want to go for it, you will most certainly have to bring your 'A' game (as there will be more people willing to do just that), and that will, in some cases require you to up your budget. But, that's only IF you make the choice to go for it. However, I think the same would hold true, even if IT was always a Regional series, and you brought your ITA car from the SW to the NE (not picking on anyone, just making an example), and wanted to run at the front. Or if that guy w/ the E36 from the PNW wanted to go win the SARRC ITS championship. If you're going from a series w/ a low competition desnisty to one w/ a high competition desnsity, I don't think you should be surprised if all of a sudden you have to spend more money, if you want to run at the front. It's no different than the guys that currently run mid-pack in the SARRC/MARRS/NARRC IT classes, if they want to move up the grid. Either get more out of the car, or get more out of the nut behind the wheel. Either way, both will require you to spend more.

And by the same token, if you go from a higher competition density to a lower one, you should have to spend less money to maintain your current position on the grid. As myself, and others, have mentioned, if IT were to become RO-eligible, you'd pull some of the cream off the top. That automatically creates a lower competition desnisity for those classes, at the Regional level.

So I just don't buy the arguement that having IT become RO-eligible will automagically cause everyone racing in IT to spend more money. There's just too much evidence out there to the contrary (Regional vs. National programs for RO-eligible cars). And please, don't trot out SM as an example anymore. There are just too many things that are different about it, as compared to IT, that make it a poor comparrison.

Sorry for the ramble, but I figured I'd share.

[callard]

Good assessment and well presented Bill.
Chuck

[Knestis]

I like the "density" construct as well. It helps clarify an aspect of this issue for me.

Thanks, Bill.

K

[tnord]

So I just don't buy the arguement that having IT become RO-eligible will automagically cause everyone racing in IT to spend more money. There's just too much evidence out there to the contrary (Regional vs. National programs for RO-eligible cars). And please, don't trot out SM as an example anymore. There are just too many things that are different about it, as compared to IT, that make it a poor comparrison.


i don't think it's anyones contention that EVERYONE in IT will spend more money if it became RO eligible. it's really not accurate to use an individuals spending level that is "at the front" currently and compare that to what he would have to spend to be at the front of a regional event in the national/regional scenario. the proper comparison is between the guy at the front today and the guy at the front of the national event "tomorrow."

you have to make like comparisons.

- if driver X is winning today, what will it cost him to win a national event tomorrow?
- if driver Y is .5s off the pace of the fastest car today, what will it cost him to be .5s off the pace of the fastest car tomorrow?
- if driver Z doesn't give a shit where he finishes today, he won't give a shit tomorrow and it won't make any damn difference in cost. though he might be having less fun because half his buddies left for nationals.

there's a dynamic here you guys are completely ignoring too. we all agree that use of the process results in different horses for different courses right? in a RO scenario there's only one course that really matters. take Road America for example.....i would expect that if ITA went national today, you'd have most of the top 10 in Integras and Nissan SR20 derivatives. For all the guys running nationals, there's going to be a big movement to switch to these cars that favor the RO track because of their power advantage over everyone else. Is everyone OK with the runoffs becoming a 2 or 3 horse race? or will people start shouting that the process needs to be adjusted (yet again)? do you deal with it in the typical way the CRB does by throwing weight at the cars that seem to have the track specific advantage?

[Jeremy Billiel]

Nicely put Bill.

[Bill Miller]

i don't think it's anyones contention that EVERYONE in IT will spend more money if it became RO eligible. it's really not accurate to use an individuals spending level that is "at the front" currently and compare that to what he would have to spend to be at the front of a regional event in the national/regional scenario. the proper comparison is between the guy at the front today and the guy at the front of the national event "tomorrow."

you have to make like comparisons.

- if driver X is winning today, what will it cost him to win a national event tomorrow?
- if driver Y is .5s off the pace of the fastest car today, what will it cost him to be .5s off the pace of the fastest car tomorrow?
- if driver Z doesn't give a shit where he finishes today, he won't give a shit tomorrow and it won't make any damn difference in cost. though he might be having less fun because half his buddies left for nationals.

there's a dynamic here you guys are completely ignoring too. we all agree that use of the process results in different horses for different courses right? in a RO scenario there's only one course that really matters. take Road America for example.....i would expect that if ITA went national today, you'd have most of the top 10 in Integras and Nissan SR20 derivatives. For all the guys running nationals, there's going to be a big movement to switch to these cars that favor the RO track because of their power advantage over everyone else. Is everyone OK with the runoffs becoming a 2 or 3 horse race? or will people start shouting that the process needs to be adjusted (yet again)? do you deal with it in the typical way the CRB does by throwing weight at the cars that seem to have the track specific advantage?

Well Travis,


If IT went national tomorrow it would raise the price of poker for everyone involved.

Sure looks like there's at least one person out there that thinks it will raise costs for everyone.

As far as your comparisons, I think I covered that.


So, if you have a perceived higher reward, you more than likely will attract more people that will want to go after it. That's going to up the competition density for that class (or group of classes). If you want to go for it, you will most certainly have to bring your 'A' game (as there will be more people willing to do just that), and that will, in some cases require you to up your budget. But, that's only IF you make the choice to go for it.

As far as driver Z goes, if he really doesn't care where he's at on the grid, he's probably not racing w/ the guys that might leave for Nationals. That's not to say that those guys all aren't buddies, but they're probably not racing each other for position.

Regarding the 'different horses for different courses' dynamic, exactly how would it be any different than it is today? Road America or Road Atlanta, does it matter? You've currently got cars that are better suited to Road Atlanta than they are to other courses, and vice-versa. What if the ARRC moved to Road America? Or how about the ARRC @ Road Atlanta vs. the IT-Fest @ Mid Ohio? Also, what happens when they change the RO venue? Sorry Travis, but your argument holds less water than a collander.

The only thing (and I've already stated this) that concerns me about having IT become RO-eligible, is the increased possibility that the PtB may want to dork w/ the rules based on results. And honestly, the only reason that they (PtB) don't give IT a second thought now, is because they don't see it as 'real' racing. Get the right (or wrong, as the case may be) person in a position of power and infulence that wants things changed, and watch how hard it is to stop.

On the subject of rewards weight, while the cars are what are ultimately impacted, what I think the real scenario is, is that they throw the weight at the guy that can wring the most out of the car. In many cases, you've got several other examples of a given car that's impacted by a comp. adj., who's driver never stood on a RO podium. Could be because of budget, could be because of development skill, or could be because of driving ability. But they get impacted just like the guy that the comp. adj. was based on.

So tell me Travis, how are those new Pings?

[tnord]

Regarding the 'different horses for different courses' dynamic, exactly how would it be any different than it is today?


So, if you have a perceived higher reward, you more than likely will attract more people that will want to go after it.

i don't even need to argue with you anymore, you can handle it all by yourself.

[Bill Miller]

i don't even need to argue with you anymore, you can handle it all by yourself.

You're making even less sense than usual.

[tnord]

You're making even less sense than usual.

and there's the problem. you can't figure out that we basically agree.

[Bill Miller]

and there's the problem. you can't figure out that we basically agree.

You and I agree? Ok, who are you, and how did you hack Travis' account? Seriously, just so I'm clear on this, I think that IT being a RO-eligible category would be a good thing for the club in general, and IT specifically. And you agree w/ this? If that's the case, why have you been running your mouth and insulting me?

[tnord]

You and I agree? Ok, who are you, and how did you hack Travis' account? Seriously, just so I'm clear on this, I think that IT being a RO-eligible category would be a good thing for the club in general, and IT specifically. And you agree w/ this? If that's the case, why have you been running your mouth and insulting me?

[in my best 5yo voice]
you started it
[/5yo voice]

i don't agree that going national is a good idea, we're just looking at the same set of circumstances from completely different perspectives and end up at different conclusions.

PS - i still think you're a douche.

[Bill Miller]

[in my best 5yo voice]
you started it
[/5yo voice]

i don't agree that going national is a good idea, we're just looking at the same set of circumstances from completely different perspectives and end up at different conclusions.


I guess you missed that day in school. Different conclusions != agreeing.



PS - i still think you're a douche.

And here I thought you didn't care anymore.

[tnord]

good one Bill.

ya know what I see? and this is just a theory......

I see a guy who like to complain that people aren't seing the "big picture" and are being "me-centric" when saying that going national is bad for the class because of increased levels in time, money, and effort (as you outlined yourself).....when really it's YOU who is the selfish one. I see a "mid-pack" guy who is excited at the prospect of the front-runners leaving for nationals so he can maybe go "win" a regional against half as many cars as he used to run against so he can feel special.

but maybe i'm wrong.....it's just a guess. i admit i haven't a clue who you are, and haven't received an answer when i asked.

it actually IS possible for two people to look at the same set of facts and come to different conclusions. I'm fine with that, it happens all the time. agree to disagree, whatever. you apparantly struggle with it.

[quadzjr]

Where I'm going with this is, if you want to run at the front, for a championship where there is a high competition density, you better be prepared to spend some money. Or as others have put it, bring your 'A' game.


Well writen bill, and you are RIGHT, however still, no one seems to answer my question.

-We can agree that going national should see an increased effort by more teams to win an RO trophy.
-So we all know that you have to bring you 'A' game now to be up front of a very dense front running group.

My question-> So why purposely force the group to have to bring there A+ game?

If you want to go national "budget" racing with good competition and compete for a RO trophy, go build/race a SS or SM, and leave IT alone. (not saying that either one of these are cheap, just assuming that it should cheaper than probably any open wheel or GT-x car)

[Bill Miller]

I'll give you credit Travis, you sure do have a vivid imagination. As far as what I see, it's a guy that doesn't have the intellectual capacity to debate an issue on its merits, and has to resort to playground name-calling and foul language. I also see a guy that likes to shoot his mouth off, but doesn't have the integrity to admit he was wrong when he has been clearly called on something. You've shown that you've got nothing constructive to add to this discussion, and as a courtesy to the other forum members (who I assume are beyond tired of this by this point), I'm done with you.

/edit

Steve,

I'm not sure I follow you. I feel comfortable in saying that there are some IT efforts out there that would probably not see much (if any) increase in their budgets were they shooting for a RO trophy. Possibly some increased travel expenses because of the silly out of Division requirements.

One of the other things that has occurred to me while reading some of the responses, is that some people just don't want to deal w/ the things that come along w/ increased competition (or to be consistent w/ my earlier post, higher competition density). They want to only spend as much, and run as hard, as they have to, to be at the front, in their own little world. Maybe their egos can't deal w/ the possible reality that they're not as good a driver as they think they are, or their car isn't as close to a 10/10ths build as they think it is.

As someone said, for a lot of folks this is a fun hobby. But others are very serious about their programs (see earlier comments about racers being competitive). Why should those that are serious about their programs have to pick a different category if they'd really like to measure themselves against the best in their class? If you're like that guy from the PNW that was winning w/ a poorly prepared car, against marginal competition, and you think that you're really a champion because you won your own Regional title, and never ventured out to see what else was out there, you're just kidding yourself. In my mind, it's really no different than the guys that immediately think that they guy that beat them is cheating.

Every other category listed in the GCR gives people an option of where they want to race, why should IT be any different? I think people are attracted to IT because of the package that it offers. You've got a pretty wide choice of cars in each class that have the potential to run at the front (provided that you're willing to dedicate the resources to get there). That's due largely to the efforts of the ITAC. You've got some development opportunity, but don't have to go as far as building 14:1 hand-grenade motors and developing custom suspensions, and you can still get in the game for not a whole lot of money (but probably won't be at the front). My personal feeling is that were IT to be RO-eligible, it would be the most popular, and successful sedan class in the SCCA. Many people have talked about IT as a destination. I think that's a good thing. To tell them (IT racers) that if they want to really measure themselves against the cream of the crop, that they need to go elsewhere, is in my mind, truly selfish and me-centric.

[tnord]

doesn't have the integrity to admit he was wrong when he has been clearly called on something..

and what exactly have you "called" me on?

I also find it quite amusing that I'M the one who said i basically agree with your assertation of how the change would play out, I just don't agree with your conclusion that going National is a good thing....yet YOU are the one who just won't give it up.....then says something like the above quote.

[PSherm]

Well Travis,

The only thing (and I've already stated this) that concerns me about having IT become RO-eligible, is the increased possibility that the PtB may want to dork w/ the rules based on results. And honestly, the only reason that they (PtB) don't give IT a second thought now, is because they don't see it as 'real' racing. Get the right (or wrong, as the case may be) person in a position of power and infulence that wants things changed, and watch how hard it is to stop.



^ THIS ^

Is what I fear most if IT goes National. And I have been on the side of removing the Nat/Reg distinctions and letting the top 24 classes go to the Runoffs. After seeing how the CRB adds/removes allowances in the T/SS ranks seemingly at will, it gives me NO confidence in their ability to balance a class. And if they are giving our ITAC group resistance to the changes that will keep IT healthy and competitive, it doesn't bode well.

I am of the opinion that the ITAC should focus on fixing cars that have been left out of tGR, run requested cars thru tP2.0, and call it a year (or 2) and let the rules settle in for awhile... :)

[IPRESS]

Bill,
Why is SM not a good thing to bring up? It is a very close example of what changing to a national class does as far as makeup of the class and where the numbers change.
IT is not exactly like SM, but they are closer than anything else to IT.
Lots of cars, somewhat close in track performance and originally based on low budget racing. Sounds like they are kin. In fact they are as I ran ITA in my first SM before there was an SM to run in.
Here is the deal. Many SM drivers like SM fine as a National Class. Many would rather it be closer to it's original IT like roots. Because of this split you see many different SM tagged regional classes. It has become very fragmented. Shannon McMasters who invented the class warned that once SM became a national class this type stuff would crop up. (He was involved with SRX7 and saw where a class that had many rule sets almost died out.)
IT is too good a racing class as it is to let national stuff screw it up.
The best thing that IT could see would be: no Nat / no Reg designation and No ROs.
You have what you have now and get on all race cards. (except the ROs...but the RO eligible cars can't go to ARRC.)

[shwah]

And if they are giving our ITAC group resistance to the changes that will keep IT healthy and competitive, it doesn't bode well.

Of course that is the unknown. The ITAC over the past few years have done an excellent job of keeping IT healthy and competitive. That is not a guarantee that whatever new process, excuse me 'codification' of the old process that appears to produce different results, we may have now is in fact what will keep IT healthy and competitive.

I actually think it can, but that remains to be seen.

Beating the dead horse, it will have a lot to do with how non-standard factors are identified, recognized and accounted for, or not (with danger lurking in either direction). This is precisely why we NEED the ITAC, and need it to be diverse, but the individuals that make up that entity must be empowered to rely on their subjective instincts as well. Otherwise we just have a spreadsheet and will be right where we were in the old days of smoke and mirrors, and the famous 'back room dealings', with overdogs and weaklings throughout the ITCS, but with a crystal clear view of how they came to be. Of course with every single dyno sheet submitted as data showing a 14% or 21% or - gasp - 27% gain, we will all wonder how those cars are so darn fast, but won't have any hard data to adjust them.

Or at least that would be a worst case scenario.

The people on the ITAC are smart, know the class, and want to protect it. I just hope you realize that you are part of that protection - not just a formula that you transcribe for future members to plug into.

[tnord]

Many people have talked about IT as a destination. I think that's a good thing. To tell them (IT racers) that if they want to really measure themselves against the cream of the crop, that they need to go elsewhere, is in my mind, truly selfish and me-centric.


it says right there in the rules that IT is a REGIONAL ONLY class. and it seems to me that a significant majority of competitors want it to stay that way. to change it for a minority who knew what they were getting into in the first place is the truly selfish act.

[Bill Miller]

Mac,

I think the reason that SM is not a valid example of what could happen to IT, were it to go National, is all in the name. It's a 'Spec' class. That's a significant dynamic that doesn't exist in IT. And while I know Shannon M. was the guy that really got the ball rolling w/ SM, it was my understanding that the concept was born of the fact that, at the time, SSB was essentially Spec Miata. Pretty easy reach to get to a spec class. You've already got a bunch of the cars out there, and drivers that are racing them.

[tnord]

2 different generations of car
4 different engines
5 different ECUs
2 different gear ratios
2 different LSD types
4 different brake packages
4 different min weights
2 different suspension geometries
2 different steering geometries
3 different restrictor plate sizes

it is not a spec class, and practically nobody that actually runs in the class will tell you that it is. the concept was born because there were a lot of old SSB cars that had nowhere race as they were not competitively classed in IT.

what does go on in SM is something that doesn't explicitly happen in IT....yet. they do make an effort to balance all the different cars "on the tip of a pin." the ITAC and the process isn't designed to do that, but when it becomes clear that there are two or three different favorable cars to run at the RO track, i'd bet money all the other guys will be crying foul and looking for an adjustment. or i guess you could just let national IT become a 3 car class if you want.

[IPRESS]

Bill,
I know it is called a "Spec" class. And the leaders of it try to make it a "Spec" class. But in reality it is a "Hybrid". With that in mind, it is a close cousin of IT with the two different generations of SMs classed in two different IT classes.
Some of the warts that came to SM when it became a national class should be a concern when broaching the subject of IT being a ROs class. No I can't tell you without a doubt that those negatives will happen, but the money escalation has happened with both SM and AS when they moved to racing at the ROs. That is a fact.
The idea that the regional races would get "easier" or cheaper to win is probably false in most cases. In SM we have seen some national hotshoes use the regionals for testing. But most still race the regionals. Lots of former SM racers got frustrated with the price of poker and are doing something else. Yes some of the drop out is just natural flow of numbers, but the ROs war fueled the numbers going down.
The NE is such a hotbed of racing that I am sure (without my SM experience) that if I was racing up there my viewpoint on the subject would be somewhat different. The SE is IT heavy and might not suffer from a National IT, although I think it would. The rest of the country might struggle ITwise. Try to look at it this way.......If IT went National and became RunOffs eligible it would be no different than the other 20 something classes. SCCA needs a class division that IS different and IT is the answer.
You almost never hear someone say "You know ITX is really screwed up." But you do hear that about most of the other classes from time to time. It is something to keep in mind.

[quadzjr]

Why should those that are serious about their programs have to pick a different category if they'd really like to measure themselves against the best in their class?

To tell them (IT racers) that if they want to really measure themselves against the cream of the crop, that they need to go elsewhere, is in my mind, truly selfish and me-centric.

When we won the regional championship in ITA in 2003, we went to the ARRC, and qualified something like 5/6th? and had an on track accident that ended our day early. Even without the accident we weren't going to win. We know that, our car wasn't prepped enough, and never being on the track had it's role as well. no ego bruised, no biggie, try again next year (or when new car gets done :).

The point that you made that that we need another championship to measure if your the cream of the crop. I believe is somewhat redudent. I think that your argument holds a bit of weight for the fact that the ARRC is tailored for the east coast, and for people on the west coast, it is not as fessible of an event to attend due to the increased travel.

Nationals have June Sprints and the Run Offs

ItT has ITfest, and the ARRC.

[Bill Miller]

When we won the regional championship in ITA in 2003, we went to the ARRC, and qualified something like 5/6th? and had an on track accident that ended our day early. Even without the accident we weren't going to win. We know that, our car wasn't prepped enough, and never being on the track had it's role as well. no ego bruised, no biggie, try again next year (or when new car gets done :).

The point that you made that that we need another championship to measure if your the cream of the crop. I believe is somewhat redudent. I think that your argument holds a bit of weight for the fact that the ARRC is tailored for the east coast, and for people on the west coast, it is not as fessible of an event to attend due to the increased travel.

Nationals have June Sprints and the Run Offs

ItT has ITfest, and the ARRC.

Steven,

I hear what you're saying, but please read the rest of my comment in the long post on Page 14. I'd buy your argument about the ARRC, except for the fact that the Runoffs were held at the same track for years. Travel considerations may have influenced people's decisions to go or not, but you still got lots of folks from all over the country.

If the folks in Topeka would get off their butts and officially sanction the ARRC as the IT National Championship, I think you'd see participation go up. But that puts them in a real tough spot. How do you award official National Championships in a category when you have a policy statement that says that you don't know if it's the car or the driver?

That single policy statement speaks volumes for the overall attitude of the PtB towards IT. In fact, one could argue that as long as that policy statement is in place, there's really no need for any kind of codified, objective classification process, or any of the PCA language. You want IT to stay Regional? Fine. The more I've thought through that whole issue, and looked at IT in general, I realize that the issue I'm really trying to resolve is the elimination of that policy statement. Make IT RO-eligible, and the PtB have to step up and do something w/ that policy. And it's not about going to Topeka, or Road America, or Mid-Ohio, or Atlanta. People have talked for years about splitting the RO because they take too much time. To many, the RO is a big social event (which is not a bad thing), but I think there would be no less value placed on a RO trophy, were they to be split up into a couple of groups, and run at different times, and maybe different venues. Get an official sanction from the SCCA that the ARRC is the IT National Championship, and it doesn't matter when and where the event is run, or who else (Category-wise) is coming. It will carry the same weight as a RO trophy, but it will require a change in policy. And maybe that's what the folks that are against RO-eligibility for IT are really against. They don't want to see that policy changed, as they feel that it will be the end of IT, as we currently know it. Don't know if that's the case, but I do feel that IT will change.

Having a well developed, codified model to spec cars goes a long way towards minimizing that change. But what goes hand in hand w/ that, for things to be successful and equitable to all concerned, is the ability to take a pragmatic approach to cars that demonstrate that they are outliers to the model. Part of the PCA language partially addresses this. Probably needs some more teeth though. As they say, the devil is in the details. The current Audi example is a textbook case.

And if there are people that don't want this to happen, for whatever reason (they feel that it's bad for IT, could possibly have a negative impact on their program, etc.), they need to accept the fact that they'll never have an officially recognized National Championship that they can hold up as the equal of any RO trophy. It's all about trade offs.

A big thanks to Dr. K. for his education over the years, about policy. He's gotten me to look at things a bit differently, and to drill down to try and find the real drivers (no pun intended) behind why things are done.

Sorry about another long ramble.

[quadzjr]

Can SCCA declare the ARRC as a national champtionship without being a national class? If they could that would be awesome, however, I don't think they would want to steal any thunder away from the RO's.

I also think that the Run Offs would benefit from being held at different tracks. That way there isn't a home track advantage. Even though currently it is kinda centrally located.

[lateapex911]

Can SCCA declare the ARRC as a national champtionship without being a national class? If they could that would be awesome, however, I don't think they would want to steal any thunder away from the RO's.

I also think that the Run Offs would benefit from being held at different tracks. That way there isn't a home track advantage. Even though currently it is kinda centrally located.

The Improved Touring Category is a nationally regulated category. In other words, all IT cars operate under the same set of rules, nationwide.

It is not, however, eligible for acceptance to National races, and therefor it can not appear in the National Championship Runoffs event.

I'd think that SCCA club racing, and the Runoffs, need IT there. THey'd get fuller fields, and tighter racing that what they have in many current classes. Whether IT as a category would be better off though, is more debatable. However, assuming the former,

....it begs the question: Does the IT category owe it to the club to become a Nationally eligible category for the better of the club? Or should it defend it's own health first and foremost?

[jjjanos]

....it begs the question: Does the IT category owe it to the club to become a Nationally eligible category for the better of the club? Or should it defend it's own health first and foremost?

And that begs the question of why people equate the health of the Runoffs to the health of the club. National races, as long as I can remember - and that goes back to 1973 - have always been a minority of the participants in the Club Racing Program. If we subtract those running their "home" National(s) to get only those participating in the National "Program", the importance of the program gets even smaller.

I would argue that defending a healthy Regional program is in the best interest of the Club and the IT Category.

Since the Pandora's Box of IT going national has been raised - I suggest we look at how the last Sacred Messiahs for the Runoffs and the National Program faired...

Let's see, Sacred Messiah came in to hosannas and then the Romans crucified it. Net result - no salvation for the Runoffs and a less healthy class at the Regional level. This year at the Summit Point National, we had six (6!) of the Sacred Messiahs run.

So, I'm having great doubts at how such a move will do anything but move water from one pot to another and spill most of that in addition.

Eliminate Nationals entirely. SCCA holds club races, period. The Runoffs are open to any and everyone who wishes to compete and who has finished at least 6 races during the past 12 months at a minimum of 3 different tracks. No tow fund for anyone other than the top X finishers from the previous year.

Eligible classes will be the top 24 classes in terms of participating from the previous calendar year.

Drivers will be required to meet the 107% or the 105% rule. Those not meeting speed will need approval of the 80% of the drivers in their race to compete.

[lateapex911]

Eliminate Nationals entirely. SCCA holds club races, period. The Runoffs are open to any and everyone who wishes to compete and who has finished at least 6 races during the past 12 months at a minimum of 3 different tracks. No tow fund for anyone other than the top X finishers from the previous year.

Eligible classes will be the top 24 classes in terms of participating from the previous calendar year.

Drivers will be required to meet the 107% or the 105% rule. Those not meeting speed will need approval of the 80% of the drivers in their race to compete.

I asked the question to get larger picture views, such as yours.

I've been beating the drum for the elimination of the "national" concept and the top 24 idea for years. I think your ideas are spot on.

[quadzjr]

....it begs the question: Does the IT category owe it to the club to become a Nationally eligible category for the better of the club? Or should it defend it's own health first and foremost?


Why would we owe it to them, When the powers to be above don't seem to care about us now, and not take effect on what the ITAC (that in my opinion seems to have there thumb on the heartbeat of current IT. I am in full agreement that the SCCA is the best car club in the country and possibly on the planet, however what is the basis of the IT community (blue collars workers, out there to have fun) going to get out of the SCCA?

Our numbers (atleast the popular ones draw huge IT crowds. Including all IT division at the daytona race we had something close to 80 cars!! Why mess that up? lets focus on more pressing issues.

as a more theoretical possibility.. IT goes to RO. Draws more wallets into the category.. it would be almost foolish for them to build cars other than a select few in each class that would be competitive at Road America doe to the fast nature of the course.

ITC Civic
ITB Accord, MKIII
ITA integra, 1.8 Miata
ITS RX7
ITR BMW

As it sits now we seem to build a car that we personally like that "could be competitive", maybe not 10/10ths, and run it. This creates diversity. Then we dump a crap load of money, and we are still not winning, But that is fine we still have fun.

[Knestis]

As a PS to this thread, I have tendered my resignation from the ITAC, effective yesterday - essentially as a direct result of starting this thread.

A member of the CRB passed on to the ITAC chair that they were "frustrated with the public communication on IT.com about some of the issues we are working on," and that we should "cease any such comments, polls, whatever." That request was forwarded to me but I couldn't in good conscience comply, so I've left the committee.

This should NOT be construed as a criticism of Andy or the rest of the ITAC. They do a great job for the category, I was proud to have the chance to work with them, and I feel badly for being a quitter.

My "compelling need" to explain the source of the backlog of "please review" requests was set free here knowing that there was every chance that my action wouldn't be well received by the CRB. However, I tried *very* hard to make everything I said either factual or the expression of a concern of what might happen grounded in fact. I think I did a pretty good job maintaining that.

HOWEVER, Andy has pointed out that I conflated some cars that were spec'd outside the ITAC process (e.g., that Civic DX) with those set during the Great Realignment. He is absolutely correct that I misrepresented that situation. While that is an example of a car that got subjective weight added to it during its specification process, it was NOT done during the GR. I apologize for being inaccurate about that.

My tone went very negative in some of my posts re: the CRB's actions and the nature of what I was hearing from them but frankly, I was completely PO'd about the direction I saw the category being turned. I'm not going to apologize for being indelicate when explaining that I think we're on the edge of making a HUGE mistake for the category, going back to subjective additions of weight based solely on anecdotal observation of on-track activity.

Now, if history plays out that I'm wrong, that will be a good thing. I'm really bummed that it's come to this but there was only one option available to me that didn't require being disrespectful to Andy and the committee, ignoring the CRB's directive, or compromising what I believe the members deserve.

We now return you to your regular programming...

K

[frnkhous]

Sorry to hear this Kirk,

Sounds to me like the crb would like to move to back to smoke and mirrors and back room deals. Cars classed by the desire of somebody owning the car to have a competitive advantage. I think that asking for nobody to discuss possible class changes is kinda telling the members that they have no say in the club. Maybe i'm missing something. Sorry to hear you felt the need to leave the ITAC kirk. I'm actually more concerned now than I was before, I was pretty sure that between you and Jake Gulick we didn't have to worry about competition adjustments based on on track performances.

Brian,

Who doesn't think such actions by the crb are gonna improve anything and isn't sure why they made such a request. I can only assume they were getting letters/emails about possible changes and didn't want to deal with it.

[jjjanos]

A member of the CRB passed on to the ITAC chair that they were "frustrated with the public communication on IT.com about some of the issues we are working on," and that we should "cease any such comments, polls, whatever." That request was forwarded to me but I couldn't in good conscience comply, so I've left the committee.

Well that's complete and total bullshit. The member(s) of the CRB making such a suggestion should immediately resign. There is no place in this club for backroom deals and secret decisions. They aren't a bunch of freaking priests who, in secret conclave, decide whether we have to eat fish on Friday. Looks like its time to send a letter to the BOD.

Despite sparring with you, I thought you were doing a good job.

[Bill Miller]

Kirk,

I'm well and truly sorry to hear this. I can't say that I'm surprised at the backlash from the CRB, just sorry that it came to this. I applaud you sticking to your convictions. The category has lost a significant advocate. I also agree w/ Jeff, that kind of action from a member of the CRB is total BS. The person should be outed.

[Ron Earp]

As a PS to this thread, I have tendered my resignation from the ITAC, effective yesterday - essentially as a direct result of starting this thread.

A member of the CRB passed on to the ITAC chair that they were "frustrated with the public communication on IT.com about some of the issues we are working on," and that we should "cease any such comments, polls, whatever."


Kirk I'm really sorry to hear about that, all of it.

First off, I think your absence on the ITAC will be sorely felt. I always thought that you have had IT's best interests at heart. If you resigned from the ITAC, well, Danger Will Robinson! I'm worried. Thanks for all the hard work you did for all of us, much appreciated.

The public communication complaints from the CRB - that downright scares me. The great thing about the ITAC is that they are vocal, communicative, and actively seek member input. We don't want the opposite. What, they want you guys to go to the old "Thank you for your input (but we'll do what we bloody well like cause we're in charge!)" responses? Me thinks a big ol' black helicopter from HQ will be landing soon to take over IT.....resistance is futile

Clearly I'm not on the ITAC but I'll be starting some more polls in honor of your work.

Ron

[Andy Bettencourt]

For the record, the issue wasn't with the public comminication, it was the airing of the 'dirty laundy' while we were trying to clean it up internally. Right or wrong, the CRB wasn't excited about that.

Right now, IMHO, the CRB and ITAC are using one singular example of a classification to determine the overall philosophy of the class. It's an interesting excersize and will really mold how things are done in the future.

[seckerich]

Very sorry to hear that Kirk. I would have preferred you told them to kiss your A** and kept telling it like it is. You have always had my respect, especially when we disagreed. See you at the track.

[chuck baader]

Damn, Kirk, just damn. I had hoped that the CRB would understand that response and input from its customers is a good thing. I hope we don't go back to the secrete car club of America.

Thanks for all your hard work...and for all hard work of the other ITAC members. See you at the ARRC. Chuck

[Gary L]

Right now, IMHO, the CRB and ITAC are using one singular example of a classification to determine the overall philosophy of the class. It's an interesting excersize and will really mold how things are done in the future.

Wunnerful. :( IMHO, this is precisely the wrong thing to do... not unlike using the results from a single race to determine whether or not a car is misclassified.

Come back, Kirk!

[erlrich]

I'm also sorry to hear this, but not terribly surprised. The old addage about big ships turning slowly really does apply w/r/t the SCCA, and considering we still have a lot of "old school" members on the board I can't imagine they were too pleased with having their laundry aired in public, even if that public is their own family. It sounds like you probably rocked the boat just a little too much, and the skipper didn't like it.

Welcome back to the unwashed masses.

[pfcs]

So sorry to hear this Kirk. You seemed to be one of the "elders" who would carry the flame of the essential IT concept and philosophy into the new millenium with integrity and creativity, preserving its greatness. This is a great loss to a community that is becoming increasingly reactive. Your reasoned and stable voice will be missed. I am not sanguine about the future, Phil

[Knestis]

For the record, the issue wasn't with the public comminication, it was the airing of the 'dirty laundy' while we were trying to clean it up internally. Right or wrong, the CRB wasn't excited about that.

Right now, IMHO, the CRB and ITAC are using one singular example of a classification to determine the overall philosophy of the class. It's an interesting excersize and will really mold how things are done in the future.

Andy is right on. There's NO question the issue was that I was communicating - it's about what I was communicating, and to be fair, how.

But this is NOT ABOUT ME. This is about what the membership wants the category to be. It's ironic that prior to getting word from the CRB, I had taken the position that there wasn't much more that I could say about the danger of competition adjustments (bleah!) and rules creep in the category - that maybe we were finally to a place where a critical mass of current IT entrants were new enough that they didn't know the historical traps, and that no amount of evangelizing would shift their first principles.

That's what this thread was supposed to be about. If the CRB demonstrates by their handling of the Audi case that they're sticking with the old-school SCCA orthodoxy of the "Peterson Effect," AND you all agree it's right for IT, then everyone's a winner. But you'd better understand what you REALLY want, what you have to give up to get it, and how you'll decide if it was worth it.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Wunnerful. :( IMHO, this is precisely the wrong thing to do... not unlike using the results from a single race to determine whether or not a car is misclassified.

Come back, Kirk!

Actually, it is a great thing. The way the CRB chooses to handle this one case will set precident for how they could - or will handle other examples like it in the future. It is by this outcome that a continued direction, or new direction will be set. I don't hesitate to say that it will also probably determine who makes up the ITAC...because - as it should be - the ITAC needs to help the CRB carry out their charter and vision for IT.

[frnkhous]

Actually, it is a great thing. The way the CRB chooses to handle this one case will set precident for how they could - or will handle other examples like it in the future. It is by this outcome that a continued direction, or new direction will be set. I don't hesitate to say that it will also probably determine who makes up the ITAC...because - as it should be - the ITAC needs to help the CRB carry out their charter and vision for IT.

This almost makes it sounds like none of the current ITAC will be around a lot longer. I'm almost tempted to write/email daily the crb complaining about secretive practices which seem to encouraging using ontrack performance and not the process to control IT classifications. If this is all about the audi... Then the CRB member that made this comment needs to relieve themselves of the position. Kirk wanted people to be informed about the possiblity that competition adjustments, based on, on track performance from a car that wasn't even known to be legal might be taking place. The process by which most of the IT cars have been classed and v2.0 will make sure that all cars have been processed was basically being thrown out the window and stomped on and kirk is ask to step down for telling? Fuck that, that isn't airing dirty laundry that is informing the members of the Club, and remember it is a club, how the club is being run. Without IT members the CRB can deciede whatever they want, and the silent invisible cars will abide.

[Andy Bettencourt]

It's just not as serious as you make it sound. It's not a secret, not going to be a secret or anything like that. The CRB is hopefully going to define for the ITAC how they will operate wrt classifications. It's ok, really. It may certainly impact the tenure of some current ITAC members but in the end, the CRB needs a team that will help them fullfill their charter.

[bamfp]

Apparently the GT guys are having problems with the CRB as well.

[jimmyc]

Wait... wait... wait..

So the CRB says to the ITAC "SCREW YOUR WAY OF DOING THINGS, SCREW THE COUNTLESS LETTERS WE GET SUPPORTING IT, WE ARE GOING TO CLASS CARS THE WAY WE WANT."

And too get that to happen we put people in the ITAC who wont disagree with us, so everything is hunky doory.

(yes it is probably much harsher as i put it, but that seems to be the point of it)

WTF happened to "scca is a club. the club does what the membership wants. we listen to the members."

[Andy Bettencourt]

Oh boy.

[Bill Miller]

It's just not as serious as you make it sound. It's not a secret, not going to be a secret or anything like that. The CRB is hopefully going to define for the ITAC how they will operate wrt classifications. It's ok, really. It may certainly impact the tenure of some current ITAC members but in the end, the CRB needs a team that will help them fullfill their charter.

I'm sorry Andy, but this sure seems like the tail wagging the dog. You make it sound like the CRB needs another group that will validate their methodology. It was my understanding, that the whole reason the AdHoc's existed was to drive things from the bottom up. Not rubber stamp things from the top down, and do a bunch of grunt work.

Sure will be interesting to see what IT looks like in 3-5 years.

[frnkhous]

Like the Great realignment never happened. I do think that if the answer is to force the ITAC to align it's suggestions with what the CRB wants(tail wagging the dog), we will know soon enough because no matter what is said or done, other members of the ITAC will voluntarily resign soon as well.

[pballance]

.....A member of the CRB passed on to the ITAC chair that they were "frustrated with the public communication on IT.com about some of the issues we are working on," and that we should "cease any such comments, polls, whatever." ..........
K

THIS bothers me, not a little but a LOT. I have stayed quiet in this thread and some of the others because I have FAITH in the ITAC to do the right thing for the GOOD of the class and the competition. The only way that they can represent MY views is by asking ME what I think and doing so in a public manner. Other posters have represented views similar to myh own so I felt no need to contribute at this time.

The CRB should be as open and receptive to member input as the ITAC has been.

I have read elsewhere that there may be other issues that we are not aware and I hope those issues are resolved without the ITAC losing it's credibility with the racers in IT.

Kirk, THANK YOU for your service, THANK YOU for standing on your principals, and THANK YOU for being willing to OPENLY share with those who race alongside of you.

TO THE CRB: (since we know you lurk here) You had better start listening to those you serve, we the lowly IT racers, we are active, we will continue to support the ITAC. IF you want to see drivers leave to race with another sanctioning body, continue to act in a manner that supports the Secret Car Club of America.

Paul Ballance
and so you don't have to look for it member# 349066

[tom91ita]

sorry to hear this Kirk.

i suppose my 1st gen crx si will be going from ITB back to ITA?

or H5.........

[seckerich]

THIS bothers me, not a little but a LOT. I have stayed quiet in this thread and some of the others because I have FAITH in the ITAC to do the right thing for the GOOD of the class and the competition. The only way that they can represent MY views is by asking ME what I think and doing so in a public manner. Other posters have represented views similar to myh own so I felt no need to contribute at this time.

The CRB should be as open and receptive to member input as the ITAC has been.

I have read elsewhere that there may be other issues that we are not aware and I hope those issues are resolved without the ITAC losing it's credibility with the racers in IT.

Kirk, THANK YOU for your service, THANK YOU for standing on your principals, and THANK YOU for being willing to OPENLY share with those who race alongside of you.

TO THE CRB: (since we know you lurk here) You had better start listening to those you serve, we the lowly IT racers, we are active, we will continue to support the ITAC. IF you want to see drivers leave to race with another sanctioning body, continue to act in a manner that supports the Secret Car Club of America.

Paul Ballance
and so you don't have to look for it member# 349066

Pissing in the wind Paul. When was the last time you voted for a CRB member? Go to the club bylaws and see how the game is played. I hope I am wrong what is about to happen with IT.

[trhoppe]

Is Peter Keane one of the idiots on the CRB? Cause that guys is a real tool based on what I've seen him post on sccaforums.com. I do not want him having anything to do with IT.

Sorry to hear this Kirk, I thought you were one of the better things that happened to IT :)

-Tom

[cooleyjb]

Is Peter Keane one of the idiots on the CRB? Cause that guys is a real tool based on what I've seen him post on sccaforums.com. I do not want him having anything to do with IT.

Sorry to hear this Kirk, I thought you were one of the better things that happened to IT :)

-Tom

List of CRB from Fasttrack minutes


Bob Dowie, Chairman; Chris Albin, Fred Clark, Jim
Drago, Dave Gomberg, Russ McHugh, and Peter Keane.

[Xian]

Not a whole lot to add but it sounds to me like the CRB is making (has made!) some serious errors. If they're going to start calling the shots and try to load the ITAC with those who agree with them then things will spiral downhill pretty quickly. I understand that we're not "there" yet but seeing someone like Kirk step down isn't a good sign.

Kirk, thanks for all the hard (and often) thankless work you did. I imagine it was tough catching flak over the way things worked. :toast:

Christian

[gran racing]

Wow! Kirk, sad to see you off the ITAC. Regardless of what you're thinking, you've severed your purpose and have impacted things.

CRB, it's time to listen to what members are saying. I absolutely agree that the ITAC or whatever board "regulates" various racing categories in our club needs to be open and accessible. This ITAC group more than ever has been just that and it's absolutely been a good thing. In the past, crap would happen behind closed doors. Many people believed (right or wrong) decisions were based upon politics. This happens to the biggest board where IT conversations are discussed. Having the ITAC involved, posting, and seeking input is absolutely a good thing.

Yeah, it's tough not to be concerned right now and jump to conclusions.

On edit - okay, I'm actually pissed right now and trying not to react.

[lateapex911]

Guys, before you all dive off the deep end, read what Kirk wrote again. I see some serious jumping to conclusions here.

And remember who the bosses are: BoD > CRB > ITAC.

In MY opinion, that's not exactly accurate, I think it's more like:

Members > BoD > CRB > ITAC.

To that end, I've always tried to talk to members, and to try and get the pulse of members. Of course, members are usually self centric, at least in the day to day stuff. It's sometimes hard to force their thinking into the 10,000 foot view. That's, I think, what the committees are supposed to do -distill the members often conflicting wishes into effective policy.

In any case, let's not hurl stuff at the CRB before the facts are out. There's always two sides to the story. And that the difference between dark gray (black) and light gray (white) can be as little as 1%.

And remember, the CRB answers to the BoD. Hint hint, nudge nudge.

(insert standard :"if you want your world the way you want it, get involved, make your opinions known, talk to your reps, vote, vote, vote")

[lateapex911]

Wow! Kirk, sad to see you off the ITAC. Regardless of what you're thinking, you've severed your purpose and have impacted things.



What, that's a great typo, LOL>

[Greg Amy]

I deleted a post above because it contained private information - home mailing address and telephone numbers - of the CRB members. Regardless of the fact that I agree with the basis premise behind this post, I firmly believe this way over-the-line.

If you disagree with me, feel free to select the "report post" button on the upper-right corner and report it to the board owner/webmaster.

GA

[gran racing]

:026: Guess he'll need to build a Golf IV now. LOL

While I agree with your org chart, I don't necessarily agree that's the reality although it should be.

[Conover]

List of CRB from Fasttrack minutes


Bob Dowie, Chairman; Chris Albin, Fred Clark, Jim
Drago, Dave Gomberg, Russ McHugh, and Peter Keane.


:eek:

Andy, I have to say, it does sound as if your advocating Yesmanism. For some reason I've never dug deep enough to find out who actually makes up the CRB. My naivety had me thinking it was some wise court of old timer racing geeks.

IT is regional, IT has a core philosophy, and IT is for the membership. What's the fastest way to kill something? Drain the blood out? Take a turn away from core ideals that IT competitors share, the rank and file IT competitor gets a big wet towel thrown on them, they are the life blood of the category. Piss them off and drive them away and you have a failure as immediate as a perforated crank case, up in smoke and screeching to a halt.

It's fairly simple, and utterly obvious based on your statements above, Andy, I have to share the perspective of some of the rest here. If anyone is rubber stamping anyone, it should be the CRB acting on the recommendations of the ITAC, and not the other way around.

The membership is asking for transparency, most have been utterly supportive of the ITAC, understanding that the process in general is time consuming and that you are all volunteers. Now we're all being told that we do not have any representation, and "oh by the way, taxes are gonna go up, so get ready!"

Makes a guy want to vote third party. . . :birra:

[Andy Bettencourt]

I didn't design the system, I just volunteer in it. I knew how it was going in and it is the same now as it was then.

I most certainly am not adopting any such viewpoint. All I want people to understand is that there is an issue between the committees that is on the table for debate and when that debate is over, the dust will settle where it may.

I for one, don't care if the CRB tells me to tone it down on BB's, I talk too much on here anyway. . What I do hold dear are a few core principles that *I* believe makes IT great. If the foundation that those principles are built on develops a crack, then I will be the first to step aside and let the CRB do what they do. They are, afterall, responsible for Club Racing.

[lateapex911]

:eek:

Andy, I have to say, it does sound as if your advocating Yesmanism. .......
It's fairly simple, and utterly obvious based on your statements above, Andy, I have to share the perspective of some of the rest here. If anyone is rubber stamping anyone, it should be the CRB acting on the recommendations of the ITAC, and not the other way around.

The membership is asking for transparency, most have been utterly supportive of the ITAC, understanding that the process in general is time consuming and that you are all volunteers. Now we're all being told that we do not have any representation, and "oh by the way, taxes are gonna go up, so get ready!"

Makes a guy want to vote third party. . . :birra:

I don't think Andy is being a 'yesman" at all. And I don't think anyone has said anything about no representation, and taxes going up.

I *think* what Andy (and I) are saying is that the ITAC is discussing things with the CRB...and we really don't know much more than that...

I imagine if we and the CRB sat around a table and had a few beers, we'd have a productive conversation. We just need to do that.

As for taxes, representation and all that, it never hurts to talk to your BoD member in person or via email, or your CRB rep. It's my opinion that I work for the CRB, and they work for the BoD...who works for YOU. I work for you then, but I do it via them. I can tell them what you think, and make my recommendations based on my analysis of my dealings and talks with the membership, but the BoD will have the clearest picture if it isn't delivered to them like telephone tag...

I've always suggested, if you like what the ITAC says they are trying to do, tell the big guys, if you don't like it, tell the big guys!

[Bill Miller]

Guys, before you all dive off the deep end, read what Kirk wrote again. I see some serious jumping to conclusions here.

And remember who the bosses are: BoD > CRB > ITAC.

In MY opinion, that's not exactly accurate, I think it's more like:

Members > BoD > CRB > ITAC.

To that end, I've always tried to talk to members, and to try and get the pulse of members. Of course, members are usually self centric, at least in the day to day stuff. It's sometimes hard to force their thinking into the 10,000 foot view. That's, I think, what the committees are supposed to do -distill the members often conflicting wishes into effective policy.

In any case, let's not hurl stuff at the CRB before the facts are out. There's always two sides to the story. And that the difference between dark gray (black) and light gray (white) can be as little as 1%.

And remember, the CRB answers to the BoD. Hint hint, nudge nudge.

(insert standard :"if you want your world the way you want it, get involved, make your opinions known, talk to your reps, vote, vote, vote")

Damn, where did I put my hip boots?????


In MY opinion, that's not exactly accurate, I think it's more like:

Members > BoD > CRB > ITAC.

Spoken like a true politician Jake. The members haven't run this club in a loooooong time. And spare me your "but the members vote in the BoD rhetoric".

Any time you have people in positions that impact policy decisions, that are appointed by those above them, you create a situation where the appointees are subject to political pressure from above.

I don't think anyone on this board would characterize Kirk as a loose cannon, and to have the CRB (be it the entire board, or one individual), attempt to gag him, when he's doing what he feels is in the best interest of his constituency, is pure BS. Rather than actually deal w/ the issue(s) directly and openly, the CRB have chosen to keep it in the shadows and quiet the person that brought it to light. It's interesting to see who the people are, that are defending the CRB's actions.

Greg,

Tough call on that one. I probably would have been inclined to leave that info, as I think people in those kinds of positions should be accessible. But I can certainly see your point in removing it.

[lateapex911]

:rolleyes:

http://www.roadraceautox.com/showthread.php?t=25324

[gran racing]

Greg,

Tough call on that one. I probably would have been inclined to leave that info, as I think people in those kinds of positions should be accessible. But I can certainly see your point in removing it.

Eh, that was probably a good move. All that information can be found by logging into the SCCA site and downloading the large contact information PDF. It contains every board, and each person who has a position on a region level's info. This just ensures people don't simply react and take some time to give thought to their response.

[Andy Bettencourt]

It's interesting to see who the people are, that are defending the CRB's actions.



All I will say from here on in is that you don't know the whole story. Simple. 2 weeks from now, there will be a decision made, sides taken and information given.

I posed the question we are debating on this very forum and it got little play.

[frnkhous]

REALLY? Little play, comment on various topics brought up including the Audi which I think is what this is actually about. Jim Drago has no confindence that the process could be correct and that car should be 200 lbs lighter is the problem. He's not content to set the weight, and then allow the ITAC to look later if it appears that it makes above the standard power multiplier. I think it got play over 16 pages Andy. It may not have been the only discussion but most thought it should get the weight break. The cars in question are being beaten on a regular basis. They weren't below the track record when they managed to qualify on the front row at the arrc. They didn't go to tech. And they definetly used bump drafting to improve the lap times to get on the front row.

But if you don't think it got play I'll say that I think the car should get the processed weight. When one shows up and dominates the competition and sets new track records everywhere it goes, i'll consider it time to start asking for dyno sheets. You can't force someone to give that info up, but if it is the car to have other's will build one shortly and somebody will share the info.

To add to this, If you don't like any of this right now, don't bother the ITAC, they are getting the brunt of the complaints from the members of the IT community and that will do no good. Go directly to the crb and bod members. That will be much more effective than squeezing the ITAC on both sides and making them want to stop volunteering. Most of them from what I gather enjoy being on the ITAC, lately pressure from the crb and now an overflow of pm's/email from members has at least some of them rethinking being members of the ITAC.

Brian

[seckerich]

Thought I would cross post the response from Kirk. I sent my letter to the BOD first week this posted. If you care or have an opinion then let them know. I will be speaking with a few at the SIC to be sure. This BS about no input or discussion until AFTER they make a decision is not cutting it.






from roadrace autox.com:
Do NOT blame Andy or the rest of the ITAC for this situation, y'all. Andy was only the messenger and he was pretty much compelled to pass on the CRB's (or member(s) of the CRB's) directive. I complied with it because I couldn't ignore it without leaving him in the doo-doo with the CRB, and I didn't feel that I could fulfill my commitment to the committee, category, and members without being able to ask hard questions and voice opinions about points on which I disagree with CRB members, some of you all, et al.

And while there are differences among the ITAC members, the consensus direction of the group - which is evident to anyone reading Fastrack over the past 18 months, when I was involved - has been very conservative. This plays out both in terms of being VERY reluctant about new allowances (avoiding rules creep) and working toward the goal of having a transparent, repeatable process for spec'ing cars - absolutely staying out of the competition adjustment (bleah!) business.*

Comments from CRB members who sat in on our calls (Keane, Albin, Dowie) have sounded in the past few months increasingly skeptical about our first principle re: the latter - that we'd rather have a repeatable, transparent system than one that attempts to get every car "right" - as long as "right" is defined in terms of anecdotal observed on-track performance.

The lack of action on a large number of IT weight recommendations (now voted on since the ITAC's August meeting, as I understand it), and then the Audi bouncing back to us, got me to a point where I became VERY worried about a return to anecdotal, "performance-based" weight adjustments. This was when I started the IT.com thread on the "future of IT." I tried VERY hard to use that venue to encourage members to make their priorities known to their representatives, although I confess that my negativity showed through more than once in my comments. DESPITE that, I could envision at least three scenarios in which I would be OK with things:

1. We determine that the Audi in question does indeed make more than the 25% standard assumed power gain over stock in IT form, we change our recommendation to a new process weight, and the CRB votes on it** or...

2. We determine that it does NOT make more than expected power and the CRB votes to support the ITAC recommendation to set it at it's process weight, or...

3. We recommend a process weight in ANY scenario, but the CRB votes to add weight regardless - but is willing to go on record as having done so.

It might surprise you that I'd be cool with that last option but I would have been. The ITAC recommends and the CRB decides. If they thought we were wrong, they would be completely within their purview to ignore our recommendation. You all (those member thingies) would then be empowered to communicate to each entity to explain what you think is best for the category.

What I could NOT handle would have been the ITAC being co-opted into participating in what looked like a seamless process, that spit out a weight inconsistent with what the process recommended. Or invisible adjustments by the CRB to process-derived weights, without documentation of where the changes came from.***

Jim Drago recently communicated with the ITAC and indicated his fundamental disagreement with our first assumption (repeatability over "correctness"), and promised that he wasn't going to change his mind any time soon. My confidence was shaken a little by some of the things we read from him but, or answers he wouldn't give, even though I felt like I needed to know more about what the rest of the ITAC was thinking, I was still going to try...

Then I got the directive from the CRB.

I explained in my resignation letter to the ITAC members that I had decided to let the Audi question play itself out. Ironically, I had also gotten to the point at IT.com where I had backed out of the fray, figuring that i wasn't making any difference and that if a critical mass of IT drivers wanted competition adjustments (bleah!) and more allowances to change/remove stock parts, it wouldn't help for me to keep hollering about it.

So right now?

I firmly believe that many, perhaps all, of the current CRB members do not want IT to use the classing/specifying process recently codified by the ITAC - most notably, they want to reserve the right to add or subtract weight from any process-derived result if they think for whatever reason a car might be "too fast" based on observation of race cars on race tracks.

I more firmly believe they don't want to make information about the use of that approach available to the members. The Club still has a detrimental culture of "opacity" (not my word but I'll take it!) where rules making, stewardship, the Court of Appeals and other management structures are concerned. It came up repeatedly - although less and less as my tenure went on - that giving members too much information would just make it necessary to answer a bunch of questions, that someone would ALWAYS be upset with ANY decision, etc., as rationale for not doing things like publishing the process and practices that surround it. I'm a big freakin' Lefty about stuff like this but I believe that members should know what's going on; and that leaders should ask for input, make the decision they think best, be held accountable for their decisions through processes to ascertain success, and be willing to live with the good and bad outcomes (and opinions!) as they might arise.

YOU ALL need to not bitch here or at IT.com - again, most particularly not to Andy et al. on the ITAC. They still have things they want to try to accomplish, I imagine, and are (as Andy has pointed out) very interested in the outcome of what looks like will be something of a process to revisit the Audi power question. You DO need to make sure that you know what you care about in the big picture of IT, you know what you'll have to give up or compromise to get it, and that you'll share your vision and priorities for the category with your CRB and BoD members.

You can't count on someone being your proxy (e.g., any of the ITAC members), and you CAN probably change the Club - if you are willing to have the hard conversations.

K



* Competition adjustment is defined any time you see me use the term as weight adjustments based solely on on-track performance (finishes, lap times, qualifying positions).

** To get to its current listed weight, this car would have to make something approaching 40% more power in IT than stock.

*** And for the zillionth time, remember that the process in its current iteration is NOT a "pure objective formula," that doesn't have any room for the application of judgment. There is (as of last week) for all intents and purposes ONE and only ONE place where the ITAC can dig up and consider evidence to have subjective flexibility - the power multiplier. This (again, last I saw of it) is the most diddle-proof system ever used in to spec IT weights, and in all likelihood the most predictable ever applied in SCCA Club racing.
__________________
.
I love Malt Liquor and now I can sit on the couch with a forty EVERY Monday night, rather than blowing one each month on a 4-hour conference call. :)

Conover Motorsports Team GTI (http://it2.evaluand.com/gti/events06.php) - 2008 ITB SARRC "First Loser"

With KONI struts (http://www.koniracing.com/), high quality race products from FASTtech Ltd. (http://www.fasttechlimited.com/), and HOOSIER tires from Phil's Tire Service (http://www.philstireservice.com/) (http://www.philstireservice.com/)

[Greg Amy]

Someone wanna PM me on what this "Audi Thing" is all about? I obviously missed in amidst all the poo-flinging...

[Knestis]

Someone wanna PM me on what this "Audi Thing" is all about? I obviously missed in amidst all the poo-flinging...

Member request to revisit the ITB Audi Coupe weight, ITAC ran the numbers, no evidence to use anything other than the SOP 25% power multiplier, recommendation comes out of the process that the car should be listed something like 200 pounds less than its current ITCS weight, recommendation not voted on by CRB and instead returned to the ITAC for "closer look."

K

PS - My phone battery died and my charger is at work, Greg. I'll call you after we get done with some errands this AM, on Laurene's phone.

[JeffYoung]

Quick thoughs:

1. I think all discussion on IT.com is good and any "gag" on that bad. Some of it might not cast the CRB in the best light; they are welcome to post here and correct anything they see as wrong.

2. A couple of the guys on the CRB who participate on the ITAC calls are gret guys and do in my mind seem to have the best interests of IT in mind, and understand that the ITAC and IT membership have worked hard to get where we are.

3. I think fundamentally we are looking at a culture clash between IT culture and the rest of SCCA culture. IT = we discuss and decide things on forum, in the open and expect it to be that way especially since 2001/02/03. SCCA = decisions are made in private. IT = we prefer repeatability, predicability and stability over equality. SCCA = a foundational principle is to use on track performance to make cars equal.

No. 3 is why we are where we are.

[jjjanos]

I deleted a post above because it contained private information - home mailing address and telephone numbers - of the CRB members. Regardless of the fact that I agree with the basis premise behind this post, I firmly believe this way over-the-line.

All of that information is available on the SCCA website.

[Bill Miller]

All I will say from here on in is that you don't know the whole story. Simple. 2 weeks from now, there will be a decision made, sides taken and information given.

I posed the question we are debating on this very forum and it got little play.

Well Andy, all people can go on is the information they have, or what they can get by reading between the lines. I have a lot of respect for Kirk (as I think a lot of folks here and at the sandbox do). He and I have not always agreed, but I have never felt that he wasn't always above board and acted in a way that he felt was in the best interest of the category.

After reading his post from the sandbox, I'm even more dis-heartened by the way things seem to be going. He was told to shut up because the PtB wanted to keep things they way they've always been, do things behind closed doors and to hell w/ the members.

Your comments about the ITAC needing to 'align their philosophy' w/ the CRB is pure BS political rhetoric, and in pretty much so many words say that the CRB want the ITAC to do what they're told and not make waves.

As I've said before, I hate patronage positions. The CRB needs to be made up of folks who represent all areas of Club Racing. I don't think the CRB should be a seperately appointed group, but rather should be made up of the chairs of the various AdHoc's. I know I'll here the "But hey, you're asking people that volunteer to do even more work, it's not fair." My position on volunteering for something has always been that if you're going to do it (volunteer), you do it for the whole job, and all that it entails, not just for the bits and pieces that you want to do. And if there's more work than you bargined for, don't bitch about it, just step down or take a lessor role.

Each AdHoc chair should be voted on by the members of the respective committee. Chair tenure should be no more than 2-3 years. New AdHoc members are voted in by the current committee. People can apply for positions on an AdHoc, or they can be recruited. Tenure should be formally limited to no more than 5-6 years. Members could be re-elected to a given committee.

That way you get a CRB that represents all areas of Club Racing, and you take away the political pressure from the BoD on the CRB, and from the CRB on the various AdHoc's.

[lateapex911]

All of that information is available on the SCCA website.

yes, but it requires the searcher to be an actual member, and therefor a stakeholder. Of course, there's no protection of that getting spread around to anyone, but it's not a bad idea to have people contacting at least be a member.

(And yes there are plenty of legit reasons non members (business partners, for example) can reach the boards, but they've probably been given the access anyway.)

The stakeholding position is one of interest in many matters.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bill, IMHO you are over-reacting. The CRB has a vision and they need a team that will help them carry that vision out. The members and the ITAC can try and convince them what that vision SHOULD be.

I don't know anyone who is on the current ITAC who will just 'toe the line'. I know for me, that if they want me to do something that I can't do in good faith, I will follow Kirk out the door. Simple really.

Whatever, it will all be over in a couple weeks. I am so tired of all of this.

[Eagle7]

Email sent to BOD and CRB, fully supporting the ITAC's approach.

[Bill Miller]

Bill, IMHO you are over-reacting. The CRB has a vision and they need a team that will help them carry that vision out. The members and the ITAC can try and convince them what that vision SHOULD be.

I don't know anyone who is on the current ITAC who will just 'tow the line'. I know for me, that if they want me to do something that I can't do in good faith, I will follow Kirk out the door. Simple really.

Whatever, it will all be over in a couple weeks. I am so tired of all of this.

Well Andy, you've got a CRB member that doesn't agree w/ your approach an 'promises that he won't change his mind any time soon'. If that's the CRB's 'vision' for IT, that pretty much flies in the face of everything that you, Darin, Kirk, and the others have worked for for the past 5 or 6 years.

And honestly Andy, unless you really didn't support Kirk's approach w/ his communication, I'm surprised that you didn't follow him out the door.

[JeffYoung]

I respect and support Kirk's decision to leave.

I also respect and support Andy's decision to stay until it is clear what the CRB wants from us. This is a critical time for IT, and having Andy there as leader (and Jake, Josh, et. al.) is very important for those of us who buy into the process and the idea that repeatability and transparency are the end goals of IT rather than "on the head of a pin" equality.

I also fully agree that if the CRB wants something different, they are entitled to it. They are "our" boss. But you guys are their boss........

[lateapex911]

Well Andy, you've got a CRB member that doesn't agree w/ your approach an 'promises that he won't change his mind any time soon'. If that's the CRB's 'vision' for IT, that pretty much flies in the face of everything that you, Darin, Kirk, and the others have worked for for the past 5 or 6 years.

And honestly Andy, unless you really didn't support Kirk's approach w/ his communication, I'm surprised that you didn't follow him out the door.

You know Bill, nothing is as it seems in life. There ARE more factors at play. ONE CRB member is NOT a majority. Just maybe, people are trying to discuss, understand, and come to reasonable conclusions.

And tell me, if the entire ITAC thinks that Kirk was right, and followed him out the door, would that be good for IT?

Andy has said things are in play. Things are in play.

[gran racing]

"2 weeks from now, there will be a decision made, sides taken and information given" but not communicated on this message board nor made public till they darn well feel like it.

Openness, and transparency should be the policy of more boards within SCCA. It gets membership involved and feel like they actually have a say and voice is being heard. Sure sounds like we're taking steps backwards lately even if it's just our perception.

[lateapex911]

"2 weeks from now, there will be a decision made, sides taken and information given" but not communicated on this message board nor made public till they darn well feel like it.

Openness, and transparency should be the policy of more boards within SCCA. It gets membership involved and feel like they actually have a say and voice is being heard. Sure sounds like we're taking steps backwards lately even if it's just our perception.

See, Dave, I can't communicate anything until I Know it....

Right now, I just don't know what I need to know...

[Andy Bettencourt]

"2 weeks from now, there will be a decision made, sides taken and information given" but not communicated on this message board nor made public till they darn well feel like it.

Openness, and transparency should be the policy of more boards within SCCA. It gets membership involved and feel like they actually have a say and voice is being heard. Sure sounds like we're taking steps backwards lately even if it's just our perception.

Dave - what the heck are you talking about? Until the debate happens, the decisions are made and the sides are taken - can we tell you the outcome. Right?

[Knestis]

...Your comments about the ITAC needing to 'align their philosophy' w/ the CRB is pure BS political rhetoric, and in pretty much so many words say that the CRB want the ITAC to do what they're told and not make waves. ...

What Andy describes is actually a very accurate representation of where the ITAC guys are at, Bill. While it does indeed seem clear that the CRB doesn't want people like me getting the members riled up, the fundamental question is whether - or how, we hope - the two philosophies will get resolved.

I don't want to speak for him but I *think* that when Andy explains that the ITAC and the CRB need to be on the same page, I'm pretty sure he means that the Club organization assumes that the "ITAC" as a BODY is in accord with the CRB's general expectations and philosophies - NOT that the CURRENT ITAC members are being given their marching orders to get in line behind the CRB's CURRENT philosophy.

The two bodies are not really organized in a true "checks and balances" relationship. And the ITAC has had free rein to constitute itself as the members see fit: They invited ME to participate, for example...

:026:

K

[lateapex911]

And the ITAC has had free rein to constitute itself as the members see fit: They invited ME to participate, for example...

:026:

K

Seemed to be going well for a nice bit there to....
:(

[shwah]

Wow. Sorry to read about your decision to resign Kirk. I thought you brought a valuable element process/proceedure and consistency to the ITAC.

I am still trying to sift through the last few pages of rubble and put together what happened. I guess it is somewhere between -
'OMG! Dr. K got booted because they wanted to take weight off an Audi!' and 'The CRB wasn't thrilled that issues they were trying to reach a resolution with the ITAC on were aired out in public, before they were decided'.

I certainly hope that it does not turn out to be the result of discussion of the potential classing of one car. That discussion did bring some valid points to the surface. Of course that issue continues to spin with the statement above that the car needs 40% hp gains to remain at the current weight. Hopefully there is a continuom between 'where it's at' and 2xx off, and we end up at or near the most right/fair place. I was sort of hoping the discussion might result in some strategies to handle situations like that one - process says car that is perceived as competitive needs to lose a bunch of weight - fairly. Maybe taking steps in stages, as the natural motivation to prove the prep potentail for a power plant is only triggerd when folks think a car is a bit heavy - of course only possible if there is a follow up if/when pertinent data is available.

Man these discussions are a pain, because all we seem to be able to do is say what we don't like, and never make more than a vague outline of an alternative, often with no way to quantify needed inputs, or verify outputs described. Much like I did above.

Again - that's why we have an ITAC. It will come down to individuals making decisions about what they think is right, on some level, whether that be process inputs, or building boundary conditions for process factors, or what they want to share and discuss with the membership. As long as they are active participants in the decision making process, and don't just 'process the numbers' (and hopefully communicate with us when they do something that is not apparent in the numbers - like Kirk was kind enough to do for me), I have faith in the system we have.

Hopefully, and probably, there is a fair amount of over reaction in the past few pages about what this really means to the future of IT, but I do think it would be better off with Kirk's involvement.

PS - whomever was concerned about whether Peter Keane is on the CRB and helping make decisions about the future of IT. I don't really know him at all, but he is an active ITB racer, and in my book that puts him in a group of folks that I would want involved in those decisions.

[Bill Miller]

You know Bill, nothing is as it seems in life.

Jake, you'll excuse me if I find a metric shit-ton of irony in that statement, especially coming from you.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Hopefully there is a continuom between 'where it's at' and 2xx off, and we end up at or near the most right/fair place. I was sort of hoping the discussion might result in some strategies to handle situations like that one - process says car that is perceived as competitive needs to lose a bunch of weight - fairly. Maybe taking steps in stages, as the natural motivation to prove the prep potentail for a power plant is only triggerd when folks think a car is a bit heavy - of course only possible if there is a follow up if/when pertinent data is available.



Chris, can you get into more detail on what you mean by this? How would you apprach this?

[Knestis]

>> ... I was sort of hoping the discussion might result in some strategies to handle situations like that one - process says car that is perceived as competitive needs to lose a bunch of weight - fairly. ... (emphasis added)

At least until last week when I lost the inside view, I knew there WAS a strategy in place to do that. But it required not caving in to perceptions - and that's REALLY the nut of the matter: We do NOT want to the rules-makers setting our race weights based on perceptions. They WILL be wrong as often as not.

K

(PS - As of this morning I find myself among the people who are going to want to get timely information about what the ITAC is doing. My picture of the process and practices of the committee is going to be frozen in time as of the 2nd week of September, 2009, and as a MEMBER I want to know what is up.)

[gran racing]

Originally Posted by gran racing http://72.167.111.130/forums/images/chromium/blue/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?p=295815#post295815)
"2 weeks from now, there will be a decision made, sides taken and information given" but not communicated on this message board nor made public till they darn well feel like it.

Openness, and transparency should be the policy of more boards within SCCA. It gets membership involved and feel like they actually have a say and voice is being heard. Sure sounds like we're taking steps backwards lately even if it's just our perception.


Dave - what the heck are you talking about? Until the debate happens, the decisions are made and the sides are taken - can we tell you the outcome. Right?

Meaning...two weeks from now after this meeting takes place, it sounds like the powers that be won't want the results of this discussion communicated in forums such as this. Of course you can't tell us the outcome now, but wonder if you will be "able to" afterwards either. Based on some of the information discussed here, it sounds like instead we'll have to wait for Fastrack to print a one-liner BS explaination that tells very little.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally Posted by gran racing http://72.167.111.130/forums/images/chromium/blue/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?p=295815#post295815)
"2 weeks from now, there will be a decision made, sides taken and information given" but not communicated on this message board nor made public till they darn well feel like it.

Openness, and transparency should be the policy of more boards within SCCA. It gets membership involved and feel like they actually have a say and voice is being heard. Sure sounds like we're taking steps backwards lately even if it's just our perception.



Meaning...two weeks from now after this meeting takes place, it sounds like the powers that be won't want the results of this discussion communicated in forums such as this. Of course you can't tell us the outcome now, but wonder if you will be "able to" afterwards either. Based on some of the information discussed here, it sounds like instead we'll have to wait for Fastrack to print a one-liner BS explaination that tells very little.

Not true. It's not about THE communication, its about the WAY things are communicated.

[seckerich]

Not true. It's not about THE communication, its about the WAY things are communicated.


Very True. It will be after the fact instead of before when there could have been input from drivers. I never really stopped to think what power we have allowed such a small group (the CRB) to have over our classes. 5 people are supposed to know what is better for every car in SCCA. Why the hell do we even have the advisory groups if they are just supposed to be in lock step with the CRB? Waiting to see how this plays out before rocking the boat.

[jjjanos]

Not true. It's not about THE communication, its about the WAY things are communicated.

Communication: The exchange of thoughts, messages, or information, as by speech, signals, writing, or behavior.
You'll note the word exchange in that definition. If information, not communication, is provided after the fact, then what we have is "failure to communicate."

The CRB will be giving us decrees, dictates and pronouncements. It will not be communicating.


Why the hell do we even have the advisory groups if they are just supposed to be in lock step with the CRB?

It's a hierarchy. BoD sets policy for the CRB and has ultimate authority to approve/reject CRB recommendations. CRB sets a subpolicy (consistent with the BoD policy) for the ACs and has the power to send recommendations back to the AC or bump them up to the BoD.

As a Regional-only class, we've lived free of the BoD spotlight because, historically, the BoD considered only the health of the Runoffs and Nationals. That's why revenue/sponsorship matters have often influenced the regulations of the National classes.

Frankly, the CRB is a relic and needs to be dissolved. The Advisory Committees knows their categories and drivers better than the CRB. Who is more in tune with the needs of Formula Reallyold- a guy who races SS and has no problem getting parts or someone who knows FRO?

Let the ACs make recommendations directly to the BoD.

[Knestis]

...or let the CRB make the final rule decisions for club racing, and let the BoD run the big picture business of the club...?

K

[shwah]

Chris, can you get into more detail on what you mean by this? How would you apprach this?

If process says a car weight needs to change by more than x%, publish that fact and move the weight by x/2% and monitor it. Those with the car in question will be motivated to prove why it needs to go the full distance and may develop and share the data required to confirm the std factors. The key is that we must be willing to move it again in a relatively short time all the way there, should the data support it - within a few years.

I believe it will be the exception to recieve data supporting higher gains on a car that looses lots of weight based on std adders because those with something to loose by the information being out there are the ones that have it. There is a disincentive to share such information. But by sharing the whole picture, and noting that moves beyond a certain amount (whether % or number of pounds based) require a half step and review - with the requirement of new information triggering the second half step, those with something to loose by the information not being out there will develop it.

Like I said, not a fully developed idea, but maybe a way to use natural incentives to gain data to confirm or deny a 'big' change, while not leaving the subject un-changed and hanging in limbo. Side effect will be more weight changes and the mis-perception that we are 'dorking' with weights all the time.

[tom91ita]

>> ..............and that's REALLY the nut of the matter: We do NOT want to the rules-makers setting our race weights based on perceptions. They WILL be wrong as often as not.

K

..............

so you don't think the waving wand of the whimsical weight waif/fairy is a good idea?

i don't either.

[Bill Miller]

Frankly, the CRB is a relic and needs to be dissolved. The Advisory Committees knows their categories and drivers better than the CRB. Who is more in tune with the needs of Formula Reallyold- a guy who races SS and has no problem getting parts or someone who knows FRO?

Let the ACs make recommendations directly to the BoD.

Jeff,

See my suggestion a page or two back about who should be on the CRB.



.or let the CRB make the final rule decisions for club racing, and let the BoD run the big picture business of the club...?


Gee, what a novel concept. ;)

[shwah]

At least until last week when I lost the inside view, I knew there WAS a strategy in place to do that. But it required not caving in to perceptions - and that's REALLY the nut of the matter: We do NOT want to the rules-makers setting our race weights based on perceptions. They WILL be wrong as often as not.


I know this may be a point of disagreement between us, but I am not ready to assume that the standard gain that we default to is correct simply because we do not have data to dispute it. Lack of evidence does not mean it doesn't exist. That coupled with the fact that while a car's percieved performance is not a substantial data point by any stretch of the imagination, perceptions do not develop in a vacuum, they are based on real things that happen.

This is why if a car is percieved as competitive (OK how and the heck do we even define that one!) and is processed out the loose a bunch of weight (define some amount as 'a lot' - 5% of current? 200#? 300#? 10% of current?) care should be taken to not create an overdog just because we don't know any better.

Of course because of the whole lack of clarity, and often reality, around perceptions, maybe a simpler approach is to eliminate that factor all together and just stipulate that a 'large change' (in either direction) is handled in a staged approach. If all is in fact matching the base assumptions, we will end up in the same place, but if the known or unknown unknowns come to light (that felt very Rumsfeldesque) and prove otherwise we are able to take that into account.

[shwah]

...or let the CRB make the final rule decisions for club racing, and let the BoD run the big picture business of the club...?

K

I actually lean this way. I think a lot of the histrionics that the ITAC has gone through over the years is driven more by the BoD wanting to keep IT in the box they built it in, than in anything the CRB is or isn't doing. The CRB knows the limitations they have here as well as the ITAC. This is exactly why the GR was such a big deal - the fact that it was even allowed to take place - and is probably why there were not 'too many' cars run through the process at that time.

[jjjanos]

...or let the CRB make the final rule decisions for club racing, and let the BoD run the big picture business of the club...?

K

Can't. The BoD has the ultimate responsibility and authority for the club and thus, at some level, has to oversee the actions of everything related to the SCCA name.

[JeffYoung]

Chris, in the absence of proof/data on a particular car, if you don't like the 25% default, what should we do?

I feel pretty strongly that 25% is the "average" gain an IT motor sees.

So if not 25%, what?

[Knestis]

Can't. The BoD has the ultimate responsibility and authority for the club and thus, at some level, has to oversee the actions of everything related to the SCCA name.

And I have ultimate responsibility for the research and evaluation functions of the company I work for - but I don't make tactical, project-level decisions. "Oversee" is not the same as "vote on every proposed weight change."

K

[shwah]

Jeff - I don't think 25% is a bad assumption in general. I also don't think it is an accurate assumption for some cars.

As far as what to do, I just described it. Define 'large weight change'. IF a car will get a large weight change, do it in two steps, so that you stimulate the gathering and sharing of data to support 25%, or clarify a non standard number.

The X factor here is that I still get the impression that we are all too willing to accept dyno numbers from different sources as accurate to compare with each other. IMO a 'stock' build baseline run from the same equipment/operator is required to quantify what the gains of an IT build is. Stock, as in adjustments per factory manual - no balancing - stock as stock can be. I don't think enough people agree with this to make it a productive addition to the conversation, so 'it is what it is' IMO.

[Jeremy Billiel]

This whole recent set of events is abserd! This whole thing wreaks of typical SCCA bullshit. Plain and simple....

[jjjanos]

And I have ultimate responsibility for the research and evaluation functions of the company I work for - but I don't make tactical, project-level decisions. "Oversee" is not the same as "vote on every proposed weight change."

K

You do not have ultimate authority. You have delegated authority which follows a chain of command from the Chair of the Board through various levels of management until it reaches you. At any point, some level of command/management above you can say - stop.

Ultimately, the technical policies implemented by the body recommending/setting those policies must correspond with the goals and objectives of the organization.

What you seem to be suggesting is an omnipotent agency with no accountability to anyone other than themselves. Will that mean the GCR will be in Latin going forward? Will we be required to eat fish on the Friday before a race? Will Dan Brown's next novel be about the SCCA?

[lateapex911]

Will Dan Brown's next novel be about the SCCA?

No, his novels are rather simple in comparison...

[JeffYoung]

I agree it's probably not accurate, assumptions rarely are 100% of the time.

I just see anything other than going with a "roughly fair" default until we know better from actual dyno numbers (which we all do understand are to be closely scrutinized) as being "wild guesses" based on on track performance that aren't repeatable and consistent.

At least with the 25% default, until there is actual data, there is repeatability and consistentcy, which for IT is I think a paramount principle.


Jeff - I don't think 25% is a bad assumption in general. I also don't think it is an accurate assumption for some cars.

As far as what to do, I just described it. Define 'large weight change'. IF a car will get a large weight change, do it in two steps, so that you stimulate the gathering and sharing of data to support 25%, or clarify a non standard number.

The X factor here is that I still get the impression that we are all too willing to accept dyno numbers from different sources as accurate to compare with each other. IMO a 'stock' build baseline run from the same equipment/operator is required to quantify what the gains of an IT build is. Stock, as in adjustments per factory manual - no balancing - stock as stock can be. I don't think enough people agree with this to make it a productive addition to the conversation, so 'it is what it is' IMO.

[shwah]

I agree it's probably not accurate, assumptions rarely are 100% of the time.

I just see anything other than going with a "roughly fair" default until we know better from actual dyno numbers (which we all do understand are to be closely scrutinized) as being "wild guesses" based on on track performance that aren't repeatable and consistent.

At least with the 25% default, until there is actual data, there is repeatability and consistentcy, which for IT is I think a paramount principle.

That is where we differ in opinion. It is not a wild guess to look at a car that has been competitive and conclude that it can compete (given many other variable conditions) in it's current state. However since I recognize the difficulty in defining or agreeing what a percieved competitive car is, and all of the potential negative side effects of trying to do that I suggested ignoring that fact completely.

What I proposed is essentially limit how dramatic of a weight change that we allow in a single step - regardless of percieved competitiveness. Make a smaller move, I suggested moving it 1/2 the distance, and don't make another move without obtaining more data to confirm that it needs to move (and conversely make darn sure you do make a 2nd move should any appropriate, acceptable data be presented to support it).

The idea is to act as a throttle on the rate of weight change, without preventing it from ending up at the initial process number - if appropriate. I think taking too large a step in weight change presents a risk to 'upsetting the apple cart' of a given IT class, which we all seem to agree are, from a macro view, giving us good competitive multi marque racing. I also think someone that has a car that was grossly mis classed in years gone by should not have to wait for data to prove the negative that their car can not make enough power to justify the old weight. It's a compromise of sorts.

[Andy Bettencourt]

If process says a car weight needs to change by more than x%, publish that fact and move the weight by x/2% and monitor it.

Anybody else feel this is a good idea?

[gran racing]

I get the theory that you're using on this Chris, but see several issues with it. Maybe it's workable. On the flip side, if it's truly believed that a larger weight change is warranted, then change the weight. Just because a car may have had a larger disadvantage means the should continue to? This approach would also require a change in mindset by the boards. Getting the initial change would be tough enough; getting the second half would be near impossible.

[JeffYoung]

We do differ, but there is no "right" answer here.

Two thoughts:

1. I think the quote from you below is far more dangerous than the 25% assumption. I can give you lots of examples of cars "falsely" appearing to be competitive, or not, depending on driver, track, prep level, temperature, field size, etc. It's far, far more difficult to get that right in my view than to assume 25% until data comes in showing 25% to be wrong.

2. I still think that 100 lbs or even 200 lbs -- while having an effect on performance, obviously -- isn't going to "kill" a car such that it can't run up front and be competitive against 9/10ths version of the same or similar cars. So, using the 25% assumption to me gets the car "close" - in a repeatable consistent way -- until (and if) more accurate data presents itself.




It is not a wild guess to look at a car that has been competitive and conclude that it can compete (given many other variable conditions) in it's current state.

[shwah]

But Jeff - I have taken that whole issue off the table. A few times now. Stop putting it back into the conversation.

I just think it is a good idea to have some damping on the effects of big weight changes, as long as they are still able to be completed should they be confirmed as appropriate at step 2.

[seckerich]

Anybody else feel this is a good idea?

Nope, if you have a process then use it. What you should be asking is why is it such a big move.

Was the stock published HP correct?
Is the gain over 25% ?
Do you have a clue what a 5 cylinder gain should be?
The ARRC finish is irrelevant because it was not torn down and must be assumed legal
No track record was broken and they are not dominating ITB.

#200 may be a little much percentage wise to be off on a ITB car so answer the first 3 questions and if it passes the sniff test treat it equal. Might be a little hard to get it through since it is an ITB car.:rolleyes:

On edit, Yes I understand it was classed with the usual SWAG pre process.

[shwah]

On the flip side, if it's truly believed that a larger weight change is warranted, then change the weight.
That's the thing. We don't really know what is warranted do we? It is all based on an assumption that may be about right for the 'average' car, but there is no reason to beleive that it is in fact correct for any particular car absent data. I can accept that if the change instituted is 'reasonable', but if it is a 10% swing in car weight there is a HUGE opportunity to get it way wrong, because that is a HUGE weight change.

It may not be the right solution, but it popped in my head when I was responding to the bombshell. In other words, I'm not 'invested' in this in any way, just trying to explain the logic of why / how I thought of it.

[lateapex911]

I love reading between the lines of Steve's posts.

Going to the ARRCs or Goblins Go Steve?

[tom91ita]

We do differ, but there is no "right" answer here.

.............

2. I still think that 100 lbs or even 200 lbs -- while having an effect on performance, obviously -- isn't going to "kill" a car such that it can't run up front and be competitive against 9/10ths version of the same or similar cars. So, using the 25% assumption to me gets the car "close" - in a repeatable consistent way -- until (and if) more accurate data presents itself.

jeff, the 25% rule of thumb yields the following results for two ITB hondas

86 crx si

1.25 x 91 x 17 #'s per hp -50 (FWD) - 50 (struts and beam axle) = 1834 # vs. 2130

89 accord LXi

1.25 x 120 x 17 - 50 (FWD) = 2500 vs. 2550

since these are both Hondas and pre OBD0, etc., one would expect similar gains, right?

i do think my car is overweight per any reasonable interpretation of "the process" but apparently it is "right" per the CRB's undisclosed methods.

[shwah]

2. I still think that 100 lbs or even 200 lbs -- while having an effect on performance, obviously -- isn't going to "kill" a car such that it can't run up front and be competitive against 9/10ths version of the same or similar cars. So, using the 25% assumption to me gets the car "close" - in a repeatable consistent way -- until (and if) more accurate data presents itself.

Whoops - missed item #2.

100 lbs will make a significant difference in an ITB car, and I expect others. Remember it is not important what a 'casual' racer will see with the difference, we need to plan for the full built, well driven example. 25% only gets you close if 25% is in fact close to reality. There is no reason a driver of a +25% car will ever be inclined to share that information with you, but if you take the big step on 2 smaller steps 3 things could happen.
1. The cars were right before, and are favorably classed now. NO one sends in a dyno sheet because they like where they sit with that car, but at least they didn't loose twice that weight and end up further off.
2. The cars were off before, but do in fact make more than 25% gains, and are 'pretty close' now - the key here being that we define what 'big moves' are and we are now 1/2 of a big move at most from process. So yeah we are pretty close either way in reality. The cars are on even competitive footing and no one is incentivised to prove otherwise because they are in fact competitive.
3. The cars were off before and they don't make more, or maybe they make less than 25%. Drivers appreciate the change, and embark on development with their now more competitive car, and find that no way it makes more than 25%, and provide the data to prove it. Take the 2nd chunk off and they are probably 'pretty close'.

Using this approach, a car like Tom's that some people may be skeered of because of the imposing H on the hood, may in fact have an opportunity to be adjusted (unless there is in fact data supporting the current position) if it is off by more than 'a big move'. It could take the teeth out of some arguments against adjusting a given car.

[shwah]

jeff, the 25% rule of thumb yields the following results for two ITB hondas

86 crx si

1.25 x 91 x 17 #'s per hp -50 (FWD) - 50 (struts and beam axle) = 1834 # vs. 2130

89 accord LXi

1.25 x 120 x 17 - 50 (FWD) = 2500 vs. 2550

since these are both Hondas and pre OBD0, etc., one would expect similar gains, right?

i do think my car is overweight per any reasonable interpretation of "the process" but apparently it is "right" per the CRB's undisclosed methods.

My guess is there is a beleif it makes more than 25% gains. When I ran that math for my car and found 2131 as a 'process weight'
1.25 x 105 x 17 - 50 strut/beam - 50 fwd
I wrote a letter.

It turns out there is a beleif that my car makes 30% - which processes out to 2220. It was recommended to be moved to 2270, and turned down. Not sure what else was used in the process to give the extra 50, but ces la vie.

[seckerich]

I love reading between the lines of Steve's posts.

Going to the ARRCs or Goblins Go Steve?

Going to both. Ask anyone that knows me and they will tell you I rarely bother with between the lines. I am just being calm until I see how this plays out.

PS. Need to put 100# on the ITS RX7, that is how overweight I was when I set the track record at CMP.:D Forgot to pull the extra weight the wife runs in STU. I would hate to carry that extra weight on a ITB/ITC car though. Not a big deal in R/S.

By extra weight I mean the lead, not the wife. Forgot she reads these.

[JeffYoung]

Chris, enjoy the discussion, but have to narrow my responses:

1. I would suggest you are not taking on track competitiveness off the table; I think at least implicitly it is included in going to a "stepped" process v. just using the 25% assumption.

2. I'm still just more comfortable with the 25% assumption until proven wrong, and the chance that a car may be 50 or 100 or in very rare cases 200 lbs off of process weight, than a more cumbersome and time consuming stepped system. Given how long it takes us to work through even 1 car, the simpler the system the better. More gets done.

I want to hit on one of Kirk's points in regards to the Audi. At it's present weight, it would require a 40% gain in IT trim for the process to "spit out" that weight.

In all likelihood, the Audi is already somewhere between 25% and 40%, and probably less than 100 lbs off its actual process weight.

So I just don't see this car being as big an issue as it appears to be to the CRB, but they disagree and we do report to them.

[Knestis]

You do not have ultimate authority. You have delegated authority which follows a chain of command from the Chair of the Board through various levels of management until it reaches you. At any point, some level of command/management above you can say - stop.

Ultimately, the technical policies implemented by the body recommending/setting those policies must correspond with the goals and objectives of the organization.

What you seem to be suggesting is an omnipotent agency with no accountability to anyone other than themselves. Will that mean the GCR will be in Latin going forward? Will we be required to eat fish on the Friday before a race? Will Dan Brown's next novel be about the SCCA?

"Delegated authority" being the key concept - absolutely! Point being, while the BoD has the ultimate responsibility for the Club, they may not be in the best position - too insulated by levels - to make tactical decisions as detailed as how much the Whatever RS should weigh.

But that's an academic aside. In this instance the issue is less about who has the decision-making power: It's about the first principles that drive the decision, and who shares them.

K

[quadzjr]

Nope, if you have a process then use it. What you should be asking is why is it such a big move.



What if it was simply it went throug the process with an error in in the calculations addtional to the adder for "balance".

If it is an admited error I would think that the process of from the ITAC to CRB and making the change would be stream line (or atleast mroe streamline) since it is not a competition adjustment, just a math error.

Post selfishly in reference to my particular car.Still waiting for my car to drop some lbs

[shwah]

Fair enough Jeff. Edit - I still think you will only be proven wrong on the 25% from cars that are missed in one direction, but not the other. That is the flaw in the current approach.

The process I suggested is simply for any car that is speced way off of process weight, without regard to competitiveness.

To the specific example, I do think my idea benefits them in the real world. If the Audi is that far off process, but people (including me, and apparently the CRB ) feel uncomfortable taking 250 or 200 or however many pounds off, you may end up not taking any off, while with this approach you take 125 or 100 or whatever off, and evaluate from there based on data. At least then the Audi gets some consideration, and if they can prove it needs more take the second step, but they are not stuck at current weight, which is where they are right now after the recommended change was not made.

[Knestis]

... It is not a wild guess to look at a car that has been competitive and conclude that it can compete (given many other variable conditions) in it's current state... .

I'd agree with you, Chris - if (and that's a HUGE IF) we could control for all of those other variables. The problem is we can NOT. We look at "make/model" as a variable that's really easy to see: We can tell an Audi from the other stuff as it goes by on the track. We cannot however readily see a bunch of other factors that in all likelihood bear more on the outcomes that we lump together and call "competitiveness."

I'm intrigued by your "half the distance" idea, in that it serves as another "policy damper," slowing down reactionary responses. That in and of itself might have merit.

I continue to be worried however about the first assumption though: That a weight SHOULD be changed (or left unchanged) based on perceptions. Your suggestion just decreases the damage potentially done based on those perceptions.

K

[shwah]

Kirk - I'm not confident we can do that, which is why I suggest dropping the consideration completely.

In that case, what is the real risk? That a car is unusually far from 'perfect' weight. OK so if a car is more than a certain amount from process weight (which is not the same as 'perfect' weight) we take two steps to get there. Taking smaller steps makes it easier to end up closer to the 'perfect' weight IMO. I have been wrong many times in the past, this could be one of them...

EDIT - to stress one more time, that there is an important second step to this idea. We HAVE to be able, willing, empowered, whatever, to take that second step if justified and go all the way down (or up) to the assumed adder process weight if data justifies it. This is why it does not simply limit the impact of perceptions, it actually is a mechanism to allow making any change at all - to prove the perceptions wrong in a way - while stimulating data generation to justify taking the second step, or not. In the end the cars that should would loose or gain all of the weight. Some that should not may loose some weight, but that is the price to pay to gain the ability to make the others more right.

[Knestis]

... a car like Tom's that some people may be skeered of because of the imposing H on the hood, may in fact have an opportunity to be adjusted (unless there is in fact data supporting the current position) if it is off by more than 'a big move'. It could take the teeth out of some arguments against adjusting a given car.

But again, that's the point - It shouldn't be possible for an "H" to warrant a power multiplier greater than the standard assumption, in and of itself. If that's a clue that the ITAC needs more information, then they go look for more evidence on which to base their decision about what number to use. That Honda should get reviewed and have its weight set using the process already established.

K

[shwah]

But again, that's the point - It shouldn't be possible for an "H" to warrant a power multiplier greater than the standard assumption, in and of itself. If that's a clue that the ITAC needs more information, then they go look for more evidence on which to base their decision about what number to use. That Honda should get reviewed and have its weight set using the process already established.

K

OK. It should not be the case, but it IS the case. Trying to find a solution to work with what we have here, and still get where we need to go. It is a slower road, but should end up in the right place, and could prevent or mitigate the effect of mistakes made when adjusting cars with the best intentions but getting it wrong due to lack of data.

[Knestis]

My guess is there is a beleif it makes more than 25% gains. When I ran that math for my car and found 2131 as a 'process weight'
1.25 x 105 x 17 - 50 strut/beam - 50 fwd
I wrote a letter.

It turns out there is a beleif that my car makes 30% - which processes out to 2220. It was recommended to be moved to 2270, and turned down. Not sure what else was used in the process to give the extra 50, but ces la vie.

The "strut/beam" suspension didn't get a subtractor. The A-arm cars get an adder. That same vestigial 50# accounts for a chunk of the difference between where the MkIII is and where it should be, too.

K

[Knestis]

jeff, the 25% rule of thumb yields the following results for two ITB hondas

86 crx si

1.25 x 91 x 17 #'s per hp -50 (FWD) - 50 (struts and beam axle) = 1834 # vs. 2130

89 accord LXi

1.25 x 120 x 17 - 50 (FWD) = 2500 vs. 2550

since these are both Hondas and pre OBD0, etc., one would expect similar gains, right?

i do think my car is overweight per any reasonable interpretation of "the process" but apparently it is "right" per the CRB's undisclosed methods.

That's not entirely fair. The CRB hasn't voted on any recommendation for the CRX because it hasn't actually been processed. That was all pending a decision about the idea of a total reset of ITB. That big idea was a victim of the CRB hold, whether formally or because we got distracted...

...but this is a GREAT case study. It should be self-evident in some comparisons, whether things are in line or not. And if they are not (e.g., using 1.3 as the power multiplier on the MkII), then that should be known to the membership.

AND if some weight gets added - or subtracted - beyond what the ITAC process says should be the case, THAT should be known by us as well.

Being on the outside - even for a few days - has made me even more acutely aware of the danger of the "you can't handle the truth!" way of thinking.

K

[Knestis]

OK. It should not be the case, but it IS the case... .

If the CRB OK'd a comprehensive do-over of B, and let the current process work - including the evidence/confidence-based use of alternate power factors - it would NOT be the case. It is only because the process as it is currently constituted, hasn't been allowed to do what it's designed to do.

Right before the doo-doo hit the fan - just after our August con call - the ITAC was in conversation with the CRB about doing just that, and were in fact looking at compilation spreadsheet of 80+ B cars that I've been working on for ages. They asked if that was a picture of what we'd recommend for the class. My answer was "NO!" because, while we had the basic information for each example, very few had been through the multi-step process of considering non-standard power factors - which might reasonably be triggered for any given make/model by perceptions of competitiveness...

Without that step, which critics seem to ignore when the process gets accused of being inflexible and overly formulaic, the "Process" - the REAL PROCESS - isn't done.

K

[shwah]

I get the italicised point. I just worry that if you get it wrong in one direction you will have some data to work with there, and in the other direction not. So even if triggered, the extra look will not be empowered to make the correction.

Well. That was my idea. If it sparks something positive, cool. If it just isn't the right answer, I hope we keep looking. I don't think I can add much to it without repeating myself.

[shwah]

The "strut/beam" suspension didn't get a subtractor. The A-arm cars get an adder. That same vestigial 50# accounts for a chunk of the difference between where the MkIII is and where it should be, too.

K

Ah. Then it all adds up. I have to say that feels good, even if I quibbled about the inputs.

[seckerich]

Ah. Then it all adds up. I have to say that feels good, even if I quibbled about the inputs.

And there is the point in all of this Chris. Once you know the facts and what is used to class your car you have more confidence in the system and that there is transparency. If all IT cars in the GCR included the process math in their spec line we would all be better off. This would assume that all active cars get run through the process, and the oddballs that never get run and are so ancient we do not even have specs get dropped. Then if there are cars that are wrong either way you can present evidence for a possible change.

[jjjanos]

I continue to be worried however about the first assumption though: That a weight SHOULD be changed (or left unchanged) based on perceptions. Your suggestion just decreases the damage potentially done based on those perceptions.


The Reader's Digest Version - correct where wrong -

1. The Audi is 200lbs over its process weight.
2. At the ARRC (and maybe some regionals) the car turned some really competitive lap times. It didn't finish high enough to get torn down.
3. The ITAC recommended removing the 200lbs and the CRB said look at it again.
4. Some portion of the CRB, presumably someone in authority like the chair or the BoD liason since nobody else has that authority, got his panties in a wad over the forums discussing the issue.

Essentially correct?

How much on-track performance evidence is there that the car is competitve as classified? Is it a single observation or is it repeatable in a field of cars that most would accept are at the top of the curve? Because if this is a one-off or getting the draw to an inside straight situation, I'd say there really isn't convincing evidence that things should be left alone.

Now, let's say we take the weight off the car and the IT gain is more than 25%. The car becomes an overdog at process weight, when a full build is done. What mechanism or procedure is in place to rectify that situation that does not depend on the good faith of the owners of the car in question? As far as I can tell, there is none and that means that there isn't convincing evidence that the weight should be changed because, once it is changed - it won't be readjusted.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Now, let's say we take the weight off the car and the IT gain is more than 25%. The car becomes an overdog at process weight, when a full build is done. What mechanism or procedure is in place to rectify that situation that does not depend on the good faith of the owners of the car in question? As far as I can tell, there is none and that means that there isn't convincing evidence that the weight should be changed because, once it is changed - it won't be readjusted.

GCR page 332, last paragraph right above the beginning of Section D.

[jjjanos]

GCR page 332, last paragraph right above the beginning of Section D.

Irrelevant.

Without reliance upon on-track performance, there is no basis to apply this adjustment. Adjusting weights in a zero-tolerance for subjective performance world requires hard data - HP in excess or below the assumed HP gain, realization that the car does not have FWD, etc.

A former member of the ITAC has implied that the ITAC would like a 100% objective classification process. Seems to me that the CRB has reasonable and justifiable doubts about such a move. One side seems to be saying, there's subjective evidence that this car is correctly classified and the other is saying no there isn't and we should wait until we put another IT class on life support like did with ITS and the BMW.

Seems to me that both sides seem are willing to meddle with process weights via competition adjustments. The only disagreement is when to throw out the process.

This is sounding more and more like a debate as to whether Christ did, or did not own his own clothes.

[Knestis]

>> How much on-track performance evidence is there that the car is competitve as classified? Is it a single observation or is it repeatable in a field of cars that most would accept are at the top of the curve? ...

That's the $64,000 question right there. I'd argue that in the Audi case we have something just slightly better than "single observation." And OTHER observations of the same cars paint a different picture.

When we do qualitative research, we adhere to methodological standards for rigor. (It is NOT true that all qualitative research is sloppy: Only sloppy qualitative research is sloppy.) One necessary step in the analysis of any narrative or similar evidence is what we call "searching for disconfirming evidence," where the researcher actively goes looking for evidence in the data that says his or her inferences are not warranted.

If we are just looking for scraps of evidence that any given car is uber-competitive, we can find them. What we need to do - if we're going to go traipsing down the competition adjustment path (bleah!) is look for evidence that the same car is NOT competitive and give it the same kind of weight. In all of the races ever run by an Audi GT, how many times has it NOT won? How many different make/model cases have finished ahead of the Blethen's examples, since they are being held up as the gold standard?

Damn, people. We are not stoopid. THINK about this stuff.

If you are among those who think the ITAC and/or CRB should include a mechanism for injecting their anxieties, biases, paranoia, urban myth, etc., into how IT cars are specified, picture for a minute how you'd feel if you got 200 pounds because two brothers who happen to drive the same kind of car as you were SMART enought to go to the ARRC and bump-draft down that mother of a straight...

K

[Knestis]

...A former member of the ITAC has implied that the ITAC would like a 100% objective classification process. ...

Objection, your honor. The witless is making stuff up again.

[jjjanos]

>> How much on-track performance evidence is there that the car is competitve as classified? Is it a single observation or is it repeatable in a field of cars that most would accept are at the top of the curve? ...

That's the $64,000 question right there. I'd argue that in the Audi case we have something just slightly better than "single observation." And OTHER observations of the same cars paint a different picture.

So, the question is not whether the Audi has the correct weight as is; the question is whether the Audis that gave the "fast" observations were legal when they did it. I.e. if one legal car can be that "competitive", it must be assumed that they all can. Good luck proving that.


If we are just looking for scraps of evidence that any given car is uber-competitive, we can find them. What we need to do - if we're going to go traipsing down the competition adjustment path (bleah!) is look for evidence that the same car is NOT competitive and give it the same kind of weight. In all of the races ever run by an Audi GT, how many times has it NOT won? How many different make/model cases have finished ahead of the Blethen's examples, since they are being held up as the gold standard?

Wrong standard. The rest of the Audi's do not matter other than to cast doubt as to the legality of the "fast" Audi. To me, the correct standard is "How many times has the fast Audi turned similar performances and, if possible, under what conditions ?"


If you are among those who think the ITAC and/or CRB should include a mechanism for injecting their anxieties, biases, paranoia, urban myth, etc., into how IT cars are specified, picture for a minute how you'd feel if you got 200 pounds because two brothers who happen to drive the same kind of car as you were SMART enought to go to the ARRC and bump-draft down that mother of a straight...

Which would, IMO, disqualify the observations as not displaying the actual performance of the car.



Objection, your honor. The witless is making stuff up again.


Member emeritus of the ITAC?

[Bill Miller]

jeff, the 25% rule of thumb yields the following results for two ITB hondas

86 crx si

1.25 x 91 x 17 #'s per hp -50 (FWD) - 50 (struts and beam axle) = 1834 # vs. 2130

89 accord LXi

1.25 x 120 x 17 - 50 (FWD) = 2500 vs. 2550

since these are both Hondas and pre OBD0, etc., one would expect similar gains, right?

i do think my car is overweight per any reasonable interpretation of "the process" but apparently it is "right" per the CRB's undisclosed methods.

Tom,

Run the same exercise for the '83 - '84 Rabbit GTI. Should fall pretty much where the '86 Civic / CRX Si does (90hp for the GTI, 91hp for the Si). Yet the spec weight is 2080#. That's ~150 over the process weight. (~100# if there is no strut/beam subtractor). To get to 2080# (assuming the 17lb/hp # is correct), and assuming no strut beam subtractor, you need a power factor of almost 1.4 (1.392 by my calculation). That translates to getting 125+hp out of that motor, with an IT-legal tune. I've been playing w/ those cars for a looooong time, and I can tell you, you don't get that kind of power out of an IT-legal tune. They came w/ a very restrictive exhaust system, but even after you take that away, you've still got a restrictive throttle body and a crappy cam. The 1.25 power factor is much more on target for an IT-legal tune.

And the Rabbit GTI was one of the cars that was run through the process during tGR. How'd the 1.4 power factor get justified? And more importantly, where is it documented?

[tom91ita]

My guess is there is a beleif it makes more than 25% gains. When I ran that math for my car and found 2131 as a 'process weight'
1.25 x 105 x 17 - 50 strut/beam - 50 fwd
I wrote a letter.



i wrote a letter a year ago to the CRB and noted that to make the weight i have, i must have nearly a 1.44 factor. i see that my math was off slightly since i subtracted 50 # for my suspension when i should not have as K noted, it was an adder to those that had it, etc..

but the gist of my letter was that if you back calculate (i love excel "goal seek" by the way) you get my 1st gen crx si having essentially the same power multiplier as the ITA crx si.

i know they both have the mighty "H" on the nose (well actually mine fell off..........) but there is no way a 12 valve vacuum advance distributor is going to get the same power multiplier as the 16 valve OBD0 ECU 2nd gen.

one reason i picked the ITB accord is because

1. it was much closer to the "process" weight (or right on if it has A-arms?)
2. it has essentially the same hp/cc ratio listed in on-line spec resources as mine
3. one of the variants has done rather well at the ARRC
4. i thought one of the names listed for the CRB looked like a name i had seen at the ARRC driving an accord (not even sure if it was the one i picked for the comparision)

and somewhere on this site i saw the outline of the process and i had made notes that it was 17 #/hp for ITB. can't remember where that was at or maybe it is a sticky?

but i would at least like to know if the formula is as follows;

1.25 x 91 x 17 - 50 (FWD) + 246(CRB) = 2130

note that i am implying that there is apparently some unknown CRB fudge factor.

or if my car can get 35% and then it is;

1.35 x 91 x 17 -50 + 92 (CRB)

i don't KNOW there is a CRB fudge factor, i am suggesting that my car NOT moving is apparently the result of the CRB (or ITAC although i do not think/know this) thinking it is okay.

i would think the rabbit and the crx would be similar with regards to the 90 vs. 91 hp. However, I do/should have the magical, mystical "H" on my hood. Bill, i will loan you a magic marker and we can give you an "H" on your hood as well? or i have a friend that does vinyl that could make an "H"?:)

[Bill Miller]

Bill, i will loan you a magic marker and we can give you an "H" on your hood as well? or i have a friend that does vinyl that could make an "H"?:)

Them's fightin' words Tom! :D

[Knestis]

...And the Rabbit GTI was one of the cars that was run through the process during tGR. How'd the 1.4 power factor get justified? And more importantly, where is it documented?

Yes it was, it's not clear, and nowhere.

K

[Bill Miller]

Yes it was, it's not clear, and nowhere.

K

Kirk,

This is not directed at you, so please don't take it like that. It's directed at the ITAC as a whole. What exactly was the point in this whole exercise if you were going to throw it out the window right out of the gate? Exactly how is it any better now than it was before? You guys ran cars through the process, and didn't even have enough faith in it to trust the output? You talk about transparent, repeatable, and objective, but you're still doing business as usual. No wonder people's confidence in the whole thing is shaken, you guys don't even believe in it yourself.

[Knestis]

Remember Bill that we run into issues if we judge historical acts by the standards of a different time. I need to reiterate the distinction too, between the MATH that makes up the process and the "Process" as it was constructed as of this month. What has changed since the GR is NOT the math. What changed was the practices and policies wrapped around the math.

There's no question that the GTI got some subjective poundage when viewed through a 2009 helmet visor, but at the time that was perfectly OK per the practices of the ITAC in place.

We - well, they - have been working toward transparent, repeatable, and objective (more about this last one in a sec) over the past 2 years. It's the fact that the CURRENT practices of the ITAC got us very, VERY close to that ideal that I think has created the backlash among members of the CRB, as we moved away from the internal allowances that let the Rabbit be too heavy. The CURRENT ITAC members are as a whole pretty much on board with the ideals behind your point.

As regards "objective" (and this goes to JJJ's point above), that current process still has one - but ONLY ONE - place where ITAC members can inject subjectivity. I've come to understand that this is both necessary and reasonable, based on our work this past winter and spring.

K

EDIT - ...and documentation is one of the major changes over that time, Bill - thus eliminating most of the concern you describe.

[lateapex911]

It's been an uphill climb. It's not like the ITAC hasn't wanted to do certain things, or move in certain directions, but harnessing the power politically isn't easy. Apparently we might be bumping against a soft ceiling. Maybe not. We'll see.

[Andy Bettencourt]

IIRC, the VW experts on the ITAC at the time had evidence that 100whp was possible from that Rabbit.

In today's system, that person would have to present the evidence, the committee would vote on their confidence in the evidence and, if it passed muster, it would be documented and recorded.

Point in fact for those who may be missing something here: The 'Process weight' of a car is not neccessarily based on a 25% increase. It's only based on that number as an assumption if no numbers are available (common in new classifications)

[JeffYoung]

Given the state of flux we are in right now, I think it almost imperative that we:

a. finalize the process.

b. write it and our procedures down and "adopt them" formally.

c. publish.

At this point, stability seems to me (personally) to be the most important goal.

[zchris]

I have read much of this thread and it seams a major point of contention is actual power. There have been lots of good points made on all sides in this discussion. It would seem to me the best way to level the field on power and at the same time squash cheating would be to use an SIR on all cars. The SIR works well on low cam overlap engines(stock). It would make the formula used in IT classification simple. Plug in your target HP and use X size SIR. Done. No squabbling over Joey getting an unfair advantage because he has brand X car. Only reason not to do it this way would be the difficulty building an air box for the entry level guy. Then the discussion turns full circle on what is IT. Entry level racing? Yes or no? Just saying.

[Knestis]

From a technical standpoint - and were one to be starting from scratch - that idea wouldn't be completely nuts. You're right that it would be a pain to implement but who knows...? The classes could be called "IT[diameter in mm]"

:)

K

[benspeed]

I like what NASA does - bring a dyno to the track and test. Over a certain power threshold and you are bounced from the class until you reduce power. That will make folks zero in on chassis which is what we all ought to be doing and is easier on the wallet. Chassis is more about race craft than cubic dollars.....

Using a dyno also will validate the "process" which is pretty darn good already - excepting a few examples. Like the incredibly unfair weight on the Porsche 968.......not that I would be caring only about myself......right?

[frnkhous]

I like what NASA does - bring a dyno to the track and test. Over a certain power threshold and you are bounced from the class until you reduce power. That will make folks zero in on chassis which is what we all ought to be doing and is easier on the wallet. Chassis is more about race craft than cubic dollars.....

Using a dyno also will validate the "process" which is pretty darn good already - excepting a few examples. Like the incredibly unfair weight on the Porsche 968.......not that I would be caring only about myself......right?

Not really true... if you wanna spend cubic dollars you can still do it, with the downturn in the economy you can get on a 7post rig for closer to 5,000 dollars for a day, and yes even on a lowly IT car where you can't move the suspension pickupoints you can make gains. Not saying it would ever be a need to do thing, but it can certainly be the easybutton approach to having a close to sorted car handling wise much faster. Ultimately you may be able to eliminate a nasty trait that you can't find the cause of any other way as well. Be careful what you wish for.

[lateapex911]

I like what NASA does - bring a dyno to the track and test. Over a certain power threshold and you are bounced from the class until you reduce power. That will make folks zero in on chassis which is what we all ought to be doing and is easier on the wallet. Chassis is more about race craft than cubic dollars.....

Using a dyno also will validate the "process" which is pretty darn good already - excepting a few examples. Like the incredibly unfair weight on the Porsche 968.......not that I would be caring only about myself......right?

Here's the rub on the dyno idea. ECUs are free. If I were to have to go on a dyno, you know I'd have two power settings. Race, and 'other'. ANd it's not like you can 'sneak' a dyno up on a car in impound.

The solution to that of course, is on board boxes, but even that is fraught with issues.

[mom'sZ]

Come on guys... quit trying to reinvent the wheel, we got a pretty good thing going. Let's get a letter writing campaign going, get Kirk reinstated, get the codified process implemented, run all the cars through over the winter and GO RACING!!!

[lateapex911]

Come on guys... quit trying to reinvent the wheel, we got a pretty good thing going. Let's get a letter writing campaign going, get Kirk reinstated, get the codified process implemented, run all the cars through over the winter and GO RACING!!!



Kirk resigned knowing, I think, that most of us on the ITAC would be very disappointed. If you can talk him into coming back, well, that's more than fine with me...

As for the rest of the stuff, well, we're working on it. Not sue how much we'll be able to accomplish, but that's all under discussion.

[callard]

I like the dyno idea for non-ecu cars but Jake speaks the truth. My Benz has six different ignition maps with resultant loss of HP while the mixture remains optimal.

Still, I'd be willing to pay an extra $10 per entry to have the mobile dyno come to the track and run the top three in impound. Data points for the process....
Chuck

[JeffYoung]

I appreciate the thoughts on the SIR and dynos at the track, but to this ITAC member (my opinion only) they are based on an assumption that I don't think we want in "IT Land" -- and that is that there is some magic way to get all cars 100% equal.

Going down that path in IT was a total nightmare on the SIR, as it was not as easy as slap it on and presto, the E36 is now equal to RX7s and 240zs. It required a ton of work to even get the car to run with an SIR, and then a ton of time and money to tune it to make power.

That's a single example, but I think it is a critical one to remember. Due the many, many different attribute and varieties of cars in IT, there just is no simple easy way to balance them all equally.

Get'em close and let'em race.

[mom'sZ]

I appreciate the thoughts on the SIR and dynos at the track... as it was not as easy as slap it on and presto.... Due the many, many different attribute and varieties of cars in IT, there just is no simple easy way to balance them all equally.

Great point Jeff! Even if there was a way to equalize engine horsepower, that would not make all IT cars equal. Differences in suspension design, gearing and brakes (just the things accounted for presently when setting wieght) would make different cars faster or slower. Guess what folks... we'd still need some type of formula!

[ericblois]

just another thing on trying to get all cars having the same hp to wt ratio with SIR's. if the characteristics of the motors are completely different but the hp numbers are close or the same with the SIR which motor did the SIR hurt more? the high revving motor which needs lots or air to move in and out or the slow revving motor which depends more on its tq numbers. just food for thought

[frnkhous]

I appreciate the thoughts on the SIR and dynos at the track, but to this ITAC member (my opinion only) they are based on an assumption that I don't think we want in "IT Land" -- and that is that there is some magic way to get all cars 100% equal.

Going down that path in IT was a total nightmare on the SIR, as it was not as easy as slap it on and presto, the E36 is now equal to RX7s and 240zs. It required a ton of work to even get the car to run with an SIR, and then a ton of time and money to tune it to make power.

That's a single example, but I think it is a critical one to remember. Due the many, many different attribute and varieties of cars in IT, there just is no simple easy way to balance them all equally.

Get'em close and let'em race.


While I totally agree that you could/can fudge dyno numbers, I'd be ok with the idea that maybe at IT fest where I know a portable dyno is nearby(or the arrc) it could be worked out for 10-15 dollar add on to the entry getting them to come down and dyno the top x number of finnishers. Pull them immediately to the side in pit lane, follow them straight to the dyno before they go to tech. I don't think this should be common practice, and it would be better at the arrc where the winners would also be torn down, but I think It would fill in some anwers as to what power multipliers should be on cars believed to be legal. Don't tell people how many cars your gonna pull ahead of time. Yeah you could have somebody who had everything rigged to be able to switch, but depending on ecu's etc. it isn't necessarily that easy to do if you are immediately impounded. You'd have to have it rigged up ahead of time inside the car. However, I don't know that I think it is feasible to dyno every car, and I certainly wouldn't wanna make assumptions on power without some Idea of the cars legality. You definetly can still get around it if you want. This approach would give you evidence to present to the CRB should something like the audi come up again. you could say, heres the dyno information and it only made 1.25 for a power adder. The qualifying must have been good driving/bumpdrafting. If the standard multiplier was too low you'd have all the information you needed to justify adjusting the power multiplier.

All that said I really don't know that it is necessary. My personal opinion is that for the most part if overdogs exist and they show up too big races eventually somebody will build it and submit dyno sheets and then you'll have both the performances to trigger looking into it and the information to back up changing the power multiplier. IT isn't broken right now, although the idea of honest to goodness comp adjustments makes me think the chess match may begin soon. How much do you build, and how much do you show becomes the question?

[JeffYoung]

Good points.

I'll add that for whatever reason, we have never failed to get dyno plots from overdogs...E36, rX7, Z car, Integra, Miata, CRX, 325e, Golf, etc. In practice, despite what I agree are serious concerns, the system seems to work.

[bamfp]

I would in no way even think of running in IT if I had to run an SIR. Go over to the GT board and see what goes on with an SIR. It is not as simple as bolting one in.

Blake Meredith

[gran racing]

Can you imagine all the new people run away with just the mention of a SIR? I'd shake my head and consider my options.

[Bill Miller]

Ok, a couple of things here. I re-ran my math, and I was a bit off. Turns out that the Rabbit GTI is almost 220# over its 'process' weight (217.5# by my calculations), and that's w/o a strut/beam subtractor.

Kirk,

While I understand that fudging the numbers may have been ok w/ the ITAC at the time of tGR, I don't think any of the rest of us figured that that's what they were going to do.

Andy,

Do you really expect me not to throw the BS flag on that one? You used mfg. published hp for every other car, yet you took someone's claim that they got 100 whp on a dyno? No other data to determine how accurate the data were? An example of a bone-stock version, to get an idea on drive line loss? It's pretty well accepted that there is a significant variation in the various brands of dynos. Did you have actual dyno plots, as well as tear-down infor on the motor to guarantee that it was legal? Did Chris Albin's opinion carry more weight, just becasue he was 'the VW guy on the ITAC'?

You guys sold people a bill of goods when you did tGR. Cars were supposed to get treated the same, and treated objectively. You guys did neither.

Oh, and to get the process weight, even using your 100 whp #, you have to assume a 20% drive line loss. And regardless if you're looking a mfg. stated hp or measured whp, if you're getting 100 whp, you're still at almost a 1.40 power factor. That's just not happening w/ a legal IT tune on that motor. What other car in the ITCS gets saddled w/ a 1.40 power factor?

People are talking about the Audi being 200# heavy, the Rabbit GTI is more than that, and show me the anecdotal evidence that's even close to that of the Audi's.

You guys blew it when you didn't run all the cars in the ITCS through the process, and let the chips fall where they may. Have the faith in the PCA process to be able to correct things that were wrong. Instead, you tried to pull the wool over people's eyes. Now that stuff is all coming home to roost.

I'm really starting to regret ever coming back to this board. Nothing's changed, and nothing is going to change. As I said before, it sure will be interesting to see what IT is in 3-5 years.

One final thought on this, why the hell does the CRB and the BoD even give this stuff a second look? There's the 'no guarantee' clause in IT, and if you guys had just treated all the cars the same, they (CRB and BoD) would have been off the hook. They could have pointed to the 'no guarantee' clause and pointed to the fact that all the cars were treated the same, and been done with it. End of story. I still don't understand why IT is getting so much play w/ the PtB, unless they've got something else cooking in the back room.

/edit

To me, the whole SIR (bleh!) concept is really counter to what IT is all about. IIRC, the SIR allowance in the PCA language was something that was thrown in at the last min. by the CRB. They then screwed the pooch by throwing it at the E36 BMW. They really mucked it up when they got the size wrong. They (CRB) haven't even tried to throw them at Prod (they still keep dicking w/ weight), and I don't think the GT crowd are happy w/ them yet. They really have no place in IT.

[shwah]

And the Rabbit GTI was one of the cars that was run through the process during tGR. How'd the 1.4 power factor get justified? And more importantly, where is it documented?
I don't know any specific answers, but the Rabbit GTI should make more gains than either Golf in ITB. It has the WORST exhaust manifold ever installed on a VW - swapping from the toilet bowl single outlet to the later dual outlet gives a 5hp bump on the A2. It has a lower stock compression and thus gains a bit more % wise with the .5 bump. I don't think the solid lifter head has any measureable differences from the later hydro. I would be surprised if it all added up to a 1.4 factor, but could see it being .05 more than the A2.

[Bill Miller]

I don't know any specific answers, but the Rabbit GTI should make more gains than either Golf in ITB. It has the WORST exhaust manifold ever installed on a VW - swapping from the toilet bowl single outlet to the later dual outlet gives a 5hp bump on the A2. It has a lower stock compression and thus gains a bit more % wise with the .5 bump. I don't think the solid lifter head has any measureable differences from the later hydro. I would be surprised if it all added up to a 1.4 factor, but could see it being .05 more than the A2.

Chris,

I agree that the 'toilet bowl' exhaust manifold is soooo crappy, that it doesn't even make a good boat anchor. However, some differences between the A2 8v hyd. lifter motor and the A1 8v solid lifter motor (both 1.8). The A2 gets two things that help it, over the A1, see more gains when you put a better exhaust system on it. First, the A2 has a larger throttle body, so you can actually get more air into the engine, and second, it's got a higher lift cam (.400" vs. .369" for the A1). The A2 also gets a slightly longer duration (214 deg. vs 212 deg for the A1, both measured @ 0.050".

I know everybody trots out the crappy exhaust manifold, and I agree, it's a POS. But to start seeing real gains on the A1 motors, you've got to start swapping the cam and the throttle body as well.

As far as the gain from the .5 pt bump in compression, I'm not sure exactly how much you're seeing. Look at a stock JH (A1, 8.5:1) vs a stock RD (A2, 10:1). The JH makes 90 hp, and the RD makes 103 hp. The essential differences are compression, cam, and throttle body. Hard to say what makes the most contribution. Back in the day, one of the quick, cheap fixes to get some power out of a JH motor was to swap the exhaust manifold and cam from a 1.6 motor, and the t-body from either an A2 or an Audi 5k. That was said to give somewhere between 7 and 10 more hp. But keep in mind, you went from a .369" lift cam to a .405" lift cam. And again, you're back to a larger t-body, and a higher lift cam, neither of which are legal in IT. How much do you think you'll get out of that .5 pt bump in compression? 3hp? 5hp? 7hp? 10hp?

I'm sorry, but getting 30-35 hp out of a .5 pt bump in compression, a tweaked exhaust system, and a good balance & blueprint just doesn't happen w/ a JH motor. And those are the kinds of gains that are needed to justify the current spec weight.

I'm curious, have you guys ever dyno'd the motors out of the car, and in the car, just to get an idea of drive line loss? I know it's apples and oranges, and the differences are probably lost in the margin of error for the dyno, especially at these low numbers. Just curious as to what you guys think the drive line loss is.

[Greg Amy]

I don't know any specific answers, but the Rabbit GTI should make more gains than either Golf in ITB.
Andy Bettencourt should know exactly what a Rabbit GTi can make in IT trim; he's got the dyno files from a prior place we used, one where we dyno'd Jeff Lawton's "Kessler-massaged" (Tom Kelly-built) JH some years back... - GA

[Jeremy Billiel]

Good points.

I'll add that for whatever reason, we have never failed to get dyno plots from overdogs...E36, rX7, Z car, Integra, Miata, CRX, 325e, Golf, etc. In practice, despite what I agree are serious concerns, the system seems to work.

Well Jeff be careful now because some of those dyno plots are engine builders that are using them to sell more engines and *may* be inflated.

[Xian]

What other car in the ITCS gets saddled w/ a 1.40 power factor?

Take a look at the 106hp CRX/Civic in ITA. Also the Integra in ITA is pretty far up there...

I've definitely got some concerns about what I'm seeing (reading) that is going on WRT the CRB and ITAC (not the folks ON the ITAC though!) but that power adder isn't the complete one off that you act like it is.

Christian

[JeffYoung]

Or from people submitting sheets with underreported figures trying to game the system.

It's not a precise science, but I think the ITAC collectively does a pretty good job as a group in reviewing dyno data in a critical fashion. With the number of us on the committee, and the differing perspectives we bring, there are a fair number of individual checks and balances that seem to prevent drastic mistakes.

But we are constantly learning. For example, the perception a few years back was that a Dynapak always read lower than a Jet. That's not the case, and we have educated ourselves (or I have, the others may have already known this) on these points.

[Knestis]

>> I know everybody trots out the crappy exhaust manifold, and I agree, it's a POS. But to start seeing real gains on the A1 motors, you've got to start swapping the cam and the throttle body as well.

I dare say that there's more than a little possibility that the "correct" Rabbit GTI weight, established during the GR, *might* have been influenced by observations of on-track performance of a few cars that *might* not have had the right cam. There was a period of time during what I think of as the "cowboy days" of IT (c.1985-1995, when "stock cam" was loosely interpreted as "286."

K

[Bill Miller]

Kirk,

The standard line you heard pretty much any time a Rabbit GTI was mentioned, was that they were all cheating, and they were all running the 'G'-grind cam. Swap the exhaust manifold, go w/ a K&N air filter, bolt on an Audi 5k t-body, and drop in a 'G' cam, and it definitely woke those cars up a bit. That was what was referred to as a 'Stage I' tune, back in the day. What was nice, was that you could do the whole thing for <$200 in parts. Spend a little more, and get the Techtonics exhaust system, and it was even better. It was one of the first things I did to mine, way back when. It was still only ~ 15 extra hp. I had a friend that had a stock '86 8v GTI, and our cars were pretty evenly matched*.


*seat-of-the-pants dyno, and several off-the-light runs.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

Do you really expect me not to throw the BS flag on that one? You used mfg. published hp for every other car, yet you took someone's claim that they got 100 whp on a dyno? No other data to determine how accurate the data were? An example of a bone-stock version, to get an idea on drive line loss? It's pretty well accepted that there is a significant variation in the various brands of dynos. Did you have actual dyno plots, as well as tear-down infor on the motor to guarantee that it was legal? Did Chris Albin's opinion carry more weight, just becasue he was 'the VW guy on the ITAC'?

You guys sold people a bill of goods when you did tGR. Cars were supposed to get treated the same, and treated objectively. You guys did neither.

Well, on the BS flag, you would lose the time out. We DIDN'T and DON'T use mfg published hp for every other car. Think through the process Bill, you know how it works. We use it as a starting point and then apply what we know, if we know anything. The VW guys on teh committee at the time (IIRC) were adiment that 100whp was possible. I recall them even saying they had done it. Not sure what else to tell you on that.

You sound like you want every car in the ITCS run throughat 25% regardless of what they actually have the capability to make. You know this isn't how its done. We also didn't blow it by not running every car through during the first GR. It was a fine line then that the B0D would even let us and we picked our cars as best as we could. To me, it was to be a stepping stone once proven to be able to go back and request the REAL GR...

[JeffYoung]

I wasn't on the ITAC at the time, but as a member at large, I certainly understood the realignment to be limited to a set of few key cars in each class. I don't think it was ever sold or presented as every car being run through the process, which while it should be done will involve a ton of work.

The Josh Sirota Theorem may help though -- for large batches of the "unloved and unraced" we simply delete the weight and don't process the car until a request to do so comes in.

But now I'm just more concerned about the process as a whole, and really see a need to move quickly to finalize it, codify it (to the extent we can within the ITAC), and publish it. Things like this acquire their own inertia and if we can get it in before anything "rash" happens, it might have a better chance of "sticking."

[lateapex911]

I wasn't on the ITAC at the time, but as a member at large, I certainly understood the realignment to be limited to a set of few key cars in each class. I don't think it was ever sold or presented as every car being run through the process, .........."

Correct, it's been presented here and elsewhere as such a million times. 10% of the cars were responsible for 90% of the problems. or something like that.

[Bill Miller]

Well, on the BS flag, you would lose the time out. We DIDN'T and DON'T use mfg published hp for every other car. Think through the process Bill, you know how it works. We use it as a starting point and then apply what we know, if we know anything. The VW guys on teh committee at the time (IIRC) were adiment that 100whp was possible. I recall them even saying they had done it. Not sure what else to tell you on that.

You sound like you want every car in the ITCS run throughat 25% regardless of what they actually have the capability to make. You know this isn't how its done. We also didn't blow it by not running every car through during the first GR. It was a fine line then that the B0D would even let us and we picked our cars as best as we could. To me, it was to be a stepping stone once proven to be able to go back and request the REAL GR...

C'mon Andy, an objective process based on one or two guy's claims w/o any supporting data? Please. And let's just say for the sake of arguement, that you can get 100 whp out of one of those motors, legally (I don't believe you can, but I'm playing along). IIRC, the process used published crank hp, not whp. As I said in an earlier post, you would need 20% drive line loss to make your numbers jive w/ what the weight is. Any data to support that?

And please tell me what would happen if you guys got a letter to run the Rabbit GTI through the process? How would it be handled any differently than the Audi?

/edit

As far as what happened w/ the BoD and tGR, I think you guys (ITAC) got played. I can hear it now, when you guys request to run all cars in the ITCS through the process.
Wait, didn't you just do that a couple of years ago? You didn't? Why not, you had the opportunity. We need stability in the category, and changing weights every couple of years is counter-productive to that goal. But thanks for playing.

[lateapex911]

As far as what happened w/ the BoD and tGR, I think you guys (ITAC) got played. I can hear it now, when you guys request to run all cars in the ITCS through the process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoD
Wait, didn't you just do that a couple of years ago? You didn't? Why not, you had the opportunity. We need stability in the category, and changing weights every couple of years is counter-productive to that goal. But thanks for playing.




Where did that quote you used come from?

[gran racing]

It was a joke Jake. ;) That was pretty funny and could imagine that being said. LOL!

[Bill Miller]

It was a joke Jake. ;) That was pretty funny and could imagine that being said. LOL!

Hey Dave,

I think Jake's post was even funnier! ;)

And yes Jake, it was a joke. Sadly though, I don't think it's that far off.

[Knestis]

I think we need a rhetorical device icon...

http://www.screwfix.com/sfd/i/cat/08/p1599008_s.jpg

K

[dickita15]

Kirk,
Sorry to hear of your resignation. Just got back from the runoffs so I am late to the party. I believe that your contribution to the ITAC in a short time will be long felt.

By the way from what I saw at the tent meeting the GTAC and the CRB have come to an understanding and all is well.

[lateapex911]

Kirk,
Sorry to hear of your resignation. Just got back from the runoffs so I am late to the party. I believe that your contribution to the ITAC in a short time will be long felt.

By the way from what I saw at the tent meeting the GTAC and the CRB have come to an understanding and all is well.

Dick, what was the situation that created the need for an understanding?

[JeffYoung]

There was this crazy Audi that....nevermind..lol....

[dickita15]

My understanding as an outsider was that there were recommendations from the GTAC that were not being implemented. Some charged the CRB with not respecting the vision and hard work of the AC. Some say the CRB did not believe the AC was applying their proposed changes consistently. It looks like both groups have worked hard to see the other point of view and a middle ground was reached.
Caution, any analysis of the facts is my own based on things heard and read over the last year in many places and is not based on any inside information.

[Knestis]

So, there was an ITAC con-call last night. Now that I'm on the outside looking in, I'm curious - worried, actually - about what is going on. Is it completely deluded to hope that we might be able to learn something about what to expect...?

K

[JoshS]

So, there was an ITAC con-call last night. Now that I'm on the outside looking in, I'm curious - worried, actually - about what is going on. Is it completely deluded to hope that we might be able to learn something about what to expect...?

Yes.

A couple of points:

1) No one, including members of the CRB, has ever asked to make competition adjustments based solely on on-track results. In fact, it's the ITAC that wants to change weights (based 100% on the process) ... the CRB as a whole would rather leave the current weights alone because they do seem to be producing excellent competitive environments.

2) Everyone should re-read the last two paragraphs of 9.1.3.C. Adjusting car weights based solely on the process is not allowed for in the rules as they stand today.

Note that this doesn't mean that no weights can be changed (again, see those sections of 9.1.3.C) and the current ITAC has every intention of using the process to adjust weights when, in fact, adjusting weights is called for.

I'd also remind everyone (and these are the words of another ITAC member, he can speak up if he wants to), that the ITAC is an advisory committee -- we advise. It is not necessarily the case that every recommendation -- whether weight-oriented or allowance-oriented, will be adopted.

[Bill Miller]

Yes.

A couple of points:

1) No one, including members of the CRB, has ever asked to make competition adjustments based solely on on-track results. In fact, it's the ITAC that wants to change weights (based 100% on the process) ... the CRB as a whole would rather leave the current weights alone because they do seem to be producing excellent competitive environments.

2) Everyone should re-read the last two paragraphs of 9.1.3.C. Adjusting car weights based solely on the process is not allowed for in the rules as they stand today.

Note that this doesn't mean that no weights can be changed (again, see those sections of 9.1.3.C) and the current ITAC has every intention of using the process to adjust weights when, in fact, adjusting weights is called for.

I'd also remind everyone (and these are the words of another ITAC member, he can speak up if he wants to), that the ITAC is an advisory committee -- we advise. It is not necessarily the case that every recommendation -- whether weight-oriented or allowance-oriented, will be adopted.

With all due respect Josh, that's a bunch of political double-talk. Maybe you could enlighten us as to when you feel that 'adjusting weights might be called for'?

And your first point sure makes it seem as if my hypothetical quote is not so hypothetical after all.

Also to your first point, what else besides on-track results were the reason(s) that the E36 got an SIR?

[Knestis]

... 2) Everyone should re-read the last two paragraphs of 9.1.3.C. Adjusting car weights based solely on the process is not allowed for in the rules as they stand today.

Note that this doesn't mean that no weights can be changed (again, see those sections of 9.1.3.C) and the current ITAC has every intention of using the process to adjust weights when, in fact, adjusting weights is called for. ...

Thanks, Josh. For reference, that's...

On rare occasion—and only after careful review of the actual racing performance of a particular make/model/year of vehicle—the Club may reclassify a vehicle, revise a vehicle’s minimum allowable weight, and/or in the most extreme situation an intake restrictor may be required. Such an action shall be taken solely for the purpose of restoring equity within the vehicle’s class.

But what we must also remember is that - at least in the time I was on the ITAC - we didn't do "please review" weight changes based on that clause. We did it under Errors and Omissions, ostensibly because we found the weights to be "incorrect." And "incorrect" has to be relative to something, and so - again, based on our practices - that benchmark or reference was the weight resulting from our application of the process. And the CRB voted to approve those recommendations, for example:

Dodge/Plymouth Neon RT & ACR (01-03), p. 365, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs): 2670

We didn't do that because this Neon was a "proven" overdog on the track that rose to the level of the CRX situation, that the Performance Compensation Adjustment allowance (the clause Josh cites) was included to deal with.

...SO based on what we're hearing here, the CRB has used the full nuke offensive on the ITAC, essentially removing from their arsenal any weapon they might use to correct a vestigal weight inconsistency. Put simply, we are now at a place where the only catalyst for ANY weight change in IT would be a perceived upset of "equity" similar to that posed by the CRX or the e36 325 in ITS a few years ago.

We've got cars with weights set by several variants of the process, and a bunch set by who-knows-what system from the olden days, and that's just how they're going to stay - unless someone goes too fast...

...because now, since by definition "right" for the purposes of Errors and Omissions, Competition Adjustments, Clarifications, and Classifications can now only be defined by relative on-track performance "equity," the ONLY CASE that can be presented for consideration is the "he's faster than me" kind of appeal. Those that (1) are so very popular in other categories about this time of year after the RubOffs, and (2) the ITAC until last month didn't even consider, knowing they are fraught with huge evidentiary issues.

Swell.

Hey, members...! Remember those letters the ITAC recommended you write, if you saw some obvious misalignment among car weights? Well, don't send 'em. And (fast forward to the logical extension of this) the VERY second that a weight IS adjusted based on a case made by on-track evidence, we've lost all control. Go fast at an important race? You're a target for a 100-pound lead bullet. Fear of competition adjustments (bleah!) will prevent ANY change, or we're well and truly in Production land. No middle ground like the ITAC has spent a lot of time and energy trying to maintain.

And for the 1000th time, I do NOT blame the ITAC. They got told this is how it was going to be by your club leadership.

K

[gran racing]

Note that this doesn't mean that no weights can be changed (again, see those sections of 9.1.3.C) and the current ITAC has every intention of using the process to adjust weights when, in fact, adjusting weights is called for.

Gesh Josh, I’m interpreting your post like Kirk in that the recent cars recommended for weight adjustments are not moving forward. Then again, who knows with that “answer”. LOL Sure does sound more flashy than the old “not guaranteed competitiveness” BS although it's still crap.

[Andy Bettencourt]

To sum it up from my seat:


The CRB will allow the classification of new cars via the process.
The CRB will not allow 'corrections' to currently listed cars via the process
Overdogs can and will be adjusted. Not exactly sure the methodology for that. I am assuming they would like us to research why its an overdog, take that info and fit it into the process and reset the weight. Not sure how much of a change in weight needs to spit out in order for an action to be taken. Probably the old +/-100lbs. Overdogs will be determined by on-track performance. The definition of an overdog is not known to me. Maybe it's like porn. I will know it when I see it.
The CRB does not have enough confidence in the process to allow us to run everyone through. Specifically, the first step in the process uses stock crank HP. While this is known to be a flawed number, their confidence level is so low, they have stopped pushing through 'corrections' under the errors and ommissions clause.
It is their opinion that ANY change is a competition adjustment because lowering the weight of a car alters the competitive landscape of the class. It is the opinion of the ITAC that the traditional definition of a CA is a change that is made based on track results. What we have been doing are changes based on paper with no 'weight input' from on track results. No 'wiggle room' as it were.
It is my opinion that when we eliminated the wiggle room from the process, the CRB got nervous. Nervous because they have no confidence in stock hp ratings and therefore not much confidence in weights +/- X pounds. We know the process is not an exact science but the CRB worries that it may do more harm than good when dealing with cars whose specs show a lower weight and whose on-track results show the car is competitive as classed.

So we class new cars, change rules as the need arises and deal with overdogs when or if they appear. Effectively, the weights in the ITCS are frozen until an E36-type situation happens.

The CRB has so many classes that they try to balance on the head of a pin. It's a rediculously tough job, but for the larger part, they have been very successful. I believe this is part of the culture and IT flies in the face of that. It is my opinion that the IT community would rather see us class cars the same way, and risk us getting it wrong (create an overdog then have to fix it) than having things left in the ITCS that span 3 ways of classing with limited congruency. My interpretation of that philosophy is simple. 'IT has great car counts, has great parity and the comptitive landscape is excellent now. It's not broken so any change would potentially mess it us for little benefit'.

YMMV.

[lawtonglenn]

.

Thanks Andy...that summary has helped me understand the issues and the differing perspectives of the players completely. :happy204:

.

[gran racing]

Thanks for the information Andy. I understand some points but find this whole thing extremely frustrating. Actually beyond that and sure makes me question my hobby.

[Knestis]

My thanks too, Andy.

I guess that the only hope I have left is that it will indeed be back in stasis, like it was for so long before the GR. I still can't help worrying however that the "Audi situation" isn't about an inch from "we aren't going to make it lighter" to "we're going to make it heavier."

It's massively disappointing to me that it got as close as it did to being the real exception to the traditional traps of the Club's classification process, but I guess that's it.

Those ITAC calls are going to be a lot shorter, huh?

K

[tnord]

To sum it up from my seat:


The CRB will allow the classification of new cars via the process.
The CRB will not allow 'corrections' to currently listed cars via the process
Overdogs can and will be adjusted. Not exactly sure the methodology for that. I am assuming they would like us to research why its an overdog, take that info and fit it into the process and reset the weight. Not sure how much of a change in weight needs to spit out in order for an action to be taken. Probably the old +/-100lbs. Overdogs will be determined by on-track performance. The definition of an overdog is not known to me. Maybe it's like porn. I will know it when I see it.
The CRB does not have enough confidence in the process to allow us to run everyone through. Specifically, the first step in the process uses stock crank HP. While this is known to be a flawed number, their confidence level is so low, they have stopped pushing through 'corrections' under the errors and ommissions clause.
It is their opinion that ANY change is a competition adjustment because lowering the weight of a car alters the competitive landscape of the class. It is the opinion of the ITAC that the traditional definition of a CA is a change that is made based on track results. What we have been doing are changes based on paper with no 'weight input' from on track results. No 'wiggle room' as it were.
It is my opinion that when we eliminated the wiggle room from the process, the CRB got nervous. Nervous because they have no confidence in stock hp ratings and therefore not much confidence in weights +/- X pounds. We know the process is not an exact science but the CRB worries that it may do more harm than good when dealing with cars whose specs show a lower weight and whose on-track results show the car is competitive as classed.

So we class new cars, change rules as the need arises and deal with overdogs when or if they appear. Effectively, the weights in the ITCS are frozen until an E36-type situation happens.

The CRB has so many classes that they try to balance on the head of a pin. It's a rediculously tough job, but for the larger part, they have been very successful. I believe this is part of the culture and IT flies in the face of that. It is my opinion that the IT community would rather see us class cars the same way, and risk us getting it wrong (create an overdog then have to fix it) than having things left in the ITCS that span 3 ways of classing with limited congruency. My interpretation of that philosophy is simple. 'IT has great car counts, has great parity and the comptitive landscape is excellent now. It's not broken so any change would potentially mess it us for little benefit'.

YMMV.


:happy204:CRB. Seriously.

[Jeremy Billiel]

To sum it up from my seat:


The CRB will allow the classification of new cars via the process.
The CRB will not allow 'corrections' to currently listed cars via the process
Overdogs can and will be adjusted. Not exactly sure the methodology for that. I am assuming they would like us to research why its an overdog, take that info and fit it into the process and reset the weight. Not sure how much of a change in weight needs to spit out in order for an action to be taken. Probably the old +/-100lbs. Overdogs will be determined by on-track performance. The definition of an overdog is not known to me. Maybe it's like porn. I will know it when I see it.
The CRB does not have enough confidence in the process to allow us to run everyone through. Specifically, the first step in the process uses stock crank HP. While this is known to be a flawed number, their confidence level is so low, they have stopped pushing through 'corrections' under the errors and ommissions clause.
It is their opinion that ANY change is a competition adjustment because lowering the weight of a car alters the competitive landscape of the class. It is the opinion of the ITAC that the traditional definition of a CA is a change that is made based on track results. What we have been doing are changes based on paper with no 'weight input' from on track results. No 'wiggle room' as it were.
It is my opinion that when we eliminated the wiggle room from the process, the CRB got nervous. Nervous because they have no confidence in stock hp ratings and therefore not much confidence in weights +/- X pounds. We know the process is not an exact science but the CRB worries that it may do more harm than good when dealing with cars whose specs show a lower weight and whose on-track results show the car is competitive as classed.

So we class new cars, change rules as the need arises and deal with overdogs when or if they appear. Effectively, the weights in the ITCS are frozen until an E36-type situation happens.

The CRB has so many classes that they try to balance on the head of a pin. It's a rediculously tough job, but for the larger part, they have been very successful. I believe this is part of the culture and IT flies in the face of that. It is my opinion that the IT community would rather see us class cars the same way, and risk us getting it wrong (create an overdog then have to fix it) than having things left in the ITCS that span 3 ways of classing with limited congruency. My interpretation of that philosophy is simple. 'IT has great car counts, has great parity and the comptitive landscape is excellent now. It's not broken so any change would potentially mess it us for little benefit'.

YMMV.

Unfortunately IT just took 2 steps backwards....

Sounds like kakashi racing needs to go find the the next hidden gem and exploit the new rules.

[Bill Miller]

To sum it up from my seat:


The CRB will allow the classification of new cars via the process.
The CRB will not allow 'corrections' to currently listed cars via the process
Overdogs can and will be adjusted. Not exactly sure the methodology for that. I am assuming they would like us to research why its an overdog, take that info and fit it into the process and reset the weight. Not sure how much of a change in weight needs to spit out in order for an action to be taken. Probably the old +/-100lbs. Overdogs will be determined by on-track performance. The definition of an overdog is not known to me. Maybe it's like porn. I will know it when I see it.
The CRB does not have enough confidence in the process to allow us to run everyone through. Specifically, the first step in the process uses stock crank HP. While this is known to be a flawed number, their confidence level is so low, they have stopped pushing through 'corrections' under the errors and ommissions clause.
It is their opinion that ANY change is a competition adjustment because lowering the weight of a car alters the competitive landscape of the class. It is the opinion of the ITAC that the traditional definition of a CA is a change that is made based on track results. What we have been doing are changes based on paper with no 'weight input' from on track results. No 'wiggle room' as it were.

It is my opinion that when we eliminated the wiggle room from the process, the CRB got nervous. Nervous because they have no confidence in stock hp ratings and therefore not much confidence in weights +/- X pounds. We know the process is not an exact science but the CRB worries that it may do more harm than good when dealing with cars whose specs show a lower weight and whose on-track results show the car is competitive as classed.

So we class new cars, change rules as the need arises and deal with overdogs when or if they appear. Effectively, the weights in the ITCS are frozen until an E36-type situation happens.

The CRB has so many classes that they try to balance on the head of a pin. It's a rediculously tough job, but for the larger part, they have been very successful. I believe this is part of the culture and IT flies in the face of that. It is my opinion that the IT community would rather see us class cars the same way, and risk us getting it wrong (create an overdog then have to fix it) than having things left in the ITCS that span 3 ways of classing with limited congruency. My interpretation of that philosophy is simple. 'IT has great car counts, has great parity and the comptitive landscape is excellent now. It's not broken so any change would potentially mess it us for little benefit'.

YMMV.

Andy,

Thanks for your candor. Hopefully you don't catch the same kind of grief from the CRB that Kirk did. A couple of comments, none of which are addressed to you, or any of the members of the ITAC, since, as Kirk so succinctly points out, the ITAC is being given their marching orders by the CRB.

One thing that is painfully obvious, based on the above comments. Any car that is currently on the 'wrong' side of its process weight (i.e. heavier than what the process says it should be) is going to stay that way. In some cases, people may feel that is justified, either through evidence that shows that the car sees greater than 25% power gains w/ an IT tune, or through on-track performance. That becomes a semantics issue, and I guess it can be resolved through the application of PCA's. Where the problem lies, is in the cars that are over their process weight, and don't see greater than 25% power gains, and aren't running at the front of the grid. There's no hope for them to see any relief, and what the CRB's position is essentially saying, is "too bad, pick another car if you don't like it (but choose wisely)."

As is usual w/ the CRB, their position on the process is inconsistent. They have enough confidence in it to use it on newly classified cars, but they don't have enough confidence to use it on all the cars in the ITCS. What I read between the lines there, is that they see such a small number of new cars come in every year (when compared to the entire ITCS), and that it will take time (years?) to get those cars sorted, that they won't really make an impact on the status quo in IT, so there's not much risk in using the process. But, there's a big upside, in terms of political mileage. They (CRB) get to point to this 'transparent, objective, repeatable' process that they use (even though it only applies to a VERY small percentage of the cars in the ITCS).

And I think you're wrong Andy, I don't think it's that they don't have confidence in the hp/weight, I think it's that they don't want to give up the ability to do what they want, when they want. There has NEVER been any kind of transparency or objectivity when classing and adjusting cars, regardless of category. What the ITAC has proposed is so foreign to the CRB, they don't know how to wrap their heads around it. Not to mention they don't want to relinquish the power.

What really causes me to scratch my head, is why the CRB is giving IT such a hard line. They've already got the 'no guarantee' clause as an out, why don't they give the IT drivers the category that they want? Put it out for member input. If the IT drivers want all the cars in the ITCS run through the process, why shouldn't that happen?

Hate to say it, but nothing has really changed over the last 5 or so years.

[gran racing]

:happy204:CRB. Seriously.

Yeah, that's just great Travis that cars are classed on totally different critera. Awesome, just fucking awesome. We're still at a how the hell is this car classed at this weight when this car is classed at this other weight. Oh, wait. They were treated differently and all we can say is a different board classed it. Yup, the CRB nailed this one alright. Then again you do have an ITA Miata.

[Jeremy Billiel]

Yeah, that's just great Travis that cars are classed on totally different critera. Awesome, just fucking awesome. We're still at a how the hell is this car classed at this weight when this car is classed at this other weight. Oh, wait. They were treated differently and all we can say is a different board classed it. Yup, the CRB nailed this one alright. Then again you do have an ITA Miata.

That is right, Travis doesn't care because he has an overdog. So now they need to sandbag at a couple of the big events and they shoudl be good! :D

[tnord]

Yeah, that's just great Travis that cars are classed on totally different critera. Awesome, just fucking awesome. We're still at a how the hell is this car classed at this weight when this car is classed at this other weight. Oh, wait. They were treated differently and all we can say is a different board classed it. Yup, the CRB nailed this one alright.

....because the currently vey successful IT landscape was achieved using this magical process 100% of the time. :rolleyes:

[Andy Bettencourt]

The limit on action isn't so much on potential overdogs (that will be triggered by on-track observation) as it is on retroactive 'resets' on cars that have never been listed at their process weight. I think the CRB's position comes down to 'better to be safe and leave those cars alone because if we reset them, we may upset the current very diverse and competitive landscape'.

[jjjanos]

One thing that is painfully obvious, based on the above comments. Any car that is currently on the 'wrong' side of its process weight (i.e. heavier than what the process says it should be) is going to stay that way. In some cases, people may feel that is justified, either through evidence that shows that the car sees greater than 25% power gains w/ an IT tune, or through on-track performance. That becomes a semantics issue, and I guess it can be resolved through the application of PCA's. Where the problem lies, is in the cars that are over their process weight, and don't see greater than 25% power gains, and aren't running at the front of the grid. There's no hope for them to see any relief, and what the CRB's position is essentially saying, is "too bad, pick another car if you don't like it (but choose wisely)."

Bingo. The short answer is "you aren't guaranteed competitiveness." I think that's a shitty answer.

I still want to know why the CRB has any say over what the various categories do. It's time to get rid of the CRB and have the organizational chart run BOD -> ACs.

Formula drivers know formula cars.
Production drivers know production cars.
IT drivers know IT cars.

[quadzjr]

So what about the cars that are omitedly too heavy and are not overdogs. They will never see the front of the pack to get recognized.. do these car jsut get screwed?

I resurected an ex ITA MR2 knowing it could be competitve ITB if classed right. It was classed with an omited error in percent gain, and I stuck at the wrong weight untill every overdog above it gets weighted down?

If they are going to penalize overdogs (competition adjustments), Shouldn't that mentality help a well preped and well driven underdog? meaning that it should take away weights..

[gran racing]

Steve, good luck defining the "overdogs" and getting any changes passed through if this is truly the direction IT is going to take. We're taking a huge step backwards and will be back to politics behind closed doors and the stereotypical secret car club of america.

The absolute best thing anyone can do who feels that this is a bad decision is to write the SCCA BOD. Seriously, please take a few minutes and send them an e-mail.

[email protected] ([email protected])

[tnord]

Bullshit Dave.

you can prove a car is an overdog today the same way you could previously. Go get dyno results and submit the process output along with on track results to the CRB as evidence for consideration.

The CRB isn't saying the process is completely worthless by any means, they're just saying it's not as infallable as some would like to think. Yes, "we" pay lip service to it by saying we know it's not perfect, but in application "we" act like it's the solution to all of IT's problems.

[Jeremy Billiel]

Bullshit Dave.

you can prove a car is an overdog today the same way you could previously. Go get dyno results and submit the process output along with on track results to the CRB as evidence for consideration.

The CRB isn't saying the process is completely worthless by any means, they're just saying it's not as infallable as some would like to think. Yes, "we" pay lip service to it by saying we know it's not perfect, but in application "we" act like it's the solution to all of IT's problems.

Travis - There will be very few people who agree with that answer. Just Sayin'

[quadzjr]

not currently worried about defining overdog.. what does the CRB want to do with the under dogs? or does that just fall into the "not guaranteed competitiveness" clause?

[Knestis]

not currently worried about defining overdog.. what does the CRB want to do with the under dogs? or does that just fall into the "not guaranteed competitiveness" clause?

"Tough noogies."

That is all.

K

[trhoppe]

So having said all this, has the ITAC received enough evidence to prove that the 1.8 ITA Miata is an overdog? I'm assuming that the weight adjustments, if any, that were asked for, are being denied by the CRB?

This makes it seem like IT will become like Touring, where people will find overdog cars, keep them quiet, run them with sand, and unless you have the "car of the current time", you'll be getting your ass kicked. The "car of the current time" in ITA is a 1.8 Miata :( Everyone knows about it, it kicks ass, there hasn't been a 10/10ths built one yet (other then Andy), but still, nothing will be done......

-Tom
who chose poorly....

[Jeremy Billiel]

So having said all this, has the ITAC received enough evidence to prove that the 1.8 ITA Miata is an overdog? I'm assuming that the weight adjustments, if any, that were asked for, are being denied by the CRB?

This makes it seem like IT will become like Touring, where people will find overdog cars, keep them quiet, run them with sand, and unless you have the "car of the current time", you'll be getting your ass kicked. The "car of the current time" in ITA is a 1.8 Miata :( Everyone knows about it, it kicks ass, there hasn't been a 10/10ths built one yet (other then Andy), but still, nothing will be done......

-Tom
who chose poorly....

Tom - I do not believe a decision was made and therfore the Miata is the car to have until it gets registered in the CRB's mind as an overdog.

Jeremy who is going thru the cars again to find the new car to have

[Andy Bettencourt]

The CRB isn't saying the process is completely worthless by any means, they're just saying it's not as infallable as some would like to think. Yes, "we" pay lip service to it by saying we know it's not perfect, but in application "we" act like it's the solution to all of IT's problems.

No "we" don't. Nobody ever has. What the process does do - perfectly now - is document everything that goes into a weight. Right or wrong. It leaves a trail of crumbs so that future drivers and administrators can see how things happened.

What the CRB is saying IMHO, is that the 'eyeball test' is better than the process in some cases. The only way the process falls down here is if there is no 'out of spec' data to feed back in so a heavier or lighter than standard weight spits out.

It is also my understanding that the process will NOT be used to correct weights - up or down...the cars that get looked at will be uber-rare...and they will be cars that are 'running off the front end' of races. Meaning E36 type overdogs. Right now, I can't think of one car like that in IT.

[seckerich]

What just happened is the CRB made it clear who runs SCCA. Have all the ADVISORY commities you want and get input from drivers. See what they want and what their concerns are. Then shut the F up and do it like we say. After all the 7 of us know more about all 30 some classes in SCCA than anyone else possibly could. I made the post way back at the beginning of all this and told you the CRB saw you as doing too much and taking up their valuble time with a class that was supposed to be a catch all. How dare you want input into what happens? They will be busy for the next 6 months dicking with prod comp adjustments after the first runoffs at a new track. Jim Drago came on here and said I was wrong. I guess I was right. They got their ass handed to them at the GT tent meeting for doing the same thing to the GT advisory board and came home mad. Never mind there are cars that are way heavy or too light, that is too much to burden them with. That is why we gave that task to the ITAC. How is that working for you all now? You should all resign and tell them to go back to their back room deals. Power needs to be divided and soon. To those of you lurking--Some of you are friends, but you screwed us. I will do everything I can to get the BOD to change how things are done now and vote those out that think you deserve all this power.

These are the names of those you need to be speaking with. Address and phone deleted for members only to access.

Bob Dowie
Club Racing Board
Chester, NY Charles Fred Clark
Jacksonville, FL Jim Drago
Memphis, TN Chris W Albin
Maryland Heights, MO David A Gomberg
Laurel, MD Peter Keane CRB
Cocoa Beach,Russell J McHugh
Sunnyvale, CA

[gran racing]

What's the BOD's preferred method of contact? Is there any value in contacting them via phone and following up via e-mail? For e-mails sent in, do they truly get enough attention?

[quadzjr]

So having said all this, has the ITAC received enough evidence to prove that the 1.8 ITA Miata is an overdog? I'm assuming that the weight adjustments, if any, that were asked for, are being denied by the CRB?

This makes it seem like IT will become like Touring, where people will find overdog cars, keep them quiet, run them with sand, and unless you have the "car of the current time", you'll be getting your ass kicked. The "car of the current time" in ITA is a 1.8 Miata :( Everyone knows about it, it kicks ass, there hasn't been a 10/10ths built one yet (other then Andy), but still, nothing will be done......

-Tom
who chose poorly....

Tom I believe that you would have one of the other overdogs.. It is a toss up between which is better the miata or a integra. the integra is a good choice, hence the reason why you built one.

[seckerich]

What's the BOD's preferred method of contact? Is there any value in contacting them via phone and following up via e-mail? For e-mails sent in, do they truly get enough attention?
Call them. They are for the most part racers like us and willing to talk with you. Be respectful and email with the best time to call. They have day jobs too for the most part. I think we should organize a tent meeting at the ARRC with the CRB and our ITAC members just like the other classes. Would any of you support that?

[Knestis]

What just happened is the CRB made it clear who runs SCCA. Have all the ADVISORY commities you want and get input from drivers. See what they want and what their concerns are. Then shut the F up and do it like we say. After all the 7 of us know more about all 30 some classes in SCCA than anyone else possibly could. I made the post way back at the beginning of all this and told you the CRB saw you as doing too much and taking up their valuble time with a class that was supposed to be a catch all. How dare you want input into what happens? They will be busy for the next 6 months dicking with prod comp adjustments after the first runoffs at a new track. Jim Drago came on here and said I was wrong. I guess I was right. They got their ass handed to them at the GT tent meeting for doing the same thing to the GT advisory board and came home mad. Never mind there are cars that are way heavy or too light, that is too much to burden them with. That is why we gave that task to the ITAC. How is that working for you all now? You should all resign and tell them to go back to their back room deals. Power needs to be divided and soon. To those of you lurking--Some of you are friends, but you screwed us. I will do everything I can to get the BOD to change how things are done now and vote those out that think you deserve all this power.

These are the names of those you need to be speaking with. Address and phone deleted for members only to access.

Bob Dowie
Club Racing Board
Chester, NY Charles Fred Clark
Jacksonville, FL Jim Drago
Memphis, TN Chris W Albin
Maryland Heights, MO David A Gomberg
Laurel, MD Peter Keane CRB
Cocoa Beach,Russell J McHugh
Sunnyvale, CA

I'm right there with you, Steve. I've been wrestling with the question of how long - or IF - I need to wait in order that my complaints not be perceived as sour grapes about how I was personally treated by the CRB but we've got to have more voices being heard.

K

[lateapex911]

Andy,


As is usual w/ the CRB, their position on the process is inconsistent. They have enough confidence in it to use it on newly classified cars, but they don't have enough confidence to use it on all the cars in the ITCS. ............


First, regarding the Process application on newly listed cars (Initial classifications), I was told by the CRB, (and I'm condensing a bit) that we can use The Process V1.0, 2.0, or make it up, as long as it makes sense.

Well, that leaves some latitude. As an example, a Atwood GT is currently classed in ITA, with 120hp, and 110 ft lbs. A new listing, the Cumberton GT comes across the desk, with the same exact Hp, and the same basic specs, FWD, brakes, suspension, etc etc. Same car, essentially, as the Atwood GT. But the Atwood was done 6 years ago. Now the Process spits out a weight 100 pounds lighter. What to do?

A- List it as the Process spits out. Ignore the obvious "It doesn't make sense" aspect when compared to the identical car that's already listed.



B- List it at the existing car's weight to make it "make sense". But ignore that it doesn't 'make sense' compared to the rest of the class??


(I'd chose A, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few)

In either case, it points out the inevitable contradiction that the "Make it make sense" edict creates when we are limited in our range of adjustments.

I do understand that the CRB feels the process is flawed because it relies on stock hp. I agree that that IS a limitation, yet I feel it has been dealt with effectively, and transparently with documentation in V2.0. We have an "evidetiary module" that allows non stock ratings to be considered, as long as there is evidence and the ITAC can register their votes of confidence. So I thought that issue had been dealt with. But the CRB disagrees.

In a way, I am not surprised. But in a way, I am. I *think* that the CRb has gotten a lot of fan mail over the ITACs position and direction, and I'd bet it's vastly more than any other Ad Hoc. (Both in terms of amount and 'satisfaction' rating) I would have thought the BoD and the CRB would consider that as a strong indication of the categories success and the members wishes. That's naive' I guess, because perhaps the BoD was never relayed that information, and because there might be a CRB perception that the rest of the racers that aren't on boards like this and don't write letters don't agree. I like to think that you, the members, are my bosses.



Hate to say it, but nothing has really changed over the last 5 or so years.
Understood, but I disagree by a degree.
We have learned as a group (us racers and the ITAC). We are largely on the same page. Thats a good thing. We can still fight the good fight. We've been handicapped for sure. But yea, we're looking at a new landscape that looks suspiciously like the old landscape.

[lateapex911]

They got their ass handed to them at the GT tent meeting for doing the same thing to the GT advisory board and came home mad. Never mind there are cars that are way heavy or too light, that is too much to burden them with. That is why we gave that task to the ITAC. How is that working for you all now? You should all resign and tell them to go back to their back room deals.

So, Steve, that begs the question...if we all resign, will the IT world be a better place?

[seckerich]

So, Steve, that begs the question...if we all resign, will the IT world be a better place?
Irrelevant since you are now relegated to just an information gatherer to be used to spit out their perception of equal. If what you all have done in the past few years to provide parity in IT is not enough to gain the CRB support, you are wasting your time and ours. They lead us to believe we have a voice in our class then they step aside and leave you to take the heat. You are a grown man, do what you think is best. I am going to start from the top down and rock the crap out of this broken system.

[lateapex911]

I think we should organize a tent meeting at the ARRC with the CRB and our ITAC members just like the other classes. Would any of you support that?

I've been suggesting that for years, but recently things seem to be going smoothly, and people are busy with racing, or are more interested in partying. The nature of theses things seems to be that if things are cool, they'd rather have a beer.

I don't *think* any CRB guys are going, but Chris Albin might be there in an ITB car. And Peter Keane might as well in another ITB car. I doubt that SCCA would approve an expense account for any of them to attend, and I certainly wouldn't expect them to get there on their own dime.

As for the ITAC guys, I'll be there. I *Think* Scott Giles, might attend. Kirk Knestis..ooops, scratch that.! Les Chaney has been there on occasion as a crew guy, and Lee Graser said he might make it. Josh Sirota has a busted car, and lives in the Bay area, so I doubt he'll be there. Bettencourt is out of vacation time, I'd bet. Jeff Young typically does the VIR 13 hour, which eliminates the ARRC, although you might try to make him attend as an observer!

So, sure, I'm game, if we can find a time that's not a conflict and is convenient for people.

[JeffYoung]

I would come downto the ARRC on Friday/Saturday for that if needed.

[tnord]

I think you guys are WAY over reacting.

The CRB isn't crumpling up the process and lighting it on fire. They're just saying that it's not perfect, they'd like to do more than just "run the numbers," and want some flexibility to operate outside of a formula which really boils down to a series of educated guesses (which impossibly tries to treat cars across 40? 50? years and 5 classes equally).

Nobody is talking about a car winning the ARRC and automatically getting a lead brick as a trophy. Nobody is talking about turning the class upside down.

What we will have is something everyone already agrees is a good thing (good competition across many makes/models), and something most of us have said we wish we had more of (stability).

remember that there ARE IT guys on the CRB. In case you missed it in Steve's post, CHRIS ALBIN is on the CRB. how long has Chris been an IT racer?

the world is not ending.

PS - Yes (Jeremy, and others) I'm fully aware that my perception is not the popular one.

[Jeremy Billiel]

I think you guys are WAY over reacting.

The CRB isn't crumpling up the process and lighting it on fire. They're just saying that it's not perfect, they'd like to do more than just "run the numbers," and want some flexibility to operate outside of a formula which really boils down to a series of educated guesses (which impossibly tries to treat cars across 40? 50? years and 5 classes equally).

Nobody is talking about a car winning the ARRC and automatically getting a lead brick as a trophy. Nobody is talking about turning the class upside down.

What we will have is something everyone already agrees is a good thing (good competition across many makes/models), and something most of us have said we wish we had more of (stability).

remember that there ARE IT guys on the CRB. In case you missed it in Steve's post, CHRIS ALBIN is on the CRB. how long has Chris been an IT racer?

the world is not ending.

PS - Yes (Jeremy, and others) I'm fully aware that my perception is not the popular one.

The problem Travis is that with no clearly defined process we (IT racers) have lost the ability to self police and be transparent. If the CRB has the majic Key then yes, you win the ARRC you may very well get lead.

[tnord]

in my discussions with the CRB that is not their intention. and the message being sent by your ITAC members doesn't indicate so either.

[lateapex911]

I think you guys are WAY over reacting.

The CRB isn't crumpling up the process and lighting it on fire. They're just saying that it's not perfect, they'd like to do more than just "run the numbers," and want some flexibility to operate outside of a formula which really boils down to a series of educated guesses (which impossibly tries to treat cars across 40? 50? years and 5 classes equally).

Not exactly...it treats cars of similar characteristics with the same yardstick, and has modules for dealing with cars that fall outside the norm. With the "Flexibility" that is desired (Aka 'wiggleroom' as somebody posted up the line), there is no documentation or consistency form era to era. I fear that internal mood swings, personnel and back room dealings got us some weird listings. I'm not saying that's going to happen, or that I think it will, but the possibility certainly exists, and moreso, the appearance of possible impropriety is now in the game.


Nobody is talking about a car winning the ARRC and automatically getting a lead brick as a trophy. Nobody is talking about turning the class upside down.
Correct. I have no indication that the CRB has considered that for a split second.


What we will have is something everyone already agrees is a good thing (good competition across many makes/models), and something most of us have said we wish we had more of (stability). Part of stability is having the cars judged by the same system.....


remember that there ARE IT guys on the CRB. In case you missed it in Steve's post, CHRIS ALBIN is on the CRB. how long has Chris been an IT racer?True, and he's also a Prod racer.

[seckerich]

in my discussions with the CRB that is not their intention. and the message being sent by your ITAC members doesn't indicate so either.
Maybe in your next discussion with the CRB you can have them actually tell THE MEMBERS IN IT what they are really doing. Your sacred Miata is safe at its current weight so all is good in your world. We get it. How about the cars that were up for a weight reduction that will now not ever be looked at? Those drivers just go away, and yes they will go away mad because their car was not treated the same as others in IT because it was easy. Not going to cut it.

And yes Travis I know there are 2 IT drivers on the CRB, both in ITB that race against the Audi that turned this whole process upside down. Is that supposed to make me feel more confident? Bad example.

[Jeremy Billiel]

in my discussions with the CRB that is not their intention. and the message being sent by your ITAC members doesn't indicate so either.

1. I don't believe the ITAC believes that and
2. I GUARANTEE that a Majority of the members do not believe that either....

The CRB has an out to do what they want and that will turn a lot of the members away... It's just that simple.

[Ron Earp]

How about the cars that were up for a weight reduction that will now not ever be looked at? Those drivers just go away, and yes they will go away mad because their car was not treated the same as others in IT because it was easy. Not going to cut it.

And I think there were a few of these. ITS Mustang (I wrote the letter for that one), ITR RX8 (I have heard about this one), ITA 325 (heard about this one), and I'm sure there are others. Two of these three cars are built or racing now, the third could be a contender at a decent weight. Shame.