Big Picture of IT - Share Your Opinions

[gran racing]

Travis, let's make this clear - I do not think the process is perfect. However, I do think it's much better than what previous back room dealings have happened in the past.


Part of stability is having the cars judged by the same system.....

THIS is what we need along with being able to explain how the results were achieved other than "that car did pretty well at X track, so it can't possibly need a reduction in weight".


I think you guys are WAY over reacting.

I don't think so in the least bit. I will be contacting the BOD with my feelings related to the direction of IT and can honestly say I've never been more tempted to pack my bags and go play elsewhere or go boating.

[lateapex911]

1. I don't believe the ITAC believes that ..........

No, I, as an ITAC member do believe that. Based on my years of con calls, discussions with CRB members, I see no "Win the ARRCs, add 50lbs to the car" mentality. None. Now, if IT went National, then who knows, but, that's a LONG way off and a longshot, and I can't see that far into the unknown unlikely future .

I'll let other ITAC guys add their opinions, but my take is that I'm sleeping well about ARRC lead trophies. (And no, that has nothing to do with the fact that I'm unlikely to get one! :) )

[Andy Bettencourt]

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.

Not so sure about that. The message loud and clear is that on-track is a factor. I haven't received (haven't asked because I don't think its possible to quantify) a description of when, where or how these would be applied. One car winning the ARRC by a large margin? 3 of the same cars occupying the podium in the same class? Cars dominating big races consistantly? I have no freakin' idea. But it sure as shootin' is possible because nobody has told us it ISN'T.

I get pinged on the CRX all the time. Top 3 here, winner going away there (big races). Why no adjustment? Because with the data we have that we believe to be acurate, these cars fall within their process weight. They are just very well prepped and very well driven. At what point to you give credit to the teams that run them and just try and elevate your own game? The other syaing I have is 'the cream will rise to the top'. What I mean by this is that we account for a few things in the process. We don't have the ability to get more grainular. At some point, when comparing cars that look similar on paper, one may just be a better car. That is where I like to invoke the 'no guarantee' clause. We can only do so well and we accept that. I think that is what the IT community wants.

The current ITAC is chartered with classing new cars, suggesting rule changes, addressing member requests for both of those items...and helping the CRB correct an overdog as observed by on-track dominance.

[tnord]

to-meh-toe / to-mah-toe Jake.

treat cars equally / use the same yardstick.....whatever. bottom line is that you're attempting to use the same formula across a whole mess of cars with hugely different characteristics.


Part of stability is having the cars judged by the same system.....

and the bigger part is not changing the rules all the time along with the min weight listings.

there's nothing stopping you guys (ITAC) from recording what the process spits out for every car, comparing it to the weight currently listed, and working from there. the process says the Audi should lose 200lbs and the CRB doesn't like it because of ARRC qualifying? go do your research just as you were going to anyway to get dyno data and a corresponding HP/Wght ratio to plead your case as to why it should lose the weight.

Albin was an IT racer before he was a Prod racer.

[Knestis]

...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.

Peter and Chris are both great guys but they have been vocal in their opposition to what they (incorrectly, I think) view as an overly formulaic approach to setting IT weights. Put simply, they fundamentally disagree with the first princples and philosophy behind what the ITAC tried to do - and has now failed to achieve - with the current process and practices.

They represent one view, that is certainly shared by SOME IT racers. However, I fervently believe that it is representative of neither the priorities of the majority of us, nor what is best for IT in the long run.

K

[lateapex911]

to-meh-toe / to-mah-toe Jake.

we'll agree to disagree on the subtleties you seem to gloss over..

but...


there's nothing stopping you guys (ITAC) from recording what the process spits out for every car, comparing it to the weight currently listed, and working from there. the process says the Audi should lose 200lbs and the CRB doesn't like it because of ARRC qualifying? go do your research just as you were going to anyway to get dyno data and a corresponding HP/Wght ratio to plead your case as to why it should lose the weight.

Actually, there is...it's not allowed. We need on track 'evidence' that it is upsetting the class to generate any formal research/action.


Albin was an IT racer before he was a Prod racer.

True, and he was on the ITAC before his CRB appointment. I think he was current when Darin was in the game, and left shortly after Darin handed over the reigns.

[tnord]

Not so sure about that. The message loud and clear is that on-track is a factor.

yup. and i think all they're looking for is just a little flexibility to say "ya know what, the process fails in this case, we probably need to do something."

95+% of the time......the formula is "close enough" for them too. but you guys (ITAC and the masses) have taken such an absolutely narrow view and hard line on it that it has come to what we have now.

[Knestis]

I think you guys are WAY over reacting. ...

Overreacting, say, as much as you did when you felt like SportsCar was leading a witch hunt (your term, I think) that would result in additional weight being added to the Miata?

Bite me.

You're becoming a poster child for why we SHOULD be worried about these developments. And I'm doubly pissed off at your suggestion that while members of the CRB was sanctioning me for having PUBLIC discussions about what was going on in ITAC land, they seem to have been engaged in back-channel conversations that let YOU in on their intentions.

What a load of crap.

K

[tnord]

Blow me Kirk. (one better than bite me)

i said nothing about SportsCar leading the witch hunt. those rallying against the miata were using the misleading article in Sportscar as part of their justification.

i didn't know shit until after it happened.

[Andy Bettencourt]

yup. and i think all they're looking for is just a little flexibility to say "ya know what, the process fails in this case, we probably need to do something."

And that is a fair statement. To which I ask anyone who uses the flexibility to PROVE to me that its better. It very well could be but I don't want a swag, I want to have something I can document so that others can see how it was done and the members affected can know that it was grounded in some sort of meaning. Very much the opposite of a comment made by a member just today when an approximate weight was given for a car in ITS - "No basis other than this "feels" too light."


95+% of the time......the formula is "close enough" for them too. but you guys (ITAC and the masses) have taken such an absolutely narrow view and hard line on it that it has come to what we have now.

All I want is to avoid un-repeatable and un-defendable weights. If we can get there, I have no issues. I think that is what the membership wants - no matter how 'wrong' the weights are. We DO have the ability to fix a mistake ya know...just haven't had to in 5 years. The process works. Fields have never been so diverse. EVER.

[lateapex911]

yup. and i think all they're looking for is just a little flexibility to say "ya know what, the process fails in this case, we probably need to do something."

95+% of the time......the formula is "close enough" for them too. but you guys (ITAC and the masses) have taken such an absolutely narrow view and hard line on it that it has come to what we have now.

So, let's follow that thinking logically, then.

We all know the Process doesn't account for the intrinsic gestalt goodness of certain cars. Like the 1.8 Miata. So, you'll have no problem with some weight being added to that car based on the failure of the Process, right?

[tnord]

Andy I think it's worth clarifying that the "member" that said "No basis other than this 'feels' too light' was just someone on a forum, and not a CRB member.

yeah, you do have the ability to fix a mistake, but you're pretty handcuffed by the limitations of the process and the evidentiary requirements to change anything. good and bad sides to that i recognize.

otherwise, I agree.

[tnord]

So, let's follow that thinking logically, then.

We all know the Process doesn't account for the intrinsic gestalt goodness of certain cars. Like the 1.8 Miata. So, you'll have no problem with some weight being added to that car based on the failure of the Process, right?

fail.

the CRB (and many members) want stability. we will have that now until significant and meaningful evidence is shown to prove otherwise.....same as before. the difference now is that if miatas sweep the podium under normal conditions and a strong field at the IT Fest and ARRC, the ability is there to add weight. and yes, if Cefalo, Yergler, and KVS show up to the ARRC, take the podium, and turn consistent laps significantly faster than the field....add weight. i'm fine with that. there's no discussion about adding weight "just because."

[shwah]

95+% of the time......the formula is "close enough" for them too. but you guys (ITAC and the masses) have taken such an absolutely narrow view and hard line on it that it has come to what we have now.

I actually think this is probably pretty accurate.


It is a game of semantics here.

ITAC says we have a consistent process, and it has not changed. Yet the process gives different results today for cars than it did before - so something changed. FWD adder is treated differently IIRCC. Torque was discussed, did it get added to the process? Of course it is impossible to really know because we don't have historical info on what inputs were used before (HUGE win by the ITAC on tightening the data history issue up going forward :happy204: )

ITAC says we have a consistent process, and we should use what comes out of it, without exception. "Tweaking" it after the fact is smoke and mirrors. The membership wants a transparent process.

Of course there are tweaks that are applied on the input side of the process, applied based on data no one but they see, and no one cross examines for viability. Viability of dyno data is a huge issue, and happens to impact the easiest front end fudge factor.

CRB says we should look at what comes out of it and agree that it 'makes sense' before acting. I don't see that as signifnicantly different than the ITAC method of adjusting on the input side. I also don't know if raw lap times should be the data used here, nor do I think that random dyno plots have any fewer uncontrolled variables than lap times.

Neither one of those is a transparent process.

My head is spinning. When I squint I think that both bodies are trying to end up at the same outcome with different approaches. I can't figure out a way to declare either method correct or beyond reproach.

So now I find myself landing in the, 'leave it alone - the racing is good' mode. And even that does not feel super.

How does the saying go? When nobody is happy you know you got it right?

[JeffYoung]

That's what sticks in my craw the most. We approved significant weight changes for cars that were clearly out of whack via the process (the ITS Mustang and the ITA 318 being the two clearest examples) and those will now not get fixed.

It's hard to explain that to membership.

[lateapex911]

fail.

..........the difference now is that if miatas sweep the podium under normal conditions and a strong field at the IT Fest and ARRC, the ability is there to add weight. and yes, if Cefalo, Yergler, and KVS show up to the ARRC, take the podium, and turn consistent laps significantly faster than the field....add weight. i'm fine with that. there's no discussion about adding weight "just because."

You're fine with adding weight ...whatever amount 'feels right'.....because cars win/run well at one race? But you gave birth to a big cow when it was suggested that the Miata was making more than process power, and might get a mathematically calculated amount of weight that would be recorded and documented, in a repeatable an transparent manner??

You see the difference, right? Current up until Monday way: Cars romped at the ARRC, half built ones are winning over the country, lets look at the specs and see if we missed something originally. Yup, it's making 15hp more than process. Recalculte, document, done.

New way. (Actually Old old skool way) Wins and dominates. Add weight as we see fit.

???

I'll take door #1 everytime. Even if the amount is the same, the method breeds confidence in the membership, and that's priceless, and is what they want.


:shrug:

[tnord]

That's what sticks in my craw the most. We approved significant weight changes for cars that were clearly out of whack via the process (the ITS Mustang and the ITA 318 being the two clearest examples) and those will now not get fixed.

It's hard to explain that to membership.

I think it's kinda like when our CFO created this committee that had to approve any spend over $x dollars. the intent isn't to END spending, but just put the brakes on for a bit and see what we've got before everything goes spiraling out of control.

[lateapex911]

I think it's kinda like when our CFO created this committee that had to approve any spend over dollars. the intent isn't to END spending, but just put the brakes on for a bit and see what we've got before everything goes spiraling out of control.

No, it's not like that at ALL!

They're not saying, 'not now, but we'll look at those cars', they're saying "No". Rejected. Pound sand. Stuck at that weight forever. And all others like it, unless there is sufficient evidence they are hurting the class. Thanks for playing.

One of the joys of IT was the notion that lots of cars were classified, and there was hope that as many as possible would be set at competitive weights by the same yardstick(s). Now, many of those cars appear frozen.

[tnord]

You're fine with adding weight ...whatever amount 'feels right'.....because cars win/run well at one race? But you gave birth to a big cow when it was suggested that the Miata was making more than process power, and might get a mathematically calculated amount of weight that would be recorded and documented, in a repeatable an transparent manner??

You see the difference, right? Current up until Monday way: Cars romped at the ARRC, half built ones are winning over the country, lets look at the specs and see if we missed something originally. Yup, it's making 15hp more than process. Recalculte, document, done.

New way. (Actually Old old skool way) Wins and dominates. Add weight as we see fit.



you act like it's an automatic push-button response. i don't think that if a car wins the ARRC it will automatically get weight. but if a few show up, sweep the field, and basically kick the crap out of everyone.....then yeah.....go take a look at what's going on and why that happened.

i didn't like the idea of the miata getting weight based on "process power" because you couldn't justify it. i gave you data, lots of it, showing exactly that. i had a big problem with it because the process that was being used at the time didn't support the car getting weight, and people were trotting out this garbage sportscar article as "evidence."

[seckerich]

No, it's not like that at ALL!

They're not saying, 'not now, but we'll look at those cars', they're saying "No". Rejected. Pound sand. Stuck at that weight forever. And all others like it, unless there is sufficient evidence they are hurting the class. Thanks for playing.

One of the joys of IT was the notion that lots of cars were classified, and there was hope that as many as possible would be set at competitive weights by the same yardstick(s). Now, many of those cars appear frozen.

Now you get it Jake. It was all good until you guys actually were trying to get ALL the cars a fair chance. That is not their view of IT. That creates a system where members ask them to do something. They are too busy with National classes to do that. As long as you were just messing with a few cars it was OK. Slow, badly classed cars just hurt that driver and did not upset the class in general. Then you had to go fix the whole thing and start with ITB. WTF were you thinking? They see you as starting the endless adjustments as seen in every national class and just want you guys to go away. Welcome back to RHSC status, like we ever really left. Can we move to a regional rules status and bypass them all together? Just thinking out loud.

[trhoppe]

you act like it's an automatic push-button response. i don't think that if a car wins the ARRC it will automatically get weight. but if a few show up, sweep the field, and basically kick the crap out of everyone.....then yeah.....go take a look at what's going on and why that happened.

i didn't like the idea of the miata getting weight based on "process power" because you couldn't justify it. i gave you data, lots of it, showing exactly that. i had a big problem with it because the process that was being used at the time didn't support the car getting weight, and people were trotting out this garbage sportscar article as "evidence."

You cannot use one race to determine weight! Even if they sweep the podium!

You have to use results and WHAT WE KNOW about the cars making more power. There are 3 half built cars kicking ass all over the country. What if those 3 cars don't make the ARRC, but continue kicking ass all over. What do you do? Nothing??

What you are SUPPOSED to do is what the ITAC did. The CRB is a bunch of fucking idiots. I just wish there was a way to vote them out. Alas, they will just keep on recommending themselves to their own positions.....

edit: In national classes with a one race runoff to win the national championship, you CAN use one race. Cause in the end, thats the only race that matters. You cannot use the ARRC, or the ITFest in IT.

-Tom

[JeffYoung]

I don't entirely disagree with this. I have believed for a while that we needed a "cooling off" in IT to let the changes settle. We saw that from some of membership in the dual vestiges poll - Bowie, Tristan, and others -- and it makes sense.

One of the frustrations I had with the rest of the ITAC (great folks all) was the perception I had that the process was "never ending" -- that we were going to continue to add formulas and adders until we believed the proces was "perfect." We needed to stop at some point.

But I also agree with Jake that stopping point should not have been (and here is where I respectfully disagree with the CRB) a direction that cuts us off from using the process to correct weights on cars that were set via the old curb weight formula, or are just otherwise wrong.

Andy summed the philosophical distinction up best. IT has a culture of trying to objectively set a weight on paper regardless of on track results, the rest of the club via the CRB has worked very had to balance things via on track results.

It's a weird dichotomy and a gulf that is wider than I ever realized.


I think it's kinda like when our CFO created this committee that had to approve any spend over dollars. the intent isn't to END spending, but just put the brakes on for a bit and see what we've got before everything goes spiraling out of control.

[tnord]

i didn't say one race DETERMINES weight.

[jjjanos]

fail.

the CRB (and many members) want stability. we will have that now until significant and meaningful evidence is shown to prove otherwise.....same as before. the difference now is that if miatas sweep the podium under normal conditions and a strong field at the IT Fest and ARRC, the ability is there to add weight. and yes, if Cefalo, Yergler, and KVS show up to the ARRC, take the podium, and turn consistent laps significantly faster than the field....add weight. i'm fine with that. there's no discussion about adding weight "just because."

You self-serving ..... There wasn't discussion about adding weight "just because." The position taken by the CRB, the one that you love since it serves your own interests and to hell with what it does to IT, however, is exactly that - add weight over the correct process weight "just because."

They (the CRB) have done it to one car already - the Audi. They've added weight over the correct weight "just because" someone got a good qualifying time by bump drafting.

Your ox is gored because you tried to pick an overdog car to build and the powers that be were taking a look at it. Congratulations! You've gotten you way and the cost is pissing off the majority of those involved in the category.

[tnord]

:lol:

you really think I'M solely responsible for all of this?

PS - actually my thought process was "i have a bunch of miata stuff already, i don't think this car can win the ARRC, but it will do fine locally, so i'll build one anyway." :shrug:

[seckerich]

:lol:

you really think I'M solely responsible for all of this?

PS - actually my thought process was "i have a bunch of miata stuff already, i don't think this car can win the ARRC, but it will do fine locally, so i'll build one anyway." :shrug:
No, but you are part of the problem being so self serving. Musical chairs is over and you have a seat--good for you.

[quadzjr]

No, but you are part of the problem being so self serving. Musical chairs is over and you have a seat--good for you.

well said..

[tnord]

how funny.

if you pay attention....i'm actually HELPING you guys keep the process. but it's much easier for you guys to just think i don't give two shits about anyone or anything but myself, so you probably missed that.

y'all can grab some knee-pads and lick my balls.

[shwah]

They (the CRB) have done it to one car already - the Audi. They've added weight over the correct weight "just because" someone got a good qualifying time by bump drafting.

When?

They did not take weight off, but I was unaware that they added any weight.

We don't know the inputs to the process the first time around, and that's a shame, but it was impossible to add weight to the specification based on an event that had not yet taken place. The process inputs change the outputs, and someone may have 'known' something then that caused different inputs to be used than the ones used last time around to recommend an eighth ton reduction.

[quadzjr]

Travis.

I dont' peronsally know you and being a new ITB driver probably will never race you. However can you an good concience say that it is best for the IT community or even to get emotional and say "fair" that a whole slew of cars just got screwed by the CRB and a few cars win out by there decision?

I know it may seem a bit selfish on both of our parts.. me being on the side that has been waiting for a weight correction that was told was in the works, and now not getting it, and you choose the correct car at the end of the game.

[tnord]

Travis.

I dont' peronsally know you and being a new ITB driver probably will never race you. However can you an good concience say that it is best for the IT community or even to get emotional and say "fair" that a whole slew of cars just got screwed by the CRB and a few cars win out by there decision?


first, define "screwed."

it's not like the CRB is completely trashing everything that was done in the past 5 years. they're not saying, "hey, HondAcura products seem to win every IT Fest and ARRC for quite a while now in ITA, so lets add 150lbs to them." they're just saying "lets hold off on this whole re-classification/comp adjustment to the rest of the cars not done in the GR v1." they're nervous because the ITAC refuses to consider any output other than exacty what the formula (based on many assumptions) spits out.

are there a couple cars out there that were about to justifiably lose weight? i dunno, i'm not on the ITAC so i have no idea what was on the table. if the ITA 318 was at 2700lbs before and it really should be at 2500? then yeah, that sucks for those couple guys with those cars....for now. but they decided to build those cars at that weight in the first place, so......:shrug:



I know it may seem a bit selfish on both of our parts.. me being on the side that has been waiting for a weight correction that was told was in the works, and now not getting it, and you choose the correct car at the end of the game.

who says i chose the correct car? my car doesn't suck, but just because some miata beat the great tom hoppe and greg amy doesn't make it an overdog.

[JeffYoung]

Theoretically, weight was "added" to the Audi.

The old Audi weight appears to have been set via the curb weight formula, and not related in anyway to the process. The Audi is quite heavy vis a vis any normal range of IT multipliers (25-35%) when using the process.


When?

They did not take weight off, but I was unaware that they added any weight.

We don't know the inputs to the process the first time around, and that's a shame, but it was impossible to add weight to the specification based on an event that had not yet taken place. The process inputs change the outputs, and someone may have 'known' something then that caused different inputs to be used than the ones used last time around to recommend an eighth ton reduction.

[quadzjr]

first, define "screwed."

are there a couple cars out there that were about to justifiably lose weight? i dunno, i'm not on the ITAC so i have no idea what was on the table. if the ITA 318 was at 2700lbs before and it really should be at 2500? then yeah, that sucks for those couple guys with those cars....for now. but they decided to build those cars at that weight in the first place, so......:shrug:



Pretty much exactly what I am saying.. Except for the MK1 MR2, and I decided to build it with information I got from ITAC that it was classed wrong and they were fixing it. So I assumed that the CRB wouldn't argue with the ITAC over a stupid mathmatical error. "assume" A$$ of U and ME??



who says i chose the correct car? my car doesn't suck, but just because some miata beat the great tom hoppe and greg amy doesn't make it an overdog.

You have to admit it is one of the top cars to have.. I personally don't say it is any better than the integra (see my response to tom's comment) But it is one of the cars to have the other being the CRX.

[lateapex911]

they're just saying "lets hold off on this whole re-classification/comp adjustment to the rest of the cars not done in the GR v1." they're nervous because the ITAC refuses to consider any output other than exacty what the formula (based on many assumptions) spits out.

Hold on. You're stating a bunch of stuff as 'facts', yet they are not.
First the CRB didn't say "hold off". That suggests a delay. They said stop. That means stop. Don't go. Ever. So, that seems clear.

Further, the ITAC DOES consider other outputs than what the Process spits out. If we didn't, rotaries would rule. I would LOVE to have my car judged by the same 25% yardstick. (It might help my 103 ft lb tq measurement, and the live axle that I get no break for). I'd weigh 200 pounds less. (If I could find it!) And the S2000 would weigh 275 pounds more than it does now..... Then there are other examples where data was entered that overrode the base assumptions.

[/quote]

[Knestis]

>> ...the ITAC refuses to consider any output other than exacty what the formula (based on many assumptions) spits out.

Wrong. At least until last week - and over the past 18 months or so - I can say from first-hand experience that the ITAC would GLADLY consider any and all evidence supporting decisions outside of the base "formula."

Saying over and over that the process and practices used during that time were a "formula" to which the ITAC members were all slaves does NOT make it accurate. You choose to be wrong on that point, and trot it out to serve your agenda without so much as an ounce of critical thinking applied to the question.

I'm figuring at this point, that your CRB Deep Throat is Mr. Drago, since he suffers from the same misconception.

K

[tnord]

really kirk? so you're saying you guys would be willing to class cars at a number other than what is output by the formula? that's news to me, and i bet many others.

[lateapex911]

really kirk? so you're saying you guys would be willing to class cars at a number other than what is output by the formula? that's news to me, and i bet many others.

How, on Gods green earth, could it be news?? (Assuming that this isn't semantics) If you mean "outside the formula" (blea, it's a process), to mean stuff just tossed on for the sake of feel good, then no, we don't do that. But, when the process spits out weights that are obviously wrong, as in the S2000, it isn't used. Research is done to determine what is reasonable, or real. Each case is different. In the S2000's case we modified the multiplier. In other cases, we use the data we have, and sidestep the presumptive first step. It's a procedure that uses inputs (which are open for debate) and repeatable blocks.

We've been over this a gazillion times and stated it a billion ways. I think that it's the structured method of imputing the data that trips up the CRB, as they feel it lacks 'wiggleroom".

[frnkhous]

Travis, your missing that no cars can be corrected if they are underweight, only if they are overdogs. Your also fool hardy because you assume that Mr Drago won't throw weight on a miata because it might be bad for crossover business. You may also realize that even if an arrc sweep occurs no weight may be added if they sandbag and don't turn fast laps. I mean if they start on row 2-3 and pass on the first lap or two before times drop then run consistently but not faster than other cars nothing is likely to happen. It doesn't change that things are still broken, and you'll be crying when someone finds a better car to do it with than the miata.

edit: The fact that two crb members are ITB guys that would have been making another car competitive in their backyard is highly suspect at best to me. About as transparent as a brick wall. And comments from mr Drago that had been brought up previously aren't much better. Personally, this makes me glad to see Gorrian run away from him in a "spec" car at the runoffs.. maybe sm will start giving drivers lead bricks. Wouldn't be much different than the "wiggle" room the ITAC guys are claiming CRB wanted for IT

[tnord]

How, on Gods green earth, could it be news?? (Assuming that this isn't semantics)

its totally semantics, but kirk apparantly feels like being a dick today.

[tnord]

Travis, your missing that no cars can be corrected if they are underweight, only if they are overdogs.


wrong. it works both ways.

if someone proves to have built a 100% effort (writes a big check to sunbelt, rebello, etc) and the dyno data doesn't show the car to make squat for power, they can adjust the weights down just the same as they can adjust them up.

*this is assuming that the current "freeze" on weights thaws after some time for everyone to get on the same page.

[frnkhous]

wrong. it works both ways.

if someone proves to have built a 100% effort (writes a big check to sunbelt, rebello, etc) and the dyno data doesn't show the car to make squat for power, they can adjust the weights down just the same as they can adjust them up.

*this is assuming that the current "freeze" on weights thaws after some time for everyone to get on the same page.

NO, because no matter what you can't prove that the ontrack evidence exists, and that is all they've said they care about. I can't prove that I don't just suck at driving. That is the only way they are going to use to trigger looking at something.

If your suggestion is true then why didn't they fix the 318 and the ITS mustang before closing the floodgates?

[lateapex911]

. Wouldn't be much different than the "wiggle" room the ITAC guys are claiming they wanted for IT

??? Typo? The ITAC guys never asked for 'wiggleroom".

[lateapex911]

wrong. it works both ways.

if someone proves to have built a 100% effort (writes a big check to sunbelt, rebello, etc) and the dyno data doesn't show the car to make squat for power, they can adjust the weights down just the same as they can adjust them up.

*this is assuming that the current "freeze" on weights thaws after some time for everyone to get on the same page.

Where did that idea come from??

Nobody in the know has said anything close to that. Where are you getting your info??

Regarding the first part of your post, I'm not sure I see how that will play out. The rulebook has a clause which specifically points out that any car is subject to adjustments of weight ...or the addition of a restrictor,
which will be used solely to restore equity in a class. You don't add restrictors to speed cars up. The rules state "initial classifications" are subject to tinkering with for 4 years, and that's it. The CRb approved any method the ITAC wishes to class new cars. They have directed us not to reprocess cars, per the rulebook. Therefore the only way older cars get reprocessed is through the above clause. And the CRB prohibited the use of V2.0 in any case where that arises.

What am I missing?

[Andy Bettencourt]

really kirk? so you're saying you guys would be willing to class cars at a number other than what is output by the formula? that's news to me, and i bet many others.

You really need to pay attention.

[Knestis]

its totally semantics, but kirk apparantly feels like being a dick today.

In case you hadn't noticed there, Trav - I'M ROYALLY PISSED OFF THAT A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE ARE RUINING SOMETHING I'VE LITERALLY SPENT HALF MY LIFE TRYING TO MAKE BETTER.

But you know what? You've used up all of the bandwidth I'm going to waste trying to correct what you don't understand. I've consistently given you the benefit of the doubt but your reaction in this last chapter has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that you're a disingenuous, selfish, petty, 'net child.

The idiot teacher in me keeps thinking there's hope but you're going to need to find a new backstop to bounce your misrepresentations off of.

K

[frnkhous]

??? Typo? The ITAC guys never asked for 'wiggleroom".
. Wouldn't be much different than the "wiggle" room the ITAC guys are claiming they(CRB) wanted for IT.

Sorry they should have been CRB, I wasn't claiming the ITAC wants wiglge room.

[jjjanos]

how funny.

if you pay attention....i'm actually HELPING you guys keep the process. but it's much easier for you guys to just think i don't give two shits about anyone or anything but myself, so you probably missed that.

Kee-rist, but that's one of the most delusional things I've seen in a long time. The CRB has THROWN OUT the process. It has, by fiat, instituted a multi-process classification system. New cars get assigned weights based on what the ITAC recommends as modified by whatever the CRB feels, cars adjusted during the great realignment get those weights and cars that either were not adjusted or ignored keep the original weights.

God help cars that are too fat - they cannot get any relief. God help anyone who dominates a race on which the CRB focuses - they'll likely get fat.



When?

They did not take weight off, but I was unaware that they added any weight.

I picked my words very carefully. The CRB has determined that the legal weight for the Audi shall be a couple hundred pounds over the correct process weight. Where I sit, adding weight to a newly classified car beyond what the process weight says or refusing to adjust the incorrect weight of an already car are the same thing.

If the Audi had never been classified, it's weight would be less than the current weight. That extra weight is by CRB dictate.

[JeffYoung]

This is what I was trying to say; you said it better. Essentially, the Audi carries weight vis a vis those cars that were "processed."




If the Audi had never been classified, it's weight would be less than the current weight. That extra weight is by CRB dictate.

[jjjanos]

Hold on. You're stating a bunch of stuff as 'facts', yet they are not.
First the CRB didn't say "hold off". That suggests a delay. They said stop. That means stop. Don't go. Ever. So, that seems clear.

One option is to tell the CRB to stick it and continue making recommendations to them that the ITAC deems appropriate. At that point, it will be the CRB turning them down. The end result is the same, but the process is different.

I think it's time that the various advisory commitees publish minutes in Fasttrack and all of the ACs and the CRB minutes include how the members of the committee/board voted on each specific proposal.

It seems that the ITAC is opposed to the actions of the CRB. Has the ITAC asked the BoD to intervene?

[tnord]

Where did that idea come from??


contrary to popular belief, i don't think the CRB aims to "ruin" IT. I think them taking the hard line of freezing every car currently listed is a relatively temporary policy. i bet if you present them with a good case backed by the same type of evidence you'd use in the process, you could get some things through....like this ITA 318 adjustment.

not right now....but later....after the dust settles. but that's me just being open minded about how this all will work out.

[Bill Miller]

You know Travis, I put you on 'ignore', but w/ everyone quoting your posts, the 'ignore' thing didn't work out that well.

You really are a piece of work. You tell people to 'blow me' and 'lick my balls' and then you turn around and accuse someone of being 'a dick'. You're a punk POS, plain and simple. You are the quintessential internet douchebag. You're a spoiled little brat that only cares about themself. You're a crybaby. Now go swap spit w/ Mr. Drago and do us a favor and buy those new clubs you'be been bloviating about.

You SOOOOOO don't get it.

And while I think Kirk has way too much decorum to do this, I certainly don't.

GO FUCK YOURSELF!


To the guys on the ITAC, I am well and truly sorry to see all your hard worked flushed down the shitter. You guys deserved better than that. It's a shame too, as you guys (which includes several former members) had really laid the groundwork to make IT the best category in the SCCA. And maybe that was part of the problem, the CRB couldn't very well have a category that didn't get to run for a National Championship being the real top dog in the Club. The other problem is, they have no idea how to balance cars except based on the results of one race. Anybody want to take bets on how much lead the HP CRX gets for next year?

[StephenB]

Hey all... I guess I am the one that screwed IT up... A few things I would like to make clear to anyone that is upset. Which I am not, as promissed in a previous post.

We all asked for stability... we now have it. Old cars stay as is and going forward all will be classed similarly
We all know that going forward we have a somewhat consistant classification process that I believe has yielded somewhat consistant results for the past 5 or so years that can be defended or justified if questioned by all of us.
We all made a choice for the car we are currently racing, you can't blaim anyone but yourself if your car is not competitive and/or never will be.
We all need to, and SHOULD, accept our current classification. (The ones we knew we had when we purchased/built out cars!)



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.
I am one of those drivers and HOW can I go away mad? I made a choice to build and race my car on my own, I wasn't told to drive my Audi. EVERYONE here chooses the car they are driving along with ALL OTHER IT drivers. Sorry to be on the other side but seriosly are you all going to sue your local coffee shop if your coffee is to hot?



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. Since you mentioned it... They were both at the event 1 in an ITA car now bumped to ITB that now as classified is almost 2 seconds faster than my car. The other one was behind me and my bro in qualifying... and involved in a protest against my brother. But honestly that doesn't matter we now have a stable class!

YOUR IN CONTROL OF YOUR DECISIONS, I AM IN CONTROL OF MINE
I will chose to continue to race my car as classified, ya I may get depressed if I can't beat another car but I knew what I had going in.

I do feel bad for the ITAC members because they have put in a lot of time and work for all of us and for that I appreciate everything you have done and feel as though I owe you my apologies.

Stephen

PS: Sorry I created this drama.

[StephenB]

I think it's time that the various advisory commitees publish minutes in Fasttrack and all of the ACs and the CRB minutes include how the members of the committee/board voted on each specific proposal.


This is what I wrote in an e-mail to the president of SCCA last year. The single best idea that the SCCA should do. I also believe that ALL requests by members should be done through a SCCA PUBLIC forum AND Sportscar for all members to see and give feedback on.

Stephen

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think it's time that the various advisory commitees publish minutes in Fasttrack and all of the ACs and the CRB minutes include how the members of the committee/board voted on each specific proposal.


This is what I wrote in an e-mail to the president of SCCA last year. The single best idea that the SCCA should do. I also believe that ALL requests by members should be done through a SCCA PUBLIC forum AND Sportscar for all members to see and give feedback on.

Stephen

And thankfully, we have all that data recorded now. Most of our stuff comes out unanimous - because we hash it out so long - and our principles are similar.

[StephenB]

contrary to popular belief, i don't think the CRB aims to "ruin" IT. I think them taking the hard line of freezing every car currently listed is a relatively temporary policy. i bet if you present them with a good case backed by the same type of evidence you'd use in the process, you could get some things through....like this ITA 318 adjustment.

not right now....but later....after the dust settles. but that's me just being open minded about how this all will work out.

This is the worst thought that I have heard in a LONG time. LEAVE IT ALONE so we can all move along! The CRB needs to make a decision and stick to it. Stop the swings and flip flops AKA INSTABILITY! The only thing we should fix is if the CRB/ITAC sees an overdog classified in Error and all changes should be made within the current rules of 4 years.

Stephen

[tnord]

Anybody want to take bets on how much lead the HP CRX gets for next year?

I will.

$20 says it doesn't get a single pound.

Put your money where your mouth is.

[lateapex911]

Here's my take on it, from a personal point of view.

I don't think the CRB wants to slap weight Runoffs style. I really don't. Up until the latest backlog/issue, they have been very supportive of everything the ITAC has done. Like 98% supportive. As a matter of fact, not long ago, I think we were told by a member of the CRB, "You guys are the best ad hoc going if you ask us or the BoD".

So, I *think* we aren't at odds about the final product. We both want balanced classes with good racing.

But, we differ on how to get there.

They've told us that we can class new cars any way we want. "Just make it make sense". But we can't touch older listings. I have a hard time making things make sense that way.

Before Monday, I could answer anyones questions of how we operated, and had 'answers' for every question a member could come up with. I could explain the process, or suggest the member request a Process review for example. I work for the members. So being able to look them in the eyes, explain the system, and answer them honestly was a big thing to me. I'd worked hard to get to that point.

Now, I can still be honest. But the answers I give might rile people, and that sucks. I have no problems telling people that things aren't perfect, but, it's hard to defend some of the inequities and say, "Pound sand, my friend, nothing I can do about it".

I guess the thing that surprises me most is that I thought things were moving in a good direction and the methods and procedures we were utilizing were respected by the higher ups, like the BoD. But, I guess not?

[JeffYoung]

What Jake said.

Also, Stephen, you aren't responsible for this. The issue would have come up with another car, if it hadn't been yours. You and your brother pretty much sum up for me what IT is supposed to be about -- two guys with limited budget who compete hard in a car that they chose because they like it, not because it is the "car of the year."

[seckerich]

[ Quote from Stephen B:
I am one of those drivers and HOW can I go away mad? I made a choice to build and race my car on my own, I wasn't told to drive my Audi. EVERYONE here chooses the car they are driving along with ALL OTHER IT drivers. Sorry to be on the other side but seriosly are you all going to sue your local coffee shop if your coffee is to hot?

Since you mentioned it... They were both at the event 1 in an ITA car now bumped to ITB that now as classified is almost 2 seconds faster than my car. The other one was behind me and my bro in qualifying... and involved in a protest against my brother. But honestly that doesn't matter we now have a stable class!




Good for you that you are willing to be treated as second class. You are willing to let a few members of SCCA determine you do not deserve the same treatment as new cars get. If you are good with that I am happy for you. I'm not built that way. The CRB pulled out the rule card and decided that what they have allowed for the last few years with "errors and omissions" is no longer valid. I understand this is being clamped down on in other classes that have other avenues of fixing a mistake, but that was all we had. Most of these older cars were classed with a beer and a dart board. That is an error by todays standards. If you made it in under the wire then good for you. Contrary to posts here the BOD is not aware of all this and how it will impact IT. Let them know.

[lateapex911]

I am one of those drivers and HOW can I go away mad? I made a choice to build and race my car on my own, I wasn't told to drive my Audi. EVERYONE here chooses the car they are driving along with ALL OTHER IT drivers. Sorry to be on the other side but seriosly are you all going to sue your local coffee shop if your coffee is to hot?


PS: Sorry I created this drama.

Stephen, I respect your stand up approach. But it is flawed. Lets say, you chose an Atwood GT in ITA, and it weighs 2200 pounds, with 120hp and 110 ft lbs. You race, and you do ok. No overdog, but ok. Then a new car gets classed. It's the newer Benwood GT, and while it looks fancy, it's the same car as the one you have. Same power, same everything.

But the ITAC is using the Process now, but it wasn't used on your car. So the new car comes in 100 or more pounds lighter than your identical car.

You should be annoyed, that's an obvious grievance. The new weight makes sense compared to the big picture of the class, so you're out of luck, and I think you have every right to be measured by the same yardstick.

To me, that's stability. To me, stability isn't just about leaving things "as they are", it's about moving in a predictable, and repeatable fashion. If we insist on stability at all costs, our drivers will feel disenfranchised, and technology will quickly render our category obsolete. We must adapt, but in a predictable manner.

[StephenB]

Jake,
I respectfully disagree.

Scenario 1:
Lets say I LOVE the Atwood GT in ITA But I decide that I know it most likely is not competitive against the ITA Miata so eventhough I dislike Mazdas I build one anyway so that I am competitive and can race at the front of the field instead of with the other Atwood GTs that are running.

Scenario 2:
Let's say I LOVE the Atwood GT and eventhough I know it won't be competitive I think it has a chance and I really love this car so I am going to take my chances. It doesn't turn out to be competitive and unfourtunatly that was my decision and I suffer the concequenses regardless if next year or 10 years from no the newer Benwood GT gets classified competively and correctly.

Scenario 3:
Let's say I LOVE the Atwood GT and eventhough I know it won't be competitive I think it has a chance and I really love this car so I am going to take my chances. It doesn't turn out to be competitive and I bitch like hell and tell everyone that it isn't fair.


If your this serious about racing do your homework before you build a car. It's not Stability if I build a Miata based on the current rules and they change in 6 months because someone else didn't do the homework. The rules are written, the wieghts are their for everyone to see.

Even my brother is pissed at me but you, me, all of us are not forced to race any particular car. I have the same rulebook as you.
Stephen

[RSTPerformance]

Stephen class stability does involve reclassing or adjusting cars... If rules change or a new process changes the way cars perform or are classed then other cars not just new cars need to be reviewed.

I do agree that when given option A B & C it's your choice and you can't blame anyone but youself... However when a rule changes and B & C now are no longer a good option we need to keep things stable by making an adjustment to B & C to keep them competitive with A... We can't just look forward and only check option D correctly when it becomes available.

Wouldn't A B C & D all being good options be better for the future of SCCA rather than just A & D?

Raymond

Raymond

[Bill Miller]

I am one of those drivers and HOW can I go away mad? I made a choice to build and race my car on my own, I wasn't told to drive my Audi. EVERYONE here chooses the car they are driving along with ALL OTHER IT drivers. Sorry to be on the other side but seriosly are you all going to sue your local coffee shop if your coffee is to hot?

Stephen,

If nothing ever changed after you made the choice to build your car, I could almost go along with you. But given the way classifications were done in the past, you've got no way to know if they'll be done the same going forward. You listed a couple of scenarios before, but here's one that you left out, and I think it's an important one.

You built and race your Audi because you love it. You happen to be doing pretty well with it. It's not an overdog car, but it's well prepared and well driven, and usually does pretty well. You have no way of knowing how the spec weight was determined, but it doesn't really matter to you, as the car is doing ok. Along comes the Atwood GT. Believe it or not, it's pretty much the same car as your Audi. The drivetrain is the same, the suspension is the same, pretty much everything is the same except that it has a big 'A' badge on it, instead of 4 rings. It gets classed in ITB using the new process, and comes in 200# lighter than your Audi. A couple of folks build and race them. They are well prep'd and driven. They're still not overdogs, but they're finishing ahead of you, pretty much every where you race together.

You're saying that you're ok with that?



Since you mentioned it... They were both at the event 1 in an ITA car now bumped to ITB that now as classified is almost 2 seconds faster than my car. The other one was behind me and my bro in qualifying... and involved in a protest against my brother. But honestly that doesn't matter we now have a stable class!




Good for you that you are willing to be treated as second class. You are willing to let a few members of SCCA determine you do not deserve the same treatment as new cars get. If you are good with that I am happy for you. I'm not built that way. The CRB pulled out the rule card and decided that what they have allowed for the last few years with "errors and omissions" is no longer valid. I understand this is being clamped down on in other classes that have other avenues of fixing a mistake, but that was all we had. Most of these older cars were classed with a beer and a dart board. That is an error by todays standards. If you made it in under the wire then good for you. Contrary to posts here the BOD is not aware of all this and how it will impact IT. Let them know.

That's pretty much it right there. All the other sedan-based categories have the cars treated the same. There may not be a classification process that anyone understands, but at least all the cars get treated the same. You win the Runoffs, there's a chance that you get a lead trophy. You can't make the car get out of its own way, there's a chance that you can shed some pounds or get some help w/ go-fast stuff. The CRB has essentially given the IT community the finger and said that they don't care if the cars in IT aren't treated the same, they don't think that's important. They're telling the IT community that they (CRB) know better, what's best for IT. Dickheads like Travis are ok w/ this, but I doubt the rest of the IT community is. That's probably because he feels like he's got an in w/ a CRB member (or two) that won't let anything happen to his beloved little Miata. As Kirk said, he's become the poster child for the "me-centric" generation (a bit of a paraphrase on my part).

Steve,

If the BoD really don't know what the CRB has done vis-a-vis IT, I agree, they need to be made aware.

And it looks like just about the only thing I got wrong w/ my hypothetical quote, was who said it. Should have been the CRB, not the BoD.

I agree w/ whoever said it (I think it was Mr. Janos), the CRB, as we know it today, needs to go away. Get rid of the political appointments, and have it made up of the chairs of the various AdHoc's. New AdHoc members are voted on by the current committe membership, and the chair is elected by those same members, and serves for a period of 2-3 years. AdHoc membership is limited to 5-6 years, but previous members can be re-elected after a hiatus of at least 2 years.

The CRB will then have balanced representation across all categories, and the folks that know a particular category the best, its respective AdHoc, will handle the day-to-day business of their category.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I agree w/ whoever said it (I think it was Mr. Janos), the CRB, as we know it today, needs to go away. Get rid of the political appointments, and have it made up of the chairs of the various AdHoc's. New AdHoc members are voted on by the current committe membership, and the chair is elected by those same members, and serves for a period of 2-3 years. AdHoc membership is limited to 5-6 years, but previous members can be re-elected after a hiatus of at least 2 years.

The CRB will then have balanced representation across all categories, and the folks that know a particular category the best, its respective AdHoc, will handle the day-to-day business of their category.

Bill, I wanted to address this point. Try and take out the fact that you may not agree with the current CRB position on what is happening in IT and you may like what the ITAC is doing.

In either case, it's a committee made up of members. What if you didn't like the direction the ITAC started to take the category? There is always someone in charge and people tend to like the 'system' when it's going there way and want to change it when it's not.

The CRB IMHO has the toughest job in Club Racing. So much work, so little reward. Half the people think they are knocking it out and half think they suck (not unlike the ITAC! :)) I DO like that there is a group that is watchdogging us...actually, that is too strong of a statement. We don't make policy, but when I became an AdHoc member years ago, the directive was to really push a lot of the responsibility to the sub-committies, and that is why I signed on. It appears we have stepped over the line in terms of our overall charter in a slow but genuine way.

I think that the best thing to do is write in as members how you would like your class managed. The CRB should listen and then dictate to us what to do.

Lots of bable there but I am just trying to point out that whether its us or them, at some point someone is going to disagree with how things are going so I am not sure how the structure matters.

[Knestis]

One option is to tell the CRB to stick it and continue making recommendations to them that the ITAC deems appropriate. At that point, it will be the CRB turning them down. The end result is the same, but the process is different.

I think it's time that the various advisory commitees publish minutes in Fasttrack and all of the ACs and the CRB minutes include how the members of the committee/board voted on each specific proposal.

It seems that the ITAC is opposed to the actions of the CRB. Has the ITAC asked the BoD to intervene?

I'm ignoring Travis completely and agreeing 100% with Jeff. Where's Superman when you need him to spin the Earth back onto its correct axis?

K

[Knestis]

... The CRB IMHO has the toughest job in Club Racing. So much work, so little reward. ...

Too hard. Hard enough in fact that they can't effectively do it, the way things are chartered. As a director where I work, I have to set big picture policy, make sure project leaders have what they need to be effective, and stay out of micromanaging their work. If one of them DOES step in it, it's my responsibility but that does NOT make it OK for me to review every one of their decisions. I need to figure out how to scaffold them so they don't make the same mistake twice. And me providing SO much guidance that I can't attend to big-picture matters doesn't do the corporation any good.

This situation lacked any real direction from the CRB, in the sense that if we were overstepping the bounds of our charter, we should have gotten shut off. OR the charter should have changed.

There's a term I love: Strategic ambiguity. That's the process of not being so clear that you get locked into any particular position, as a tool of maintaining control. The CRB took - and has again taken - a position of strategic ambiguity. They OK'd the 92-95 Honda Civic DX but not almost 30 other cars recommended by the ITAC for changes. They've said, "go ahead and use the process for new cars" but tagged that direction with "just make sure it makes sense," thereby leaving themselves an out.

If they want to say, "Respect my authori-tay!!" and do whatever they want, they ought to simply and honestly take that position. I personally don't think that they have the time or perspective to be able to effectively manage all of the car-level decisions for the entire Club Racing program but they could do that if they chose. Or they could defer category mangement to (perhaps more formally constituted) AC's.

K

[seckerich]

You also need to be aware that directives to the CRB about abuses by adhoc's in one catagory may have unintended consequences in another catagory. There has been some blatant abuse of power in some cases. They must guard from these adhoc's being "self serving" and making changes that benefit themselves. When we have a group (the ITAC) that has had a 98% success rate with their proposals and we have continued parity they deserve and have earned some respect. What happened was a vote of "no confidence" by the CRB. Do what you will with that information, or do nothing. I have a competitive car in my class and everything done by the ITAC in the last few years has just made my competition faster. You judge my motivation.

[Bill Miller]

Andy,

I appreciate your comments. Maybe I take too much of an altruistic or naive view when I look at how I think things should work. In my scenario, the various AdHoc's would already be taking the pulse of their constituency as to where their category should go. If I don't like the direction it's going, but many others do, it's my job to try and change people's minds, or recognize that while it may not be what I like, it would be the best for the category (hey Nord, you listening?). I also think that ultimately, decisions would be made by the CRB, that are made up of folks from other categories. So there would a bit of check & balance.

And in all honesty, I'm not saying that my proposal is the be-all and end-all. I threw it up more as a straw man. The main goal is to get away from the political appointments.

Kirk,

I LOVE that term. I think that's EXACTLY what the CRB is doing, and has done in the past. The never want to be in a position where they're tied down, or can have someone point to something they've done and say that it goes against their policy. You never really commit to a position. I'm sure most of the strategically ambiguous policy is written w/ what an old boss of mine called 'weasel words'. You never come right out and say what you mean.

[Bill Miller]

You also need to be aware that directives to the CRB about abuses by adhoc's in one catagory may have unintended consequences in another catagory. There has been some blatant abuse of power in some cases. They must guard from these adhoc's being "self serving" and making changes that benefit themselves. When we have a group (the ITAC) that has had a 98% success rate with their proposals and we have continued parity they deserve and have earned some respect. What happened was a vote of "no confidence" by the CRB. Do what you will with that information, or do nothing. I have a competitive car in my class and everything done by the ITAC in the last few years has just made my competition faster. You judge my motivation.

Very valid point Steve, but I'm not sure that I'm ready to let them (CRB ) off the hook that easily.

[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.




No, I, as an ITAC member do believe that. Based on my years of con calls, discussions with CRB members, I see no "Win the ARRCs, add 50lbs to the car" mentality

I'll let other ITAC guys add their opinions, but my take is that I'm sleeping well about ARRC lead trophies.




Quote:tnord
yup. and i think all they're looking for is just a little flexibility to say "ya know what, the process fails in this case, we probably need to do something."

Originally Posted by tnord http://72.167.111.130/forums/images/chromium/blue/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?p=296385#post296385)
yup. and i think all they're looking for is just a little flexibility to say "ya know what, the process fails in this case, we probably need to do something."

And that is a fair statement. To which I ask anyone who uses the flexibility to PROVE to me that its better. It very well could be but I don't want a swag, I want to have something I can document so that others can see how it was done and the members affected can know that it was grounded in some sort of meaning





quote; tnord
I think it's kinda like when our CFO created this committee that had to approve any spend over dollars. the intent isn't to END spending, but just put the brakes on for a bit and see what we've got before everything goes spiraling out of control.

I don't entirely disagree with this. I have believed for a while that we needed a "cooling off" in IT to let the changes settle. We saw that from some of membership in the dual vestiges poll - Bowie, Tristan, and others -- and it makes sense.

One of the frustrations I had with the rest of the ITAC (great folks all) was the perception I had that the process was "never ending" -- that we were going to continue to add formulas and adders until we believed the proces was "perfect." We needed to stop at some point.

But I also agree with Jake that stopping point should not have been (and here is where I respectfully disagree with the CRB ) a direction that cuts us off from using the process to correct weights on cars that were set via the old curb weight formula, or are just otherwise wrong.




Here's my take on it, from a personal point of view.

I don't think the CRB wants to slap weight Runoffs style. I really don't. Up until the latest backlog/issue, they have been very supportive of everything the ITAC has done. Like 98% supportive. As a matter of fact, not long ago, I think we were told by a member of the CRB, "You guys are the best ad hoc going if you ask us or the BoD".

So, I *think* we aren't at odds about the final product. We both want balanced classes with good racing.

But, we differ on how to get there.

They've told us that we can class new cars any way we want. "Just make it make sense". But we can't touch older listings. I have a hard time making things make sense that way.




Bill, I wanted to address this point. Try and take out the fact that you may not agree with the current CRB position on what is happening in IT and you may like what the ITAC is doing.

In either case, it's a committee made up of members. What if you didn't like the direction the ITAC started to take the category? There is always someone in charge and people tend to like the 'system' when it's going there way and want to change it when it's not.

The CRB IMHO has the toughest job in Club Racing. So much work, so little reward. Half the people think they are knocking it out and half think they suck (not unlike the ITAC! :)) I DO like that there is a group that is watchdogging us...actually, that is too strong of a statement. We don't make policy, but when I became an AdHoc member years ago, the directive was to really push a lot of the responsibility to the sub-committies, and that is why I signed on. It appears we have stepped over the line in terms of our overall charter in a slow but genuine way.

I think that the best thing to do is write in as members how you would like your class managed. The CRB should listen and then dictate to us what to do.





I hesitate to do this, because some people have comprehension issues and make things even worse. But since there is already wailing and gnashing and gross misinformation flying all over the interwebz (imagine that), I'll attempt to make it as plain and simple as humanly possible.
If I get something wrong, Members of the ITAC please sort it for me.

What we planned to do...
As many of you know, the ITAC has worked for a looong time to nail down a consistent and repeatable formula that can be used across the category. The goal has never been "perfection," but rather consistency. We know we can't class so many cars across so many classes perfectly, but we felt doing them ALL using the same process would at least gain us fairness and consistency. Plus we had the clause that allowed us to fix anything we got grossly wrong after a couple of seasons.

The intent was to get the process "nailed down and recorded" and then process every car requested by the membership using this approach. So far this has been done in sort of a "trickle" way, classing cars we had information on and tabling what required more data or those that fell under sections of the process that weren't yet nailed down (like torque).

What Changed Monday Night...
We will not be allowed to use the process on every car in IT. What we WILL be allowed to process are cars that are...
- New classifications.
- Deemed to have been classed in error.
- Are felt to be gross underdogs or overdogs. Yes, this is subjectively based on on track performance.

So, the big change is that we will NOT be processing every car. If the committee agrees that your car is reasonably competitive where it currently stands, then you'll get a "Car is correct as classed. Thank you for your letter" regardless of what the process says it should be.
This obviously includes subjective measures based on how a car currently performs. Something not included in the ITACs original plan.

What is currently NOT on the agenda, and not expected to be, is weight adjustments based SOLELY on performance. In other words "Jeff just killed everyone at the ARRC, put 100Lbs on the Civic DX" is NOT in the plans.
What could happen is "Jeff just killed everyone at the ARRC, lets look at the numbers." If the numbers look proper, nothing would happen. If the numbers looked suspect, we'd go searching for data.

Thats the way things stand as of today. Not what we intended, but you can't always get what you want.
Remember that the "A" in ITAC stands for "Advisory." We do just that. We advise. In this case the CRB decided that it was not comfortable with our ideas for a variety of reasons and effectively veto'd it.
And that was that.

There you have it. Please read this post at least 3 times and let it sink in before firing off an uninformed response or worse yet going and yelling that the sky is falling elsewhere.

IT is pretty healthy exactly as it sits, and at worst will stay exactly as is.


I know you guys don't like to listen to anything I say, but maybe you'll listen to what your ITAC is saying. the sky is not falling. things will be fine.

sheesh....its like everyone in here lives in isolation and works as an independent contractor, because other than the ITAC members, I see no evidence of anyone having any willingness, ability, or experience working together in groups of people with differing opinions to achieve a common goal.

you guys have two choices.....you can find a way to work together so that the CRB is satisfied and the ITACs ultimate goals are still met. or you can be all butthurt by it, take it personally (Kirk), and be totally counterproductive.

[quadzjr]

they sky is not falling.. however I want the same consistent process to be run on all cars, not just the newly classifed ones. That is what is fair and consistent. I personally won't be a front runner no matter what the outcome is. However I would like to know that I was treated fairly.

[tnord]

I saw what was there before Stephen, and I know I'm a lightning rod for most everything (unfairly so in my mind, but whatever). But only I know what my motives, agenda, and beliefs are in regards to this whole big fucking mess. I promise I'm way more in line with everyone than they'd like to think.