IT Process - Run All IT Cars Through it or not?

[Ron Earp]

The new directive from the CRB states that the IT classification process will not be used to re-run all the cars currently classed in IT, that it can only be used for new cars coming into IT. Some members don't want this to happen and want IT left alone. Some members want all the cars, new and existing, run through the process to level the field and correct possible disparities. What do you think? Let's have a poll....

[gran racing]

Can you add one more option? Run cars through the process which the ITAC receives requests for?

People that care can take a minute or two and write a simple request.
Cars that people don't care about won't consume the ITAC's time.
It allows the ITAC to process requests in the order which they are received with some potential exceptions.

But all of this is meaningless at this point. :(

[quadzjr]

Agree with Dave.. need a third option.

[gran racing]

Ron, smack me across the back of the head and delete that other option if you'd like. Thought I'd add it before people start answering no based on the orignal options.

[Knestis]

Can you add one more option? Run cars through the process which the ITAC receives requests for?

People that care can take a minute or two and write a simple request.
Cars that people don't care about won't consume the ITAC's time.
It allows the ITAC to process requests in the order which they are received with some potential exceptions.

But all of this is meaningless at this point. :(

That reflects what I think is the best answer, and the one I advocated for on the ITAC. At this point though, it's a lost cause unless someone can sway the BoD's thinking and the influence trickles down the the CRB.

K

[JeffYoung]

I agreed with this approach as well. Leave cars untouched unless asked, and then process them.

The CRB sees this as a "comp adjustment" -- I disagree for the reasons Andy set forth above.

However, I do want to say there aren't any black helicopters here. The CRB believes it is doing what is in the best interests of IT. I disagree, and we have a fundamental culture clash (as Andy notes), but I respect their motivatinons, which are well intentioned.

[seckerich]

What the CRB wants is not well served by ignoring all but new classifications. These new cars are slow to get built unless they are a class leader and have little impact on the general IT population. Cars should be looked at on a per request basis to see if they are correctly classed. Not ignored because the current CRB thinks everything is OK so don't mess with it. I understand you might as well have kicked Keane in the head with the Audi deal, but there are plenty of other examples of misclassed cars. Limit the requests to a "rules season" so all changes are set in place by first race of following season. Then no changes until the following year. Gives you 6 months or more to gather data on the requests and make informed decisions. All this is based on still having a viable ITAC in place. We no longer have that.

[Ron Earp]

Ron, smack me across the back of the head and delete that other option if you'd like. Thought I'd add it before people start answering no based on the orignal options.

Good idea, thanks. No sense in having a poll that forces people to choose an option they don't want. That would be too much like a Presidential election.

[MMiskoe]

Not to nit-pick, but I'd be much more in favor of running all cars but telling people up front that there may not be any changes, especially for any car +/- 50# of its current weight.

Why all cars weren't run through the process aready is a complete mystery to me. I obviously don't get it.

[JeffYoung]

Matt, as I understand it (before my time on the ITAC), there was a fear that if the ITAC tried to process all cars at once there would be a push back from the CRB.

Second, honestly, it would be a herculean task.

The better route, I think, was the natural progression from where we are. We processed many of the popular cars surrounding the "bogey cars" and then would do one car here, or two there, based on member requests.

Josh Sirota had a great idea to REMOVE from the ITCS all car weights (not the cars, just the weights) for older/unraced/unloved cars and simply wait for a request to process it.

Otherwise, we are stuck trying to figure out what some mid 70s Fiat Coupe in ITC would make in IT trim.

[Knestis]

...Why all cars weren't run through the process aready is a complete mystery to me. I obviously don't get it.

The ITAC had discussions about doing just that going back about a year, to approximately the point where we got really serious about establishing standard practices around the last few wobbly places in the process and codifying the results. Given the very limited number of cars that were done in the first GR, and fears that the CRB would balk at being asked to revisit something that was sold as a one-time-only deal, we were feeling our way along pretty carefully.

As recently as immediately following our August con call, that idea was still in play. In fact, our CRB liaison asked whether the comprehensive spreadsheet we'd built for ITB cars would be representative of what they could expect from a total "do over" or Great Realignment II. I was dead set against it because (you listening, Travis?) that list of 80 cars(!) all used the standard 1.25 power multiplier: None had been through the confidence-tested review step that is (sorry, "was") supposed to look for evidence that a different value should be used. That WOULD have been an overly formulaic application of the process, completely ignoring the crucial - but controlled - application of subjectivity that the system deserves. That's a powerful reason that I advocated for doing them "just in time" in response to member requests, by the way: We didn't just plug the numbers mindlessly into a spreadsheet if it looked like our assumptions about power (stock HP, 1.25 multiplier) didn't stand up, so each car took time to work through.

About that same time, it was requested that Andy explain the "new process" to the CRB - ignoring our protestations during con calls that we were doing pretty much what the Darin-era process described, only more consistently, with much better record keeping, and fewer - like nearly zero - opportunities for shenanigans.

(You're going to have to take my word for it but in the time I was on the ITAC, I don't recall a single instance of the "horse trading" of pounds by members with different opinions, like resulted in that Civic DX getting listed 300 pounds heavy.)

These inquries, the lack of action on recommendations made going back several months, and finally the Audi weight bouncing back to us after Andy's call with the CRB finally began to make it clear - at least to me - that the CRB didn't have much inclination of letting the ITAC finish the business it had started.

We LITERALLY had just finished the reviewed draft version of our documentation of the process (v.2 if you adhere to the idea that it's different enough to be called that). While clearly NOT all in agreement, we were talking about how to disseminate that information to the membership. (That's called "transparency.")

In short, Mike - the answer to your question is "because the CRB didn't want it to happen."

K

[Ron Earp]

Second, honestly, it would be a herculean task.


On that point I disagree, that is, to run all the cars through the process.

A few car guys, $100 to cover online subscriptions to back archives of magazines on DVD, plus the interwebz and you have all the information you need. Throw in a well-designed Excel spreadsheet, the agreed upon process, and it is simply plug, play, and spit out numbers. A few guys could do ALL the cars in IT on a lazy Saturday afternoon with time left over for a cookout and beer.

You might have 1-2% of the cars that you can't get stock hp to agree on but the error will also be on the order of 1-2% - "this source says 189hp, this one 193hp". The group can decide how to deal with those. Hell, that sort of error is the LEAST of the worries.

Unfortunately it looks like the possibility of running all the cars through the process isn't an option.

R

[JeffYoung]

TST is no longer united!

I hear you, but I think you underestimate the power of the committee to slow things down and muck things up.

Could ONE person making calls on the accuracy of stock hp numbers and expected IT gain do it in short order? Probably.

But once you through in 7-9 competing viewpoints, things start to bog down.......

[Andy Bettencourt]

Ron,

With respect, you don;y have any idea the system of checks and balances that are in place now. If you want to run them all through at 25%, maybe a Saturday could work, but each car has to be looked at very closely.

[Ron Earp]

I hear you, but I think you underestimate the power of the committee to slow things down and muck things up. =

There is no doubt I underestimate the power of a committee. I do respect committees, but only to a point. Someone has to have a clear vision and lead or the committee will invariably return a mediocre result.

No sense in arguing about can it or can it not be done. Tis mote. It ain't gonna happen since the CRB got a clear vision and said "NO!".

Oh, and TST untied? There is a reason the TR8 hasn't been running this year. I decided I could improve my finishing place at least once position in the ITS ranking with no British Steel in the way. Speaking of which I have an urge to go Breaking the Law.

[StephenB]

I voted NO

At this point the CRB has made a decision and they should stick to it so we can move on. WE all made the choice to drive the car we are driving, but I'm sure you saw my other post and know how I feel on that. Lets stick with what we have (Stability now) and move on. Flip flopping and changing the rules every few months is not what I am interested in.

IF the CRB hadn't made a decision and this was asked last week I would have said YES run ALL cars through the process. I DO feel that all cars should be on the same playing field AKA same classification process. HOWEVER I also can take responsibilty and ownership for MY DECISION to build and race the car I currently am which is why I am OK with the actual outcome of the CRB.

I would NOT support the idea of only running cars that are requested through the process UNLESS their was a 3 month request timeframe. VERY SHORT so that the ITAC can make suggestions and the CRB can make decisions that can be made by next year and then we can go race in a STABLE environment knowing what our competition will look like in the future.

Stephen

[RSTPerformance]

Stephen are you crazy??? We have spent thousands of dollars and driven our asses off... Our family has dedicated years of service to this club and we have witnessed the entire evolution of IT... We (or more me) discovered that this IT process has shown that we have a distict disadvantage and our sole performance has also questioned the valadility of the ITAC and its classification processes that currently exists and are trying to revamp.

Cars should get rerun through the process when questioned (or requested). As rules change and new cars are classed old cars that are still being raced should remain competitive... That is stability. Having to buy a new VW everytime a new one is classed is terrible stability for an entry level class looking for good (no the best) competition.

ITAC-

Why is the Audi such a friggen big deal.

Why are NONE of my requests responded to after al last a year of multiple requests?

How can I continue to support the running of this club (I am a Volunteer worker) when I am recieving NOTHING in return?

I know it is not the ITAC... But why doesn't the CRB & ITAC get my brother and I on the phone so we can discuss our friggen cars so it stops holding up the rest of the class?

Raymond "enough is enough about the dam Audi's... Once we can afford to build something different we won't be racing them anymore anyhow, and if I could afford it I wouldn't be racing in SCCA anymore either" Blethen

PS: anyone know who I can e-mail in SCCA that will listen? I am getting ready for a mass e-mailing which generally gets me into trouble... Errr

[StephenB]

Stephen are you crazy??? We have spent thousands of dollars and driven our asses off... Our family has dedicated years of service to this club and we have witnessed the entire evolution of IT...

Imagine what you could have done if you picked a car that performed on paper compaired to the other cars in your class. YOUR CHOICE TO RACE YOUR CAR.



Cars should get rerun through the process when questioned (or requested). As rules change and new cars are classed old cars that are still being raced should remain competitive... That is stability. Having to buy a new VW everytime a new one is classed is terrible stability for an entry level class looking for good (no the best) competition.


IF the process works the current cars SHOULD NOT get classed at a better performance or competitive advantage. If they are incorrectly classified they have 4 years to make corrective adjustments. What you are discribing is a process unlike what the CRB wants going forward.


Ah shit it's a good thing we live far away from eachother :024:
Stephen

[RSTPerformance]

I pcked my car because I love Audis... Never expected to do well with that car, you know that of all people. We had sucess, and Realisticly depending who shows up we still do. However with this new process came cars that we could no longer compete with... Let's be realistc... Dave gran much faster, Beren Peter way way faster... Vaugn Scott another one we could never keep up with... There are also plenty of cars we can't beat prior to the process... Ken bubbard, Scott Carlson, Eric Curran.

My point in the entire year long bull shit is not about me, I could care less, as with you I want to have fun... However things need to be fair for our members. Cars should remain competitive and if a new process is introduced 4 years ago or today anyone who wants thier car rerun through the process deserves that right. Also someo es request should not get shot down simply because one set of twins were sucessful with the car. KNOWONES performance should be used to influence the process and somehow our performance is influencing that process. IT isn't right and shows a major breakdown in the organization.

Raymond "meet you at home depot in 7hrs..." Blethen

[Eagle7]

I voted yes. My letter to the BOD/CRB sent 9/20/09:

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I have been very pleased over the last few years to see the Improved Touring classification process progress from subjective judgements without documented rationale to one based on specified characteristics of cars with uniform application. If I understand correctly, the only subjective factor used by the ITAC in the current classification process is the horsepower gain in IT trim that can be achieved by the car, and any deviation from a default power gain multiplier must be supported by documented evidence.

One of the primary tenants of this process is that on-track performance is never to be used as the sole factor in setting a weight that does not conform to the process, but is only used as a trigger to search for evidence that the assumptions used when classifying the car were incorrect. I wholeheartedly support this process, and believe it has rejuvenated IT into one of the most popular categories in SCCA.

My only complaint with the current process is that it is not transparent enough. I would like to see all the classification factors published for each and every car, and the rationale for any non-standard factors published as well. Further, I understand that not all IT cars' weights have been set using this process. I would like to see each and every car's weight reset using this process.

One factor that has been huge in achieving this process is the open communication that the ITAC has conducted on the ImprovedTouring.com forums and other public forums. The ITAC members are to be commended for their participation with the membership in discussing issues that are often controversial. Without this open communication, I believe we would be much more driven by the private philosophy of a few individuals, and could not have achieved the member satisfaction that IT now enjoys.

I have recently seen indications that the CRB may not yet support the approach used by the ITAC. Specifically, 1) they may like to reserve the right to subjectively set the weight of a car based solely on its perceived on-track performance or its perceived on-track potential, and 2) they would like to limit the communication between the ITAC and the membership in general. I believe both of these practices would lead to abuse of the classification process by a small group of individuals behind closed doors - not that those individuals' motives are not above-board, but that their process is flawed.

Summary - I fully support the direction that the ITAC has taken, and encourage that it be carried forward to its conclusion.

Also, please ask Kirk Knestis to reconsider his resignation from the ITAC, which I believe was based solely on concern #2 above. I believe Kirk has been a tremendous asset to the ITAC and will be sorely missed.

Sincerely,
Marty Doane
West Michigan Region, Great Lakes Division
ITS RX-7
Member #321263

[seckerich]

My letter was similar Marty, well said. Now call and talk directly to your area directors please.

[gran racing]

Imagine what you could have done if you picked a car that performed on paper compaired to the other cars in your class. YOUR CHOICE TO RACE YOUR CAR.

I understand this viewpoint but at the same point, why don't we treat all cars fairly? I would hope that we've evolved from a "not guaranteed competitiveness" line of garbage. What's worse is we have a method of to do this, a ton of work has been put into getting it just this close, and we're shutting the door and running away. That's just not fair.


However with this new process came cars that we could no longer compete with... Let's be realistc... Dave gran much faster

For the record, my Prelude never went through the new process. Comparing the car to the Golf III and a few others, I also decided to submit my car to be run through the process - for better or worse. If nothing else I wanted a valid explaination of why my car AND OTHERS are classed at various weights that simply don't make sense compared to others. (Please refer to the Audi thread.) I'm sick and tired of hearing a BS answer of "well, gee, I don't know. That car was classed by another board and it seems to do okay." So what happens when we have another IT board cycle through? The dart board classification game starts all over again with a whole new set of darts and rules.

People want rules stability? Run cars though the process, get it right, and form a base that can be worked off of for years to come. We can't possibly have "rules stablity" until all of this happens.

[Bill Miller]

I voted 'as requested'. I'd really like to see all the cars run, but I am also a realist, and don't see the value of spending a lot of time and effort for cars that no one is interested in. To me, that's just busy work. Especially since each car needs an individual look. That's something I always felt was needed, and always advocated for. Waaaayyyy back when, I never felt that a straight formula would work, but it was the kind of starting point that was needed. Couple a formulaic process w/ a well documented basis for exceptions, and I think you've got something that just about everyone can hang their hat on. And the best part of that, is that 10 years from now, when somebody pulls a '68 Cortina out of the mothballs, and wants to run it, they can request it be run through the process, and it will be treated the same as all the other ITC cars.

Stephen,

A couple of things to consider when you bring up 'you knew what you built when you built it'. Use your car as an example. I would say that a LOT has changed in IT since you and your brother built those cars (what was it, 10 years ago?). ECU's are now free, new cars have come in, etc. The 'you know what you built when you built it' is all well and good, provided nothing changes after that point in time. This of course would all be moot if all the cars had been classified the same, objective way.


When tGR was taking place, I wanted to know why all cars weren't run through the process. My thinking was that it was a 'new day' for IT. Treat it as if none of the cars had ever been classified, and start off w/ everyone on the same, level playing field. I'd still like to see that, but realize that taking a pragmatic approach is probably more realistic.

[MMiskoe]

With respect, you don;y have any idea the system of checks and balances that are in place now. If you want to run them all through at 25%, maybe a Saturday could work, but each car has to be looked at very closely.

Andy:

Obviously I don't get it. But as you explained it to me, you have a stock HP # which gets a multiplier, then you have various adders, subtractors that get applied to produce a weight. Its the subjective nature of those adders that takes the time. But if you were to send out the spreadsheet w/ all the cars on it & ask that people fill in the blanks, you'd have 90% of the information on 90% of the cars. Then you look at the ones that look askew. But if your system is at all accurate, that list of askew cars should be small. Its kind of like the open source programming.



When tGR was taking place, I wanted to know why all cars weren't run through the process. My thinking was that it was a 'new day' for IT. Treat it as if none of the cars had ever been classified, and start off w/ everyone on the same, level playing field. I'd still like to see that, but realize that taking a pragmatic approach is probably more realistic.

This is the part I can't get my head around. Why wasn't it done at the time of re-alignment? By not doing it to all cars you simply added to the ambiguity of only checking certain cars. No different than the original approach which was not terribly scientific.

You tell me that SCCA Pro racing just throws darts at the wall when classing cars, perhaps standing further from the dart board for cars that didn't offer some $$ to the process? Why haven't we looked at how WC classes cars? Cripe those guys have even figured out how to deal w/ far out ideas like AWD and forced induction.



I'll climb off the soap box now as this thing appears to have come full circle and what we've got is what we've got. All we're doing now is a lot of typing.

[Knestis]

>> Why wasn't it done at the time of re-alignment? By not doing it to all cars you simply added to the ambiguity of only checking certain cars.

History is important on this point: The only reasons that the CRB agreed to do it were (a) it would realign only a few key cars, perceived to be popular but potentially off kilter; and (b) it was a one-time deal. That latter point is why we didn't just try do any comprehensive do-over in the past 6 months or so.

>> Its the subjective nature of those adders that takes the time.

Actually, as of a couple weeks ago anyway, the adders are pretty much yes/no kinds of considerations. What takes time (potentially) is discussion around the power multiplier - that's the point at which the process allows (sorry, allowed) subjective review of evidence to consider the use of values other than the standard 1.25.

K

[RSTPerformance]

Sorry Dave... Thank you for clarifying. Did you run your own car through the process? How did it turn out?

Also have you submited any requests to the CRB... did you get a reply?

Raymond

[irondragon]

I got grumpy a few years ago when my Datsun 280Z suddenly got a big weight reduction.
For me it was no gift as I could not possibly get that much weight out of my car as it was built. I saw the change as a spurious way to rejigger the 280 power/weight ratio so as to justify including newer cars with higher ratios.

Question I asked was: will this keep happening such that older cars have to keep adjusting weight downward to accomodate newer cars in ITS?
Answer was: No. This is a one time recalibration to fix mistakes in classification made early on in ITS. Will never happen again.

But as I read through this thread it seems that there is a wish to have it happen again.
I hope not.

But I'm not as engaged in the problem as I was.
Sold the 280 and now I have a Miata in SM which is a differently managed class .

Best Regards - Bill Miskoe

[Andy Bettencourt]

I got grumpy a few years ago when my Datsun 280Z suddenly got a big weight reduction.
For me it was no gift as I could not possibly get that much weight out of my car as it was built. I saw the change as a spurious way to rejigger the 280 power/weight ratio so as to justify including newer cars with higher ratios.

Question I asked was: will this keep happening such that older cars have to keep adjusting weight downward to accomodate newer cars in ITS?
Answer was: No. This is a one time recalibration to fix mistakes in classification made early on in ITS. Will never happen again.

But as I read through this thread it seems that there is a wish to have it happen again.
I hope not.

But I'm not as engaged in the problem as I was.
Sold the 280 and now I have a Miata in SM which is a differently managed class .

Best Regards - Bill Miskoe

Bill, The one time thing was actually determining a power to weight target for each class. Those are NOT moving targets.

[raffaelli]

The new directive from the CRB states that the IT classification process will not be used to re-run all the cars currently classed in IT, that it can only be used for new cars coming into IT. Some members don't want this to happen and want IT left alone. Some members want all the cars, new and existing, run through the process to level the field and correct possible disparities. What do you think? Let's have a poll....


You forgot the 'only if it benefits me' category.:D

[seckerich]

The most recent fastrack should answer this thread. F you, go away. Notice all the proposals out for member input? Welcome back to year 2000 in IT where you have a place to play and anything else is too much of a bother for the CRB or BOD. You could see the brass ring, almost touch it, and then you just went a little too far up the political ladder and the power structure. STU RX8 under construction. Screw IT until we get some of the current CRB replaced. Looking forward to December.

[Knestis]

Whadya mean, Steve? There's nothing in the new Fastrack about IT...

<removes tongue from cheek>

K

[RSTPerformance]

Whadya mean, Steve? There's nothing in the new Fastrack about IT...

<removes tongue from cheek>

K


Am I missing something??? I didn't see anything and I was promised by the CRB chair that I would see something...

Also does this make sense, displacement to power ratio being used to determine a cars competitiveness? <--- Should be displacement to weight ratio, NOT displacement to power.

Raymond

[seckerich]

Welcome to SCCA. You want action then change the wording in the IT specs about no guarantee of competitiveness. This is the BS they always bring up when their ox is gored. Welcome to musical chairs and everyone that matters has a seat. Good luck with the next game. If you call you will be told it somehow was too late to make fastrack. Very convenient how that seems to happen just when time runs out to get anything done for 2010. You have no say in the game so get used to it or work to change the system from the top down.

[JoshS]

Also does this make sense, displacement to power ratio being used to determine a cars competitiveness?

What are you reading that talks about displacement-to-power ratios?

[RSTPerformance]

[quote=seckerich;297568]If you call you will be told it somehow was too late to make fastrack. quote]

My requests (yes with an "S") went in last feb/march... Got P'd off last month and fired off a million e-mails and finally got replies that my denied requests would be in the next fast track... look what that got me!!! another month of BS after giving up hope in the ITAC/CRB/BOD & SCCA as a whole.

New approach... Go racing for fun, hang out with friends, beat my brother, act as a customer of the club, (this is NOT a member driven organization and so no I will no longer be volunteering my time without pay) and hope other interesting and affordable options open up in the future of the northeast...

Raymond

[StephenB]

What are you reading that talks about displacement-to-power ratios?

If you are on the ITAC I think it was your boss.

[RSTPerformance]

What are you reading that talks about displacement-to-power ratios?

Josh- I stand corrected, displacement to weight ratio...

As you probably know the Audi issue has fustrated me beyond belief. I do not feel that my 5 year old performance of putting the Audi on the pole at the ARRC should be used to determine the cars capability and/or have any influence on the ITAC process failing.

I sent out several e-mails begging for someone to care, anyone, and finally someone did respond to me. After my desperate attempts I recieved a couple e-mails from Bob Dowie. The last e-mail asked specificly how he could justify the Audi weighing more than 200#'s over the process weight. Bob Dowie (CRB Chair) said "Looking at the specs for the Audi I don't see it out of the ball park as far as displacement to weight..." This tells me that beyond what the ITAC has for a process the CRB looks at every cars displacement to weight ratio. I don't understand how this works or if anyone else besides the CRB has used it as a compairable.

On a side note, Bob Dowie also promised that my request on the Audi would be posted in the next Fasttrack "I don't believe there are any items from you pending on the agenda other than the request on the Audi that will be answered in the next Fasttrack. I apologize for the delay on posting the responce, but since the request was based on the CRB embracing the new process that had to be decided first. I assure you there was no disrespect intended." e-mail dated 10/1/09. Still nothing in the November Fasttrack.

What is also interesting (and relevant to this thread) is that this e-mail also states that the Audi was reviewed during the realignment, only six cars in the last three years have recieved corrections because the ITAC felt there were errors made, and "re-running any car through the process is a violation of the GCR" and they (The CRB) should have simply denied my request last spring on that basis.

Raymond "Can someone just put in Fasttrack that my request is denied so I can start putting together my protests" Blethen

[StephenB]

What is also interesting (and relevant to this thread) is that this e-mail also states that the Audi was reviewed during the realignment, only six cars in the last three years have recieved corrections because the ITAC felt there were errors made, and "re-running any car through the process is a violation of the GCR" and they (The CRB) should have simply denied my request last spring on that basis.



Raymond if you still have this e-mail could you forward it to me. I am wondering if the 2 ITB cars driven by 2 current CRB members went through this process.

Thanks,
Stephen Blethen

[Knestis]

...aaaaand THERE'S the nugget of the issue: Without a repeatable, transparent process, we have the appearance of impropriety or inequity even if none actually exists. It's like if I took a vacation with a woman other than my wife. What would we expect people to think?

I've repeatedly - and publicly - said that I believe the MkIII Golf is heavy but that's relative to other process-based weights for cars in the same class. I make my comparisons theoretically. HOWEVER, I have zero reason to believe (using the example with which I'm most familiar) that Chris Albin is influencing the CRB decision to his own benefit of some silly 50 pounds.

The system is bustifed but it's NOT that simple.

Key points in the above:

1. It is an INTERPRETATION that adjusting IT cars to a theoretical weight standard, based on a repeatable process, is a "violation of the GCR." **

2. The ITAC, in the time I was involved, used comparisons to the process weights as its standard of "an error was made." Cars adjusted during that time BY THE CRB were set by that standard and approved by that group - or individuals of that group. However, those cars weren't viewed as "already fast." That's precisely how the Audi concern was voiced to the ITAC - that it's already fast and if it gets aligned to the theoretical process, it will "be a killer."

3. THAT perception is based on a tiny little collection of examples, the ARRC pole being one.

4. Remember that the ITAC recommends and the CRB decides. The ITAC recommended that the Golf II get a tiny little change, on the heels of an internal decision that we should set aside old (and unpublished) standards of 50 or 100 pounds "is close enough." They chose to not approve that recommendation. In hindsight, that 10 pounds represented a new commitment on the ITAC's part but it's clear to me that it was the beginning of the end of the process.

5. Kicking the "100 pound" assumption to the curb was arguably one of the most important changes that makes the so-called "new process" different than the "old process." It represented a *very* important step in taking out an opportunity for the subjective application of the math. I don't think any change that we made in the past year had more consistent support among the members we heard from - remembering that we weren't changing a RULE to make it happen. We were changing a procedure. We were also getting "too big for our britches."

6. ...SO when someone tells you that the "new process" was different, bear in mind that it was the procedures and practices USED BY THE ITAC TO FORMULATE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CRB that changed. There is ABSOLUTELY NO CODIFIED DESCRIPTION OF WHAT SHOULD INFORM THE ITAC'S RECOMMENDATIONS and the CRB is completely, absolutely, 100% within their purview to not approve those recommendations. As long as the recommendations made by the ITAC weren't viewed as meaningful - that they would make a difference - the CRB seems to have been OK with them and the CRB "violated the GCR" by approving them. Bear in mind that we used pretty much the same exact math as was in place when I left the ITAC to set all of those weights.

Nobody told us "no" until it got to the point where the CRB was going to be forced to be on record as giving each recommendation based on a transparent, repeatable process a "fair up or down vote on the floor," to poach a phrase from politics. That would have made it clear that a transparent, repeatable process doesn't align with the decision-making culture of the Club. They want to reserve the right to do precisely what they did with the Audi: Make a decision for an entire category based on subjective fears, potentially of just a couple of individuals, of some boogie-man car...

That is my biggest disappointment because, like the Pollyanna I guess I am, I ACTUALLY believed we were on the verge of changing that.

K

** EDIT - To be fair, that interpretation is well founded based on the language that was added to the GCR at the time of the Great Realignment as a sop to the then-CRB that IT wasn't going to implement competition adjustments (bleah!) and become a huge, complex, spec-changing mess. That "clarification" was in hindsight among the worst mistakes made for IT, in my opinion.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The concept of dispacement as a component of factoring weight is one the CRB uses in many other classes. For IT, I don't like it because things like cranks, cams, intake and TB's need to be stock.

[Bill Miller]

Excellent analysis Kirk. The more things change, the more they stay the same. I wonder what it really is about IT that the PtB are afraid of? Is it really that if they follow the process laid out by the ITAC that they may end up w/ a couple of 'fliers' that upset the balance in the IT classes? I really don't think so. The BoD and CRB are well practiced in stone-walling requests and trotting out trite, flip responses to people's requests. I think what they're afraid of is that people will begin to see that there's a better way to do things. They're comfortable w/ their ability to pretty much do what they want, and don't want to have that taken away from them, or be constrained by any kind of objective process. Lord knows, people may want the same kind of objectivity and transparancey for other categories (the most obvious ones being SS and T). Speaking of SS and T, anybody know how they spec cars for those categories?

I think one of the first steps to 'fixing' things, is to change how CRB members are selected. Get rid of the political patronage appointments, and have each AC send a member to the CRB. Doesn't matter if it's the chair of the AC, or a member that is voted on by the rest of the committee. You end up w/ equal representation across all categories, and you (hopefully) eliminate the political pressure from above.

[gran racing]

Raymond if you still have this e-mail could you forward it to me. I am wondering if the 2 ITB cars driven by 2 current CRB members went through this process.

While I don’t think Chris had an influence on the Golf III not going through the new process. Oooops, that was replaced by a spin wheel with weights on it and “guess that feels right” process.


...aaaaand THERE'S the nugget of the issue: Without a repeatable, transparent process, we have the appearance of impropriety or inequity even if none actually exists. It's like if I took a vacation with a woman other than my wife. What would we expect people to think?

Oh, it’s starting to sound transparent alright.



I've repeatedly - and publicly - said that I believe the MkIII Golf is heavy but that's relative to other process-based weights for cars in the same class. I make my comparisons theoretically. HOWEVER, I have zero reason to believe (using the example with which I'm most familiar) that Chris Albin is influencing the CRB decision to his own benefit of some silly 50 pounds.

I have a huge amount of respect for you doing that; many would not have done that. It’s not just a silly 50 lbs. That value would be accurate if other vehicles were put up against the same measuring stick. But that hasn’t happened. In Ray and Stephen’s case, they’d argue that it’s a matter of 250 lbs for the Golf III. Others would have different values but in MANY cases it’s more than a silly 50 lbs. Now you class cars by the process that concludes it’s 50 lbs lite, then we can start calling it a “silly” amount. Till then though…

I still have a little bit of hope left. The BOD just held their meeting on the 18th. Maybe, just maybe something came from that and SCCA didn't want to publish anything till that meeting happened.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I have no idea where Gran gets that the GIII hasn't been through the process. Of course it has. The GIII got classed with a -50 for the beam rear and that is a mitsake that has been submitted for action for a while now. The Accord has also been through and is spot on.

I committ that at our next meeting we will put forth all the recommendations again that we feel need to be taken care plus some new letters that seem pretty easy to take care of (like allowing Alternate hood material, battery type, hatch material for the 280zx...)

[924Guy]

So, for someone who hasn't been embroiled in the day-to-day bloody battles of this topic, and who's already got a foot out of the class, where does this leave us?

Is there still hope that we can get the CRB to understand that progress is good, and SCCA is well on its way to having the best show in town, period?

Or do our votes still just not matter, since we don't go to the Runoffs?

So, refresh my memory - what percentage of licensed Club Racers run an IT car?

[gran racing]

I have no idea where Gran gets that the GIII hasn't been through the process. Of course it has. The GIII got classed with a -50 for the beam rear and that is a mitsake that has been submitted for action for a while now. The Accord has also been through and is spot on.

Gran got it from Bettencourt's old posts who said that the Golf III wasn't classed by this ITAC and the weight was based upon some old process. But whatever. And where does the Accord being spot on come from? That's one car of many that were sent through with weight adjustments. This whole thing is a joke and the ITAC better start practicing their puppetary. You still have a little ways to go yet Andy.

[Knestis]

I have no idea where Gran gets that the GIII hasn't been through the process. Of course it has. The GIII got classed with a -50 for the beam rear and that is a mitsake that has been submitted for action for a while now. The Accord has also been through and is spot on.

I committ that at our next meeting we will put forth all the recommendations again that we feel need to be taken care plus some new letters that seem pretty easy to take care of (like allowing Alternate hood material, battery type, hatch material for the 280zx...)

Sorry, Andy but I don't think that, while we ran the Golf III through the current math, it was set aside during the "make a case for doing all of ITB" phase this spring. I don't believe it was ever "officially" submitted for a CRB vote, based on my spreadsheet.

K

[Bill Miller]

I have no idea where Gran gets that the GIII hasn't been through the process. Of course it has. The GIII got classed with a -50 for the beam rear and that is a mitsake that has been submitted for action for a while now. The Accord has also been through and is spot on.

I committ that at our next meeting we will put forth all the recommendations again that we feel need to be taken care plus some new letters that seem pretty easy to take care of (like allowing Alternate hood material, battery type, hatch material for the 280zx...)

Not for nothing Andy, but I recall one of the ITAC members saying, in another thread, that there was no 'negative adder' for a rear beam axle. And was it just coincidence that the Golf III ended up at the exact same weight it was when it was in ITA?

Not sure what good running cars through the process is, when you've got people that can just slap weight on w/o any supporting data. Could it have possibly been that the "VW guy on the ITAC" that claimed 100 whp out of a Rabbit GTI was also running an ITB car? What's that comment Kirk made about impropriety and inequity?

[Knestis]

There's no subtractor in the CURRENT process that would apply to the Golf's rear end, Bill. The suspension adder/subtractor issue was substantially tightened up in the last 9 months or so, documented, and pinned down. It may well have been a consideration at some point but I don't believe it was formal in the Golf's case, even if it DID align under the assumptions and practices of a few years ago...

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Gran got it from Bettencourt's old posts who said that the Golf III wasn't classed by this ITAC and the weight was based upon some old process. But whatever. And where does the Accord being spot on come from? That's one car of many that were sent through with weight adjustments. This whole thing is a joke and the ITAC better start practicing their puppetary. You still have a little ways to go yet Andy.

Show me the quote Dave. Maybe some definitions to help you:

'Some old process': The ITAC has no idea how it was done. No documentation, no history, no nothin'.

'The Process': Very much the current way of doing things except for probably the FWD subtractor.

'Process V.2': Couple tweeks, everything DEFINED and documented, largely the same as the original in concept AND application.

Where do you get the weight adjustment on the Accord? The old ITB to ITA move was pre Process, the current ITB listing is EXACTLY on based on 120hp, 1.25, -50 for FWD and +50 for DW.

Help me understand your history please.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Not for nothing Andy, but I recall one of the ITAC members saying, in another thread, that there was no 'negative adder' for a rear beam axle. And was it just coincidence that the Golf III ended up at the exact same weight it was when it was in ITA?

Not sure what good running cars through the process is, when you've got people that can just slap weight on w/o any supporting data. Could it have possibly been that the "VW guy on the ITAC" that claimed 100 whp out of a Rabbit GTI was also running an ITB car? What's that comment Kirk made about impropriety and inequity?

Like Kirk said, there is no allowance for a beam on a FWD car now but I remember it getting 50 off for it when it was classed under the orginal Process concept. In our review and documentation phase this past year, we changed the FWD subtractors and eliminated that option from the potetial adders list. So that car would get 'corrected' under the current process to get 50lbs.

Edit: Kirk, I will defer to your spreadsheet.

[seckerich]

I believe the reason we are seeing nothing in IT is because we are now 2 members light on the CRB. There are some changes being made and we might have a possibility to move towards some form of process in IT if the majority of drivers actually want it. A proposal is being drafted to change the GCR to give us some options other than errors and omissions. Now would be a good time to get together and have a positive impact on IT's future.

[gran racing]

The Accord has also been through and is spot on.

My question was why you mentioned the Accord in all of this and where that came from?

[RSTPerformance]

I believe the reason we are seeing nothing in IT is because we are now 2 members light on the CRB. There are some changes being made and we might have a possibility to move towards some form of process in IT if the majority of drivers actually want it. A proposal is being drafted to change the GCR to give us some options other than errors and omissions. Now would be a good time to get together and have a positive impact on IT's future.

Steve- No disrespect but how? Several good people and jerks like me have been trying for over a year now and we simply keep getting turned away. Please HELP!

[924Guy]

My question was why you mentioned the Accord in all of this and where that came from?

Maybe because it looked like they rocked ITB last year at the ARRC?

(not that they did, but running 1-2 can be taken as a sign of dominance, if not properly qualified - right, Ray?)

[Andy Bettencourt]

My question was why you mentioned the Accord in all of this and where that came from?

My apologies if I attributed that you you originally but someone questioned the Accord classification and the fact Keene drives one. Your comment about weight adjustments on the Accord threw me.

Bottom line? We don't know why there is some stuff on hold, will get the answers and let people know.