ITAC changes. Chairman resigns.

[lateapex911]

I have gotten official word that the ITAC chairman, Andy Bettencourt has resigned.

(for those who don't know, ITAC is the IT advisory Committee that is charges with setting race weights, classs structure and writing/changing rules, and operates under the CRB.)

Andy can explain his reasoning better than I of course, and it's his place to do so, not mine. But, I know it's safe to say that he has issues with the methods and direction of the CRB, relative to what he feels the membership wants for the category.

As members of this site arr IT racers with a vested interest, I thought you should know.

Andy has been a tireless champion of IT, and has walked a fine line between the different forces. He has really gotten better thru the years and is irreplaceable.

It's not a good day for IT.

A broader base forum has a discussion thread regarding this and other IT matters over on RR/AX, if you'd like to read what a broader base has to say.

http://roadraceautox.com/showthread.php?t=27390.

[spnkzss]

That's really not good as that would be #3 in less than 6 months. :(

[Ron Earp]

I'm sorry to hear of Andy's resignation. I feel that he, like Kirk, always had a proper vision for IT and were doing the right thing. Given what I perceive about the ITAC/CRB relationship I do not blame him and all. Sad day.

Andy, thanks for all the work on our behalf.

[Greg Amy]

Ugh. Not good. Not good at all. Beginning to look like 1789 all over again...

Sigh.

I look forward to Andy's side of the story; do keep us posted in the meantime...

GA


(P.S. I've been avoiding RRAX for a while now; as I explained to someone else, that place has become much like when you're digging through your dog's s**t in search of the gold trinket he swallowed, and when you find it you're wondering if it was worth the hassle...)

[Andy Bettencourt]

There really isn't a 'side' to the story. After months of consideration and reconsideration I simply believe it was time for me to move on. The vision I have (and have had) for IT, the way it should be governed, etc isn't meshing with the way the CRB wants to do things. This was NOT a quick decision, it was one I did not want to make and took many hours of thought and discussions with good friends and fellow members.

I have valued my time on the committee and am honored to have been chosen to participate by Rick Pocock. The teams I have worked with over the past 6 years have been awesome, both on the ITAC and the CRB.

I have conveyed what I perceive is best for IT, what I feel the members want and I feel at this time that the CRB is going in different directions. It's dissappointing but it happens. I have taken some hits and realize that currently, the war is not winnable for me so I needed to make way for new blood.

Thanks to all.

[benspeed]

Andy - we all appreciate the hard work and leadership. When it's time- it's time...

(Dammit - now the man won't be so friggin distracted he's only going to get faster....:-)

Greg - hit the nail on the head - no gold trinket in that pile...this site is a classier place

[dtanthon]

Andy - Thanks for all you did and do. You are a class act and we are better for that.

[Kolin Aspegren]

What Greg A. said :023:

k

[erlrich]

All I can say is, from what I know about Andy this is a really bad sign. Kirk & Scott weren't so much the shockers, but if they frustrated Andy to the point that he tossed the towel that really says a lot - and none of it good.

I've pretty much given up on the current CRB and BoD - until we get some fresh blood in both places things aren't going to change. I would suggest that's where we focus our efforts, in getting the word out for the upcoming Board election, and trying to get some new faces in the chairs. FWIW, 3 of the 4 Board members up for re-election this year (Wannarka, Sheridan, Creighton) were among the 7 who recently voted to ignore the wishes of the membership, and their own CRB, in casting their votes for the H&N requirement; and the fourth (Noble) abstained from voting on the issue. I know that is only one issue, but that gets each of those candidates a huge check in the minus column from where I stand.

[Greg Amy]

Kirk & Scott weren't so much the shockers...
Giles, too?!?

"Boom, baby!"

Who's next...?

[Greg Amy]

And, via email, I get the answer to that last question.

Sigh...

[erlrich]

And, via email, I get the answer to that last question.

Sigh...

For some reason the images of large rodents and ships sinking keep popping into my head....

[mossaidis]

That's a huge loss for the IT community. Andy, sorry to see you go but can understand your concerns and frustation.

[Knestis]

Yup.

When loose cannons like Giles and I go away, it's arguably because we're busted rather than the system. But the impact of Andy's loss cannot be overstated.

K

[seckerich]

I had hoped you guys would keep kicking on the inside while some of us pushed from the outside.:D Fully understand why you gave it up and cannot say enough thanks for the time and effort involved in getting IT as far as it is now. Guess we just have to start kicking the horse in the ass again.:dead_horse:

[lateapex911]

Giles, too?!?

"Boom, baby!"

Who's next...?

Straight answer?
Me.
I sent my resignation letter in today. Last nights con call sealed the deal. The CRB was clear in their direction, and it's not what the members have told me they want. I work for the member, not against him.

Andy was lucky not to be on the call.

For those of you counting, in the past 3(?) months we have lost: Kirk Knestis..a guy with a PHD in policy. The ITAC is ALL about policy. Seemed like a perfect match. And Scott Giles. Honda expert and IT big picture guy extraordinaire. Andy Betterncourt: Great tightrope walker, and explainer of things unexplanable. Got the "big picture". And now me: All of us left, I think it's safe to say, not because we were too big for our britches, but because we believe that the CRB isn't in tune with our bosses, the members.

[JeffYoung]

Andy, Jake, many thanks for all the hard work.....

Not sure where I stand yet, don't want to make a too swift decision.

[benspeed]

Wow - if this doesn't send a message what does?

[Ron Earp]

Jake, thanks for all the work on behalf of us ITers. Again, I am sorry to another respected member resign but it is what it is. All of you fellows did a great job and I think IT is in a much better place due to your labors.

Now, focus on racing and enjoy IT for as long as you can before the CRB takes it some place where we all don't want it to go. All this really makes me consider if I want to build that next IT car or not. Maybe the Z is the end of my IT career.

[Knestis]

Straight answer?
Me.
I sent my resignation letter in today. ...

Hoo, boy.

When are those BoD elections again?

K

[mossaidis]

I will echo the same praises, issues and concerns raised here. To Ron's point (i.e. deaf SCCA ears and that IT <> SPU), it would be a sad day if we'll were all forced to make this decision.. go to NASA. I won't say anymore as this is a public forum.

[JoshS]

Andy, Jake, many thanks for all the hard work.....

Not sure where I stand yet, don't want to make a too swift decision.

I'm in the same position as Jeff. I will not make any swift decisions. But I will state that I think that things aren't NEARLY as broken as they have been portrayed, and that IT is by no means on a downhill slope.

It is much better due to the contributions of those who have left recently, mostly in the aspect of the process around the math. The math itself, which is causing a lot of angst, is just a small part of the story and there's plenty of room to come together on this.

[Ron Earp]

I But I will state that I think that things aren't NEARLY as broken as they have been portrayed, and that IT is by no means on a downhill slope.

You mean to say that a CRB that doesn't want the repeatable hp basis process, and is against transparency, isn't nearly as broken as we think? Those two items were at the core of what the ITAC has been trying to accomplish since I began with the SCCA in 2005.

Personally I think things are pretty bad based on those two factors alone.

[Eagle7]

But I will state that I think that things aren't NEARLY as broken as they have been portrayed, and that IT is by no means on a downhill slope.

It is much better due to the contributions of those who have left recently, mostly in the aspect of the process around the math. The math itself, which is causing a lot of angst, is just a small part of the story and there's plenty of room to come together on this.
Hmmm... That doesn't seem consistent with recent reports. The ITAC runs the process, recommends a weight, and the CRB publishes a different weight, with no documentation nor explanation. The CRB's weight, in many people's opinion, creates new inequities. So, the CRB does not accept the math, does not accept the procedures, does not support documenting their decisions, is unwilling to explain anything, and the result fails the smell test. Sounds pretty dismal to me.

[Knestis]

...It is much better due to the contributions of those who have left recently, mostly in the aspect of the process around the math. The math itself, which is causing a lot of angst, is just a small part of the story and there's plenty of room to come together on this.

I'm sorry, Josh, but the actual math is exactly *zero* of what I'm concerned about.

Now, was much of the angst among the CRB members and the few IT driver-members who voiced public objection to the "process" about the math, and about perceptions that the ITAC was "slave to the formula?" I think, YES. But that's only because they didn't - and still don't - understand the "process around the math," or what I call the Process with a capital P.

K

[Ron Earp]

and about perceptions that the ITAC was "slave to the formula?" I

Hell yeah!! As a scientist I want the ITAC to be slave to a repeatable process and throw out the rules of thumbs, witchcraft, and sorcery used by the CRB to class cars and make comp adjustments. This is IT, not prod.

Josh, how much worse could things get?

[rsportvolvo]

Frustrating situation.

Maybe voting on the upcoming BoD election and participating in NASA events will send a message to the club heirarchy.

[pballance]

Andy,Kirk and Jake, Thank you for your service. There is no doubt in my mind that each of you placed the overall well being of IT above your personal agenda and that you each tried to uphold the core values and beliefs of your fellow IT racers. It is a shame that other's have forgotten that a CLUB serves its members and when it no longer serves its' members it is NO LONGER A CLUB.

Thank you for trying.

Jeff, please do not leave, at least not yet. We still need a sane voice as a member of the ITAC even if your voice echo's in the hollowness of the position...........

Paul

[irondragon]

Andy B's resignation from ITAC is a real loss for Club Racing.

He and I have tangled over car weights in the past.
I am not the easiest person to convince, but Andy was always patient and entirely
diligent in the way he presented the procedures. Thank you Andy.

If ITAC efforts have just worn Andy out, I am not surprised.
My grumps and queries must have contributed.

I believe that the classification process is no longer working.
Not for lack of effort from ITAC and similar groups that hear from the car people.
These groups pass info, ideas and requests up to CRB and to BoD.

But somehow the decisions made high up don't seem to support the efforts of ITAC et cet.
No wonder Andy Bettencourt has resigned. Our Loss

When will SCCA create a classification process that is transparent , functional and easy to use??

Seems we are far from that.

Bill Miskoe

[StephenB]

This has been a devastating year for the Sports Car Company of America. These recent resignations is the end that I never expected and truelly a set back to our organization. I wish Andy, Jake, Kirk, and all the others that have contributed the best of luck. I know that I have challenged and questioned the decision's this past year and all I can say is THANK-YOU for the time and dedication you gave. I am sorry it ended this way for all of you and I encourage you to do what I did... walk away from the drama, stay quite, and remember why you started in the first place. INMHO SCCA is a lost cause but it is all we have for now. This is for fun and entertainment.

RIP the real ITAC that tried, and listened to the members you will be remembered and appreciated for a long time.

Stephen Blethen

[anthony1k]

For the benefit of those of us less knowledgable with this issues, can someone talk about some of the specific reasons that drove the recent resignation?

[RSTPerformance]

With the appointment of Dick P to the BOD I had hope that we might be heading in the right direction for the 2010 season. With the resignation of Andy and Jake adding to the already listed resignations this isn't good news. I strongly encourage all those whom have the opportunity to vote in new BOD members to do so. Find more people like Dick P.

Also write letters to EVERYONE. Get the CRB replaced with people that will listen to member input like Andy, Jake, Kirk and others have done for years.

Raymond "what do we do now?" Blethen

[RSTPerformance]

Who is on the CRB now???

[mossaidis]

Bob Dowie
Charles Fred Clark
Col Jim Drago
Jim Wheeler
Thomas C Start
Chris W Albin
David A Gomberg

[Bob Roth]

A couple of points,
1st - Andy is a standup guy, always willing to listen, great chair, appreciated his effort

2nd - Maybe the problem is we've made IT too difficult to regulate based upon only 5 classes. Here's a suggestion, lets make 10 or more classes so we can cluster cars more closely in similar configuration and potentials. Face it, none of us are racing for money and the world won't care if your champion of ITA or ITA1. I think a lot of grief would be avoided if we weren't trying to equalize a 1.6 Del Sol with a 2.5l BMW or a 1.8 type r with a V8 stang. With all the levels of prep, and ability of drivers its just to hard. When I started racing in '84, there were maybe 20 cars classified in a total of 3 classes. After 26 years of adding cars to IT, maybe its just too hard to get it right.

Go crazy, make separate spec miata 1.6 and 1.8 classes. Its not like the SCCA is going to go broke giving out more plywood 1st place trophies. With more classes having more closely clustered cars, it allows more cars to be competitive. It also makes cheating more apparent and it makes any CRB adjustments affect fewer cars in any class so less outrage. Bottom line, there would be fewer cars on the forum for sale for peanuts just because nobody can presently make them competitive. If IT is supposed to be fun entry level racing, why not let as many people win as possible? If people have a problem with this diluted competition, don't forget its entry level racing, go ahead, run prod....

[Matt Rowe]

I'll make my response short and sweet as I in the midst of packing for a trip.

First, I too have to echo the sentiments of so many here in their appreciation for the efforts of the ITAC over the last several years. Andy, Kirk and Jake have been very public proponents of a transparent process and they will be sorely missed but I also have to express thanks to everyone on the committee that has been fighting the good fight and hope they can carry on.

Second, this is a disturbing trend that we are seeing such high turnover in the group and certainly bears some further understanding.

Finally, and the reason for my packing, is I am off to Las Vegas for the national convention where the CRB, BOD and National staff will all be in one location. I would imagine I won't be the only one looking for some information/answers.

[JeffYoung]

Apprecaite the post, but totally disagree. This was not what is driving the issue, and having 20 classes with different multipliers, etc. would dilute fields, drive interest down and make our (the ITAC) life more difficult.


A couple of points,
1st - Andy is a standup guy, always willing to listen, great chair, appreciated his effort

2nd - Maybe the problem is we've made IT too difficult to regulate based upon only 5 classes. Here's a suggestion, lets make 10 or more classes so we can cluster cars more closely in similar configuration and potentials. Face it, none of us are racing for money and the world won't care if your champion of ITA or ITA1. I think a lot of grief would be avoided if we weren't trying to equalize a 1.6 Del Sol with a 2.5l BMW or a 1.8 type r with a V8 stang. With all the levels of prep, and ability of drivers its just to hard. When I started racing in '84, there were maybe 20 cars classified in a total of 3 classes. After 26 years of adding cars to IT, maybe its just too hard to get it right.

Go crazy, make separate spec miata 1.6 and 1.8 classes. Its not like the SCCA is going to go broke giving out more plywood 1st place trophies. With more classes having more closely clustered cars, it allows more cars to be competitive. It also makes cheating more apparent and it makes any CRB adjustments affect fewer cars in any class so less outrage. Bottom line, there would be fewer cars on the forum for sale for peanuts just because nobody can presently make them competitive. If IT is supposed to be fun entry level racing, why not let as many people win as possible? If people have a problem with this diluted competition, don't forget its entry level racing, go ahead, run prod....

[JoshS]

... [the CRB] doesn't want the repeatable hp basis process, and is against transparency ...

See, the problem is that everyone is taking these clear, black & white statements as true, but the world is just not that black & white.

Let's let this simmer down for a few days, please. I, for one, would rather try to be part of the solution, not the problem, and all of this rhetoric isn't helping ANYONE.

[lateapex911]

Finally, and the reason for my packing, is I am off to Las Vegas for the national convention where the CRB, BOD and National staff will all be in one location. I would imagine I won't be the only one looking for some information/answers.

I'm going to go out on a limb, and say, depending on how "in" you are will determine the answer. I think that some of the CRB feel we got "too big for our britches" and "went off the reservation" with some of our process based recommendations.

I can see that on a couple cars. They appeared to be "in the mix competition-wise", but they were underweight when the numbers were run. We probably made an error in recommending them at the process weight, and should have tabled it to explore them more closely, to dig further past the basic assumptions. Frankly, I thought we'd get a "Really guys? Can you dig deeper and do some research on this one" from the CRB if there was an issue.

Instead, the recommendation and others that were in line but related were put in a kind of limbo.

What came out of that period was the ITAC rolling out the 9 month polishing up of the process ("V.2.0")(see RRAX for an interesting discussion regarding that) and the converging distaste of the Process by the CRB. During that time we then were "shut down" on all such weight changes, being told that it was against the rules, then a month after I had drafted "thankyou for your input but the ITAC is not able to make changes to cars classed for more than etc etc" verbiage, (which never hit Fastrack) we were told that we should look at some of the cars we had just 'deprocessed".

I think that the two events became inter related, and the confluence caused the CRB to 'check up" and they felt that the "old school way" was the better option. The Process V2 tightened things up in ways, but was more open to outside evidence. it required a committee sign off to use though. The ITAC was strongly in favor of documentation, and every step through the procedure was voted on and roll calls were documented. We felt that having such standards would head off fears of the members that insiders could 'game' the system. On the other hand, the CRb was staring at a couple recommendations the "just seemed wrong". So the comfort zone was the old ways.

Now, if you are not in the "in" I suspect the answer will be more along the lines of: that we insisted on a too tightly structured process that had too little flexibility, and they thought it flat didn't work in rare cases, and could endanger class equity. That we didn't consider displacement, and that we based it on stock hp. And that we thought it had resolution down to 10 pounds.

We felt it had loopbacks to handle the situations that were unique, and that our members clearly wanted repeatable and transparent weight setting, and that if we ran the numbers on a car that resulted in a minor weight change, we just went with it, so that it would be in line from there on out. We also wanted "born on dating" in the GCR, but never got to that point...never even proposed it. And some of us wanted to publish it. (the process) I think that would have required a culture change though.

I could be wrong, but I think that presents both sides.

[jjjanos]

See, the problem is that everyone is taking these clear, black & white statements as true, but the world is just not that black & white.

Let's let this simmer down for a few days, please. I, for one, would rather try to be part of the solution, not the problem, and all of this rhetoric isn't helping ANYONE.

I beg to differ.

The weights on the newly classified cars are not repeatable.
The reason for the weights are not transparent and the CRB went out of their way to hide information.
Members of the ITAC are being told to choke the free flow of information by the CRB.

Repeatability and transparency is like virginity - it's a binary.

[Bill Miller]

This does not bode well for IT. It's becoming more and more obvious that the CRB wants an ITAC that really does nothing. They'd probably be just as happy w/o an ITAC, but organizationally, that doesn't work. What's going on, is that they're making things distasteful and unpleasent for those that won't fall in line, to the point where they will leave. Turns into a win-win for them (CRB). They get rid of what they see as the contrarians, and they don't have to remove them (which looks bad).

Kirk, Scott, Andy, and Jake, it really should not have gone down this way. But it's a classic example of why you can't fight city hall. The IT community has suffered a severe loss.

Jake,

I said this over in the sandbox, but I want to say it again here. I was wrong in my assessment of your motives, and I would like to apologize for the crap I've given you over the years.

I also said this over in the sandbox, and I think it needs to be repeated here. Why not move the whole IT deal to NASA? I'm pretty sure they would accept it with open arms. As others have mentioned, tell the SCCA how you feel with your checkbook.

I appreciate the sentiment regarding voting out the existing BoD. Problem is, I don't think the IT community has the political clout to get it done. Too small a group.

[RacerBill]

I will echo the same praises, issues and concerns raised here. To Ron's point (i.e. deaf SCCA ears and that IT <> SPU), it would be a sad day if we'll were all forced to make this decision.. go to NASA. I won't say anymore as this is a public forum.

NASA - sorry, but that's a really scary thought. The speed differential in some of their run groups is really something else!

[callard]

As deeply disappointed as I am over losing three extremely articulate and fair voices of reason, I don't believe that we should pick up our toys and run to another venue. We'd be abandonning our SCCA workers, sponsors, friends, spectators and local club leadership. Just because we're hurt or pissed. I, along with many others on this board, have been major or minor thorns in the sides of our ITAC members for a few years but they persevered and we admire them for it. Now we feel like we're victims of a massive layoff with no sayso in our future. After we have our wake, we should make an effort to communicate more often and more fairly and look for additional ways to improve the club in which they have invested so much effort.
Thanks guys, have fun racing!
Chuck

[RacerBill]

Andy, Jake, Kirk and Scott: I am EXTREMLY sorry to hear of your decisions to leave the ITAC! As others have said already, and I will repeat because it needs to be said, we may not have agreed 100% but you have always been honest, fair and willing to communicate, and had the best interests of the IT community at heart. It will be hard to fill your shoes (tires?). As Bill Miller said, this might play into the hands of the CRB, get rid of the 'trouble makers'. I just wish it could have been the other way around and we had worn down the CRB!

To the remaining members of the ITAC, a heartfelt thank you for all of your efforts, as well. We appreciate all the time and energy you spend for us.

Matt, good luck in Las Vegas. Us Shelby drivers have to stick together!

Well, I will go back to praying for some warm weather to continue getting the car ready.

[Ed Funk]

Dick Patullo (dickita) is the new BOD member from the NE Div, he's an IT guy. Maybe he can help from above re-direct the CRB. Dick, I know you're on the way to the National convention, but HELP!!

[betamotorsports]

Andy, Jake, Kirk and Scott - thank you for all your efforts on our behalf.

[lateapex911]

Dick Patullo (dickita) is the new BOD member from the NE Div, he's an IT guy. Maybe he can help from above re-direct the CRB. Dick, I know you're on the way to the National convention, but HELP!!

I called Dick to get his advice before resigning. I actually owe him a beer for his efforts to keep Andy on board. He's in the loop.

[lateapex911]

Jake,

I said this over in the sandbox, but I want to say it again here. I was wrong in my assessment of your motives, and I would like to apologize for the crap I've given you over the years.



Thanks Bill, I appreciate the gravity of that statement, and know it wasn't said lightly.
(I actually ran to the windows expecting to see pigs flying..;) )

[Knestis]

Cross-posted from the Sandbox...

K


* * *

Here's what the Process (Version 2) looked like back in August of 2009. The ITAC had just finished working through questions, and had "codified" what follows - committed it to written form. We were talking about if/how the information should be shared with the membership.

Step 1 - Research the manufacturer's quoted stock power and torque figures, determine the stock curb weight. Example - MkIII Golf = 115hp, 122 ft-lbs

Step 2 - Multiply the stock power by 1.25 (the "default power multiplier"). The product became the de facto "IT build power estimate," absent any evidence that a non-standard multiplier should be use. Example - 115 x 1.25 = 143.8

Step 3 - Run the initial math to rough the car in question into a class, using fixed weight multipliers, ranging from 11.25 in ITR to 18.8 for ITC. The product got called the "base weight." Example - 143.8 x 17 (ITB factor) = 2444#

Step 4 - Since it was possible (common actually) for a car to potentially be in one of two classes, we'd check to see if it was (1) plausible for it to reach the est. base weight in the faster class, and/or (2) if it were going to be a whale in the slower class. We generally tried to put it where it was the most natural fit but member input suggested to us that people would rather struggle with something that was tough to get to minimum, than drive a piggy (the ITC New Beetle theorem). Example - MkIII Golf 2 door plunks pretty well into ITB, albeit at a weight that's a little tough to get to without a minimal cage.

Step 5 (and this is VERY important) - At this point any committee member was empowered to propose a non-standard power multiplier be applied, if they believed 1.25 was not an accurate estimate of real-world IT gains. Evidence was collected, presented, and discussed - sometimes over a period of weeks or months - until an alternate multiplier was proposed.**

Step 6 (also VERY VERY important) - All committee members were polled INDIVIDUALLY, and asked for their "confidence" in the alternate multiplier, from 0% (no confidence at ALL in the evidence presented) to 100% - absolute confidence in the alternate option. All of this information was recorded internally, by member. This alternate multiplier only got used if it got essentially a mandate of confidence votes to move forward - we averaged them but I sure don't remember ever using an alternate number that had even ONE member voting way in the low numbers. (Note that I was NOT thrilled by this, being an orthodox adherent to the "pure formula" kind of approach, but we had heard from members that they wanted a safety valve, at which point the subjective [dare I say wisdom?] of the committee could be applied. This was a great compromise, in hindsight - allowing for adjustment but not manipulable by a few members.) Regardless, at this point, the real work was done... Example - it's not possible to fake this because it would require the committee working on it.

Step 7 - Apply the FWD "subtractor." Version 2 simplified and eliminated some previous adders/subtractors, on the logic that they had been - or could be - applied subjectively to diddle the outcome race weight. FWD cars got a break on a sliding scale (also a v.2 change) from 6% in ITR to ZERO in ITC. (Example - Golf in B would get a break of app. -49 pounds, at 2%)

Step 8 - Add/subtract the binary (yes/no) adders/subtractors - Mid engine (+50), live axle on a rear drive car (-50), DWB suspension (base was struts, +50). That's ALL. (Example - NA for the Golf III, lousy rear suspension was deemed to be a tiny issue on a FWD car.)

Step 9 - Judge the brakes and torque adders. We played with a lot of options between Sep 2008 and the spring of 2009, to try to get more sophisticated about these but member input suggested that added confusion without "discriminatory power," so we continued with chunks of weight added or subtracted (50 pounds) for particularly large or small (dimensionally) brakes, and for torque values substantially greater or less than other cars in the class. Torque adders/subtractors were different for each class (another v.2 change). Example - some suggest that the MkIII Golf should get a torque adder, so let's give it the ITB 50# chunk. It does pull like a mutha at places like the Climbing Esses at VIR...

DONE - at least as far as the ITAC's role went.

Our example Golf ends up at 2445 if I've done my math correctly - just about 100# heavier than the current ITCS weight.

The system as the ITAC defined it then refers the resulting weight - even if it's only a few pounds different than the current one - for a vote by the CRB. This was a really crucial v.2 change, the past (informal, unwritten) rule being that no difference smaller than 50# (or 100#, depending on who you listened to) would be considered by the CRB. (I believe that this was where the CRB had its first substantial seizure; when we referred the MkII Golf for a 10# change.) To be clear, the CRB should do what it wants with that recommendation - approve change, deny change, or change the change. Note here that these changes were being done under Errors and Omissions, so they did not require a BoD vote; they weren't "rule changes."

There you go. If there's something there that you don't like, point it out, but no fair making mis-characterizations about "just a formula," "no common sense," etc.

K

** "Evidence" could be any number of things but examples included documentation from engine builders, copies of dyno sheets, and examinations of physical characteristics of engines. Simple lobbying was not considered, nor were comparisons of on-track performance, finishes, wins, or lap times, simply because of our inability to control for the dozens of other factors that might influence those outcomes. Remember that everything was subject to the "confidence" vote, so crap was still crap in the eyes of the ITAC (e.g., hypothetical additive power resulting from multiple "mods"). EDIT - this is also where we considered issues like DIN HP ratings for older cars.

[ddewhurst]

Today I felt the need to return to the IT site. Since I moved to the dark side I don't frequent the IT site. Reading this thread saddens me way out there.

Andy, Jake, Kirk, Scott, thank you for the value you added to the IT world.

[mossaidis]

NASA - sorry, but that's a really scary thought. The speed differential in some of their run groups is really something else!

To clarify, I stated that it would a sad day if the only choice we had was to go NASA. Yes, NASA presents it's own pros and cons.

[dj10]

Can the ITAC still function with the remaining members & what do the remaining members think of all this?

[RSTPerformance]

Can the ITAC still function with the remaining members & what do the remaining members think of all this?

great question.... Would also like to hear from the remainng ITAC members...

Raymond

[JoshS]

great question.... Would also like to hear from the remainng ITAC members...

Raymond

See posts #17 and #22 in this thread for the initial (public) reaction from Jeff and me. Without speaking any further for Jeff, I will say that I need a little time to digest, and I need the chance to talk directly to our CRB liaisons, and that won't happen until after the convention.

But my gut feeling, hopefully to be clarified next week, is that things aren't as broken as some are making it appear. We shall see. Either way, I'll let you all know.

[dj10]

I'm not sure if I ever knew this but, how many ITAC members are there suppose to be?

[Ron Earp]

And how does a new Chairman get selected?

[JeffYoung]

Whoever has the biggest "cigar" in the smoky backroom....


And how does a new Chairman get selected?

[dj10]

Whoever has the biggest "cigar" in the smoky backroom....

Jeff, that has to be you!!:)

[Ron Earp]

He doesn't even smoke.

[RacerBill]

Then whoever has the biggest, fastest blackest helicopter!!!!!!!

Put my tongue right thru my cheek with that one!

[pfcs]

"Can the ITAC still function with the remaining members & what do the remaining members think of all this?"

It could work with only one member kissing asses. More would possibly be more efficient, but not worth the bother.
Yes! I'm more than cynical. Sorry aqbout these developments. One more nail in the coffin for IT.
Glad I was around for the golden years. Unforgettable.

[Catch22]

As I've said elsewhere and will continue to say, IT ain't dead yet.
Its fine right now. Much improved over the last few years. Some overdogs have been fixed and some cars that weren't being raced because their classifications were just plain wrong (Neons, Civics, etc) have been corrected. If anything, IT currently is better than it ever has been.
The problem is that my opinion is that the reason it is so good right now is because of what the ITAC has been doing, and that seems to be changing. This is where things start to get unfortunate.

But as an IT driver it'd be a very bad idea to toss the baby out with the bath water right now and start speaking of things like defections and protests. That will potentially hurt your own car counts and competitiveness. It's shooting yourself in the foot.
Write letters and talk to your CRB and BoD members instead. Let them know, in no uncertain terms, how you feel.

You guys are the boss. Remind them about that.

One thing that has really stood out to me over the past couple of days is how much you guys, the general IT public (at least a sample of it), understood what the ITAC has been doing. That wasn't a mistake, as being open and honest about what we were doing was something most of us embraced and pushed, and I think I speak for more than myself when I say this philosophical crossroad is the catalyst behind the recent resignations.
Some folks just don't seem to understand this. I'm not sure why.

Thanks for the kind words. All I can say is "We tried."
Sometimes the dog is stubborn and doesn't care about those new tricks.

[JeffYoung]

See above for a lot of truth.

Let me add a couple of things. When Jake, Kirk, Andy, myself and others would explain to the CRB that we really thought we were expressing the wishes of membership to the CRB when we focused on transparency and repeatability, and the use of a stock hp based Process, we often heard back that we didn't really know what membership wanted, that the internet forums were not representative of IT membership as a whole, and that we had created internet firestorms with our postings.

This is your chance to let the CRB know that is incorrect. Things aren't dead yet. There is a chance the ship could reverse course yet again. It is critical that if you believe in the process, and what Andy, Jake, Kirk, Scott, etc. were doing, -- write.

We say the club is about membership, and it absolutely is. But for that to mean anything, you have to express your opinion.

And if you know folks who wisely don't trol the internet as much as we do, but agree with what we are doing, get them to write in too.

I am hestitant to share this, but I am going to say that as I understand it, the BoD is paying attention to the situation and is listening to the volume of letters and calls it is getting on this issue.

Keep it up if you have a strong opinion about the Process.

Again, the CRB guys absolutely have the best interest of IT in mind. They just disagree, pretty fundamentally, with the "Process" guys on how things should proceed, and they do not think our perception that we have the support of membership is correct. There is nothing evil about that, nor should it, at this early juncture, in my mind result in a mass exodus from IT. The club still has time to set this right.

[RedMisted]

I just read this whole thread simply because the number of ITAC resignations is very alarming. My prior knowledge of the issues, disputes, processes, key figures, etc. was virtually non-existent because I'm new to IT (only been racing for two years), and really not into politics. But the whole ITAC-CRB-BoD thing has me thinking that I better get off my ass and behave like a MEMBER. Make my voice heard in the club's high places, and spread the "call to arms" to those in the IT community who normally do not engage themselves in club processes.

I'm really sorry about the current state of affairs and want to thank the former ITAC members for all their hard work. I really think we all need to allow our emotions to cool a bit and then proceed from there. If we, the members of the IT community, truly care about where things are headed, we'll find a way, no? After all, isn't IT the backbone of club racing? To my perception, the current "crisis" is just a battle, the whole war has yet to be lost. If the entirety of the IT community fails to impress upon the SCCA higher heirarchies the need to listen to US, then, dare I say it, perhaps we shouldn't deserve to see IT have a bright future...

[RacerBill]

A long time ago, when I worked for IBM in Indianapolis, whoever was in the office at lunch time would go out together. We had a rule about selecting a place to eat - after one place was suggested, no one was allowed to veto that location without offering an alternative. I believe that the CRB would be a lot more effective if they were to suggest an alternative to the process or at least tell the ITAC what they don't like about it, instead of just saying 'NO'.
I guess that comes under the general heading of 'communication', yes?

[JeffYoung]

Bill, to be fair to the CRB, they do have their view of how this should work, and they do give the ITAC a lot of free rein on that.

They just don't think accepting a process result based on stock hp and expected IT gain (adjusted by dyno data if we have it) is enough. They want us to then take the weight and see if it makes sense via on track observations and via comparison to other cars in the class (some of which may or may not have been processed).

Again, they have a valid position, it is just in fundamental disagreement with ours. We would accept the process result UNLESS we saw something entirely out of whack on track later on. They want the gut check to occur earlier, and to be based on on track results and other things that we are very fearful of.

[Ron Earp]

Sending this on in:

To Whom it May Concern,

I’ve only been a member of the SCCA for five short years, probably only a fraction of the time that some of you reading this letter have been in the club. Sadly enough, at forty years of age I might be considered a “young” member in the average race paddock. I received my racing license in early 2005 and since then I’ve owned three IT cars, built two of those from the ground up, and have had a hand in building four others. I typically compete in all the SARRC races within 350 miles of Raleigh NC and enjoy interfacing with IT racers in the paddock and online. I, along with fellow SCCA racer Jeff Young, authored the proposal that became the newest IT class, ITR. I’ve written other proposals that have been accepted into IT, such as the ITR Pony Car proposal, that resulted in V8 Mustangs and Camaros being classed in ITR. In fact I’ve already purchased my next IT donor, a 2002 V6 Mustang for ITR. Simply put I’m passionate about IT racing. For me, and many other SCCA racers I know, IT is our chosen destination within the SCCA.

I’ve recently been informed that the majority of the ITAC has resigned, including long-time member and chairman Andy Bettencourt along with Jake Gulick, Kirk Knestis, and Scott Giles. I feel that this is a major blow to Improved Touring and the events that led up to these resignations could have been avoided if the CRB was more receptive to the ITAC recommendations. While the Member --> ITAC --> CRB interface is not perfect, the CRB needs to understand that it is the best mechanism available for IT racers to voice their concerns.

I started racing in what many refer to as a dark time for IT, particularly for ITS. The 3 series BMW had been improperly classed in ITS and was dominating the SARRC races, even with zero-time rookie drivers. Many of the other IT classes were populated with cars that were mis-classified and there were numerous weight disparities if one examined the class structure with any scrutiny. With member input the ITAC took on the task of correcting these problems and over a period of a few years performed large scale reclassifications of IT cars. The reclassification was accomplished using a fairly simplistic process based on stock horsepower, expected gains in IT trim, and various weight modifiers that depend on certain attributes of the car.

The IT community as a whole was pleased with the new process and very satisfied with the results. With a few exceptions, the car classifications seem to be correct and the IT classes could now stand up to a critical scrutiny of classification weights. Car counts increased and more importantly, the IT fields were once again diverse. New cars were being built and the podiums were not populated by a single make.

However, the job the ITAC started was not yet finished. The classification process was being further refined and due to time constraints the ITAC had not been able to run all the IT cars through the first version of the process. During the realignment procedure the CRB made various statements that let the ITAC know it wasn’t vested in the process, did not want to use a process based on stock horsepower, and was not interested in making the classification process public knowledge. The position of the CRB directly opposed the ITAC’s objective, objectives they were carrying out on behalf of IT member input. During this time one ITAC member resigned and that resignation was followed by three more resignations within ten weeks.

The bottom line is that the IT community wants a classification process that is transparent and repeatable. To further define these to attributes:

Transparent – Any member can predict the IT weight of a vehicle using a published process. The process is available for members and the use of the process is documented for all currently classed IT cars. Only in rare circumstances will this process require modification to class a car.

Repeatable - The process would assign the same weight to any two cars with identical attributes.

The IT community is not interested in Prod-style weight adjustments rooted in on-track performance. We’re the grassroots of SCCA racing and we wish to have an open, repeatable, and stable rules set that is altered and tended to by the ITAC; an ITAC made up of active IT racers.

Let’s hope that we can all learn from this incident and get the CRB realigned with a new ITAC that has the best interests of IT at heart.

Thank you,
Ron
SCCA Member 345404

[RedMisted]

Bill, to be fair to the CRB, they do have their view of how this should work, and they do give the ITAC a lot of free rein on that.

They just don't think accepting a process result based on stock hp and expected IT gain (adjusted by dyno data if we have it) is enough. They want us to then take the weight and see if it makes sense via on track observations and via comparison to other cars in the class (some of which may or may not have been processed).

Again, they have a valid position, it is just in fundamental disagreement with ours. We would accept the process result UNLESS we saw something entirely out of whack on track later on. They want the gut check to occur earlier, and to be based on on track results and other things that we are very fearful of.

Jeff, if I read that right, the CRB wants to inject subjectivity along with the ITAC's formulas into the original classing process? If so, isn't that like putting the cart before the horse? My orientation is to advocate an acceptable formula and be consistent with it, and then if a change needs to be made for a car based on eventual on-track data, then MAYBE you can get a little subjective with an analysis..

[RedMisted]

Ron:
Thanks a million for your open letter. It was just what I was needing to see. A letter that very effectively sums up for relative newbies like me what this whole mess is about. I fully agree with your opinions. Maybe the system the way we had it, or may still have it, isn't perfect. But as you said, it did a remarkable job of getting much of IT straightened out in just a few short years. Again, thanks.

[924Guy]

Time to write your letter, Chris! ;)

Mine was posted in another thread, about changing the CRB membership. It was perhaps less direct than Ron's, but oh well.

One key point I think needs to be stated, following up on a key point of this discussion.

The CRB, as I understand it, wants to qualify the classifications and adjustments based on on-track results - which the ITAC, reflecting my opinion and the opinion of much of the IT community, at least online, does not agree with.

The reason qualifying and modifying classifications based on on-track performance does NOT make any sense for IT is specifically because IT is a Regional-only class. Comp Adjustments for other classes are based on Runoffs results. Those results presume the drivers and cars presented are at the top of the heap, and competing on a level playing field - same track, same time.

This situation does NOT exist for IT. At least not yet. Without opening the whole Regional-only/National can of worms, you simply cannot make these assumptions for IT.

Personally, I think this distinction is just as fundamental as the # of cars which the ITAC has to achieve parity among, if not more so.

[RedMisted]

The reason qualifying and modifying classifications based on on-track performance does NOT make any sense for IT is specifically because IT is a Regional-only class. Comp Adjustments for other classes are based on Runoffs results. Those results presume the drivers and cars presented are at the top of the heap, and competing on a level playing field - same track, same time.

Exactly what I was thinking. Driver skills, individual car prep levels, track environments, etc. can be all over the spectrum. So how could you ever measure these things to do car classification and competition adjustments, with IT being regionals-only racing?

[Andy Bettencourt]

So a combination of being out of town for work and letting the dust settle has had me pretty silent on the topic. Thanks to all who have shown support for the committee. Many ITAC member have given their persepctive, here is mine:

I hate seperating the Process into 2 'generations' like there was some sort of massive revamp. Simply not true. Other than moving from a fixed number for the FWD 'adder' to a %, the 'use 25% unless we actually know something', and the elimination of the transmission ratio and the generic 'other' adder, the base process was unchanged. I have a feeling the CRB really misses this point. It took us 6 months to get to where we got to. Lots of that time was used bouncing around many ideas that never got adopted like complex ways to try and do a torque adder and debating the merits of the computer modeling that we saw on how much and when does FWD come into play.

What was ADDED however, which also took a long time - because it's easy to DO but not easy to WRITE DOWN, what the proceedural documentation and the boundries for evidentiary standards. What we wanted to do was write this sucker down so it could be shown to anyone at any time - but ESPECIALLY a new committee member.

So we changed a couple WAYS of doing what we always did and we defined everything. We took out the slop. We made it neccesary to go on record and bring evidence to the table (that was voted on for acceptance) if there was something outside the norm (know what we know). It's like in grammer school when you had a test question and you just wrote down the answer because you knew it...but in a seperate section you had to SHOW YOUR WORK. This way the teacher knows you not only know the answer but knows that you know the concept and can get from A to B without any issues. When you show your work, you sometimes find that your initial answer was wrong - and you get a chance to fix it before you turn your paper in. You also have proven to your teacher that you probably didn't cheat.

New Process or old Process I will say this. Not even half of the CRB knew anything about it - EVER. We have 3 CRB members on virtually every call. They carried the torch to the CRB calls and since there are always more pressing issues in the SCCA-dom, I am 100% confident that the CRB rubber-stamped the then ITAC recommendations based on a nod from the liasons ok...because again, they knew NOTHING about the Process, trusted the other members, and knew nothing was really broken.

What really happened to set this in motion was a perfect storm of sorts.


Since the CRB operates mostly in a 'competition adjustment' and a 'let's take 100lbs off of it and see what happens' world, this is non-SOP stuff
When we defined everything, took out the slop and wanted to pin it down, they considered that to be too 'inflexible'
They are now looking at on-track performance as a much more serious 'gut check' than ever before. I have heard things like "We had one a few years back down here that was a rocket", "At that weight, it would ruin ITx", "Back when those cars were in SSx, they ran together fine", etc.
Ways of classing cars in other classes have crept into the CRB's heads as it pertains to IT. Displacement is a huge one.
Stock hp is suddenly so taboo we can't even talk about it. It has been at the very start of the process since day 1. Interestingly, it isn't really a 'product' we use in the calculation, just a starting point (estimated crank hp in IT prep is the number - and it is subjective, inexact and fixable should an issue occur)
So I am quick to point out that the Process has not created any true overdogs over the past years. The reasonable rebuttle to that is simple: What if the 1988 CRX was new today and you used the Process to class it. What would happen? Simple:

Since we live in a tuner, internet board and dyno age, we would already KNOW that the 108hp rating was BS. Stock whp was right in the 103-105 range. Not knowing anything, we would have backed that out to about 123 crank hp. Add 25% to that, run it through the rest of the set of checks and balances and you get a ITA racing weight of 2240lbs. Just 10lbs from where it is today using real dyno data. Lucky? Maybe. But we think we had a way to account for things like this in the estimations.

So again, the Process isn't exact. It can never be. But what it can be is documented, based in real data and transparent. I STILL submit that the majority if IT drivers would rather see an ITCS that makes sense and is 'equally wrong' than a cluster-fark of classifications that span the decades of techniques and methods - most of which have no historical backup.

In the end for me, the CRB not only disliked what were were doing from a 'slop removal' perspective but also was injecting influences into the consideration package like 'similar architecture, displacement and on-track results' that I personally was not comfortable with moving forward. I have always stood by the Process with a simple motto: "We know it's not exact, it will never be exact but as long as it's inexact the same for everyone, we can live with that because we are not trying to balance everyone on the head of a pin like other classes.". I have always solicited other ideas for classing cars and have been open to explain how we did it. 99% of the time, once it was explained, people got it. I look at NASA's PT rules every year hoping to see something I didn't before that can help me do better but that hasn't happened yet.

I really enjoyed my time on the committee and an very proud of what we had done. Darin got us 3/4 of the way there way back when and I though Kirk worked the last 1/4 really well. I just carried the bag for a few years. I am not opposed to going back on the committee at some time, but not under the current thought processes. Only because they don't mesh with mine and I have gone from positive influencer to detrimental roadblock. It's been about a 3 month decision process for me and it was time.

Thanks again.

[tom_sprecher]

It is obvious that some real thought and much time and effort went into the Process by individuals who cared about every aspect and impact it may produce. Many times an impass can not be breached when major philosophical differences block progress.

What is most unfortunate is the inability to acheive a consensus by either committee resulting in resignation of decades worth of experience. That is a damn shame.

[Greg Amy]

:golf clap:

[JeffYoung]

Ditto. That is about as clear as it gets. That is where we are.

[benspeed]

Well written, Andy.

[Butch Kummer]

My note to the CRB, BoD, and Terry Ozment (cross-posted from "Where the cool kids hang out"). And Andy, I'd STILL like to shake your hand some day...

= = = = = = = =

Fellow Members,

Since I don’t drive an IT car I was going to stay out of any discussion regarding the different viewpoints between the CRB and ITAC, but then I realized I’m the Competition Director for the region that hosts arguably the biggest Improved Touring race in the country (the ARRC by GRM). As such, I very much have a vested interest in the continued health of the IT category.

While I’m tempted to write “what Ron Earp said”, I’ll expand on that.

At the risk of oversimplification, my impression is the CRB wants to use on-track performance and “back room discussions” to assign weights to cars while the (former) ITAC wants to use a repeatable, published method to produce those numbers. In addition, the CRB is concerned about using factory horsepower ratings as a starting point to assign weights.

From my experience working closely with the IT community over the past five years:

• A majority of them (Ron says 80%, and I’ll not argue with that) really don’t care how weights are calculated; they just want the numbers to be (a) achievable and (b) relatively stable. They want to run what they already have and have a good time. For them, either philosophy is acceptable if it meets those criteria.

• Of the remainder, I truly believe the majority (included the recently retired members of the ITAC) want a published, repeatable, and consistent (i.e. – “fair”) method of determining what each configuration should weigh. These are the “serious” racers who will consider multiple platforms, run all of them through the process, and determine which direction to go based on their goals and the tracks they normally race on.

• I further believe that many of the criticisms about our club arise because decisions are NOT adequately explained to the membership. Reasonable people certainly can disagree, but if I openly explain the way I arrived at a decision then you can (a) agree with it or (b) point out facts that I might have missed and/or suggest flaws in my reasoning process. If I simply say “because I said so”, black helicopter theories abound. And as Jake Gulick has said many times, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”

• While manufacturer horsepower numbers can certainly be suspect, there exists within the proposed ITAC Process (capital “P”) ways to handle that. Rather than just spitting out a number that cannot be contested, there are multiple steps within the Process where numbers are examined for reasonableness (i.e. – reviewed based on “what we know”). And yes, some of “what we know” is based on a car’s observed performance at the ARRC.

In summary, a LOT of work by a lot of people that live and breathe IT went into the latest iteration of the Process. Earlier versions helped eliminate the BMW overdog that was killing participation in ITS and from my viewpoint IT has never been healthier than it is today. Tweak the Process if you wish, but let the ITAC finish their work in doing what the majority of the caring IT community really wants to have done.

Thank you for your consideration…

[lateapex911]

Yes, for the record, what Andy has described is the truth from my position.

I too was struggling with my decision to leave. I knew Andy was too. I begged him to stay, and he agreed to, to get a sense of the future direction. Could the ship be saved? things looked very bad, at least from our perspective, for the reasons outlined.

Andy had a major work meeting that took him out of town Sunday through I guess, today, and couldn't be on the Jan con call. I was less than thrilled to hear THAT Saturday, LOL. (Knowing I needed sharp minds and lots of them to try and impress our position on the CRB effectively.)

In the first 10 minutes of that call, I realized I was done, and Andy was lucky to have missed it. So, I can square Andy's thoughts and reasons for the impasse.

I was told, by the CRB chair, and I quote, "You'll never convince me that using stock HP is a valid starting point" (for any process), and "Don't waste your breath trying".

Um, well THAT's pretty clear!

Later, we went over a weight change we had submitted that had been rejected. The CRB contended our changes weren't needed. To support that contention they said:

CRB: "It races fine as it is"
ITAC counter: "How can you say that, nobody ever SEEs one race because they are known to run more competitively when converted to an ITB car!?"

or,
CRB "That car won the ARRC. (In 1994)
ITAC counter: silence. I think we hoped that was a joke.

then,
CRB: Provided other listings of 2.0L cars currently in the ITCS that were heavier, proving that the current weight didn't need adjusting.
ITAC counter: A- We don't know if those listings are current and correct, and B, Gee, MAYBE they are heavier because they have more power.
CRB restatement: "You're too hung up on power".

So, in the end, we were at an impasse, and the CRB told us to look at the car, come up with a recommendation that matched the listings in the ITCS.

Here's how I'd do that: I'd run the process on the car. That process puts cars at the designed performance envelope for the class. It matches the work we've done for all the other cars we've processed in the class. THAT in and of itself means it 'fits' the class.

To me, this exercise illustrated a 180 degree difference in philosophies:

-The ITAC has designed a process that shoots an arrow at a fixed target. Read carefully: It will nearly always miss. But, by using the same aiming methods, it will always be close, and will always miss consistently. It isn't open to subjectivity, politicking, or protectionism, and it clearly documents how we did what we did..

-The CRB wishes to place cars where they fit based on parameters that we don't think apply to IT, and does so by comparing them to listings that currently exist, and what they see and 'know'. In my eyes, this results in aiming at a moving target, and that will cause errors that will stack on top of each other, and put us, eventually, back to where we were in 1998. (And example is the recent reclass of the Corolla AE86 with the 1.6L 16V engine that the ITAC recommended at a weight of 2380, yet, when checking internal documents, was changed by the CRB to 2475. But no documentation as to why. I might think I know today, but one, or two years down the road, that information won't exist except as lore, and future ITACs will have a tough time making sense of it.)

So, Andys thoughts are, in my mind, spot on.

[lateapex911]

If the entirety of the IT community fails to impress upon the SCCA higher heirarchies the need to listen to US, then, dare I say it, perhaps we shouldn't deserve to see IT have a bright future...

Chris, I've read your posts, and you're very perceptive. I agree with all of your points accept this one.

Defining how they listen is tricky of course, but, keep in mind that the BoD, rightly or wrongly, probably doesn't want to get involved in this issue too deeply. On top of that, the CRB tends to all the other categories. IT, while WE think it is important, and one of the backbones of the club, is just another headache for the BoD and CRB guys.

I'd LOVE to think that the BoD hands down an edict of sorts, but my many years of involvement are skeptical, and I wouldn't conclude that we'll get the world we deserve based on our own actions.

(In other words, the big guys have shown the ability to ignore the members in the past...).

[ddewhurst]

Quote by Jake today.

***IT, while WE think it is important, and one of the backbones of the club, is just another headache for the BoD and CRB guys.

Quote by a CRB member June 2007

***FWIW, Regional race entries account for about 75% of all entries over the year.***


Maybe someone or MANY of us should remind the CRB & BoD that during 2007 75% of all road racing entries were Regional entries. I'll bet the entire numbers are similar today. Any impact the CRB/Bod have on Regional racing is a trickle down effect from National racing.

My 2 cents.

[lateapex911]

Quote by Jake today.

***IT, while WE think it is important, and one of the backbones of the club, is just another headache for the BoD and CRB guys.

Quote by a CRB member June 2007

***FWIW, Regional race entries account for about 75% of all entries over the year.***

Maybe someone or MANY of us should remind the CRB & BoD that during 2007 75% of all road racing entries were Improved Touring. I'll bet the entrie numbers are similar today.




Oh, I hear you DD, I just don't know if the BoD is going to get serious over what will be perceived as a "philisophical difference" between the CRb, and their 'employees".

Also, the BoD and the CRB actually see each other face to face, and have beers together at the bar. I'm thinking that it's hard to hate your neighbor, if he's a good guy, in spite of what you might be hearing about his philosophies.

Sadly, it's the way things work in the club.

I hope they actually read the letters, and call me. Or Andy, Or Kirk, or Scott. They'll get the SAME story. We're not making it up. But, I doubt the phone will ring.

[Ron Earp]

I was told, by the CRB chair, and I quote, "You'll never convince me that using stock HP is a valid starting point" (for any process), and "Don't waste your breath trying".

Then what the hell does he want to use?

It isn't 1969 and manufacturers aren't grossly underrating or overrating horsepower output depending on what they want to portray. SAE standards have been in effect since the mid 80s and recently became even more specific.

The use of factory rated horsepower sure beats the hell out anecdotal observations such as of "man, I saw one of those lay a wheel for 100 yards, they be fast" or "we had one of those down this way and it stomped the hell out of everyone".

If he doesn't like it then he needs to come up with something better. Pulling numbers out of a hat or basing everything on subjective track performance isn't better.

[tnord]

Then what the hell does he want to use?



displacement. valvetrain architecture. valve size/count. TB size. etc.

i'm not really saying that's the way to do it in a class with more significant mechanical restrictions like cams and TB......but it's not a completely random number.

[RedMisted]

Chris, I've read your posts, and you're very perceptive. I agree with all of your points accept this one.

Defining how they listen is tricky of course, but, keep in mind that the BoD, rightly or wrongly, probably doesn't want to get involved in this issue too deeply. On top of that, the CRB tends to all the other categories. IT, while WE think it is important, and one of the backbones of the club, is just another headache for the BoD and CRB guys.

I'd LOVE to think that the BoD hands down an edict of sorts, but my many years of involvement are skeptical, and I wouldn't conclude that we'll get the world we deserve based on our own actions.

(In other words, the big guys have shown the ability to ignore the members in the past...).

Jake: I agree with you, and I retract that statement. (Apologies to all.) It was made assuming that the IT community had a clear path to those in power to effectuate positive change. As you pointed out, and I should have remembered (hey, I'm a relative noob), there's competition from other sectors of SCCA for the attention of the BoD and CRB. IT members DO care, so IT deserves to prosper, whether under the SCCA umbrella or some other organization.

[JeffYoung]

It probably works great in GT or Prod where cams and other items are free.

It does NOT work in IT where a 1.8 Acura motor with a good head, and good engine management, etc. makes 185 whp and a 2.6 inline six old skool Datsun motor makes 175 whp.

We have too many limitations on the older motors for this to work.


displacement. valvetrain architecture. valve size/count. TB size. etc.

i'm not really saying that's the way to do it in a class with more significant mechanical restrictions like cams and TB......but it's not a completely random number.

[Greg Amy]

...but it's not a completely random number.
Uuuuuh, yes it is. Read what Jeff wrote ^^^

Compare the I.T. % improvements vs. stock rated horsepower on a Nissan SR20DE engine (2.0 liters, 4-valve, DOHC) to a Honda KA20 (2.0 liters, 4-valve, DOHC) to a Ford Focus SVT (2.0 liters, 4-valve, DOHC). For example. Basing I.T. weight simply on things such as you describe is pure folly. Thinking otherwise displays a distinct ignorance of automotive engineering...and I chose that word quite carefully...

But, hey, go for it. At least it'll make for some interesting entertainment...

GA, simply drooling for when cars like the above are classed in I.T. at the same "process" weight...

[RacerBill]

Bill, to be fair to the CRB, they do have their view of how this should work, and they do give the ITAC a lot of free rein on that.

They just don't think accepting a process result based on stock hp and expected IT gain (adjusted by dyno data if we have it) is enough. They want us to then take the weight and see if it makes sense via on track observations and via comparison to other cars in the class (some of which may or may not have been processed).

Again, they have a valid position, it is just in fundamental disagreement with ours. We would accept the process result UNLESS we saw something entirely out of whack on track later on. They want the gut check to occur earlier, and to be based on on track results and other things that we are very fearful of.

Jeff: Thanks for your comment. Until your post, I was not aware that the CRB had come back to the ITAC with recommended changes. And I agree with the majority of posts that the level of subjectivity that the CRB seems to want is not what we feel is in the best interests of the IT class.

I held up on my reply to you until I had read all of the posts that followed, to make sure that I had as much information as possible. I agree with all the letters that have been posted here, and applaud their authors for their wordsmith skills. I hope that the CRB and the BOD finally realize that something is broken. Our volunteers should be retiring because they feel that they have filled their mission sucessfully, not because they feel that they are butting their heads against a stone wall.

I also read in these posts that the CRB has rejected stock horsepower as a starting point for determining a car's class and weight - but, again, they seem to have neglected to give us an alternative for us to consider. Brings me back to my point about not rejecting someones idea or point of view unless you can propose a better one. Just 'No' without an explaination is not an answer.

That said, I hope to have the time to compose a well thought out letter to the BOD and CRB in the near future.

At the same time, please let me state that I am firmly committed to the Improved Touring class as my chosen class for competition. My competition was severly restricted in 2009 due to a reduction in jobs at my last employer, and it was with great difficulty that I was even able to obtain a replacement engine late in the season (still unemployed, BTW). But we are looking forward to a great year in 2010.

Thanks to all who have posted here. The last two pages have brought to light a lot of valuable information about the situation.

[JoshS]

I also read in these posts that the CRB has rejected stock horsepower as a starting point for determining a car's class and weight - but, again, they seem to have neglected to give us an alternative for us to consider.

The alternative is what happens in most of the rest of the club -- a new car is proposed for listing, it's "matched" using what the committee knows about it compared to existing listings, and it has a weight assigned so that the new car appears to fit in with the existing listings. If it turns out it's wrong, then it gets adjusted later.

It's not scientific at all, but the comp board, and then later the CRB and most of the ACs, have used that approach since the beginning of time.

Note that I'm not defending it, just merely trying to explain it. I'm a fan of what's been going on for the last few years. I also think all is not lost with respect to classing based on stock HP, but we'll try to figure that out next week.

[Z3_GoCar]

Andy, Jake, Kirk, and Scott, thank you for your service on the ITAC. It's sad to me that the only option is to walk away from something you've spent so much time working on.

Jake, I have to wonder about your signature block. When are you resigning, at the end of this year?

[Ron Earp]

I also think all is not lost with respect to classing based on stock HP, but we'll try to figure that out next week.

What's going on next week that is going to change this attitude?


[From Jake's post quoting the CRB]
I was told, by the CRB chair, and I quote, "You'll never convince me that using stock HP is a valid starting point" (for any process), and "Don't waste your breath trying".

[Knestis]

displacement. valvetrain architecture. valve size/count. TB size. etc.

i'm not really saying that's the way to do it in a class with more significant mechanical restrictions like cams and TB......but it's not a completely random number.

We tried that years ago, and it just wasn't repeatable. (I think that the closest we got was total exhaust valve area, by the way.) Trust me - "physical attributes" was my mantra because they can't be fudged, but we kept running into wingers, to the degree that we had more exceptions than rules.

BUT that's honestly not the real issue.

Regardless of what establishes the baseline, there's still got to be some system in place to allow for subjectivity. (Jeebus - am I actually saying this?) If that process is one CRB member pulling a number out of the air based on what he thinks Model X is going to do on the track compared to Models A, B, and C, then THAT is wrong. Unless of course, the record is going to reflect that he made that decision.

If a "physical attributes" model gets developed and published, then maybe. But I have a fear that what will happen is someone will pick and choose how they consider these attributes, in order to make them line up behind a preconceived notion of what a given car should weigh.

Prove me wrong...?

K

[tnord]

my point was not to try and show there was a better way of doing it, but that there is some reasoning and history in other classes of those classification approaches working, and that the CRB isn't a bunch of complete idiots.

like it or not, the ITAC has to work with the CRB rather than campaign against it.

[JeffYoung]

I agree with both of those sentiments but would also suggest that a focus on either an engine architecture or displacement based calculation shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the class.

If the idea is that "all 2.0 4V motors should be classed the same" and "2V inline six motors should be classed the same" then we have a problem. See examples above.

I mean, do we really think the 2.5 ITA Triumph motor will make the same as the 2.4 Datsun motor and the 4.2 liter Jeep motor? All 2V inline sixes, and of them, the LOWEST displacement one is going to make the most power by far due to cams, induction, head design, etc.

[tnord]

i agree jeff.

although i would like to explore the idea of de-listing any vehicle that hasn't been raced in maybe 5yrs....at which point maybe some of these currently unworkable methods become more feasible.

[Eagle7]

Then what the hell does he want to use?
...
If he doesn't like it then he needs to come up with something better. Pulling numbers out of a hat or basing everything on subjective track performance isn't better.
I think the principles and methodology that the ITAC has developed is absolutely essential. Somehow we've got to get the the CRB to buy into it. Maybe if they have a hand in developing it they'll begin to appreciate it. We probably need to lock the CRB & ITAC in a room for a weekend and let them hash it out. My guess is that the CRB never even tries to look at the big picture of 300+ cars. They always just focus on the one or two of current interest, so they don't realize how much inconsistency they're creating.

I've been wondering if there is room for compromise here. Based on the reports we've gotten, this could probably never happen, but in a perfect world, the CRB could/should provide the "correct" factors to account for in an adjusted calculation. Then a sampling of cars could be run through the new Process (capital P) and subjected to the smell test. Grade the results of various permutations of calculations and pick the one that seems most consistent.

[Ron Earp]

I think the principles and methodology that the ITAC has developed is absolutely essential. Somehow we've got to get the the CRB to buy into it.

Seems like a stretch to think they are going to buy into the ITAC process. But the weak arguments they might use against it though are simply not good enough:

"We've never done it that way"

"We've been doing this for 40 years, we know what we're doing"

"Our method works great for National classes, it will work for IT"

"We didn't agree to the ITAC process"

Arguments along those lines are mote. Why?

Because last time I checked the SCCA was a club. And if IT drivers decide we're going to do X via the ITAC then the CRB better damn well get with the program and push to get X done. Otherwise they'll find a lot of their grassroots core membership racing in other venues and clubs. There shouldn't be any compromise with the CRB as the ITAC should be calling the shots for what happens withing the IT framework.

All the IT racers mandate white cars for 2011? Then they should be white, not a compromise gray from CRB input.

I'm sure the CRB will always pull the "the ITAC can't know what all racers think" out of the hat. That excuse is used in all sorts of discussions involving a population. It is going on right now in Wake County/Raleigh with the new school board. But you know, you can't ever know what 100% of a population wishes. All you can do is use the methods available to you to sample the population and move on. In this day and age that is done via internet forums and email communication. Sorry, if you're an IT racer and not involved enough with the IT community to have a read on the interwebz from time to time, well, I doubt you're that passionate about IT racing.

[Knestis]

my point was not to try and show there was a better way of doing it, but that there is some reasoning and history in other classes of those classification approaches working, and that the CRB isn't a bunch of complete idiots.

like it or not, the ITAC has to work with the CRB rather than campaign against it.

You may be confusing "being critical of CRB actions" with "campaigning against it." And when that criticism is driven by a fundamental disconnect between what the membership describes as its priorities and what a small number of CRB members want? Well, I made my choice, I guess...

And "idiots" was your word.

K

[tnord]

you're right, idiot was my word. they have been called worse as of late.

[JeffYoung]

Marty, I'd say that most of what you suggest has already been tried.

It was before my time, but the first time the process was used on a batch of cars (the "Great Realignment"), the history as I understand it was this:

-some resistance from the BoD/CRB to the use of a process to fix some inequities in IT caused by the old curb weight/minus classing method.
-ITAC develops the "Miller ratio" power to weight formula.
-CRB sees merit to idea and helps ITAC shepard the process through acceptance by the BoD (many thanks to the CRB members on that, including -my understanding- Bob Dowie who really supported what the ITAC was doing)

So, we've used the process on a select group of cars (the bogey cars for each class and the most popular models) and guess what? Over the last few years it has worked. ITS/A/B, the racing is great.

CRB accepted, at the time, the stock hp/IT gain formula, allowed it used on a decent sized group of cars, and advocated its use to the CRB.

Two things happened. We (the ITAC) then turned to how to deal with using the process on other cars in the ITCS. Several schools of thought:

a. Do all cars (herculean task, with a lot of pitfalls because we don't know much about many of the unraced and unloved as Jake calls them).
b. Do only requested cars (I think this was becoming the consensus).

However, we decided to try to do all of ITB to see how that worked. I think the CRB was on board with this. We started the process but never finished before things shut down.

So it goes...

Travis, the best idea on how to deal with older cars I've heard comes from Josh (Sirota). Basically, if a car has not been raced in a period of time, leave it on the ITCS but remove its weight with a note that if someone wants to build one, they can request a weight classificatio and then we process it.

I like that solution a lot. It leaves the cars on the ITCS so that oddballs still have the opportunity of being built (and it happens a lot), but allows us to deal with them process wise on a case by case basis.





I think the principles and methodology that the ITAC has developed is absolutely essential. Somehow we've got to get the the CRB to buy into it. Maybe if they have a hand in developing it they'll begin to appreciate it. We probably need to lock the CRB & ITAC in a room for a weekend and let them hash it out. My guess is that the CRB never even tries to look at the big picture of 300+ cars. They always just focus on the one or two of current interest, so they don't realize how much inconsistency they're creating.

I've been wondering if there is room for compromise here. Based on the reports we've gotten, this could probably never happen, but in a perfect world, the CRB could/should provide the "correct" factors to account for in an adjusted calculation. Then a sampling of cars could be run through the new Process (capital P) and subjected to the smell test. Grade the results of various permutations of calculations and pick the one that seems most consistent.

[tom_sprecher]

Having not read or heard from the other side of this soap opera I have a couple of questions to ask before I think about writing any letters to the CRB or BoD.

Was the Process something the CRB tasked the ITAC with?
If so, did the CRB work with the ITAC to develop the Process guidelines?

If both answers are yes, then the ITAC needs to work with the CRB to see that objective to its end.

If both are no, then what did you expect and what was achieved by resigning?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Having not read or heard from the other side of this soap opera I have a couple of questions to ask before I think about writing any letters to the CRB or BoD.

Was the Process something the CRB tasked the ITAC with?
If so, did the CRB work with the ITAC to develop the Process guidelines?

If both answers are yes, then the ITAC needs to work with the CRB to see that objective to its end.

If both are no, then what did you expect and what was achieved by resigning?

The CRB worked with us to develop the Process. The CRB rubber stamped Process-based additions and changes to all IT classes for years. The CRB has recently had a fundamental shift in what to look at when classing cars that is outside the comfort zone of some of the members, like me.

So when I came to realize that what once was is not anymore, and I didn't agree with it nor thought it represented what the members want, I stepped down to make way for volunteers that did.

[tom91ita]

i think the feeling i have with SCCA BOD/CRB mirrors my feelings with what is happening with our country's politics.

i feel that no one is in touch with the members/citizens and some policy decisions are not based on what is needed but is based on agendas.

the ITAC is irrevelant when the CRB can trump them and the CRB is just as irrevelant since the BOD trumps them (e.g., H&NR).

i should finish my note this weekend. i am trimming out some of the sarcasm but since logic has not worked with the last few letters, i think i might as well not try that route this last time and ~50% of the sarcasm will remain.

[tom_sprecher]

Thanks, Andy. Sorry about the soap opera comment, but this sounds a lot like what my wife as President of the PTA is going through with the Principal.

[JoshS]

What's going on next week that is going to change this attitude?

[From Jake's post quoting the CRB]
I was told, by the CRB chair, and I quote, "You'll never convince me that using stock HP is a valid starting point" (for any process), and "Don't waste your breath trying".

Next week, I'm going to waste my breath.

[lateapex911]

i agree jeff.

although i would like to explore the idea of de-listing any vehicle that hasn't been raced in maybe 5yrs....at which point maybe some of these currently unworkable methods become more feasible.

????

That phrase assumes that we have unworkable methods.
We don't. Really. The 5 years of history show that we're on to a pretty good system. And we have escape valves should it get out of control.

Certainly, eliminating cars makes our job easier...but right now, our approach and results have been a clear success, and have huge member support.

The members are the bosses, the judges and the benefactors.

I said it in my resignation letter:


I am an active IT racer, and make it a point to travel around the country, as work and finances permit, to race and talk to other IT races about the state of the IT category. I work for them. We ...all of us who serve on committees in the club... from the BoD to the race chair at a Regional race, work for the member.
They are the ultimate "boss". Ultimately, I...all of us...answer to them.

I've been to California and New Hampshire, Georgia and Ohio, New York and Virgina. And many more. It is my unwavering belief through those trips and my daily interaction with IT racers, that they want and deserve several key items:



Our members want a category that treats all cars with the same yardstick.
They want honesty and transparency from their committee people, and processes.
They want consistency over absolute accuracy every time.
They understand that our category encompasses 300 cars, with wildly variable makeups, and balancing all on the head of a pin is impossible.
They accept that overdogs may arise, and are satisfied with our promise to look into the numbers and issues should that happen, and correct when the cause is identified. In the 5 years or so since we've been using 'the Process" that has never occurred.
They love that "the process" helps the previously misclassed and underdog cars that languished at wrong weights previously.
They love that we pay little heed to the "no guarantee of competitiveness" clause in the ITCs, but that we try harder, and never trot that out as an excuse when it would be the easy out.

The core philosophies are outlined in the first 5 lines. Our process utilizes stock hp as a starting point,as many factors affecting hp can not be changed in an IT build. It goes on to further fold in other elements of the car, suspension, etc, and predicts IT build horsepower. This system is what the members know, understand and support.

In short, the ITAC has, over the past 5 years or so, won over the most ardent critics and has the support of the racers in record numbers. That's rare in this club.

The ad hoc committees were, I was told, to be the heavy lifters, and the 'men on the ground". They were to be the experts in the category and were charged with knowing their ruleset and members. The ITAC formed it's methods and philosophies based on that charge. It has been explained to me that the CRB does not currently support the ITACs core philosophies, methods and directions. The methods the CRB has been utilizing recently are inconsistent, and are at odds with many of the core principals the IT racing members hold as cornerstones. I respect the CRBs intentions, and their rights and reasoning, but I feel that ultimately, I need to answer to the member, and be able to answer him honestly. I feel that I can't do that now.

The system isn't broken, and I'm not on board with the major shift of the CRBs position. Andy made excellent points.

[Knestis]

A HUGE part of the problem here is that there exactly no consistency in what each participant in the conversation means when they say "process." I've tried to be as explicit as I can, trying to use the proper noun if you will - Process - only to refer to what the ITAC was doing in the period between approximately Jan-Aug 2009.

Even when I first started on the committee, it was wobbly.

It's clear in hindsight that the CRB did *not* task us with pushing the "transparent and repeatable" pieces as far as we did. They tacitly went along with the ITAC making "corrections" under E&O for quite a while, clear to me over the first 12 months of my participation.

Do note though, Tom, that there are NO prescribed systems in place by which any of the ad hoc committees derive the recommendations that they make to the CRB.

As far as what was accomplished by resignation? I can't speak for anyone but myself but for me, it was a matter of being backed into a corner. I was directed to not participate in web board discussions like this, by a CRB member (ostensibly representing the entire Board), through Andy. I was absolutely not going to agree to that, but I wasn't going to ignore it either. Believe it or not but I quit out equal parts (1) an idealist's view that I owed it to members to not be a hypocrite about transparency, and (2) a desire to not leave Andy stuck between the messenger and me.

K

[tnord]

????

That phrase assumes that we have unworkable methods.


easy muchacho.

i meant methods like using displacement are currently unworkable, but with the elimination of cars people don't race anyway.....they just might be.

to no one in particular - no matter what method you come up with, they're all going to have issues, including the ever popular process. reasonable people can disagree on what constitutes acceptable risk.

[Catch22]

The main issue here, REGARDLESS of who says what and where, is that something that was fine for 5ish years suddenly was unfine late last year. Further, nobody has produced a better idea OR proven why what was being done was wrong.

Don't believe me? Go pull some fasttracks. Its in there in black and white.
The ITAC has been classifying and changing classifications BASED ON STOCK RATED HORSEPOWER for years. This is a plain old fact.
Fact fact factity fact fact fact.

And suddenly this is unacceptable?
Really?

OK. So what IS acceptable?
Well, there really hasn't been a straight answer to that one yet. And good luck getting one.

Finally, as a Honda guy... Sure. Go right ahead an classify cars by displacement. I think thats a GREAT idea.
Except thats not exactly how it works. Is it?
If we classified strictly by displacement the ITA CRX would suddenly be about 150lbs under weight. So I guess we'll classify by displacement and then add some arbitrary "Honda Weight" because we "know" it needs it.

Oh yeah. Thats a crapload better than using stock horsepower.
:happy204:
:023:

And it just continues to baffle me how some folks can on the one hand argue that IT is strong and better than ever and then on the other dismiss the actions and principles of the group that MADE IT THAT WAY.

Just... Just...
Wow.
Its a colossal pile of FALE.

[Bill Miller]

And it just continues to baffle me how some folks can on the one hand argue that IT is strong and better than ever and then on the other dismiss the actions and principles of the group that MADE IT THAT WAY. Read that again and let it sink in a bit more.

[Eagle7]

Just sent this letter, with a follow-up letter to my BOD rep who is the CRB laison.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I wrote to you in September to express my support for the Improved Touring classification process that had been implemented by the ITAC. Since then I have been dismayed to see that the CRB's actions have been to ignore this process, rather than to embrace it. We have seen cars' weights set with apparently arbitrary rationale, inconsistent with cars with virtually identical attributes, with no explanation nor documentation. Reports are that key member(s) of the CRB categorically reject some of the fundamental principles of the process that the ITAC has developed. This has led to mass resignations by ITAC members, which in my judgment is a travesty, and a great loss to the SCCA and to the Improved Touring category.

I have come to the conclusion that SCCA Club Racing has grown larger than one group can effectively administer. I ask that the BOD transfer official responsibility for administering all Improved Touring specific classifications and rule changes to the ITAC. The reason I believe this is important is that Improved Touring is fundamentally different than every other category in SCCA Club Racing. It is composed of more than 300 spec lines manufactured over nearly a 40 year time span. These cars only compete at a regional level, so there is never an opportunity to “level the playing field” based on direct on-track observations such as the June Sprints or the Runoffs. The ONLY way that I can see to manage this category is through a system which calculates weights based on documented physical attributes of the cars, with adjustments to the calculations only permitted when supported by documented evidence. This is the process that the ITAC has developed, and which over the course of the last few years has corrected many of the arbitrary misclassifications of the “bad old days”. IT has seen a resurgence because of those corrections, but now that seems to be threatened by the CRB's return the the methods of the “bad old days”. Methods which may work effectively for all other categories, but do not work for IT.
Key tenants of the ITAC process are that all classification decisions are vetted by confidence votes of the entire ITAC membership, all evidence and decisions are documented, and they were working hard to reach the point where all could be published. These are principles that have been repeatedly demanded by the IT community via the ImprovedTouring.com forum and other internet forums. If our SCCA administrators do not heed the wishes of their membership, then one (or both) of two outcomes is inevitable – either the administrators are replaced by those who are listening or the members choose not to participate. PLEASE take action on this issue.

Thank you for your service to our club,
Marty Doane
#321263
WMR GLDIV
ITS RX-7 #13

[Ron Earp]

Good letter Marty. It is direct and to the point. Make sure you also send it to [email protected] and [email protected].

If your unhappy with the recent CRB/ITAC situation and have not written a letter, then please take the time to do so.

[iambhooper]

Cross-posted from the Sandbox...

K

* * *

Step 1 - Research the manufacturer's quoted stock power and torque figures, determine the stock curb weight. Example - MkIII Golf = 115hp, 122 ft-lbs

Step 2 - Multiply the stock power by 1.25 (the "default power multiplier"). The product became the de facto "IT build power estimate," absent any evidence that a non-standard multiplier should be use. Example - 115 x 1.25 = 143.8

Step 3 - Run the initial math to rough the car in question into a class, using fixed weight multipliers, ranging from 11.25 in ITR to 18.8 for ITC. The product got called the "base weight." Example - 143.8 x 17 (ITB factor) = 2444#

Step 4 - Since it was possible (common actually) for a car to potentially be in one of two classes, we'd check to see if it was (1) plausible for it to reach the est. base weight in the faster class, and/or (2) if it were going to be a whale in the slower class. We generally tried to put it where it was the most natural fit but member input suggested to us that people would rather struggle with something that was tough to get to minimum, than drive a piggy (the ITC New Beetle theorem). Example - MkIII Golf 2 door plunks pretty well into ITB, albeit at a weight that's a little tough to get to without a minimal cage.

Step 5 (and this is VERY important) - At this point any committee member was empowered to propose a non-standard power multiplier be applied, if they believed 1.25 was not an accurate estimate of real-world IT gains. Evidence was collected, presented, and discussed - sometimes over a period of weeks or months - until an alternate multiplier was proposed.**

Step 6 (also VERY VERY important) - All committee members were polled INDIVIDUALLY, and asked for their "confidence" in the alternate multiplier, from 0% (no confidence at ALL in the evidence presented) to 100% - absolute confidence in the alternate option. All of this information was recorded internally, by member. This alternate multiplier only got used if it got essentially a mandate of confidence votes to move forward - we averaged them but I sure don't remember ever using an alternate number that had even ONE member voting way in the low numbers. (Note that I was NOT thrilled by this, being an orthodox adherent to the "pure formula" kind of approach, but we had heard from members that they wanted a safety valve, at which point the subjective [dare I say wisdom?] of the committee could be applied. This was a great compromise, in hindsight - allowing for adjustment but not manipulable by a few members.) Regardless, at this point, the real work was done... Example - it's not possible to fake this because it would require the committee working on it.

Step 7 - Apply the FWD "subtractor." Version 2 simplified and eliminated some previous adders/subtractors, on the logic that they had been - or could be - applied subjectively to diddle the outcome race weight. FWD cars got a break on a sliding scale (also a v.2 change) from 6% in ITR to ZERO in ITC. (Example - Golf in B would get a break of app. -49 pounds, at 2%)

Step 8 - Add/subtract the binary (yes/no) adders/subtractors - Mid engine (+50), live axle on a rear drive car (-50), DWB suspension (base was struts, +50). That's ALL. (Example - NA for the Golf III, lousy rear suspension was deemed to be a tiny issue on a FWD car.)

Step 9 - Judge the brakes and torque adders. We played with a lot of options between Sep 2008 and the spring of 2009, to try to get more sophisticated about these but member input suggested that added confusion without "discriminatory power," so we continued with chunks of weight added or subtracted (50 pounds) for particularly large or small (dimensionally) brakes, and for torque values substantially greater or less than other cars in the class. Torque adders/subtractors were different for each class (another v.2 change). Example - some suggest that the MkIII Golf should get a torque adder, so let's give it the ITB 50# chunk. It does pull like a mutha at places like the Climbing Esses at VIR...

DONE - at least as far as the ITAC's role went.

Our example Golf ends up at 2445 if I've done my math correctly - just about 100# heavier than the current ITCS weight.

K

Let me try this on the ITB CRX SI... Stock HP number is quoted as 91 91*1.25=113.75... 113.75*17 (ITB factor)=1934... 2% FWD subtractor=1934-39lbs=1895... yes your car pulls well in the uphills, I'll add 50lbs just to be nice... 1895+50=1945lbs.... 1945lbs?! WTF :blink: Even at the 30% factor I come up with a weight of 2021 lbs... far less than the 2130 lbs in the GCR.

So what gives? Hating on Honda's?

Having gone blind reading the thread on the other forum, I'm glad I plan to build (or buy) my next car to run in other series as well as ITS/ITR.

hoop

[Catch22]

Real quick, and please don't let this derail the overall discussion here...

The ITB Civic/CRX Si is a 35% car. If the ITAC were classing that car tomorrow it'd be done at 35%. The reason for this is simply that we have a PILE of dyno data, from different sources, that says the car can put about 105hp to the wheels on a dynojet.
I have one in my garage right now. Totally IT legal drivetrain. 35% gain over stock.

If YOU don't have 35%, try harder.

This is where what the ITAC was doing WORKS. It's not arbitrary numbers whipped out of the air. It was data, with a confidence vote, written down and recorded for reference.

What the ITB Civic/CRX should weigh is ~2050lbs. And if the ITAC had been allowed to keep going thats what it very very likely would have eventually weighed.

Don't feel bad. IIRC the ITB Porsche 914 is about 130lbs too heavy, and yeah, we had the dyno sheets to back that up.

Too bad... Those are two cars that should be competing but aren't because they are still carrying weights from a time when minimums were assigned... Uhhhh... The way the CRB wants to go back to doing it now.
AWESOME!!!!

Now... Back to the original discussion.

[lateapex911]

I have to say this. Read above.

Those who know Scott might remember a different guy a year ago. One of the ITACs 'benevolent critics', you might say. Now? It's a far different tune.

If we turned HIM around, well, we MUST have been doing ok!

[iambhooper]

35% gain over stock.

If YOU don't have 35%, try harder.

Tips? :D Or can I just send you my car... kinda like training a dog! (actually, we are "close")

sorry to digress...
hoop

[Catch22]

Actually Jake my criticism was for the 45% on the ITB Civic DX. The car that was "supposed" to have been fairly processed but came out mysteriously 130lbs too heavy.

Now I know how that happened, and its pretty much exactly the same crap thats happening NOW that caused that. So in reality my criticisms weren't of the ITAC unless it was for letting it happen. And since that was before my time on the committee I still don't know all the nasty details of that one and frankly don't care to.

But its a perfect example (as are the earlier CRX/Civic and the 914) of how badly the mark can be missed when you ignore actual data and take guesses at it because you just KNOW a car will be a class killer.
Again, why are we (and we=the club) refusing to learn from mistakes?

Hoop... My "secret" is no secret. His name is Blake and he lives in Atlanta.

[RedMisted]

Here is my letter sent to the CRB last night:

To whom it may concern:

I am an IT racer from the NeOhio region. Member # 388701. I am writing in support of the ITAC classification system that has been in use for the last few years.

In my mind, the ITAC process has been successful in making IT racing into the attractive proposition that it is. For purposes of IT, no other car classification system should be used that does not adhere to the basic core tenets of the ITAC classification philosophy. This implies a strict adherence to honesty, transparency, and consistency when introducing new cars into IT and making reasonable and necessary adjustments to existing cars. Granted, there can be no failproof classing system. But the recent direction of the CRB, and, above it, the BoD seems to suggest that arbitrary methods of classification are sufficient. In my mind, and in the minds of many others in the IT community, such measures are NOT acceptable for our category. For example, IT is a regional class. We do not have true "halo" events (such as the SCCA Runoffs and June Sprints) to provide sufficient evidence to allow for car classing to based on anything other than what is entailed in the general philosophy of the ITAC, for lack of a better alternative that is yet to be identified and proposed.

Furthermore, under no circumstance are we in the IT community for a classing system that is not accessible to the IT membership. In fact, any process that is used should be published and made available for the general reference of the SCCA membership and the public at large, so as to ensure for fairness and accountability not only with the CRB and BoD, but the ITAC as well.

IT is the backbone of SCCA Club Racing. I am truly concerned that if IT becomes further destabilized, the category may lose everything that it has gained in the last few years, as well as its future. There are, after all, always going to be alternatives to IT racing.

Cordially,
Chris Dercole

[924Guy]

I got a nice reply to my BOD letter from Jerry Wannarka, Chairman of the BOD.

In short summary, he assured me they (BOD and CRB, in a joint meeting) discussed the "IT situation" last week at the Convention. We can expect a post from Mr. Dowie, CRB Chairman, on the SCCA Forums sometime this week addressing the situation.

Stay tuned...

[Jeremy Billiel]

Got the same email. We will see...

[gran racing]

Me too although I'm not overly optimistic about the reality. We'll see.

[Ron Earp]

Dang, I must not rate. No letter from the BOD. I only expected "Thank you for your input, IT fine as is."

[dickita15]

Dang, I must not rate. No letter from the BOD. I only expected "Thank you for your input, IT fine as is."

That is very possible Ron.:D
But seriously, there is no automated reply generated by sending letters to the BOD. While there is not a strict protocol letters are often acknowledged by the director in the area the letter writer is from if that can be determined. Since most directors got home late last night after 5 days of dawn to dusk meetings dealing with many issues I might cut them a little slack if you do not get a reply immediately.
Do not be mistaken, member letters are a very important part of the process.

[Ron Earp]

I might cut them a little slack if you do not get a reply immediately.
Do not be mistaken, member letters are a very important part of the process.

Oh, I'm not concerned. I figured it'd be a few weeks before hearing a statement from the CRB on the issue. Sounds like it might be a lot sooner than that though, and that is a good thing.

[tom91ita]

.....

So what gives? Hating on Honda's?



hoop, i think we are supposed to feel fortunate that it no longer has the 1.54 factor when it was an "A" car.

91 x 1.54 x 14.5 -50 (FWD) = 1982 vs. the old GCR 1980 #'s

just count your blessings!

[Andy Bettencourt]

This whole issue did happen at the worst possible time in terms of getting a response so I hope anyone who is expecting one is patient.

I received emails and calls from BoD and CRB members when I stepped down. No hard feelings on either side I hope. Sometimes fresh volunteers are needed to keep things moving forward. I would love to remain part of the team but I also know that in order to affect change, sometimes you have to go all in.

[nj1266]

Step 3 - Run the initial math to rough the car in question into a class, using fixed weight multipliers, ranging from 11.25 in ITR to 18.8 for ITC. The product got called the "base weight."

So what was the fixed weight multiplier for the ITA cars? I really like the fact based process.

[lateapex911]

14.5