SCCA National Convention

[RacerBill]

Check out the SCCA Website - IT's own Kevin Ruck is awarded the Jim Fitzgerald Award for the Top National Racing Rookie for 2009!!!!!!!!

[lateapex911]

HUGE congrats to tKR!!:birra::birra:

[924Guy]

Awesome - pic and all!

[Eagle7]

:happy204::smilie_pokal::happy204:

[Ed Funk]

Cool!

[IPRESS]

Congrats Kevin.

[R2 Racing]

Thanks a lot guys! Sitting in the Vegas airport about to head back to frigid Ohio. This has been an incredibly fun and very educational weekend for me, so to also win this award during it too, is a pretty huge honor. Just to see the names of the guys who have previously won this award, is kind of mind blowing. Got to meet an amazing array of people, and really get to know many of the "powers that be" in this club. You really have no realization of the scope of this club, how many people it touches, and just how much it takes to make it run until you come out to something like this.

Plus, after the banquets yesterday, I couldn't miss at blackjack last night - haha!

[Eagle7]

Kevin, did you pick up any rumblings at the convention about the rift between the ITAC and the CRB?

[lateapex911]

Ha ha, the CRB just gave him a huge award! He's not looking for trouble! Can't say as I blame him.

he brings up a point, the clubs a biiiig place. I'm afraid that to them, we, the IT guys, are not on the day to day "get noticed" sector.

I'd love it if somebody from the BoD level could dispute the statement: "Yea, we heard about some issues, but, we can't just change the way the club works* for IT".

*As in, for example, follow Marty's sage advice. Which, by the way, echoes other comments and suggestions in other letters I've read.

[Eagle7]

I'd love it if somebody from the BoD level could dispute the statement: "Yea, we heard about some issues, but, we can't just change the way the club works* for IT".

*As in, for example, follow Marty's sage advice. Which, by the way, echoes other comments and suggestions in other letters I've read.
Got one response so far:
Your points are good. We'll be watching very closely to see if it goes sideways, but the CRB is our official source and we on the BoD need to respect the process.
Thanks for your input and time in the club.
ML

[lateapex911]

That's a funny response, considering "respecting the process" is the issue....

[tdw6974]

Kevin, congratulatiions:smilie_pokal: from the Weaver crew

[R2 Racing]

Kevin, did you pick up any rumblings at the convention about the rift between the ITAC and the CRB?

Ha ha, the CRB just gave him a huge award! He's not looking for trouble! Can't say as I blame him.
Damn Jake, you think I'd sell out?!:lol:

Saturday morning was the CRB Town Hall meeting, and I did indeed stand up, introduce myself (because up to that point few knew who I was), and asked for (in few words) just a feel on the issues. Honestly, I wanted to just hear their side of it, as I know there's always 2-3 sides to every story. A dialogue occured, and I had several people come up to me afterwards thanking me for doing it. After the Town Hall meeting, I got to privately talk with Bob Dowey (CRB Chairman) a little bit and then later extensively with Jim Drago. I also talked some with BOD members Robin Langlotz and Dick Patullo. Unbelievably informative, and just really, really cool to be able to privately, one-on-one talk with all of these guys over the course of a couple of hours. It's actually quite humbling; these are real people just like you or I who honestly believe they're just trying to do what's best for the club. It's hard to remember that when they're just labeled as "that big, bad CRB!", with no face or personal touch to it; a bad way to form opinions. As for what I was told, I'm debating on wether or not I want to actually make a public write up on that - probably not. In a very brief summary, I'll just say that I don't feel it's a complete diagreement in the theory/method/process, but more an issue with specific things within it. I don't believe the whole thing is dead, and I don't believe the sky is falling. I think egos and feelings were flexed and hurt on both sides of things, both by the CRB and the ITAC, and if given a little time to cool off, the issue could certainly be revisited again. No, the resignation of several ITAC members has not helped, not surprisingly. But even just within the CRB, feelings on the subject are very widely spread. Note: I am not going to quote here what anyone has specifically told me, or really even name who specifically felt in any particular way. This stuff is just all my feeling and opinion!

Anyways, after all of this went on over the course of about 8am-noon on Saturday morning, the CRB were STILL happy to give me the award around 2pm that afternoon!:023:

[Eagle7]

Saturday morning was the CRB Town Hall meeting, and I did indeed stand up, introduce myself (because up to that point few knew who I was), and asked for (in few words) just a feel on the issues. Honestly, I wanted to just hear their side of it, as I know there's always 2-3 sides to every story. A dialogue occured, ...

Note: I am not going to quote here what anyone has specifically told me, or really even name who specifically felt in any particular way. This stuff is just all my feeling and opinion!

Thank you for that :023:. I just wanted to get a sense of whether it was recognized as a hot topic that needs some attention.

[924Guy]

Cross-posting from the other thread:

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...

[R2 Racing]

We can expect a post from Mr. Dowie, CRB Chairman, on the SCCA Forums sometime this week addressing the situation.

Stay tuned...
Bob told me he was thinking about doing that. They (the CRB) are well aware of the talk going on about this on the internet, and quite frankly kind of wish it wasn't. But, they recignize that this is 2010 and this is going to happen, no matter how much they wish it wouldn't. Just don't expect this means there's then going to be an open discussion and debate on the SCCA forum! There will not! They all also knew that by the time they got home from the convention, they were probably going to be swamped with emails/letters about this. I just said "Uhh, yeah, just a few...."

[lateapex911]

Bob told me he was thinking about doing that. They (the CRB) are well aware of the talk going on about this on the internet, and quite frankly kind of wish it wasn't. But, they recignize that this is 2010 and this is going to happen, no matter how much they wish it wouldn't. Just don't expect this means there's then going to be an open discussion and debate on the SCCA forum! There will not! They all also knew that by the time they got home from the convention, they were probably going to be swamped with emails/letters about this. I just said "Uhh, yeah, just a few...."

See, that's where the train falls off the tracks.

Private back channel communications and emails etc allow people to push their positions, and those can be 'customized" to make the receiving party more partial to acceptance. But public statements are read by all, and can be forwarded to any. They have to stand up. So, I am pleased that they will make a public statement.

(Although the SCCA forum isn't as 'public' as it could be, LOL. I see the logic, and it's workable)

But, without actual debate, those statements can't be vetted.

This is a situation where there are opposing viewpoints.

Debate and discussion are part of the transparency that is being called for in, I bet, every letter they get on the subject.

[gran racing]

If they are going to post it and run, why choose that media to post the information? Doesn't make sense to me. An article in Sportscar (ooooh, that might let other people in categories know IT racers are annoyed), an e-mail using that group thing they developed, fastrack... Just find it interesting but at least it's a step towards actually communicating. Oh the irony. They complain about people discussing it on chat forums and that's where they'll post their response.

[jhooten]

Kevin beat me to the mic and I'm glad he did because he did a much better job with the subject than I ever could have.

Thanks and Congrats to Kevin.

[924Guy]

As I said on the sandbox, don't be disappointed if we don't get everything we wanted and hoped for first time 'round. Persistence and focus will win. If at first you don't succeed - Club Racing may not be for you. ;)

The subject of the lack of discussion/debate expected or allowed on the official SCCA forums is a good one. A few points, from my point of view...

1) It's appropriate to have any such communication occur there, since those are the official forums. Almost like it's a legal or club rules requirement. That's OK.

2) Board members have already shown up on these forums sharing input, officially or not. They have shown they're willing to share viewpoints here. I would say it's safe to expect a continued presence, now that they know we're here and talking about 'em.

3) If they don't like discussion there, and won't accept any further input... then what, we're done??? Is that what we said when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!? ;)

Really, like we're that disingenious? Of course not! We will, by our very nature, continue to talk about them, behind or in front of their backs! They will have every opportunity, like it or not, to participate in those discussions!

If they choose not to participate, and pursue a policy path that is not in line with what we like - well, then, we have to get their attention again, no? Letters seem to work pretty well, based on the response so far! Why not continue to correspond with them?

If we turn around and walk away after the first period, do we have anyone else than ourselves to blame??

Final note: If we're concerned that the board members will not be interested in joining us in discussion about the future of IT - should we not do everything we can to make them welcome in the discussions??? I think the first step towards that is to be open-minded, considerate, and respectful. Name calling, slander, abuse, etc - fine, do those all you want, just don't expect anything more than a response in kind (if at all). Remember, you catch more flies with honey...

[IPRESS]

Guys, step back and take a look at the big picture. The club has many issues to deal with, IT and this "process debate" is just one of many. I know you guys have tons of time and emotional ties wired into this issue. I am pretty sure that the CRB folks understand that too. But still this issue is just one of many so as crazy important as it is to the resident message board crowd, it may take a while to get things sorted out. As far as open discussion on message boards, that can be good and bad. People say things on boards that they would never say in person. Or their message comes across with a negative or positive connotation when it is not meant that way. So I can see why a committee working on an issue would not publish every comment / view on things discussed.
I would like to find out from Kevin or Jerry what sort of response they got in discussion with the CRB members they talked with. Was it IT positive / negative? Meaning has this message board group discussion (and sometimes personal attacks) soured the CRB on the IT issues or the group pushing the process agenda...or is their a willingness to see the issue with merit and overlook all the personal "lynch mob" crap that has been going on since back in the summer? A read on that is almost as important as the issue itself. Another bit of feedback from the CRB which is important here is: Do they (the CRB members) feel that the message board crowd is the "actual" voice of the (IT) people? That is a pretty important aspect of this whole thing too. Lots of folks refuse to get sucked in to this type of discussion but are still very interested in IT. Those people pay their dues and entry fees and count the same as us prolific typers. I hope that Kevin and Jerry got a good feeling from their discussions...at least as far as the CRB being positive towards IT.

[gran racing]

This is far from being the first period, unless people haven't been following things and didn't communicate with the CRB / BOD previously. End of the fourth, tied and ready for a coin toss? Maybe. lol The use, implimentation, and member feedback has been going on for quite some time. There's also a point in time where people will become fed up with things (such as happened with several ITAC members). Doesn't mean people don't care, but choose to put their time, energy, and maybe $$$ elsewhere.

[lateapex911]

.......Meaning has this message board group discussion (and sometimes personal attacks) soured the CRB on the IT issues or the group pushing the process agenda...or is their a willingness to see the issue with merit and overlook all the personal "lynch mob" crap that has been going on since back in the summer? A read on that is almost as important as the issue itself.

Mac, good points and I respect them. But I differ from you here. The issue is the issue is the issue. I've had conversations with people, gotten emails and had people slander me on the boards...but that's irrelevant. Just because somebody thinks I'm a dick it doesn't change the issue. I MUST look at the issue, and decide it's marits, regardless of what people are calling me. (You might not remember the E36 slander that we took, Andy especially..I WISH I had 1/10th of the "madza money" that I was reported to get...)


Another bit of feedback from the CRB which is important here is: Do they (the CRB members) feel that the message board crowd is the "actual" voice of the (IT) people?
From my discussions with them, there is a disdain for the boards, and the opinions that emanate. (Rucks comments support this) The CRB has told me numerous times that the boards do NOT, in their eyes reflect the popular positions. And that's a fine position to take, but, when I ask for the evidence, all I get is,...at best..."Well, this one guy I know thinks that things are .XYZ.". Mac, you know I travel ALL over the country. people talk to me. I can provide lots of data points, and they line up with the forum position very well on this issue.

That is a pretty important aspect of this whole thing too. Lots of folks refuse to get sucked in to this type of discussion but are still very interested in IT. Those people pay their dues and entry fees and count the same as us prolific typers. I hope that Kevin and Jerry got a good feeling from their discussions...at least as far as the CRB being positive towards IT.

Mac, how are we supposed to count a 'vote' from a 'non prolific' type?
People who don't write in can not write in for a multitude of reasons.
-They don't have time
-They think it's a lost cause
-They think the PTB will do what they want anyway
-Their 'world" is fine right now.
-Their personal position is actually advantageous, and they worry that that could be lost in an action that the masses support.
- They aren't that involved and don't really care.
-They don't understand the issue, and are intimidated by the prospect of trying .

Many of those positions reflect differing views if we were to assign values to them, so taking the stand that the 'silent majority' is fine with it, or they'd be making their opinions known lacks logic.

Further, the input they have gotten is massively one voice.

I don't doubt that the CRB is positive to IT. What I have issues with is the recent change in the support of the core principals that the members hold as cornerstones.

Four members leaving, one a PHD in policy, and two others who have been on for 5 years, indicates something is definitely 'up'.

Philosophies and principals count.

[924Guy]

This is far from being the first period, unless people haven't been following things and didn't communicate with the CRB / BOD previously. End of the fourth, tied and ready for a coin toss? Maybe. lol The use, implimentation, and member feedback has been going on for quite some time. There's also a point in time where people will become fed up with things (such as happened with several ITAC members). Doesn't mean people don't care, but choose to put their time, energy, and maybe $$$ elsewhere.

Good point, fair enough.

I'm of course coming from a slightly different angle here, myself; while I am interested in the future of IT, and am active online, I'm not quite as into it as some of the really obtuse daily discussions that happen here and elsewhere.

Maybe the best reply is, it's time for you guys who have been shouldering that burden to do exactly as you have - communicate the situation to the rest of us, and let this raucous minority become a wave of overwhelming support to carry you along, when you've lost momentum.

Like I say - I think that is what you guys have done effectively, even if you don't realize it, and I think we are starting now to get noticed. You may think it's too late, because you personally can't stand being the only ones who care anymore, but maybe it's just time for the rest of us who've been standing around in back to pick up that bullhorn and start making noise.

Seems to me like the noise level to the CRB and BOD is growing, not diminishing...

[JLawton]

Is that what we said when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!? ;)




Nice reference!!!! Yup, you had me laughin' with that one!!!



OK, back to our serious discussion...........



.

[IPRESS]

Jake I understand where you are coming from...I really do. The part I was trying to bring out is, some of the ITAC & the CRB became at odds. Some of the ITAC involved the message boards to bring a portion of public opinion into the fray. Might be the biggest portion I don't know.... but that said, I can see where the CRB could get just as frustrated get fed up with ITAC actions. It became a no win on both sides as far as I can tell, because the CRB doubts the validity of what you guys consider one of the core aspects (stock HP). I don't know if that can be worked out or not, but it would be good for IT if it can be. hopefully both sides of the issue will keep working at it.

[jhooten]

"We don't like the word process" when use in the classification of IT cars.
"We don't want to publish a formula" because years later someone will plug in a set of numbers and say SEE YOU GOT MY CAR WRONG.

They made it clear they did not want sunshine on the non-process of classing cars in IT.

On making a smoother transition from IT to Prod the implied response was it wasn't needed, if you want to run national races you can run your IT car in STU. I told them the plans were in the works to the IT/STU ghetto paddock area and IT would do its best to make STU the biggest class at the runoffs. You guys have to help me make it happen

[R2 Racing]

Damn, this turned into another one of "those" threads. :lol:

[Andy Bettencourt]

Jake I understand where you are coming from...I really do. The part I was trying to bring out is, some of the ITAC & the CRB became at odds. Some of the ITAC involved the message boards to bring a portion of public opinion into the fray. Might be the biggest portion I don't know.... but that said, I can see where the CRB could get just as frustrated get fed up with ITAC actions. It became a no win on both sides as far as I can tell, because the CRB doubts the validity of what you guys consider one of the core aspects (stock HP). I don't know if that can be worked out or not, but it would be good for IT if it can be. hopefully both sides of the issue will keep working at it.

Mac,

I have tried to stay away from your posts because you obviously have contact with a CRB member. You only get one side.

The problem isn't that the CRB doubts the stock hp aspect of the process. The problem is two-fold in my mind. First, we have been 'doing it that way' for 5+ years. Why the change? Second, we are STILL able to use it without issue for new classifications. Really?

All I ever wanted was consistant direction, philosophies and application. I have lost some of that and that is why I needed to make room for others. There is NO DOUBT in my mind that everyone involved wants what is best for IT and the SCCA. We just may have different ways of getting there.

[IPRESS]

Andy, I don't disagree with anything you posted. (other than one CRB person... I talk with three of them sometimes, but that isn't important.) I just want to see movement on the issue instead of a stalemate.
This is a question for no particular car, just informational.
Andy what DID you guys do when a car going through the process just didn't work out?
(I am sure it has been covered before, but I ask you because you usually are good about repeating with out malice!:D) If I am going to talk with CRB persons about it I would like to be sure of this part of things.
Thanks, and I am trying to be more open to this, but not sure democracy works in running a race group.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy what DID you guys do when a car going through the process just didn't work out?
(I am sure it has been covered before, but I ask you because you usually are good about repeating with out malice!:D) If I am going to talk with CRB persons about it I would like to be sure of this part of things.
Thanks, and I am trying to be more open to this, but not sure democracy works in running a race group.

Well if you could maybe give me a car to tell you the history on, I will. I can't think of a car that went through the process ended up 'not working out' - REALLY. Previous monster overdogs like the CRX were all fixed VIA the process, not created by it. That is one of the curious things about this whole issue. IT people know that all we are trying to do is get cars CLOSE - and they accept that some may be better than others in small ways.

To talk conceptually, we would see a car that was classed start to 'run off the front' (to use a CRB term). Because we have NO WAY of quantifying why, we start to dig around for errors in the inputs to the process. More than likely, it was an error in the estimated power it could make in IT trim. A 5% error might not create a dog like this but 10% might. So if we could validate that the power estimate was indeed a mistake, we would document that new power level, vote on it and place it into the process for a new weight - then make that recomendation per the PCA clause in the ITCS.

The key here is that it is all based in SOMETHING concrete. Not "lets add 100lbs and evaluate" like is done in the other classes. I hold firm to the concept that in IT, with all our types of cars, drivetrain layouts, suspension designs, prep levels, driver skillsets, etc...that you will never be able to assign weight based on lap times. It's a 'trigger' to look at something that was an error, but not something that should be micromanaged.

Sorry if that doesn't answer...how can I be more specific? I will try.

[gran racing]

Would the S2000 fit into that category?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Would the S2000 fit into that category?

What category?

[gran racing]

This...


Andy what DID you guys do when a car going through the process just didn't work out?

I realize that within the process, there were ways to adjust things if it didn't fit into the straight equasion. I was thinking that providing Mac some background would help explain how the process has flexiblity. "Not working out" is probably the correct term for it, but from what I understand an exception % gain was used (and rightfully so). Just thinking of an example which might help Mac and the CRB understand it better.

[Andy Bettencourt]

This...



I realize that within the process, there were ways to adjust things if it didn't fit into the straight equasion. I was thinking that providing Mac some background would help explain how the process has flexiblity. "Not working out" is probably the correct term for it, but from what I understand an exception % gain was used (and rightfully so). Just thinking of an example which might help Mac and the CRB understand it better.

Gotcha Dave. And that uncovers a very common misconception with the Process. Some people can't seem to understand that is is NOT a formula. The S2000 was classed at 15% because conventional thought processes told us that a NA 2.0 with a specific output of 120hp per liter could not make 25% gains with whay we are allowed to do. The same dynamics allow the ITAC to make other estimates other than the 25% that is used as a baseline.

So again, it's not that the Process didn't work out for the S2000, the Process actually WORKS for the S2000. Its dynamic, not ridged. Just because we use 25% as a baseline for first consideration when there is no data on the table, doesn't mean at all that is what we end up using.

[lateapex911]

To further the thought process, cars like the S2000 are obviously unique. Research has been done to arrive at the 15% estimate. Classing it at a rigid 25% would be silly, and would be like not classing it at all. Nobody with an ounce of common sense would spend the time and money to build a car that would be so overweight.

If a car like that were to have rolled into the ITAC late this summer, it would have been tabled, and a member or members of the ITAC would have conducted research. They would bring their findings and evidence back to the meeting, and the entire ITAC would have reviewed, challenged, and ultimately voted their confidence, person by person on that presentation of evidence. If the vote showed high confidence across the board, the multiplier would be used to then run in the process. After that normal adders would be reviewed and calculated, and a race weight determined.

Within the System, there are procedures on what to do when strange things like that pop up. Cars with multiple HP ratings, cars with odd engine architecture, cars that are know to make less than advertised power, etc. Those procedures exist so the Process can remain flexible, but be applied in a consistent, repeatable and transparent manner.

[seckerich]

This is the one part of this whole equation that bothers me with the CRB and ITAC. In the end everyone in the 2 groups seems to agree on the FWD/RWD adders, the suspension adders, and for the most part the gutless torque subtractors. Why then is it so hard to come together on the HP equation. The CRB wants to use displacement,Valve size, etc to determine HP potential. The ITAC wants to use stock hp times the "expected" gain in IT trim to arrive at hopefully the same number. Both methods have the same places for "educated input" in the classing so have the same level of subjective wiggle room. In the end we could use either if you get to the same number and it is fair and published. Car X is expected to make *** HP in IT trim and then run the rest of the process as usual. Just a suggestion.

[lateapex911]

Steve, I haven't heard anything about valve size in the discussions. I actually do think that's a place to look, when choosing a car, BUT, even it is full of exceptions.

The CRB has just recently drawn it's line in the sand at displacement. But recent history shows inconsistent application of even just that:
-The BMW 528e recommendation we made was to place it in ITB. We have great intel on that engine, and we know it can't hit ITA weight. The CRB rejected the recommendation, stating that the engine displacement was too big for ITB. So, it will have to race overweight in ITA. What's the over/under on the letter from that owner requesting lexan windows? ;)
-Conversely, they rejected the weight of the MR2 variants, and assigned them higher weights, even though their 1600cc size is nothing out of the norm for the class.

Even combining displacement and valve size won't, I think, net you a more accurate gauge of gains in IT trim, because it ignores/assumes all cams, intakes, and heads are equally efficient.

While it's certainly not dead accurate, it is felt that for IT, that stock hp actually reflects those variables, and is a better place to start.

[Bill Miller]

If they are going to post it and run, why choose that media to post the information? Doesn't make sense to me. An article in Sportscar (ooooh, that might let other people in categories know IT racers are annoyed), an e-mail using that group thing they developed, fastrack... Just find it interesting but at least it's a step towards actually communicating. Oh the irony. They complain about people discussing it on chat forums and that's where they'll post their response.

Believe me Dave, that irony was not lost on me! :D

I also find it funny that they have such disdain for these message boards, but seem to forget that these message boards played a pretty large part in getting the ITR thing put together.

Jeff (Lawton),

While I love that quote, and it gave me a chuckle as well, I think a more poignant one is:

"Seven years of college down the drain"

[lateapex911]

Believe me Dave, that irony was not lost on me! :D

I also find it funny that they have such disdain for these message boards, but seem to forget that these message boards played a pretty large part in getting the ITR thing put together.

Jeff (Lawton),

While I love that quote, and it gave me a chuckle as well, I think a more poignant one is:

"Seven years of college down the drain"

heck if it weren't for IT.com, and our host, IT would NOT be where it is today. No doubt in my mind.

[seckerich]

Steve, I haven't heard anything about valve size in the discussions. I actually do think that's a place to look, when choosing a car, BUT, even it is full of exceptions.

The CRB has just recently drawn it's line in the sand at displacement. But recent history shows inconsistent application of even just that:

While it's certainly not dead accurate, it is felt that for IT, that stock hp actually reflects those variables, and is a better place to start.

I understand that Jake. My point is that there may be more than one way to get to the correct answer. If in the end the ITAC and CRB can come together on something that gets us close to the actual power a car makes in IT trim we can use the process to set the weights fairly. The CRB may be stuck on displacement and a few other factors. The ITAC wants to use stock HP X 25% in most cases. With either method there are cars that will not fit.

When this happens the ITAC assigns a different percentage after doing some research. The CRB says "we know this car makes X" and assigns a weight. Somewhere there is a middle ground we can work towards in a productive manner.

[lateapex911]

When this happens the ITAC assigns a different percentage after doing some research. The CRB says "we know this car makes X" and assigns a weight. Somewhere there is a middle ground we can work towards in a productive manner.

My issue is that recent practices have shown that the ITAC has said:
"We know this car makes 17%, and we will go with 25% as a conservative approach", which then gets trumped by the CRB who says: "We will class that car at 25% plus 95 pounds"

Huh????
How, Why? Evidence??

And, is that going to happen every time, consistently? With transparency??

Why I asked those questions, I didn't get an answer that came close to being either a discussion of possibilities, or a solution that had any roots in consistency and transparency.