ITAC and CRB and the Process

[dickita15]

The current developments between the ITAC and the CRB were a topic of discussion at the convention including in the session between the BOD and the CRB although that meeting was early in the week (Wednesday afternoon) before many emails had been received. There are always a number of topics that come up both at meetings like this as well as throughout the year so there are different issues competing for attention.
Member input often drives priorities. The volume of that input is the only way that the powers that be can gauge if issues are really of serious concern to a large portion of the membership.
Input to the Board of Directors can be sent by email to [email protected] ([email protected]). Input to the Club Racing Board is done online at http://www.crbscca.com/ and your letter can be cut and pasted into a form on that page. Each of these reach a different group that are involved with setting policy for club racing in the club.

[JeffYoung]

Dick, thanks for the post on this. It is appreciated.


The current developments between the ITAC and the CRB were a topic of discussion at the convention including in the session between the BOD and the CRB although that meeting was early in the week (Wednesday afternoon) before many emails had been received. There are always a number of topics that come up both at meetings like this as well as throughout the year so there are different issues competing for attention.
Member input often drives priorities. The volume of that input is the only way that the powers that be can gauge if issues are really of serious concern to a large portion of the membership.
Input to the Board of Directors can be sent by email to [email protected] ([email protected]). Input to the Club Racing Board is done online at http://www.crbscca.com/ and your letter can be cut and pasted into a form on that page. Each of these reach a different group that are involved with setting policy for club racing in the club.

[Ron Earp]

Thanks for the heads up. Letter sent via that mechanism too, #644.

[Butch Kummer]

And I'm #645.

I knew the new procedure (www.crbscca.com (http://www.crbscca.com)) was in place, but I couldn't remember what it was and I couldn't find it mentioned on SCCA.com. That's why I copied the BoD and Terry Ozment when I sent my original e-mail.

It also works better if you re-type your letter rather than cutting and pasting it - special characters like quotes and apostrophes don't translate correctly. Hopefully the CRB will be able to figure that out and won't discard my thoughts because of the typo's! :rolleyes:

I guess we'll see what happens...

[RSTPerformance]

Make sure letters regarding the CRB are sent to the [email protected] also. Letters sent through the www.CRBSCCA.com website DO NOT go to the BOD.


Raymond "Thanks Dick for the updates, I know that the entire lurking IT community appreciates it" Blethen

[RedMisted]

Make sure letters regarding the CRB are sent to the [email protected] also. Letters sent through the www.CRBSCCA.com website DO NOT go to the BOD.


Raymond "Thanks Dick for the updates, I know that the entire lurking IT community appreciates it" Blethen

I sent my e-letter last night to [email protected]. Does this mean that they didn't get it? I may have to retype my letter...

[lateapex911]

I'm not sure what happens to letters that go to the old address. I would think that they should either have an automatic reply that tells you to go to the new site and enter it there, OR it should happen automatically. NO response indicating that it is a dead end would be wrong.

No need to retype for the BoD, just get it from your sent folder copy and paste it with the correct address.

[Knestis]

If you compose a letter in Word (or whatever), paste it into Notepad or some other simple text editing application, and read/edit it there first. Then cut it out and paste it into the form. That will strip out all of the formatting etc. that dorks it up. Or just type it in Notepad, but then you lose spell-check, which I kind of count on...

K

[ddewhurst]

Approx three weeks ago I sent a letter to the old CRB address with ZERO response. Several days after no response I called & was given the new CRB address. Then received a notice with tracking number. Nothing is tied together & to my knowledge the new address is not (was not at the time) tied to the rules making process writeup.

Resend your letter.

[lateapex911]

Is it me, or does having an auto reply on an email that isn't used anymore just seem like simple common sense? I mean, it it that hard?

[spnkzss]

Is it me, or does having an auto reply on an email that isn't used anymore just seem like simple common sense? I mean, it it that hard?

The last time I sent an email to [email protected] I got a response back saying to go to the web site. :shrug:

[JoshS]

Right, my guess is that the auto-response is working, but that they end up caught in most people's spam filters.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I also got the auto reply sending me to the correct address.

[tnord]

Is it me, or does having an auto reply on an email that isn't used anymore just seem like simple common sense? I mean, it it that hard?

i got an auto reply. :026:

[RedMisted]

I'm not sure what happens to letters that go to the old address. I would think that they should either have an automatic reply that tells you to go to the new site and enter it there, OR it should happen automatically. NO response indicating that it is a dead end would be wrong.

No need to retype for the BoD, just get it from your sent folder copy and paste it with the correct address.

Well, nothing has come back, and I did not get any request to redirect mail. So I'll assume the CRB got my complaint. But to be sure, guess I'll resend my letter through one of the "official" channels...

[dickita15]

If you have not heard anything I would defiantly resend it. The item I had in February Fastrack was sent by email in May and other than an email saying they received it I had heard no more. In December the SCCA staff loaded my letter in the system and I got a tracking number.

[IPRESS]

Just asking, but has anyone ever sent a letter to the CRB saying: "Thanks, you are doing a good job?"

I know that is not the sentiment right now on here, but I was talking to another racer today and the question came up.

[dickita15]

Well the BOD has received only 21 letters, all in support of the process.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Well the BOD has received only 21 letters, all in support of the process.

That's an effin' landslide in letter-dom.

[dickita15]

It is way more than head and neck generated.

[lateapex911]

I also got the auto reply sending me to the correct address.

OK, cool. Josh probably hit on the issue ...

[Andy Bettencourt]

It is way more than head and neck generated.

Without a solicitation in FT too...this is a proactive campaign. Should speak volumes.

[lateapex911]

Well the BOD has received only 21 letters, all in support of the process.

Yes, in the week since Andy and i resigned, that seems like a significant amount. Does that include our resignation letters? ;)

You said "only"....what would be considered "significant" or "a lot" in the BoDs eyes?

[dickita15]

Jake it includes one of them and I really do not know I am after all the new kid.

[Knestis]

Well the BOD has received only 21 letters, all in support of the process.

Eh. They're all from internet agitators. And there's hundreds - thousands, maybe - of IT entrants in the US. So close to zero as to effectively, uh, zero.

K

[mossaidis]

Drafting my letter now... for many of us if should be as easy as COPY/PASTE letter from it.com... enter email address of BoD ... (sweat dropping from eye brow such hard work) and click on the SEND button.

[lateapex911]

Hey, ANY input is good, but, ask yourself, if you were on the BoD, would you give more weight and credit to a letter that stated original thoughts, or one that was a copy of somebody elses? Even if your points are the same, original wording carries more weight.

[RSTPerformance]

Jake-

IMO copy and paste should be equally as strong as an original letter... Some peoe are not as good as others at writting and that could be the barrier some have at sending I requests.

Raymond "nothing on these forums is copyright" Blethen

[Andy Bettencourt]

Jake-

IMO copy and paste should be equally as strong as an original letter... Some peoe are not as good as others at writting and that could be the barrier some have at sending I requests.

Raymond "nothing on these forums is copyright" Blethen

Sorry, I disagree 100%. When people are forced to actually write down what they want to say, they actually have to reason through it. A lot of times the opinion changes. Original thoughts and additional points sway opinions.

[lateapex911]

Jake-

IMO copy and paste should be equally as strong as an original letter... Some peoe are not as good as others at writting and that could be the barrier some have at sending I requests.

Raymond "nothing on these forums is copyright" Blethen
Well, it's better than nothing, I suppose.
But this isn't about mere 'votes' or quantity, it's about impressing upon an organization a position.
Trust me, if you're on a committee, you'll be more swayed by a well reasoned letter, than a copy of one you already got. heck, even an original, but not particularly masterfully written letter has a bigger impact than a copy of somebody elses.

It didn't work in school, and while it's 'legal' to do in cases like this, it isn't that noteworthy when you're on the receiving end.

[JLawton]

I'm shocked it's only 21. With all the chirping that's been going on only 21 of us have sent letters in? You have to be f'ing kidding me! :017:

Lets go people!! Send in those letters!!!


(hmmmm, which reminds me to send in one on the H&N issue......)

[gran racing]

Eh, most people don't even know what's going on and it's not because they don't care. The discussions have primarily happened here and in the sandbox. All that said, I do think that number of letters is not by any means insignificant.

If we actually want to communicate and get more feedback from our members, send newsletter summarizing both opinions and solicit "votes". While I agree that it's more powerful to send in an original letter, that's just not in most peoples nature to do. Heck, it wouldn't be all that difficult to host a web page with a poll on topics such as this where people could easily answer various questions.

How many letters were received that supported the recent changes or were against the process?


(hmmmm, which reminds me to send in one on the H&N issue......)

LOL!!!! See Jeff, you care about the H&N issue but life gets in the way. For many people, looking at the big blank white screen results in a...ahhh, hmmm, where do I start? I'll put it aside and get to it later. I know that happened to me with my H&N letter that sits in draft form on my desktop. That and I'm sure the BOD is sick of hearing from me. :)

[JLawton]

How do you get the word out to the other IT racers that aren't on either of these forums? Do the different regions have forums on their websites like NER?

[mossaidis]

I think we have plenty to draft up a standard letter which will outline the points we all agree on ( uh...). Reach out to all the IT racers you know and ask them to send it or their version to the BoD. It's that simple. If we're committed, yes it's that simple.

[gran racing]

One of the steps SCCA took to better communicate was to create hunt groups. People would then receive information for the particular areas of racing they had interest in. I'm not how things are going with that effort, but it would be a potential way.

We also have a magazine which goes out to members. ;) Print a well written article about the two ideas of where IT should go with classification and using that on existing cars. It would actually be pretty interesting for people to read regardless of the category they participate in. (In other forms, people outside of IT have shown interest in this debate as it has a bigger impact than just IT.)

From that article, announce a website where people can vote and voice their opinions.

[wepsbee]

As a new member to SCCA I was a little suprised that at major events there are no SCCA info booths. I go to LRP for many events and never have seen a booth setup at the vendor area advertising SCCA. I would expect that info for SCCA which is easier for the public to obtain would help strengthen SCCA. Also I would expect that events would be the optimal place to gather and distribute information and elicit responses from the drivers.

[924Guy]

Absolutely, letters to both SportsCar and GRM are most appropriate.

[tom91ita]

Absolutely, letters to both SportsCar and GRM are most appropriate.

not sure which has the most "receivers" (SportsCar vs. GRM) but i would wager that GRM has far more "readers"

interesting thought to write to GRM since it is the "publication" of choice for NASA.

[RedMisted]

OK, fellas. We got some ideas to raise some hell, so now lets get to setting the hellfires!

Another idea is to attend your local SCCA regional board meeting to increase the awareness, or write a letter to your region's newsletter. (That way you connect to those closest to you, for maximum impact...) It's winter for godsakes, and newsletter material must be at a premium? Instead of Mr. RE writing about the daisies about to push up in a paddock near you, he'll probably welcome your IT-related rant for a story...

[ebassett]

How do you get the word out to the other IT racers that aren't on either of these forums? Do the different regions have forums on their websites like NER?

Mass email members from this site. Usually thats not to hard for the site administrator. Should just be a click of a button and fill in the information.

Let those people know through that email they can post it locally on the region and local websites.

[dtanthon]

Write letters or meet those in charge face to face.

2010 Roundtable - check NESCCA (http://www.nescca.com) site
March 12-14
NEDiv Spring Convention
Worker Specialty Training Sessions
NEDiv & NESCCA Meetings

The SCCA President will be attending. Three (3) SCCA Directors will be attending.

Hamilton Park Hotel & Convention Center, Florham Park, NJ
Registration
Schedule (http://www.nescca.com/nescca_main/rdtbregistration.pdf) as of 2/4/10

Northern New Jersey Region 60th Anniversary Party
60th Anniversary Registration (http://www.nescca.com/nescca_main/nnjrpartyreg.pdf)

[Dave Zaslow]

Unfortunatly I will be in Minnetonka Minnesota, but for the rest of you:

The NEDiv RoundTable will have in attendance -

Gerald Wannarka - Member of SCCA Board of Directors as the Chairman of the Board and representing Area 2

Richard Patullo - Member of SCCA Board of Directors representing Area 1

John Sheridan - Member of SCCA Board of Directors representing Area 10

Jeff Dahnert - President, Chief Executive Officer of the SCCA

Bob Dowie - Club Racing Board Chairman


[QUOTE=dtanthon;302058]....... meet those in charge face to face.


2010 Roundtable - check NESCCA (http://www.nescca.com) site
March 12-14
NEDiv Spring Convention
Worker Specialty Training Sessions
NEDiv & NESCCA Meetings

The SCCA President will be attending. Three (3) SCCA Directors will be attending.

Hamilton Park Hotel & Convention Center, Florham Park, NJ
Registration
Schedule (http://www.nescca.com/nescca_main/rdtbregistration.pdf) as of 2/4/10

[Peter Olivola]

From Bob Dowie, CRB Chairman:

http://www.sccabb.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=8861&PN=1

[RacerBill]

Interesting, very very interesting!

[Ron Earp]

So in summary:


Competition style weight adjustments in IT will not be performed.
Having an open and repeatable classification process is too difficult and is not something members should expect to see.
The IT classification process based on stock hp is not desirable because it is error prone.
Internet discussions of IT issues are not considered relevant.
The CRB still plans to use judgment to adjust IT car weights. If the ITAC can identify a car that is incorrectly classed, per the GCR parameters, then the CRB might adjust it.

Did I get the basic jist?

[Andy Bettencourt]

I can tell you that Bob put a ton of time into that, so for that I am thankful.

I can also tell you that there are a few facts that I will dispute and are key to where we are. I am not going to pull them out and pick them apart out of respect for the big picture and a hope that the current committee can move forward. It's water under the bridge. Good luck to all.

[Ron Earp]

Much appreciated for sure and it is nice to read some feedback. If I am reading that right it is good to see competition adjustments aren't in the cards. However, I don't agree with a few of his points and I think his closing paragraph pretty much says it all.

[Andy Bettencourt]

If I am reading that right it is good to see competition adjustments aren't in the cards.

Sort of. Proactive competition adjustments no. But a refusal to adjust a car based on it's physical attributes (the way all new cars are classed) under the guise of 'it's competitive as is'....to me is a defacto-CA using on-track data.

[JeffYoung]

I agree.

[Greg Amy]

Me, three.

All that's missing now is the cigars, some single-malt Scotch in crystal drinking glasses, and that room with a locked door.

What's old is new again..."Secret"CCA, indeed.

GA

[Jeremy Billiel]

OK so why don't we create a conversation over on SCCA Forums to prove him wrong?

[Ron Earp]

Sort of. Proactive competition adjustments no. But a refusal to adjust a car based on it's physical attributes (the way all new cars are classed) under the guise of 'it's competitive as is'....to me is a defacto-CA using on-track data.

I was being facetious. I don't buy much of the post myself due to the numerous contradictions contained therein. About the only thing I'm sure of is that the status quo will continue.


OK so why don't we create a conversation over on SCCA Forums to prove him wrong?

He already told you he didn't think the internet was a proper place to express views and discuss. Besides, that board is dead for IT. The IT action is here and on Roadraceautox.com.

[Jeremy Billiel]

I was being facetious. I don't buy much of the post myself due to the numerous contradictions contained therein. About the only thing I'm sure of is that the status quo will continue.



He already told you he didn't think the internet was a proper place to express views and discuss. Besides, that board is dead for IT. The IT action is here and on Roadraceautox.com.

exactly my point. bring the fight to him and make him and scca listen.

[lateapex911]

Jeremy is right. While we all know that Bob isn't a fan of the net, and that posting that here will never happen, the SCCA DOES provide a site, and Bob is using it. Obviously, there are what, 6 posts in the last 9 months, so it's like talking to an empty room...but there's no reason we can't discuss things anywhere.

I agree with Andy, he put a lot of time in that. As a guy ho has edited his work in the past for publication, I can see that it was gone over and is probably the result of some input. But, I feel it is full of innaccuracies, contradictions and revisionist history.

Vaughn Scott has posted a response, and i will too, but it's going to take a bit to craft.

Suffice it to say that I'm NOT in agreement with the accuracy of many of the 'facts' he presented, and certainly am at odds with the CRB position on the matter.

[mossaidis]

Thank you Jake, Kirk and others that contributed to the SCCA forum response. I am happy that the CRB began the thread as it's long overdue. Yet I have neither the patience or history to express such a constructive arguement. I have hope.

Mickey

[quadzjr]

I am glad that Bob posted on the SCCA forums.. I thought the same thing about what Andy said and thought about the time that it must of took to put that all on "paper".

It seemed that what he said, was atleast similiar to what ITAC members aid teh CRB position was on the subject. (want a better IT, dont' like stock hp, etc..)

I tired to make a consise and simple question. hopefully he will respond, however he says that he doesn't like the use of online forums.. so we will see.

[924Guy]

I tired to make a consise and simple question. hopefully he will respond, however he says that he doesn't like the use of online forums.. so we will see.

Agreed, and that's the open risk. But there are other open (non-internet) forums we can continue the discussion in.

Mickey, and any others out there in a similar position: hope is not enough!!!

You must realize, a great deal of injustice can be continued under the claim that this is just a few noisy guys on the forums!!! While I understand, not everyone has the time, inclination or whatever, to compose such long-winded replies - silence is agreeing with the status quo!

If you stay quiet, you are giving those in the position to decide your full support.

If you agree with where they're going, then by all means stay quiet.

If you do not - you owe it to yourselves to at least post back a short, one-sentence reply stating where you stand.

Make it clear that there are a lot of us out here that are not happy with the direction chosen for us by others.

Is there anyone here who does think that the CRB's direction, as stated in this post by Dowie, is the best for IT?? Speak up!

Or go back to the SCCA Forums, register, and post your viewpoint, as short as you feel, with your member number, and be heard.

If we've got many posts there supporting our goals, well, kinda knocks the wind outta their sails about just a few noisy rabble-rousers vs. the silent majority, doesn't it?

[Jeremy Billiel]

Guys - We need to start posting our responses over on the SCCA Forums. Talking about it hear will clearly not be listened to or heard by the board or the CRB. However, if we use that forum to have a healthy and EDUCATED conversation we can make inroads. Don't talk shit and talk like an idiot as that will discount everyone, but please post over there your concerns and make SCCA listen.

[tom91ita]

If you agree with where they're going, then by all means stay quiet.



Vaughn,

were you missing a smile face there?

i think we are all open minded enough that we can advocate that if you agree with them, still voice your opinions.

but please list what car you have and if where they are going keeps you from gaining weight or keeps your competition from getting lighter.........:)

tom

[924Guy]

Vaughn,

were you missing a smile face there?

i think we are all open minded enough that we can advocate that if you agree with them, still voice your opinions.

but please list what car you have and if where they are going keeps you from gaining weight or keeps your competition from getting lighter.........:)

tom

Not sure I'm missing a smiley face... but yes, by all means voice your opinion either way! I was trying to make exactly that point - now is no time to be silent and hope that others will speak for you.

As for me, well everybody knows what I drive, I think. Should it be lighter? I can't conceive of it being made any lighter than it is, my understanding is that it's right on target for the current ITB performance goals. Should it be heaver? Well... it was a bit heavier already. There definitely are other ITB cars out there that should lose weight. I think there's only one generally agreed to be a bit light right now.

[quadzjr]

Not sure what more I can do. Really.. I had the MR2 IT community wrtie in an dvoice ther eopinion on teh weight of the MR2.

Was listed in the fast track as "mulitple"

I then collected and submittted probably a dozen dyno plots of engine builds for the motor. Apparently that did nothign for me..

I submitted support and wrote letters again to the CRB and BOD. That with many other resulted in the response from Mr. Dowie.

I don't like wasting my time as I have investe alot of time trying to show the right people and getting guidance from the right people on how to jsut show that someone is wrong. Nobody wants to hear that they are wrong. :(

[gran racing]

Steve, the picture is bigger than just the MR2. Yes, I agree that car is a part of it but first the CRB (and BOD) need to be convinced what we want for IT. Until that happens, anything further at this point in time is essentially going to be just spinning your wheels. How on track performance is factored is one of the big ones.

How much does the process say that the MR2 is off right now?

[Z3_GoCar]

Steve,

Yes, your car is symbolic of the problem with the CRB. They're the people who say, "Isn't this the same motor used for formula Atlantic?" The problem is what they know isn't reality because of limits that IT imposes that FA didn't have.

If you're going to post over there why not use this thread as a sounding board. Post what you're going to post there, as a draft here and we'll at least get all the gramatical and spelling errors out.

[quadzjr]

Steve, the picture is bigger than just the MR2. Yes, I agree that car is a part of it but first the CRB (and BOD) need to be convinced what we want for IT. Until that happens, anything further at this point in time is essentially going to be just spinning your wheels. How on track performance is factored is one of the big ones.

How much does the process say that the MR2 is off right now?

well I know that it is just a small part of the issue. But is a shinning exmaple of the issue. Like I said I have sent letters addressed to teh BOD and CRB in suppor the ITAC twice Once in support of V2.0 and the othe rmore recnetly asking for a resultion between the CRB and ITAC. Neither one of those letters did I mention the MR2.

To be really correct you would have to use a 20% multiplier as nobody has been able to get a 20% gain.

so currently it sits at 112*1.30*17+50=2525
if they used the standard 25% it would be 2430.
at 20% which is STILL unobtainable puts it at 2335.

so sadly I have a car that weighs 2525 and has 106rwhp.:(

(that is after doing everything that is 100% IT legal and not "techshed legal" and spending too much money to get every once of hp legally from the motor to get what around 13% gain?)

[RacerBill]

[QUOTE=Z3_GoCar;302502]Steve,

Yes, your car is symbolic of the problem with the CRB. They're the people who say, "Isn't this the same motor used for formula Atlantic?" The problem is what they know isn't reality because of limits that IT imposes that FA didn't have.

QUOTE]

All engines that are the same displacement do not have the same horsepower, and all engines that have the same horespower are not the same size. But when we apply the modifications that allowed by the IT rules, we do not substantially change displacement, we change horsepower and torque. Therefore horsepower should be the base we use to determine weight.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I feel the same way. Since hp is largly determined by cam profiles, throttle body (or carb) size, compression ratio, valve size, head design, etc...our engines in IT trim are fairly limited in the grand scheme of things because we can not change any of that from stock. If all of that were open, then overall size of the slugs would be a real consideration IMHO.

[JeffYoung]

Agreed, from one of the largest motors in IT. Cams, compression and induction limit the power in most IT builds, not displacement.

The GSR motors make the same or better whp as my 3.5 liter V8 at half the displacement.

[Ron Earp]

The GSR motors make the same or better whp as my 3.5 liter V8 at half the displacement.

Make more whp than me too, at almost 1L less displacement, or 30% less.

[lateapex911]

The displacement arguement is so patently odd in my mind that I wonder if it's a red herring. Just a method or way to say "we want more 'freedom' or 'wiggleroom' to nudge things in ways we think we want to".

The Audi example is one where they said, "No the weight is fine: We see it looks good on the track. It has a big engine. It shouldn't weigh less with that size engine in that class".

Obviously, our position is that that is illogical and full of holes. (I'll spare you the details, but one very pertinent one is that a CRB liaison, Chris Albin, considered building one, actuallHAD the chassis, but decided it wouldn't be the best move at it's current weight, and sold the chassis. Simple logic to see that HE didn't think it would be competitive, yet he objected to looking at it's weight. Also, the CRB didn't send the recommendation back to the ITAC with a "PLease scrub this down for us, try to get evidence as to it's true HP potential, this doesn't 'smell right' to us", they flat rejected it, AND threw the whole adjustment process into a lockdown...only to just as mysteriously lift the lockdown a couple months later....)

Why we are having all these issues ONLY in ITB is beyond me....

If anybody is responding to this thread, positive or negatively, they should do so over there as well. The CRB has essentially decreed that is their ' internet channel'; so be it, we can talk there. But, as Vaughan points out, if we say nothing, the CRB will ABSOLUTELY interpret that as a vote of confidence. it might be a philosophical discussion, but it has a VERY real effect on your future as an IT racer. We've spent 8 years trying to clean up the practices and systems and eliminate even the appearance of back room politics, and this recent shift is clearly a power play that rejects the above board methods developed by the ITAC, and if the MR2 example and the recent ITA Golf rejection are indicators, it's a return to the old loosey goosey ways of classifications.

[Ron Earp]

T
If anybody is responding to this thread, positive or negatively, they should do so over there as well. The CRB has essentially decreed that is their ' internet channel'; so be it, we can talk there..


okey doeky.

[Knestis]

I did a little digging this evening, curious about the disposition of the cars for which recommendations were made to from the ITAC to the CRB, re: "please review the weight" requests. By my count, there are still a number that have never been acted on, based on my record of rec's and Fastrack:

Toyota Celica GT 2000-2004
Porsche 914-6 70-72
Civic DX 1.5 1988-91
Neon R/T & ACR 2001-03
Porsche 911T 1968-69
Porsche 911T 1970-71
Porsche 911E 1972-73
Mercury Capri 1979-86
Ford Focus SVT 2002-2004
FX16 87-88
Mazda Miata 94-97
Mazda Protégé 1999-00
Neon R/T & ACR 2001-03
Neon SE, ES, SXT 2000-03
Mustang V6 94-98
BMW 528e 82-87
Honda S2000 (2.2) 2004
Mazda MX3 1992-1993

I've probably missed some but I KNOW there are some that just got ignored.

K

[Flyinglizard]

The Mr2 does not make the right power because it revs the same as stock. It cant burn much more fuel than stock. Therefore the only increase, is the small compression increase.
Pounds per CC, times the usable rpm, is a fairly good estimator. This brings all of the engineering values into play. Throttle body area, cam, Mapping, etc. That is the same reason that ITB Golf 2 , with a good 4x1 header runs the same as a 16V with the stock header and cams. They run the same rpm7200+-100max.
The cars that respond well over the stock readings, are turning way over the rated RPM range and burning more fuel. Physics cant be cheated. If yourace car cant spin 1000 RPM more than rated HP, your sunk. IMHO.
The Audi 5cyl, have very weak cams, and low compression. Did those ever get taken apart, CCd , and the cams checked? They were turning almost 2000RPM over rated values.( with worse cams than the Golf 1)

[quadzjr]

The Mr2 does not make the right power because it revs the same as stock. It cant burn much more fuel than stock. Therefore the only increase, is the small compression increase.

There are a few things more than that.. the biggest issue when faced on trying to find "gains". is that the motor has already been optimized. Many SAE papers have been written and shared on the incredible amount of work that was done in research to optimize the 4A that replaced the 3TC. The motor comes stock with a tublar header design, stock with port matched intake and exhaust, and stupid small camshafts. So for the most part the big things that wake up other motors IT wise, Toyota already has done.

[Jeremy Billiel]

Bob has responded to Vaughn's posting, so again guys if you want to be heard go post on the scca site. Be respectful and make sure to explain your position. what I found to be interesting was Bob's response to this question.


Edit: Damn formatting will not copy...

[Bill Miller]

Bob's post seems to be saying that ALL the cars in IT were considered during the initial application of the process, and ones that weren't adjusted didn't need to be. That's SIGNIFICANTLY different than what we've heard from the ITAC members (both current and former). Or maybe that's some of the revisionist history that Andy has mentioned.

[Knestis]

On my list of lingering decisions above - Jake, Andy, and Josh have pointed out that more than a few of them have indeed been resolved. The Miata was an unusual situation because once it went through the entire process internal to the ITAC, we determined that it was spot-on even with the then-most-brand-new process. No findings/recommendation was reported to the CRB, although in hindsight, to have done so might have squelched some lingering anxiety about among the membership re: IT Mafia hit squads and all... :)

K

[RacerBill]

There is some very interesting dialog taking place on the IT portion of the SCCA forum. The CRB has chosen this vehicle to engage members of the IT community. The dialog has been enlightening and polite. It is up to everyone who reads our pages here and believes tin the process that our ITAC developed over the past few years to stand up and let our position be known to the CRB.

Thank you to those who have already posted, and thanks to those who will post soon.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bob's post seems to be saying that ALL the cars in IT were considered during the initial application of the process, and ones that weren't adjusted didn't need to be. That's SIGNIFICANTLY different than what we've heard from the ITAC members (both current and former). Or maybe that's some of the revisionist history that Andy has mentioned.

The original cut was a multi-pronged attempt. First, any car that was INSIDE +/- 100lbs was considered 'close enough'. Second, anything that was outside the window was looked at, and if there was information that we could use to pin down a new power multiplier, we did. Third, while the CRB was on-board with the effort, they new it would be a hard sell to the then-BOD so we were advised to be cautious (like using the +/-100 and not sending too many cars to them to approve at once). And forth, anything that was outside the window that we had no-freaking-idea about (like the Audi or Alfa's or whatever, got left alone awaiting member request should them come in.

So while they were ALL considered, they were certainly not all adjusted. That consideration was a very simple version for fear that it would get rejected in whole. It made sense given how much of a departure it was from the norm at the time.

[Andy Bettencourt]

There is some very interesting dialog taking place on the IT portion of the SCCA forum. The CRB has chosen this vehicle to engage members of the IT community. The dialog has been enlightening and polite. It is up to everyone who reads our pages here and believes tin the process that our ITAC developed over the past few years to stand up and let our position be known to the CRB.

Thank you to those who have already posted, and thanks to those who will post soon.

Thanks Bill. If it were me, I would emphasise how much we don't want on-track to be a determinant, how well the process has proven to work in the past 5 years, how great IT is currently...

[Knestis]

The original cut was a multi-pronged attempt. First, any car that was INSIDE +/- 100lbs was considered 'close enough'. Second, anything that was outside the window was looked at, and if there was information that we could use to pin down a new power multiplier, we did. Third, while the CRB was on-board with the effort, they new it would be a hard sell to the then-CRB so we were advised to be cautious (like using the +/-100 and not sending too many cars to them to approve at once). And forth, anything that was outside the window that we had no-freaking-idea about (like the Audi or Alfa's or whatever, got left alone awaiting member request should them come in.

So while they were ALL considered, they were certainly not all adjusted. That consideration was a very simple version for fear that it would get rejected in whole. It made sense given how much of a departure it was from the norm at the time.

This description needs to be chiseled in those tablets we have laying around here somewhere. I think there are a lot of misconceptions about the GR - and having folks operating without accurate history is a big problem.

I think you mean it would have been a hard sell to the "then-BOD," tho, right?

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

This description needs to be chiseled in those tablets we have laying around here somewhere. I think there are a lot of misconceptions about the GR - and having folks operating without accurate history is a big problem.

I think you mean it would have been a hard sell to the "then-BOD," tho, right?

K

Yes, I will edit.

[Bill Miller]

The original cut was a multi-pronged attempt. First, any car that was INSIDE +/- 100lbs was considered 'close enough'. Second, anything that was outside the window was looked at, and if there was information that we could use to pin down a new power multiplier, we did. Third, while the BOD was on-board with the effort, they new it would be a hard sell to the then-CRB so we were advised to be cautious (like using the +/-100 and not sending too many cars to them to approve at once). And forth, anything that was outside the window that we had no-freaking-idea about (like the Audi or Alfa's or whatever, got left alone awaiting member request should them come in.

So while they were ALL considered, they were certainly not all adjusted. That consideration was a very simple version for fear that it would get rejected in whole. It made sense given how much of a departure it was from the norm at the time.

Thanks Andy. Bob's comment leaves out a few important details (like the +/- 100# is close enough). Gotta applaud Jeff for not pulling any punches w/ his post on the SCCA board.

[lateapex911]

For those who don't 'cross read", there is a similar thread regarding this subject, (which I'll call 'the CRB /ITAC debate regarding the proper application of the Process') going on over at RR/AX.com.

And we know of the thread on SCCA, which was started with a statement by Bob Dowie.

So that we're all on as much of the same page as possible, and since the discussion has been sadly lacking CRB response, I'm going to cross post a post by Peter Keane from RR AX so that everyone is in the loop.


I was going to wade into this mess, but have decided it would be better to just let this cool off. I want to look forward and continue on the course that we started six years ago.

I would like to say that the guys on this forum who have bashed Bob Dowie are ridiculous. Bob was the unlucky guy that had to write a statement to you guys. Most of you guys have only heard the ex-ITAC member’s side of the story and have no clue what was discussed on these calls or on our private forum. I personally know and respect all the players in this dispute, but what has been said about Bob is not right. Bob is the most genuine SCCA racer that I have ever met. He is a huge IT supporter and only wants what is best for the class. If this dispute happed 5 or 6 years ago the CRB and BOD would have told you to pound sand.

I believe what happened here was the ITAC had a five year run of never being questioned by the CRB. When the ITAC started to amend the process the CRB got concerned and started asking questions. That is the CRB job! I believe the ITAC, unintentionally, took the questions as an insult and took a defensive stance of how dare you question us. These positions lead to more questions by the CRB and more tension on the ITAC.

As for Bob’s statement on internet use, we had several occasions when the day after the ITAC conference call, members were on this forum airing dirty laundry about the CRB position. The problem with that is no decision had been made about anything. The discussion was still ongoing and V2 had not even been put down on paper yet. It is a real bitch when you are airing dirty laundry that has not even been through the spin cycle yet.

I would like to dispute Andy’s observation that the rest of the CRB did not know about the IT process. Of course they knew about the process. A couple of years earlier I had sold them on a modified IT process to classify Showroom Stock and Touring cars. I believe the questions that Andy received, from the CRB on the version 2, were the members doing what they thought was due diligence, not out of ignorance of the process. The CRB was asking questions that they thought they would get from the membership. The CRB has to try to cover all the bases; because once it becomes public it is open to the members input. You can see from this forum alone, how kind and forgiving the membership is about CRB decisions.

I would also like to say it is ridiculous for Jake to say his feelings were hurt by Bob on the conference calls. What are we 6 years old? Jake move your zipper from the side to the front.

The last thing I would like to say is never did the CRB say V2 was a dead issue. The CRB had some major concerns, but never said it is over. The members of the ITAC got very frustrated and took their ball and went home. My hope is the new ITAC can find common ground and move forward. Secondly, if you read the threads of the people that are pissed off, you will see that it is about their garage. I believe that- the health of IT is way more important than one individual’s garage. PKThat post is here: http://roadraceautox.com/showthread.php?p=685154#post685154 , post #538

Obviously I'm amused by some comments, but my central issue is the "revisionist history" aspect, and the lack of debate/response regarding real questions put to the CRB.

For those who don't know, Peter Keane is a very talented ITB driver from Florida, who has challenged for the ARRC win these past few years (His brother Duce Keane is a multi time winner in an identical car). Peter was an ITAC member, was then appointed to the CRB (ITAC liaison), and then reappointed to the ITAC. I know he was on the ITAC 5 years ago, but I don't know when he was first appointed.

[dyoungre]

FWIW, I sent in my letter to the CRB to voice my support for the ITAC and the Process. I ain't no Edgar Allan Poe, but I hope that volumes of support help as much as quality. It's hard to get a good note written with poopie diapers to take care of!

Request Details
Title: Support for ITAC Process
Class: IT
Car: none
Request: I would like to express my support for the classification process proposed and developed by the ITAC. To be specific, I support vehicle weight to be determined based, as an initial starting point, on published HP for the vehicle in production trim.
My support is based on my technical knowledge and understanding of both internal combustion engines, and the restrictions and opportunities afforded by the ITCS rules.
To defend my technical knowledge, allow me to share:
I have a Master's in Mechanical Engineering from Michigan, a BS in Mechanical Engineering from Cornell. I've worked my whole career in powertrain since 1987, for an OE or a supplier. I have spent over 10 of my 23 years analyzing engine performance data (power, volumetric efficiency and emissions). Fundamentally, I believe my engineering judgement is sound when discussing factors which effect engine performance.
I have also been involved for 15 years in SCCA racing (as well as IMSA) as car engineer and crew for World Challenge, GT, and as a driver as well, in IT for 12 years.
It is from this education and experience that I conclude that the restrictions within the ITCS that require stock valve sizes, camshafts, intake manifolds and throttle bodies, that stock horsepower is a fundamental starting point in determining the potential for engine output in full racing trim, when all modifications within the rules are exploited.
I recognize that some engines have more potential than others. Comparing a 2.0L Zetec in a Ford Focus ZX3 to a 2.0L SVT Focus is a prime example â€" the SVT has already exploited much of the ‘low hanging fruit’ allowed in IT, so there is not much left. That being said, a non SVT focus engine will NEVER approach the power of an SVT Focus, simply because SVT cam timing and ports allow for more airflow than stock head will achieve. Simply assuming that ‘all 2.0L 4 valve engines have equivalent potential’ would be detrimental to IT racing, as it would eliminate the variety in vehicles that we desire.
Please recognize the ITAC for exactly what it is - a voice that is closest to the IT racing community, that has a clear and well thought out understanding of the wants of it's members.
　
letter number #728

[lateapex911]

Good stuff Dave. I'd suggest you cc that to the BoD. Just to keep everybody in the loop. Dick can correct me, but that seems like a prudent approach considering recent history.

[IPRESS]

That was a good letter Dave.:023:
I think key in that is the part of using stock HP as a "starting point". Maybe the part that worries the CRB is the occasional inflated or deflated Mfg HP claim that really throws a monkey wrench in the works. I know, I know there is room within the process to address that. Maybe Josh can convince them.

[924Guy]

Excellent letter, Dave, thanks very much...

[Andy Bettencourt]

That was a good letter Dave.:023:
I think key in that is the part of using stock HP as a "starting point". Maybe the part that worries the CRB is the occasional inflated or deflated Mfg HP claim that really throws a monkey wrench in the works. I know, I know there is room within the process to address that. Maybe Josh can convince them.

He shouldn't have to Mac. Anyone who understands the Process knows that stock hp is not just the starting point, they also know that the REAL number that gets put through the math is 'estimated hp in IT trim'. There are a TON of examples of how this works well in the ITCS. Two cars on the opposite side of the spectrum:

101hp 12A ITA RX-7. Processed at 50%+
240hp S2000. Processed at 15%

25% is a starting point, and that's it. But when you don't have any other information ro can't drawn logical conclusions (like how much might be left out of a NA 2.0 at 240hp), what do you do? You leave it! And if the CRB understands the Process like Peter Keene says they do, this should never have gotten to where it is today. If they don't understand, which I know some did not, then it was Peter, Chris' and Bob's job to do that. They bought it for years and allowed us to do what we did to IT. /broken record

[dyoungre]

Thanks guys. That was a second attempt, as I started a letter at work that went on and on and on about the unique draw to IT due to the challenge of choosing a car first and making it competitive second, being a car club, not just a racing club .... then decided that it was WAY too philosophical.

Andy, when I read '50%+' for the 12A RX7, my gut reaction was "that's why I sold it" ... then thinking that we're talking crank horsepower to crank horsepower, and ... well, I know I had gotten ~46%, so 50% really wasn't so far off. If I could have taken 50 lbs out of my cage ....

My biggest frustration with car classification (pre process) had been that the very cars that I think would be cool to see on the track - Fiero, MR2, Rotary anything, and great street cars like the S2000 - appear to get over restricted in fear of them being overdogs. What results is a formulaic, pick your best Nissan / Honda / VW and you've chosen wisely. 924Guy, you were one of the few I could beat at Waterford in ITA, back when I started. I'm glad to see you stuck with your passion (and glad that the 924 was adjusted appropriately) as it also fits in as something just a little different - but wasn't ever going to be competitive as it was classed in 1998!

I'm only seeing one side of the ITAC/CRB issue, I know ... but I was very disturbed to read about the lack of respect your efforts have been given as of late. I appreciate everything you have done to date, and hope the path you have blazed carries through.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Dave,

I really like your letter. Thanks for that. A 'lack or respect for our efforts' isn't how I would exactly characterize the situation but I get your point. Josh is going to do a great job.

[lateapex911]

101hp 12A ITA RX-7. Processed at 50%+
240hp S2000. Processed at 15%



Ah HA!
No wonder I suck in ITA. And the Hondas always win!

It's Honda payola money...grrrr