What's going on with IT and the CRB?

[924Guy]

So, the CRB was supposed to post something last week, to the SCCA forums, about the ongoing issues with the ITAC, the members who've left, the future of IT, any or all of the above...

Did I miss it? 'Cause I haven't seen anything yet.

Maybe the outpouring of letter has overwhelmed them, and made them desire to spend some more time coordinating the response?

How long till we should ask what's up?? :024:

[seckerich]

I spoke with my area directors this weekend at our year end meeting. Both Robin Langlotz and Phil Creighton assured me that they would see what could be worked out to help IT going forward. Did not get a chance to corner Fred Clark but he has been good to work with in the past. Lets see what they (CRB) come up with.

[lateapex911]

The cynic in me thinks it's the same old story, keep quiet, lay low, let it blow over. Actually responding and debating things with the members will only be a losing proposition. Too many things to defend effectively. Again, maybe I'm being too cynical, but I feel they will make sure they all tell the BoD the same story, and leave it at that.

In my eyes, that's a shame, because the BoD isn't the boss.

[Butch Kummer]

This weekend I talked to both Fred Clark (CRB ) and Phil Creighton (BoD). Both separately expressed the opinion this is an issue of miscommunication with the possibility of egos run amuck (on both sides) and felt a compromise was not only possible but expected. And while the ITAC/CRB issue is big within this community, the lack of a "formal response" is because they've been dealing with an even bigger issue involving manufacturer involvement in Club Racing.

I thought I did at one time, but I'm glad I don't have EITHER of their jobs.

Patience Prudence (and I do know these guys want what's best for our club)...

[RedMisted]

This weekend I talked to both Fred Clark (CRB ) and Phil Creighton (BoD). Both separately expressed the opinion this is an issue of miscommunication with the possibility of egos run amuck (on both sides) and felt a compromise was not only possible but expected. And while the ITAC/CRB issue is big within this community, the lack of a "formal response" is because they've been dealing with an even bigger issue involving manufacturer involvement in Club Racing.

I thought I did at one time, but I'm glad I don't have EITHER of their jobs.

Patience Prudence (and I do know these guys want what's best for our club)...

The CRB does indeed have other matters to deal with, but let's not allow them to forget OUR issues. Keep up the emails, phonecalls, snail mail, telepathic sendings, etc. :D

[RacerBill]

The CRB does indeed have other matters to deal with, but let's not allow them to forget OUR issues. Keep up the emails, phonecalls, snail mail, telepathic sendings, etc. :D

Especially considering the following statements printed in the March SportsCar -

"...it is imperative that we as a Club look forward. We must continue to evolve, upgrade, and improve. To encourge this improvement, I look forward to addressing several issues facing our Club, including...." Jerry Wannarka, Chairman, SCCA Board of Directors.

Mr. Wannarka then sites 5 items, including 'the direction of the national racing program' and 'more active promotion of the SCCA'.

I am encouraged that he used the word 'national' as in the overall racing program, as opposed to 'National' meaning the part of club racing leading to the Runoffs. I feel that in order to promote the SCCA, we have to have a healthy program to be able to promote and attract new members and not drive away current members.

I am encouraged by recent posts in this thread and look forward to hearing meaningful discussions among the disputing parties.

I also agree with Chris, that we need to gently keep our issues in front of the BOD, CRB, and ITAC.

[RedMisted]

Especially considering the following statements printed in the March SportsCar -

"...We must continue to evolve, upgrade, and improve. To encourge this improvement, I look forward to addressing several issues facing our Club, including...." Jerry Wannarka, Chairman, SCCA Board of Directors.

Mr. Wannarka then sites 5 items, including 'the direction of the national racing program' and 'more active promotion of the SCCA'.

I am encouraged that he used the word 'national' as in the overall racing program, as opposed to 'National' meaning the part of club racing leading to the Runoffs.

Let us hope that Mr. Wannarka's use of the word "national" as opposed to "National" is not a typo...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Both separately expressed the opinion this is an issue of miscommunication with the possibility of egos run amuck (on both sides) and felt a compromise was not only possible but expected.

While I am SURE there will be a compromise, I take exception to the ego comment. The bottom line is that the CRB changed the rules during the game. Then they changed them back. Then they changed them again.

They are introducing factors into the classification and reclassification process that have never been considerations before. While that in itself is more than fine, *I* personally would like them to be based in theory that I believe in. Just because a car has a 2.0L DOHC 16V 4cyl doesn't mean the weights need to be similar. Just because a car has a 'larger than normal' engine doesn't mean it should be held back from accurate classification.

Stubborn? Sure. But I never heard a 'why'. All I need is a 'why'. Why had we been fine for 6 years and now all the sudden it's broken?

[Butch Kummer]

Andy, I paraphrased what I was told knowing others would/could disagree (which is also why I included the words "possibility of"). Obviously I wasn't involved in any of the discussions between the ITAC and CRB, so I have no first-hand knowledge of anything that happened.

Thinking about it now I probably should have mentioned when talking to them this weekend that it sure seems an independent mediator (is that a redundant statement?) could be beneficial to resolving the issues. I have no idea if all parties would be receptive to such a step, but I'd be willing to participate if asked.

[Bill Miller]

While I am SURE there will be a compromise, I take exception to the ego comment. The bottom line is that the CRB changed the rules during the game. Then they changed them back. Then they changed them again.

They are introducing factors into the classification and reclassification process that have never been considerations before. While that in itself is more than fine, *I* personally would like them to be based in theory that I believe in. Just because a car has a 2.0L DOHC 16V 4cyl doesn't mean the weights need to be similar. Just because a car has a 'larger than normal' engine doesn't mean it should be held back from accurate classification.

Stubborn? Sure. But I never heard a 'why'. All I need is a 'why'. Why had we been fine for 6 years and now all the sudden it's broken?

That's been my gripe all along Andy, there's NEVER a 'why'. How can they continue to spout the
car is correct as specified but can't follow that up w/ what that specification is based on. They know they pull this crap out of their ass, but they just won't admit to it.

[lateapex911]

Butch, I'm with Andy on this one, but I'd go a step further, I wanted to know "how" we would proceed. I'll give two examples (no new news here for those who have read the details)

1- When we recommended the MR2 and it's brother the AE86 RWD Corolla be corrected (the former) and moved to ITB (the latter) we did so based on a 25% IT hp gain factor, correcting an earlier mistake that the committee (me) made by using a 30% factor. The recommendation was shot down by the CRB on the MR2, and the AE86 had 95 pounds added to it.

So, upon reading that, we asked, "WHY?", and the CRB responded with: "Because the original process sold to the BoD had 16 valve engines listed as using a factor of 30% and that's the way the listings have been done."

I countered with "The original process also said, right after that, 'Check to make sure those make sense and match reality' (paraphrased), and we have 8 dyno sheets showing IT builds that struggle to get to 17%. Further, we haven't been using the 30% figure as the norm for a long time as it just doesn't reflect reality on those engines most of the time".

A point was raised that "All 16V cars going into ITB get that factor, that was the deal to get those cars in the class."

Huh?? But WHY??? Why class cars incorrectly KNOWING all the time that they are incorrect??

It was told to us that we were to be considering other factors, and the 5+ yeas of using stock hp was no longer in favor with the CRB. WHY?
But......"OK", I said, "what factors and how should they be incorporated consistently?"

The key figure was displacement according to the CRB.

Example 2: We recommended a weight shift to a couple Golfs in ITA. In short, the CRB disagreed, and thought our recommendations were light. "Compared to other 2.0L engines of the same architecture in ITA, these listings don't fit". We asked which ones, and several were eventually identified. The cars listed were heavier, yes, but, they also had more base HP.

"I again asked, "How can we do this consistently and with repeatability? A; We don't know off the top of our heads whether those listings are current, and B, how do we accommodate the difference in actual HP those engines make??" This was a serious question, in other words, "Help me do what you want in a proper manner"

The answer: "You're the experts, ....you should know".

Well, I DO know, we run the process based on stock hp, and when we have real evidence that shows that needs to be deviated from, we present that evidence, vote on it, document it, and move forward.

(this whole process was born from 'experts'...(like me!) "englishing" weights so they 'felt right' and matched what people 'think they know"...and was a mess of weights that didn't make sense. How can we avoid that, and why are we going back to that?)

It is clear, and the CRB has stated so, that they wish to "wiggle room" listings, and it's also obvious that that is NOT what the members want. (nearly two dozen letters, AGAIN, unanimous, indicate this)

While having a mediator would be interesting, unless one side makes unwanted concessions, I can't see an outcome.....and really, that mediator should consider the members first principals above all else.

For the ITACs part, I strongly feel they have been consistent in their direction, and responsive to the overwhelmingly clear member wishes.

[dj10]

"What we have here...is a failure to communicate"

IMHO. I do know in counciling it is called "active listening" and might help. :~)

[quadzjr]

so according to the CRB the displacement is the key factory
so a DOHC 1.6L honda = DOHC 1.6L Toyota (160hp v.s 112)hp?

You can use displacement, as a base point, however to accurately classify each car you would have to have alot of data on the motor and every variation of the motor. If you took displacement, CR, valve size/# of valves, cam lift/duration/lobe centerlines, valve spring rates, weight of rotating assembly, cylinder head/intake/TB, volume of runners, fuel supply, etc...

Then you can plug it into a modern enegine simulation and get an idea of what it will make with IT legal mods.

Even older engine programs are not detailed enough to handle everything , and when we are talking every hp=17lbs it woudl have to be quite accurate.

Then how do you get this information for all the cars in the ITCS? Then if you get info from members is it gold?

They have to take more than displacement, otherwise the 2.3L ford mustang would be in ITA, and the 99 civic si would be in ITB.

[MMiskoe]

The key figure was displacement according to the CRB.


Great. So my 3.0L Nissan will get moved up to ITR, the 1.6L Miata will move down to ITB and the Honda S2000 belongs in ITA.

Everyone also knows that red cars are faster, do they get 100# adder?

[Knestis]

This weekend I talked to both Fred Clark (CRB ) and Phil Creighton (BoD). Both separately expressed the opinion this is an issue of miscommunication with the possibility of egos run amuck (on both sides) and felt a compromise was not only possible but expected. And while the ITAC/CRB issue is big within this community, the lack of a "formal response" is because they've been dealing with an even bigger issue involving manufacturer involvement in Club Racing.

I thought I did at one time, but I'm glad I don't have EITHER of their jobs.

Patience Prudence (and I do know these guys want what's best for our club)...

I'm sorry Butch, but at some point you run the risk participating in an active repeating of untruths often enough that you're contributing to the problem. It's called "staying on message" and it's a popular strategy of those who want to divert discussion from a topic that they really don't want to engage in - or lose. You (and others) are carrying water for individuals who don't WANT to engage with the membership.

When it was just me, the problem could quite easily have been a loose cannon. When Giles left, he was in good company in that respect. But when the system is busted enough that Andy and Jake - the core of the then-current ITAC - throw up their arms? It CANNOT be dismissed the way you're characterizing.

The CRB doesn't need a mediator. It needs to quit behaving like a coffee klatch, and more like a decision-making body representing hundreds of thousands of dollars of investment by club members. If the BoD is endorsing the lousy management of the CRB, they are part of the problem.

K

[tom91ita]

The key figure was displacement according to the CRB.

i think the displacment of the CRB is the best idea yet! :smilie_pokal:

[Ron Earp]

Displacement only huh?

So we didn't use that in the past but we've got cars in most classes running competitively based on stock hp. How did that happen? ummmm, the process worked?

Now we are to switch to displacement only. If we switch to displacement based classification are we moving older cars to new classes? Or just using displacement to improperly class new cars against older cars?

Jeez.

Displacement only would cause problems.

TR8 = 240Z = 260Z = 300Z = ~175 rwhp +/- 3%

300z and TR8 have to go to R based on displacement.

[924Guy]

Patience Prudence (and I do know these guys want what's best for our club)...

That's a great idea... but no, we shouldn't cut them a free pass to get back to us when they've got nothing more pressing to do.

If we don't keep the pressure up, we can count on them to blow us off...

If they truly are busy with some serious issues... why can't they tell us that themselves???

[Butch Kummer]

Don't shoot the messenger here, guys. Obviously I have something at stake here and I care enough to not only write a letter but also to follow up with people face to face. What I've written is what people have told me, and I'm not in a position to call them liars.

That said, I very much agree that "your car is currently classed appropriately" is a suck-ass answer to a reclassification request. Unfortunately that appears to continue to be the norm in SCCA official-dom. I've heard rumors that participation on the various forums is "discouraged" by the BoD and the higher-ups in the stewards program, but again I've never heard exactly why that is.

When I ran for the BoD back in 2002, one of the planks in my platform was better communication of WHY decisions were made. I've said before that if I explain my logic process then you can either agree with it or point out flaws in my thinking. I did not get elected, I'm happy about that, and I won't run again. I am MUCH happier being the Competition Director for Atlanta Region.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The more I type, the more I am sure I will never get invited to get back on the ITAC (which I would love to do) but I have to make sure that the facts are represented properly - or at least from both sides. When words like 'ego' and 'unwillingness' pop up, it just shows a total disconnect from reality.

And to reiterate, when the 'shift in direction' happened (not allowing us to run current listing through the process to correct them to current standards) some of us didn't like that. But I opened up a con call by asking the CRB to tell us what they wanted us to do, and we will do it. The result was Decembers Fast Track full of answers that were 'classed appropriately'. Then the next time IT got some ink was February. They let the ITAC run The 320i and 325 (E30) through.

I personally don't care what math makes up the Process, as long as it can be repeatable, makes sense to everyone and is applied consistantly. Is that really such a big deal?

My only regret is that we couldn't see this to it's end. Like I said earlier, I am sure they will come to a compromise and we have two great guys who post here who are sticking it out. For me, I didn't shoot my way out of town, I just let them know that they had strayed from what we were chartered to do years ago, had been doing successfully and I couldn't wrap my head around what was going on so I needed to make room for members who were more on board. I posted a request for them to write down what they wanted us to do so we could be on board, and they never did.

[JoshS]

Guys, I'm still on the ITAC and I can assure you that we won't be dropping stock horsepower, nor using displacement as the basis for weights.

Please be patient, I think we won't really have details to share until our next meeting at the end of this month, but I have personally talked to members of the CRB and I would not expect much to change. If anything, we'll try to spend a lot less time managing weights and a lot more time trying to manage the ruleset in order to stay current while not upsetting the existing applecart.

I just can't give you all of the specifics right now, because I don't have them. I have my own goals and plans and proposed approach but we need to really get together as a team and work it out.

If anyone wants to talk to me directly about it, please feel free to contact me by e-mail or phone. You can contact me through the forum or my contact info is available through the SCCA website.

Andy, give me a call ...

[JeffYoung]

Ditto.


Guys, I'm still on the ITAC and I can assure you that we won't be dropping stock horsepower, nor using displacement as the basis for weights.

Please be patient, I think we won't really have details to share until our next meeting at the end of this month, but I have personally talked to members of the CRB and I would not expect much to change. If anything, we'll try to spend a lot less time managing weights and a lot more time trying to manage the ruleset in order to stay current while not upsetting the existing applecart.

I just can't give you all of the specifics right now, because I don't have them. I have my own goals and plans and proposed approach but we need to really get together as a team and work it out.

If anyone wants to talk to me directly about it, please feel free to contact me by e-mail or phone. You can contact me through the forum or my contact info is available through the SCCA website.

Andy, give me a call ...

[IPRESS]

Josh / Jeff stay with it. You guys can do some good.
All this constant moaning about what went on or didn't go on or he thought and they thought counts for squat right now. If you guys can work WITH the Powers That Be I feel pretty confident that the vocal bunch on here will get most of.... if not all... of what they want. The Lynch Mob rhetoric does little if not hurt the position taken by that side. It just comes across as sour grapes. The act of Andy and Jake quitting (not discounting ya Jake, but really Andy quitting the ITAC) made that sides point. Continued "hang the bastards" postings just make the issue less serious. The Powers That Be know well the position of IT racers from the message boards. Hopefully the missed classed cars will get fixed in due time.
Also, I want the ITAC / CRB / BOD to act in the best interest of IT no matter what I or others say or type. Josh / Jeff, I ask you to do what you think is best with what you know. Contrary to the popular idea on here, I do not think the membership is your BOSS. The membership elects the people to run the association, after that I think it is OK for those people to do the best they can even if the majority of folks differ with how they do it. Basically you don't need our OK.:023:

[quadzjr]

Please be patient, I think we won't really have details to share until our next meeting at the end of this month, but I have personally talked to members of the CRB and I would not expect much to change. If anything, we'll try to spend a lot less time managing weights and a lot more time trying to manage the ruleset in order to stay current while not upsetting the existing applecart.


Be patient for nothing to happen?? what? We have been waiting for an answer of how or why.. neither has come our way, atleast from what I have read.

what rule set are you trying to manage?

"If anything, we'll try to spend a lot less time managing weights and a lot more time trying to manage the ruleset in order to stay current while not upsetting the existing applecart."

I don't see how you can do one without affecting the other??:shrug:

Teh feeling I am getting is that even though the ITAC has alot of support from members like myself, the ITAC is banging their heads agasint the wall, or told to pound sand when their opinion is different from the the rule makers. I would feel so hopeless if I were on the ITAC. I am aksed to do something, I do it, turn it in for review, and they completely re-do what I have done.

[JoshS]

Also, I want the ITAC / CRB / BOD to act in the best interest of IT no matter what I or others say or type. Josh / Jeff, I ask you to do what you think is best with what you know. Contrary to the popular idea on here, I do not think the membership is your BOSS. The membership elects the people to run the association, after that I think it is OK for those people to do the best they can even if the majority of folks differ with how they do it. Basically you don't need our OK.:023:

Thanks for that Mac!


Be patient for nothing to happen?? what? We have been waiting for an answer of how or why.. neither has come our way, atleast from what I have read.

Take a deep breath ... breathe ... breathe ...

Something will happen, namely, we'll continue to class new cars, change the weights of misclassed old cars, and maintain the ruleset (allowances) in an evolutionary fashion to keep IT from turning into vintage.


what rule set are you trying to manage?

The IT allowances ... not sure I get the question.


Teh feeling I am getting is that even though the ITAC has alot of support from members like myself, the ITAC is banging their heads agasint the wall, or told to pound sand when their opinion is different from the the rule makers. I would feel so hopeless if I were on the ITAC. I am aksed to do something, I do it, turn it in for review, and they completely re-do what I have done.

It's not that bad. We're banging our heads against the wall but it turns out that if we move one step to the side, we can walk right through the door. It's far from hopeless.

[RedMisted]

[QUOTE=Butch Kummer;302166]...I've heard rumors that participation on the various forums is "discouraged" by the BoD and the higher-ups in the stewards program, but again I've never heard exactly why that is.QUOTE]

Then what the hell kind of club is SCCA becoming, then??? Key members of the leadership are discouraged from using informal means to gauge the pulse of the membership? This stinks worse than I thought...Worse than I EVER thought...

[RedMisted]

Contrary to the popular idea on here, I do not think the membership is your BOSS. The membership elects the people to run the association, after that I think it is OK for those people to do the best they can even if the majority of folks differ with how they do it. Basically you don't need our OK.:023:

No, I'm sorry. I am in strong disagreement with your statement. This is a CLUB. It exists by, of, and for the members. If the elected leadership doesn't follow the wishes of the membership, then the latter has the option of throwing out the former and electing new leaders.

It's also how things are done in a democratic society.

[Butch Kummer]

Then what the hell kind of club is SCCA becoming, then??? Key members of the leadership are discouraged from using informal means to gauge the pulse of the membership? This stinks worse than I thought...Worse than I EVER thought...

Red - "Becoming"?

I'm not sure how new you are to the club, but it's not for nothing that the "Secret Car Club of America" moniker came into being. I used to think it was due to a lack of presence on the national scene, but I soon learned it's because things are often decided in smoke-filled back rooms. It goes back to when I first got involved back in the 70's and little has changed since.

. Thank you for your input.

. Car is classed appropriately.

. Against class philosophy.

i.e. - This is the decision, take it or leave it. In the old days a lot of people put up with it, but today they have a choice. Whether that's a better option or not is debatable, but there's a reason NASA came into being.

[RedMisted]

Red - "Becoming"?

I'm not sure how new you are to the club, but it's not for nothing that the "Secret Car Club of America" moniker came into being. I used to think it was due to a lack of presence on the national scene, but I soon learned it's because things are often decided in smoke-filled back rooms. It goes back to when I first got involved back in the 70's and little has changed since.

. Thank you for your input.

. Car is classed appropriately.

. Against class philosophy.

i.e. - This is the decision, take it or leave it. In the old days a lot of people put up with it, but today they have a choice. Whether that's a better option or not is debatable, but there's a reason NASA came into being.

Gotta apologize... I'm pretty new to SCCA. I'm in my third year of club racing. Before that, I was a member of NASA. But it was for a couple years so I could do their HPDEs.

Thanks for the history lesson. Didn't realize the genesis for NASA until now. Always thought NASA started up on the West Coast for some different reason.

OK, Secret Car Club of America...That in itself tells a story.

[IPRESS]

Chris that is why we have opinions, mine differs from yours. I agree we (the membership) elect people so in theory we have the final say, but because those elected don't do some things the way we want them to, doesn't mean they are doing the wrong thing.
This debate is more about power and governance and way less about the health of IT which is damn healthy and will probably stay that way....again just my opinion.
I have no problem with interested parties championing their side of an issue, but personal attacks and saying the committtees are a bunch of bums ou to screw IT is childish and flat wrong. All it does is get people pissed off on both sides of the issue.

[Andy Bettencourt]

And know that I believe this: IT is WAY better than it used to be. I think there is still some work to be done but the building blocks are in place. No class I would rather be in.

[lateapex911]

Chris that is why we have opinions, mine differs from yours. I agree we (the membership) elect people so in theory we have the final say, but because those elected don't do some things the way we want them to, doesn't mean they are doing the wrong thing.
This debate is more about power and governance and way less about the health of IT which is damn healthy and will probably stay that way....again just my opinion.
I have no problem with interested parties championing their side of an issue, but personal attacks and saying the committtees are a bunch of bums ou to screw IT is childish and flat wrong. All it does is get people pissed off on both sides of the issue.

First, I hope my post haven't been characterized as personal attacks or saying that anyone is out to screw IT.

I DO disagree withe the bottom line of the members being the boss. My job as a committee member was described to me day one, and it included knowing my category and it's members.

My job on the ITAC was to protect and champion their first principles. Now, that might take various forms, but in the end, the big picture was to ensure that the category was true to the members desired cornerstones.

I've spoken to those who have gotten 'the other side of the story", and it's clear that they were not on the con calls, that the specific things I was told haven't been equally represented when the BoD is informed.

IT is in great shape, and it is in such good shape because of 5 years plus of work that has been circling in on tighter and tighter standards of operation. The wheels aren't about to fall of. But...I'm dismayed when I see cars being classed wrong, with no solid evidence, and in manners that are in direct contrast to the members expectations.

If you want to say "It's about power", fine. You've mentioned in the past your contacts have stated that the ITAC "Got too big for it's britches"... clearly, that's an opinion of those further up the line. I could care less about "power"...or the ego massaging that goes with it. I am worried about the power being applied improperly. I don't care who does it, just do it right. Be aboveboard. Be transparent. Be consistent. Be able to answer the members.

As hard as it might be for you to accept, this isn't about egos, at least not on my part. It's simple, it's about doing the right thing, and the members have defined that rather well. And they deserve to know what is going on. Good, and bad.

[Ron Earp]

Contrary to the popular idea on here, I do not think the membership is your BOSS.

I respect your opinion, but I disagree with it. As others have stated, the club is by the members for the members. The ITAC should be there to make the wishes of the membership known and to champion those desires, as well as keeping the health of IT at the forefront of their actions.

[Knestis]

Josh / Jeff stay with it. You guys can do some good.
All this constant moaning about what went on or didn't go on or he thought and they thought counts for squat right now. If you guys can work WITH the Powers That Be I feel pretty confident that the vocal bunch on here will get most of.... if not all... of what they want. The Lynch Mob rhetoric does little if not hurt the position taken by that side. It just comes across as sour grapes. The act of Andy and Jake quitting (not discounting ya Jake, but really Andy quitting the ITAC) made that sides point. Continued "hang the bastards" postings just make the issue less serious. The Powers That Be know well the position of IT racers from the message boards. Hopefully the missed classed cars will get fixed in due time.
Also, I want the ITAC / CRB / BOD to act in the best interest of IT no matter what I or others say or type. Josh / Jeff, I ask you to do what you think is best with what you know. Contrary to the popular idea on here, I do not think the membership is your BOSS. The membership elects the people to run the association, after that I think it is OK for those people to do the best they can even if the majority of folks differ with how they do it. Basically you don't need our OK.:023:

Cut to the short version, Mac: You are happy with the status quo of how cars are currently classed and spec'd, so you like the "system."

Some of us are not at all happy about either.

K

[IPRESS]

Cutting to the chase.
I am happy now...... and was also happy back when all you guys were working on the ITAC. I really see the points you guys were trying to get across. I do think that they will get across. This isn't from any "inside info" or anything else, just my opinion. From the little info I have heard from here and other spots, the ITAC & the CRB came to a spot that was blocking the road. Maybe Josh, Jeff, Peter, and the rest can figure out a way to unblock the road. I became more supportive of you guys side when it became clear to me that the process allowed for common sense to be used when a car didn't fit the norm.

[gran racing]

i think the displacment of the CRB is the best idea yet!

That was really funny Tom. LOL


If they truly are busy with some serious issues... why can't they tell us that themselves???


Because for the most part, SCCA falls flat on their face when it comes to communicating which continues to be a major problem.


Please be patient, I think we won't really have details to share until our next meeting at the end of this month, but I have personally talked to members of the CRB and I would not expect much to change. If anything, we'll try to spend a lot less time managing weights and a lot more time trying to manage the ruleset in order to stay current while not upsetting the existing applecart.

The positive thing is the CRB has lowered our expectations enough that we certainly don't expect much of a change.

I'm starting to feel like this whole thing is a joke and it's time to start playing the system.

[924Guy]

And know that I believe this: IT is WAY better than it used to be. I think there is still some work to be done but the building blocks are in place. No class I would rather be in.

+1 to all that. Except I did find a class I'd rather be in. ;)

Still care about IT, though. #1 priority IMO is to make sure we do NOT go back to the standard 3 BS/blowoff answers, as referenced by Butch. Those are simply NOT acceptable.

Maybe it's 'cause I'm an engineer; after all, in the practice of engineering, if you can't logically defend your position/conclusions dispassionately against any and all complaits/issues - it doesn't deserve to see the light of day.

Faith has no place in engineering, only facts. Speak with data. "I think" is a good way to kill people. The difference between a doctor and an engineer? If the doctor screws up, somebody dies. If the engineer screws up - hundreds, maybe thousands of people can die. (right Toyota? ;) )

Doesn't sound like everyone's comfortable with that idea...

[RSTPerformance]

Thanks for that Mac!



Take a deep breath ... breathe ... breathe ...

Something will happen, namely, we'll continue to class new cars, change the weights of misclassed old cars, and maintain the ruleset (allowances) in an evolutionary fashion to keep IT from turning into vintage.



Are you saying that I should send in a new request for the review of the Audi Coupe GT and the Golf III in ITB? The only thing I was told after the year it took the CRB to find something in the GCR to hide behind was that it was against the rules. You are saying the CRB has changed its mind again and will at least give an honest review of the weights of old cars???

Raymond "Thank you Josh for communicating my recent requests on e-mail, you are to date being very responsive" Blethen

[Andy Bettencourt]

Are you saying that I should send in a new request for the review of the Audi Coupe GT and the Golf III in ITB? The only thing I was told after the year it took the CRB to find something in the GCR to hide behind was that it was against the rules. You are saying the CRB has changed its mind again and will at least give an honest review of the weights of old cars???

Raymond "Thank you Josh for communicating my recent requests on e-mail, you are to date being very responsive" Blethen

I highly doubt it Ray. Your car was not rejected under some phantom rules clause, it was rejected under the new way of thinking that "Based on the track performance we have seen, the car is classed competitively"

Your car also poses a unique problem that there is conflicting information on stock hp.

[lateapex911]

Well, actually, Andy, as far as Raymond was told, it was rejected under the guise of a rule clause...

In reality, it was rejected because it appeared competitive, and the engine was a 5 cylinder.

[Knestis]

Sorry - was an official response to the ITB Audi request actually published? Have responses to ALL of the "please review" requests been published? My primary grouse when I called the CRB out on the board here was that they just weren't DOING anything with that backlog. Is it cleared?

K

[gran racing]

I never heard anything official about my request or many, many others. That is, beyond the sit tite, something is forthcoming...

[924Guy]

Quick update, pinged Mr. Wannarka this AM and got a quick reply; sure enough, some manufacturer's been giving 'em fits, as Butch pointed out, but he'll look into it all the same... ;)

[RSTPerformance]

Sorry - was an official response to the ITB Audi request actually published? Have responses to ALL of the "please review" requests been published? My primary grouse when I called the CRB out on the board here was that they just weren't DOING anything with that backlog. Is it cleared?

K



It was in the December Fasttrack... Says that the car is classed appropriately... I recieved personal notification from Bob Dowie the chairman of the CRB on October 1, 2010 stating several issues IMO, but here is some exerpts from the e-mail.

"Being a Steward that is active in IT racing I'm sure you're aware that such an action would require a rule change (current rule below) and would have to go through the rule change process. *It would also require that all cars go through the same procedure since it would be unfair to adjust some cars and not all.

Online GCR pge 332

During the initial vehicle classification process, the Club shall assess vehicle performance factors such as-but not limited to-manufacturer's published specifications for engine type, displacement, horsepower, and torque; vehicle weight; brake type and size; suspension design; and aerodynamic efficiency. Based on such factors, a minimum allowable weight shall be established. At the end of the second, third, and fourth years of classification, the vehicle's racing performance relative to other vehicles in its class shall be evaluated. If the Club deems that, in the interest of fostering greater equity within a class, a vehicle should be reclassified to another Improved Touring class, such a reclassification shall be made. Alternatively or additionally, if the Club deems that an upward or downward revision in the minimum allowable weight is warranted, such a "performance compensation adjustment" shall be made. Any performance compensation adjustments made after the second and third years of classification shall be provisional. At the end of a vehicle's fourth year of Improved Touring classification, an assessment of class equity shall be made and the vehicle's minimum weight shall be established.

On rare occasion-and only after careful review of the actual racing performance of a particular make/model/year of vehicle-the Club may reclassify a vehicle, revise a vehicle's minimum allowable weight, and/or in the most extreme situation an intake restrictor may be required. Such an action shall be taken solely for the purpose of restoring equity within the vehicle's class."

not sure this helps or not... Just thought I would answer the question.

Raymond

[lateapex911]

Okay.
Just to provide two sides to the story, if THAT was the reason your car was denined, then why are there FIVE years of changes that precede it? The "Operative method" was to change cars that didn't fall under that allowance, (ie, cars classified for more than 5 years) under the "errors" clause that I am told exists in the CRBs operations manual.

We ran the numbers on yours, and other cars via the Process, (the one used for 5 years) and determined that the car was significantly off it's process weight.
But, THESE requests were suddenly denied citing (and I must say the reasons were rather slow in coming) the GCR, finally. Internally we had been told that there was strong objection to change the weight of that car because it was "obviously a front running car... clearly competitive".


And IF the GCR section IS to be followed, then WHY did the ITAC JUST recommend adjusting the BMW 320i to Process weight, which the CRB approved!??* It too has been classed for more than 5 years, and it too has shown signs of front running competence. (A number of them beat down some stiff ITB competition at the IT Fest, etc)

One could deduce that the real reason is variable, but centers on a desire to follow "what we know" when it comes to adjustments and weight setting, and appears to be most prevalent in ITB.

*THAT call went like this:

ITAC: "I didn't see all those 'denials" we wrote up in Fastrack. what happened to those?"
CRB: "We didn't approve them, what's the first car on the list?"
ITAC: "Um.. (looking thru notes) the 320i"
CRB: "OK, what's the stock HP? What's the engine? What's the current weight"?
ITAC: "Wait, we just DID this, and we were told we can't adjust cars like this? My notes show you said 'yada yada yada (5 yr GCR rule) etc etc etc', so this car can't be adjusted"
CRB: "Jake, Do you want to adjust cars or not?"
ITAC (me): " Um...well, yeah, but..."
CRB: "Well, then lets get to work. What are the numbers on the car??"

And that was that............

[924Guy]

(from Dictionary.com)

ca⋅pri⋅cious

–adjective 1. subject to, led by, or indicative of caprice or whim; erratic: He's such a capricious boss I never know how he'll react. 2. Obsolete. fanciful or witty.

Origin:
1585–95; < It capriccioso capriccioso (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=capriccioso&db=luna) http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png

Related forms:
ca⋅pri⋅cious⋅ly, adverb
ca⋅pri⋅cious⋅ness, noun

Synonyms:
1. variable, flighty, mercurial. See fickle. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fickle&db=luna)


Antonyms:
1. steady, constant, consistent.

[Bill Miller]

So, any sign of the rumored comments from the CRB/BoD that were going to be posted on the SCCA forums?

[Knestis]

Quick update, pinged Mr. Wannarka this AM and got a quick reply; sure enough, some manufacturer's been giving 'em fits, as Butch pointed out, but he'll look into it all the same... ;)

SO, the Board is being responsive to - or reacting to, anyway - a manufacturer rather than the membership.


...Being a Steward that is active in IT racing I'm sure you're aware that such an action would require a rule change (current rule below) and would have to go through the rule change process. *It would also require that all cars go through the same procedure since it would be unfair to adjust some cars and not all.????

Congratulations, Bob - You've just demonstrated to me where the problem is. What utter bullshit. As Jake correctly points out, they are quite literally changing the rules - and invoking them with their heels dug REGARDLESS of which way they are leaning - based on what they want the result to be.

Oh, yeah - we don't have ANYTHING to worry about. It'll all be JUST fine.

Where's our paddock lawyer? Does anyone know of an instance where the CRB has been formally protested for violation of the GCR? The BMW weight change is clearly illegal.

K

[Z3_GoCar]

Sorry - was an official response to the ITB Audi request actually published? Have responses to ALL of the "please review" requests been published? My primary grouse when I called the CRB out on the board here was that they just weren't DOING anything with that backlog. Is it cleared?

K

I don't know about the other requests, but my request was heard and published in the last FT. The new tracking system does seem to add to at least knowing where in the river your request has floated off to.

[RSTPerformance]

K-

I was wondering the same thing...

A) who runs the club, Manufacturers or Members?

B) is it possible to protest the CRB decisions? The way I see it is that we have until 12:30am o. The 20th right? Who do we file the protest with? My protest and the others mentioned with the BOD haven't gone for from what I can tell... Real bummer.

C) now people know why I kept asking how they were able to change the weight on the BMW in the other threads... It isn't because I am against it, it is because cars like the Audi and MR2 on one side and Golf III on the other are not being treated equally.

Raymond

[gran racing]

In all fairness, there could be some valid reasons why a manufacturer issue or whatever it is would make sense to be given priority. My problem continues to be a total lack of communication. They wouldn't need to go into detail but a message that we're not being pushed aside, some information, and when we can expect to hear from them. Really? Is is all that difficult for them to do?

[924Guy]

Well you can't entirely take fault with the CRB for responding to a manufacturer - they are part of the racing landscape, like it or not, and it's unreasonable to suggest that we (as a club) could just ignore them.

I was given no impression that they are serving the purposes of the manufacturer; there was not enough information given to make any such assumptions.

Any suggestions or theories that this is what happen are simply the opinions of that poster, and NOT based on any facts. Unless they know something more and aren't sharing it...

Come on, guys, let's not find every possible reason to throw darts at the boards. That's the quickest way to making sure they don't listen to you at all.

Since I personally don't have the free time to march in there and take over the whole F'ing Club management, boards and all, and become king for a year or more - I'm going to commit myself to working through the system, and yes the people, that are currently doing the job.

When there is clear evidence of capricious, unreliable, or undesireable behaviour - I planning on being the loudest one calling that out to everyone and anyone.

When there is opportunity to provide contructive criticism and corrective measures, I plan to focus my energy on supporting those - not being the first to bitch up a storm.

It's just like being married; if you go digging for dirt, you're gonna find it, whether or not it's there.

If you intend on having a productive relationship - you have to plan to work WITH the other side of the equation...

[924Guy]

In all fairness, there could be some valid reasons why a manufacturer issue or whatever it is would make sense to be given priority. My problem continues to be a total lack of communication. They wouldn't need to go into detail but a message that we're not being pushed aside, some information, and when we can expect to hear from them. Really? Is is all that difficult for them to do?

Hear hear.

That's why I'm dealing with it the way I'd deal with it at work. If I'm dealing with someone who's having communication issues... I make sure to let management know. In that case, I'd keep my boss in the loop, so that he can go to the other guy's boss, when necessary, and he'll have all the ammo, all the documentation showing that I'm not just flying off the handle at the drop of a hat, but the offender has had an issue for months.

Same deal here, except we've eliminated one layer. By communicating with the Board, we now have them implicitly on our side.

You see, Mr. Wannarka notified us that the CRB/Mr. Dowie will be communicating to all of us (IT racers) by 2/5/10 via the boards. That means Mr. Wannarka is now responsible, by having made that commitment, for making sure that the communication takes place.

By emailing Mr. Wannarka the other day, notifying him that we haven't received that communication, we have let him know that we've been left hanging. However we're standing behind his authority to resolve the issue, rather than going around him.

He's replied, and let us know that hey, there are some mitigating circumstances, but he will regardless look into it and make sure it's not dropped.

Now we have to let him have the room to do his job.

That's how it works; you must give someone both the responsibility to reach a goal, and the authority to achieve it. That's Leadership 101.

[Knestis]

When I used to bitch about stuff like this in 1981, it was "flying off the handle." In the interim, I've gone full circle through "work with the system" (a couple of loops, actually) and am so far back around, well past having patience for that, that it's laughable.

I spend my professional life doing MGMT 101 pretty much 24/7, running every statement, email, and action through that filter. I think it's reasonable to expect that MAYBE those actually in management positions in the Club should do their share, rather than seeming to always demand that guys like Vaughan "manage upward."

K

[924Guy]

When I used to bitch about stuff like this in 1981, it was "flying off the handle." In the interim, I've gone full circle through "work with the system" (a couple of loops, actually) and am so far back around, well past having patience for that, that it's laughable.

I spend my professional life doing MGMT 101 pretty much 24/7, running every statement, email, and action through that filter. I think it's reasonable to expect that MAYBE those actually in management positions in the Club should do their share, rather than seeming to always demand that guys like Vaughan "manage upward."

K

Cheers, and I understand that you've been through probably more of these cycles than possibly much of the current club leadership.

That said, dealing with less-than-perfect managers is the rule, and I've always found care-and-feeding of managers just as important a skill to corporate survival (with minimal stress) as knowing what they should be doing, if they were to get it right.

IOW, doing all the groundwork and laying everything in front of them to ensure they make the right decision - the one I've already chosen for them!

It's simply a matter of making sure that it's not only the most logical, but in fact the easiest choice.

Sadly, that philosophy is rather at odds with the direction the CRB seems to have chosen, or at least did for a few phone calls (per Andy et al). Seems to me like the simplest way to deal with that is document and take it up the ladder.

Sometimes the best way to make me happy is to shut me up... and there's only one way to do that. ;) It's kinda like how you deal with cats - the Principle of Sufficient Irritation. I can get my wife's cats to do most everything I want, using that method... :D

[Greg Amy]

Does anyone know of an instance where the CRB has been formally protested for violation of the GCR?
I was preparing one after the spherical suspension bushings rule change, but I was told that I'd be "wasting my time". - GA