Thanks, ITAC

I’m certainly disappointed in the tack that the CRB is taking. I thought that when the advisory committees were formed, it was an outstanding move. Get a group of volunteer experts in the different categories together, have them do the research and make unbiased recommendations for rules changes. That’s a no brainer – you do the homework and heavy lifting, they do the rubber stamp. You guys have more than fulfilled the best parts of that concept. You all should be proud of how you have executed those marching orders. Now apparently those orders have changed once again.
I for one have certainly appreciated how you’ve reviewed every driver’s request, suggestion or rant and given it a considered analysis before responding or making a recommendation. Without knowing what takes place on your conference calls, I applaud your professional approach with the membership/drivers on this board, face-to-face and on private e-mails.
Please keep up the good work.
:happy204:
Chuck

Chuck, if you haven't already, please copy that and send it to the BOD and Crb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by callard

I’m certainly disappointed in the tack that the CRB is taking. I thought that when the advisory committees were formed, it was an outstanding move. Get a group of volunteer experts in the different categories together, have them do the research and make unbiased recommendations for rules changes. That’s a no brainer – you do the homework and heavy lifting, they do the rubber stamp. You guys have more than fulfilled the best parts of that concept. You all should be proud of how you have executed those marching orders. Now apparently those orders have changed once again.
I for one have certainly appreciated how you’ve reviewed every driver’s request, suggestion or rant and given it a considered analysis before responding or making a recommendation. Without knowing what takes place on your conference calls, I applaud your professional approach with the membership/drivers on this board, face-to-face and on private e-mails.
Please keep up the good work.
:happy204:
Chuck

---

Chuck, thanks for the kind words. I think you are voicing what many have said to me. Certainly some folks disagree too, I bet.

But let's clarify something.

Quote:

---

I for one have certainly appreciated how you’ve reviewed every driver’s request,

---

While we have accepted, and acted upon requests to run cars through the process, it appears that that process wasn't appropriate, according to the rulebook. It was being done via the 'errors and omissions' clause. That practice has been stopped, to my understanding, and if I truly understand it, it wasn't appropriate when it was happening.

Andy said he felt like he's been sticking his hand in the cookie jar for 5 years while Mom has watched, and even opened the jar for him, but now, the cookie jar is closed and locked, and can only be opened when an overdog is clamoring to get out.

Initial listings will get scrutiny as described in the GCR, unless there is a change in that rule, which is in one of the first paragraphs of the ITCS.

I would like to thank you all as well. You acted in good faith and tried to make Improved Touring better by having a fair, and transparent process for classifications. This was a far cry from the way things were done in the past. I think in a way you highlighted what should be done in other catagories and that stepped on a few egos and toes. Now you have all been hung out to dry by the CRB. IT today is better because of your efforts, not the CRB. Lets make the changes necessary in the GCR and IT specs to give you back the power that was taken away. We all pay our membership each year just like the BOD and CRB and have every right to demand this action.

Trust me when I say that the CRB is acting in good faith too. They just have a slightly different view...and I have no issues with that even though I don't agree with it all. Peter Keene has been a lightning rod in many other classes but that guy has busted his hump to try and fix a ton of classes. He is in a no-win situation but I appreciate his work and the entire teams work. They truly have a thankless job. You think WE put up with crap? Nothing compared to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt

Peter Keene has been a lightning rod in many other classes but that guy has busted his hump to try and fix a ton of classes. He is in a no-win situation but I appreciate his work and the entire teams work. They truly have a thankless job. You think WE put up with crap? Nothing compared to them.

---

ding ding. Yea, thick skin needed. Not much bothers Peter! (I love that guy. He's a riot!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt

Trust me when I say that the CRB is acting in good faith too.

---

Don't let Kirk find out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gran racing

Chuck, if you haven't already, please copy that and send it to the BOD and Crb.

---

Why Dave??? None of them care or even listen to what ANYONE has to say... It is a waste of time e-mailing either group.

Anyone know whom members can e-mail? I am getting ready for a mass e-mail to all SCCA officials and that generally gets me into trouble...

I have been advocating others volunteer to help SCCA but my fustrations are also considering walking away from everything. I appreciate the ITAC dedication... Not sure how they keep giving and giving to this organization with such lousy support from those "above" them.

thanks to anyone that can point me in the right direction to actually get something done even if it is just an honest reply saying "we reviewed your feedback & MULTIPLE requests and decided you are completely wrong and here is why.."

Raymond

Quote:

---

Why Dave??? None of them care or even listen to what ANYONE has to say... It is a waste of time e-mailing either group.

---

Why? Because deep down I still have to believe that people care, they're hearing us, but just not listening. If nothing else by sending an e-mail to the BOD, I can ensure that they too have at least been given an opportunity to listen. If not, I’ll still have a part of me wondering what if? I will also give them a phone call during a time that works for them.

Trust me, I too am beyond fed up with all of this and question the club and sport I devote so much of my attention and time to. Sure, time might not be in a racing capacity myself but in plenty of other ways. I’m tired of these closed door secret meetings and decisions and thought we were beyond that. Hey, you want to buy a Prelude? I would strongly consider selling it. Glad the offseason and market isn’t that good right now so I can have some time to digest all of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lateapex911

While we have accepted, and acted upon requests to run cars through the process, it appears that that process wasn't appropriate, according to the rulebook. It was being done via the 'errors and omissions' clause. That practice has been stopped, to my understanding, and if I truly understand it, it wasn't appropriate when it was happening.

---

Jake,

Exactly how wasn't it 'appropriate'? More importantly, who's making the determination that it wasn't 'appropriate'? I'll have to dig through the old FasTracks to see exactly how things were worded when tGR occurred.

Bill, we heard a few things on why the process wasn't appropriate:

1. The CRB believes using stock hp as a basis for the process is suspect.

2. The CRB believes that changing weights on already competitive cars (as they view them) is an impermissible competition adjustment.

3. The CRB doesn't like some of the modifiers we adopted (FWD and live rear axle in particular apparently).

The biggest objection they have is really more fundamental. They see IT as "working" right now and want it left alone. THey don't see the process and the need for objectively weighing all cars in the same way to be a real reason to change things.

Jeff-

I still do t understand why my requests are 9+ months old and I still have not recieved a reply in FastTrack...

Raymond

If your request was related to the weight change on the Audi, it was because we debated it for several months, and passed our recommendation on to the CRB. Like 20+ other recommendations, they have not acted on them (and I assume won't) because of their concerns about the process and how we were weighting cars.

Was your request something else?

Sorry if I/we have not been clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffYoung

Bill, we heard a few things on why the process wasn't appropriate:

1. The CRB believes using stock hp as a basis for the process is suspect.

2. The CRB believes that changing weights on already competitive cars (as they view them) is an impermissible competition adjustment.

3. The CRB doesn't like some of the modifiers we adopted (FWD and live rear axle in particular apparently).

The biggest objection they have is really more fundamental. They see IT as "working" right now and want it left alone. THey don't see the process and the need for objectively weighing all cars in the same way to be a real reason to change things.

---

But you leave out the most fundamental difference: The CRB, as a first principle, believes that there exists a "Right" weight for each car, and that it's possible to determine what that is by watching races. The ITAC sets free any pretense of "getting it right" and chooses repeatability and transparency as more valuable than "correctness."

It's a philosophical world-view kind of thing, that's dominant in the Club - particularly among folks who have been around for a while and think they understand how things work. Because it's so fundamental, it's not likely to change, even if it creates problems - which, not coincidentally, are also as old as the SCCA itself.

K

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffYoung

Bill, we heard a few things on why the process wasn't appropriate:

1. The CRB believes using stock hp as a basis for the process is suspect.

2. The CRB believes that changing weights on already competitive cars (as they view them) is an impermissible competition adjustment.

3. The CRB doesn't like some of the modifiers we adopted (FWD and live rear axle in particular apparently).

The biggest objection they have is really more fundamental. They see IT as "working" right now and want it left alone. THey don't see the process and the need for objectively weighing all cars in the same way to be a real reason to change things.

---

Jeff,

With all due respect, I've admonished Jake for speaking for others, I'll ask you not to do the same. Regardless, you didn't answer my question.

To be fair, Bill - Jeff is simply explaining what he's been told. Now, whether or not that's what the CRB members actually believe is a different question: Those points are certainly NOT consistent with what we were hearing from them during and in the days following the August con call.

K

Jeff-

Jeff are you on the CRB??? sorry i don't know your role, but I suspect that knowone on this website is on the CRB otherwise we would not all be so much in the dark on what is actually going on...

Interestingly the CRB chair (Bob) sent me an e-mail tonight. Apperently it is against the rules to change the weight on any previosly classed car (after 4 years), so they have not and cannot make any weight adjustments per the rules... Why they didn't put a post in fast track 9 months ago on all 20 requests is beyond me...

I sent back an e-mail and expect a reply tomorrow on several issues only one being the lack of responding to my requests.

Raymond

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RSTPerformance

Jeff-

Jeff are you on the CRB??? sorry i don't know your role, but I suspect that knowone on this website is on the CRB otherwise we would not all be so much in the dark on what is actually going on...

Interestingly the CRB chair (Bob) sent me an e-mail tonight. Apperently it is against the rules to change the weight on any previosly classed car (after 4 years), so they have not and cannot make any weight adjustments per the rules... Why they didn't put a post in fast track 9 months ago on all 20 requests is beyond me...

I sent back an e-mail and expect a reply tomorrow on several issues only one being the lack of responding to my requests.

Raymond

---

Raymond,

There are members of the CRB that are registered on this site, and some have posted here in the past. IIRC, Peter Keane has posted here, and possibly Chris Albin. I know someone else on the CRB posted here not that long ago, but I don't remember who it was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feb '06 FasTrack, addendum

The IT advisory committee and the CRB submit the following proposals to realign the cars in IT to ensure equalized performance in each class.
The proposal provides performance adjustments only to those cars previously specified, but considered over- or underestimated. If the car is not
on the list, we have no legitimate data showing a need for adjustment or the car is no longer run in SCCA events.
If the adjustments prove to have a demonstrated negative affect on the competitive balance of an IT class, the IT advisory committee and the
CRB reserve the right to correct the classification using the PCA process.

---

Interesting Raymond, it would appear that based on Bob's letter, the almost 40 cars that had their weights changed in TB 06-2a, had those weights changed in violation of the rules. AFAIK, nothing has changed in that part of the ITCS since that TB was released. How was it ok then, but against the rules now?

What's also interesting, is that they recognized then that if there was a problem w/ a car that was adjusted, they had PCA's at their disposal, and would use them if needed.

What I find funny, is that they obviously consider the say-so of 1 or 2 guys to be 'legitimate data'.

In short, Bob's letter to Raymond is a cheap cop-out. They (the CRB ) are hiding behind an application of the rules that doesn't really apply. If they're going to stand by that, does that mean that they're going to go back and reset the weights on all the cars that were adjusted as part of tGR, as they weren't, under the rules, allowed to change them?

Jeff,

I appreciate you disseminating information. Thank you.

Kirk,

Can you go into how those points aren't consistent w/ what you were hearing from the CRB?

I can't belive the CRB or BoD is ok w/ saying that they think it's ok to treat cars in the same class differently based on, well, ummm, uhhh, no actual evidence that shows they should be. How do they think that looks to someone on the outside looking in, that may be considering running an IT car?

Ray, it's because that's a bunch of crap and a cop out. This can be done if what the club so chooses even if it means asking the BOD for permission. Why was this allowed the first time then? The rules haven't changed so how in the world can the CRB state that this isn't allowed now? They're simply looking for an easy way out and it sure is easier to say Ray, it's not that your car and others aren't fairly classed, it's that we can't possibly do anything about it. Yeah, right.

Wrote my e-mail to our BOD rep in the NER area last night (Bob Introne Jr.).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffYoung

Bill, we heard a few things on why the process wasn't appropriate:

1. The CRB believes using stock hp as a basis for the process is suspect.

2. The CRB believes that changing weights on already competitive cars (as they view them) is an impermissible competition adjustment.

3. The CRB doesn't like some of the modifiers we adopted (FWD and live rear axle in particular apparently).

The biggest objection they have is really more fundamental. They see IT as "working" right now and want it left alone. THey don't see the process and the need for objectively weighing all cars in the same way to be a real reason to change things.

---

I said this and I still believe it, Jeff - There's absolutely NO prescription for HOW the AC's are supposed to arrive at their recommendations.

The CRB can say, "we don't like this particular recommendation" and vote against it. They can vote for it. They SHOULD sure as heck vote on every recommendation made, since each is the result of a member's request waiting for a response in Fastrack...

...but nowhere does anything say - so far as I know, prove me wrong - that the ACs have to use so-and-so process to arrive at the weights they recommend.

K

EDIT - In my world, what I allude to here would be called an "adversary committee" rather than "advisory committee" but in a process like ours, that's sometimes necessary to communicate a larger group's desires to a smaller decision-making body that holds different ideas about how things should be. It will result in a period of stagnation as the board hunkers down and denies recommendations but it gets ideas into public forums, makes it clear who believes what, and it opens the door for change.

Forget tGR, there have been dozens of adjustments done since then. Why the sudden change???? I don't know. I'm still perplexed by the "unanimous" unacceptance of processV2.0 by, I'm told, every member of the Crb. It's odd in it's sudden 180 degree change from previous practices, in tha face of overwhelming driver support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lateapex911

Forget tGR, there have been dozens of adjustments done since then. Why the sudden change???? I don't know. I'm still perplexed by the "unanimous" unacceptance of processV2.0 by, I'm told, every member of the Crb. It's odd in it's sudden 180 degree change from previous practices, in tha face of overwhelming driver support.

---

I assume that all CRB members saw the document that describes v.2...? Right..?? Andy...?

K

Any new information or reasons why nothing has been posted in the November Fasttrack?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RSTPerformance

Any new information or reasons why nothing has been posted in the November Fasttrack?

---

A question for the CRB, not the ITAC.

Agreed... Thanks Andy

Raymond