November FasTrack is up

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
George,

You obviously knew you were being arrogant as you prefaced your comment w/ the comment about the probability of pissing some people off.

Nah. Some people just bitch and moan constantly like you do.

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Sorry, but if you're going to say that proposals won't get your best effort if they don't meet your standards, that's arrogant, and maybe you should re-think your position on the ITAC.

Stop putting words in my mouth Bill. You're splendid at doing that. If a letter lacks data and just talks about "feelings," yeah, you're right. It doesn't get much consideration. Why should it? I doubt anyone else spends much time on such letters either, but I'll speak only for myself. I'll resist putting words in other people's mouth's like you love to do.



------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
And as far as the ITAC doing research, I can't even begin to tell you how many citings I've seen in FasTrack where the CB has referred things to the various AC's for research and review. It was my understanding that that's what one of the main functions of the AC's was. Since they were supposed to more subject matter experts on their particular category, and that the CB relied on them for information, not the other way around.

We review data and make recommendations. We do some limited research when we are missing bits of information that will help resolve an issue (if we can). We don't do someone else's research because they "feel" something. That's the way it is. There isn't time for much else. I'm just trying to help people understand the process and help them make a better case. Shame on me for sharing.



------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[Knestis]

It IS helpful to get some clarification on precisely what the ITAC does. It SOUNDS from FasTrack like you guys actually make decisions and stuff, with so many items "referred to the IT ad hoc committee" rather than being acted on by the comp board.

I'm sensing that the reality is a little more nuanced than that...

K

[Bill Miller]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">This may piss some folks off, but I'm getting to the point if someone doesn't care enough to gather and organize some meaningful data, I have a hard time spending much time on their request.</font>

George,

I'm not putting words in your mouth, that's what you said.

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I'm not putting words in your mouth, that's what you said.

Gee Bill, isn't it convenient how you ignored what I quoted from you that you basically attributed to what I was trying to say.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[planet6racing]

You know, I'm with George on this one. If a person can't take the time to copy the information from the books that they should already own to allow the ITAC/CB to make an informed decision, why should the ITAC spend any time on it?

Perhaps maybe it is just me, but that's the way things are at my work. I'm a test engineer. If the customer doesn't want to spend the time/money to do the proper tests to answer their questions, I won't be able to answer the question. It's simply a matter of data. Without it, it is not possible to make an informed decision (as opposed to the uninformed decisions many accuse the Comp Board of making every day).

How to avoid this? Simple. Comp Board, in the next FasTrack, spells out the procedure in detail for a) car classification and competition adjustments. You don't follow the procedure, you are asked once by the Comp Board to correct it. After that, if it still is not in compliance, your request is denied. Period. End of story.

I'm sure people will complain about that (I have yet to meet a person involved in racing for more than 2+ years that doesn't think he/she has something to complain about!) but, if it is clearly spelled out, tough cookies!

------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

That's the point, if there's a prescribed, minimum amount of data that are required for a car classification, that's fine. But to have George use his own personal yardstick, w/o anyone else knowing what his criteria/standars are, is BS.

The more data and background research someone provides, the more it helps their case (or at least that's the way it should be). That's not just w/ racing, but pretty much everything in life. I'm a analytical person by nature and by training, I firmly believe in using supporting data to defend/support a position.

Now George, here's a scenario for you. You state that it is up to the requestor to 'do their homework' and supply you w/ the data. Do you take all of that data at face value? Do you do any work to verify its accuracy and correctness? I spoke to a friend of mine last night that sits on the Prod AC, and asked him if part of their job was to do research on new car classification requests. You want to know what his answer was??? Maybe you can guess.

The other side of Bill's comment was to notify the requestor if required information is missing and let them attempt to provide it. I'm sure not everyone that requests something of the CB is as in tune w/ the whole process as a lot of the people here. You could have, for example, Joe Newbie sending in a request to have his SUX 9000* classified in IT. Since there's no published guideline as to what data he should send along w/ that request, he doesn't send anything else. At the very least, George has said it won't get much of his time.


*Note: Who will be the first one to know what that is from?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[dickita15]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Bill,
Joe Newbie sending in a request to have his SUX 9000* classified in IT.
*Note: Who will be the first one to know what that is from?

Robocop?

I do think it is resonable for the itac to expect data to support requests. yes it would be best if a template was published for what data is expected, but i give geo credit for publicly saying this is an issue. he should not be dissed for this step toward tranparency. if we keeping shooting the messenger we will be kept in the dark forever
dick patullo

[planet6racing]

But, IIRC, there was a form that I filled out that asked all the pertinent information and, I believe, asked for the accompanying pages from the factory service manual.

Geo, my recommendation: go to the comp board and get a process clearly defined. Sure, it would probably cut down on 1/2 the traffic here, but I'm sure we'll all find something else to go on about (hmm, maybe racing?).


------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

[P Sherm]

Does anyone know, and can anyone tell me WHAT data the ITAC would like to have? I have never seen an article about the data they need to make recommendations. As a Neon owner that is looking at the inevitable move from SSC to IT, I would like to present evidence to try and get my car moved from ITS to ITA, but don't know what I should submit. Maybe it would be helpful to the membership at large if the was a way the ITAC could publish the requirements (or general guidelines) for requesting reclassifications. Maybe this will be helpful also if the proposed competition adjustments (or whatever they're being called) change passes.

???


------------------
#59 SSC Neon
Yes, I know it's not an IT car... yet...

[Bill Miller]

Robocop?

:thumbup

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Prince Makaha]

Appropriate name for a taurus with extra bodywork.