April Fastrack

[Jake]

FWIW, it is kinda interesting when an idea gets shot down but may be really "tabled" behind the scenes. I had to chuckle when my (and others) request to allow larger wheels was shot down becuase it wasn't necessary at this time, but turned out to be necessary about 2 months later. Same with several requests for cars to change classes. I suppose you don't want to get peoples hopes up, but I feel really bad for a friend of mine who was planning on building an ITS Civic Si but decided to sell it when a move to ITA for that car was deemed hopeless (req. denied!). He sold the Si and finished building another car precisely when the Si moved to ITA. D'oh!

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Jake:
I had to chuckle when my (and others) request to allow larger wheels was shot down becuase it wasn't necessary at this time, but turned out to be necessary about 2 months later. Same with several requests for cars to change classes.

Jake,

This is simple... It's the difference between individual allowances, which would afford special allowances to only certain cars, and a whole idea, that would effect all of IT...

All the ITAC does is give recommendations to the CRB... What get's published from there is between them and the Tech Department... To both of their credit, it is usually in line with what we recommend, but they are an independant body that makes the final call...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
Jake,

This is simple... It's the difference between individual allowances, which would afford special allowances to only certain cars, and a whole idea, that would effect all of IT...

All the ITAC does is give recommendations to the CRB... What get's published from there is between them and the Tech Department... To both of their credit, it is usually in line with what we recommend, but they are an independant body that makes the final call...

Oh come on Darin, it's gone both ways. You've had individual car reclassifications that were shot down because the cars were 'too fast', only to have the cars moved a couple of months later. By the same token, you've had situations like the one Jake mentioned.

Anyway, help me out with this. You're saying that the ITAC can table something, and no mention of said tabling will be published in FasTrack. How then, is one supposed to track the status of a request? If a request has been tabled, I would think that there would still be some kind of 'open' status on it, and that it would still be listed on an agenda as old business. Afterall, all requests are logged and given some kind of ID # when they're sent in, aren't they?

Using my request as an example, when I called to find out the status on it, I was told that there was no status, and it was not on an agenda. You have suggested asking an ITAC member directly. I still don't think that's the proper way to go about it. Not only that, you're opening yourself (and the whole ITAC) up to being flooded w/ questions from people about the status of their individual request(s).

And as far as your earlier comments about not correcting the weight of cars, I just saw that that the ITS Mustang LX V6 had the weight changed from 3100# to 2850#. This was listed in E&O. How can you say that IT isn't ready for this, when it happens, time and time again? My request isn't for a comp. adj., it's for a correction of an incorrect specification.

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

[Bill Miller]

Just read the PCA section of the '05 ITCS. Says right there, in black and white, upward or downward revision of the minimum weight. Now I know Darin or somebody else will be quick to point out that this is extracted from the section on what's done w/ newly classified cars, but if that's really the case, then not all cars are treated fairly. Regardless, it seems as if the true mission of PCAs is to restore equity w/in the class.

I'm sorry Andy, but if IT wasn't ready for this, or the CRB wasn't ready for this, it should have never been put into the rules.

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

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited March 06, 2005).]

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bill,

The Mustang weight was an error. The spec was based on mis-information on stock HP for the years listed. The VW weight is NOT an error. If it is to be changed it would be changed as part of PCA's, should that breadth of the definition of PCA's be accepted by the CRB and BoD. We need to make sure the powers that be are on board before we undertake a 'clensing'.

Your constant needling of everyone on this BB is not only unproductive with those who do contribute but keeps potential contributors from doing so. Enough is enough.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

[Jake]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
Jake,
This is simple... It's the difference between individual allowances, which would afford special allowances to only certain cars, and a whole idea, that would effect all of IT...

Not quite, I didn't ask for MY CAR to get larger wheels, my request was to allow all IT cars to open up wheel diameter. I realize that was not the proposal that went through, but my thinking was that it would be better for all as it would be percieved not to only benefit certain cars.

Either way, when my proposal was shot down because "Change is not currently needed" (or whatever), I spent a bunch of cash to get a rare 14x7 wheel repaired. When I finally got the wheel back, I learned that change was in fact needed, and I could've bought a set of cheap 15x7's instead of now racing with a repaired wheel.

In any case, I'm as scared as you are that I'm agreeing with Bill on a point.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
Bill,

The Mustang weight was an error. The spec was based on mis-information on stock HP for the years listed. The VW weight is NOT an error. If it is to be changed it would be changed as part of PCA's, should that breadth of the definition of PCA's be accepted by the CRB and BoD. We need to make sure the powers that be are on board before we undertake a 'clensing'.

Your constant needling of everyone on this BB is not only unproductive with those who do contribute but keeps potential contributors from doing so. Enough is enough.

AB

Andy, IIRC, you and Darin both said (possibly in private conversations we had, I don't recall), that the current weight for the Rabbit GTI is higher than what the model predicts for it. If that's not an 'error' [sic], I don't know what else you call it.

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

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:

Andy, IIRC, you and Darin both said (possibly in private conversations we had, I don't recall), that the current weight for the Rabbit GTI is higher than what the model predicts for it. If that's not an 'error' [sic], I don't know what else you call it.

Bill,

Just because past committees numbers don't equal what ours do doesn't mean it was an error. New, accepted principles and processes don't deem everything done in the past as an error.

E&O's are based just that, errors and ommissions. Your GTI isn't either.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

[lateapex911]

Bill,

Sometimes you just have give things have a long(er) rope.

[preach mode ON]

I was a huge proponent of PCAs, and I actually convinced many current ITAC members of the viability of the concept, overturning preset biases. As a matter of fact my proposal is very close to the final draft that we now work with.

I pushed hard because it seemed that a relatively small portion of the cars in IT were really the vast majority of the problems. Overdogs render entire classes as also rans. And there are other pockets of well subscibed models that need help as well.

Ironically, my car is a poster child for the latter group, and I made a good empirical case to the effect that it couldn't possibly be competitive against the class. (other class leading cars make more HP, more tq, but weigh hundreds less, and bla bla bla,), but actual results from certain pockets of the country came in that conflicted, and showed the car could win.

Even though I had heard that decisions were to be based on hard data with results secondary, in this case, the outcome was that the race results were considered to be proof that the car was fine where it sits, as it sits.

Do I disagree? Of course! But you know what?? I have to respect that the ITAC and the CRB found other reasons to not move on the proposal, and while I don't like it, I have to live with it. (if I were dealing with agency or professional/government group that was not voluntarily staffed, this would be a different strory, and accountability would be demanded)

On the other hand, other proposals I have agreed with and pushed for HAVE been accepted, and I feel the category is better for it. Others have not.

In the end, I remind you that it's an ongoing process, and I am sure that the ITAC and CRB might actually agree with elements of the rejected proposals, but felt at the time they were submitted, there were bigger fish to fry, so to speak.

I know that you can make cases, as can I, until we are blue in the face, but you just have to sit back and respect the work the guys are doing.

I ask you this, even though you don't actually race in IT, do you think IT is a better place with a brighter future than it was 3 years ago??

I do, and while I personally didn't get my 'thing', I DID get my wish and proposal for the biggest change in IT for in years, so I really can't complain about the system and its current direction.

[preach mode OFF]


Sorry, I now return you to our regularly scheduled off topic discussion.........

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited March 06, 2005).]

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
Bill,

Sometimes you just have give things have a long(er) rope.

[preach mode ON]

I was a huge proponent of PCAs, and I actually convinced many current ITAC members of the viability of the concept, overturning preset biases. As a matter of fact my proposal is very close to the final draft that we now work with.

I pushed hard because it seemed that a relatively small portion of the cars in IT were really the vast majority of the problems. Overdogs render entire classes as also rans. And there are other pockets of well subscibed models that need help as well.

Ironically, my car is a poster child for the latter group, and I made a good empirical case to the effect that it couldn't possibly be competitive against the class. (other class leading cars make more HP, more tq, but weigh hundreds less, and bla bla bla,), but actual results from certain pockets of the country came in that conflicted, and showed the car could win.

Even though I had heard that decisions were to be based on hard data with results secondary, in this case, the outcome was that the race results were considered to be proof that the car was fine where it sits, as it sits.

Do I disagree? Of course! But you know what?? I have to respect that the ITAC and the CRB found other reasons to not move on the proposal, and while I don't like it, I have to live with it. (if I were dealing with agency or professional/government group that was not voluntarily staffed, this would be a different strory, and accountability would be demanded)

On the other hand, other proposals I have agreed with and pushed for HAVE been accepted, and I feel the category is better for it. Others have not.

In the end, I remind you that it's an ongoing process, and I am sure that the ITAC and CRB might actually agree with elements of the rejected proposals, but felt at the time they were submitted, there were bigger fish to fry, so to speak.

I know that you can make cases, as can I, until we are blue in the face, but you just have to sit back and respect the work the guys are doing.

I ask you this, even though you don't actually race in IT, do you think IT is a better place with a brighter future than it was 3 years ago??

I do, and while I personally didn't get my 'thing', I DID get my wish and proposal for the biggest change in IT for in years, so I really can't complain about the system and its current direction.

[preach mode OFF]


Sorry, I now return you to our regularly scheduled off topic discussion.........

Jake,

I agree w/ you on most of the points you make. I'm a very logical person, both by nature, and by training. I've been taught to draw conclusions based on sound, emperical data, not opinions and isolated data points. There are some really smart people on the ITAC (Darin being one of them), and I guess that's one of the things that bothers me the most, that they would chuk first principles out the window and take such a subjective approach to things.

As far as giving people a pass on the accountability issue, just because it's a volunteer position, doesn't cut it, in my book. A given position has certain functional and operational requirements. Be it a member of the ITAC, a coach of the local Babe Ruth baseball team, a Scout leader, or a number of other similar roles. The fact that it is a paid role or a volunteer role, should have no bearing on the standard the people are held to. People usually volunteer for something for one of two main reasons. Either they do it for truly altruistic reasons, and gain intrinsic satisfaction for the job they do, or they do it because they think they can get something out of it. Either they can benefit directly from it, or they see it as resume-building fodder.

I'm one of the leaders in the Scout organization that my son belongs to. I volunteered for the position for several reasons. I was a Scout when I was a kid, and I believe in the program. I think that kids today have a hard enough time, and having a program like Scouting, gives them a leg up. I also volunteered because I wanted to demonstrate to my son that I really believed in the program, and wanted some of that commitment level to rub off. So that part is me getting something out of it, a son that I'm proud of, that will hopefully grow into a man that will make me proud. If you've never been involved in Scouting, from a leadership perspective, I have to tell you, the standards are high, as is the accountability. Not to mention that I just wouldn't feel right, short-changing my constituency (the kids).

Nothing irks me more than people who think that, just because someone volunteers for something, they should be held to some lower standard of responsibility and accountability. Most of the people I know, that volunteer for the altruistic reasons, wouldn't accept (nor expect) that lower standard, and would probably resign if they felt that they couldn't meet the requirements for the role. The people that volunteer to get something out of it, well, they probably feel that they'll do the least amount they have to, as long as they can get what they want.

Sorry for the rant, but as I said, I don't subscribe to the lower standards because someone volunteers.

Now, is IT a better place w/ a brighter future, than it was 3 years ago? On a whole, I'd have to say yes. But that's a qualified yes. There seem to be the tools in place, and the attitude to go along with it, to effect a change for the better. However, there are times when it seem to be a case of "Same whore, different wig".

Just because past committees numbers don't equal what ours do doesn't mean it was an error. New, accepted principles and processes don't deem everything done in the past as an error.

E&O's are based just that, errors and ommissions. Your GTI isn't either.

Sorry Andy, but that's a load of crap. It's been well established that there was no consistent process in place for the classification of IT cars, prior to what the current regime has implemented. You folks have developed a reasonably objective, performance-based model. While I would love to see it published, I know that the culture of the Secret Car Club of America probably won't let that happen. For you guys to not go through the entire ITCS, and run ALL the cars through the model, is a dis-service to the entire IT community, and will only open you up to accusations of favoritism and special treatment. Something that I thought you guys were trying to eliminate. That's one of the beauties of having an open model, everyone gets treated the same. Some may like the results, some may not, but no one will be able to say that they didn't get the same treatment as everyone else did. To openly say that a car differs significantly (+/- 50#) from what your model says, and then say that you don't see anything wrong w/ that is BS, plain and simple. To say that one is an error, and another is not, is a smack in the face to the entire IT community.

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

[Andy Bettencourt]

Let me just say this Bill, nobody on the ITAC has asked for, or wants a free pass because we volunteer our time to this truely thankless job. We do it becasue we want to. We realize what we are trying to do is a radical departure from past ideas and processes...and it will take time.

I, for one, am all for a clensing using the new process. Although I am not alone, there are some members who are against the idea. We also don't want to shock the CRB and BoD into a 'no' position. We want to make it right for everyone, but it will take time. If you can't understand that simple issue, then do us all a favor, just live with it for a while.

Our goal is better, cleaner IT classifications, and we will get there.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

[Fastfred92]

I am not sure if I am looking forward to, or dread the "May fastrack" post.....

Is it Cabin fever or neckpain from welding illegal gussets while wearing a double point release Isaac after removing my washer bottle and brewing up a batch of $1.75 Exxon with Outlaw octane booster and paint stripper ???? Damn, I still need to soak my tires........

[Bill Miller]

Fair enough Andy.

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

[SamITC85]

Am I missing something, but didn't the fastrack say that the only place they will require track gas is at the runoffs? That seems to me that it would not hurt anyone here because IT does not race at the runoffs.
I for one don't have a major problem with this, although for the competitors having to drain their cells it is a hassel, but if it is safer and in the end will be cheaper then I have no problem with it. (I say cheaper because you won't have the 28/ gal. gas being used.)

------------------
Sam Rolfe
TBR Motorsports
#85 ITC VW Rabbit being converted to LPHP
#85 GP Scirocco

[shwah]

Originally posted by gsbaker:
Yes sir.

We were told yesterday that the powers that be will not be in until Monday. These are the same people who told me (verbally) that we are good to go.

Once we get this verified we will request a simple e-mail confirmation and post its contents on our site.

Just wondering if I missed something, or if this confirmation is still forthcoming? It is not right for the SCCA to tell me I can't use what I feel is the best option for head/neck restraint, but I sure want to know if that is what they are in fact saying.

Sheesh - I have not even used mine yet.

Chris

[lateapex911]

Go to page 3 of this thread, and check out mine and Ks posts from the 4th....

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[shwah]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
Go to page 3 of this thread, and check out mine and Ks posts from the 4th....

Thanks. That page gets awful fuzzy with extra bandwidth. Must have just started skimming a bit too much around there.

Regardless I was planning on just using the thing and not making any waves while doing it. Sounds like that is what others are planning.

Chris