Grand Plan ?????

[mlytle]

Originally posted by seckerich@Dec 21 2005, 10:20 PM
Thanks Andy, at least no answer is better than no. I am well aware of the current rule for ballast, but was under the impression that it was going to be allowed in the passenger seat area in the future.

Darin--The overdog is still there--PCA or not. The restrictor was a bad joke.

[snapback]68887[/snapback]

bad news steve. if there is an overdog, then there are two of them and you are driving one. did you see the arrc its race? sure didn't look to me like the rx7 was handicapped in any way compared to the perceived "overdog"...

oh wait, the bmw did qualify 4(four) hundredths of a second quicker and was lapping most of the race about 2 inches in front of the second place rx7. yikes...the horror.

[mlytle]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Dec 21 2005, 08:42 AM
FREAKING GROW UP guys! Read the dates on the "February" Fastrack sections... There is at least a 1-2 month flow time from the time decisions are made to the time they are printed... The DECEMBER BoD/CRB meetings have JUST concluded about a week ago, so anything that was determined from that will be coming to a Fastrack near you shortly... It's the same time-line we've been telling you about since you've started bitching...

Go wax your car or something... surely there is SOMETHING that needs to be done to it before next season besides whatever you might think it coming in the next Fastrack...

[snapback]68840[/snapback]

just a thought, but all major changes to car classifications should be advertised to the members BEFORE 01jan of the year they go in effect. jan is when the racing season starts in some places. people build cars over the winter. people make "where to race" decisions over the winter. people modify cars over the winter. information which affects any of these activities in any significant way should be available and effective by the first of the year. even earlier would be better for those racers lucky enough to be running in the sunny south. set deadlines to enforce this. if the deadlines aren't met, too bad, so sad, the changes wait until the next year.

[p.keane]

Seckerrich, I have read this thread three times and still do not understand the reason for the sarcastic post. The current ITAC has cleaned up twenty years of inconsistancy and your biggest concern is where to place the ballast weight? I relize it is easy to sit back and pick an issue that is clear to you and say that the SCCA is not reacting. Most of the racing community thinks that this ITAC has been revolutionary, but it shows that you can't make everyone happy.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by mlytle@Dec 21 2005, 09:13 PM
just a thought, but all major changes to car classifications should be advertised to the members BEFORE 01jan of the year they go in effect. jan is when the racing season starts in some places. people build cars over the winter. people make "where to race" decisions over the winter. people modify cars over the winter. information which affects any of these activities in any significant way should be available and effective by the first of the year. even earlier would be better for those racers lucky enough to be running in the sunny south. set deadlines to enforce this. if the deadlines aren't met, too bad, so sad, the changes wait until the next year.

[snapback]68920[/snapback]

Marshall,

I hear you loud and clear. Any place that can run 12 months of the year (those who can run on Jan 1 of any given year), have no time to digest a rule change should it come in December. I guess that is one of the few benefits of only being able run April to October here in the Northeast (plus paying off your credit cards!).

It's a fundamental ideal we have to deal with and I hope we can be better at it in the future...the BoD and CRB meetings are scheduled so as to try and be 'on-time' for the following years rules. We just did a rule for Spec Miata that didn't make it for 2006...will have to wait.

This proposal is a class-wide "correction" and could hit anytime as it isn't a rule change but a classification issue. We have received many letters asking us to push this thing through becasue it is in the best interest of all of IT and good-will amongst most is at an all-time high.


AB

[seckerich]

Originally posted by p.keane@Dec 21 2005, 09:20 PM
Seckerrich, I have read this thread three times and still do not understand the reason for the sarcastic post. The current ITAC has cleaned up twenty years of inconsistancy and your biggest concern is where to place the ballast weight? I relize it is easy to sit back and pick an issue that is clear to you and say that the SCCA is not reacting. Most of the racing community thinks that this ITAC has been revolutionary, but it shows that you can't make everyone happy.

[snapback]68921[/snapback]

It is not about ballast or directed at the IT board. I am all for the work they are doing and if my car gets weight to even the field--so be it. My gripe is with the speed at which IT changes are handled as opposed to the instant changes other classes get through. I don't know you, and don't believe you know me, but this is not my first rodeo. If change is slow and correct--glad to wait. I just don't want to waste another year when it can get fixed now. New faces coming to the comp board so I will look for results before I form an opinion.

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by Fastfred92@Dec 21 2005, 10:29 PM
What exactly does the "P" in PCA's stand for ? I thought positive??

[snapback]68916[/snapback]

P= post

Post-classification adjustment (if I remember correctly). Nice acronym for, "Oops, we calculated wrong. Here's the real answer..."

[seckerich]

Originally posted by mlytle@Dec 21 2005, 08:53 PM
bad news steve. if there is an overdog, then there are two of them and you are driving one. did you see the arrc its race? sure didn't look to me like the rx7 was handicapped in any way compared to the perceived "overdog"...

oh wait, the bmw did qualify 4(four) hundredths of a second quicker and was lapping most of the race about 2 inches in front of the second place rx7. yikes...the horror.

[snapback]68918[/snapback]

I guess we can agree to disagree as to the equality of our chosen rides--I won't start another 10 page thread about it. Come by at the next race and I'll buy you a beer and we can argue some more. Good luck with your season.

[erlrich]

Originally posted by Fastfred92@Dec 21 2005, 10:29 PM
What exactly does the "P" in PCA's stand for ? I thought positive??

[snapback]68916[/snapback]

Not sure if this was a serious question, but just in case - the "P" stands for performance. PCA = Performance Compensation Adjustment.

[JLawton]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 21 2005, 06:36 PM

I think ITA is as good of a class as it gets...hence our entry in 2006! AB

[snapback]68896[/snapback]

Hello!!! Do you think he's trying to tell us something!!!!

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by JLawton@Dec 22 2005, 06:41 AM
Hello!!! Do you think he's trying to tell us something!!!!

[snapback]68946[/snapback]

Ya, I coulda saved a crap-load of money and bought that Saturn!

AB

[p.keane]

I beleive that the sucess of IT over the years and it being a regoinal only class, IT has not recieved the national attention it deserved in the past. That is not true anymore, the CRB and BOD have been very supportive of the current ITAC. We do have time limits to get recomendations to the CRB and as Andy has said above, we were still double checking our recomendation past the time limit. I know all of the ITAC hope are recomendations are approved for the 2006 season.

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 21 2005, 07:36 PM
I hope that any changes would be for the 2006 season via Fast Track but it could very well be a 2007 implementation.

[snapback]68896[/snapback]

Holy smokes Batman. I'm not critizing, but as a newbie people told me the SCCA moved slow. But to have suggestions made at the end of 2005 appear in 2007, that is definitely a lag time. I suppose if the ITU® proposal goes in Jan of 2006 it'll be 2008 or beyond before that gets considered or implimented? Glad I following this thread so that I could get an idea of how fast things on the FastTrack really were. Still thing the ITAC is doing a good job, sounds like the powers above that need a little focus. I'll hope that the holiday spirit will move them to action!

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 22 2005, 08:51 AM
Holy smokes Batman. I'm not critizing, but as a newbie people told me the SCCA moved slow. But to have suggestions made at the end of 2005 appear in 2007, that is definitely a lag time. I suppose if the ITU® proposal goes in Jan of 2006 it'll be 2008 or beyond before that gets considered or implimented? Glad I following this thread so that I could get an idea of how fast things on the FastTrack really were. Still thing the ITAC is doing a good job, sounds like the powers above that need a little focus.

R

[snapback]68956[/snapback]

Not so Ron. The BoD only meets a certain amount of times per year on this type of stuff. They bust their collective butts to make decisions on each agenda item. The last meeting of the 2005 calendar year has to be early enough to get things into the 2006 GCR...if it doesn't make it, it may just have to wait until the following year...depending on what type of change it is. Rule chages I believe would fall under this but safety and classification changes can be addressed in Fast Track at any time IIRC.

As far as ITR, if we have all of our duck in a row for the fall meetings, it could go before the BoD and be voted on for 2007. If we (the ITAC) don't get it to them in time, it may have to wait.

The CRB and BoD have been very responsive over my tenure on the ITAC, as well as challenging us to take on more responsibility. So far, I think it is working very well. This big ship is turning now. Noobs may think it's too slow, but I can tell you there are some more 'tenured' members who think we are spinning out of control...........

AB

[1stGenBoy]

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 22 2005, 02:51 PM
Holy smokes Batman. I'm not critizing, but as a newbie people told me the SCCA moved slow. But to have suggestions made at the end of 2005 appear in 2007, that is definitely a lag time. I suppose if the ITU® proposal goes in Jan of 2006 it'll be 2008 or beyond before that gets considered or implimented? Glad I following this thread so that I could get an idea of how fast things on the FastTrack really were. Still thing the ITAC is doing a good job, sounds like the powers above that need a little focus. I'll hope that the holiday spirit will move them to action!

R

[snapback]68956[/snapback]

You have to remember that the BOD votes on any rule/car classifications for the following year at the Aug BOD meetings. That means the CRB has to approve them before hand say June or July depending on the their meeting schedule, The IT Advisorary Committee would then have to have any changes they want to make to the CRB by May so the CRB has time to review them.
Someone writes a letter in April wanting a major change on their car, The It committee would put it on the Agenda to discuss at their next monthly conference call which would be in May. You can see where this is going right?
If it is a major OOPs on a spec line or an obvious error it can be fixed in Fastrack with an errors or omissions rule change. If it requires more research by the committee or the letter writer it would be tabled until that info is recieved and when it is recieved it would be put on the agenda for the next scheduled conference call. This could take a couple of months by the time the needed info gets back to us and be scheduled for our next conference call.
Now in between we do work on other things like PCA's which took a year an half to get ironed out, The future of IT, read and discuss EACH and EVERY letter written in to SCCA( between 10-25 letters a month) about IT and formulate a response to that letter ( the popular "thank You for your Input" there really is more to it than that. No room in fastrack for more detailed response ),etc.
Each monthly conference call lasts between 3-5 hours (sometimes longer) so we try to make sure every letter is discussed thoughly. In addittion we discuss among ourselves by e-mail any other comments or issues that pop up so we can on our conference calls make good decisisons and stay on task.
There are also two BOD liasions that join us on our calls and a member of the SCCA tech staff is also present.
We do our best to quickly answer the letters we recieve. You can see the time frame involved here.
If you are interested in helping IT and would like to be considered for the next opening on the IT Advisorary Committee send a resume to the CRB.
Hope this helps!!

Bob Clark

[Bill Miller]

Hey Bob, not to hijack this thread, but does this

You have to remember that the BOD votes on any rule/car classifications for the following year at the Aug BOD meetings. That means the CRB has to approve them before hand say June or July depending on the their meeting schedule,

mean that the full-prep Spridgets w/ l-p 1275 motors, in HP, was already a done deal at the end of this past summer????

[1stGenBoy]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Dec 22 2005, 03:58 PM
Hey Bob, not to hijack this thread, but does this

mean that the full-prep Spridgets w/ l-p 1275 motors, in HP, was already a done deal at the end of this past summer????

[snapback]68968[/snapback]

Bill,
I have no idea. We only see the IT stuff. Sorry.

Bob

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 22 2005, 11:10 AM

The CRB and BoD have been very responsive over my tenure on the ITAC, as well as challenging us to take on more responsibility. So far, I think it is working very well. This big ship is turning now. Noobs may think it's too slow, but I can tell you there are some more 'tenured' members who think we are spinning out of control...........

AB

[snapback]68960[/snapback]

As you can tell, I don't understand the process, just commenting on results. Yo uare 100% correct - I can tell from comments here and there that there are those that think the ship has broken free and is out of control though. But, all organizations must change over time to stay alive and meet the needs of the users.

Ron

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Dec 22 2005, 03:58 PM
Hey Bob, not to hijack this thread, but does this

mean that the full-prep Spridgets w/ l-p 1275 motors, in HP, was already a done deal at the end of this past summer????

[snapback]68968[/snapback]

Guys,

There are matters that the CRB is able to decide on/implement on their own, without BoD approval, and then there are other MAJOR rule changes or adjustments that require BoD approval... The F'd up Spridget LP 1275 BS is likely something that didn't require BoD approval, or maybe they did it at the August meeting... Not really sure, and I don't really care... (talk about taking a good idea in Limited Prep and just destroying it! Now its' being used it to create models... )

Also, the Bod and CRB meet together twice... Once in August, and a follow-up meeting in December. The ITAC proposal wasn't ready for August, so it made it to the December meeting...

I still think it will be approved for the 2006 season... The adjustments aren't revolutionary or otherwise major in nature, just long overdue and necessary for us to move ahead... It's just a bunch of weight adjustments and a few reclassifications, so I hope you aren't expecting some completely new IT to be created... Just a bulk application of what has already been happening...

Some of the other items (ballast location, etc.) are being taken care of under normal processing, and will present themselves shortly...

Again, as I've told you before, what gets released in Fastrack is usually at least a month, sometimes more, after it's already been discussed and decided on...

Merry Christmas to all! (If that offends you, DEAL with it! Last time I checked, it wasn't a RIGHT to NOT be offended! :P )

Hopefully Santa doesn't leave Lead in your stocking!

[Bill Miller]

Darin,

The CRB has the authority to classify new cars/configurations w/o the appoval of the BoD?

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Dec 22 2005, 07:14 PM
Darin,

The CRB has the authority to classify new cars/configurations w/o the appoval of the BoD?

[snapback]69002[/snapback]

I'm not completely clear on exactly which changes the CRB does and does not have the authority to do autonymously...

If I remember correctly, they can classify cars and reclassify cars without BoD approval. Keep in mind, however, that the idea of reclassifying cars in IT WITH weight adjustments is new, so that is why it needed BoD approval last year...

You newbies here who are bitching about how long things take apparently have NO idea what battles the current ITAC has had to face to get the tools in place to do what we are doing today... Two years ago you wouldn't even have SEEN an IT car getting reclassified with a weight adjustment, if at all...

Maybe when Peter gets acclimated to his new position, he can give us a rundown on how these processes work...

Minor rule changes or spec line adjustements don't need to go before the BoD in most cases, but again, if it's a major change, then it might...

Fuzzy enough for you??