ITR Proposed........

[lateapex911]

Good posts!!!!!!!!!!

A few random comments.

Regarding the ITAC and ITR. When Ron says "the ITAC", he's referring to guys who served on the ITR ad hoc commitee, which was kinda casual, kinda appointed but highly effective. The ITAC guys were George Roffe, Andy Bettencourt, and myself. Stan Clayton added some great CRB points of view. Some of the other ITAC guys purposely ignored it, choosing to see the proposal with no previous knowledge or bias.

When the final was proposed to them, the reactions were positive, supportive and I think they felt that the T's had been crossed and the i's dotted.


Secondly, the ITR thing has been discussed over the years, but
"upstream resistance" has been significant. The "no new classes" mantra was never far from our minds.

What happened? Well, it's like anything...a combination of events. mainly two or three.

First, the basic premise is that the pressure has been building in many ways over the years.

Now...a major factor: Spec Miata goes National. Seemingly unconnected, it creates a major issue: 25 National classes, that need to go to a Runoffs where the schedule is very firm at 24. Something has to give. Once that something gives, other floodgates open.

Second major factor: The E36. The single biggest issue in all of IT, and it appears that no solution would have been acceptable to the subscribers, and the one chosen, has been loudly shouted down, long before it's success or failure has been proven. That signalled a community that was philisophically opposed to atrificial restrictions.

Knowing those things, I thought that it was as good a time as any to push for a new class, and I called Ron and suggested we run with the list I knew he had been working on. I thought it would be good to get his new vantage point, and fold in the ITACs system knowlege. Timing is everything.

What I ddn't know was that concurrently, SCCAs new President was getting his feet wet and looking at the club and the direction it was headed in. Now that I have read some of his statements, it's clear he sees the same threats we see. Loss of members to marque club racing, lack of current or near current cars being raced in many categories, other clubs such as NASA attracting new members, potentially away from SCCA, and the Runoffs "show" needing a shot in the arm. ITR could help most of those.

So......it's more a matter of timing and other events that has caused the ITR thing to have more traction than ever before. Simply, ITR is good for IT, but perhaps the higher brass sees ITR as being good for the club at this time. Perhaps thats a signal that IT as a whole is seen in a more important light. Time will tell.

It's my hope that the class passes, and it continues building on ITs strong foundation.

[wrankin]

That is what the ITR proposal appears to do with the 325 and 944s banished from the ITS class.
[/b]

Just a point, in the proposed ITR car list the only 944 model in that list is the 89-91 S2, which was never in ITS. None of the 944 models currently in the ITS list are mentioned, and therefor I assume that they are remaining in their original class.


-bill

[JeffYoung]

Bill, correct.

[lateapex911]

Ron... WHERE THE HELL HAVE YOU BEEN??? "maybe the ITAC will be somewhat more active..."??? Are you PAYING ATTENTION???

Over the past two years, the ITAC has been proactively putting changes into place that have made the whole ITR concept even possible... Looking into implementing a class above ITS has been part of the plan for IT from the beginning of the current group working together... There was some groundwork that needed to be put into place first, and some higher priority items that needed attention...

Statements such as the one you just made above show a major lack of respect for the amount of work the ITAC and CRB do to maintain these classes, and show a major lack of historical knowledge of how the SCCA has worked, and is currently working... at least as far as IT in concerned...

Sorry... but it just irritates me to no end when I hear statements like this, after having tolerated so much trying to get things where they are today...
[/b]

No, I disagree, it just shows that people don't know what goes on behind closed doors, or are assuming that nothing is happening about a certain subject because there is no evidence to the contrary.

Remember, Ron's viewpoint is fresh, which is great! He doesn't see the pounding it took to get things like PCAs in place. I remember suggesting them, and being shot out of the sky time and again years ago. Ron's history has missed that, so his comments reflect that.

I've chatted with a number of people who are relatively new to the club, and I've expained the epic battles and titanic wars that ensued over such groundwork. But I've seen them later ask questions that were already answered in regards to the history and how we got here.

I REALLY think Ron respects the work the ITAC does, and has done, but just isn't as aware of the history, and how far we've come in a relatively short period, as those who have fought the battles. His institution memory merely doesn't go as far back as ours.

I am SURE no disrespect was meant.

[Ron Earp]

Hey Darin,

I think you might have mis-read or mis-interpreted what I tried to say. I think the ITAC does and did do a fantastic job. Remember, I'm only two years in this and have no idea about what went on before so I don't mean any disrespect. The only "negative" thing I thought of was maybe the ITAC could have implimented this years ago, but maybe that is not how things worked back then. These days the ITAC seems to be a different animal compared to what I am told it was like a long time ago. Rememer, I wasn't here a long time ago.

I'm paying attention, remember, I'm one of the guys working with the ITAC on R and think they are doing a great job - do you see that written up there in the post? Sorry you took it negatively, I think the ITAC, and that includes you, are doing a good job.

Ron

Statements such as the one you just made above show a major lack of respect for the amount of work the ITAC and CRB do to maintain these classes, and show a major lack of historical knowledge of how the SCCA has worked, and is currently working... at least as far as IT in concerned...

Sorry... but it just irritates me to no end when I hear statements like this, after having tolerated so much trying to get things where they are today...
[/b]

As mentioned in the original post, I'm new - so yes, you are right, I will show a major lack of historical knowledge of how the SCCA has worked. But, I don't think I need a historical context to have an opinion and I have a lot of respect for how things work. Have a read at the rest of the post and don't focus on the last paragraph, I think the ITAC and CRB is doing fine. Maybe I should word what I was trying to say in a question instead of critisim, in that ITR is fairly obvious so why didn't or couldn't the ITAC enact it years ago?

Ron

[lateapex911]

..............in that ITR is fairly obvious so why didn't or couldn't the ITAC enact it years ago?

Ron
[/b]

Well, Ron, I know you know some of the answers to that, and I've explained why it's currently got the best chance ever in my post up the thread a bit, but....

One reason is that the groundwork wasn't in place. The house wasn't in order, or capable of holding up a second floor.

So the ITAC set about fixing that. Mostly, cars were in classes where they didn't belong, and in many cases, weights needed adjustment.

But....there was no provision to do that adjusting. So, the entire premise that IT was founded on needed ammending. Member feedback was asked for and gotten, is spite of come members claims to the contrary. That took time.

Then, the ITAC looked at all the cars, and decided to create performace targets for each class. That wasn't easy, as it wasn't a clean sheet of paper..there were lots of roadblocks. Well done in the end, congrats to them!

Once that was done, the architecture was in place, and the lifting and moving could take place.

But, it too took a bit of time. It all needed to travel through three layers of SCCA management before being approved.

Then, and only then, when the structure was in place that could support another class, could it be considered. But that required a bigger club wide philisophical change.

I think we are finally at that point now.........

[Banzai240]

Well, Ron, I know you know some of the answers to that, and I've explained why it's currently got the best chance ever in my post up the thread a bit, but....

One reason is that the groundwork wasn't in place. The house wasn't in order, or capable of holding up a second floor.

So the ITAC set about fixing that. [/b]

What Jake said!

[JeffYoung]

I am new to the club as well, having started racing in 2003.

What I learned:

1. The ITAC and the two CRB board members I have dealt with are fair, interested in IT and looking out for the best interests of club racing in general and IT in particular. I may not agree with everything they do or say, but the "black helicopter" perception the general membership has (and that included me until recently) seems completely unfounded once you talk to these folks.

2. Getting things done with the confines of the SCCA is just like any other large organization of people. A small minority of people interested enough to do something start the ball rolling. The body politic then weighs in. Competing viewpoints are hashed out and the initial proposal changes. Compromises must be made to make things work. People whose position is "If I dont' get my way, I'm taking my ball and going home" are not of value to the process.

3. I think all serious initiatives in SCCA (or any large body) MUST start within a small group so that the initial hard leg work can get done. Then, the large body politic can excise from the small group's proposal, or add to it, so that it works the best for all (which means that it isn't always the best for any individual group).

I have been overwhelmingly surprised by how well the process has worked for ITR. I think that, of course, part of this is because it is somethig IT has to do to survive to avoid the atrophy and old car symdrome that in my view has crippled Production.

In the end, I am very pleased with this effort, hope that others will see that it was truly driven by a belief that it is needed to keep IT healthy and also desperately want those with legitimate concerns to weigh in with teh CRB about what we have done -- if it can be done constructively. I'm tired of a lot of the ranting on this board, much of which I am guilty in joining.

Bottom line -- I think if you want something done in the SCCA, you can do it. BUT -- you can't just expect to write a letter on your own asking for a change that affects many members. Think your proposal through. Garner support from others. Bounce it off the ITAC. Jake, Andy, George, etc. have all been more than willing to think this through with us. One-man efforts don't get it done, and shouldn't, in an organization as large as this.

But that is not to say the CRB isn't listening or won't listen. Just present them with well thought out ideas, supported by your REs or the ITAC, that make sense.

Things like "reduce weight of BMW and add weight to RX7" that I see in Fastrack are a joke guys. That's not a proposal. In fact, it's a shame that the CRB has to waste time even answering them.

[Ron Earp]

Well, Ron, I know you know some of the answers to that, and I've explained why it's currently got the best chance ever in my post up the thread a bit, but....

[/b]

And I do, I think. I just wanted Darin to know that I'm not really critizing the role the ITAC has played. Someone asked about experiences good and bad - well, all of mine have been good with the ITAC. To be honest the only "bad" thing I could come up with is "what took so long", and that isn't a complaint per say. I now know the wheels turn slowly and if ITR goes through it will be a huge shift with respect to speed of proposals.

I hope that a lot of folks willl turn out for the class and it'll be accepted as a welcome change for IT while remaining within the IT rule set.

Ron

[evanwebb]

Hey where'e the list of the car and their proposed weights?

[JamesB]

Evan,

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...?showtopic=8126

[Fastfred92]

What I ddn't know was that concurrently, SCCAs new President was getting his feet wet and looking at the club and the direction it was headed in. Now that I have read some of his statements, it's clear he sees the same threats we see. Loss of members to marque club racing, lack of current or near current cars being raced in many categories, other clubs such as NASA attracting new members, potentially away from SCCA, and the Runoffs "show" needing a shot in the arm. [/b]

Jake, I just sent my letter of support for ITR to the board and I fully hope that it goes thru....( bravo Jeff, Ron et al for doing the heavy lifting ) I, however, think that along with ITR we will need ( in the near future) to revamp IT to "freshen" it and I dont think the addition of a class alone will fix this. The loss we see to other marque clubs and NASA are two fold in my estimation. One, we will never be able to satisfy everybody and their favorite make of car. Two, and more importanly, I think with a general shift in the car public to more youthful and performance oriented products we are old and tired. The Solo side of SCCA is much more in tune with today than the Club Racing side and CR's rules set that many non SCCA people see as ancient and difficult to navigate. Most car club racing programs have very simple rules in place and NASA has used simple rules from day one. Our rules ( IT included) still seem to stem form the old guard mentality where you need to read it several times to understand what it means. IT as a whole could benifit from a complete rewrite of its rules and a updated more modern approach to our class. We will soon need to include the Subaru WRX or Audi A4 quattro guys, the current T1 and T2 guys need a place to go but we will also need to embrace things like "plus 1 or 2 " wheels and plug and play ecu's.. Young people drive nice fast cars on a daily basis and like to mod those cars, when they start DE's etc. and want to move to full on racing we should plan accordingly! I was instructing a while back at a DE and attempted to explain to a student what IT was all about, when I told him he would need to ditch his slotted rotors, 17" wheels, trunk lid spoiler and put his washer bottle back to fit the IT rules he asked me why??? Good question..

[lateapex911]

Fred, good comments.

Some solutions and ideas to your issues.

You mentioned Solo as being more in step. What if Solo rules required safety devices in their popular street category? And Club racing then allowed that class to race? Might make the transition easier. Certainly the club NEEDS to get into Drivers ed/lapping days more heavily.

One of the issues facing the club is that some of the things that you mention (slotted rotors, big wheels, wings) add expense to a build program. IF they acrtually make the car faster, then they become a mandatory expense. For everybody. The cost of the sport goes up.

In some cases, they slow the car down.

On one hand, if the perception is that they are needed, then perception rules, and they should be added. On the other, if we add the allowances, now we've jacked up the cost for everyone, and if those were NOT the impediments keeping the tuner crowd from racing, then we've mucked it all up for nothing.

I'm not sure such allowances are right for IT. When you look at the Tuner cars, you see things like big brakes, body kits, wings, and engine swaps. Maybe a new class with those allowances is needed. Would it be expensive? Probably, especially after the wing is ripped off the car for the third time after tire walls get hit, but...if thats what they want, why not give it to them.?

If we build it, will they come??

I hope you mentioned your larger view ideas in your letter. Thanks for writing!

[Fastfred92]

You mentioned Solo as being more in step. What if Solo rules required safety devices in their popular street category? And Club racing then allowed that class to race? Might make the transition easier. Certainly the club NEEDS to get into Drivers ed/lapping days more heavily.

[/b]

As somebody who has invested heavily ( time / cash ) in showroom stock racing I have always supported the idea of either SS or some form of IT that would allow more "tuner" mods and parts. I think this would both increase interest from potential drivers ( new members) but also increase parts vendors, suppliers etc. which can only be good for our sport.. I think that unless IT drifts towards production ( car identity wise ) we will need to accept some change in the "tuner" direction. I remember, a few years ago when Subaru gave a years membership when somebody purchased a new car, people asking about what class their new WRX would race and the looks you got when you said nowhere ( before T1/T2 had turbo AWD cars )

[p.keane]

Fred, It is not easy, but we are trying. Let's get through ITR before we go after other series competitors.