another IT7 tire question

[Toni]

Jason, thank you for you vote of confidence – on both sites.

As I told you when I asked you to be part of the SM advisory group, the rules are reviewed every year. Some years it has been done more privately than others. I choose to do things openly and with as much racer input as possible.

When this landed in my lap at the beginning of June, nothing, in any of the classes, had been begun. Some classes, like SM, where you are part of the advisory group, didn’t even have an advisory group. Those have been formed. All of the class rules have been reviewed by people who race in that class. The opinions from the advisory groups have been sent to the Class Review Board, the chiefs of tech for the racing regions. I have most of the opinions from them. All of the rules have been reviewed by the chief of tech in the racing regions. All of the rules will be reviewed by the REs. I am currently finalizing all of the class rules review material for the REs. It will be sent to them through their agenda process by the end of the week, well before their deadline.

Last year the decision to use the same tire for SM regional racing as for national racing was made by the REs at the mid year meeting without any input from racers, advisory boards, or the Class Review Board. This year there is an advisory group from the SM community and they, including you, gave input based on your own opinion as well as opinions from others. I’m sure all of you gave an opinion that you thought was the best for the class, not just your personal opinion. You have the unique position of being part of that other group and bring perspective from those who cross over into SCCA racing as well. I’m sorry that your opinion wasn’t in the majority opinion from the SM advisory group. But it is very rare that a committee will be in complete agreement.

Last year two of the members of the IT7 advisory committee took it upon themselves to request a spec tire for the class where there had been none before. They made an opinion poll. Some of the racers were missed with the poll. Some of the racers were contacted with the poll. Some of the racers responded to the poll. I have been unable to find any evidence that this proposal was given to the Class Review Board before it was presented to the REs by those members of the committee and the previous DA. I’m not saying that they did anything wrong. It seems that they may have bypassed a step. It is evident from the comments here and the phone calls and emails that I have had and that the advisory committee has had, that there was a population of IT7 racers that wanted to have the tire issue looked at again. The advisory committee, with input from this site and directly from the racers has done exactly that. The CRB has given their opinion. And the material will be presented to the REs for their meeting next week.

I didn’t have to come here or to the SM site and ask for opinion. But I did. From the volume of opinion that has been presented, and is still being presented weeks later, it seems evident to me that the rules needed to be reviewed, openly. If they are changed so be it. If they are not changed so be it. I have caused them to be looked at by the advisory groups with input from racers. I have presented the opinions to the Class Review Board. I have gathered opinions from the CRB. I will present the material to the REs. All this is so that you can go racing with a set of rules that will be stable for the next season.

I didn’t have to do this. I didn’t have to take the assignment. What ever actions I have done have been more transparent than any would have been with almost anyone else. The collective you now knows what is going on, what the process it, and how to affect change or keep status quo. You have every opportunity to have the next executive steward to appoint you as DA of tech for 2007 and complete the task better than I have this year.

Toni

PS you're welcome

[Andy Bettencourt]

PS you're welcome

[/b]

If you are in this for the Thank-You's, you are in the wrong position, trust me on that one.

We have debated here on how the message hit the airwaves, it's effectiveness, and the ramifications. No need to beat that horse.

I just wonder why Toni even needs to be the messenger? Where is the Ad-Hoc? It really is their resonsibility to have a finger on the pulse - and be in contact with the RE's. They should know when the annual meetings are and should be prepared with the data to make a recommendation. They are the ones that should be soliciting the input and collection the opinions. If they are, there is some serious mis-communication going on.

I think this issue could be critical to the survival of IT7. With the new weights for the 12A in ITA, it has become a very strong option.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Hey Toni,

You collected some info. What does that info say to date?

[lateapex911]

J.... The collective you now knows what is going on, what the process it, and how to affect change or keep status quo...

Toni

PS you're welcome
[/b]

Keep in mind that this comment comes from someone (me) not directly involved in the process....

If I am one of the "collective yous", then actually I don't know whats going on. I am reading that information was collected from several fronts.

I don't know:
The form of questioning from all the fronts
The responses from the questioning
Who responded
The final determination.

In short, the fact that there is opinion gathering being done has been brought up, but the methods and results are unknown.

In the past, it appears that there was a formal survey, and while some have debated it's appropriateness, it was at least complete, consistant, and well responded to, with a clear result. It also appears that most assumed that there would be no change going forward.

Now it appears there might be a change based on some opinion gathering, or maybe not. It's up to the REs.

Or am i missing something?

[Toni]

not missing anything

The final determination is always made by the REs - every year. This year they have the information gathered from the Class Review Board and the advisory boards with input from the racers. It is not just the IT7 class. It is all of the SEDiv Regional classes. They will make the decision with the information they have or don't have. There is some discussion in SM. All the other classes are peaceful. Even the class that has 14 pages of rules is peaceful. IT7 has a one sentance rule that people want to discuss, again and again.

In the whole process the only major compalints are here with IT7. Those who want the spec tire vs those who don't vs those who were left out of the poll last year vs those who felt that the racer opinion last year was the final deciding factor forevermore vs anyone who brings up the subject. This is a vocal group that takes time away from car prep to be on the computer.

Should I be foolish enough to take this job in 2007, the process will begin much earlier in the year with the committees doing most of the work as they have in the other classes. And this IT7 committee has done a great deal of work gathering information. Some of them have discussed it here in several threads. It was a different way than last year. It involved the telephone and computers. It may be a different way next year. That's to be determined.

Your division has regional class rules. Some of your regions have region specific classes. How does your division work to agree upon those classes. How do your regions work together on issues? There is a process. How many of your racers understand the process? This division's processes were not completely understood by the racres. Racers deal with racing. The politicians deal with the rules of racing. Sometimes these groups should talk to each other.

Toni

[lateapex911]

not missing anything

........, the process will begin much earlier in the year with the committees doing most of the work .......
[/b]

Agreed! The Class reps really need to have a clear and well researched class "position" to present the higher ups. It makes the most sense for it to be in an accountable form, such as polls, as opposed to private discussions.

. Racers deal with racing. The politicians deal with the rules of racing. Sometimes these groups should talk to each other.

Toni
[/b]

Agreed...I have a saying, kinda, LOL: More racers should work, and more workers should race.

Impossible, of course, but you have to walk a mile in the other guys shoes to see what he sees....

[sgallimo]

Toni,

You're right that last year two of the members of the IT-7 advisory committee took it upon themselves to request a spec tire for the class where there had been none before. You left out a very important piece of information. You neglected to mention that they did so only after talking to a LOT of their IT-7 competitors. I think everyone will agree that that is in line with the job that they signed up for. You also failed to acknowledge that the vast majority of their fellow drivers agreed with them about the spec tire - as indicated by the results of the previous ballot.

That whole process was exactly like that which took place when the DRIVERS got together a few years ago, decided that THEY wanted a regional class to race in, and worked very, very hard to get the class created. The DRIVERS took the initiative and made it happen. The DRIVERS did the same thing with the spec tire rule last year. The IT-7 class exists because of the effort of the DRIVERS. The same can be said for the IT-7 spec tire rule.

You've made numerous references to the openness of things now that you've taken over the reins. This serves to cast a shadow on what was done before. The previous ballot involved a concentrated effort to identify and contact all of the then current drivers. You've seen the numbers from that ballot. Are you in a position to show that your effort actually reached an equivalent number of the community? How many people sent you an opinion? How many were for the current spec tire rule, how many against? How many of the people that contacted you are current IT-7 drivers? Was there any effort made to identify them as such?

You've made numerous thinly veiled disparaging comments about the previous ballot. Are you in a position to show us how many people were not reached in the previous ballot? Please don't deflect the question with comments about not exposing people's personal information. After all, driver's names and member numbers continually appear on the result pages of the SEDIV website, regions publish and distribute membership directories, driver's names appear in the results printed in SportsCar, etc. Stop the secrecy and eliminate the confusion by simply telling us how many people have claimed that they were missed by the previous ballot?

You've made numerous references to the volume of complaints and comments that have been received. Again, stop the secrecy and eliminate the confusion by simply telling us how many people had complained about the current spec tire rule?

Yes, you received input that some of the drivers wanted the spec tire rule changed. That should have lead you to the conclusion that another ballot was needed not to the conclusion that the rule needed to be changed. Have you received sufficient input to indicate that the spec tire question needed to go before the drivers again? It's difficult to say without any actual data but probably - if for no other reason than to validate that it is still a good rule. It would be helpful if you would stop confusing the "need to gather input from the entire driving community about their desire to continue having the spec tire rule" with the "need to change, or remove, the spec tire rule".

You say that it is evident to you that the rules needed to be reviewed. Please explain why the large number of drivers that voted for the spec tire in the previous ballot doesn't make it evident to you that the driving community supports the spec tire?

Why do you imply that rubber stamping the currently stable rules would leave us with unstable rules for the next season? The norm is for the SCCA to keep the previous rules. The most intense reaction in the recent past has been to rules that were changed for questionable or unknown reasons. Let me remind you all of a few: the rally program, the two year harness rule, and moving the runoffs to Kansas. Changing a rule for the wrong reason is no better than refusing to change a rule.

You've pointed out how you didn't have to come to this forum and tell us any of this. While true, that philosophy doesn't exactly scream openness. Me, I had to come here and take up this battle. Why, because it's my SCCA, it's my class, and it's my fellow IT-7 drivers that have been disparaged.

[gprodracer]

Scott,

We are THISCLOSE to being in agreement on 100% of the subject, but I must again ask you questions on the topics where we part ways in our ideas. Again, this shows that 2 people can read the same posts, and come away with opposite conclusions. I must repeat for the record that Toni and I do not really know each other, hence we have not discussed this issue, and this is my opinion alone.

Here goes. The whole tire issue was done long before she took her current position, so why is she being questioned about what occurred before? If she wasn't there, how can she answer you? I took her "openness" coments, not as a shot at others, but to let people know that the rules were coming up for review, and would have been passed whether anyone knew or not. She chose to let you know what was going on IMHO.
I didn't go back and re-read this entire thread, but where did she state that the "rules needed to be changed"? You say she "came to the conclusion that the rules needed to be changed", but I honestly don't remember her ever saying or implying that in any fashion. She just asked for imput, as the rules were coming before the board for review.

She said it is evident to her that the rules need to be reviewed. It seems that way to me too, considering the various posts in this thread. I will say that the "vocal minority" have spoken here, so there are varying points of view on this (not saying I agree with them, just that they exist).
Last, I saw no implication in her posts "implying that changing the stable rules would leave us with unstable rules", so I really don't know where that statement came from.
You are extremely passionate about your class, and I commend you for it. Keep campaigning for what you believe in, your last post poses other excellent questions that only Toni can answer, so I leave the rest up to you. I'm 100% behind you on the stable rules, spec tire etc, I just didn't get the same impressions from her words that you did, and I didn't see any posts that were directly aimed at insulting any of you. You have the best of intentions in your heart, but I believe that you need to direct your concerns towards the direct liasons to the RE's that are deciding and voting on the future rules of your class.
Best of luck!
Mark

[sgallimo]

Scott,

We are THISCLOSE to being in agreement on 100% of the subject, but I must again ask you questions on the topics where we part ways in our ideas.
....snip....
Best of luck!
Mark
[/b]

Mark, sorry about the lateness of the response. I haven't been looking for Toni to answer anything about what occurred before her. I want just the opposite. I want her to admit that she wasn't involved with it and therefore doesn't officially have an opinion on it. If she has evidence that the previous ballot wasn't executed properly or completely, she should present those facts. I keep asking for details about those problems but no one will provide them. That makes me suspect all of those claims. Until we see something to the contrary, why should we doubt the will of the IT-7 driving community?

Regarding my "stable rules" comment, Toni had said that she was doing all of this so that we would have stable rules in the future. That struck me as an indication that we don't currently have stable rules. I just wanted to point out that I felt we did have stable rules and saw nothing that would keep them from continuing to be so in the future.

I admit that you probably would have to have been involved in numerous conversations that took place since the spec tire rule passed to have been as nervous as some of us regarding the direction this current "request for opinion" appeared to have been heading. You appear to see it all as an innocent attempt to help. I worry that it is something more. That is why I kept asking for facts regarding the complaints about the previous ballot and the coverage and results of the current opinion gathering effort. The refusal to provide either makes me nervous.

I agree with your term the "vocal minority". I believe they have spoken here and I believe they have spoken previously to the officials that Toni mentioned. I believe that Toni's approach will only reflect that "vocal minority" and will bypass the desires of the majority of the community.

[sgallimo]

Following is the IT-7 specific proposal that Chairperson Toni Creighton and the Class Review Board have presented to the REs for their vote on the 29th. (Note that the formatting is different as this was cut and pasted from the original Word document). If you have any comments or concerns, please contact your Regional Executive prior to their departure for the weekend's meeting.

--------------------------------------------------------------

IT7

The IT7 advisory board has three returning members and two new volunteers. They have canvassed drivers personally and there has been a request of opinion on the improvedtouring.com website. There was a recommendation from the ECR Administrator for no spec tire.

Conclusions drawn by the advisory committee: The IT7 community is almost equally divided on the issue of a spec tire for regional racing. There is a slight margin in favor of no spec tire.

The issues seem to be:
- There has been much discussion during the year of the spec tire requirement for IT7. It was enacted just before the SIC when there had been no spec tire requirement during the season. Drivers did not compete in the SIC and told the SARRC Administrator that it was a direct result of the way that the spec tire requirement was enacted.
- There have been drivers who have abandoned the class and are now competing in ITA because of the tire requirement.
- There was a poll taken last year that was said to have reached every IT7 Driver. There are drivers responding this year that say they were not canvassed last year and therefore had no voice in the issue.
- There were many who took part in the canvas of last year that were led to believe that drivers' opinion poll was the final decision making factor and that the rule would never be reviewed.
- The rule was not posted correctly for 2006 according to some.
- Others say the rule was changed mid year.
- The discussion on the improvedtouring.com website was in three different locations. Discussion was viscous at times. Ancestry, nepotism, and the accuracy of reporting of all requests for opinion have been discussed. There was much discussion on the spec tire itself, the canvas from last year, who it reached, who it didn't reach, and the timing of the enactment of the new rule.

Eliminating all items except the spec tire its self seem to be the only solution in determining the rule for 2007.

Issues about the spec tire
1. A spec tire eliminates the need for experimentation with other brands of tires
2. A spec tire is an equalizer of talent
3. A spec tire is an equalizer of budget
4. A spec tire sets the liability by requiring the tire
5. The fast drivers go fast on any tire. The spec tire is not an equalizer.
6. Toyos are in short supply from the at track dealer
7. There is only one source available to everyone
8. Trackside service is better with other brands
9. There is not a contingency program for regional racers with this tire only the requirement to use it
10. There is not a contingency program for regional racing from this distributor
11. Other brands are less expensive
12. Other brands have contingency programs for regional racers
13. Hoosier Dirt Stocker rain tire may not be available from this distributor
14. IT7 cars are legal ITA cars. IT classes are not spec classes and do not have spec tires.

Here are two versions of the proposal:

Version 1
July 1998 this class was initiated for Mazda RX7s model year 1979 through 1985 with a 12 A motor. This class must comply with and be prepared to the IT A rules as published by SCCA GCR and Category Specifications.
Effective October 1, 2005 the spec tire for IT7 is Toyo RA1 DOT - shaved or unshaved. Optional rain tire, Toyo Poxes RA1 DOT shaved or unshaved, or Hoosier Dirt Stocker DOT.

Version 2
July 1998 this class was initiated for Mazda RX7s model year 1979 through 1985 with a 12 A motor. This class must comply with and be prepared to the IT A rules as published by SCCA GCR and Category Specifications.
For the 2007 season any tire eligible for ITA may be used.

Advisory Board
Sam Henderson, Chair [email protected]
Lee Graser [email protected]
Stan Hines [email protected]
Alex Jackson [email protected]
Joe Varble [email protected]

--------------------------------------------------------------

[Toni]

scott
you are about a week behind
go to your re and get what was sent to him
you should post that as well
Tc

[sgallimo]

scott
you are about a week behind
go to your re and get what was sent to him
you should post that as well
Tc
[/b]

Toni, I got that information directly from my RE. It was taken from your note to him, and others, dated July 23, 2006, at 1:34 PM with a subject of "SM & IT7 GTA to be sent separtely". That note contained one attachment titled "SM and IT7 2007.doc". I posted the information from your note on this forum, which you chose as the desired communication vehicle, in the spirit of openness. I did this so that everyone would know what proposal you and the CRB were presenting to the REs for vote so that people would be able to apprise their REs of their opinions.

What are you implying? How is it that you didn't recognize your own letter? To jog your memory, I've attached your note and attachment below:

===================================
-----Original Message-----

From: Toni Creighton [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006 1:34 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; Senior, Mark; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Cc: Fred Schmucker; Rick Mitchell; Pete Magnuson
Subject: SM & IT7 GTA to be sent separtely

SM & IT7

GTA to be sent separately
===================================
attachment to the original message:
===================================

[attachmentid=532]

===================================

[sgallimo]

Toni, the Class Review Board's proposal to the RE's for the upcoming meeting slated for the 29th leaves several questions unanswered. As chairperson of the Class Review Board, please answer the following:

- What percentage of the current IT-7 driving community did you reach through your recent polling activity?
- What percentage of those favored an open tire rule?
- What percentage of those favored the current spec tire rule?
- What percentage of the previous IT-7 driving community were not reached by the previous hard copy ballot?
- How can you state that the current IT-7 spec tire rule was enacted just before the SIC when it actually went into effect the previous January? While the SIC was the first event where the spec tire was required, the spec tire rule, and the ballot, made it clear that the spec tire was optional for the races before the SIC. Regardless, why would the timing of the implementation of the rule matter since it was enacted exactly as specified on the ballots and in the proposal to the REs?
- The previous hard copy ballot specifically stated, in bold print, that the REs had to vote on the proposal and that the ballot was to be used only as input for the REs in that vote. With such an obvious explanation to the contrary, please explain how participants could have been confused? What percentage of those participants brought forth that complaint?
- What hard evidence do you have that shows the IT-7 spec tire rule changed mid year? My RE says the current online version of the IT-7 rules match those he voted on in the previous meeting. Do you have proof or was this heresay?
- What proof do you have that the spec tire rule was not posted correctly on the website during 2006? If you have hard evidence that the rule was posted incorrectly, which one of your fellow SEDIV staff corrected the problem and when because the correct rule is currently on the website? Regardless, why would incorrect wording on the website negate the vote by the membership and the vote by the REs?
- Why does the departure of a few drivers negate the vote by the membership and the vote by the REs? Why does the exit of a vocal minority overrule the legitimate votes of the majority that stayed behind?
- Finally, the framers of the spec tire rule were required to directly contact each of the IT-7 drivers before the spec tire rule was presented to the REs for vote. Why do the Chairperson of the Class Review Board
and the IT-7 Advisory Committee feel that that level of canvasing is not required in order to remove that same spec tire rule?