Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 51 of 51

Thread: SEDiv IT7 and regional SM tire questions

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12

    Default

    I am Rex Deffenbaugh – driver first, NC Region administrator second. I became an administrator to protect my privilege to drive from errant administration meddling. Now I see another occurrence of this meddling threatening my class again.

    I was at the first meeting when IT7 was proposed by Lee Graser and Stan Hines and where a vote was taken to establish IT7. I voted. I watched as administration fought the establishment of IT7 using every resource available. I watched while extensive research was executed to find the tire most likely to fulfill the need for a spec tire including tire cost, life, and track support. Then I voted. I watched as the results reflected by Scott Galimore were returned.

    IT7 was started as a class of has been RX7 cars that couldn’t compete in ITA. Its inception was because some drivers wanted an inexpensive venue to compete in, in similarly prepared cars. It was to be a class where one couldn’t spend his way to a win, like many other classes then and now. It was never a class for the world’s fastest man. There are many other classes and even series for the world’s fastest man. The great thing about this country is that you have choices. Yours may be to run in one of these faster classes or series, but IT7 will never afford one the recognition the world’s fastest man deserves – only the recognition of the fastest IT7 car and driver. Some may want to set their sights higher and leave the drivers of this class to our selves. As reported by Scott Galimore, the results of a vote stated that the drivers of this class want the tire rule now in place. Every class and venue of racing has rules, and this is one for racing in IT7. If you can’t find the setup, or you think it costs too much to make your car go fast in this class then ITA may be better for you – again another great choice.

    In the end none of these questions are the issue here. The issue is someone making an underhanded attempt to change a rule established by the majority of drivers in this class. Every rule will have some opposition, but in this case a small minority has the ear of an administrator who seems to have the power and willingness to slide a rule change into place without a majority vote. Toni says rules will be reviewed for change every year. This is not true because of the sheer volume of rules in place. Why did she choose this rule and not the countless others to review? She says she doesn’t have the resources or time to complete a good pole. This is understandable but not a good reason to execute an incomplete pole and change rules as a result. Administrators feign concern about falling participation in IT7, but this doesn’t hold water when ITA is almost nonexistent, except for the IT7 drivers who have defected there, and administrators don’t seem concerned about that class. The drivers of this class will not tolerate the unwanted and unneeded meddling that may jeopardize the quality of the racing now experienced in IT7.

    Rex


    Rex T. Deffenbaugh, owner Happy Jap's Auto Repair, Cary NC, ITS and IT7 driver, driver liasion to NCR SCCA Comp. Board contact happyjaps.com

  2. #42
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Staying off the walls
    Posts
    1,049

    Default

    After seeing the ballot for the first time I would have to say there was nothing unfair about how the topic was presented. Perhaps a choice of which spec tire would have made the vote more encompassing but it's really water under the bridge at this point.

    I still stand by my earlier statement.

    there should not be a problem with reviewing the rule after a year of everyone running under it and having another vote. If it was a good idea then it will stand on its own merit. If not, and drivers do not like the results, it should be changed.[/b]
    There's nothing wrong with reviewing a rule change after a year or so to make sure the desired result was realized. Maybe after running on the Toyo's for a season everyone's opinion about the subject has changed. Also, with only 90 balllots, and having done it before, the logistics of having another vote do not seem overwelming. Hell, I'll do it. If SEDiv gives me the $ for postage and stationery and emails me the address database we'll have another vote. All you have to do is vote yes/no on a spec tire, choose for a list which tire and learn to live with the results.

    Now that didn't hurt, did it?

    Tom Sprecher

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga.
    Posts
    79

    Default

    I find it interesting that the same issues are being mirrored here as we've had in the SM spec tire decision (debacle). I'm on the advisory board for the SEDIV sm community and I must say I have SERIOUS problems with the way information was collected on this issue.

    I'm wondering why this rule is up for change anyway? Why suddenly after the decision was made last year to use a spec tire are we now reconsidering it?
    The method to collect driver input was completely flawed in the sm case. I can give details if people would like but let's say that it was not a fair representation of people's opinions. Or I should say, I believe that it wasn't since the voting procedures changed alot midstream and I don't really even know how the data was collected.


    I have to believe there is some sort of impetus for open tires in the background. I just don't see why this change is coming along now.

    Jason Holland
    SM Advisory Board SEDIV

  4. #44
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Apex, NC, USA
    Posts
    192

    Default

    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 has changed 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]

    ========================================
    ========================================
    Scott Gallimore
    worker, nat comp license, IT-7 driver,
    North Carolina Region Board of Directors, Member at Large

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    miami, fl. usa.
    Posts
    163

    Default

    if that is what toni is submitting for vote then i guess it's typical of SCCA volunteers to railroad everyone else.
    what ever happened to - 'it will stay for 2007 until proper info has been compiled' ' ????????
    from the people i have been talking to in fl region ,everyone wants the spec tire. you have about 10- 15 drivers in the GA, SC, NC ,VIR. area who wants the open tire rule and i guess they will have their way since they have infiltrated the class advisory board to make it their personal stomping grounds. and not representing what the it-7 driver's really want.
    i want to point out to everyone that this is my opinion only .but i have been lobbied by some of these individuals or their friend to sway me to call for open tire rule and i told them flat NO. spec tire rule did a lot for the class,bringing new drivers with limited budget.i personally am losing because i was getting kumho bucks everyweekend . but they don't have great trackside support.so i support the toyo tire rule.

    steve saney
    it-7 /it-a #34

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    40

    Default

    scott
    that is what was sent to the class review board. Now go to your RE and ask what was sent to him. You should post that as well.

    toni

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Black Rock, Ct
    Posts
    9,594

    Default

    Wow.

    I have no stake in the matter, but if I did, I'd be pissed.

    That "proposal" has so little documentable information in it, yet still draws "conclusions".

    I was amazed as I read it how each point lacked facts & figures and by the time I was done I was dumbfounded at the lack of credibility.

    In my opinion, I think a decision that affects such a large contingency needs to be thorough and documentable.

    With conclusions like "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.", based on the polling method of "They have canvassed drivers personally and there has been a request of opinion on the improvedtouring.com website", it is sure to be a failure, no matter the result.

    HOW many were talked to?? WHAT was the standard questions each was asked?? HOW MANY voted for what?? There is a LOT to polling a group...it seems simple, yet it isn't, and it takes time.

    Nowhere is any of that information presented.

    I'm sorry, but that's troubling, (to say the least) no matter what side of the debate you're on.
    Jake Gulick


    CarriageHouse Motorsports
    for sale: 2003 Audi A4 Quattro, clean, serviced, dark green, auto, sunroof, tan leather with 75K miles.
    IT-7 #57 RX-7 race car
    Porsche 1973 911E street/fun car
    BMW 2003 M3 cab, sun car.
    GMC Sierra Tow Vehicle
    New England Region
    lateapex911(at)gmail(dot)com


  8. #48
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Apex, NC, USA
    Posts
    192

    Default

    scott
    that is what was sent to the class review board. Now go to your RE and ask what was sent to him. You should post that as well.

    toni
    [/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=533]
    ===================================
    Scott Gallimore
    worker, nat comp license, IT-7 driver,
    North Carolina Region Board of Directors, Member at Large

  9. #49
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Apex, NC, USA
    Posts
    192

    Default

    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?
    Scott Gallimore
    worker, nat comp license, IT-7 driver,
    North Carolina Region Board of Directors, Member at Large

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga.
    Posts
    79

    Default

    Sgallino,

    Don't expect good answers. The EXACT same thing happened with SM and the advisory board. The recommendation was worded the exact same way. (I can post it if you like).

    There was no explanation to me (and I'm on the advisory board!) of how we got to this nebulous "slight margin if favor of no spec tire".

    Several advisory board members are uncomfortable with this way this was done (I'll leave it up to them if they want to say anything, I won't speak for them). The process was wrong in every way. Allowing advisory board members to "canvas" is a BAD idea. Depending on who they are (in SM the board members were all front runners - another big problem) and their feelings about spec tire you are gonna get biased views.


    You should read the email exchange with the SM adivosry board "discussing" the issue. It's a riot!



    This process for sm and IT7 is completely bogus. We need to let the RE's know about this.

    Call or email the re's I've included an email list of the RE's and Assistant RE's

    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]


  11. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    miami, fl. usa.
    Posts
    163

    Default

    i find it strange to say the least that on the it-7 advisory comittee you have drivers that do not race in it-7 .
    steve saney
    it-7 /it-a #34

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •