ITAC News.

[spnkzss]

This just in, Jeff Young and Scott Giles have decided to agree to terms. Welcome guys!

There goes the neighborhood. We're all doomed.

[tom91ita]

so who are the current ITAC members?

did two others come off the committee or is this two additional members?

[lateapex911]

Two out, two in.

Long time member Geroge Roffe, (and frequent IT.com poster, back in the "Miller Days", has been struggling with work and life related time issues. (I think he must've gotten a new hottie GF, LOL) and found that things were getting spread too thin. And Bob Clarke, andother long timer, is racing more in the prod category, and has some pressing family issues,.....so.....

We got lucky. Scott has lots of IT experience, and has been an occasional critic of the SCCA way, and even the ITAC, so having him on board is kinda cool.

And Jeff has shown lots of hard work on the ITACs behalf in the past. He and Ron Earp answered the phone when i called and said, "You know that list of cars too fast for ITS? Time to get that going", and along with the "ITR ad hoc" guys, created that class. Giles was in on that too.

So, both have a lot going for them: they are active IT racers, they represent cars and classes that helps the ITAC remain diversified. (We REALLY needed some Brit car expertise!) and they are geographically ok too.

So, if you see them at the track feel free to pat them on the back or kick them in the butt, LOL.

Oh...on edit, the current ITAC is;

Andrew Bettencourt, Grand Poobah
Josh Sirota, West Coaster
Kirk Knestis Resident Policy Doc
Marshall Lytle BMW insurgent
Lee Graser "For the People!"
Les Chaney "Just Say No!"
Jeff Young, British Liaison
Scott Giles Resident Honda guru
and me,

[Xian]

Nice! Congrats to both Jeff and Scott. I'm certain that they'll be excellent additions the ITAC.

[Doc Bro]

Two out, two in.

Long time member Geroge Roffe, (and frequent IT.com poster, back in the "Miller Days", has been struggling with work and life related time issues. (I think he must've gotten a new hottie GF, LOL) and found that things were getting spread too thin. And Bob Clarke, andother long timer, is racing more in the prod category, and has some pressing family issues,.....so.....

We got lucky. Scott has lots of IT experience, and has been an occasional critic of the SCCA way, and even the ITAC, so having him on board is kinda cool.

And Jeff has shown lots of hard work on the ITACs behalf in the past. He and Ron Earp answered the phone when i called and said, "You know that list of cars too fast for ITS? Time to get that going", and along with the "ITR ad hoc" guys, created that class. Giles was in on that too.

So, both have a lot going for them: they are active IT racers, they represent cars and classes that helps the ITAC remain diversified. (We REALLY needed some Brit car expertise!) and they are geographically ok too.

So, if you see them at the track feel free to pat them on the back or kick them in the butt, LOL.

Oh...on edit, the current ITAC is;

Andrew Bettencourt, Grand Poobah
Josh Sirota, West Coaster
Kirk Knestis Resident Policy Doc
Marshall Lytle BMW insurgent
Lee Graser "For the People!"
Les Chaney "Just Say No!"
Jeff Young, British Liaison
Scott Giles Resident Honda guru
and me,

Jake,

I heard that your seat was up for grabs to whoever could register a higher post count than yours by year end. Is that true????


R

[lateapex911]

Only Kirk has a shot, and he's already on board, but go for it man!

(High post counts are the sign of oldness or weirdness, both are bad!)

[Ron Earp]

Congratulations to Jeff and Scott. I think both will improve the ITAC composition and help further Improved Touring within the club. Nice picks, enjoy!

[1stGenBoy]

As Jake noted I have been racing a lot in Nationals ( GTL) and my kids are at the age that Im doing a lot more with them so, it was getting more and more difficult to devote the time needed to properly do my job on the ITAC . I still have my ITB car and hope I can get it out next year with my son driving it for his first SCCA drivers school. The ITAC is a great group of guys and believe me they have nothing but the best interests of the class at heart. Sure sometimes things don't happen has fast as some people like BUT they are all volunteers and put in a lot of time and effort to make IT a great class.

Bob Clark

[dominojd]

Jake,

I heard that your seat was up for grabs to whoever could register a higher post count than yours by year end. Is that true????


R

Rob,

Jake is the biggest post whore going. Good Luck.

[lateapex911]

Andy, what was your screen name before you switched to AB? Didn't you have 4000 posts or so on that name?

Combined, u da winnar, man!

On edit:

In an effort to reduce my post count, I will add this in a ninja edit. Your combined total is 5555, I think, soon, you will roll over Miller.
(Unless he snafus the GF thing!)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Nope, I actually stay right where I am. ITSRX7.

[924Guy]

Best of luck going forward, and thanks for taking on the thankless task. I'm sure we'll be talking more...

[Bill Miller]

Congrats and best of luck to you Josh! I really commend your courage and dedication in accepting this in light of recent developments.

[lateapex911]

So, any updates on things available?

[spnkzss]

So, any updates on things available?

You know better than that Jake. There is nobody left on the ITAC that is willing to talk publicly.

[JoshS]

My intent was to send something on the Friday before each call, but just for Jake, this month's will go early:

The next call is next Monday, 3/22/10.

In the March Fastrack, the CRB published a request for member input about engine mount allowances in IT, and the response has been fantastic. We have 40+ letters on the topic, which I think may be more than we ever got in response to requests for input about the ECU rules, and that request was published over many months. A new record, I'm pretty sure. I expect to close out this issue during next week's call.

Overall, the letters to be discussed (as of today) include 2 rule changes, 7 requests to look at existing listings, and 7 requests for new listings.

I know you're all wondering how we're going to operate with respect to the adjustments of existing listings. For the moment, we will be following the rules. That means that listings that have been around for a long time are not really adjustable, unless it can be shown that there is a real error. One example of such an error would be two cars that are, for all practical purposes, the same as each other, yet have wildly different weights (or even different CLASSES, as is highlighted in one of this month's letters.) By "same," I don't mean '88 Honda 1.6L vs. '99 Mazda 1.6L here. I mean ... the same parts in the drivetrain, the same or essentially identical chassis, etc. Recently, both Honda and BMW listings have fallen into this category and have been adjusted as errors, and we will continue to correct such errors as they are identified.

There is also a mechanism to change the rules, and I know that a lot of you are in favor of doing that (and I think that many of you are not, as well). As chair of the committee I will certainly be open to such a request, but please understand that any rule change of that nature will be conducted with due care, with input from the committee, from the CRB, from the members, and ultimately, from the BOD.

Josh