IT National? Anyone else have this experience at a driver's meeting this year?

[Andy Bettencourt]

If there is ever a request for member input, I would hope it was written up very clearly what they are looking for. Informed voters are what we need on a topic like this.

It DOES matter to me when someone comments on something and has no idea what they are commenting on. Sorry. If you ran your life like that you would be in a world of hurt.

[Doc Bro]

If there is ever a request for member input, I would hope it was written up very clearly what they are looking for. Informed voters are what we need on a topic like this.

It DOES matter to me when someone comments on something and has no idea what they are commenting on. Sorry. If you ran your life like that you would be in a world of hurt.

But Andy, it's not your job to protect us from ourselves in the way you described.

Your assumption is that people don't understand, and that assumption is just as unfounded as the converse assumption that they do understand. The parallel of how one lives their own life is your opinion of "a world of hurt". Again, unfounded in any truth other than your own.

The beauty of a democracy (or asking members for an opinion) is that you get what you get, and what is it that you get?....opinions.. Educated or uneducated, right by your test or wrong- they are opinions, and if the majority say no to national then it should be NO. Anything else is just a steering maneuver to allow the masses to "see the light". Alleliuah Brother!!! Can I get an AMEN?

R

[Ron Earp]

Anything else is just a steering maneuver to allow the masses to "see the light". Alleliuah Brother!!! Can I get an AMEN?

R

Moooo.

[Andy Bettencourt]

All I want to do is make sure people make an informed decision, ya or nay. Especially one which has the potential to impact the category in such a big way.

[JeffYoung]

Not to get sidetracked, but my perception is IT was created by a group of racers, and run as a regional class with its own unofficial championship run by the racers for years. While the CRB and BoD have some control over it, usually, if the ITAC recommends it (at least until recently) it gets done.

My PERCEPTION of other national classes is of tighter CRB and BoD control since they are/were "flagship" classes that went to the runoffs.

Help me understand this statement. IT is no different than any other class in terms of it's operational functionality. It has an Ad Hoc, has CRB reps, etc. The only difference is that it won't entertain comp adjustments and has a classification process, no?

Back to the voting issue. You did say one thing that scared me Andy, and that is the inference anyway that only folks "informed" on the issue should vote. I disagree. All IT guys should get a vote and vote anyway they like for whatever reason.

What would really be BAD about all of this is if the CRB or the BoD forced it down our throats because "they know better." BAD BAD BAD.

[JeffYoung]

Baaaaaahhhhhhhhh!

Moooo.

[jjjanos]

I think, or at least I hope, we all would prefer an informed vote over an uninformed vote. My fear, however, is that, regardless of the outcome of the vote or input, those opposed will be discounted or dismissed because "they were uninformed".

Iacta alea est.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Jeff, I am seeing where our disconnect is.

The CRB / BoD doesn't muck with the IT waters that much because the design of the class doesn't allow it. There are so few issues in IT compared to every other class (sans spec classes) because they don't deal with comp adjustments and there is a defined classification structure. It's not that they don't think it's important (frankly, I bet they think IT is THE most important class in Club Racing), they just don't have to worry about it because it doesn't need much attention compared to others.

Anyone can and should vote - I just want a complicated issue like this - with a ton of misconception out there already - and big potential impact - to receive an accurate RESULT. I don't care what way that is, just that people know what they are voting for. I really don't think that is too much to ask. Who wants a skewed result based on misinformation? Only those whose side it is skewed toward....

[erlrich]

Jeff, I am seeing where our disconnect is.
I don't care what way that is, just that people know what they are voting for. I really don't think that is too much to ask. Who wants a skewed result based on misinformation? Only those whose side it is skewed toward....

What I've taken from the discussions here, and on other forums, is that those who are against IT going national all have one ultimate viewpoint; IT is a great place to race just the way it is, and if you take it national you're just going to f**k that all up. The reasons why are varied; it will make racing more expensive, there will be constant comp adjustments, it will dilute the regional fields, the same people who f**ked up prod, and touring, and ss will now start f**king with IT. But it all boils down to that one sentiment - if IT ain't broke...don't make it national.

I would also posit this - it's just my gut feeling, but I believe the majority of those who would be interested in IT going national are here, and already paying attention to what's happening. I think the drivers who don't visit IT.com, or read every Fastrack as soon as it comes out, and don't go to the comp committee and/or board meetings, but who are still the majority of the IT drivers, have no interest in IT ever becoming a national class. I think the 2 to 1 against vote we've seen here is probably not representative of the true majority of IT drivers.

[Ron Earp]

I think the drivers who don't visit IT.com, or read every Fastrack as soon as it comes out, and don't go to the comp committee and/or board meetings, but who are still the majority of the IT drivers, have no interest in IT ever becoming a national class. I think the 2 to 1 against vote we've seen here is probably not representative of the true majority of IT drivers.

I would also agree with you strongly on this point. I talk to a fair number of IT drivers (when my head is not buried under a hood) in the paddock who don't frequent this site. Clearly I haven't been able to pose this question to them, but I will be doing so at VIR next weekend. My gut feeling is the "anti-National" sentiment is even stronger among the IT folks who don't frequent IT.com. I'm basing this only on a feeling, but when having a beer with the folks at various socials over the years I never got a "I love Topeka" vibe from them.

I too would like to see an accurate vote on the issue too. I have some experience with mailing houses if someone wants to put together a info flier and send to IT racers soliciting their input. I'm sure the club should have the means to do this as well, maybe via regional meetings or regional newsletters. But even that methodology might not work so well - personally I rarely go to regional meetings, I socialize with my IT/SCCA Club folks on this forum, so my vote might not get counted.

Ron

[JeffYoung]

Probably correct on the difference between CRB/BoD involviement in Prod v. IT -- the ruleset in prod requires it.

But whoa whoa whoa on this below. Whose to say what is "misinformation" and what is not? Sure, put the information out there. Car counts. Rules implications, etc. But I get the feeling -- the strong feeling -- that a lot of folks on the CRB/BoD/ITAC see this as something that is "good for all of us" and that they know better than the masses. But the masses appear to be against it. I'm not making any accusations, and I think everyone ultimately wants the best for IT. However, the majority should decide, not a small group who "knows what's really going on."

Anyone can and should vote - I just want a complicated issue like this - with a ton of misconception out there already - and big potential impact - to receive an accurate RESULT. I don't care what way that is, just that people know what they are voting for. I really don't think that is too much to ask. Who wants a skewed result based on misinformation? Only those whose side it is skewed toward....

[seckerich]

Isn't the traditional process to post a request for member input? Although, based on other recent requests I'm not sure the CRB would get half as many letters as we have votes in the poll. Maybe we could survey the drivers at upcoming events? Start a petition? I'm not sure what would be the most effective method.

My guess is that 1 in 10 drivers actually look at fastrack now that it has been removed from sportscar. You would be amazed at the people that show up after long heated debates and contested rule changes and have no clue. This would have to be pushed by IT racers collecting contact information from all the regions registrars to be effective. Any other way and we will push way more racers out of this club.

[JeffYoung]

Agreed. Done by vote. After a LOT of ground work to provide information as Andy indicates (I don't disagree with that at all) and to make sure that EVERYONE has a fair opportunity to vote.

[lateapex911]

If you have a family, and you are painting a room, and you want to paint the wall dark brown, one person likes it, one person thinks it look like poo, and the last person states that the glare and intense light coming off the wall will blind him, you have to look at the vote and say "huh"??

That's what i see here when I read some comments on the Evil Empire that some seem to think Topeka/the BoD/ the CRB is, and how they've screwed up Prod, or GT....

Frankly, I'd like to see supporting evidence of some of those statements, because using those and applying them to IT is BS if the original premise is wrong. IF you understand the system, and have the facts correct, then fine, but if you don't, you are basing your opinions on complete speculation. And statements like the above tell me that many people DON"T understand what happens up the ladder.

Equating the Prod situation with where IT is and will go, is frankly, well, I'm not buying it.

As it stands now, I suggest we've seen lots of wild reactions to a question asked in a vacuum...we really have NO idea of the other factors and strategic realignments involved in the opinion finding. In a way, asking the question in such a vacuum is really doing a disservice to the membership, and will get responses that aren't representative of the true feelings of the category, because the people being asked don't know the whole story.

Which is why I disagree with statements like "Only 8 -10% of the IT racers would support this"....we don't even know what THIS is...

:ITAC hat ON:

Finally, to those that think "I have just as large an issue with an ITAC person pushing this IT to National issue as I do or would with a CRB person pushing his/her personal agenda.", I say, most strongly, READ the thread, READ the words, and show some respect. Again, this is NOT an ITAC originated action, the ITAC would NEVER do it so clumsily, and while it's been discussed for years casually, the ITAC has no knowledge of this particular research or discussion. I was in the Glen testing Monday, away from the net when this story broke. I ran the ITAC con call from my hotel room Monday night, and there was NO mention of any of this. At the end of the call, I specifically asked, "Hey, CRB guys, is there anything on your agenda for us the we need to discuss?" The answer was no. When I cruised to IT.com after the con call, I first read of this, and I was surprised.

Now, as I mentioned, the subject has come up in face to face conversations I've had with CRB members and on con calls over the past couple years, and the pros and cons have been discussed, both about the entire club racing program, (that includes both the National and Regional participants, of course) and IT as a category, and how it fits in the greater scheme. That's what happens when you're on committees, you shoot the breeze about stuff. The CRB is aware of ideas and opinions of the ITAC members, and when the time comes for decisions and actions, the ITAC will be tasked with giving feedback on whatever plan exists. I assure you that the cornerstone philosophies of the category will be defended.

:ITAC hat OFF:

[Andy Bettencourt]

But whoa whoa whoa on this below. Whose to say what is "misinformation" and what is not? Sure, put the information out there. Car counts. Rules implications, etc. But I get the feeling -- the strong feeling -- that a lot of folks on the CRB/BoD/ITAC see this as something that is "good for all of us" and that they know better than the masses. But the masses appear to be against it. I'm not making any accusations, and I think everyone ultimately wants the best for IT. However, the majority should decide, not a small group who "knows what's really going on."

I think we can all agree that the guy who thinks IT cars will have to add a fuel cell and lexan in order to be a 'national class' is misinformed. Or NOT-informed. I have read quotes from 3 seperate guys on 3 seperate boards who think this.

All I want if for everyone to have the same proposal before them before anyone decides what majority is for what.

[tnord]

Back to the voting issue. You did say one thing that scared me Andy, and that is the inference anyway that only folks "informed" on the issue should vote. I disagree. All IT guys should get a vote and vote anyway they like for whatever reason.

disagree completely. uninformed voting is what got SM the Spec Toyo debacle it has now.

uninformed vote is worse than no vote. the problem is, everyone thinks that they are informed.

[JeffYoung]

Jake, you're still the man, but the below scares me. Informed, uninformed, deformed, reformed, uniformed, whatever, if you race an IT car, you should have a say in this. You're right, a lot of us don't understand, are scared of, and sometimes put off by how we perceive National operates (my dealings with them have only been positive). That's natural because we don't interact with them like you guys do -- it is, I agree, a fear of the unknown.

But just because we have that fear, and just because some of it may seem irrational, doesn't mean that we don't get a say.

The one thing I am absolutely sure of is that you will do irreparable damage to IT if this decision comes from above, instead of being approved by majority.

Democracy...let's take some extreme examples...

First, 12 yr olds aren't allowed to vote because they obviously don't have the maturity to display reason and judgment in complex issues.

Now, yes, anyone can vote once they mature, but let's face it, many votes are less than thought out.

Now, if you have a family, and you are painting a room, and you want to paint the wall dark brown, one person likes it, one person thinks it look like poo, and the last person states that the glare and intense light coming off the wall will blind him, you have to look at his vote and say "huh"??

That's what i see here when I read some comments on the Evil Empire that some seem to think Topeka/the BoD/ the CRB is, and how they've screwed up Prod, or GT....

Frankly, I'd like to see supporting evidence of some of those statements, because using those and applying them to IT is BS if the original premise is wrong. IF you understand the system, and have the facts correct, then fine, but if you don't, you are basing your opinions on complete speculation. And statements like the above tell me that many people DON"T understand what happens up the ladder.

Equating the Prod situation with where IT is and will go, is frankly, well, I'm not buying it.

As it stands now, I suggest we've seen lots of wild reactions to a question asked in a vacuum...we really have NO idea of the other factors and strategic realignments involved in the opinion finding. In a way, asking the question in such a vacuum is really doing a disservice to the membership, and will get responses that aren't representative of the true feelings of the category, because the people being asked don't know the whole story.

Which is why I disagree with statements like "Only 8 -10% of the IT racers would support this"....we don't even know what THIS is...

:ITAC hat ON:

Finally, to those that think "I worry about ITAC representatives pushing personal agendas", I say, most strongly, READ the thread, READ the words, and show some respect. Again, this is NOT an ITAC originated action, the ITAC would NEVER do it so clumsily, and while it's been discussed for years casually, the ITAC has no knowledge of this particular research or discussion. I was in the Glen testing Monday, away from the net when this story broke. I ran the ITAC con call from my hotel room Monday night, and there was NO mention of any of this. At the end of the call, I specifically asked, "Hey, CRB guys, is there anything on your agenda for us the we need to discuss?" The answer was no. When I cruised to IT.com after the con call, I first read of this, and I was surprised.

Now, as I mentioned, the subject has come up in face to face conversations I've had with CRB members and on con calls over the past couple years, and the pros and cons have been discussed, both about the entire club racing program, (that includes both the National and Regional participants, of course) and IT as a category, and how it fits in the greater scheme. That's what happens when you're on committees, you shoot the breeze about stuff. The CRB is aware of ideas and opinions of the ITAC members, and when the time comes for decisions and actions, the ITAC will be tasked with giving feedback on whatever plan exists. I assure you that the cornerstone philosophies of the category will be defended.

:ITAC hat OFF:

[IPRESS]

How about if IT stays regional everywhere except in the NE!

That would work.

[JeffYoung]

True, to a certain extent. But the specifics have not been worked out. Don't you agree that there will be pressure from some to have an IT fuel cell requirement, for example, if we go national?

Your last sentence I agree with 100%. And we are perhaps closer in thinking than it appears. I am totally for providing as much information in the form of a definite proposal as possible before a vote. But if some folks choose not to educate themselves, well, sucks, but they still get a vote.

I think we can all agree that the guy who thinks IT cars will have to add a fuel cell and lexan in order to be a 'national class' is misinformed. Or NOT-informed. I have read quotes from 3 seperate guys on 3 seperate boards who think this.

All I want if for everyone to have the same proposal before them before anyone decides what majority is for what.

[erlrich]

As it stands now, I suggest we've seen lots of wild reactions to a question asked in a vacuum...we really have NO idea of the other factors and strategic realignments involved in the opinion finding. In a way, asking the question in such a vacuum is really doing a disservice to the membership, and will get responses that aren't representative of the true feelings of the category, because the people being asked don't know the whole story.

Which is why I disagree with statements like "Only 8 -10% of the IT racers would support this"....we don't even know what THIS is...

But Jake, people are reacting to what they've been given; the question has been asked in a vacuum because that's all there is at this point. In the first post of this thread Chris stated "the CenDiv director asked us one question. 'If the SCCA were to make Improved Touring classes national classes, and include them in the Runoffs, would you participate at a national level?'." That's all anyone knows at this point, so that's all they have to react to.