Big Picture of IT - Share Your Opinions

[frnkhous]

wrong. it works both ways.

if someone proves to have built a 100% effort (writes a big check to sunbelt, rebello, etc) and the dyno data doesn't show the car to make squat for power, they can adjust the weights down just the same as they can adjust them up.

*this is assuming that the current "freeze" on weights thaws after some time for everyone to get on the same page.

NO, because no matter what you can't prove that the ontrack evidence exists, and that is all they've said they care about. I can't prove that I don't just suck at driving. That is the only way they are going to use to trigger looking at something.

If your suggestion is true then why didn't they fix the 318 and the ITS mustang before closing the floodgates?

[lateapex911]

. Wouldn't be much different than the "wiggle" room the ITAC guys are claiming they wanted for IT

??? Typo? The ITAC guys never asked for 'wiggleroom".

[lateapex911]

wrong. it works both ways.

if someone proves to have built a 100% effort (writes a big check to sunbelt, rebello, etc) and the dyno data doesn't show the car to make squat for power, they can adjust the weights down just the same as they can adjust them up.

*this is assuming that the current "freeze" on weights thaws after some time for everyone to get on the same page.

Where did that idea come from??

Nobody in the know has said anything close to that. Where are you getting your info??

Regarding the first part of your post, I'm not sure I see how that will play out. The rulebook has a clause which specifically points out that any car is subject to adjustments of weight ...or the addition of a restrictor,

which will be used solely to restore equity in a class

. You don't add restrictors to speed cars up. The rules state "initial classifications" are subject to tinkering with for 4 years, and that's it. The CRb approved any method the ITAC wishes to class new cars. They have directed us not to reprocess cars, per the rulebook. Therefore the only way older cars get reprocessed is through the above clause. And the CRB prohibited the use of V2.0 in any case where that arises.

What am I missing?

[Andy Bettencourt]

really kirk? so you're saying you guys would be willing to class cars at a number other than what is output by the formula? that's news to me, and i bet many others.

You really need to pay attention.

[Knestis]

its totally semantics, but kirk apparantly feels like being a dick today.

In case you hadn't noticed there, Trav - I'M ROYALLY PISSED OFF THAT A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE ARE RUINING SOMETHING I'VE LITERALLY SPENT HALF MY LIFE TRYING TO MAKE BETTER.

But you know what? You've used up all of the bandwidth I'm going to waste trying to correct what you don't understand. I've consistently given you the benefit of the doubt but your reaction in this last chapter has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that you're a disingenuous, selfish, petty, 'net child.

The idiot teacher in me keeps thinking there's hope but you're going to need to find a new backstop to bounce your misrepresentations off of.

K

[frnkhous]

??? Typo? The ITAC guys never asked for 'wiggleroom".

. Wouldn't be much different than the "wiggle" room the ITAC guys are claiming they(CR wanted for IT.

Sorry they should have been CRB, I wasn't claiming the ITAC wants wiglge room.

[jjjanos]

how funny.

if you pay attention....i'm actually HELPING you guys keep the process. but it's much easier for you guys to just think i don't give two shits about anyone or anything but myself, so you probably missed that.

Kee-rist, but that's one of the most delusional things I've seen in a long time. The CRB has THROWN OUT the process. It has, by fiat, instituted a multi-process classification system. New cars get assigned weights based on what the ITAC recommends as modified by whatever the CRB feels, cars adjusted during the great realignment get those weights and cars that either were not adjusted or ignored keep the original weights.

God help cars that are too fat - they cannot get any relief. God help anyone who dominates a race on which the CRB focuses - they'll likely get fat.

When?

They did not take weight off, but I was unaware that they added any weight.

I picked my words very carefully. The CRB has determined that the legal weight for the Audi shall be a couple hundred pounds over the correct process weight. Where I sit, adding weight to a newly classified car beyond what the process weight says or refusing to adjust the incorrect weight of an already car are the same thing.

If the Audi had never been classified, it's weight would be less than the current weight. That extra weight is by CRB dictate.

[JeffYoung]

This is what I was trying to say; you said it better. Essentially, the Audi carries weight vis a vis those cars that were "processed."

If the Audi had never been classified, it's weight would be less than the current weight. That extra weight is by CRB dictate.

[jjjanos]

Hold on. You're stating a bunch of stuff as 'facts', yet they are not.
First the CRB didn't say "hold off". That suggests a delay. They said stop. That means stop. Don't go. Ever. So, that seems clear.

One option is to tell the CRB to stick it and continue making recommendations to them that the ITAC deems appropriate. At that point, it will be the CRB turning them down. The end result is the same, but the process is different.

I think it's time that the various advisory commitees publish minutes in Fasttrack and all of the ACs and the CRB minutes include how the members of the committee/board voted on each specific proposal.

It seems that the ITAC is opposed to the actions of the CRB. Has the ITAC asked the BoD to intervene?

[tnord]

Where did that idea come from??

contrary to popular belief, i don't think the CRB aims to "ruin" IT. I think them taking the hard line of freezing every car currently listed is a relatively temporary policy. i bet if you present them with a good case backed by the same type of evidence you'd use in the process, you could get some things through....like this ITA 318 adjustment.

not right now....but later....after the dust settles. but that's me just being open minded about how this all will work out.

[Bill Miller]

You know Travis, I put you on 'ignore', but w/ everyone quoting your posts, the 'ignore' thing didn't work out that well.

You really are a piece of work. You tell people to 'blow me' and 'lick my balls' and then you turn around and accuse someone of being 'a dick'. You're a punk POS, plain and simple. You are the quintessential internet douchebag. You're a spoiled little brat that only cares about themself. You're a crybaby. Now go swap spit w/ Mr. Drago and do us a favor and buy those new clubs you'be been bloviating about.

You SOOOOOO don't get it.

And while I think Kirk has way too much decorum to do this, I certainly don't.

GO FUCK YOURSELF!


To the guys on the ITAC, I am well and truly sorry to see all your hard worked flushed down the shitter. You guys deserved better than that. It's a shame too, as you guys (which includes several former members) had really laid the groundwork to make IT the best category in the SCCA. And maybe that was part of the problem, the CRB couldn't very well have a category that didn't get to run for a National Championship being the real top dog in the Club. The other problem is, they have no idea how to balance cars except based on the results of one race. Anybody want to take bets on how much lead the HP CRX gets for next year?

[StephenB]

Hey all... I guess I am the one that screwed IT up... A few things I would like to make clear to anyone that is upset. Which I am not, as promissed in a previous post.

We all asked for stability... we now have it. Old cars stay as is and going forward all will be classed similarly
We all know that going forward we have a somewhat consistant classification process that I believe has yielded somewhat consistant results for the past 5 or so years that can be defended or justified if questioned by all of us.
We all made a choice for the car we are currently racing, you can't blaim anyone but yourself if your car is not competitive and/or never will be.
We all need to, and SHOULD, accept our current classification. (The ones we knew we had when we purchased/built out cars!)

Maybe in your next discussion with the CRB you can have them actually tell THE MEMBERS IN IT what they are really doing. Your sacred Miata is safe at its current weight so all is good in your world. We get it. How about the cars that were up for a weight reduction that will now not ever be looked at? Those drivers just go away, and yes they will go away mad because their car was not treated the same as others in IT because it was easy. Not going to cut it.

I am one of those drivers and HOW can I go away mad? I made a choice to build and race my car on my own, I wasn't told to drive my Audi. EVERYONE here chooses the car they are driving along with ALL OTHER IT drivers. Sorry to be on the other side but seriosly are you all going to sue your local coffee shop if your coffee is to hot?

And yes Travis I know there are 2 IT drivers on the CRB, both in ITB that race against the Audi that turned this whole process upside down. Is that supposed to make me feel more confident? Bad example.

Since you mentioned it... They were both at the event 1 in an ITA car now bumped to ITB that now as classified is almost 2 seconds faster than my car. The other one was behind me and my bro in qualifying... and involved in a protest against my brother. But honestly that doesn't matter we now have a stable class!

YOUR IN CONTROL OF YOUR DECISIONS, I AM IN CONTROL OF MINE
I will chose to continue to race my car as classified, ya I may get depressed if I can't beat another car but I knew what I had going in.

I do feel bad for the ITAC members because they have put in a lot of time and work for all of us and for that I appreciate everything you have done and feel as though I owe you my apologies.

Stephen

PS: Sorry I created this drama.

[StephenB]

I think it's time that the various advisory commitees publish minutes in Fasttrack and all of the ACs and the CRB minutes include how the members of the committee/board voted on each specific proposal.

This is what I wrote in an e-mail to the president of SCCA last year. The single best idea that the SCCA should do. I also believe that ALL requests by members should be done through a SCCA PUBLIC forum AND Sportscar for all members to see and give feedback on.

Stephen

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think it's time that the various advisory commitees publish minutes in Fasttrack and all of the ACs and the CRB minutes include how the members of the committee/board voted on each specific proposal.

This is what I wrote in an e-mail to the president of SCCA last year. The single best idea that the SCCA should do. I also believe that ALL requests by members should be done through a SCCA PUBLIC forum AND Sportscar for all members to see and give feedback on.

Stephen

And thankfully, we have all that data recorded now. Most of our stuff comes out unanimous - because we hash it out so long - and our principles are similar.

[StephenB]

contrary to popular belief, i don't think the CRB aims to "ruin" IT. I think them taking the hard line of freezing every car currently listed is a relatively temporary policy. i bet if you present them with a good case backed by the same type of evidence you'd use in the process, you could get some things through....like this ITA 318 adjustment.

not right now....but later....after the dust settles. but that's me just being open minded about how this all will work out.

This is the worst thought that I have heard in a LONG time. LEAVE IT ALONE so we can all move along! The CRB needs to make a decision and stick to it. Stop the swings and flip flops AKA INSTABILITY! The only thing we should fix is if the CRB/ITAC sees an overdog classified in Error and all changes should be made within the current rules of 4 years.

Stephen

[tnord]

Anybody want to take bets on how much lead the HP CRX gets for next year?

I will.

$20 says it doesn't get a single pound.

Put your money where your mouth is.

[lateapex911]

Here's my take on it, from a personal point of view.

I don't think the CRB wants to slap weight Runoffs style. I really don't. Up until the latest backlog/issue, they have been very supportive of everything the ITAC has done. Like 98% supportive. As a matter of fact, not long ago, I think we were told by a member of the CRB, "You guys are the best ad hoc going if you ask us or the BoD".

So, I *think* we aren't at odds about the final product. We both want balanced classes with good racing.

But, we differ on how to get there.

They've told us that we can class new cars any way we want. "Just make it make sense". But we can't touch older listings. I have a hard time making things make sense that way.

Before Monday, I could answer anyones questions of how we operated, and had 'answers' for every question a member could come up with. I could explain the process, or suggest the member request a Process review for example. I work for the members. So being able to look them in the eyes, explain the system, and answer them honestly was a big thing to me. I'd worked hard to get to that point.

Now, I can still be honest. But the answers I give might rile people, and that sucks. I have no problems telling people that things aren't perfect, but, it's hard to defend some of the inequities and say, "Pound sand, my friend, nothing I can do about it".

I guess the thing that surprises me most is that I thought things were moving in a good direction and the methods and procedures we were utilizing were respected by the higher ups, like the BoD. But, I guess not?

[JeffYoung]

What Jake said.

Also, Stephen, you aren't responsible for this. The issue would have come up with another car, if it hadn't been yours. You and your brother pretty much sum up for me what IT is supposed to be about -- two guys with limited budget who compete hard in a car that they chose because they like it, not because it is the "car of the year."

[seckerich]

[ Quote from Stephen B:
I am one of those drivers and HOW can I go away mad? I made a choice to build and race my car on my own, I wasn't told to drive my Audi. EVERYONE here chooses the car they are driving along with ALL OTHER IT drivers. Sorry to be on the other side but seriosly are you all going to sue your local coffee shop if your coffee is to hot?

Since you mentioned it... They were both at the event 1 in an ITA car now bumped to ITB that now as classified is almost 2 seconds faster than my car. The other one was behind me and my bro in qualifying... and involved in a protest against my brother. But honestly that doesn't matter we now have a stable class!




Good for you that you are willing to be treated as second class. You are willing to let a few members of SCCA determine you do not deserve the same treatment as new cars get. If you are good with that I am happy for you. I'm not built that way. The CRB pulled out the rule card and decided that what they have allowed for the last few years with "errors and omissions" is no longer valid. I understand this is being clamped down on in other classes that have other avenues of fixing a mistake, but that was all we had. Most of these older cars were classed with a beer and a dart board. That is an error by todays standards. If you made it in under the wire then good for you. Contrary to posts here the BOD is not aware of all this and how it will impact IT. Let them know.

[lateapex911]

I am one of those drivers and HOW can I go away mad? I made a choice to build and race my car on my own, I wasn't told to drive my Audi. EVERYONE here chooses the car they are driving along with ALL OTHER IT drivers. Sorry to be on the other side but seriosly are you all going to sue your local coffee shop if your coffee is to hot?


PS: Sorry I created this drama.

Stephen, I respect your stand up approach. But it is flawed. Lets say, you chose an Atwood GT in ITA, and it weighs 2200 pounds, with 120hp and 110 ft lbs. You race, and you do ok. No overdog, but ok. Then a new car gets classed. It's the newer Benwood GT, and while it looks fancy, it's the same car as the one you have. Same power, same everything.

But the ITAC is using the Process now, but it wasn't used on your car. So the new car comes in 100 or more pounds lighter than your identical car.

You should be annoyed, that's an obvious grievance. The new weight makes sense compared to the big picture of the class, so you're out of luck, and I think you have every right to be measured by the same yardstick.

To me, that's stability. To me, stability isn't just about leaving things "as they are", it's about moving in a predictable, and repeatable fashion. If we insist on stability at all costs, our drivers will feel disenfranchised, and technology will quickly render our category obsolete. We must adapt, but in a predictable manner.