Big Picture of IT - Share Your Opinions

[bamfp]

Apparently the GT guys are having problems with the CRB as well.

[jimmyc]

Wait... wait... wait..

So the CRB says to the ITAC "SCREW YOUR WAY OF DOING THINGS, SCREW THE COUNTLESS LETTERS WE GET SUPPORTING IT, WE ARE GOING TO CLASS CARS THE WAY WE WANT."

And too get that to happen we put people in the ITAC who wont disagree with us, so everything is hunky doory.

(yes it is probably much harsher as i put it, but that seems to be the point of it)

WTF happened to "scca is a club. the club does what the membership wants. we listen to the members."

[Andy Bettencourt]

Oh boy.

[lateapex911]

Guys, before you all dive off the deep end, read what Kirk wrote again. I see some serious jumping to conclusions here.

And remember who the bosses are: BoD > CRB > ITAC.

In MY opinion, that's not exactly accurate, I think it's more like:

Members > BoD > CRB > ITAC.

To that end, I've always tried to talk to members, and to try and get the pulse of members. Of course, members are usually self centric, at least in the day to day stuff. It's sometimes hard to force their thinking into the 10,000 foot view. That's, I think, what the committees are supposed to do -distill the members often conflicting wishes into effective policy.

In any case, let's not hurl stuff at the CRB before the facts are out. There's always two sides to the story. And that the difference between dark gray (black) and light gray (white) can be as little as 1%.

And remember, the CRB answers to the BoD. Hint hint, nudge nudge.

(insert standard :"if you want your world the way you want it, get involved, make your opinions known, talk to your reps, vote, vote, vote")

[Bill Miller]

Guys, before you all dive off the deep end, read what Kirk wrote again. I see some serious jumping to conclusions here.

And remember who the bosses are: BoD > CRB > ITAC.

In MY opinion, that's not exactly accurate, I think it's more like:

Members > BoD > CRB > ITAC.

To that end, I've always tried to talk to members, and to try and get the pulse of members. Of course, members are usually self centric, at least in the day to day stuff. It's sometimes hard to force their thinking into the 10,000 foot view. That's, I think, what the committees are supposed to do -distill the members often conflicting wishes into effective policy.

In any case, let's not hurl stuff at the CRB before the facts are out. There's always two sides to the story. And that the difference between dark gray (black) and light gray (white) can be as little as 1%.

And remember, the CRB answers to the BoD. Hint hint, nudge nudge.

(insert standard :"if you want your world the way you want it, get involved, make your opinions known, talk to your reps, vote, vote, vote")

Damn, where did I put my hip boots?????

In MY opinion, that's not exactly accurate, I think it's more like:

Members > BoD > CRB > ITAC.

Spoken like a true politician Jake. The members haven't run this club in a loooooong time. And spare me your "but the members vote in the BoD rhetoric".

Any time you have people in positions that impact policy decisions, that are appointed by those above them, you create a situation where the appointees are subject to political pressure from above.

I don't think anyone on this board would characterize Kirk as a loose cannon, and to have the CRB (be it the entire board, or one individual), attempt to gag him, when he's doing what he feels is in the best interest of his constituency, is pure BS. Rather than actually deal w/ the issue(s) directly and openly, the CRB have chosen to keep it in the shadows and quiet the person that brought it to light. It's interesting to see who the people are, that are defending the CRB's actions.

Greg,

Tough call on that one. I probably would have been inclined to leave that info, as I think people in those kinds of positions should be accessible. But I can certainly see your point in removing it.

[lateapex911]

http://www.roadraceautox.com/showthread.php?t=25324

[gran racing]

Greg,

Tough call on that one. I probably would have been inclined to leave that info, as I think people in those kinds of positions should be accessible. But I can certainly see your point in removing it.

Eh, that was probably a good move. All that information can be found by logging into the SCCA site and downloading the large contact information PDF. It contains every board, and each person who has a position on a region level's info. This just ensures people don't simply react and take some time to give thought to their response.

[Andy Bettencourt]

It's interesting to see who the people are, that are defending the CRB's actions.

All I will say from here on in is that you don't know the whole story. Simple. 2 weeks from now, there will be a decision made, sides taken and information given.

I posed the question we are debating on this very forum and it got little play.

[frnkhous]

REALLY? Little play, comment on various topics brought up including the Audi which I think is what this is actually about. Jim Drago has no confindence that the process could be correct and that car should be 200 lbs lighter is the problem. He's not content to set the weight, and then allow the ITAC to look later if it appears that it makes above the standard power multiplier. I think it got play over 16 pages Andy. It may not have been the only discussion but most thought it should get the weight break. The cars in question are being beaten on a regular basis. They weren't below the track record when they managed to qualify on the front row at the arrc. They didn't go to tech. And they definetly used bump drafting to improve the lap times to get on the front row.

But if you don't think it got play I'll say that I think the car should get the processed weight. When one shows up and dominates the competition and sets new track records everywhere it goes, i'll consider it time to start asking for dyno sheets. You can't force someone to give that info up, but if it is the car to have other's will build one shortly and somebody will share the info.

To add to this, If you don't like any of this right now, don't bother the ITAC, they are getting the brunt of the complaints from the members of the IT community and that will do no good. Go directly to the crb and bod members. That will be much more effective than squeezing the ITAC on both sides and making them want to stop volunteering. Most of them from what I gather enjoy being on the ITAC, lately pressure from the crb and now an overflow of pm's/email from members has at least some of them rethinking being members of the ITAC.

Brian

[seckerich]

Thought I would cross post the response from Kirk. I sent my letter to the BOD first week this posted. If you care or have an opinion then let them know. I will be speaking with a few at the SIC to be sure. This BS about no input or discussion until AFTER they make a decision is not cutting it.

from roadrace autox.com:
Do NOT blame Andy or the rest of the ITAC for this situation, y'all. Andy was only the messenger and he was pretty much compelled to pass on the CRB's (or member(s) of the CRB's) directive. I complied with it because I couldn't ignore it without leaving him in the doo-doo with the CRB, and I didn't feel that I could fulfill my commitment to the committee, category, and members without being able to ask hard questions and voice opinions about points on which I disagree with CRB members, some of you all, et al.

And while there are differences among the ITAC members, the consensus direction of the group - which is evident to anyone reading Fastrack over the past 18 months, when I was involved - has been very conservative. This plays out both in terms of being VERY reluctant about new allowances (avoiding rules creep) and working toward the goal of having a transparent, repeatable process for spec'ing cars - absolutely staying out of the competition adjustment (bleah!) business.*

Comments from CRB members who sat in on our calls (Keane, Albin, Dowie) have sounded in the past few months increasingly skeptical about our first principle re: the latter - that we'd rather have a repeatable, transparent system than one that attempts to get every car "right" - as long as "right" is defined in terms of anecdotal observed on-track performance.

The lack of action on a large number of IT weight recommendations (now voted on since the ITAC's August meeting, as I understand it), and then the Audi bouncing back to us, got me to a point where I became VERY worried about a return to anecdotal, "performance-based" weight adjustments. This was when I started the IT.com thread on the "future of IT." I tried VERY hard to use that venue to encourage members to make their priorities known to their representatives, although I confess that my negativity showed through more than once in my comments. DESPITE that, I could envision at least three scenarios in which I would be OK with things:

1. We determine that the Audi in question does indeed make more than the 25% standard assumed power gain over stock in IT form, we change our recommendation to a new process weight, and the CRB votes on it** or...

2. We determine that it does NOT make more than expected power and the CRB votes to support the ITAC recommendation to set it at it's process weight, or...

3. We recommend a process weight in ANY scenario, but the CRB votes to add weight regardless - but is willing to go on record as having done so.

It might surprise you that I'd be cool with that last option but I would have been. The ITAC recommends and the CRB decides. If they thought we were wrong, they would be completely within their purview to ignore our recommendation. You all (those member thingies) would then be empowered to communicate to each entity to explain what you think is best for the category.

What I could NOT handle would have been the ITAC being co-opted into participating in what looked like a seamless process, that spit out a weight inconsistent with what the process recommended. Or invisible adjustments by the CRB to process-derived weights, without documentation of where the changes came from.***

Jim Drago recently communicated with the ITAC and indicated his fundamental disagreement with our first assumption (repeatability over "correctness"), and promised that he wasn't going to change his mind any time soon. My confidence was shaken a little by some of the things we read from him but, or answers he wouldn't give, even though I felt like I needed to know more about what the rest of the ITAC was thinking, I was still going to try...

Then I got the directive from the CRB.

I explained in my resignation letter to the ITAC members that I had decided to let the Audi question play itself out. Ironically, I had also gotten to the point at IT.com where I had backed out of the fray, figuring that i wasn't making any difference and that if a critical mass of IT drivers wanted competition adjustments (bleah!) and more allowances to change/remove stock parts, it wouldn't help for me to keep hollering about it.

So right now?

I firmly believe that many, perhaps all, of the current CRB members do not want IT to use the classing/specifying process recently codified by the ITAC - most notably, they want to reserve the right to add or subtract weight from any process-derived result if they think for whatever reason a car might be "too fast" based on observation of race cars on race tracks.

I more firmly believe they don't want to make information about the use of that approach available to the members. The Club still has a detrimental culture of "opacity" (not my word but I'll take it!) where rules making, stewardship, the Court of Appeals and other management structures are concerned. It came up repeatedly - although less and less as my tenure went on - that giving members too much information would just make it necessary to answer a bunch of questions, that someone would ALWAYS be upset with ANY decision, etc., as rationale for not doing things like publishing the process and practices that surround it. I'm a big freakin' Lefty about stuff like this but I believe that members should know what's going on; and that leaders should ask for input, make the decision they think best, be held accountable for their decisions through processes to ascertain success, and be willing to live with the good and bad outcomes (and opinions!) as they might arise.

YOU ALL need to not bitch here or at IT.com - again, most particularly not to Andy et al. on the ITAC. They still have things they want to try to accomplish, I imagine, and are (as Andy has pointed out) very interested in the outcome of what looks like will be something of a process to revisit the Audi power question. You DO need to make sure that you know what you care about in the big picture of IT, you know what you'll have to give up or compromise to get it, and that you'll share your vision and priorities for the category with your CRB and BoD members.

You can't count on someone being your proxy (e.g., any of the ITAC members), and you CAN probably change the Club - if you are willing to have the hard conversations.

K



* Competition adjustment is defined any time you see me use the term as weight adjustments based solely on on-track performance (finishes, lap times, qualifying positions).

** To get to its current listed weight, this car would have to make something approaching 40% more power in IT than stock.

*** And for the zillionth time, remember that the process in its current iteration is NOT a "pure objective formula," that doesn't have any room for the application of judgment. There is (as of last week) for all intents and purposes ONE and only ONE place where the ITAC can dig up and consider evidence to have subjective flexibility - the power multiplier. This (again, last I saw of it) is the most diddle-proof system ever used in to spec IT weights, and in all likelihood the most predictable ever applied in SCCA Club racing.
__________________
.
I love Malt Liquor and now I can sit on the couch with a forty EVERY Monday night, rather than blowing one each month on a 4-hour conference call.

Conover Motorsports Team GTI - 2008 ITB SARRC "First Loser"

With KONI struts, high quality race products from FASTtech Ltd., and HOOSIER tires from Phil's Tire Service

[Bill Miller]

All I will say from here on in is that you don't know the whole story. Simple. 2 weeks from now, there will be a decision made, sides taken and information given.

I posed the question we are debating on this very forum and it got little play.

Well Andy, all people can go on is the information they have, or what they can get by reading between the lines. I have a lot of respect for Kirk (as I think a lot of folks here and at the sandbox do). He and I have not always agreed, but I have never felt that he wasn't always above board and acted in a way that he felt was in the best interest of the category.

After reading his post from the sandbox, I'm even more dis-heartened by the way things seem to be going. He was told to shut up because the PtB wanted to keep things they way they've always been, do things behind closed doors and to hell w/ the members.

Your comments about the ITAC needing to 'align their philosophy' w/ the CRB is pure BS political rhetoric, and in pretty much so many words say that the CRB want the ITAC to do what they're told and not make waves.

As I've said before, I hate patronage positions. The CRB needs to be made up of folks who represent all areas of Club Racing. I don't think the CRB should be a seperately appointed group, but rather should be made up of the chairs of the various AdHoc's. I know I'll here the "But hey, you're asking people that volunteer to do even more work, it's not fair." My position on volunteering for something has always been that if you're going to do it (volunteer), you do it for the whole job, and all that it entails, not just for the bits and pieces that you want to do. And if there's more work than you bargined for, don't bitch about it, just step down or take a lessor role.

Each AdHoc chair should be voted on by the members of the respective committee. Chair tenure should be no more than 2-3 years. New AdHoc members are voted in by the current committee. People can apply for positions on an AdHoc, or they can be recruited. Tenure should be formally limited to no more than 5-6 years. Members could be re-elected to a given committee.

That way you get a CRB that represents all areas of Club Racing, and you take away the political pressure from the BoD on the CRB, and from the CRB on the various AdHoc's.