Big Picture of IT - Share Your Opinions

[tnord]

To sum it up from my seat:

1. The CRB will allow the classification of new cars via the process.
2. The CRB will not allow 'corrections' to currently listed cars via the process
3. Overdogs can and will be adjusted. Not exactly sure the methodology for that. I am assuming they would like us to research why its an overdog, take that info and fit it into the process and reset the weight. Not sure how much of a change in weight needs to spit out in order for an action to be taken. Probably the old +/-100lbs. Overdogs will be determined by on-track performance. The definition of an overdog is not known to me. Maybe it's like porn. I will know it when I see it.
4. The CRB does not have enough confidence in the process to allow us to run everyone through. Specifically, the first step in the process uses stock crank HP. While this is known to be a flawed number, their confidence level is so low, they have stopped pushing through 'corrections' under the errors and ommissions clause.
5. It is their opinion that ANY change is a competition adjustment because lowering the weight of a car alters the competitive landscape of the class. It is the opinion of the ITAC that the traditional definition of a CA is a change that is made based on track results. What we have been doing are changes based on paper with no 'weight input' from on track results. No 'wiggle room' as it were.

No, I, as an ITAC member do believe that. Based on my years of con calls, discussions with CRB members, I see no "Win the ARRCs, add 50lbs to the car" mentality

I'll let other ITAC guys add their opinions, but my take is that I'm sleeping well about ARRC lead trophies.

Quote:tnord
yup. and i think all they're looking for is just a little flexibility to say "ya know what, the process fails in this case, we probably need to do something."

Originally Posted by tnord
yup. and i think all they're looking for is just a little flexibility to say "ya know what, the process fails in this case, we probably need to do something."

And that is a fair statement. To which I ask anyone who uses the flexibility to PROVE to me that its better. It very well could be but I don't want a swag, I want to have something I can document so that others can see how it was done and the members affected can know that it was grounded in some sort of meaning

quote; tnord
I think it's kinda like when our CFO created this committee that had to approve any spend over dollars. the intent isn't to END spending, but just put the brakes on for a bit and see what we've got before everything goes spiraling out of control.

I don't entirely disagree with this. I have believed for a while that we needed a "cooling off" in IT to let the changes settle. We saw that from some of membership in the dual vestiges poll - Bowie, Tristan, and others -- and it makes sense.

One of the frustrations I had with the rest of the ITAC (great folks all) was the perception I had that the process was "never ending" -- that we were going to continue to add formulas and adders until we believed the proces was "perfect." We needed to stop at some point.

But I also agree with Jake that stopping point should not have been (and here is where I respectfully disagree with the CRB ) a direction that cuts us off from using the process to correct weights on cars that were set via the old curb weight formula, or are just otherwise wrong.

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.

Bill, I wanted to address this point. Try and take out the fact that you may not agree with the current CRB position on what is happening in IT and you may like what the ITAC is doing.

In either case, it's a committee made up of members. What if you didn't like the direction the ITAC started to take the category? There is always someone in charge and people tend to like the 'system' when it's going there way and want to change it when it's not.

The CRB IMHO has the toughest job in Club Racing. So much work, so little reward. Half the people think they are knocking it out and half think they suck (not unlike the ITAC! ) I DO like that there is a group that is watchdogging us...actually, that is too strong of a statement. We don't make policy, but when I became an AdHoc member years ago, the directive was to really push a lot of the responsibility to the sub-committies, and that is why I signed on. It appears we have stepped over the line in terms of our overall charter in a slow but genuine way.

I think that the best thing to do is write in as members how you would like your class managed. The CRB should listen and then dictate to us what to do.

I hesitate to do this, because some people have comprehension issues and make things even worse. But since there is already wailing and gnashing and gross misinformation flying all over the interwebz (imagine that), I'll attempt to make it as plain and simple as humanly possible.
If I get something wrong, Members of the ITAC please sort it for me.

What we planned to do...
As many of you know, the ITAC has worked for a looong time to nail down a consistent and repeatable formula that can be used across the category. The goal has never been "perfection," but rather consistency. We know we can't class so many cars across so many classes perfectly, but we felt doing them ALL using the same process would at least gain us fairness and consistency. Plus we had the clause that allowed us to fix anything we got grossly wrong after a couple of seasons.

The intent was to get the process "nailed down and recorded" and then process every car requested by the membership using this approach. So far this has been done in sort of a "trickle" way, classing cars we had information on and tabling what required more data or those that fell under sections of the process that weren't yet nailed down (like torque).

What Changed Monday Night...
We will not be allowed to use the process on every car in IT. What we WILL be allowed to process are cars that are...
- New classifications.
- Deemed to have been classed in error.
- Are felt to be gross underdogs or overdogs. Yes, this is subjectively based on on track performance.

So, the big change is that we will NOT be processing every car. If the committee agrees that your car is reasonably competitive where it currently stands, then you'll get a "Car is correct as classed. Thank you for your letter" regardless of what the process says it should be.
This obviously includes subjective measures based on how a car currently performs. Something not included in the ITACs original plan.

What is currently NOT on the agenda, and not expected to be, is weight adjustments based SOLELY on performance. In other words "Jeff just killed everyone at the ARRC, put 100Lbs on the Civic DX" is NOT in the plans.
What could happen is "Jeff just killed everyone at the ARRC, lets look at the numbers." If the numbers look proper, nothing would happen. If the numbers looked suspect, we'd go searching for data.

Thats the way things stand as of today. Not what we intended, but you can't always get what you want.
Remember that the "A" in ITAC stands for "Advisory." We do just that. We advise. In this case the CRB decided that it was not comfortable with our ideas for a variety of reasons and effectively veto'd it.
And that was that.

There you have it. Please read this post at least 3 times and let it sink in before firing off an uninformed response or worse yet going and yelling that the sky is falling elsewhere.

IT is pretty healthy exactly as it sits, and at worst will stay exactly as is.

I know you guys don't like to listen to anything I say, but maybe you'll listen to what your ITAC is saying. the sky is not falling. things will be fine.

sheesh....its like everyone in here lives in isolation and works as an independent contractor, because other than the ITAC members, I see no evidence of anyone having any willingness, ability, or experience working together in groups of people with differing opinions to achieve a common goal.

you guys have two choices.....you can find a way to work together so that the CRB is satisfied and the ITACs ultimate goals are still met. or you can be all butthurt by it, take it personally (Kirk), and be totally counterproductive.