Big Picture of IT - Share Your Opinions

[StephenB]

Jake,
I respectfully disagree.

Scenario 1:
Lets say I LOVE the Atwood GT in ITA But I decide that I know it most likely is not competitive against the ITA Miata so eventhough I dislike Mazdas I build one anyway so that I am competitive and can race at the front of the field instead of with the other Atwood GTs that are running.

Scenario 2:
Let's say I LOVE the Atwood GT and eventhough I know it won't be competitive I think it has a chance and I really love this car so I am going to take my chances. It doesn't turn out to be competitive and unfourtunatly that was my decision and I suffer the concequenses regardless if next year or 10 years from no the newer Benwood GT gets classified competively and correctly.

Scenario 3:
Let's say I LOVE the Atwood GT and eventhough I know it won't be competitive I think it has a chance and I really love this car so I am going to take my chances. It doesn't turn out to be competitive and I bitch like hell and tell everyone that it isn't fair.


If your this serious about racing do your homework before you build a car. It's not Stability if I build a Miata based on the current rules and they change in 6 months because someone else didn't do the homework. The rules are written, the wieghts are their for everyone to see.

Even my brother is pissed at me but you, me, all of us are not forced to race any particular car. I have the same rulebook as you.
Stephen

[RSTPerformance]

Stephen class stability does involve reclassing or adjusting cars... If rules change or a new process changes the way cars perform or are classed then other cars not just new cars need to be reviewed.

I do agree that when given option A B & C it's your choice and you can't blame anyone but youself... However when a rule changes and B & C now are no longer a good option we need to keep things stable by making an adjustment to B & C to keep them competitive with A... We can't just look forward and only check option D correctly when it becomes available.

Wouldn't A B C & D all being good options be better for the future of SCCA rather than just A & D?

Raymond

Raymond

[Bill Miller]

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?

Stephen,

If nothing ever changed after you made the choice to build your car, I could almost go along with you. But given the way classifications were done in the past, you've got no way to know if they'll be done the same going forward. You listed a couple of scenarios before, but here's one that you left out, and I think it's an important one.

You built and race your Audi because you love it. You happen to be doing pretty well with it. It's not an overdog car, but it's well prepared and well driven, and usually does pretty well. You have no way of knowing how the spec weight was determined, but it doesn't really matter to you, as the car is doing ok. Along comes the Atwood GT. Believe it or not, it's pretty much the same car as your Audi. The drivetrain is the same, the suspension is the same, pretty much everything is the same except that it has a big 'A' badge on it, instead of 4 rings. It gets classed in ITB using the new process, and comes in 200# lighter than your Audi. A couple of folks build and race them. They are well prep'd and driven. They're still not overdogs, but they're finishing ahead of you, pretty much every where you race together.

You're saying that you're ok with that?

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.

That's pretty much it right there. All the other sedan-based categories have the cars treated the same. There may not be a classification process that anyone understands, but at least all the cars get treated the same. You win the Runoffs, there's a chance that you get a lead trophy. You can't make the car get out of its own way, there's a chance that you can shed some pounds or get some help w/ go-fast stuff. The CRB has essentially given the IT community the finger and said that they don't care if the cars in IT aren't treated the same, they don't think that's important. They're telling the IT community that they (CR know better, what's best for IT. Dickheads like Travis are ok w/ this, but I doubt the rest of the IT community is. That's probably because he feels like he's got an in w/ a CRB member (or two) that won't let anything happen to his beloved little Miata. As Kirk said, he's become the poster child for the "me-centric" generation (a bit of a paraphrase on my part).

Steve,

If the BoD really don't know what the CRB has done vis-a-vis IT, I agree, they need to be made aware.

And it looks like just about the only thing I got wrong w/ my hypothetical quote, was who said it. Should have been the CRB, not the BoD.

I agree w/ whoever said it (I think it was Mr. Janos), the CRB, as we know it today, needs to go away. Get rid of the political appointments, and have it made up of the chairs of the various AdHoc's. New AdHoc members are voted on by the current committe membership, and the chair is elected by those same members, and serves for a period of 2-3 years. AdHoc membership is limited to 5-6 years, but previous members can be re-elected after a hiatus of at least 2 years.

The CRB will then have balanced representation across all categories, and the folks that know a particular category the best, its respective AdHoc, will handle the day-to-day business of their category.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I agree w/ whoever said it (I think it was Mr. Janos), the CRB, as we know it today, needs to go away. Get rid of the political appointments, and have it made up of the chairs of the various AdHoc's. New AdHoc members are voted on by the current committe membership, and the chair is elected by those same members, and serves for a period of 2-3 years. AdHoc membership is limited to 5-6 years, but previous members can be re-elected after a hiatus of at least 2 years.

The CRB will then have balanced representation across all categories, and the folks that know a particular category the best, its respective AdHoc, will handle the day-to-day business of their category.

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.

Lots of bable there but I am just trying to point out that whether its us or them, at some point someone is going to disagree with how things are going so I am not sure how the structure matters.

[Knestis]

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?

I'm ignoring Travis completely and agreeing 100% with Jeff. Where's Superman when you need him to spin the Earth back onto its correct axis?

K

[Knestis]

... The CRB IMHO has the toughest job in Club Racing. So much work, so little reward. ...

Too hard. Hard enough in fact that they can't effectively do it, the way things are chartered. As a director where I work, I have to set big picture policy, make sure project leaders have what they need to be effective, and stay out of micromanaging their work. If one of them DOES step in it, it's my responsibility but that does NOT make it OK for me to review every one of their decisions. I need to figure out how to scaffold them so they don't make the same mistake twice. And me providing SO much guidance that I can't attend to big-picture matters doesn't do the corporation any good.

This situation lacked any real direction from the CRB, in the sense that if we were overstepping the bounds of our charter, we should have gotten shut off. OR the charter should have changed.

There's a term I love: Strategic ambiguity. That's the process of not being so clear that you get locked into any particular position, as a tool of maintaining control. The CRB took - and has again taken - a position of strategic ambiguity. They OK'd the 92-95 Honda Civic DX but not almost 30 other cars recommended by the ITAC for changes. They've said, "go ahead and use the process for new cars" but tagged that direction with "just make sure it makes sense," thereby leaving themselves an out.

If they want to say, "Respect my authori-tay!!" and do whatever they want, they ought to simply and honestly take that position. I personally don't think that they have the time or perspective to be able to effectively manage all of the car-level decisions for the entire Club Racing program but they could do that if they chose. Or they could defer category mangement to (perhaps more formally constituted) AC's.

K

[seckerich]

You also need to be aware that directives to the CRB about abuses by adhoc's in one catagory may have unintended consequences in another catagory. There has been some blatant abuse of power in some cases. They must guard from these adhoc's being "self serving" and making changes that benefit themselves. When we have a group (the ITAC) that has had a 98% success rate with their proposals and we have continued parity they deserve and have earned some respect. What happened was a vote of "no confidence" by the CRB. Do what you will with that information, or do nothing. I have a competitive car in my class and everything done by the ITAC in the last few years has just made my competition faster. You judge my motivation.

[Bill Miller]

Andy,

I appreciate your comments. Maybe I take too much of an altruistic or naive view when I look at how I think things should work. In my scenario, the various AdHoc's would already be taking the pulse of their constituency as to where their category should go. If I don't like the direction it's going, but many others do, it's my job to try and change people's minds, or recognize that while it may not be what I like, it would be the best for the category (hey Nord, you listening?). I also think that ultimately, decisions would be made by the CRB, that are made up of folks from other categories. So there would a bit of check & balance.

And in all honesty, I'm not saying that my proposal is the be-all and end-all. I threw it up more as a straw man. The main goal is to get away from the political appointments.

Kirk,

I LOVE that term. I think that's EXACTLY what the CRB is doing, and has done in the past. The never want to be in a position where they're tied down, or can have someone point to something they've done and say that it goes against their policy. You never really commit to a position. I'm sure most of the strategically ambiguous policy is written w/ what an old boss of mine called 'weasel words'. You never come right out and say what you mean.

[Bill Miller]

You also need to be aware that directives to the CRB about abuses by adhoc's in one catagory may have unintended consequences in another catagory. There has been some blatant abuse of power in some cases. They must guard from these adhoc's being "self serving" and making changes that benefit themselves. When we have a group (the ITAC) that has had a 98% success rate with their proposals and we have continued parity they deserve and have earned some respect. What happened was a vote of "no confidence" by the CRB. Do what you will with that information, or do nothing. I have a competitive car in my class and everything done by the ITAC in the last few years has just made my competition faster. You judge my motivation.

Very valid point Steve, but I'm not sure that I'm ready to let them (CRB ) off the hook that easily.

[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.

[quadzjr]

they sky is not falling.. however I want the same consistent process to be run on all cars, not just the newly classifed ones. That is what is fair and consistent. I personally won't be a front runner no matter what the outcome is. However I would like to know that I was treated fairly.

[tnord]

I saw what was there before Stephen, and I know I'm a lightning rod for most everything (unfairly so in my mind, but whatever). But only I know what my motives, agenda, and beliefs are in regards to this whole big fucking mess. I promise I'm way more in line with everyone than they'd like to think.