Thanks, ITAC

[callard]

I’m certainly disappointed in the tack that the CRB is taking. I thought that when the advisory committees were formed, it was an outstanding move. Get a group of volunteer experts in the different categories together, have them do the research and make unbiased recommendations for rules changes. That’s a no brainer – you do the homework and heavy lifting, they do the rubber stamp. You guys have more than fulfilled the best parts of that concept. You all should be proud of how you have executed those marching orders. Now apparently those orders have changed once again.
I for one have certainly appreciated how you’ve reviewed every driver’s request, suggestion or rant and given it a considered analysis before responding or making a recommendation. Without knowing what takes place on your conference calls, I applaud your professional approach with the membership/drivers on this board, face-to-face and on private e-mails.
Please keep up the good work.

Chuck

[gran racing]

Chuck, if you haven't already, please copy that and send it to the BOD and Crb.

[RSTPerformance]

Chuck, if you haven't already, please copy that and send it to the BOD and Crb.

Why Dave??? None of them care or even listen to what ANYONE has to say... It is a waste of time e-mailing either group.

Anyone know whom members can e-mail? I am getting ready for a mass e-mail to all SCCA officials and that generally gets me into trouble...

I have been advocating others volunteer to help SCCA but my fustrations are also considering walking away from everything. I appreciate the ITAC dedication... Not sure how they keep giving and giving to this organization with such lousy support from those "above" them.

thanks to anyone that can point me in the right direction to actually get something done even if it is just an honest reply saying "we reviewed your feedback & MULTIPLE requests and decided you are completely wrong and here is why.."

Raymond

[gran racing]

Why Dave??? None of them care or even listen to what ANYONE has to say... It is a waste of time e-mailing either group.

Why? Because deep down I still have to believe that people care, they're hearing us, but just not listening. If nothing else by sending an e-mail to the BOD, I can ensure that they too have at least been given an opportunity to listen. If not, I’ll still have a part of me wondering what if? I will also give them a phone call during a time that works for them.

Trust me, I too am beyond fed up with all of this and question the club and sport I devote so much of my attention and time to. Sure, time might not be in a racing capacity myself but in plenty of other ways. I’m tired of these closed door secret meetings and decisions and thought we were beyond that. Hey, you want to buy a Prelude? I would strongly consider selling it. Glad the offseason and market isn’t that good right now so I can have some time to digest all of this.

[Bill Miller]

While we have accepted, and acted upon requests to run cars through the process, it appears that that process wasn't appropriate, according to the rulebook. It was being done via the 'errors and omissions' clause. That practice has been stopped, to my understanding, and if I truly understand it, it wasn't appropriate when it was happening.

Jake,

Exactly how wasn't it 'appropriate'? More importantly, who's making the determination that it wasn't 'appropriate'? I'll have to dig through the old FasTracks to see exactly how things were worded when tGR occurred.

[JeffYoung]

Bill, we heard a few things on why the process wasn't appropriate:

1. The CRB believes using stock hp as a basis for the process is suspect.

2. The CRB believes that changing weights on already competitive cars (as they view them) is an impermissible competition adjustment.

3. The CRB doesn't like some of the modifiers we adopted (FWD and live rear axle in particular apparently).

The biggest objection they have is really more fundamental. They see IT as "working" right now and want it left alone. THey don't see the process and the need for objectively weighing all cars in the same way to be a real reason to change things.

[lateapex911]

I’m certainly disappointed in the tack that the CRB is taking. I thought that when the advisory committees were formed, it was an outstanding move. Get a group of volunteer experts in the different categories together, have them do the research and make unbiased recommendations for rules changes. That’s a no brainer – you do the homework and heavy lifting, they do the rubber stamp. You guys have more than fulfilled the best parts of that concept. You all should be proud of how you have executed those marching orders. Now apparently those orders have changed once again.
I for one have certainly appreciated how you’ve reviewed every driver’s request, suggestion or rant and given it a considered analysis before responding or making a recommendation. Without knowing what takes place on your conference calls, I applaud your professional approach with the membership/drivers on this board, face-to-face and on private e-mails.
Please keep up the good work.

Chuck

Chuck, thanks for the kind words. I think you are voicing what many have said to me. Certainly some folks disagree too, I bet.

But let's clarify something.

I for one have certainly appreciated how you’ve reviewed every driver’s request,

While we have accepted, and acted upon requests to run cars through the process, it appears that that process wasn't appropriate, according to the rulebook. It was being done via the 'errors and omissions' clause. That practice has been stopped, to my understanding, and if I truly understand it, it wasn't appropriate when it was happening.

Andy said he felt like he's been sticking his hand in the cookie jar for 5 years while Mom has watched, and even opened the jar for him, but now, the cookie jar is closed and locked, and can only be opened when an overdog is clamoring to get out.

Initial listings will get scrutiny as described in the GCR, unless there is a change in that rule, which is in one of the first paragraphs of the ITCS.

[seckerich]

I would like to thank you all as well. You acted in good faith and tried to make Improved Touring better by having a fair, and transparent process for classifications. This was a far cry from the way things were done in the past. I think in a way you highlighted what should be done in other catagories and that stepped on a few egos and toes. Now you have all been hung out to dry by the CRB. IT today is better because of your efforts, not the CRB. Lets make the changes necessary in the GCR and IT specs to give you back the power that was taken away. We all pay our membership each year just like the BOD and CRB and have every right to demand this action.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Trust me when I say that the CRB is acting in good faith too. They just have a slightly different view...and I have no issues with that even though I don't agree with it all. Peter Keene has been a lightning rod in many other classes but that guy has busted his hump to try and fix a ton of classes. He is in a no-win situation but I appreciate his work and the entire teams work. They truly have a thankless job. You think WE put up with crap? Nothing compared to them.

[lateapex911]

Peter Keene has been a lightning rod in many other classes but that guy has busted his hump to try and fix a ton of classes. He is in a no-win situation but I appreciate his work and the entire teams work. They truly have a thankless job. You think WE put up with crap? Nothing compared to them.

ding ding. Yea, thick skin needed. Not much bothers Peter! (I love that guy. He's a riot!)

[tnord]

Trust me when I say that the CRB is acting in good faith too.

Don't let Kirk find out.