ITAC or CRB Board Minutes for Fastrack?

[dickita15]

Chris-

unfortunatly I would be willing to bet over 75% of the requests get "lost" unless the member is either a political friend or a squeeky wheelbearing.

Wow that is freaking cynical

[Ed Funk]

Why? Squeeking wheel bearings happen!

Try to laugh occasionally folks, this is supposed to be fun.

[tom91ita]

i think i actually read thru the CRB minutes and missed the title of that section. so i apologize and if there is a way to change the title of the thread, a mod should feel free.

however, the minutes section were not, in my mind, "minutes" as much as they are a list of decisions.

and since some of the information in forums and e-mails seems to be conflicting, there is no place in SportsCar that i have seen that has minutes of what transpired between the CRB and the various liasion committees/members.

and maybe that is as it needs to be, that is, if SportsCar cannot cover regional racing results due to costs of paper, ink, production, etc., they don't want details of who voted how and maybe fewer would volunteer for positions if they got grief individually for their decisions.

but like ray, i would like to know part of the "why; behind the decisions.

there seems to be things that are inconsistent such as the following;

ITB/ITC – Run the ITM 914 and ITC 914 through the process (Meredith). These cars are classed appropriately.

Touring/Showroom Stock

1. T3 – Reduce the BMW Z4 weight (Leithauser). The car is at the correct process weight. We will continue to monitor the car’s performance.

one request to use a process results in a response that simply says the car is correct whereas another request to change weight says the car is at the proper weight per a process. i realize that these are different classes but it still reads odd that a process is used or not used based on what?

and if i had just read the table of contents, i would have seen the CRB listed! Doh!

CONTENTS

BOARD OF DIRECTORS 1
CLUB RACING 37

CRB Minutes 37
Memorandum 44
Technical Bulletin 44
Court of Appeals 56
Time Trials Administrative Council None

SOLO 59

SEB Minutes 59

RALLY 62

RoadRally 62
RallyCross 63

QUICK LINKS 65

[Bill Miller]

but like ray, i would like to know part of the "why; behind the decisions.

there seems to be things that are inconsistent such as the following;

Quote:

ITB/ITC – Run the ITM 914 and ITC 914 through the process (Meredith). These cars are classed appropriately.


Quote:

Touring/Showroom Stock

1. T3 – Reduce the BMW Z4 weight (Leithauser). The car is at the correct process weight. We will continue to monitor the car’s performance.

one request to use a process results in a response that simply says the car is correct whereas another request to change weight says the car is at the proper weight per a process. i realize that these are different classes but it still reads odd that a process is used or not used based on what?

and if i had just read the table of contents, i would have seen the CRB listed! Doh!

That's been my issue for a long time Tom. But I think you're incorrect in your assessment that there's a process used in Blake's request. Blake's request got the same, pat answer that they've been using for years. They will state that a car is "appropriately classified" or "correct as classified" but never provide the basis for that statement. There were several requests, several years ago, in FasTrack to let people know how IT weights were determined (this was all 'pre-process, IIRC), and there was NEVER an answer to any one of them. Nothing, nada, zip, zero. They just went into a black hole, never to be heard from again.

Blake's request was to run those cars through the process. There's no mention that they actually did.

Jeff and Raymond got the "The weight is appropriate as listed"
Dave, Blake, and Mr. Uhlinger got the "The car is classed appropriately"

But how does anyone know what that's based on, or if it is indeed true? I think in Raymond's case, it's anything but true. Due to the fact that if you had a new car come along w/ pretty much the same attributes as Ray's, it would more than likely end up at a different weight (200# lighter if you go by previous discussion re: process weight).

Until some information is provided as to how weights are determined, "correct/appropriate as listed" or "apprpirately classified" are nothing more than "go away kid, you bother me" answers.

And given the way things have been dorked up in the past (vis-a-vis IT weights), no one on the CRB or the BoD should be surprised that people are skeptical when they read crap like that.

Mac,

I'm not sure where you're getting your information (back-channel?), I think you paint too rosy of a picture. It's been shown in the past that people have used their positions or political connections to push things through that should have never been.

[IPRESS]

[quote=Bill Miller;

Mac,

I'm not sure where you're getting your information (back-channel?), I think you paint too rosy of a picture. It's been shown in the past that people have used their positions or political connections to push things through that should have never been.[/quote]

Bill,
I have no problem in telling you who I have talked to about this ongoing "Rant". The thoughts I have are generally my own that are formed by having raced IT this year in 6 different states, as well as talking with people who I think are involved.

In regard to this discussion I have talked to C. Albin, J. Drago, P. Keane, and earlier in the year B. Dowie from the CRB. I may have talked to a few other IT racers about the subject, but for the most part I see them at races and this whole deal just doesn't carry much importance when the track opens. At ARRC I saw plenty of folks from "The Process" side but since we were racing and having a few beverages no one brought the subject up to me or asked why I had my viewpoint. My viewpoint doesn't mean squat anyway it is just like the rest one racers take. The point I am doing bad job of making is; This is about racing and when we are at the track "the use of the great Process" is not so big a deal.
As far as what will take place for IT this coming year, I guess that it will be just like the past years....Great fun racing at the track........ drama and discontent on the message boards.........and the everyday IT racer getting amusement out of both.

(When something on the net is so good I have to show my wife, I call it great entertainment......the Tnord vs Bmiller posts are worth selling to a sitcom!)

Oh and to your perception of my perception: Every race I have been to the IT racers seemed rosey to a fault.

[lateapex911]

Mac makes me laugh.
(Getting wallets stolen distracts as well...)

[IPRESS]

Jake that is my job!

Really, I just refuse to make this hobby too serious. I think the large majority and I mean very large, think of club racing as a hobby.... expensive yes, but still a hobby. The mesage boards allow an avenue that can make it a "grumpy hobby" ....like some of my old golfers who no longer have a job to moan and groan about....they bitch about their hobby...golf! I do it myself, but I try to step back and give myself a good slap when I recognize the symptoms.
Enjoy what we have...when we have it.