ITAC or CRB Board Minutes for Fastrack?

[Rabbit07]

Operationalize "rubber stamp" for me, Chris.

Are you talking about the CRB not voting "aye" on something that the ad hoc recommended, or not acting on it one way or the other? The former is precisely what the CRB should do if they don't think that a proposed change is in the best interest of the Club Racing program. The latter is a huge problem and if nothing else, disrespectful of the membership.

K

Kirk,

I can only asume that it is the later because there has been no mention of the requests anywhere, not in the fastrack or in an email or letter to me. This is the kind of stuff that gets the black helicopter theories going! Some of the requests seemed to have been just plain lost!

[RSTPerformance]

Kirk,

I can only asume that it is the later because there has been no mention of the requests anywhere, not in the fastrack or in an email or letter to me. This is the kind of stuff that gets the black helicopter theories going! Some of the requests seemed to have been just plain lost!

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.

Raymond "send in requests with suggestions on how the CRB shoulld change the member input process... It needs to get better" Blethen

[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...)

[Andy Bettencourt]

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.

Raymond, we really need to sit down over a beer. You can't me more wrong. The Audi thing has been explained a million times to you.

[seckerich]

I have to agree with Andy. I found stuff I was asked to send to the CRB never got to them by email. Seems the system to forward or screen their email is a bit slow or broken. Ask the ITAC how much of their stuff never gets to them. Pick up the phone and confirm they received it next time.

[Rabbit07]

I have to agree with Andy. I found stuff I was asked to send to the CRB never got to them by email. Seems the system to forward or screen their email is a bit slow or broken. Ask the ITAC how much of their stuff never gets to them. Pick up the phone and confirm they received it next time.

Note my original post. I have confirmed with Advisory Commitee members and still the CRB and or BOD seem to be the black hole.

[dj10]

I have to agree with Andy. I found stuff I was asked to send to the CRB never got to them by email. Seems the system to forward or screen their email is a bit slow or broken. Ask the ITAC how much of their stuff never gets to them. Pick up the phone and confirm they received it next time.

I've always recieved confirmation of any emails I sent the CRB.

[seckerich]

I've always recieved confirmation of any emails I sent the CRB.

I have as well Dan, but the actual email I sent was never delivered. I sent an email to the CRB and BOD supporting the process and got a confirmation. Do you see my name in the list in fastrack with the other supporting letters? CRB members confirmed they did not see it. Where is this black hole? Other emails have been lost or not forwarded as well. Not laying the blame on the CRB or BOD, just the system in place now for communication. I understand the "you suck" emails just get deleted but I think mine were far from that.

[924Guy]

Would it be appropriate now to derail this whole discussion by pointing out that there is now an automated website to submit input directly to the CRB, WITH tracking capabilities? I nearly missed that in the minutes; perhaps it's useful to point out to everyone now?
http://www.crbscca.com/

Submitted my first input yesterday using this method (sorry, not about IT - F/SR input, it's about the new car).

Seems to me it'd be cheap and easy for the ACs to create/request itac.crbscca.com, fsr.crbscca.com etc in order to vastly improve their focused input, in addition to submitting directly to the CRB.

EDIT: update, just checked on my letter; it was indeed forwarded to the F/SR committee... here's the statement from the tracking system:
Letter number #XXX is currently waiting to be reviewed by the F-SR committee. After the F-SR committee reviews your letter, the CRB will review it, and it will proceed to Fastrack.

Seems like an improvement to me - anyone disagree??

[Knestis]

To be fair, during the time I was on the ITAC, we had more than a few requests that got bogged down INSIDE that body - primarily questions re: weights on older or more obscure cars, or for make/model examples for which there were lots of variants or changes represented by a spec line (Volvos, Mustangs come to mind). The ITAC can't be expert on the details of all of the options in the book and the processes/practices in place over the past 2 years required a substantial degree of due diligence, for example to try to understand how update/backdate options influenced starting-point stock power figures.

The most important decision during this time was the "power factor" question. To do that in a repeatable, transparent way is a tough balancing act that requires time. And for this (and other information) the ITAC was counting on the kindness of members who were more expert in the cases under consideration. You can't just say, "Dammit, man - I need to know the difference between the '86 and '88, and I need to know it NOW."

Requests that didn't come with appropriate documentation should (I think) have been returned to the member submitting them. In this day and age, it's completely reasonable to ask members to do their homework (e.g., scanning FSM pages or similar information) before considering changes to specifications or rules...

But those cases represent only a small portion of the requests that didn't get decisions over that period of time, however. Looking back, I blame a couple or organizational issues that could be improved REGARDLESS of the processes applied within the Ad Hocs (which are not by the way governed by any rules or Club policy that I've been able to find) and the CRB:

** There should be one and only one "official" channel of referrals to the CRB from each Ad Hoc, and it should be done in writing with formal recommendations. Actual RECOMMENDATIONS alone should travel through this distinct channel, separate from other informal communications.

** The CRB should have to report out "aye" or "nay" on every item sent up to them. I'm personally not very comfortable with the practice of sending a recommendation back to the Ad Hoc to be "scrubbed down" or whatever but if there has to be an allowance for that, instances of its use must be documented so no request gets lost in an infinite loop or falls into a crack.

** The Club should report each request (verbatim), the resulting Ad Hoc recommendation (verbatim), AND the CRB (and Board) votes on each item. If there's an argument that room prohibits all that from being in Fastrack, it should be documented online. Every time something is summarized or restated, something gets lost in the translation, or more importantly someone can impose their own intentions on the policy.

There's been grumbling about time, money, and working on a database system to keep track of all this. I don't believe that the lack of a techology solution is a fair excuse for not doing it right since this could all be accomplished with an Excel spreadsheet.

The wobbly practices involved here have grown up in an organizational culture that is completely OK with - in fact, is greased by - organized disorganization. If I were on the ITAC, I could tell every consituent I talk to that I'm doing a different thing, if there's no official documentation. And that's a problem.

K

[tom91ita]

I've always recieved confirmation of any emails I sent the CRB.

i never have received confirmation from a CRB member after sending a note to [email protected], etc.. i have always received (in a just a few seconds) an auto-response type note that my request has been forwarded.

i have always received a response from a CRB member when i have sent a message directly to them.

when sending a note to [email protected] i have only received a response from a BOD member that i knew personally from my home region.