ITAC changes. Chairman resigns.

[pfcs]

"Can the ITAC still function with the remaining members & what do the remaining members think of all this?"

It could work with only one member kissing asses. More would possibly be more efficient, but not worth the bother.
Yes! I'm more than cynical. Sorry aqbout these developments. One more nail in the coffin for IT.
Glad I was around for the golden years. Unforgettable.

[Catch22]

As I've said elsewhere and will continue to say, IT ain't dead yet.
Its fine right now. Much improved over the last few years. Some overdogs have been fixed and some cars that weren't being raced because their classifications were just plain wrong (Neons, Civics, etc) have been corrected. If anything, IT currently is better than it ever has been.
The problem is that my opinion is that the reason it is so good right now is because of what the ITAC has been doing, and that seems to be changing. This is where things start to get unfortunate.

But as an IT driver it'd be a very bad idea to toss the baby out with the bath water right now and start speaking of things like defections and protests. That will potentially hurt your own car counts and competitiveness. It's shooting yourself in the foot.
Write letters and talk to your CRB and BoD members instead. Let them know, in no uncertain terms, how you feel.

You guys are the boss. Remind them about that.

One thing that has really stood out to me over the past couple of days is how much you guys, the general IT public (at least a sample of it), understood what the ITAC has been doing. That wasn't a mistake, as being open and honest about what we were doing was something most of us embraced and pushed, and I think I speak for more than myself when I say this philosophical crossroad is the catalyst behind the recent resignations.
Some folks just don't seem to understand this. I'm not sure why.

Thanks for the kind words. All I can say is "We tried."
Sometimes the dog is stubborn and doesn't care about those new tricks.

[JeffYoung]

See above for a lot of truth.

Let me add a couple of things. When Jake, Kirk, Andy, myself and others would explain to the CRB that we really thought we were expressing the wishes of membership to the CRB when we focused on transparency and repeatability, and the use of a stock hp based Process, we often heard back that we didn't really know what membership wanted, that the internet forums were not representative of IT membership as a whole, and that we had created internet firestorms with our postings.

This is your chance to let the CRB know that is incorrect. Things aren't dead yet. There is a chance the ship could reverse course yet again. It is critical that if you believe in the process, and what Andy, Jake, Kirk, Scott, etc. were doing, -- write.

We say the club is about membership, and it absolutely is. But for that to mean anything, you have to express your opinion.

And if you know folks who wisely don't trol the internet as much as we do, but agree with what we are doing, get them to write in too.

I am hestitant to share this, but I am going to say that as I understand it, the BoD is paying attention to the situation and is listening to the volume of letters and calls it is getting on this issue.

Keep it up if you have a strong opinion about the Process.

Again, the CRB guys absolutely have the best interest of IT in mind. They just disagree, pretty fundamentally, with the "Process" guys on how things should proceed, and they do not think our perception that we have the support of membership is correct. There is nothing evil about that, nor should it, at this early juncture, in my mind result in a mass exodus from IT. The club still has time to set this right.

[RedMisted]

I just read this whole thread simply because the number of ITAC resignations is very alarming. My prior knowledge of the issues, disputes, processes, key figures, etc. was virtually non-existent because I'm new to IT (only been racing for two years), and really not into politics. But the whole ITAC-CRB-BoD thing has me thinking that I better get off my ass and behave like a MEMBER. Make my voice heard in the club's high places, and spread the "call to arms" to those in the IT community who normally do not engage themselves in club processes.

I'm really sorry about the current state of affairs and want to thank the former ITAC members for all their hard work. I really think we all need to allow our emotions to cool a bit and then proceed from there. If we, the members of the IT community, truly care about where things are headed, we'll find a way, no? After all, isn't IT the backbone of club racing? To my perception, the current "crisis" is just a battle, the whole war has yet to be lost. If the entirety of the IT community fails to impress upon the SCCA higher heirarchies the need to listen to US, then, dare I say it, perhaps we shouldn't deserve to see IT have a bright future...

[RacerBill]

A long time ago, when I worked for IBM in Indianapolis, whoever was in the office at lunch time would go out together. We had a rule about selecting a place to eat - after one place was suggested, no one was allowed to veto that location without offering an alternative. I believe that the CRB would be a lot more effective if they were to suggest an alternative to the process or at least tell the ITAC what they don't like about it, instead of just saying 'NO'.
I guess that comes under the general heading of 'communication', yes?

[JeffYoung]

Bill, to be fair to the CRB, they do have their view of how this should work, and they do give the ITAC a lot of free rein on that.

They just don't think accepting a process result based on stock hp and expected IT gain (adjusted by dyno data if we have it) is enough. They want us to then take the weight and see if it makes sense via on track observations and via comparison to other cars in the class (some of which may or may not have been processed).

Again, they have a valid position, it is just in fundamental disagreement with ours. We would accept the process result UNLESS we saw something entirely out of whack on track later on. They want the gut check to occur earlier, and to be based on on track results and other things that we are very fearful of.

[RedMisted]

Bill, to be fair to the CRB, they do have their view of how this should work, and they do give the ITAC a lot of free rein on that.

They just don't think accepting a process result based on stock hp and expected IT gain (adjusted by dyno data if we have it) is enough. They want us to then take the weight and see if it makes sense via on track observations and via comparison to other cars in the class (some of which may or may not have been processed).

Again, they have a valid position, it is just in fundamental disagreement with ours. We would accept the process result UNLESS we saw something entirely out of whack on track later on. They want the gut check to occur earlier, and to be based on on track results and other things that we are very fearful of.

Jeff, if I read that right, the CRB wants to inject subjectivity along with the ITAC's formulas into the original classing process? If so, isn't that like putting the cart before the horse? My orientation is to advocate an acceptable formula and be consistent with it, and then if a change needs to be made for a car based on eventual on-track data, then MAYBE you can get a little subjective with an analysis..

[RacerBill]

Bill, to be fair to the CRB, they do have their view of how this should work, and they do give the ITAC a lot of free rein on that.

They just don't think accepting a process result based on stock hp and expected IT gain (adjusted by dyno data if we have it) is enough. They want us to then take the weight and see if it makes sense via on track observations and via comparison to other cars in the class (some of which may or may not have been processed).

Again, they have a valid position, it is just in fundamental disagreement with ours. We would accept the process result UNLESS we saw something entirely out of whack on track later on. They want the gut check to occur earlier, and to be based on on track results and other things that we are very fearful of.

Jeff: Thanks for your comment. Until your post, I was not aware that the CRB had come back to the ITAC with recommended changes. And I agree with the majority of posts that the level of subjectivity that the CRB seems to want is not what we feel is in the best interests of the IT class.

I held up on my reply to you until I had read all of the posts that followed, to make sure that I had as much information as possible. I agree with all the letters that have been posted here, and applaud their authors for their wordsmith skills. I hope that the CRB and the BOD finally realize that something is broken. Our volunteers should be retiring because they feel that they have filled their mission sucessfully, not because they feel that they are butting their heads against a stone wall.

I also read in these posts that the CRB has rejected stock horsepower as a starting point for determining a car's class and weight - but, again, they seem to have neglected to give us an alternative for us to consider. Brings me back to my point about not rejecting someones idea or point of view unless you can propose a better one. Just 'No' without an explaination is not an answer.

That said, I hope to have the time to compose a well thought out letter to the BOD and CRB in the near future.

At the same time, please let me state that I am firmly committed to the Improved Touring class as my chosen class for competition. My competition was severly restricted in 2009 due to a reduction in jobs at my last employer, and it was with great difficulty that I was even able to obtain a replacement engine late in the season (still unemployed, BTW). But we are looking forward to a great year in 2010.

Thanks to all who have posted here. The last two pages have brought to light a lot of valuable information about the situation.

[Ron Earp]

Sending this on in:

To Whom it May Concern,

I’ve only been a member of the SCCA for five short years, probably only a fraction of the time that some of you reading this letter have been in the club. Sadly enough, at forty years of age I might be considered a “young” member in the average race paddock. I received my racing license in early 2005 and since then I’ve owned three IT cars, built two of those from the ground up, and have had a hand in building four others. I typically compete in all the SARRC races within 350 miles of Raleigh NC and enjoy interfacing with IT racers in the paddock and online. I, along with fellow SCCA racer Jeff Young, authored the proposal that became the newest IT class, ITR. I’ve written other proposals that have been accepted into IT, such as the ITR Pony Car proposal, that resulted in V8 Mustangs and Camaros being classed in ITR. In fact I’ve already purchased my next IT donor, a 2002 V6 Mustang for ITR. Simply put I’m passionate about IT racing. For me, and many other SCCA racers I know, IT is our chosen destination within the SCCA.

I’ve recently been informed that the majority of the ITAC has resigned, including long-time member and chairman Andy Bettencourt along with Jake Gulick, Kirk Knestis, and Scott Giles. I feel that this is a major blow to Improved Touring and the events that led up to these resignations could have been avoided if the CRB was more receptive to the ITAC recommendations. While the Member --> ITAC --> CRB interface is not perfect, the CRB needs to understand that it is the best mechanism available for IT racers to voice their concerns.

I started racing in what many refer to as a dark time for IT, particularly for ITS. The 3 series BMW had been improperly classed in ITS and was dominating the SARRC races, even with zero-time rookie drivers. Many of the other IT classes were populated with cars that were mis-classified and there were numerous weight disparities if one examined the class structure with any scrutiny. With member input the ITAC took on the task of correcting these problems and over a period of a few years performed large scale reclassifications of IT cars. The reclassification was accomplished using a fairly simplistic process based on stock horsepower, expected gains in IT trim, and various weight modifiers that depend on certain attributes of the car.

The IT community as a whole was pleased with the new process and very satisfied with the results. With a few exceptions, the car classifications seem to be correct and the IT classes could now stand up to a critical scrutiny of classification weights. Car counts increased and more importantly, the IT fields were once again diverse. New cars were being built and the podiums were not populated by a single make.

However, the job the ITAC started was not yet finished. The classification process was being further refined and due to time constraints the ITAC had not been able to run all the IT cars through the first version of the process. During the realignment procedure the CRB made various statements that let the ITAC know it wasn’t vested in the process, did not want to use a process based on stock horsepower, and was not interested in making the classification process public knowledge. The position of the CRB directly opposed the ITAC’s objective, objectives they were carrying out on behalf of IT member input. During this time one ITAC member resigned and that resignation was followed by three more resignations within ten weeks.

The bottom line is that the IT community wants a classification process that is transparent and repeatable. To further define these to attributes:

Transparent – Any member can predict the IT weight of a vehicle using a published process. The process is available for members and the use of the process is documented for all currently classed IT cars. Only in rare circumstances will this process require modification to class a car.

Repeatable - The process would assign the same weight to any two cars with identical attributes.

The IT community is not interested in Prod-style weight adjustments rooted in on-track performance. We’re the grassroots of SCCA racing and we wish to have an open, repeatable, and stable rules set that is altered and tended to by the ITAC; an ITAC made up of active IT racers.

Let’s hope that we can all learn from this incident and get the CRB realigned with a new ITAC that has the best interests of IT at heart.

Thank you,
Ron
SCCA Member 345404

[lateapex911]

If the entirety of the IT community fails to impress upon the SCCA higher heirarchies the need to listen to US, then, dare I say it, perhaps we shouldn't deserve to see IT have a bright future...

Chris, I've read your posts, and you're very perceptive. I agree with all of your points accept this one.

Defining how they listen is tricky of course, but, keep in mind that the BoD, rightly or wrongly, probably doesn't want to get involved in this issue too deeply. On top of that, the CRB tends to all the other categories. IT, while WE think it is important, and one of the backbones of the club, is just another headache for the BoD and CRB guys.

I'd LOVE to think that the BoD hands down an edict of sorts, but my many years of involvement are skeptical, and I wouldn't conclude that we'll get the world we deserve based on our own actions.

(In other words, the big guys have shown the ability to ignore the members in the past...).

[ddewhurst]

Quote by Jake today.

***IT, while WE think it is important, and one of the backbones of the club, is just another headache for the BoD and CRB guys.

Quote by a CRB member June 2007

***FWIW, Regional race entries account for about 75% of all entries over the year.***


Maybe someone or MANY of us should remind the CRB & BoD that during 2007 75% of all road racing entries were Regional entries. I'll bet the entire numbers are similar today. Any impact the CRB/Bod have on Regional racing is a trickle down effect from National racing.

My 2 cents.

[lateapex911]

Quote by Jake today.

***IT, while WE think it is important, and one of the backbones of the club, is just another headache for the BoD and CRB guys.

Quote by a CRB member June 2007

***FWIW, Regional race entries account for about 75% of all entries over the year.***

Maybe someone or MANY of us should remind the CRB & BoD that during 2007 75% of all road racing entries were Improved Touring. I'll bet the entrie numbers are similar today.

Oh, I hear you DD, I just don't know if the BoD is going to get serious over what will be perceived as a "philisophical difference" between the CRb, and their 'employees".

Also, the BoD and the CRB actually see each other face to face, and have beers together at the bar. I'm thinking that it's hard to hate your neighbor, if he's a good guy, in spite of what you might be hearing about his philosophies.

Sadly, it's the way things work in the club.

I hope they actually read the letters, and call me. Or Andy, Or Kirk, or Scott. They'll get the SAME story. We're not making it up. But, I doubt the phone will ring.

[RedMisted]

Chris, I've read your posts, and you're very perceptive. I agree with all of your points accept this one.

Defining how they listen is tricky of course, but, keep in mind that the BoD, rightly or wrongly, probably doesn't want to get involved in this issue too deeply. On top of that, the CRB tends to all the other categories. IT, while WE think it is important, and one of the backbones of the club, is just another headache for the BoD and CRB guys.

I'd LOVE to think that the BoD hands down an edict of sorts, but my many years of involvement are skeptical, and I wouldn't conclude that we'll get the world we deserve based on our own actions.

(In other words, the big guys have shown the ability to ignore the members in the past...).

Jake: I agree with you, and I retract that statement. (Apologies to all.) It was made assuming that the IT community had a clear path to those in power to effectuate positive change. As you pointed out, and I should have remembered (hey, I'm a relative noob), there's competition from other sectors of SCCA for the attention of the BoD and CRB. IT members DO care, so IT deserves to prosper, whether under the SCCA umbrella or some other organization.