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.

[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

[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..

[RedMisted]

Ron:
Thanks a million for your open letter. It was just what I was needing to see. A letter that very effectively sums up for relative newbies like me what this whole mess is about. I fully agree with your opinions. Maybe the system the way we had it, or may still have it, isn't perfect. But as you said, it did a remarkable job of getting much of IT straightened out in just a few short years. Again, thanks.

[924Guy]

Time to write your letter, Chris!

Mine was posted in another thread, about changing the CRB membership. It was perhaps less direct than Ron's, but oh well.

One key point I think needs to be stated, following up on a key point of this discussion.

The CRB, as I understand it, wants to qualify the classifications and adjustments based on on-track results - which the ITAC, reflecting my opinion and the opinion of much of the IT community, at least online, does not agree with.

The reason qualifying and modifying classifications based on on-track performance does NOT make any sense for IT is specifically because IT is a Regional-only class. Comp Adjustments for other classes are based on Runoffs results. Those results presume the drivers and cars presented are at the top of the heap, and competing on a level playing field - same track, same time.

This situation does NOT exist for IT. At least not yet. Without opening the whole Regional-only/National can of worms, you simply cannot make these assumptions for IT.

Personally, I think this distinction is just as fundamental as the # of cars which the ITAC has to achieve parity among, if not more so.

[RedMisted]

The reason qualifying and modifying classifications based on on-track performance does NOT make any sense for IT is specifically because IT is a Regional-only class. Comp Adjustments for other classes are based on Runoffs results. Those results presume the drivers and cars presented are at the top of the heap, and competing on a level playing field - same track, same time.

Exactly what I was thinking. Driver skills, individual car prep levels, track environments, etc. can be all over the spectrum. So how could you ever measure these things to do car classification and competition adjustments, with IT being regionals-only racing?

[Andy Bettencourt]

So a combination of being out of town for work and letting the dust settle has had me pretty silent on the topic. Thanks to all who have shown support for the committee. Many ITAC member have given their persepctive, here is mine:

I hate seperating the Process into 2 'generations' like there was some sort of massive revamp. Simply not true. Other than moving from a fixed number for the FWD 'adder' to a %, the 'use 25% unless we actually know something', and the elimination of the transmission ratio and the generic 'other' adder, the base process was unchanged. I have a feeling the CRB really misses this point. It took us 6 months to get to where we got to. Lots of that time was used bouncing around many ideas that never got adopted like complex ways to try and do a torque adder and debating the merits of the computer modeling that we saw on how much and when does FWD come into play.

What was ADDED however, which also took a long time - because it's easy to DO but not easy to WRITE DOWN, what the proceedural documentation and the boundries for evidentiary standards. What we wanted to do was write this sucker down so it could be shown to anyone at any time - but ESPECIALLY a new committee member.

So we changed a couple WAYS of doing what we always did and we defined everything. We took out the slop. We made it neccesary to go on record and bring evidence to the table (that was voted on for acceptance) if there was something outside the norm (know what we know). It's like in grammer school when you had a test question and you just wrote down the answer because you knew it...but in a seperate section you had to SHOW YOUR WORK. This way the teacher knows you not only know the answer but knows that you know the concept and can get from A to B without any issues. When you show your work, you sometimes find that your initial answer was wrong - and you get a chance to fix it before you turn your paper in. You also have proven to your teacher that you probably didn't cheat.

New Process or old Process I will say this. Not even half of the CRB knew anything about it - EVER. We have 3 CRB members on virtually every call. They carried the torch to the CRB calls and since there are always more pressing issues in the SCCA-dom, I am 100% confident that the CRB rubber-stamped the then ITAC recommendations based on a nod from the liasons ok...because again, they knew NOTHING about the Process, trusted the other members, and knew nothing was really broken.

What really happened to set this in motion was a perfect storm of sorts.

• Since the CRB operates mostly in a 'competition adjustment' and a 'let's take 100lbs off of it and see what happens' world, this is non-SOP stuff
• When we defined everything, took out the slop and wanted to pin it down, they considered that to be too 'inflexible'
• They are now looking at on-track performance as a much more serious 'gut check' than ever before. I have heard things like "We had one a few years back down here that was a rocket", "At that weight, it would ruin ITx", "Back when those cars were in SSx, they ran together fine", etc.
• Ways of classing cars in other classes have crept into the CRB's heads as it pertains to IT. Displacement is a huge one.
• Stock hp is suddenly so taboo we can't even talk about it. It has been at the very start of the process since day 1. Interestingly, it isn't really a 'product' we use in the calculation, just a starting point (estimated crank hp in IT prep is the number - and it is subjective, inexact and fixable should an issue occur)

So I am quick to point out that the Process has not created any true overdogs over the past years. The reasonable rebuttle to that is simple: What if the 1988 CRX was new today and you used the Process to class it. What would happen? Simple:

Since we live in a tuner, internet board and dyno age, we would already KNOW that the 108hp rating was BS. Stock whp was right in the 103-105 range. Not knowing anything, we would have backed that out to about 123 crank hp. Add 25% to that, run it through the rest of the set of checks and balances and you get a ITA racing weight of 2240lbs. Just 10lbs from where it is today using real dyno data. Lucky? Maybe. But we think we had a way to account for things like this in the estimations.

So again, the Process isn't exact. It can never be. But what it can be is documented, based in real data and transparent. I STILL submit that the majority if IT drivers would rather see an ITCS that makes sense and is 'equally wrong' than a cluster-fark of classifications that span the decades of techniques and methods - most of which have no historical backup.

In the end for me, the CRB not only disliked what were were doing from a 'slop removal' perspective but also was injecting influences into the consideration package like 'similar architecture, displacement and on-track results' that I personally was not comfortable with moving forward. I have always stood by the Process with a simple motto: "We know it's not exact, it will never be exact but as long as it's inexact the same for everyone, we can live with that because we are not trying to balance everyone on the head of a pin like other classes.". I have always solicited other ideas for classing cars and have been open to explain how we did it. 99% of the time, once it was explained, people got it. I look at NASA's PT rules every year hoping to see something I didn't before that can help me do better but that hasn't happened yet.

I really enjoyed my time on the committee and an very proud of what we had done. Darin got us 3/4 of the way there way back when and I though Kirk worked the last 1/4 really well. I just carried the bag for a few years. I am not opposed to going back on the committee at some time, but not under the current thought processes. Only because they don't mesh with mine and I have gone from positive influencer to detrimental roadblock. It's been about a 3 month decision process for me and it was time.

Thanks again.

[tom_sprecher]

It is obvious that some real thought and much time and effort went into the Process by individuals who cared about every aspect and impact it may produce. Many times an impass can not be breached when major philosophical differences block progress.

What is most unfortunate is the inability to acheive a consensus by either committee resulting in resignation of decades worth of experience. That is a damn shame.

[Greg Amy]

:golf clap:

[JeffYoung]

Ditto. That is about as clear as it gets. That is where we are.

[benspeed]

Well written, Andy.

[Butch Kummer]

My note to the CRB, BoD, and Terry Ozment (cross-posted from "Where the cool kids hang out"). And Andy, I'd STILL like to shake your hand some day...

= = = = = = = =

Fellow Members,

Since I don’t drive an IT car I was going to stay out of any discussion regarding the different viewpoints between the CRB and ITAC, but then I realized I’m the Competition Director for the region that hosts arguably the biggest Improved Touring race in the country (the ARRC by GRM). As such, I very much have a vested interest in the continued health of the IT category.

While I’m tempted to write “what Ron Earp said”, I’ll expand on that.

At the risk of oversimplification, my impression is the CRB wants to use on-track performance and “back room discussions” to assign weights to cars while the (former) ITAC wants to use a repeatable, published method to produce those numbers. In addition, the CRB is concerned about using factory horsepower ratings as a starting point to assign weights.

From my experience working closely with the IT community over the past five years:

• A majority of them (Ron says 80%, and I’ll not argue with that) really don’t care how weights are calculated; they just want the numbers to be (a) achievable and (b) relatively stable. They want to run what they already have and have a good time. For them, either philosophy is acceptable if it meets those criteria.

• Of the remainder, I truly believe the majority (included the recently retired members of the ITAC) want a published, repeatable, and consistent (i.e. – “fair”) method of determining what each configuration should weigh. These are the “serious” racers who will consider multiple platforms, run all of them through the process, and determine which direction to go based on their goals and the tracks they normally race on.

• I further believe that many of the criticisms about our club arise because decisions are NOT adequately explained to the membership. Reasonable people certainly can disagree, but if I openly explain the way I arrived at a decision then you can (a) agree with it or (b) point out facts that I might have missed and/or suggest flaws in my reasoning process. If I simply say “because I said so”, black helicopter theories abound. And as Jake Gulick has said many times, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”

• While manufacturer horsepower numbers can certainly be suspect, there exists within the proposed ITAC Process (capital “P”) ways to handle that. Rather than just spitting out a number that cannot be contested, there are multiple steps within the Process where numbers are examined for reasonableness (i.e. – reviewed based on “what we know”). And yes, some of “what we know” is based on a car’s observed performance at the ARRC.

In summary, a LOT of work by a lot of people that live and breathe IT went into the latest iteration of the Process. Earlier versions helped eliminate the BMW overdog that was killing participation in ITS and from my viewpoint IT has never been healthier than it is today. Tweak the Process if you wish, but let the ITAC finish their work in doing what the majority of the caring IT community really wants to have done.

Thank you for your consideration…

[lateapex911]

Yes, for the record, what Andy has described is the truth from my position.

I too was struggling with my decision to leave. I knew Andy was too. I begged him to stay, and he agreed to, to get a sense of the future direction. Could the ship be saved? things looked very bad, at least from our perspective, for the reasons outlined.

Andy had a major work meeting that took him out of town Sunday through I guess, today, and couldn't be on the Jan con call. I was less than thrilled to hear THAT Saturday, LOL. (Knowing I needed sharp minds and lots of them to try and impress our position on the CRB effectively.)

In the first 10 minutes of that call, I realized I was done, and Andy was lucky to have missed it. So, I can square Andy's thoughts and reasons for the impasse.

I was told, by the CRB chair, and I quote, "You'll never convince me that using stock HP is a valid starting point" (for any process), and "Don't waste your breath trying".

Um, well THAT's pretty clear!

Later, we went over a weight change we had submitted that had been rejected. The CRB contended our changes weren't needed. To support that contention they said:

CRB: "It races fine as it is"
ITAC counter: "How can you say that, nobody ever SEEs one race because they are known to run more competitively when converted to an ITB car!?"

or,
CRB "That car won the ARRC. (In 1994)
ITAC counter: silence. I think we hoped that was a joke.

then,
CRB: Provided other listings of 2.0L cars currently in the ITCS that were heavier, proving that the current weight didn't need adjusting.
ITAC counter: A- We don't know if those listings are current and correct, and B, Gee, MAYBE they are heavier because they have more power.
CRB restatement: "You're too hung up on power".

So, in the end, we were at an impasse, and the CRB told us to look at the car, come up with a recommendation that matched the listings in the ITCS.

Here's how I'd do that: I'd run the process on the car. That process puts cars at the designed performance envelope for the class. It matches the work we've done for all the other cars we've processed in the class. THAT in and of itself means it 'fits' the class.

To me, this exercise illustrated a 180 degree difference in philosophies:

-The ITAC has designed a process that shoots an arrow at a fixed target. Read carefully: It will nearly always miss. But, by using the same aiming methods, it will always be close, and will always miss consistently. It isn't open to subjectivity, politicking, or protectionism, and it clearly documents how we did what we did..

-The CRB wishes to place cars where they fit based on parameters that we don't think apply to IT, and does so by comparing them to listings that currently exist, and what they see and 'know'. In my eyes, this results in aiming at a moving target, and that will cause errors that will stack on top of each other, and put us, eventually, back to where we were in 1998. (And example is the recent reclass of the Corolla AE86 with the 1.6L 16V engine that the ITAC recommended at a weight of 2380, yet, when checking internal documents, was changed by the CRB to 2475. But no documentation as to why. I might think I know today, but one, or two years down the road, that information won't exist except as lore, and future ITACs will have a tough time making sense of it.)

So, Andys thoughts are, in my mind, spot on.

[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.