ITAC changes. Chairman resigns.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Having not read or heard from the other side of this soap opera I have a couple of questions to ask before I think about writing any letters to the CRB or BoD.

Was the Process something the CRB tasked the ITAC with?
If so, did the CRB work with the ITAC to develop the Process guidelines?

If both answers are yes, then the ITAC needs to work with the CRB to see that objective to its end.

If both are no, then what did you expect and what was achieved by resigning?

The CRB worked with us to develop the Process. The CRB rubber stamped Process-based additions and changes to all IT classes for years. The CRB has recently had a fundamental shift in what to look at when classing cars that is outside the comfort zone of some of the members, like me.

So when I came to realize that what once was is not anymore, and I didn't agree with it nor thought it represented what the members want, I stepped down to make way for volunteers that did.

[tom91ita]

i think the feeling i have with SCCA BOD/CRB mirrors my feelings with what is happening with our country's politics.

i feel that no one is in touch with the members/citizens and some policy decisions are not based on what is needed but is based on agendas.

the ITAC is irrevelant when the CRB can trump them and the CRB is just as irrevelant since the BOD trumps them (e.g., H&NR).

i should finish my note this weekend. i am trimming out some of the sarcasm but since logic has not worked with the last few letters, i think i might as well not try that route this last time and ~50% of the sarcasm will remain.

[tom_sprecher]

Thanks, Andy. Sorry about the soap opera comment, but this sounds a lot like what my wife as President of the PTA is going through with the Principal.

[JoshS]

What's going on next week that is going to change this attitude?

[From Jake's post quoting the CRB]
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".

Next week, I'm going to waste my breath.

[lateapex911]

i agree jeff.

although i would like to explore the idea of de-listing any vehicle that hasn't been raced in maybe 5yrs....at which point maybe some of these currently unworkable methods become more feasible.

????

That phrase assumes that we have unworkable methods.
We don't. Really. The 5 years of history show that we're on to a pretty good system. And we have escape valves should it get out of control.

Certainly, eliminating cars makes our job easier...but right now, our approach and results have been a clear success, and have huge member support.

The members are the bosses, the judges and the benefactors.

I said it in my resignation letter:

I am an active IT racer, and make it a point to travel around the country, as work and finances permit, to race and talk to other IT races about the state of the IT category. I work for them. We ...all of us who serve on committees in the club... from the BoD to the race chair at a Regional race, work for the member.
They are the ultimate "boss". Ultimately, I...all of us...answer to them.

I've been to California and New Hampshire, Georgia and Ohio, New York and Virgina. And many more. It is my unwavering belief through those trips and my daily interaction with IT racers, that they want and deserve several key items:

• Our members want a category that treats all cars with the same yardstick.
• They want honesty and transparency from their committee people, and processes.
• They want consistency over absolute accuracy every time.
• They understand that our category encompasses 300 cars, with wildly variable makeups, and balancing all on the head of a pin is impossible.
• They accept that overdogs may arise, and are satisfied with our promise to look into the numbers and issues should that happen, and correct when the cause is identified. In the 5 years or so since we've been using 'the Process" that has never occurred.
• They love that "the process" helps the previously misclassed and underdog cars that languished at wrong weights previously.
• They love that we pay little heed to the "no guarantee of competitiveness" clause in the ITCs, but that we try harder, and never trot that out as an excuse when it would be the easy out.

The core philosophies are outlined in the first 5 lines. Our process utilizes stock hp as a starting point,as many factors affecting hp can not be changed in an IT build. It goes on to further fold in other elements of the car, suspension, etc, and predicts IT build horsepower. This system is what the members know, understand and support.

In short, the ITAC has, over the past 5 years or so, won over the most ardent critics and has the support of the racers in record numbers. That's rare in this club.

The ad hoc committees were, I was told, to be the heavy lifters, and the 'men on the ground". They were to be the experts in the category and were charged with knowing their ruleset and members. The ITAC formed it's methods and philosophies based on that charge. It has been explained to me that the CRB does not currently support the ITACs core philosophies, methods and directions. The methods the CRB has been utilizing recently are inconsistent, and are at odds with many of the core principals the IT racing members hold as cornerstones. I respect the CRBs intentions, and their rights and reasoning, but I feel that ultimately, I need to answer to the member, and be able to answer him honestly. I feel that I can't do that now.

The system isn't broken, and I'm not on board with the major shift of the CRBs position. Andy made excellent points.

[Knestis]

A HUGE part of the problem here is that there exactly no consistency in what each participant in the conversation means when they say "process." I've tried to be as explicit as I can, trying to use the proper noun if you will - Process - only to refer to what the ITAC was doing in the period between approximately Jan-Aug 2009.

Even when I first started on the committee, it was wobbly.

It's clear in hindsight that the CRB did *not* task us with pushing the "transparent and repeatable" pieces as far as we did. They tacitly went along with the ITAC making "corrections" under E&O for quite a while, clear to me over the first 12 months of my participation.

Do note though, Tom, that there are NO prescribed systems in place by which any of the ad hoc committees derive the recommendations that they make to the CRB.

As far as what was accomplished by resignation? I can't speak for anyone but myself but for me, it was a matter of being backed into a corner. I was directed to not participate in web board discussions like this, by a CRB member (ostensibly representing the entire Board), through Andy. I was absolutely not going to agree to that, but I wasn't going to ignore it either. Believe it or not but I quit out equal parts (1) an idealist's view that I owed it to members to not be a hypocrite about transparency, and (2) a desire to not leave Andy stuck between the messenger and me.

K

[tnord]

????

That phrase assumes that we have unworkable methods.

easy muchacho.

i meant methods like using displacement are currently unworkable, but with the elimination of cars people don't race anyway.....they just might be.

to no one in particular - no matter what method you come up with, they're all going to have issues, including the ever popular process. reasonable people can disagree on what constitutes acceptable risk.

[Catch22]

The main issue here, REGARDLESS of who says what and where, is that something that was fine for 5ish years suddenly was unfine late last year. Further, nobody has produced a better idea OR proven why what was being done was wrong.

Don't believe me? Go pull some fasttracks. Its in there in black and white.
The ITAC has been classifying and changing classifications BASED ON STOCK RATED HORSEPOWER for years. This is a plain old fact.
Fact fact factity fact fact fact.

And suddenly this is unacceptable?
Really?

OK. So what IS acceptable?
Well, there really hasn't been a straight answer to that one yet. And good luck getting one.

Finally, as a Honda guy... Sure. Go right ahead an classify cars by displacement. I think thats a GREAT idea.
Except thats not exactly how it works. Is it?
If we classified strictly by displacement the ITA CRX would suddenly be about 150lbs under weight. So I guess we'll classify by displacement and then add some arbitrary "Honda Weight" because we "know" it needs it.

Oh yeah. Thats a crapload better than using stock horsepower.



And it just continues to baffle me how some folks can on the one hand argue that IT is strong and better than ever and then on the other dismiss the actions and principles of the group that MADE IT THAT WAY.

Just... Just...
Wow.
Its a colossal pile of FALE.

[Bill Miller]

And it just continues to baffle me how some folks can on the one hand argue that IT is strong and better than ever and then on the other dismiss the actions and principles of the group that MADE IT THAT WAY.

Read that again and let it sink in a bit more.

[Eagle7]

Just sent this letter, with a follow-up letter to my BOD rep who is the CRB laison.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I wrote to you in September to express my support for the Improved Touring classification process that had been implemented by the ITAC. Since then I have been dismayed to see that the CRB's actions have been to ignore this process, rather than to embrace it. We have seen cars' weights set with apparently arbitrary rationale, inconsistent with cars with virtually identical attributes, with no explanation nor documentation. Reports are that key member(s) of the CRB categorically reject some of the fundamental principles of the process that the ITAC has developed. This has led to mass resignations by ITAC members, which in my judgment is a travesty, and a great loss to the SCCA and to the Improved Touring category.

I have come to the conclusion that SCCA Club Racing has grown larger than one group can effectively administer. I ask that the BOD transfer official responsibility for administering all Improved Touring specific classifications and rule changes to the ITAC. The reason I believe this is important is that Improved Touring is fundamentally different than every other category in SCCA Club Racing. It is composed of more than 300 spec lines manufactured over nearly a 40 year time span. These cars only compete at a regional level, so there is never an opportunity to “level the playing field” based on direct on-track observations such as the June Sprints or the Runoffs. The ONLY way that I can see to manage this category is through a system which calculates weights based on documented physical attributes of the cars, with adjustments to the calculations only permitted when supported by documented evidence. This is the process that the ITAC has developed, and which over the course of the last few years has corrected many of the arbitrary misclassifications of the “bad old days”. IT has seen a resurgence because of those corrections, but now that seems to be threatened by the CRB's return the the methods of the “bad old days”. Methods which may work effectively for all other categories, but do not work for IT.
Key tenants of the ITAC process are that all classification decisions are vetted by confidence votes of the entire ITAC membership, all evidence and decisions are documented, and they were working hard to reach the point where all could be published. These are principles that have been repeatedly demanded by the IT community via the ImprovedTouring.com forum and other internet forums. If our SCCA administrators do not heed the wishes of their membership, then one (or both) of two outcomes is inevitable – either the administrators are replaced by those who are listening or the members choose not to participate. PLEASE take action on this issue.

Thank you for your service to our club,
Marty Doane
#321263
WMR GLDIV
ITS RX-7 #13

[Ron Earp]

Good letter Marty. It is direct and to the point. Make sure you also send it to [email protected] and [email protected].

If your unhappy with the recent CRB/ITAC situation and have not written a letter, then please take the time to do so.

[iambhooper]

Cross-posted from the Sandbox...

K

* * *

Step 1 - Research the manufacturer's quoted stock power and torque figures, determine the stock curb weight. Example - MkIII Golf = 115hp, 122 ft-lbs

Step 2 - Multiply the stock power by 1.25 (the "default power multiplier"). The product became the de facto "IT build power estimate," absent any evidence that a non-standard multiplier should be use. Example - 115 x 1.25 = 143.8

Step 3 - Run the initial math to rough the car in question into a class, using fixed weight multipliers, ranging from 11.25 in ITR to 18.8 for ITC. The product got called the "base weight." Example - 143.8 x 17 (ITB factor) = 2444#

Step 4 - Since it was possible (common actually) for a car to potentially be in one of two classes, we'd check to see if it was (1) plausible for it to reach the est. base weight in the faster class, and/or (2) if it were going to be a whale in the slower class. We generally tried to put it where it was the most natural fit but member input suggested to us that people would rather struggle with something that was tough to get to minimum, than drive a piggy (the ITC New Beetle theorem). Example - MkIII Golf 2 door plunks pretty well into ITB, albeit at a weight that's a little tough to get to without a minimal cage.

Step 5 (and this is VERY important) - At this point any committee member was empowered to propose a non-standard power multiplier be applied, if they believed 1.25 was not an accurate estimate of real-world IT gains. Evidence was collected, presented, and discussed - sometimes over a period of weeks or months - until an alternate multiplier was proposed.**

Step 6 (also VERY VERY important) - All committee members were polled INDIVIDUALLY, and asked for their "confidence" in the alternate multiplier, from 0% (no confidence at ALL in the evidence presented) to 100% - absolute confidence in the alternate option. All of this information was recorded internally, by member. This alternate multiplier only got used if it got essentially a mandate of confidence votes to move forward - we averaged them but I sure don't remember ever using an alternate number that had even ONE member voting way in the low numbers. (Note that I was NOT thrilled by this, being an orthodox adherent to the "pure formula" kind of approach, but we had heard from members that they wanted a safety valve, at which point the subjective [dare I say wisdom?] of the committee could be applied. This was a great compromise, in hindsight - allowing for adjustment but not manipulable by a few members.) Regardless, at this point, the real work was done... Example - it's not possible to fake this because it would require the committee working on it.

Step 7 - Apply the FWD "subtractor." Version 2 simplified and eliminated some previous adders/subtractors, on the logic that they had been - or could be - applied subjectively to diddle the outcome race weight. FWD cars got a break on a sliding scale (also a v.2 change) from 6% in ITR to ZERO in ITC. (Example - Golf in B would get a break of app. -49 pounds, at 2%)

Step 8 - Add/subtract the binary (yes/no) adders/subtractors - Mid engine (+50), live axle on a rear drive car (-50), DWB suspension (base was struts, +50). That's ALL. (Example - NA for the Golf III, lousy rear suspension was deemed to be a tiny issue on a FWD car.)

Step 9 - Judge the brakes and torque adders. We played with a lot of options between Sep 2008 and the spring of 2009, to try to get more sophisticated about these but member input suggested that added confusion without "discriminatory power," so we continued with chunks of weight added or subtracted (50 pounds) for particularly large or small (dimensionally) brakes, and for torque values substantially greater or less than other cars in the class. Torque adders/subtractors were different for each class (another v.2 change). Example - some suggest that the MkIII Golf should get a torque adder, so let's give it the ITB 50# chunk. It does pull like a mutha at places like the Climbing Esses at VIR...

DONE - at least as far as the ITAC's role went.

Our example Golf ends up at 2445 if I've done my math correctly - just about 100# heavier than the current ITCS weight.

K

Let me try this on the ITB CRX SI... Stock HP number is quoted as 91 91*1.25=113.75... 113.75*17 (ITB factor)=1934... 2% FWD subtractor=1934-39lbs=1895... yes your car pulls well in the uphills, I'll add 50lbs just to be nice... 1895+50=1945lbs.... 1945lbs?! WTF Even at the 30% factor I come up with a weight of 2021 lbs... far less than the 2130 lbs in the GCR.

So what gives? Hating on Honda's?

Having gone blind reading the thread on the other forum, I'm glad I plan to build (or buy) my next car to run in other series as well as ITS/ITR.

hoop

[Catch22]

Real quick, and please don't let this derail the overall discussion here...

The ITB Civic/CRX Si is a 35% car. If the ITAC were classing that car tomorrow it'd be done at 35%. The reason for this is simply that we have a PILE of dyno data, from different sources, that says the car can put about 105hp to the wheels on a dynojet.
I have one in my garage right now. Totally IT legal drivetrain. 35% gain over stock.

If YOU don't have 35%, try harder.

This is where what the ITAC was doing WORKS. It's not arbitrary numbers whipped out of the air. It was data, with a confidence vote, written down and recorded for reference.

What the ITB Civic/CRX should weigh is ~2050lbs. And if the ITAC had been allowed to keep going thats what it very very likely would have eventually weighed.

Don't feel bad. IIRC the ITB Porsche 914 is about 130lbs too heavy, and yeah, we had the dyno sheets to back that up.

Too bad... Those are two cars that should be competing but aren't because they are still carrying weights from a time when minimums were assigned... Uhhhh... The way the CRB wants to go back to doing it now.
AWESOME!!!!

Now... Back to the original discussion.

[lateapex911]

I have to say this. Read above.

Those who know Scott might remember a different guy a year ago. One of the ITACs 'benevolent critics', you might say. Now? It's a far different tune.

If we turned HIM around, well, we MUST have been doing ok!

[iambhooper]

35% gain over stock.

If YOU don't have 35%, try harder.

Tips? Or can I just send you my car... kinda like training a dog! (actually, we are "close")

sorry to digress...
hoop

[Catch22]

Actually Jake my criticism was for the 45% on the ITB Civic DX. The car that was "supposed" to have been fairly processed but came out mysteriously 130lbs too heavy.

Now I know how that happened, and its pretty much exactly the same crap thats happening NOW that caused that. So in reality my criticisms weren't of the ITAC unless it was for letting it happen. And since that was before my time on the committee I still don't know all the nasty details of that one and frankly don't care to.

But its a perfect example (as are the earlier CRX/Civic and the 914) of how badly the mark can be missed when you ignore actual data and take guesses at it because you just KNOW a car will be a class killer.
Again, why are we (and we=the club) refusing to learn from mistakes?

Hoop... My "secret" is no secret. His name is Blake and he lives in Atlanta.

[RedMisted]

Here is my letter sent to the CRB last night:

To whom it may concern:

I am an IT racer from the NeOhio region. Member # 388701. I am writing in support of the ITAC classification system that has been in use for the last few years.

In my mind, the ITAC process has been successful in making IT racing into the attractive proposition that it is. For purposes of IT, no other car classification system should be used that does not adhere to the basic core tenets of the ITAC classification philosophy. This implies a strict adherence to honesty, transparency, and consistency when introducing new cars into IT and making reasonable and necessary adjustments to existing cars. Granted, there can be no failproof classing system. But the recent direction of the CRB, and, above it, the BoD seems to suggest that arbitrary methods of classification are sufficient. In my mind, and in the minds of many others in the IT community, such measures are NOT acceptable for our category. For example, IT is a regional class. We do not have true "halo" events (such as the SCCA Runoffs and June Sprints) to provide sufficient evidence to allow for car classing to based on anything other than what is entailed in the general philosophy of the ITAC, for lack of a better alternative that is yet to be identified and proposed.

Furthermore, under no circumstance are we in the IT community for a classing system that is not accessible to the IT membership. In fact, any process that is used should be published and made available for the general reference of the SCCA membership and the public at large, so as to ensure for fairness and accountability not only with the CRB and BoD, but the ITAC as well.

IT is the backbone of SCCA Club Racing. I am truly concerned that if IT becomes further destabilized, the category may lose everything that it has gained in the last few years, as well as its future. There are, after all, always going to be alternatives to IT racing.

Cordially,
Chris Dercole

[924Guy]

I got a nice reply to my BOD letter from Jerry Wannarka, Chairman of the BOD.

In short summary, he assured me they (BOD and CRB, in a joint meeting) discussed the "IT situation" last week at the Convention. We can expect a post from Mr. Dowie, CRB Chairman, on the SCCA Forums sometime this week addressing the situation.

Stay tuned...

[Jeremy Billiel]

Got the same email. We will see...

[gran racing]

Me too although I'm not overly optimistic about the reality. We'll see.