ITAC changes. Chairman resigns.

[JoshS]

Andy, Jake, many thanks for all the hard work.....

Not sure where I stand yet, don't want to make a too swift decision.

I'm in the same position as Jeff. I will not make any swift decisions. But I will state that I think that things aren't NEARLY as broken as they have been portrayed, and that IT is by no means on a downhill slope.

It is much better due to the contributions of those who have left recently, mostly in the aspect of the process around the math. The math itself, which is causing a lot of angst, is just a small part of the story and there's plenty of room to come together on this.

[Ron Earp]

I But I will state that I think that things aren't NEARLY as broken as they have been portrayed, and that IT is by no means on a downhill slope.

You mean to say that a CRB that doesn't want the repeatable hp basis process, and is against transparency, isn't nearly as broken as we think? Those two items were at the core of what the ITAC has been trying to accomplish since I began with the SCCA in 2005.

Personally I think things are pretty bad based on those two factors alone.

[JoshS]

... [the CRB] doesn't want the repeatable hp basis process, and is against transparency ...

See, the problem is that everyone is taking these clear, black & white statements as true, but the world is just not that black & white.

Let's let this simmer down for a few days, please. I, for one, would rather try to be part of the solution, not the problem, and all of this rhetoric isn't helping ANYONE.

[jjjanos]

See, the problem is that everyone is taking these clear, black & white statements as true, but the world is just not that black & white.

Let's let this simmer down for a few days, please. I, for one, would rather try to be part of the solution, not the problem, and all of this rhetoric isn't helping ANYONE.

I beg to differ.

The weights on the newly classified cars are not repeatable.
The reason for the weights are not transparent and the CRB went out of their way to hide information.
Members of the ITAC are being told to choke the free flow of information by the CRB.

Repeatability and transparency is like virginity - it's a binary.

[Bill Miller]

This does not bode well for IT. It's becoming more and more obvious that the CRB wants an ITAC that really does nothing. They'd probably be just as happy w/o an ITAC, but organizationally, that doesn't work. What's going on, is that they're making things distasteful and unpleasent for those that won't fall in line, to the point where they will leave. Turns into a win-win for them (CR. They get rid of what they see as the contrarians, and they don't have to remove them (which looks bad).

Kirk, Scott, Andy, and Jake, it really should not have gone down this way. But it's a classic example of why you can't fight city hall. The IT community has suffered a severe loss.

Jake,

I said this over in the sandbox, but I want to say it again here. I was wrong in my assessment of your motives, and I would like to apologize for the crap I've given you over the years.

I also said this over in the sandbox, and I think it needs to be repeated here. Why not move the whole IT deal to NASA? I'm pretty sure they would accept it with open arms. As others have mentioned, tell the SCCA how you feel with your checkbook.

I appreciate the sentiment regarding voting out the existing BoD. Problem is, I don't think the IT community has the political clout to get it done. Too small a group.

[callard]

As deeply disappointed as I am over losing three extremely articulate and fair voices of reason, I don't believe that we should pick up our toys and run to another venue. We'd be abandonning our SCCA workers, sponsors, friends, spectators and local club leadership. Just because we're hurt or pissed. I, along with many others on this board, have been major or minor thorns in the sides of our ITAC members for a few years but they persevered and we admire them for it. Now we feel like we're victims of a massive layoff with no sayso in our future. After we have our wake, we should make an effort to communicate more often and more fairly and look for additional ways to improve the club in which they have invested so much effort.
Thanks guys, have fun racing!
Chuck

[RacerBill]

Andy, Jake, Kirk and Scott: I am EXTREMLY sorry to hear of your decisions to leave the ITAC! As others have said already, and I will repeat because it needs to be said, we may not have agreed 100% but you have always been honest, fair and willing to communicate, and had the best interests of the IT community at heart. It will be hard to fill your shoes (tires?). As Bill Miller said, this might play into the hands of the CRB, get rid of the 'trouble makers'. I just wish it could have been the other way around and we had worn down the CRB!

To the remaining members of the ITAC, a heartfelt thank you for all of your efforts, as well. We appreciate all the time and energy you spend for us.

Matt, good luck in Las Vegas. Us Shelby drivers have to stick together!

Well, I will go back to praying for some warm weather to continue getting the car ready.

[lateapex911]

Jake,

I said this over in the sandbox, but I want to say it again here. I was wrong in my assessment of your motives, and I would like to apologize for the crap I've given you over the years.

Thanks Bill, I appreciate the gravity of that statement, and know it wasn't said lightly.
(I actually ran to the windows expecting to see pigs flying.. )

[Knestis]

Cross-posted from the Sandbox...

K


* * *

Here's what the Process (Version 2) looked like back in August of 2009. The ITAC had just finished working through questions, and had "codified" what follows - committed it to written form. We were talking about if/how the information should be shared with the membership.

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.

The system as the ITAC defined it then refers the resulting weight - even if it's only a few pounds different than the current one - for a vote by the CRB. This was a really crucial v.2 change, the past (informal, unwritten) rule being that no difference smaller than 50# (or 100#, depending on who you listened to) would be considered by the CRB. (I believe that this was where the CRB had its first substantial seizure; when we referred the MkII Golf for a 10# change.) To be clear, the CRB should do what it wants with that recommendation - approve change, deny change, or change the change. Note here that these changes were being done under Errors and Omissions, so they did not require a BoD vote; they weren't "rule changes."

There you go. If there's something there that you don't like, point it out, but no fair making mis-characterizations about "just a formula," "no common sense," etc.

K

** "Evidence" could be any number of things but examples included documentation from engine builders, copies of dyno sheets, and examinations of physical characteristics of engines. Simple lobbying was not considered, nor were comparisons of on-track performance, finishes, wins, or lap times, simply because of our inability to control for the dozens of other factors that might influence those outcomes. Remember that everything was subject to the "confidence" vote, so crap was still crap in the eyes of the ITAC (e.g., hypothetical additive power resulting from multiple "mods"). EDIT - this is also where we considered issues like DIN HP ratings for older cars.

[Eagle7]

But I will state that I think that things aren't NEARLY as broken as they have been portrayed, and that IT is by no means on a downhill slope.

It is much better due to the contributions of those who have left recently, mostly in the aspect of the process around the math. The math itself, which is causing a lot of angst, is just a small part of the story and there's plenty of room to come together on this.

Hmmm... That doesn't seem consistent with recent reports. The ITAC runs the process, recommends a weight, and the CRB publishes a different weight, with no documentation nor explanation. The CRB's weight, in many people's opinion, creates new inequities. So, the CRB does not accept the math, does not accept the procedures, does not support documenting their decisions, is unwilling to explain anything, and the result fails the smell test. Sounds pretty dismal to me.

[Knestis]

...It is much better due to the contributions of those who have left recently, mostly in the aspect of the process around the math. The math itself, which is causing a lot of angst, is just a small part of the story and there's plenty of room to come together on this.

I'm sorry, Josh, but the actual math is exactly *zero* of what I'm concerned about.

Now, was much of the angst among the CRB members and the few IT driver-members who voiced public objection to the "process" about the math, and about perceptions that the ITAC was "slave to the formula?" I think, YES. But that's only because they didn't - and still don't - understand the "process around the math," or what I call the Process with a capital P.

K

[Ron Earp]

and about perceptions that the ITAC was "slave to the formula?" I

Hell yeah!! As a scientist I want the ITAC to be slave to a repeatable process and throw out the rules of thumbs, witchcraft, and sorcery used by the CRB to class cars and make comp adjustments. This is IT, not prod.

Josh, how much worse could things get?

[rsportvolvo]

Frustrating situation.

Maybe voting on the upcoming BoD election and participating in NASA events will send a message to the club heirarchy.

[pballance]

Andy,Kirk and Jake, Thank you for your service. There is no doubt in my mind that each of you placed the overall well being of IT above your personal agenda and that you each tried to uphold the core values and beliefs of your fellow IT racers. It is a shame that other's have forgotten that a CLUB serves its members and when it no longer serves its' members it is NO LONGER A CLUB.

Thank you for trying.

Jeff, please do not leave, at least not yet. We still need a sane voice as a member of the ITAC even if your voice echo's in the hollowness of the position...........

Paul