ITAC changes. Chairman resigns.

[tnord]

Then what the hell does he want to use?

displacement. valvetrain architecture. valve size/count. TB size. etc.

i'm not really saying that's the way to do it in a class with more significant mechanical restrictions like cams and TB......but it's not a completely random number.

[JeffYoung]

It probably works great in GT or Prod where cams and other items are free.

It does NOT work in IT where a 1.8 Acura motor with a good head, and good engine management, etc. makes 185 whp and a 2.6 inline six old skool Datsun motor makes 175 whp.

We have too many limitations on the older motors for this to work.

displacement. valvetrain architecture. valve size/count. TB size. etc.

i'm not really saying that's the way to do it in a class with more significant mechanical restrictions like cams and TB......but it's not a completely random number.

[Greg Amy]

...but it's not a completely random number.

Uuuuuh, yes it is. Read what Jeff wrote ^^^

Compare the I.T. % improvements vs. stock rated horsepower on a Nissan SR20DE engine (2.0 liters, 4-valve, DOHC) to a Honda KA20 (2.0 liters, 4-valve, DOHC) to a Ford Focus SVT (2.0 liters, 4-valve, DOHC). For example. Basing I.T. weight simply on things such as you describe is pure folly. Thinking otherwise displays a distinct ignorance of automotive engineering...and I chose that word quite carefully...

But, hey, go for it. At least it'll make for some interesting entertainment...

GA, simply drooling for when cars like the above are classed in I.T. at the same "process" weight...

[Knestis]

displacement. valvetrain architecture. valve size/count. TB size. etc.

i'm not really saying that's the way to do it in a class with more significant mechanical restrictions like cams and TB......but it's not a completely random number.

We tried that years ago, and it just wasn't repeatable. (I think that the closest we got was total exhaust valve area, by the way.) Trust me - "physical attributes" was my mantra because they can't be fudged, but we kept running into wingers, to the degree that we had more exceptions than rules.

BUT that's honestly not the real issue.

Regardless of what establishes the baseline, there's still got to be some system in place to allow for subjectivity. (Jeebus - am I actually saying this?) If that process is one CRB member pulling a number out of the air based on what he thinks Model X is going to do on the track compared to Models A, B, and C, then THAT is wrong. Unless of course, the record is going to reflect that he made that decision.

If a "physical attributes" model gets developed and published, then maybe. But I have a fear that what will happen is someone will pick and choose how they consider these attributes, in order to make them line up behind a preconceived notion of what a given car should weigh.

Prove me wrong...?

K

[tnord]

my point was not to try and show there was a better way of doing it, but that there is some reasoning and history in other classes of those classification approaches working, and that the CRB isn't a bunch of complete idiots.

like it or not, the ITAC has to work with the CRB rather than campaign against it.

[JeffYoung]

I agree with both of those sentiments but would also suggest that a focus on either an engine architecture or displacement based calculation shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the class.

If the idea is that "all 2.0 4V motors should be classed the same" and "2V inline six motors should be classed the same" then we have a problem. See examples above.

I mean, do we really think the 2.5 ITA Triumph motor will make the same as the 2.4 Datsun motor and the 4.2 liter Jeep motor? All 2V inline sixes, and of them, the LOWEST displacement one is going to make the most power by far due to cams, induction, head design, etc.

[tnord]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Knestis]

my point was not to try and show there was a better way of doing it, but that there is some reasoning and history in other classes of those classification approaches working, and that the CRB isn't a bunch of complete idiots.

like it or not, the ITAC has to work with the CRB rather than campaign against it.

You may be confusing "being critical of CRB actions" with "campaigning against it." And when that criticism is driven by a fundamental disconnect between what the membership describes as its priorities and what a small number of CRB members want? Well, I made my choice, I guess...

And "idiots" was your word.

K

[tnord]

you're right, idiot was my word. they have been called worse as of late.

[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...

[tom_sprecher]

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?

[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.

[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