ITAC changes. Chairman resigns.

[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.

[RacerBill]

I will echo the same praises, issues and concerns raised here. To Ron's point (i.e. deaf SCCA ears and that IT <> SPU), it would be a sad day if we'll were all forced to make this decision.. go to NASA. I won't say anymore as this is a public forum.

NASA - sorry, but that's a really scary thought. The speed differential in some of their run groups is really something else!

[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.

[Ed Funk]

Dick Patullo (dickita) is the new BOD member from the NE Div, he's an IT guy. Maybe he can help from above re-direct the CRB. Dick, I know you're on the way to the National convention, but HELP!!

[betamotorsports]

Andy, Jake, Kirk and Scott - thank you for all your efforts on our behalf.

[lateapex911]

Dick Patullo (dickita) is the new BOD member from the NE Div, he's an IT guy. Maybe he can help from above re-direct the CRB. Dick, I know you're on the way to the National convention, but HELP!!

I called Dick to get his advice before resigning. I actually owe him a beer for his efforts to keep Andy on board. He's in the loop.

[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.

[ddewhurst]

Today I felt the need to return to the IT site. Since I moved to the dark side I don't frequent the IT site. Reading this thread saddens me way out there.

Andy, Jake, Kirk, Scott, thank you for the value you added to the IT world.

[mossaidis]

NASA - sorry, but that's a really scary thought. The speed differential in some of their run groups is really something else!

To clarify, I stated that it would a sad day if the only choice we had was to go NASA. Yes, NASA presents it's own pros and cons.

[dj10]

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

[RSTPerformance]

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

great question.... Would also like to hear from the remainng ITAC members...

Raymond

[JoshS]

great question.... Would also like to hear from the remainng ITAC members...

Raymond

See posts #17 and #22 in this thread for the initial (public) reaction from Jeff and me. Without speaking any further for Jeff, I will say that I need a little time to digest, and I need the chance to talk directly to our CRB liaisons, and that won't happen until after the convention.

But my gut feeling, hopefully to be clarified next week, is that things aren't as broken as some are making it appear. We shall see. Either way, I'll let you all know.

[dj10]

I'm not sure if I ever knew this but, how many ITAC members are there suppose to be?

[Ron Earp]

And how does a new Chairman get selected?

[JeffYoung]

Whoever has the biggest "cigar" in the smoky backroom....

And how does a new Chairman get selected?

[dj10]

Whoever has the biggest "cigar" in the smoky backroom....

Jeff, that has to be you!!

[Ron Earp]

He doesn't even smoke.

[RacerBill]

Then whoever has the biggest, fastest blackest helicopter!!!!!!!

Put my tongue right thru my cheek with that one!