ITAC and CRB and the Process

[dtanthon]

Write letters or meet those in charge face to face.

2010 Roundtable - check NESCCA site
March 12-14
NEDiv Spring Convention
Worker Specialty Training Sessions
NEDiv & NESCCA Meetings

The SCCA President will be attending. Three (3) SCCA Directors will be attending.

Hamilton Park Hotel & Convention Center, Florham Park, NJ
Registration
Schedule as of 2/4/10

Northern New Jersey Region 60th Anniversary Party
60th Anniversary Registration

[Dave Zaslow]

Unfortunatly I will be in Minnetonka Minnesota, but for the rest of you:

The NEDiv RoundTable will have in attendance -

Gerald Wannarka - Member of SCCA Board of Directors as the Chairman of the Board and representing Area 2

Richard Patullo - Member of SCCA Board of Directors representing Area 1

John Sheridan - Member of SCCA Board of Directors representing Area 10

Jeff Dahnert - President, Chief Executive Officer of the SCCA

Bob Dowie - Club Racing Board Chairman


[QUOTE=dtanthon;302058]....... meet those in charge face to face.


2010 Roundtable - check NESCCA site
March 12-14
NEDiv Spring Convention
Worker Specialty Training Sessions
NEDiv & NESCCA Meetings

The SCCA President will be attending. Three (3) SCCA Directors will be attending.

Hamilton Park Hotel & Convention Center, Florham Park, NJ
Registration
Schedule as of 2/4/10

[Peter Olivola]

From Bob Dowie, CRB Chairman:

http://www.sccabb.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=8861&PN=1

[RacerBill]

Interesting, very very interesting!

[Ron Earp]

So in summary:

1. Competition style weight adjustments in IT will not be performed.
2. Having an open and repeatable classification process is too difficult and is not something members should expect to see.
3. The IT classification process based on stock hp is not desirable because it is error prone.
4. Internet discussions of IT issues are not considered relevant.
5. The CRB still plans to use judgment to adjust IT car weights. If the ITAC can identify a car that is incorrectly classed, per the GCR parameters, then the CRB might adjust it.

Did I get the basic jist?

[Andy Bettencourt]

I can tell you that Bob put a ton of time into that, so for that I am thankful.

I can also tell you that there are a few facts that I will dispute and are key to where we are. I am not going to pull them out and pick them apart out of respect for the big picture and a hope that the current committee can move forward. It's water under the bridge. Good luck to all.

[Ron Earp]

Much appreciated for sure and it is nice to read some feedback. If I am reading that right it is good to see competition adjustments aren't in the cards. However, I don't agree with a few of his points and I think his closing paragraph pretty much says it all.

[Andy Bettencourt]

If I am reading that right it is good to see competition adjustments aren't in the cards.

Sort of. Proactive competition adjustments no. But a refusal to adjust a car based on it's physical attributes (the way all new cars are classed) under the guise of 'it's competitive as is'....to me is a defacto-CA using on-track data.

[JeffYoung]

I agree.

[Greg Amy]

Me, three.

All that's missing now is the cigars, some single-malt Scotch in crystal drinking glasses, and that room with a locked door.

What's old is new again..."Secret"CCA, indeed.

GA

[Jeremy Billiel]

OK so why don't we create a conversation over on SCCA Forums to prove him wrong?

[Ron Earp]

Sort of. Proactive competition adjustments no. But a refusal to adjust a car based on it's physical attributes (the way all new cars are classed) under the guise of 'it's competitive as is'....to me is a defacto-CA using on-track data.

I was being facetious. I don't buy much of the post myself due to the numerous contradictions contained therein. About the only thing I'm sure of is that the status quo will continue.

OK so why don't we create a conversation over on SCCA Forums to prove him wrong?

He already told you he didn't think the internet was a proper place to express views and discuss. Besides, that board is dead for IT. The IT action is here and on Roadraceautox.com.

[Jeremy Billiel]

I was being facetious. I don't buy much of the post myself due to the numerous contradictions contained therein. About the only thing I'm sure of is that the status quo will continue.



He already told you he didn't think the internet was a proper place to express views and discuss. Besides, that board is dead for IT. The IT action is here and on Roadraceautox.com.

exactly my point. bring the fight to him and make him and scca listen.

[lateapex911]

Jeremy is right. While we all know that Bob isn't a fan of the net, and that posting that here will never happen, the SCCA DOES provide a site, and Bob is using it. Obviously, there are what, 6 posts in the last 9 months, so it's like talking to an empty room...but there's no reason we can't discuss things anywhere.

I agree with Andy, he put a lot of time in that. As a guy ho has edited his work in the past for publication, I can see that it was gone over and is probably the result of some input. But, I feel it is full of innaccuracies, contradictions and revisionist history.

Vaughn Scott has posted a response, and i will too, but it's going to take a bit to craft.

Suffice it to say that I'm NOT in agreement with the accuracy of many of the 'facts' he presented, and certainly am at odds with the CRB position on the matter.

[mossaidis]

Thank you Jake, Kirk and others that contributed to the SCCA forum response. I am happy that the CRB began the thread as it's long overdue. Yet I have neither the patience or history to express such a constructive arguement. I have hope.

Mickey

[quadzjr]

I am glad that Bob posted on the SCCA forums.. I thought the same thing about what Andy said and thought about the time that it must of took to put that all on "paper".

It seemed that what he said, was atleast similiar to what ITAC members aid teh CRB position was on the subject. (want a better IT, dont' like stock hp, etc..)

I tired to make a consise and simple question. hopefully he will respond, however he says that he doesn't like the use of online forums.. so we will see.

[924Guy]

I tired to make a consise and simple question. hopefully he will respond, however he says that he doesn't like the use of online forums.. so we will see.

Agreed, and that's the open risk. But there are other open (non-internet) forums we can continue the discussion in.

Mickey, and any others out there in a similar position: hope is not enough!!!

You must realize, a great deal of injustice can be continued under the claim that this is just a few noisy guys on the forums!!! While I understand, not everyone has the time, inclination or whatever, to compose such long-winded replies - silence is agreeing with the status quo!

If you stay quiet, you are giving those in the position to decide your full support.

If you agree with where they're going, then by all means stay quiet.

If you do not - you owe it to yourselves to at least post back a short, one-sentence reply stating where you stand.

Make it clear that there are a lot of us out here that are not happy with the direction chosen for us by others.

Is there anyone here who does think that the CRB's direction, as stated in this post by Dowie, is the best for IT?? Speak up!

Or go back to the SCCA Forums, register, and post your viewpoint, as short as you feel, with your member number, and be heard.

If we've got many posts there supporting our goals, well, kinda knocks the wind outta their sails about just a few noisy rabble-rousers vs. the silent majority, doesn't it?

[Jeremy Billiel]

Guys - We need to start posting our responses over on the SCCA Forums. Talking about it hear will clearly not be listened to or heard by the board or the CRB. However, if we use that forum to have a healthy and EDUCATED conversation we can make inroads. Don't talk shit and talk like an idiot as that will discount everyone, but please post over there your concerns and make SCCA listen.

[tom91ita]

If you agree with where they're going, then by all means stay quiet.

Vaughn,

were you missing a smile face there?

i think we are all open minded enough that we can advocate that if you agree with them, still voice your opinions.

but please list what car you have and if where they are going keeps you from gaining weight or keeps your competition from getting lighter.........

tom

[924Guy]

Vaughn,

were you missing a smile face there?

i think we are all open minded enough that we can advocate that if you agree with them, still voice your opinions.

but please list what car you have and if where they are going keeps you from gaining weight or keeps your competition from getting lighter.........

tom

Not sure I'm missing a smiley face... but yes, by all means voice your opinion either way! I was trying to make exactly that point - now is no time to be silent and hope that others will speak for you.

As for me, well everybody knows what I drive, I think. Should it be lighter? I can't conceive of it being made any lighter than it is, my understanding is that it's right on target for the current ITB performance goals. Should it be heaver? Well... it was a bit heavier already. There definitely are other ITB cars out there that should lose weight. I think there's only one generally agreed to be a bit light right now.