ITAC and CRB and the Process

[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.