What's going on with IT and the CRB?

[924Guy]

So, the CRB was supposed to post something last week, to the SCCA forums, about the ongoing issues with the ITAC, the members who've left, the future of IT, any or all of the above...

Did I miss it? 'Cause I haven't seen anything yet.

Maybe the outpouring of letter has overwhelmed them, and made them desire to spend some more time coordinating the response?

How long till we should ask what's up??

[seckerich]

I spoke with my area directors this weekend at our year end meeting. Both Robin Langlotz and Phil Creighton assured me that they would see what could be worked out to help IT going forward. Did not get a chance to corner Fred Clark but he has been good to work with in the past. Lets see what they (CR come up with.

[lateapex911]

The cynic in me thinks it's the same old story, keep quiet, lay low, let it blow over. Actually responding and debating things with the members will only be a losing proposition. Too many things to defend effectively. Again, maybe I'm being too cynical, but I feel they will make sure they all tell the BoD the same story, and leave it at that.

In my eyes, that's a shame, because the BoD isn't the boss.

[Butch Kummer]

This weekend I talked to both Fred Clark (CRB ) and Phil Creighton (BoD). Both separately expressed the opinion this is an issue of miscommunication with the possibility of egos run amuck (on both sides) and felt a compromise was not only possible but expected. And while the ITAC/CRB issue is big within this community, the lack of a "formal response" is because they've been dealing with an even bigger issue involving manufacturer involvement in Club Racing.

I thought I did at one time, but I'm glad I don't have EITHER of their jobs.

Patience Prudence (and I do know these guys want what's best for our club)...

[RedMisted]

This weekend I talked to both Fred Clark (CRB ) and Phil Creighton (BoD). Both separately expressed the opinion this is an issue of miscommunication with the possibility of egos run amuck (on both sides) and felt a compromise was not only possible but expected. And while the ITAC/CRB issue is big within this community, the lack of a "formal response" is because they've been dealing with an even bigger issue involving manufacturer involvement in Club Racing.

I thought I did at one time, but I'm glad I don't have EITHER of their jobs.

Patience Prudence (and I do know these guys want what's best for our club)...

The CRB does indeed have other matters to deal with, but let's not allow them to forget OUR issues. Keep up the emails, phonecalls, snail mail, telepathic sendings, etc.

[RacerBill]

The CRB does indeed have other matters to deal with, but let's not allow them to forget OUR issues. Keep up the emails, phonecalls, snail mail, telepathic sendings, etc.

Especially considering the following statements printed in the March SportsCar -

"...it is imperative that we as a Club look forward. We must continue to evolve, upgrade, and improve. To encourge this improvement, I look forward to addressing several issues facing our Club, including...." Jerry Wannarka, Chairman, SCCA Board of Directors.

Mr. Wannarka then sites 5 items, including 'the direction of the national racing program' and 'more active promotion of the SCCA'.

I am encouraged that he used the word 'national' as in the overall racing program, as opposed to 'National' meaning the part of club racing leading to the Runoffs. I feel that in order to promote the SCCA, we have to have a healthy program to be able to promote and attract new members and not drive away current members.

I am encouraged by recent posts in this thread and look forward to hearing meaningful discussions among the disputing parties.

I also agree with Chris, that we need to gently keep our issues in front of the BOD, CRB, and ITAC.

[RedMisted]

Especially considering the following statements printed in the March SportsCar -

"...We must continue to evolve, upgrade, and improve. To encourge this improvement, I look forward to addressing several issues facing our Club, including...." Jerry Wannarka, Chairman, SCCA Board of Directors.

Mr. Wannarka then sites 5 items, including 'the direction of the national racing program' and 'more active promotion of the SCCA'.

I am encouraged that he used the word 'national' as in the overall racing program, as opposed to 'National' meaning the part of club racing leading to the Runoffs.

Let us hope that Mr. Wannarka's use of the word "national" as opposed to "National" is not a typo...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Both separately expressed the opinion this is an issue of miscommunication with the possibility of egos run amuck (on both sides) and felt a compromise was not only possible but expected.

While I am SURE there will be a compromise, I take exception to the ego comment. The bottom line is that the CRB changed the rules during the game. Then they changed them back. Then they changed them again.

They are introducing factors into the classification and reclassification process that have never been considerations before. While that in itself is more than fine, *I* personally would like them to be based in theory that I believe in. Just because a car has a 2.0L DOHC 16V 4cyl doesn't mean the weights need to be similar. Just because a car has a 'larger than normal' engine doesn't mean it should be held back from accurate classification.

Stubborn? Sure. But I never heard a 'why'. All I need is a 'why'. Why had we been fine for 6 years and now all the sudden it's broken?

[Butch Kummer]

Andy, I paraphrased what I was told knowing others would/could disagree (which is also why I included the words "possibility of"). Obviously I wasn't involved in any of the discussions between the ITAC and CRB, so I have no first-hand knowledge of anything that happened.

Thinking about it now I probably should have mentioned when talking to them this weekend that it sure seems an independent mediator (is that a redundant statement?) could be beneficial to resolving the issues. I have no idea if all parties would be receptive to such a step, but I'd be willing to participate if asked.

[Bill Miller]

While I am SURE there will be a compromise, I take exception to the ego comment. The bottom line is that the CRB changed the rules during the game. Then they changed them back. Then they changed them again.

They are introducing factors into the classification and reclassification process that have never been considerations before. While that in itself is more than fine, *I* personally would like them to be based in theory that I believe in. Just because a car has a 2.0L DOHC 16V 4cyl doesn't mean the weights need to be similar. Just because a car has a 'larger than normal' engine doesn't mean it should be held back from accurate classification.

Stubborn? Sure. But I never heard a 'why'. All I need is a 'why'. Why had we been fine for 6 years and now all the sudden it's broken?

That's been my gripe all along Andy, there's NEVER a 'why'. How can they continue to spout the

car is correct as specified

but can't follow that up w/ what that specification is based on. They know they pull this crap out of their ass, but they just won't admit to it.

[lateapex911]

Butch, I'm with Andy on this one, but I'd go a step further, I wanted to know "how" we would proceed. I'll give two examples (no new news here for those who have read the details)

1- When we recommended the MR2 and it's brother the AE86 RWD Corolla be corrected (the former) and moved to ITB (the latter) we did so based on a 25% IT hp gain factor, correcting an earlier mistake that the committee (me) made by using a 30% factor. The recommendation was shot down by the CRB on the MR2, and the AE86 had 95 pounds added to it.

So, upon reading that, we asked, "WHY?", and the CRB responded with: "Because the original process sold to the BoD had 16 valve engines listed as using a factor of 30% and that's the way the listings have been done."

I countered with "The original process also said, right after that, 'Check to make sure those make sense and match reality' (paraphrased), and we have 8 dyno sheets showing IT builds that struggle to get to 17%. Further, we haven't been using the 30% figure as the norm for a long time as it just doesn't reflect reality on those engines most of the time".

A point was raised that "All 16V cars going into ITB get that factor, that was the deal to get those cars in the class."

Huh?? But WHY??? Why class cars incorrectly KNOWING all the time that they are incorrect??

It was told to us that we were to be considering other factors, and the 5+ yeas of using stock hp was no longer in favor with the CRB. WHY?
But......"OK", I said, "what factors and how should they be incorporated consistently?"

The key figure was displacement according to the CRB.

Example 2: We recommended a weight shift to a couple Golfs in ITA. In short, the CRB disagreed, and thought our recommendations were light. "Compared to other 2.0L engines of the same architecture in ITA, these listings don't fit". We asked which ones, and several were eventually identified. The cars listed were heavier, yes, but, they also had more base HP.

"I again asked, "How can we do this consistently and with repeatability? A; We don't know off the top of our heads whether those listings are current, and B, how do we accommodate the difference in actual HP those engines make??" This was a serious question, in other words, "Help me do what you want in a proper manner"

The answer: "You're the experts, ....you should know".

Well, I DO know, we run the process based on stock hp, and when we have real evidence that shows that needs to be deviated from, we present that evidence, vote on it, document it, and move forward.

(this whole process was born from 'experts'...(like me!) "englishing" weights so they 'felt right' and matched what people 'think they know"...and was a mess of weights that didn't make sense. How can we avoid that, and why are we going back to that?)

It is clear, and the CRB has stated so, that they wish to "wiggle room" listings, and it's also obvious that that is NOT what the members want. (nearly two dozen letters, AGAIN, unanimous, indicate this)

While having a mediator would be interesting, unless one side makes unwanted concessions, I can't see an outcome.....and really, that mediator should consider the members first principals above all else.

For the ITACs part, I strongly feel they have been consistent in their direction, and responsive to the overwhelmingly clear member wishes.

[dj10]

"What we have here...is a failure to communicate"

IMHO. I do know in counciling it is called "active listening" and might help. :~)

[quadzjr]

so according to the CRB the displacement is the key factory
so a DOHC 1.6L honda = DOHC 1.6L Toyota (160hp v.s 112)hp?

You can use displacement, as a base point, however to accurately classify each car you would have to have alot of data on the motor and every variation of the motor. If you took displacement, CR, valve size/# of valves, cam lift/duration/lobe centerlines, valve spring rates, weight of rotating assembly, cylinder head/intake/TB, volume of runners, fuel supply, etc...

Then you can plug it into a modern enegine simulation and get an idea of what it will make with IT legal mods.

Even older engine programs are not detailed enough to handle everything , and when we are talking every hp=17lbs it woudl have to be quite accurate.

Then how do you get this information for all the cars in the ITCS? Then if you get info from members is it gold?

They have to take more than displacement, otherwise the 2.3L ford mustang would be in ITA, and the 99 civic si would be in ITB.

[MMiskoe]

The key figure was displacement according to the CRB.

Great. So my 3.0L Nissan will get moved up to ITR, the 1.6L Miata will move down to ITB and the Honda S2000 belongs in ITA.

Everyone also knows that red cars are faster, do they get 100# adder?

[Knestis]

This weekend I talked to both Fred Clark (CRB ) and Phil Creighton (BoD). Both separately expressed the opinion this is an issue of miscommunication with the possibility of egos run amuck (on both sides) and felt a compromise was not only possible but expected. And while the ITAC/CRB issue is big within this community, the lack of a "formal response" is because they've been dealing with an even bigger issue involving manufacturer involvement in Club Racing.

I thought I did at one time, but I'm glad I don't have EITHER of their jobs.

Patience Prudence (and I do know these guys want what's best for our club)...

I'm sorry Butch, but at some point you run the risk participating in an active repeating of untruths often enough that you're contributing to the problem. It's called "staying on message" and it's a popular strategy of those who want to divert discussion from a topic that they really don't want to engage in - or lose. You (and others) are carrying water for individuals who don't WANT to engage with the membership.

When it was just me, the problem could quite easily have been a loose cannon. When Giles left, he was in good company in that respect. But when the system is busted enough that Andy and Jake - the core of the then-current ITAC - throw up their arms? It CANNOT be dismissed the way you're characterizing.

The CRB doesn't need a mediator. It needs to quit behaving like a coffee klatch, and more like a decision-making body representing hundreds of thousands of dollars of investment by club members. If the BoD is endorsing the lousy management of the CRB, they are part of the problem.

K

[tom91ita]

The key figure was displacement according to the CRB.

i think the displacment of the CRB is the best idea yet!

[Ron Earp]

Displacement only huh?

So we didn't use that in the past but we've got cars in most classes running competitively based on stock hp. How did that happen? ummmm, the process worked?

Now we are to switch to displacement only. If we switch to displacement based classification are we moving older cars to new classes? Or just using displacement to improperly class new cars against older cars?

Jeez.

Displacement only would cause problems.

TR8 = 240Z = 260Z = 300Z = ~175 rwhp +/- 3%

300z and TR8 have to go to R based on displacement.

[924Guy]

Patience Prudence (and I do know these guys want what's best for our club)...

That's a great idea... but no, we shouldn't cut them a free pass to get back to us when they've got nothing more pressing to do.

If we don't keep the pressure up, we can count on them to blow us off...

If they truly are busy with some serious issues... why can't they tell us that themselves???

[Butch Kummer]

Don't shoot the messenger here, guys. Obviously I have something at stake here and I care enough to not only write a letter but also to follow up with people face to face. What I've written is what people have told me, and I'm not in a position to call them liars.

That said, I very much agree that "your car is currently classed appropriately" is a suck-ass answer to a reclassification request. Unfortunately that appears to continue to be the norm in SCCA official-dom. I've heard rumors that participation on the various forums is "discouraged" by the BoD and the higher-ups in the stewards program, but again I've never heard exactly why that is.

When I ran for the BoD back in 2002, one of the planks in my platform was better communication of WHY decisions were made. I've said before that if I explain my logic process then you can either agree with it or point out flaws in my thinking. I did not get elected, I'm happy about that, and I won't run again. I am MUCH happier being the Competition Director for Atlanta Region.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The more I type, the more I am sure I will never get invited to get back on the ITAC (which I would love to do) but I have to make sure that the facts are represented properly - or at least from both sides. When words like 'ego' and 'unwillingness' pop up, it just shows a total disconnect from reality.

And to reiterate, when the 'shift in direction' happened (not allowing us to run current listing through the process to correct them to current standards) some of us didn't like that. But I opened up a con call by asking the CRB to tell us what they wanted us to do, and we will do it. The result was Decembers Fast Track full of answers that were 'classed appropriately'. Then the next time IT got some ink was February. They let the ITAC run The 320i and 325 (E30) through.

I personally don't care what math makes up the Process, as long as it can be repeatable, makes sense to everyone and is applied consistantly. Is that really such a big deal?

My only regret is that we couldn't see this to it's end. Like I said earlier, I am sure they will come to a compromise and we have two great guys who post here who are sticking it out. For me, I didn't shoot my way out of town, I just let them know that they had strayed from what we were chartered to do years ago, had been doing successfully and I couldn't wrap my head around what was going on so I needed to make room for members who were more on board. I posted a request for them to write down what they wanted us to do so we could be on board, and they never did.