What's going on with IT and the CRB?

[Knestis]

Sorry - was an official response to the ITB Audi request actually published? Have responses to ALL of the "please review" requests been published? My primary grouse when I called the CRB out on the board here was that they just weren't DOING anything with that backlog. Is it cleared?

K

[gran racing]

I never heard anything official about my request or many, many others. That is, beyond the sit tite, something is forthcoming...

[924Guy]

Quick update, pinged Mr. Wannarka this AM and got a quick reply; sure enough, some manufacturer's been giving 'em fits, as Butch pointed out, but he'll look into it all the same...

[RSTPerformance]

Sorry - was an official response to the ITB Audi request actually published? Have responses to ALL of the "please review" requests been published? My primary grouse when I called the CRB out on the board here was that they just weren't DOING anything with that backlog. Is it cleared?

K

It was in the December Fasttrack... Says that the car is classed appropriately... I recieved personal notification from Bob Dowie the chairman of the CRB on October 1, 2010 stating several issues IMO, but here is some exerpts from the e-mail.

"Being a Steward that is active in IT racing I'm sure you're aware that such an action would require a rule change (current rule below) and would have to go through the rule change process. *It would also require that all cars go through the same procedure since it would be unfair to adjust some cars and not all.

Online GCR pge 332

During the initial vehicle classification process, the Club shall assess vehicle performance factors such as-but not limited to-manufacturer's published specifications for engine type, displacement, horsepower, and torque; vehicle weight; brake type and size; suspension design; and aerodynamic efficiency. Based on such factors, a minimum allowable weight shall be established. At the end of the second, third, and fourth years of classification, the vehicle's racing performance relative to other vehicles in its class shall be evaluated. If the Club deems that, in the interest of fostering greater equity within a class, a vehicle should be reclassified to another Improved Touring class, such a reclassification shall be made. Alternatively or additionally, if the Club deems that an upward or downward revision in the minimum allowable weight is warranted, such a "performance compensation adjustment" shall be made. Any performance compensation adjustments made after the second and third years of classification shall be provisional. At the end of a vehicle's fourth year of Improved Touring classification, an assessment of class equity shall be made and the vehicle's minimum weight shall be established.

On rare occasion-and only after careful review of the actual racing performance of a particular make/model/year of vehicle-the Club may reclassify a vehicle, revise a vehicle's minimum allowable weight, and/or in the most extreme situation an intake restrictor may be required. Such an action shall be taken solely for the purpose of restoring equity within the vehicle's class."

not sure this helps or not... Just thought I would answer the question.

Raymond

[lateapex911]

Okay.
Just to provide two sides to the story, if THAT was the reason your car was denined, then why are there FIVE years of changes that precede it? The "Operative method" was to change cars that didn't fall under that allowance, (ie, cars classified for more than 5 years) under the "errors" clause that I am told exists in the CRBs operations manual.

We ran the numbers on yours, and other cars via the Process, (the one used for 5 years) and determined that the car was significantly off it's process weight.
But, THESE requests were suddenly denied citing (and I must say the reasons were rather slow in coming) the GCR, finally. Internally we had been told that there was strong objection to change the weight of that car because it was "obviously a front running car... clearly competitive".


And IF the GCR section IS to be followed, then WHY did the ITAC JUST recommend adjusting the BMW 320i to Process weight, which the CRB approved!??* It too has been classed for more than 5 years, and it too has shown signs of front running competence. (A number of them beat down some stiff ITB competition at the IT Fest, etc)

One could deduce that the real reason is variable, but centers on a desire to follow "what we know" when it comes to adjustments and weight setting, and appears to be most prevalent in ITB.

*THAT call went like this:

ITAC: "I didn't see all those 'denials" we wrote up in Fastrack. what happened to those?"
CRB: "We didn't approve them, what's the first car on the list?"
ITAC: "Um.. (looking thru notes) the 320i"
CRB: "OK, what's the stock HP? What's the engine? What's the current weight"?
ITAC: "Wait, we just DID this, and we were told we can't adjust cars like this? My notes show you said 'yada yada yada (5 yr GCR rule) etc etc etc', so this car can't be adjusted"
CRB: "Jake, Do you want to adjust cars or not?"
ITAC (me): " Um...well, yeah, but..."
CRB: "Well, then lets get to work. What are the numbers on the car??"

And that was that............

[924Guy]

(from Dictionary.com)

ca⋅pri⋅cious

–adjective 1. subject to, led by, or indicative of caprice or whim; erratic: He's such a capricious boss I never know how he'll react. 2. Obsolete. fanciful or witty.

Origin:
1585–95; < It capriccioso capriccioso

Related forms:
ca⋅pri⋅cious⋅ly, adverb
ca⋅pri⋅cious⋅ness, noun

Synonyms:
1. variable, flighty, mercurial. See fickle.


Antonyms:
1. steady, constant, consistent.

[Bill Miller]

So, any sign of the rumored comments from the CRB/BoD that were going to be posted on the SCCA forums?

[Knestis]

Quick update, pinged Mr. Wannarka this AM and got a quick reply; sure enough, some manufacturer's been giving 'em fits, as Butch pointed out, but he'll look into it all the same...

SO, the Board is being responsive to - or reacting to, anyway - a manufacturer rather than the membership.

...Being a Steward that is active in IT racing I'm sure you're aware that such an action would require a rule change (current rule below) and would have to go through the rule change process. *It would also require that all cars go through the same procedure since it would be unfair to adjust some cars and not all.

????

Congratulations, Bob - You've just demonstrated to me where the problem is. What utter bullshit. As Jake correctly points out, they are quite literally changing the rules - and invoking them with their heels dug REGARDLESS of which way they are leaning - based on what they want the result to be.

Oh, yeah - we don't have ANYTHING to worry about. It'll all be JUST fine.

Where's our paddock lawyer? Does anyone know of an instance where the CRB has been formally protested for violation of the GCR? The BMW weight change is clearly illegal.

K

[Z3_GoCar]

Sorry - was an official response to the ITB Audi request actually published? Have responses to ALL of the "please review" requests been published? My primary grouse when I called the CRB out on the board here was that they just weren't DOING anything with that backlog. Is it cleared?

K

I don't know about the other requests, but my request was heard and published in the last FT. The new tracking system does seem to add to at least knowing where in the river your request has floated off to.

[RSTPerformance]

K-

I was wondering the same thing...

A) who runs the club, Manufacturers or Members?

is it possible to protest the CRB decisions? The way I see it is that we have until 12:30am o. The 20th right? Who do we file the protest with? My protest and the others mentioned with the BOD haven't gone for from what I can tell... Real bummer.

C) now people know why I kept asking how they were able to change the weight on the BMW in the other threads... It isn't because I am against it, it is because cars like the Audi and MR2 on one side and Golf III on the other are not being treated equally.

Raymond

[gran racing]

In all fairness, there could be some valid reasons why a manufacturer issue or whatever it is would make sense to be given priority. My problem continues to be a total lack of communication. They wouldn't need to go into detail but a message that we're not being pushed aside, some information, and when we can expect to hear from them. Really? Is is all that difficult for them to do?

[924Guy]

Well you can't entirely take fault with the CRB for responding to a manufacturer - they are part of the racing landscape, like it or not, and it's unreasonable to suggest that we (as a club) could just ignore them.

I was given no impression that they are serving the purposes of the manufacturer; there was not enough information given to make any such assumptions.

Any suggestions or theories that this is what happen are simply the opinions of that poster, and NOT based on any facts. Unless they know something more and aren't sharing it...

Come on, guys, let's not find every possible reason to throw darts at the boards. That's the quickest way to making sure they don't listen to you at all.

Since I personally don't have the free time to march in there and take over the whole F'ing Club management, boards and all, and become king for a year or more - I'm going to commit myself to working through the system, and yes the people, that are currently doing the job.

When there is clear evidence of capricious, unreliable, or undesireable behaviour - I planning on being the loudest one calling that out to everyone and anyone.

When there is opportunity to provide contructive criticism and corrective measures, I plan to focus my energy on supporting those - not being the first to bitch up a storm.

It's just like being married; if you go digging for dirt, you're gonna find it, whether or not it's there.

If you intend on having a productive relationship - you have to plan to work WITH the other side of the equation...

[924Guy]

In all fairness, there could be some valid reasons why a manufacturer issue or whatever it is would make sense to be given priority. My problem continues to be a total lack of communication. They wouldn't need to go into detail but a message that we're not being pushed aside, some information, and when we can expect to hear from them. Really? Is is all that difficult for them to do?

Hear hear.

That's why I'm dealing with it the way I'd deal with it at work. If I'm dealing with someone who's having communication issues... I make sure to let management know. In that case, I'd keep my boss in the loop, so that he can go to the other guy's boss, when necessary, and he'll have all the ammo, all the documentation showing that I'm not just flying off the handle at the drop of a hat, but the offender has had an issue for months.

Same deal here, except we've eliminated one layer. By communicating with the Board, we now have them implicitly on our side.

You see, Mr. Wannarka notified us that the CRB/Mr. Dowie will be communicating to all of us (IT racers) by 2/5/10 via the boards. That means Mr. Wannarka is now responsible, by having made that commitment, for making sure that the communication takes place.

By emailing Mr. Wannarka the other day, notifying him that we haven't received that communication, we have let him know that we've been left hanging. However we're standing behind his authority to resolve the issue, rather than going around him.

He's replied, and let us know that hey, there are some mitigating circumstances, but he will regardless look into it and make sure it's not dropped.

Now we have to let him have the room to do his job.

That's how it works; you must give someone both the responsibility to reach a goal, and the authority to achieve it. That's Leadership 101.

[Knestis]

When I used to bitch about stuff like this in 1981, it was "flying off the handle." In the interim, I've gone full circle through "work with the system" (a couple of loops, actually) and am so far back around, well past having patience for that, that it's laughable.

I spend my professional life doing MGMT 101 pretty much 24/7, running every statement, email, and action through that filter. I think it's reasonable to expect that MAYBE those actually in management positions in the Club should do their share, rather than seeming to always demand that guys like Vaughan "manage upward."

K

[924Guy]

When I used to bitch about stuff like this in 1981, it was "flying off the handle." In the interim, I've gone full circle through "work with the system" (a couple of loops, actually) and am so far back around, well past having patience for that, that it's laughable.

I spend my professional life doing MGMT 101 pretty much 24/7, running every statement, email, and action through that filter. I think it's reasonable to expect that MAYBE those actually in management positions in the Club should do their share, rather than seeming to always demand that guys like Vaughan "manage upward."

K

Cheers, and I understand that you've been through probably more of these cycles than possibly much of the current club leadership.

That said, dealing with less-than-perfect managers is the rule, and I've always found care-and-feeding of managers just as important a skill to corporate survival (with minimal stress) as knowing what they should be doing, if they were to get it right.

IOW, doing all the groundwork and laying everything in front of them to ensure they make the right decision - the one I've already chosen for them!

It's simply a matter of making sure that it's not only the most logical, but in fact the easiest choice.

Sadly, that philosophy is rather at odds with the direction the CRB seems to have chosen, or at least did for a few phone calls (per Andy et al). Seems to me like the simplest way to deal with that is document and take it up the ladder.

Sometimes the best way to make me happy is to shut me up... and there's only one way to do that. It's kinda like how you deal with cats - the Principle of Sufficient Irritation. I can get my wife's cats to do most everything I want, using that method...

[Greg Amy]

Does anyone know of an instance where the CRB has been formally protested for violation of the GCR?

I was preparing one after the spherical suspension bushings rule change, but I was told that I'd be "wasting my time". - GA