Review and adjust weight of ITB CRX Si as appropriate

[JeffYoung]

I agree the lower level of communication is not (in my view) a good idea. But it is what it is.

Jjanos, without trying to throw any other members of the ITAC under the bus, since they are entitled to their opinions (and I do think they all have, in their way, the good of the category at heart), I think you would disagree very strongly with some of the viewpoints held by some, perhaps most, of the ITAC.

The constant slagging of the CRB is irksome. They are not "deceitful and dishonest." I have some very strong disagreements with what has gone on with the ITAC and CRB the last six months, but I've not encountered anyway who I thought was doing anything other than what they thought best for IT.

[Ron Earp]

ITAC isn't the problem.

In general I'd agree and I'm not saying the CRB is the problem, but I'd like to see some common sense guidelines like I, and others have listed, put into place.

[tom91ita]

Speaking as someone with some experience with the 12V motor in the more liberal limted prep production trim, I find the 109WHP target for a legal IT prep motor a bit optimistic...

What kind of weight numbers do you come up with a more conservative target of 105WHP?

105 WHP / 0.85 = 123.5 hp

123.5 * 17 - 50 for FWD = 2049.5 so call it 2050 #'s

btw, the 123.5/91 = 35.7% gain. Catch had indicated that i should expect 30-35% gain. Greg, you are very consistent with that and i appreciate you offering your experience.

Also, did they lose the 7" rims when they got moved back to ITB?

all ITB cars are 6" max rims

[lateapex911]

One of the fine tuning items in the V2.0 Process was the refinement of the FWD adder. When the CRX in question was moved to B, it got a flat amount but now, it wouldn't, it would be a tad less, I think. ( can't remember it off the top of my head), but the flat amount was used as the base, (Applied to the median car) and the cars with more or less weight got a proportional amount.

Just FYI.

Oh, Andy, wasn't Scott on that call?

[jjjanos]

Jjanos, without trying to throw any other members of the ITAC under the bus, since they are entitled to their opinions (and I do think they all have, in their way, the good of the category at heart), I think you would disagree very strongly with some of the viewpoints held by some, perhaps most, of the ITAC.

Would that be members of the previous ITAC or members of the deferrential, obedient and controllable Vichy ITAC?

The constant slagging of the CRB is irksome.

As is the current composition of the CRB.

They are not "deceitful and dishonest."

I noticed that you did not say that they weren't disingenuous.

Deceitful: Deliberately misleading; deceptive.
Dishonest: Proceeding from or exhibiting lack of honesty; fraudulent.
Disingenuous: Lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere.

Let me see... CRB member is asked "is this what you said and is this what that means?" CRB member concurs. Next meeting, CRB member takes an opposing position that invalidates his previous statement and refuses to discuss the reasons for the discrepancy.

Sounds pretty dishonest, deceitful and disingenuous to me, but perhaps my characterization is harsh. I assumed that the member described above is/was in possession of his faculties. That could be incorrect and I will acknowledge that perhaps the actions of the person were not a result of being deceitful, dishonest or disingenous and that it could be a symptom of senility. Either way, he's got to go.

[quadzjr]

jjjanos: Though I am upset as anybody with the current CRB take on things. You always have to remember that we are only seeing one side of the story. I am not saying that what we hear on IT.com is incorrect. I am just saying that there is always two sides of a coin.

A similiar analgy could be when J. Kerry was running for president. He aquired a flip-flop name based on his vote on issues. There was little to no mention on the fact that his vote swayed due to the fact of all the additional stuff that was attached to said bills. But, we do know what we heard, and we made our judgements accordingly.

Like it or not, we have the CRB in place. If you want anything done you are going to have to work with them, if possible. I am trying to, once I get some sort of direction.

Hopefully in the future someone can propose a new intent clause or something of the like that they can put in the GCR in wording to use a process. I believe that the CRB hasn't recieved any letter to change the wording. I know it was discussed on other forums.

[Knestis]

Sorry, Jeff Y. - I'm with JJJ on this point.

I won't post Drago's email to Tom (forwarded/cc'd to me) without one or the other's permission, in which he completely misrepresents a number of important points, but it struck me as a classic example, timed to be extremely ironic.

The inclination to spin is so institutionalized, those who do it don't even recognize when it's happening. It gets rationalized away as "working the system" or "necessary politics of getting things done," but it's deceitful.

The letter submission system is a great start, preventing the "Gee, where did that go?" way of passively ditching problematic members' requests, but there's a lot of improvement still needed.

K

EDIT - To be clear, if a CRB member has a different priority or perspective (say, than mine), they are absolutely allowed to pursue what they think is best for the club and category. When they pursue an agenda without being honest about it, it becomes a problem. Equally problematic are conflicts of interest - even perceived conflicts.

PS - +1 for Lobster Red Ale, in a frozen aluminum cup, at Silly's hippie restaurant in Portland, ME.

[lateapex911]

jjjanos: Though I am upset as anybody with the current CRB take on things. You always have to remember that we are only seeing one side of the story. ....

But...who's choice is that!?!! Their choice. You saw the thread where Bob posted explanations. And you saw the hypocritical statements that resulted, and you saw how many questions were ignored. 100% of the questions I asked were ignored.


Why?
because there were no answers that were satisfactory, or the answers that could be given would have backed the CRb into a bad position. I'd submit that Bobs uncomfortableness with interent discussions has it's roots in the need to not make definitive, clear, concise public statements that can be referred to by anyone at anytime. It was the thinking of a large portion of the ITAC (mostly the resigned members) that a transparent, and 100% open communications policy was the best way, and they came to that conclusion because they felt their work was good, satisfied the members first principals, and there was nothing to hide.

Sorry, I was there, I was shocked at the methods and lack of communication, and poor leadership. I'd love to hear the other side of the story in public, because I know it...and it isn't pretty.

[Conover]

Here's a crazy question, which may reveal just how much I don't understand the system. That question being;
Why do we need the CRB in the first place?

What am I thinking?

IT is a regional class, the powers that be have made that very clear to us.

The ITAC could fairly easily publish it's own spec lines, local members in each region petition their RE's and ask to run under the ITAC's Spec lines and not those published in the GCR.

Yeah, it could cause a bit of confusion at things like the ARRC and IT fest, but how about those organizing those type of events make it clear what spec line they are using.

If the IT community is as unsettled by the current atmosphere as I think they are, I'm sure the troops could be rallied in an effort to make the new IT organization homogeneous throughout the country.

OK, so the CRB says screw you guys we're firing the whole ITAC.

Again, why do we need their input?

This also lets the membership vote in several ways. With entry fees, in their petition to their Regional Executives, and with their participation with the ITAC in this process.


You think it would take more than one season to get the CRB to pay attention to what the IT community has to say?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Because the ITAC would then become the 'CRB'. Meaning there always has to be a place where the Buck stops....and just because you currently don't like WHO is making the decisions or the decisions themselves doesn't mean the structure is wrong.

[Ron Earp]

The ITAC could fairly easily publish it's own spec lines, local members in each region petition their RE's and ask to run under the ITAC's Spec lines and not those published in the GCR.

I'm very much liking that. Correct the issues that need correcting with an ITAC and member input. Regions can run those rules at the request of racers. Club by the people for the people.

[Conover]

Because the ITAC would then become the 'CRB'. Meaning there always has to be a place where the Buck stops....and just because you currently don't like WHO is making the decisions or the decisions themselves doesn't mean the structure is wrong.

It's less about who and more about structure.

[JeffYoung]

Kirk, I love you man, and you know I agree with your "first principles" about the Process, etc.

But I do not agree that the CRB has been disingenous (there you go Jjanos), dishonest, or deceitful. I disagree strongly with how they approached things over the last six months, and some of their view for the category, but I think much of what went on was unfortunate miscommunication (or lack of it) leading to some silly things being said. Sometimes on both sides. Sometimes by me.

I came with a few minutes of resigning myself, primarily over the communication issue -- and I fully agree that one part of the CRB culture I do not like is the idea that there is some "right" to conduct discussions in secret. But I know, and I think you do too, that the guys on the CRB are not out to intentionally decieve, or manipulate, or lie to the IT community.

Sorry, Jeff Y. - I'm with JJJ on this point.

I won't post Drago's email to Tom (forwarded/cc'd to me) without one or the other's permission, in which he completely misrepresents a number of important points, but it struck me as a classic example, timed to be extremely ironic.

The inclination to spin is so institutionalized, those who do it don't even recognize when it's happening. It gets rationalized away as "working the system" or "necessary politics of getting things done," but it's deceitful.

The letter submission system is a great start, preventing the "Gee, where did that go?" way of passively ditching problematic members' requests, but there's a lot of improvement still needed.

K

EDIT - To be clear, if a CRB member has a different priority or perspective (say, than mine), they are absolutely allowed to pursue what they think is best for the club and category. When they pursue an agenda without being honest about it, it becomes a problem. Equally problematic are conflicts of interest - even perceived conflicts.

PS - +1 for Lobster Red Ale, in a frozen aluminum cup, at Silly's hippie restaurant in Portland, ME.

[RacerBill]

I just posted the following message on the SCCA Improved Touring forum.

The following paragraphs were added to the GCR on 1/1/2005.

9.1.3
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.

This rule has been cited to me several times as the reason why the CRB will not adjust the weight of my car - 1983 Dodge Shelby Charger, even though running it through the formula that was quoted by the chairman of the CRB on the SCCA Improved Touring forum would have resulted in a weight of 1889 in ITA or 2254 in ITB.

Perhaps with a clarification of the rule, we can develop and recommend a change that will allow changes to cars that were classified prior to 2005 that will be agreeable to the membership (including the ITAC, CRB and the BOD).

[Knestis]

>> ... But I know, and I think you do too, that the guys on the CRB are not out to intentionally decieve, or manipulate, or lie to the IT community.

Nope - I do NOT know that.

In fact, I am confident of exactly the opposite - that some members of the CRB have, in the past year, told different people different things purported to be equally "true."

That they have misrepresented to members the cause of the conflict between the ITAC and CRB.

That they have selectively - sometimes day-to-day or week-to-week - redefined "standard practices" to result in preordinate weight outcomes.

That they have knowingly misrepresented or revised history to rationalize certain ends or justify decisions.

Do i think that THEY think they are being bad? No. They think they are doing the "right thing for the category" - what they have to do to accomplish their desired ends. Working the system.

But they have been untruthful, selective in their "facts," intellectually dishonest, and dismissive of information inconsistent with their preconceived notions - with the ITAC and with members. They have lied.

K

EDIT - Let me back into the ITAC SCCA bulletin board and I'll pull specific examples for you.

[iambhooper]

Tom, even though I'm no longer in the car, I wish you the best of luck with that fight! When I converted the car over from ITC to B, I built the car to the best I could afford and within the rules. The Dyno #'s on my car were something like 96.7 HP and 99 lbs torque. I really never accomplished much with the ECU (i failed at the Megasquirt) and probably had a bit to gain with a crank scraper and possibly a custom header (over the DC sports street unit). Does all that add up to 109, don't know... but I could see a car getting to 105 with all the extra goodie's mentioned above.

The guys with the 4th gen civic's certainly have all the go fast bit's of the ITA CRX at their disposal, so dropping the weight on the 1st/3rd gen should help make it a more reliable contender!

[Charlie Broring]

I just posted the following message on the SCCA Improved Touring forum.

The following paragraphs were added to the GCR on 1/1/2005.

9.1.3
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.

Interesting quote from the GCR. It appears to mandate evaluating on track performance for newly classified cars and making appropriate adjustments. Why isn't that being done?

I might also conclude that the personal agenda of some recent ITAC members to ignore "the vehicles racing performance relitive to other cars in class" is at odds with the GCR.

[jjjanos]

Kirk, I love you man, and you know I agree with your "first principles" about the Process, etc.

But I do not agree that the CRB has been disingenous (there you go Jjanos), dishonest, or deceitful.

Rule 9.1.3 - 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.

There is NO allowance for correcting "errors" outside that 5-year window - period.

The CRB says it's hands are tied by what the GCR allows (which is 100% bullshit as the CRB has free-reign to modify the GCR as it sees fit) and, yet, it adjusted the weight of the BMW outside of that window.

That sir, is disingenuous, deceitful and dishonest.

Either they have the authority to make corrections to older classifications or they don't.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Interesting quote from the GCR. It appears to mandate evaluating on track performance for newly classified cars and making appropriate adjustments. Why isn't that being done?

I might also conclude that the personal agenda of some recent ITAC members to ignore "the vehicles racing performance relitive to other cars in class" is at odds with the GCR.

Nobody ever wanted to 'ignore' on-track performance. It has been said over and over and over that it is a fine trigger to probe what input into the weight-setting process was incorrect. Once that factor is found and corrected, it should be re-inserted and a new number spit out. What that first paragraph really says is that the CRB will keep an eye out for overdogs.

What NOBODY ever advocated was "We won't consider the reprocessing of that car because it does just fine on-track" or "Let's throw 100lbs on that car and evaluate it over the next year".

BIG difference.

[JeffYoung]

Jjanos, there has been a lot of discussion over that paragraph, what it meant before the Great Realignment, and what it was intended to mean now.

I actually AGREE with the CRB that we are by rule prohibited from reprocessing cars by request based on that rule. But we did it anyway, and they let us -- for a while I would say that right there is the biggest reason we had a lot of folks resign. Once we started to touch some sacred cows with the reprocessing, we had some issues.

The CRB is open to a reevaluation of that rule, and has asked us to consider submitting a rewrite.

CRB/ITAC communciation is pretty good at this point, which is why I don't think some of the posting above is productive.

Now, the discussion about terms limits, or whether we need CRB oversight of the ITAC, that is a good discussion. Me:

1. This is an outlaw regional class. No need for CRB oversight...unless there are plans to go National......

2. Term limits, hell yes. 3-4 years of this and it is time for new blood. The problem, as Josh has pointed out, is finding it. Not a lot of folks want to do this. For obvious reasons.