Big Picture of IT - Share Your Opinions

[trhoppe]

So having said all this, has the ITAC received enough evidence to prove that the 1.8 ITA Miata is an overdog? I'm assuming that the weight adjustments, if any, that were asked for, are being denied by the CRB?

This makes it seem like IT will become like Touring, where people will find overdog cars, keep them quiet, run them with sand, and unless you have the "car of the current time", you'll be getting your ass kicked. The "car of the current time" in ITA is a 1.8 Miata Everyone knows about it, it kicks ass, there hasn't been a 10/10ths built one yet (other then Andy), but still, nothing will be done......

-Tom
who chose poorly....

[Jeremy Billiel]

So having said all this, has the ITAC received enough evidence to prove that the 1.8 ITA Miata is an overdog? I'm assuming that the weight adjustments, if any, that were asked for, are being denied by the CRB?

This makes it seem like IT will become like Touring, where people will find overdog cars, keep them quiet, run them with sand, and unless you have the "car of the current time", you'll be getting your ass kicked. The "car of the current time" in ITA is a 1.8 Miata Everyone knows about it, it kicks ass, there hasn't been a 10/10ths built one yet (other then Andy), but still, nothing will be done......

-Tom
who chose poorly....

Tom - I do not believe a decision was made and therfore the Miata is the car to have until it gets registered in the CRB's mind as an overdog.

Jeremy who is going thru the cars again to find the new car to have

[Andy Bettencourt]

The CRB isn't saying the process is completely worthless by any means, they're just saying it's not as infallable as some would like to think. Yes, "we" pay lip service to it by saying we know it's not perfect, but in application "we" act like it's the solution to all of IT's problems.

No "we" don't. Nobody ever has. What the process does do - perfectly now - is document everything that goes into a weight. Right or wrong. It leaves a trail of crumbs so that future drivers and administrators can see how things happened.

What the CRB is saying IMHO, is that the 'eyeball test' is better than the process in some cases. The only way the process falls down here is if there is no 'out of spec' data to feed back in so a heavier or lighter than standard weight spits out.

It is also my understanding that the process will NOT be used to correct weights - up or down...the cars that get looked at will be uber-rare...and they will be cars that are 'running off the front end' of races. Meaning E36 type overdogs. Right now, I can't think of one car like that in IT.

[seckerich]

What just happened is the CRB made it clear who runs SCCA. Have all the ADVISORY commities you want and get input from drivers. See what they want and what their concerns are. Then shut the F up and do it like we say. After all the 7 of us know more about all 30 some classes in SCCA than anyone else possibly could. I made the post way back at the beginning of all this and told you the CRB saw you as doing too much and taking up their valuble time with a class that was supposed to be a catch all. How dare you want input into what happens? They will be busy for the next 6 months dicking with prod comp adjustments after the first runoffs at a new track. Jim Drago came on here and said I was wrong. I guess I was right. They got their ass handed to them at the GT tent meeting for doing the same thing to the GT advisory board and came home mad. Never mind there are cars that are way heavy or too light, that is too much to burden them with. That is why we gave that task to the ITAC. How is that working for you all now? You should all resign and tell them to go back to their back room deals. Power needs to be divided and soon. To those of you lurking--Some of you are friends, but you screwed us. I will do everything I can to get the BOD to change how things are done now and vote those out that think you deserve all this power.

These are the names of those you need to be speaking with. Address and phone deleted for members only to access.

Bob Dowie
Club Racing Board
Chester, NY Charles Fred Clark
Jacksonville, FL Jim Drago
Memphis, TN Chris W Albin
Maryland Heights, MO David A Gomberg
Laurel, MD Peter Keane CRB
Cocoa Beach,Russell J McHugh
Sunnyvale, CA

[gran racing]

What's the BOD's preferred method of contact? Is there any value in contacting them via phone and following up via e-mail? For e-mails sent in, do they truly get enough attention?

[quadzjr]

So having said all this, has the ITAC received enough evidence to prove that the 1.8 ITA Miata is an overdog? I'm assuming that the weight adjustments, if any, that were asked for, are being denied by the CRB?

This makes it seem like IT will become like Touring, where people will find overdog cars, keep them quiet, run them with sand, and unless you have the "car of the current time", you'll be getting your ass kicked. The "car of the current time" in ITA is a 1.8 Miata Everyone knows about it, it kicks ass, there hasn't been a 10/10ths built one yet (other then Andy), but still, nothing will be done......

-Tom
who chose poorly....

Tom I believe that you would have one of the other overdogs.. It is a toss up between which is better the miata or a integra. the integra is a good choice, hence the reason why you built one.

[seckerich]

What's the BOD's preferred method of contact? Is there any value in contacting them via phone and following up via e-mail? For e-mails sent in, do they truly get enough attention?

Call them. They are for the most part racers like us and willing to talk with you. Be respectful and email with the best time to call. They have day jobs too for the most part. I think we should organize a tent meeting at the ARRC with the CRB and our ITAC members just like the other classes. Would any of you support that?

[Knestis]

What just happened is the CRB made it clear who runs SCCA. Have all the ADVISORY commities you want and get input from drivers. See what they want and what their concerns are. Then shut the F up and do it like we say. After all the 7 of us know more about all 30 some classes in SCCA than anyone else possibly could. I made the post way back at the beginning of all this and told you the CRB saw you as doing too much and taking up their valuble time with a class that was supposed to be a catch all. How dare you want input into what happens? They will be busy for the next 6 months dicking with prod comp adjustments after the first runoffs at a new track. Jim Drago came on here and said I was wrong. I guess I was right. They got their ass handed to them at the GT tent meeting for doing the same thing to the GT advisory board and came home mad. Never mind there are cars that are way heavy or too light, that is too much to burden them with. That is why we gave that task to the ITAC. How is that working for you all now? You should all resign and tell them to go back to their back room deals. Power needs to be divided and soon. To those of you lurking--Some of you are friends, but you screwed us. I will do everything I can to get the BOD to change how things are done now and vote those out that think you deserve all this power.

These are the names of those you need to be speaking with. Address and phone deleted for members only to access.

Bob Dowie
Club Racing Board
Chester, NY Charles Fred Clark
Jacksonville, FL Jim Drago
Memphis, TN Chris W Albin
Maryland Heights, MO David A Gomberg
Laurel, MD Peter Keane CRB
Cocoa Beach,Russell J McHugh
Sunnyvale, CA

I'm right there with you, Steve. I've been wrestling with the question of how long - or IF - I need to wait in order that my complaints not be perceived as sour grapes about how I was personally treated by the CRB but we've got to have more voices being heard.

K

[lateapex911]

Andy,


As is usual w/ the CRB, their position on the process is inconsistent. They have enough confidence in it to use it on newly classified cars, but they don't have enough confidence to use it on all the cars in the ITCS. ............

First, regarding the Process application on newly listed cars (Initial classifications), I was told by the CRB, (and I'm condensing a bit) that we can use The Process V1.0, 2.0, or make it up, as long as it makes sense.

Well, that leaves some latitude. As an example, a Atwood GT is currently classed in ITA, with 120hp, and 110 ft lbs. A new listing, the Cumberton GT comes across the desk, with the same exact Hp, and the same basic specs, FWD, brakes, suspension, etc etc. Same car, essentially, as the Atwood GT. But the Atwood was done 6 years ago. Now the Process spits out a weight 100 pounds lighter. What to do?

• A- List it as the Process spits out. Ignore the obvious "It doesn't make sense" aspect when compared to the identical car that's already listed.

• B- List it at the existing car's weight to make it "make sense". But ignore that it doesn't 'make sense' compared to the rest of the class??

(I'd chose A, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few)

In either case, it points out the inevitable contradiction that the "Make it make sense" edict creates when we are limited in our range of adjustments.

I do understand that the CRB feels the process is flawed because it relies on stock hp. I agree that that IS a limitation, yet I feel it has been dealt with effectively, and transparently with documentation in V2.0. We have an "evidetiary module" that allows non stock ratings to be considered, as long as there is evidence and the ITAC can register their votes of confidence. So I thought that issue had been dealt with. But the CRB disagrees.

In a way, I am not surprised. But in a way, I am. I *think* that the CRb has gotten a lot of fan mail over the ITACs position and direction, and I'd bet it's vastly more than any other Ad Hoc. (Both in terms of amount and 'satisfaction' rating) I would have thought the BoD and the CRB would consider that as a strong indication of the categories success and the members wishes. That's naive' I guess, because perhaps the BoD was never relayed that information, and because there might be a CRB perception that the rest of the racers that aren't on boards like this and don't write letters don't agree. I like to think that you, the members, are my bosses.

Hate to say it, but nothing has really changed over the last 5 or so years.

Understood, but I disagree by a degree.
We have learned as a group (us racers and the ITAC). We are largely on the same page. Thats a good thing. We can still fight the good fight. We've been handicapped for sure. But yea, we're looking at a new landscape that looks suspiciously like the old landscape.

[lateapex911]

They got their ass handed to them at the GT tent meeting for doing the same thing to the GT advisory board and came home mad. Never mind there are cars that are way heavy or too light, that is too much to burden them with. That is why we gave that task to the ITAC. How is that working for you all now? You should all resign and tell them to go back to their back room deals.

So, Steve, that begs the question...if we all resign, will the IT world be a better place?

[seckerich]

So, Steve, that begs the question...if we all resign, will the IT world be a better place?

Irrelevant since you are now relegated to just an information gatherer to be used to spit out their perception of equal. If what you all have done in the past few years to provide parity in IT is not enough to gain the CRB support, you are wasting your time and ours. They lead us to believe we have a voice in our class then they step aside and leave you to take the heat. You are a grown man, do what you think is best. I am going to start from the top down and rock the crap out of this broken system.

[lateapex911]

I think we should organize a tent meeting at the ARRC with the CRB and our ITAC members just like the other classes. Would any of you support that?

I've been suggesting that for years, but recently things seem to be going smoothly, and people are busy with racing, or are more interested in partying. The nature of theses things seems to be that if things are cool, they'd rather have a beer.

I don't *think* any CRB guys are going, but Chris Albin might be there in an ITB car. And Peter Keane might as well in another ITB car. I doubt that SCCA would approve an expense account for any of them to attend, and I certainly wouldn't expect them to get there on their own dime.

As for the ITAC guys, I'll be there. I *Think* Scott Giles, might attend. Kirk Knestis..ooops, scratch that.! Les Chaney has been there on occasion as a crew guy, and Lee Graser said he might make it. Josh Sirota has a busted car, and lives in the Bay area, so I doubt he'll be there. Bettencourt is out of vacation time, I'd bet. Jeff Young typically does the VIR 13 hour, which eliminates the ARRC, although you might try to make him attend as an observer!

So, sure, I'm game, if we can find a time that's not a conflict and is convenient for people.

[JeffYoung]

I would come downto the ARRC on Friday/Saturday for that if needed.

[tnord]

I think you guys are WAY over reacting.

The CRB isn't crumpling up the process and lighting it on fire. They're just saying that it's not perfect, they'd like to do more than just "run the numbers," and want some flexibility to operate outside of a formula which really boils down to a series of educated guesses (which impossibly tries to treat cars across 40? 50? years and 5 classes equally).

Nobody is talking about a car winning the ARRC and automatically getting a lead brick as a trophy. Nobody is talking about turning the class upside down.

What we will have is something everyone already agrees is a good thing (good competition across many makes/models), and something most of us have said we wish we had more of (stability).

remember that there ARE IT guys on the CRB. In case you missed it in Steve's post, CHRIS ALBIN is on the CRB. how long has Chris been an IT racer?

the world is not ending.

PS - Yes (Jeremy, and others) I'm fully aware that my perception is not the popular one.

[Jeremy Billiel]

I think you guys are WAY over reacting.

The CRB isn't crumpling up the process and lighting it on fire. They're just saying that it's not perfect, they'd like to do more than just "run the numbers," and want some flexibility to operate outside of a formula which really boils down to a series of educated guesses (which impossibly tries to treat cars across 40? 50? years and 5 classes equally).

Nobody is talking about a car winning the ARRC and automatically getting a lead brick as a trophy. Nobody is talking about turning the class upside down.

What we will have is something everyone already agrees is a good thing (good competition across many makes/models), and something most of us have said we wish we had more of (stability).

remember that there ARE IT guys on the CRB. In case you missed it in Steve's post, CHRIS ALBIN is on the CRB. how long has Chris been an IT racer?

the world is not ending.

PS - Yes (Jeremy, and others) I'm fully aware that my perception is not the popular one.

The problem Travis is that with no clearly defined process we (IT racers) have lost the ability to self police and be transparent. If the CRB has the majic Key then yes, you win the ARRC you may very well get lead.

[tnord]

in my discussions with the CRB that is not their intention. and the message being sent by your ITAC members doesn't indicate so either.

[lateapex911]

I think you guys are WAY over reacting.

The CRB isn't crumpling up the process and lighting it on fire. They're just saying that it's not perfect, they'd like to do more than just "run the numbers," and want some flexibility to operate outside of a formula which really boils down to a series of educated guesses (which impossibly tries to treat cars across 40? 50? years and 5 classes equally).

Not exactly...it treats cars of similar characteristics with the same yardstick, and has modules for dealing with cars that fall outside the norm. With the "Flexibility" that is desired (Aka 'wiggleroom' as somebody posted up the line), there is no documentation or consistency form era to era. I fear that internal mood swings, personnel and back room dealings got us some weird listings. I'm not saying that's going to happen, or that I think it will, but the possibility certainly exists, and moreso, the appearance of possible impropriety is now in the game.

Nobody is talking about a car winning the ARRC and automatically getting a lead brick as a trophy. Nobody is talking about turning the class upside down.

Correct. I have no indication that the CRB has considered that for a split second.

What we will have is something everyone already agrees is a good thing (good competition across many makes/models), and something most of us have said we wish we had more of (stability).

Part of stability is having the cars judged by the same system.....

remember that there ARE IT guys on the CRB. In case you missed it in Steve's post, CHRIS ALBIN is on the CRB. how long has Chris been an IT racer?

True, and he's also a Prod racer.

[seckerich]

in my discussions with the CRB that is not their intention. and the message being sent by your ITAC members doesn't indicate so either.

Maybe in your next discussion with the CRB you can have them actually tell THE MEMBERS IN IT what they are really doing. Your sacred Miata is safe at its current weight so all is good in your world. We get it. How about the cars that were up for a weight reduction that will now not ever be looked at? Those drivers just go away, and yes they will go away mad because their car was not treated the same as others in IT because it was easy. Not going to cut it.

And yes Travis I know there are 2 IT drivers on the CRB, both in ITB that race against the Audi that turned this whole process upside down. Is that supposed to make me feel more confident? Bad example.

[Jeremy Billiel]

in my discussions with the CRB that is not their intention. and the message being sent by your ITAC members doesn't indicate so either.

1. I don't believe the ITAC believes that and
2. I GUARANTEE that a Majority of the members do not believe that either....

The CRB has an out to do what they want and that will turn a lot of the members away... It's just that simple.

[Ron Earp]

How about the cars that were up for a weight reduction that will now not ever be looked at? Those drivers just go away, and yes they will go away mad because their car was not treated the same as others in IT because it was easy. Not going to cut it.

And I think there were a few of these. ITS Mustang (I wrote the letter for that one), ITR RX8 (I have heard about this one), ITA 325 (heard about this one), and I'm sure there are others. Two of these three cars are built or racing now, the third could be a contender at a decent weight. Shame.