ITAC changes. Chairman resigns.

I will echo the same praises, issues and concerns raised here. To Ron's point (i.e. deaf SCCA ears and that IT <> SPU), it would be a sad day if we'll were all forced to make this decision.. go to NASA. I won't say anymore as this is a public forum.
 
JeffYoung said:
Andy, Jake, many thanks for all the hard work.....

Not sure where I stand yet, don't want to make a too swift decision.
Click to expand...

I'm in the same position as Jeff. I will not make any swift decisions. But I will state that I think that things aren't NEARLY as broken as they have been portrayed, and that IT is by no means on a downhill slope.

It is much better due to the contributions of those who have left recently, mostly in the aspect of the process around the math. The math itself, which is causing a lot of angst, is just a small part of the story and there's plenty of room to come together on this.
 
JoshS said:
I But I will state that I think that things aren't NEARLY as broken as they have been portrayed, and that IT is by no means on a downhill slope.
Click to expand...

You mean to say that a CRB that doesn't want the repeatable hp basis process, and is against transparency, isn't nearly as broken as we think? Those two items were at the core of what the ITAC has been trying to accomplish since I began with the SCCA in 2005.

Personally I think things are pretty bad based on those two factors alone.
 
JoshS said:
But I will state that I think that things aren't NEARLY as broken as they have been portrayed, and that IT is by no means on a downhill slope.

It is much better due to the contributions of those who have left recently, mostly in the aspect of the process around the math. The math itself, which is causing a lot of angst, is just a small part of the story and there's plenty of room to come together on this.
Click to expand...
Hmmm... That doesn't seem consistent with recent reports. The ITAC runs the process, recommends a weight, and the CRB publishes a different weight, with no documentation nor explanation. The CRB's weight, in many people's opinion, creates new inequities. So, the CRB does not accept the math, does not accept the procedures, does not support documenting their decisions, is unwilling to explain anything, and the result fails the smell test. Sounds pretty dismal to me.
 
JoshS said:
...It is much better due to the contributions of those who have left recently, mostly in the aspect of the process around the math. The math itself, which is causing a lot of angst, is just a small part of the story and there's plenty of room to come together on this.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, Josh, but the actual math is exactly *zero* of what I'm concerned about.

Now, was much of the angst among the CRB members and the few IT driver-members who voiced public objection to the "process" about the math, and about perceptions that the ITAC was "slave to the formula?" I think, YES. But that's only because they didn't - and still don't - understand the "process around the math," or what I call the Process with a capital P.

K
 
Knestis said:
and about perceptions that the ITAC was "slave to the formula?" I
Click to expand...

Hell yeah!! As a scientist I want the ITAC to be slave to a repeatable process and throw out the rules of thumbs, witchcraft, and sorcery used by the CRB to class cars and make comp adjustments. This is IT, not prod.

Josh, how much worse could things get?
 
Frustrating situation.

Maybe voting on the upcoming BoD election and participating in NASA events will send a message to the club heirarchy.
 
Andy,Kirk and Jake, Thank you for your service. There is no doubt in my mind that each of you placed the overall well being of IT above your personal agenda and that you each tried to uphold the core values and beliefs of your fellow IT racers. It is a shame that other's have forgotten that a CLUB serves its members and when it no longer serves its' members it is NO LONGER A CLUB.

Thank you for trying.

Jeff, please do not leave, at least not yet. We still need a sane voice as a member of the ITAC even if your voice echo's in the hollowness of the position...........

Paul
 
Andy B's resignation from ITAC is a real loss for Club Racing.

He and I have tangled over car weights in the past.
I am not the easiest person to convince, but Andy was always patient and entirely
diligent in the way he presented the procedures. Thank you Andy.

If ITAC efforts have just worn Andy out, I am not surprised.
My grumps and queries must have contributed.

I believe that the classification process is no longer working.
Not for lack of effort from ITAC and similar groups that hear from the car people.
These groups pass info, ideas and requests up to CRB and to BoD.

But somehow the decisions made high up don't seem to support the efforts of ITAC et cet.
No wonder Andy Bettencourt has resigned. Our Loss

When will SCCA create a classification process that is transparent , functional and easy to use??

Seems we are far from that.

Bill Miskoe
 
This has been a devastating year for the Sports Car Company of America. These recent resignations is the end that I never expected and truelly a set back to our organization. I wish Andy, Jake, Kirk, and all the others that have contributed the best of luck. I know that I have challenged and questioned the decision's this past year and all I can say is THANK-YOU for the time and dedication you gave. I am sorry it ended this way for all of you and I encourage you to do what I did... walk away from the drama, stay quite, and remember why you started in the first place. INMHO SCCA is a lost cause but it is all we have for now. This is for fun and entertainment.

RIP the real ITAC that tried, and listened to the members you will be remembered and appreciated for a long time.

Stephen Blethen
 
For the benefit of those of us less knowledgable with this issues, can someone talk about some of the specific reasons that drove the recent resignation?
 
With the appointment of Dick P to the BOD I had hope that we might be heading in the right direction for the 2010 season. With the resignation of Andy and Jake adding to the already listed resignations this isn't good news. I strongly encourage all those whom have the opportunity to vote in new BOD members to do so. Find more people like Dick P.

Also write letters to EVERYONE. Get the CRB replaced with people that will listen to member input like Andy, Jake, Kirk and others have done for years.

Raymond "what do we do now?" Blethen
 
A couple of points,
1st - Andy is a standup guy, always willing to listen, great chair, appreciated his effort

2nd - Maybe the problem is we've made IT too difficult to regulate based upon only 5 classes. Here's a suggestion, lets make 10 or more classes so we can cluster cars more closely in similar configuration and potentials. Face it, none of us are racing for money and the world won't care if your champion of ITA or ITA1. I think a lot of grief would be avoided if we weren't trying to equalize a 1.6 Del Sol with a 2.5l BMW or a 1.8 type r with a V8 stang. With all the levels of prep, and ability of drivers its just to hard. When I started racing in '84, there were maybe 20 cars classified in a total of 3 classes. After 26 years of adding cars to IT, maybe its just too hard to get it right.

Go crazy, make separate spec miata 1.6 and 1.8 classes. Its not like the SCCA is going to go broke giving out more plywood 1st place trophies. With more classes having more closely clustered cars, it allows more cars to be competitive. It also makes cheating more apparent and it makes any CRB adjustments affect fewer cars in any class so less outrage. Bottom line, there would be fewer cars on the forum for sale for peanuts just because nobody can presently make them competitive. If IT is supposed to be fun entry level racing, why not let as many people win as possible? If people have a problem with this diluted competition, don't forget its entry level racing, go ahead, run prod....
 
I'll make my response short and sweet as I in the midst of packing for a trip.

First, I too have to echo the sentiments of so many here in their appreciation for the efforts of the ITAC over the last several years. Andy, Kirk and Jake have been very public proponents of a transparent process and they will be sorely missed but I also have to express thanks to everyone on the committee that has been fighting the good fight and hope they can carry on.

Second, this is a disturbing trend that we are seeing such high turnover in the group and certainly bears some further understanding.

Finally, and the reason for my packing, is I am off to Las Vegas for the national convention where the CRB, BOD and National staff will all be in one location. I would imagine I won't be the only one looking for some information/answers.
 
Apprecaite the post, but totally disagree. This was not what is driving the issue, and having 20 classes with different multipliers, etc. would dilute fields, drive interest down and make our (the ITAC) life more difficult.

Bob Roth said:
A couple of points,
1st - Andy is a standup guy, always willing to listen, great chair, appreciated his effort

2nd - Maybe the problem is we've made IT too difficult to regulate based upon only 5 classes. Here's a suggestion, lets make 10 or more classes so we can cluster cars more closely in similar configuration and potentials. Face it, none of us are racing for money and the world won't care if your champion of ITA or ITA1. I think a lot of grief would be avoided if we weren't trying to equalize a 1.6 Del Sol with a 2.5l BMW or a 1.8 type r with a V8 stang. With all the levels of prep, and ability of drivers its just to hard. When I started racing in '84, there were maybe 20 cars classified in a total of 3 classes. After 26 years of adding cars to IT, maybe its just too hard to get it right.

Go crazy, make separate spec miata 1.6 and 1.8 classes. Its not like the SCCA is going to go broke giving out more plywood 1st place trophies. With more classes having more closely clustered cars, it allows more cars to be competitive. It also makes cheating more apparent and it makes any CRB adjustments affect fewer cars in any class so less outrage. Bottom line, there would be fewer cars on the forum for sale for peanuts just because nobody can presently make them competitive. If IT is supposed to be fun entry level racing, why not let as many people win as possible? If people have a problem with this diluted competition, don't forget its entry level racing, go ahead, run prod....
Click to expand...
 
Ron Earp said:
... [the CRB] doesn't want the repeatable hp basis process, and is against transparency ...
Click to expand...

See, the problem is that everyone is taking these clear, black & white statements as true, but the world is just not that black & white.

Let's let this simmer down for a few days, please. I, for one, would rather try to be part of the solution, not the problem, and all of this rhetoric isn't helping ANYONE.
 
Matt Rowe said:
Finally, and the reason for my packing, is I am off to Las Vegas for the national convention where the CRB, BOD and National staff will all be in one location. I would imagine I won't be the only one looking for some information/answers.
Click to expand...

I'm going to go out on a limb, and say, depending on how "in" you are will determine the answer. I think that some of the CRB feel we got "too big for our britches" and "went off the reservation" with some of our process based recommendations.

I can see that on a couple cars. They appeared to be "in the mix competition-wise", but they were underweight when the numbers were run. We probably made an error in recommending them at the process weight, and should have tabled it to explore them more closely, to dig further past the basic assumptions. Frankly, I thought we'd get a "Really guys? Can you dig deeper and do some research on this one" from the CRB if there was an issue.

Instead, the recommendation and others that were in line but related were put in a kind of limbo.

What came out of that period was the ITAC rolling out the 9 month polishing up of the process ("V.2.0")(see RRAX for an interesting discussion regarding that) and the converging distaste of the Process by the CRB. During that time we then were "shut down" on all such weight changes, being told that it was against the rules, then a month after I had drafted "thankyou for your input but the ITAC is not able to make changes to cars classed for more than etc etc" verbiage, (which never hit Fastrack) we were told that we should look at some of the cars we had just 'deprocessed".

I think that the two events became inter related, and the confluence caused the CRB to 'check up" and they felt that the "old school way" was the better option. The Process V2 tightened things up in ways, but was more open to outside evidence. it required a committee sign off to use though. The ITAC was strongly in favor of documentation, and every step through the procedure was voted on and roll calls were documented. We felt that having such standards would head off fears of the members that insiders could 'game' the system. On the other hand, the CRb was staring at a couple recommendations the "just seemed wrong". So the comfort zone was the old ways.

Now, if you are not in the "in" I suspect the answer will be more along the lines of: that we insisted on a too tightly structured process that had too little flexibility, and they thought it flat didn't work in rare cases, and could endanger class equity. That we didn't consider displacement, and that we based it on stock hp. And that we thought it had resolution down to 10 pounds.

We felt it had loopbacks to handle the situations that were unique, and that our members clearly wanted repeatable and transparent weight setting, and that if we ran the numbers on a car that resulted in a minor weight change, we just went with it, so that it would be in line from there on out. We also wanted "born on dating" in the GCR, but never got to that point...never even proposed it. And some of us wanted to publish it. (the process) I think that would have required a culture change though.

I could be wrong, but I think that presents both sides.
 
JoshS said:
See, the problem is that everyone is taking these clear, black & white statements as true, but the world is just not that black & white.

Let's let this simmer down for a few days, please. I, for one, would rather try to be part of the solution, not the problem, and all of this rhetoric isn't helping ANYONE.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ.

The weights on the newly classified cars are not repeatable.
The reason for the weights are not transparent and the CRB went out of their way to hide information.
Members of the ITAC are being told to choke the free flow of information by the CRB.

Repeatability and transparency is like virginity - it's a binary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top