My note to the CRB, BoD, and Terry Ozment (cross-posted from "Where the cool kids hang out"). And Andy, I'd STILL like to shake your hand some day...
= = = = = = = =
Fellow Members,
Since I don’t drive an IT car I was going to stay out of any discussion regarding the different viewpoints between the CRB and ITAC, but then I realized I’m the Competition Director for the region that hosts arguably the biggest Improved Touring race in the country (the ARRC by GRM). As such, I very much have a vested interest in the continued health of the IT category.
While I’m tempted to write “what Ron Earp said”, I’ll expand on that.
At the risk of oversimplification, my impression is the CRB wants to use on-track performance and “back room discussions” to assign weights to cars while the (former) ITAC wants to use a repeatable, published method to produce those numbers. In addition, the CRB is concerned about using factory horsepower ratings as a starting point to assign weights.
From my experience working closely with the IT community over the past five years:
• A majority of them (Ron says 80%, and I’ll not argue with that) really don’t care how weights are calculated; they just want the numbers to be (a) achievable and (b) relatively stable. They want to run what they already have and have a good time. For them, either philosophy is acceptable if it meets those criteria.
• Of the remainder, I truly believe the majority (included the recently retired members of the ITAC) want a published, repeatable, and consistent (i.e. – “fair”) method of determining what each configuration should weigh. These are the “serious” racers who will consider multiple platforms, run all of them through the process, and determine which direction to go based on their goals and the tracks they normally race on.
• I further believe that many of the criticisms about our club arise because decisions are NOT adequately explained to the membership. Reasonable people certainly can disagree, but if I openly explain the way I arrived at a decision then you can (a) agree with it or (b) point out facts that I might have missed and/or suggest flaws in my reasoning process. If I simply say “because I said so”, black helicopter theories abound. And as Jake Gulick has said many times, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”
• While manufacturer horsepower numbers can certainly be suspect, there exists within the proposed ITAC Process (capital “P”) ways to handle that. Rather than just spitting out a number that cannot be contested, there are multiple steps within the Process where numbers are examined for reasonableness (i.e. – reviewed based on “what we know”). And yes, some of “what we know” is based on a car’s observed performance at the ARRC.
In summary, a LOT of work by a lot of people that live and breathe IT went into the latest iteration of the Process. Earlier versions helped eliminate the BMW overdog that was killing participation in ITS and from my viewpoint IT has never been healthier than it is today. Tweak the Process if you wish, but let the ITAC finish their work in doing what the majority of the caring IT community really wants to have done.
Thank you for your consideration…
Butch Kummer
Former SCCA Director of Club Racing (July 2012 - Sept 2014)
2006, 2007, 2010 SARRC GTA Champion
Bookmarks