So a combination of being out of town for work and letting the dust settle has had me pretty silent on the topic. Thanks to all who have shown support for the committee. Many ITAC member have given their persepctive, here is mine:

I hate seperating the Process into 2 'generations' like there was some sort of massive revamp. Simply not true. Other than moving from a fixed number for the FWD 'adder' to a %, the 'use 25% unless we actually know something', and the elimination of the transmission ratio and the generic 'other' adder, the base process was unchanged. I have a feeling the CRB really misses this point. It took us 6 months to get to where we got to. Lots of that time was used bouncing around many ideas that never got adopted like complex ways to try and do a torque adder and debating the merits of the computer modeling that we saw on how much and when does FWD come into play.

What was ADDED however, which also took a long time - because it's easy to DO but not easy to WRITE DOWN, what the proceedural documentation and the boundries for evidentiary standards. What we wanted to do was write this sucker down so it could be shown to anyone at any time - but ESPECIALLY a new committee member.

So we changed a couple WAYS of doing what we always did and we defined everything. We took out the slop. We made it neccesary to go on record and bring evidence to the table (that was voted on for acceptance) if there was something outside the norm (know what we know). It's like in grammer school when you had a test question and you just wrote down the answer because you knew it...but in a seperate section you had to SHOW YOUR WORK. This way the teacher knows you not only know the answer but knows that you know the concept and can get from A to B without any issues. When you show your work, you sometimes find that your initial answer was wrong - and you get a chance to fix it before you turn your paper in. You also have proven to your teacher that you probably didn't cheat.

New Process or old Process I will say this. Not even half of the CRB knew anything about it - EVER. We have 3 CRB members on virtually every call. They carried the torch to the CRB calls and since there are always more pressing issues in the SCCA-dom, I am 100% confident that the CRB rubber-stamped the then ITAC recommendations based on a nod from the liasons ok...because again, they knew NOTHING about the Process, trusted the other members, and knew nothing was really broken.

What really happened to set this in motion was a perfect storm of sorts.

  • Since the CRB operates mostly in a 'competition adjustment' and a 'let's take 100lbs off of it and see what happens' world, this is non-SOP stuff
  • When we defined everything, took out the slop and wanted to pin it down, they considered that to be too 'inflexible'
  • They are now looking at on-track performance as a much more serious 'gut check' than ever before. I have heard things like "We had one a few years back down here that was a rocket", "At that weight, it would ruin ITx", "Back when those cars were in SSx, they ran together fine", etc.
  • Ways of classing cars in other classes have crept into the CRB's heads as it pertains to IT. Displacement is a huge one.
  • Stock hp is suddenly so taboo we can't even talk about it. It has been at the very start of the process since day 1. Interestingly, it isn't really a 'product' we use in the calculation, just a starting point (estimated crank hp in IT prep is the number - and it is subjective, inexact and fixable should an issue occur)
So I am quick to point out that the Process has not created any true overdogs over the past years. The reasonable rebuttle to that is simple: What if the 1988 CRX was new today and you used the Process to class it. What would happen? Simple:

Since we live in a tuner, internet board and dyno age, we would already KNOW that the 108hp rating was BS. Stock whp was right in the 103-105 range. Not knowing anything, we would have backed that out to about 123 crank hp. Add 25% to that, run it through the rest of the set of checks and balances and you get a ITA racing weight of 2240lbs. Just 10lbs from where it is today using real dyno data. Lucky? Maybe. But we think we had a way to account for things like this in the estimations.

So again, the Process isn't exact. It can never be. But what it can be is documented, based in real data and transparent. I STILL submit that the majority if IT drivers would rather see an ITCS that makes sense and is 'equally wrong' than a cluster-fark of classifications that span the decades of techniques and methods - most of which have no historical backup.

In the end for me, the CRB not only disliked what were were doing from a 'slop removal' perspective but also was injecting influences into the consideration package like 'similar architecture, displacement and on-track results' that I personally was not comfortable with moving forward. I have always stood by the Process with a simple motto: "We know it's not exact, it will never be exact but as long as it's inexact the same for everyone, we can live with that because we are not trying to balance everyone on the head of a pin like other classes.". I have always solicited other ideas for classing cars and have been open to explain how we did it. 99% of the time, once it was explained, people got it. I look at NASA's PT rules every year hoping to see something I didn't before that can help me do better but that hasn't happened yet.

I really enjoyed my time on the committee and an very proud of what we had done. Darin got us 3/4 of the way there way back when and I though Kirk worked the last 1/4 really well. I just carried the bag for a few years. I am not opposed to going back on the committee at some time, but not under the current thought processes. Only because they don't mesh with mine and I have gone from positive influencer to detrimental roadblock. It's been about a 3 month decision process for me and it was time.

Thanks again.