SCCA National Convention

[924Guy]

As I said on the sandbox, don't be disappointed if we don't get everything we wanted and hoped for first time 'round. Persistence and focus will win. If at first you don't succeed - Club Racing may not be for you.

The subject of the lack of discussion/debate expected or allowed on the official SCCA forums is a good one. A few points, from my point of view...

1) It's appropriate to have any such communication occur there, since those are the official forums. Almost like it's a legal or club rules requirement. That's OK.

2) Board members have already shown up on these forums sharing input, officially or not. They have shown they're willing to share viewpoints here. I would say it's safe to expect a continued presence, now that they know we're here and talking about 'em.

3) If they don't like discussion there, and won't accept any further input... then what, we're done??? Is that what we said when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!?

Really, like we're that disingenious? Of course not! We will, by our very nature, continue to talk about them, behind or in front of their backs! They will have every opportunity, like it or not, to participate in those discussions!

If they choose not to participate, and pursue a policy path that is not in line with what we like - well, then, we have to get their attention again, no? Letters seem to work pretty well, based on the response so far! Why not continue to correspond with them?

If we turn around and walk away after the first period, do we have anyone else than ourselves to blame??

Final note: If we're concerned that the board members will not be interested in joining us in discussion about the future of IT - should we not do everything we can to make them welcome in the discussions??? I think the first step towards that is to be open-minded, considerate, and respectful. Name calling, slander, abuse, etc - fine, do those all you want, just don't expect anything more than a response in kind (if at all). Remember, you catch more flies with honey...

[gran racing]

This is far from being the first period, unless people haven't been following things and didn't communicate with the CRB / BOD previously. End of the fourth, tied and ready for a coin toss? Maybe. lol The use, implimentation, and member feedback has been going on for quite some time. There's also a point in time where people will become fed up with things (such as happened with several ITAC members). Doesn't mean people don't care, but choose to put their time, energy, and maybe $$$ elsewhere.

[924Guy]

This is far from being the first period, unless people haven't been following things and didn't communicate with the CRB / BOD previously. End of the fourth, tied and ready for a coin toss? Maybe. lol The use, implimentation, and member feedback has been going on for quite some time. There's also a point in time where people will become fed up with things (such as happened with several ITAC members). Doesn't mean people don't care, but choose to put their time, energy, and maybe $$$ elsewhere.

Good point, fair enough.

I'm of course coming from a slightly different angle here, myself; while I am interested in the future of IT, and am active online, I'm not quite as into it as some of the really obtuse daily discussions that happen here and elsewhere.

Maybe the best reply is, it's time for you guys who have been shouldering that burden to do exactly as you have - communicate the situation to the rest of us, and let this raucous minority become a wave of overwhelming support to carry you along, when you've lost momentum.

Like I say - I think that is what you guys have done effectively, even if you don't realize it, and I think we are starting now to get noticed. You may think it's too late, because you personally can't stand being the only ones who care anymore, but maybe it's just time for the rest of us who've been standing around in back to pick up that bullhorn and start making noise.

Seems to me like the noise level to the CRB and BOD is growing, not diminishing...

[JLawton]

Is that what we said when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!?

Nice reference!!!! Yup, you had me laughin' with that one!!!



OK, back to our serious discussion...........



.

[IPRESS]

Jake I understand where you are coming from...I really do. The part I was trying to bring out is, some of the ITAC & the CRB became at odds. Some of the ITAC involved the message boards to bring a portion of public opinion into the fray. Might be the biggest portion I don't know.... but that said, I can see where the CRB could get just as frustrated get fed up with ITAC actions. It became a no win on both sides as far as I can tell, because the CRB doubts the validity of what you guys consider one of the core aspects (stock HP). I don't know if that can be worked out or not, but it would be good for IT if it can be. hopefully both sides of the issue will keep working at it.

[jhooten]

"We don't like the word process" when use in the classification of IT cars.
"We don't want to publish a formula" because years later someone will plug in a set of numbers and say SEE YOU GOT MY CAR WRONG.

They made it clear they did not want sunshine on the non-process of classing cars in IT.

On making a smoother transition from IT to Prod the implied response was it wasn't needed, if you want to run national races you can run your IT car in STU. I told them the plans were in the works to the IT/STU ghetto paddock area and IT would do its best to make STU the biggest class at the runoffs. You guys have to help me make it happen

[R2 Racing]

Damn, this turned into another one of "those" threads.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Jake I understand where you are coming from...I really do. The part I was trying to bring out is, some of the ITAC & the CRB became at odds. Some of the ITAC involved the message boards to bring a portion of public opinion into the fray. Might be the biggest portion I don't know.... but that said, I can see where the CRB could get just as frustrated get fed up with ITAC actions. It became a no win on both sides as far as I can tell, because the CRB doubts the validity of what you guys consider one of the core aspects (stock HP). I don't know if that can be worked out or not, but it would be good for IT if it can be. hopefully both sides of the issue will keep working at it.

Mac,

I have tried to stay away from your posts because you obviously have contact with a CRB member. You only get one side.

The problem isn't that the CRB doubts the stock hp aspect of the process. The problem is two-fold in my mind. First, we have been 'doing it that way' for 5+ years. Why the change? Second, we are STILL able to use it without issue for new classifications. Really?

All I ever wanted was consistant direction, philosophies and application. I have lost some of that and that is why I needed to make room for others. There is NO DOUBT in my mind that everyone involved wants what is best for IT and the SCCA. We just may have different ways of getting there.

[IPRESS]

Andy, I don't disagree with anything you posted. (other than one CRB person... I talk with three of them sometimes, but that isn't important.) I just want to see movement on the issue instead of a stalemate.
This is a question for no particular car, just informational.
Andy what DID you guys do when a car going through the process just didn't work out?
(I am sure it has been covered before, but I ask you because you usually are good about repeating with out malice!) If I am going to talk with CRB persons about it I would like to be sure of this part of things.
Thanks, and I am trying to be more open to this, but not sure democracy works in running a race group.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy what DID you guys do when a car going through the process just didn't work out?
(I am sure it has been covered before, but I ask you because you usually are good about repeating with out malice!) If I am going to talk with CRB persons about it I would like to be sure of this part of things.
Thanks, and I am trying to be more open to this, but not sure democracy works in running a race group.

Well if you could maybe give me a car to tell you the history on, I will. I can't think of a car that went through the process ended up 'not working out' - REALLY. Previous monster overdogs like the CRX were all fixed VIA the process, not created by it. That is one of the curious things about this whole issue. IT people know that all we are trying to do is get cars CLOSE - and they accept that some may be better than others in small ways.

To talk conceptually, we would see a car that was classed start to 'run off the front' (to use a CRB term). Because we have NO WAY of quantifying why, we start to dig around for errors in the inputs to the process. More than likely, it was an error in the estimated power it could make in IT trim. A 5% error might not create a dog like this but 10% might. So if we could validate that the power estimate was indeed a mistake, we would document that new power level, vote on it and place it into the process for a new weight - then make that recomendation per the PCA clause in the ITCS.

The key here is that it is all based in SOMETHING concrete. Not "lets add 100lbs and evaluate" like is done in the other classes. I hold firm to the concept that in IT, with all our types of cars, drivetrain layouts, suspension designs, prep levels, driver skillsets, etc...that you will never be able to assign weight based on lap times. It's a 'trigger' to look at something that was an error, but not something that should be micromanaged.

Sorry if that doesn't answer...how can I be more specific? I will try.

[gran racing]

Would the S2000 fit into that category?