SCCA National Convention

Guys, step back and take a look at the big picture. The club has many issues to deal with, IT and this "process debate" is just one of many. I know you guys have tons of time and emotional ties wired into this issue. I am pretty sure that the CRB folks understand that too. But still this issue is just one of many so as crazy important as it is to the resident message board crowd, it may take a while to get things sorted out. As far as open discussion on message boards, that can be good and bad. People say things on boards that they would never say in person. Or their message comes across with a negative or positive connotation when it is not meant that way. So I can see why a committee working on an issue would not publish every comment / view on things discussed.
I would like to find out from Kevin or Jerry what sort of response they got in discussion with the CRB members they talked with. Was it IT positive / negative? Meaning has this message board group discussion (and sometimes personal attacks) soured the CRB on the IT issues or the group pushing the process agenda...or is their a willingness to see the issue with merit and overlook all the personal "lynch mob" crap that has been going on since back in the summer? A read on that is almost as important as the issue itself. Another bit of feedback from the CRB which is important here is: Do they (the CRB members) feel that the message board crowd is the "actual" voice of the (IT) people? That is a pretty important aspect of this whole thing too. Lots of folks refuse to get sucked in to this type of discussion but are still very interested in IT. Those people pay their dues and entry fees and count the same as us prolific typers. I hope that Kevin and Jerry got a good feeling from their discussions...at least as far as the CRB being positive towards IT.
 
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.
 
IPRESS said:
.......Meaning has this message board group discussion (and sometimes personal attacks) soured the CRB on the IT issues or the group pushing the process agenda...or is their a willingness to see the issue with merit and overlook all the personal "lynch mob" crap that has been going on since back in the summer? A read on that is almost as important as the issue itself.
Click to expand...

Mac, good points and I respect them. But I differ from you here. The issue is the issue is the issue. I've had conversations with people, gotten emails and had people slander me on the boards...but that's irrelevant. Just because somebody thinks I'm a dick it doesn't change the issue. I MUST look at the issue, and decide it's marits, regardless of what people are calling me. (You might not remember the E36 slander that we took, Andy especially..I WISH I had 1/10th of the "madza money" that I was reported to get...)

Another bit of feedback from the CRB which is important here is: Do they (the CRB members) feel that the message board crowd is the "actual" voice of the (IT) people?
Click to expand...
From my discussions with them, there is a disdain for the boards, and the opinions that emanate. (Rucks comments support this) The CRB has told me numerous times that the boards do NOT, in their eyes reflect the popular positions. And that's a fine position to take, but, when I ask for the evidence, all I get is,...at best..."Well, this one guy I know thinks that things are .XYZ.". Mac, you know I travel ALL over the country. people talk to me. I can provide lots of data points, and they line up with the forum position very well on this issue.
That is a pretty important aspect of this whole thing too. Lots of folks refuse to get sucked in to this type of discussion but are still very interested in IT. Those people pay their dues and entry fees and count the same as us prolific typers. I hope that Kevin and Jerry got a good feeling from their discussions...at least as far as the CRB being positive towards IT.
Click to expand...

Mac, how are we supposed to count a 'vote' from a 'non prolific' type?
People who don't write in can not write in for a multitude of reasons.
-They don't have time
-They think it's a lost cause
-They think the PTB will do what they want anyway
-Their 'world" is fine right now.
-Their personal position is actually advantageous, and they worry that that could be lost in an action that the masses support.
- They aren't that involved and don't really care.
-They don't understand the issue, and are intimidated by the prospect of trying .

Many of those positions reflect differing views if we were to assign values to them, so taking the stand that the 'silent majority' is fine with it, or they'd be making their opinions known lacks logic.

Further, the input they have gotten is massively one voice.

I don't doubt that the CRB is positive to IT. What I have issues with is the recent change in the support of the core principals that the members hold as cornerstones.

Four members leaving, one a PHD in policy, and two others who have been on for 5 years, indicates something is definitely 'up'.

Philosophies and principals count.
 
gran racing said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
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.
 
"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
 
IPRESS said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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!:D) 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.
 
IPRESS said:
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!:D) 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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
This...

Andy what DID you guys do when a car going through the process just didn't work out?
Click to expand...

I realize that within the process, there were ways to adjust things if it didn't fit into the straight equasion. I was thinking that providing Mac some background would help explain how the process has flexiblity. "Not working out" is probably the correct term for it, but from what I understand an exception % gain was used (and rightfully so). Just thinking of an example which might help Mac and the CRB understand it better.
 
gran racing said:
This...



I realize that within the process, there were ways to adjust things if it didn't fit into the straight equasion. I was thinking that providing Mac some background would help explain how the process has flexiblity. "Not working out" is probably the correct term for it, but from what I understand an exception % gain was used (and rightfully so). Just thinking of an example which might help Mac and the CRB understand it better.
Click to expand...

Gotcha Dave. And that uncovers a very common misconception with the Process. Some people can't seem to understand that is is NOT a formula. The S2000 was classed at 15% because conventional thought processes told us that a NA 2.0 with a specific output of 120hp per liter could not make 25% gains with whay we are allowed to do. The same dynamics allow the ITAC to make other estimates other than the 25% that is used as a baseline.

So again, it's not that the Process didn't work out for the S2000, the Process actually WORKS for the S2000. Its dynamic, not ridged. Just because we use 25% as a baseline for first consideration when there is no data on the table, doesn't mean at all that is what we end up using.
 
Last edited:
To further the thought process, cars like the S2000 are obviously unique. Research has been done to arrive at the 15% estimate. Classing it at a rigid 25% would be silly, and would be like not classing it at all. Nobody with an ounce of common sense would spend the time and money to build a car that would be so overweight.

If a car like that were to have rolled into the ITAC late this summer, it would have been tabled, and a member or members of the ITAC would have conducted research. They would bring their findings and evidence back to the meeting, and the entire ITAC would have reviewed, challenged, and ultimately voted their confidence, person by person on that presentation of evidence. If the vote showed high confidence across the board, the multiplier would be used to then run in the process. After that normal adders would be reviewed and calculated, and a race weight determined.

Within the System, there are procedures on what to do when strange things like that pop up. Cars with multiple HP ratings, cars with odd engine architecture, cars that are know to make less than advertised power, etc. Those procedures exist so the Process can remain flexible, but be applied in a consistent, repeatable and transparent manner.
 
This is the one part of this whole equation that bothers me with the CRB and ITAC. In the end everyone in the 2 groups seems to agree on the FWD/RWD adders, the suspension adders, and for the most part the gutless torque subtractors. Why then is it so hard to come together on the HP equation. The CRB wants to use displacement,Valve size, etc to determine HP potential. The ITAC wants to use stock hp times the "expected" gain in IT trim to arrive at hopefully the same number. Both methods have the same places for "educated input" in the classing so have the same level of subjective wiggle room. In the end we could use either if you get to the same number and it is fair and published. Car X is expected to make *** HP in IT trim and then run the rest of the process as usual. Just a suggestion.
 
Steve, I haven't heard anything about valve size in the discussions. I actually do think that's a place to look, when choosing a car, BUT, even it is full of exceptions.

The CRB has just recently drawn it's line in the sand at displacement. But recent history shows inconsistent application of even just that:
-The BMW 528e recommendation we made was to place it in ITB. We have great intel on that engine, and we know it can't hit ITA weight. The CRB rejected the recommendation, stating that the engine displacement was too big for ITB. So, it will have to race overweight in ITA. What's the over/under on the letter from that owner requesting lexan windows? ;)
-Conversely, they rejected the weight of the MR2 variants, and assigned them higher weights, even though their 1600cc size is nothing out of the norm for the class.

Even combining displacement and valve size won't, I think, net you a more accurate gauge of gains in IT trim, because it ignores/assumes all cams, intakes, and heads are equally efficient.

While it's certainly not dead accurate, it is felt that for IT, that stock hp actually reflects those variables, and is a better place to start.
 
gran racing said:
If they are going to post it and run, why choose that media to post the information? Doesn't make sense to me. An article in Sportscar (ooooh, that might let other people in categories know IT racers are annoyed), an e-mail using that group thing they developed, fastrack... Just find it interesting but at least it's a step towards actually communicating. Oh the irony. They complain about people discussing it on chat forums and that's where they'll post their response.
Click to expand...

Believe me Dave, that irony was not lost on me! :D

I also find it funny that they have such disdain for these message boards, but seem to forget that these message boards played a pretty large part in getting the ITR thing put together.

Jeff (Lawton),

While I love that quote, and it gave me a chuckle as well, I think a more poignant one is:

"Seven years of college down the drain"
 
Bill Miller said:
Believe me Dave, that irony was not lost on me! :D

I also find it funny that they have such disdain for these message boards, but seem to forget that these message boards played a pretty large part in getting the ITR thing put together.

Jeff (Lawton),

While I love that quote, and it gave me a chuckle as well, I think a more poignant one is:

"Seven years of college down the drain"
Click to expand...

heck if it weren't for IT.com, and our host, IT would NOT be where it is today. No doubt in my mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top