What's going on with IT and the CRB?

[Andy Bettencourt]

The more I type, the more I am sure I will never get invited to get back on the ITAC (which I would love to do) but I have to make sure that the facts are represented properly - or at least from both sides. When words like 'ego' and 'unwillingness' pop up, it just shows a total disconnect from reality.

And to reiterate, when the 'shift in direction' happened (not allowing us to run current listing through the process to correct them to current standards) some of us didn't like that. But I opened up a con call by asking the CRB to tell us what they wanted us to do, and we will do it. The result was Decembers Fast Track full of answers that were 'classed appropriately'. Then the next time IT got some ink was February. They let the ITAC run The 320i and 325 (E30) through.

I personally don't care what math makes up the Process, as long as it can be repeatable, makes sense to everyone and is applied consistantly. Is that really such a big deal?

My only regret is that we couldn't see this to it's end. Like I said earlier, I am sure they will come to a compromise and we have two great guys who post here who are sticking it out. For me, I didn't shoot my way out of town, I just let them know that they had strayed from what we were chartered to do years ago, had been doing successfully and I couldn't wrap my head around what was going on so I needed to make room for members who were more on board. I posted a request for them to write down what they wanted us to do so we could be on board, and they never did.

[JoshS]

Guys, I'm still on the ITAC and I can assure you that we won't be dropping stock horsepower, nor using displacement as the basis for weights.

Please be patient, I think we won't really have details to share until our next meeting at the end of this month, but I have personally talked to members of the CRB and I would not expect much to change. If anything, we'll try to spend a lot less time managing weights and a lot more time trying to manage the ruleset in order to stay current while not upsetting the existing applecart.

I just can't give you all of the specifics right now, because I don't have them. I have my own goals and plans and proposed approach but we need to really get together as a team and work it out.

If anyone wants to talk to me directly about it, please feel free to contact me by e-mail or phone. You can contact me through the forum or my contact info is available through the SCCA website.

Andy, give me a call ...

[JeffYoung]

Ditto.

Guys, I'm still on the ITAC and I can assure you that we won't be dropping stock horsepower, nor using displacement as the basis for weights.

Please be patient, I think we won't really have details to share until our next meeting at the end of this month, but I have personally talked to members of the CRB and I would not expect much to change. If anything, we'll try to spend a lot less time managing weights and a lot more time trying to manage the ruleset in order to stay current while not upsetting the existing applecart.

I just can't give you all of the specifics right now, because I don't have them. I have my own goals and plans and proposed approach but we need to really get together as a team and work it out.

If anyone wants to talk to me directly about it, please feel free to contact me by e-mail or phone. You can contact me through the forum or my contact info is available through the SCCA website.

Andy, give me a call ...

[IPRESS]

Josh / Jeff stay with it. You guys can do some good.
All this constant moaning about what went on or didn't go on or he thought and they thought counts for squat right now. If you guys can work WITH the Powers That Be I feel pretty confident that the vocal bunch on here will get most of.... if not all... of what they want. The Lynch Mob rhetoric does little if not hurt the position taken by that side. It just comes across as sour grapes. The act of Andy and Jake quitting (not discounting ya Jake, but really Andy quitting the ITAC) made that sides point. Continued "hang the bastards" postings just make the issue less serious. The Powers That Be know well the position of IT racers from the message boards. Hopefully the missed classed cars will get fixed in due time.
Also, I want the ITAC / CRB / BOD to act in the best interest of IT no matter what I or others say or type. Josh / Jeff, I ask you to do what you think is best with what you know. Contrary to the popular idea on here, I do not think the membership is your BOSS. The membership elects the people to run the association, after that I think it is OK for those people to do the best they can even if the majority of folks differ with how they do it. Basically you don't need our OK.

[RedMisted]

Contrary to the popular idea on here, I do not think the membership is your BOSS. The membership elects the people to run the association, after that I think it is OK for those people to do the best they can even if the majority of folks differ with how they do it. Basically you don't need our OK.

No, I'm sorry. I am in strong disagreement with your statement. This is a CLUB. It exists by, of, and for the members. If the elected leadership doesn't follow the wishes of the membership, then the latter has the option of throwing out the former and electing new leaders.

It's also how things are done in a democratic society.

[Ron Earp]

Contrary to the popular idea on here, I do not think the membership is your BOSS.

I respect your opinion, but I disagree with it. As others have stated, the club is by the members for the members. The ITAC should be there to make the wishes of the membership known and to champion those desires, as well as keeping the health of IT at the forefront of their actions.

[Knestis]

Josh / Jeff stay with it. You guys can do some good.
All this constant moaning about what went on or didn't go on or he thought and they thought counts for squat right now. If you guys can work WITH the Powers That Be I feel pretty confident that the vocal bunch on here will get most of.... if not all... of what they want. The Lynch Mob rhetoric does little if not hurt the position taken by that side. It just comes across as sour grapes. The act of Andy and Jake quitting (not discounting ya Jake, but really Andy quitting the ITAC) made that sides point. Continued "hang the bastards" postings just make the issue less serious. The Powers That Be know well the position of IT racers from the message boards. Hopefully the missed classed cars will get fixed in due time.
Also, I want the ITAC / CRB / BOD to act in the best interest of IT no matter what I or others say or type. Josh / Jeff, I ask you to do what you think is best with what you know. Contrary to the popular idea on here, I do not think the membership is your BOSS. The membership elects the people to run the association, after that I think it is OK for those people to do the best they can even if the majority of folks differ with how they do it. Basically you don't need our OK.

Cut to the short version, Mac: You are happy with the status quo of how cars are currently classed and spec'd, so you like the "system."

Some of us are not at all happy about either.

K

[IPRESS]

Cutting to the chase.
I am happy now...... and was also happy back when all you guys were working on the ITAC. I really see the points you guys were trying to get across. I do think that they will get across. This isn't from any "inside info" or anything else, just my opinion. From the little info I have heard from here and other spots, the ITAC & the CRB came to a spot that was blocking the road. Maybe Josh, Jeff, Peter, and the rest can figure out a way to unblock the road. I became more supportive of you guys side when it became clear to me that the process allowed for common sense to be used when a car didn't fit the norm.

[gran racing]

i think the displacment of the CRB is the best idea yet!

That was really funny Tom. LOL

If they truly are busy with some serious issues... why can't they tell us that themselves???

Because for the most part, SCCA falls flat on their face when it comes to communicating which continues to be a major problem.

Please be patient, I think we won't really have details to share until our next meeting at the end of this month, but I have personally talked to members of the CRB and I would not expect much to change. If anything, we'll try to spend a lot less time managing weights and a lot more time trying to manage the ruleset in order to stay current while not upsetting the existing applecart.

The positive thing is the CRB has lowered our expectations enough that we certainly don't expect much of a change.

I'm starting to feel like this whole thing is a joke and it's time to start playing the system.

[924Guy]

Quick update, pinged Mr. Wannarka this AM and got a quick reply; sure enough, some manufacturer's been giving 'em fits, as Butch pointed out, but he'll look into it all the same...

[Knestis]

Quick update, pinged Mr. Wannarka this AM and got a quick reply; sure enough, some manufacturer's been giving 'em fits, as Butch pointed out, but he'll look into it all the same...

SO, the Board is being responsive to - or reacting to, anyway - a manufacturer rather than the membership.

...Being a Steward that is active in IT racing I'm sure you're aware that such an action would require a rule change (current rule below) and would have to go through the rule change process. *It would also require that all cars go through the same procedure since it would be unfair to adjust some cars and not all.

????

Congratulations, Bob - You've just demonstrated to me where the problem is. What utter bullshit. As Jake correctly points out, they are quite literally changing the rules - and invoking them with their heels dug REGARDLESS of which way they are leaning - based on what they want the result to be.

Oh, yeah - we don't have ANYTHING to worry about. It'll all be JUST fine.

Where's our paddock lawyer? Does anyone know of an instance where the CRB has been formally protested for violation of the GCR? The BMW weight change is clearly illegal.

K

[Greg Amy]

Does anyone know of an instance where the CRB has been formally protested for violation of the GCR?

I was preparing one after the spherical suspension bushings rule change, but I was told that I'd be "wasting my time". - GA

[quadzjr]

Please be patient, I think we won't really have details to share until our next meeting at the end of this month, but I have personally talked to members of the CRB and I would not expect much to change. If anything, we'll try to spend a lot less time managing weights and a lot more time trying to manage the ruleset in order to stay current while not upsetting the existing applecart.

Be patient for nothing to happen?? what? We have been waiting for an answer of how or why.. neither has come our way, atleast from what I have read.

what rule set are you trying to manage?

"If anything, we'll try to spend a lot less time managing weights and a lot more time trying to manage the ruleset in order to stay current while not upsetting the existing applecart."

I don't see how you can do one without affecting the other??

Teh feeling I am getting is that even though the ITAC has alot of support from members like myself, the ITAC is banging their heads agasint the wall, or told to pound sand when their opinion is different from the the rule makers. I would feel so hopeless if I were on the ITAC. I am aksed to do something, I do it, turn it in for review, and they completely re-do what I have done.

[JoshS]

Also, I want the ITAC / CRB / BOD to act in the best interest of IT no matter what I or others say or type. Josh / Jeff, I ask you to do what you think is best with what you know. Contrary to the popular idea on here, I do not think the membership is your BOSS. The membership elects the people to run the association, after that I think it is OK for those people to do the best they can even if the majority of folks differ with how they do it. Basically you don't need our OK.

Thanks for that Mac!

Be patient for nothing to happen?? what? We have been waiting for an answer of how or why.. neither has come our way, atleast from what I have read.

Take a deep breath ... breathe ... breathe ...

Something will happen, namely, we'll continue to class new cars, change the weights of misclassed old cars, and maintain the ruleset (allowances) in an evolutionary fashion to keep IT from turning into vintage.

what rule set are you trying to manage?

The IT allowances ... not sure I get the question.

Teh feeling I am getting is that even though the ITAC has alot of support from members like myself, the ITAC is banging their heads agasint the wall, or told to pound sand when their opinion is different from the the rule makers. I would feel so hopeless if I were on the ITAC. I am aksed to do something, I do it, turn it in for review, and they completely re-do what I have done.

It's not that bad. We're banging our heads against the wall but it turns out that if we move one step to the side, we can walk right through the door. It's far from hopeless.

[RSTPerformance]

Thanks for that Mac!



Take a deep breath ... breathe ... breathe ...

Something will happen, namely, we'll continue to class new cars, change the weights of misclassed old cars, and maintain the ruleset (allowances) in an evolutionary fashion to keep IT from turning into vintage.

Are you saying that I should send in a new request for the review of the Audi Coupe GT and the Golf III in ITB? The only thing I was told after the year it took the CRB to find something in the GCR to hide behind was that it was against the rules. You are saying the CRB has changed its mind again and will at least give an honest review of the weights of old cars???

Raymond "Thank you Josh for communicating my recent requests on e-mail, you are to date being very responsive" Blethen

[Andy Bettencourt]

Are you saying that I should send in a new request for the review of the Audi Coupe GT and the Golf III in ITB? The only thing I was told after the year it took the CRB to find something in the GCR to hide behind was that it was against the rules. You are saying the CRB has changed its mind again and will at least give an honest review of the weights of old cars???

Raymond "Thank you Josh for communicating my recent requests on e-mail, you are to date being very responsive" Blethen

I highly doubt it Ray. Your car was not rejected under some phantom rules clause, it was rejected under the new way of thinking that "Based on the track performance we have seen, the car is classed competitively"

Your car also poses a unique problem that there is conflicting information on stock hp.

[lateapex911]

Well, actually, Andy, as far as Raymond was told, it was rejected under the guise of a rule clause...

In reality, it was rejected because it appeared competitive, and the engine was a 5 cylinder.