What's going on with IT and the CRB?

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 ...
 
Ditto.

JoshS said:
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 ...
Click to expand...
 
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.:023:
 
JoshS said:
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.
Click to expand...

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??:shrug:

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.
 
Last edited:
IPRESS said:
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.:023:
Click to expand...

Thanks for that Mac!

quadzjr said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

quadzjr said:
what rule set are you trying to manage?
Click to expand...

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

quadzjr said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Butch Kummer said:
...I've heard rumors that participation on the various forums is "discouraged" by the BoD and the higher-ups in the stewards program, but again I've never heard exactly why that is.QUOTE]

Then what the hell kind of club is SCCA becoming, then??? Key members of the leadership are discouraged from using informal means to gauge the pulse of the membership? This stinks worse than I thought...Worse than I EVER thought...
Click to expand...
 
IPRESS said:
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.:023:
Click to expand...

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.
 
RedMisted said:
Then what the hell kind of club is SCCA becoming, then??? Key members of the leadership are discouraged from using informal means to gauge the pulse of the membership? This stinks worse than I thought...Worse than I EVER thought...
Click to expand...

Red - "Becoming"?

I'm not sure how new you are to the club, but it's not for nothing that the "Secret Car Club of America" moniker came into being. I used to think it was due to a lack of presence on the national scene, but I soon learned it's because things are often decided in smoke-filled back rooms. It goes back to when I first got involved back in the 70's and little has changed since.

. Thank you for your input.

. Car is classed appropriately.

. Against class philosophy.

i.e. - This is the decision, take it or leave it. In the old days a lot of people put up with it, but today they have a choice. Whether that's a better option or not is debatable, but there's a reason NASA came into being.
 
Butch Kummer said:
Red - "Becoming"?

I'm not sure how new you are to the club, but it's not for nothing that the "Secret Car Club of America" moniker came into being. I used to think it was due to a lack of presence on the national scene, but I soon learned it's because things are often decided in smoke-filled back rooms. It goes back to when I first got involved back in the 70's and little has changed since.

. Thank you for your input.

. Car is classed appropriately.

. Against class philosophy.

i.e. - This is the decision, take it or leave it. In the old days a lot of people put up with it, but today they have a choice. Whether that's a better option or not is debatable, but there's a reason NASA came into being.
Click to expand...

Gotta apologize... I'm pretty new to SCCA. I'm in my third year of club racing. Before that, I was a member of NASA. But it was for a couple years so I could do their HPDEs.

Thanks for the history lesson. Didn't realize the genesis for NASA until now. Always thought NASA started up on the West Coast for some different reason.

OK, Secret Car Club of America...That in itself tells a story.
 
Last edited:
Chris that is why we have opinions, mine differs from yours. I agree we (the membership) elect people so in theory we have the final say, but because those elected don't do some things the way we want them to, doesn't mean they are doing the wrong thing.
This debate is more about power and governance and way less about the health of IT which is damn healthy and will probably stay that way....again just my opinion.
I have no problem with interested parties championing their side of an issue, but personal attacks and saying the committtees are a bunch of bums ou to screw IT is childish and flat wrong. All it does is get people pissed off on both sides of the issue.
 
And know that I believe this: IT is WAY better than it used to be. I think there is still some work to be done but the building blocks are in place. No class I would rather be in.
 
IPRESS said:
Chris that is why we have opinions, mine differs from yours. I agree we (the membership) elect people so in theory we have the final say, but because those elected don't do some things the way we want them to, doesn't mean they are doing the wrong thing.
This debate is more about power and governance and way less about the health of IT which is damn healthy and will probably stay that way....again just my opinion.
I have no problem with interested parties championing their side of an issue, but personal attacks and saying the committtees are a bunch of bums ou to screw IT is childish and flat wrong. All it does is get people pissed off on both sides of the issue.
Click to expand...

First, I hope my post haven't been characterized as personal attacks or saying that anyone is out to screw IT.

I DO disagree withe the bottom line of the members being the boss. My job as a committee member was described to me day one, and it included knowing my category and it's members.

My job on the ITAC was to protect and champion their first principles. Now, that might take various forms, but in the end, the big picture was to ensure that the category was true to the members desired cornerstones.

I've spoken to those who have gotten 'the other side of the story", and it's clear that they were not on the con calls, that the specific things I was told haven't been equally represented when the BoD is informed.

IT is in great shape, and it is in such good shape because of 5 years plus of work that has been circling in on tighter and tighter standards of operation. The wheels aren't about to fall of. But...I'm dismayed when I see cars being classed wrong, with no solid evidence, and in manners that are in direct contrast to the members expectations.

If you want to say "It's about power", fine. You've mentioned in the past your contacts have stated that the ITAC "Got too big for it's britches"... clearly, that's an opinion of those further up the line. I could care less about "power"...or the ego massaging that goes with it. I am worried about the power being applied improperly. I don't care who does it, just do it right. Be aboveboard. Be transparent. Be consistent. Be able to answer the members.

As hard as it might be for you to accept, this isn't about egos, at least not on my part. It's simple, it's about doing the right thing, and the members have defined that rather well. And they deserve to know what is going on. Good, and bad.
 
IPRESS said:
Contrary to the popular idea on here, I do not think the membership is your BOSS.
Click to expand...

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.
 
IPRESS said:
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.:023:
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
i think the displacment of the CRB is the best idea yet!
Click to expand...
That was really funny Tom. LOL

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

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.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
And know that I believe this: IT is WAY better than it used to be. I think there is still some work to be done but the building blocks are in place. No class I would rather be in.
Click to expand...

+1 to all that. Except I did find a class I'd rather be in. ;)

Still care about IT, though. #1 priority IMO is to make sure we do NOT go back to the standard 3 BS/blowoff answers, as referenced by Butch. Those are simply NOT acceptable.

Maybe it's 'cause I'm an engineer; after all, in the practice of engineering, if you can't logically defend your position/conclusions dispassionately against any and all complaits/issues - it doesn't deserve to see the light of day.

Faith has no place in engineering, only facts. Speak with data. "I think" is a good way to kill people. The difference between a doctor and an engineer? If the doctor screws up, somebody dies. If the engineer screws up - hundreds, maybe thousands of people can die. (right Toyota? ;) )

Doesn't sound like everyone's comfortable with that idea...
 
JoshS said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
RSTPerformance said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top