ITAC News.

I cannot fathom how you could even talk about relaxing the cage rules but not allow alternate engine mounts. I cannot even come close to understanding. How can that conversation even start?

"hey, I know we just had a conversation about rules creep being the con for a modification, lets talk about redoing the cage on all IT cars". WHAT? REALLY?
 
trhoppe said:
I cannot fathom how you could even talk about relaxing the cage rules but not allow alternate engine mounts. I cannot even come close to understanding. How can that conversation even start?

"hey, I know we just had a conversation about rules creep being the con for a modification, lets talk about redoing the cage on all IT cars". WHAT? REALLY?
Click to expand...

Tom, we talk about every letter we receive. Trust me, we've spent more than 10x the time on engine mounts as cage rules in the last couple of months.
 
JoshS said:
...As always, please feel free to contact me privately to discuss any of these issues or anything else you've got on your mind. You can contact me through this forum and I will send you my phone number, or give me a number and a time to call you and I'll do my best to make it happen.
Click to expand...

Ditto on the thanks for taking the time to circulate this information, Josh! :happy204:

Re: the above however, I would encourage the ITAC to answer questions in a public forum rather than through individual emails/calls. That approach just begs for misunderstandings, "don't tell anyone where you heard this" games, and at the very least the APPEARANCE of shenanigans. Anything that can be told to one member can be told to all members.

And feedback on proposals under consideration should go through channels - letters to the CRB - in order to be considered in any "official" capacity.

K
 
Knestis said:
Re: the above however, I would encourage the ITAC to answer questions in a public forum rather than through individual emails/calls. That approach just begs for misunderstandings, "don't tell anyone where you heard this" games, and at the very least the APPEARANCE of shenanigans. Anything that can be told to one member can be told to all members.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, anyone who calls me will get the same info and same opinions. Heck, I'll do a conference call if you want, town meeting style, it doesn't have to be 1-on-1. But we'll have to disagree about how misunderstandings start. The reason why I like to have these discussions in real-time instead of e-mail or worse, a forum, is that there's a tendency for people to read between the lines and find things that aren't there, or leap to conclusions that aren't correct. With real-time communication, there's an opportunity to correct those errors before they get out of control -- failure to correct those errors quickly is how bogus rumors start.

That doesn't mean I think the ITAC shouldn't engage in public discussions -- everyone learns from many of those discussions. I mean, look, here I am. But decisions that are still in process should be treated with due care, and I personally like the richness of live communication as a way to apply that care. Your mileage may vary but this is how I would prefer to do it.
 
Glad to hear that there is real discussion on the motor mount issue. Although I oppose the allowance, I have been looking at solutions to exploit the potential rule in the meantime.
 
too bad we can't modify one engine mount in lieu of a engine stay rod......

i think i'll look at how to tie my engine stay rod to my roll cage.
 
JoshS said:
That doesn't mean I think the ITAC shouldn't engage in public discussions -- everyone learns from many of those discussions. I mean, look, here I am. But decisions that are still in process should be treated with due care, and I personally like the richness of live communication as a way to apply that care. Your mileage may vary but this is how I would prefer to do it.
Click to expand...


What if the majority of your club members prefer that the ITAC, and you by default, communicate to the unwashed masses via the written word on public internet forums?

I appreciate the update. How did the discussion with dizzy and crank triggers turn out?
 
YOU GUYS are Amazing!
Josh is going out of his way to communicate.
He explains why anybody involved in their right mind should be able to see that INTERNET BOARDS ARE FOR BSing cause it promotes crazy perceptions. He wants to talk realtime so that if you hear something and take it the wrong way he can explain what the real meaning was, instead of having the ITKKK posting tirades that may not be whats what. No kidding, he is pretty damn brave to use this forum or the sandbox at all. If he posts a message that the popular guys disagree with he stands to get a keyboard lashing like nowhere else. Be happy he is communicating, there are plenty that have learned their lesson an avoid this place and others like it as if it were a leper colony.
Josh you are a pretty sharp guy or so it seems!:happy204:
 
I'm quite happy he is communicating. He's doing a good job and his efforts are much more than what many thought we might see out of the new ITAC what initially (from various reports) wasn't going to communicate much at all.

But Kirk makes a point, anything can be told to one member can be told to all members, or written to all members.

The internet forums have a huge advantage - written record, that word of mouth does not have. Did you ever play that little kid's game where you tell the first kid something and it goes around the room through word of mouth to all the other kids? The input and output of this process never match.
 
tom91ita said:
too bad we can't modify one engine mount in lieu of a engine stay rod......

i think i'll look at how to tie my engine stay rod to my roll cage.
Click to expand...

Expand your thinking a little, Tom - my stayrod goes from the engine side of one mount to the chassis side of the same mount. It's about 4" long.

K

PS to Tom - How did your experience with 1:1 email with Jim Drago work, in terms of getting consistent information?
 
Last edited:
Knestis said:
Expand your thinking a little, Tom - my stayrod goes from the engine side of one mount to the chassis side of the same mount. It's about 4" long.

K

PS to Tom - How did your experience with 1:1 email with Jim Drago work, in terms of getting consistent information?
Click to expand...

i remember your description of your stayrod somewhere else and was actually thinking of that when i made the comment. perhaps my "stayrod" could be 3M windoweld in the middle of one engine mount?

i actually have already made up a mount this way from my Honda Challenge NASA days.

i think you saw most of the JD related corrospondence. i did ask a follow-up last week since i have never heard anything re: my questions from 2008 & 2009 and Josh was very gracious and prompt in giving me a response and a recommendation on how to press forward.

frankly, and this has nothing to do with Josh or his response, i am waiting for my 25 year pin to arrive and then i plan to quit SCCA.
 
Ron Earp said:
I'm quite happy he is communicating. He's doing a good job and his efforts are much more than what many thought we might see out of the new ITAC what initially (from various reports) wasn't going to communicate much at all.

But Kirk makes a point, anything can be told to one member can be told to all members, or written to all members.

The internet forums have a huge advantage - written record, that word of mouth does not have. Did you ever play that little kid's game where you tell the first kid something and it goes around the room through word of mouth to all the other kids? The input and output of this process never match.
Click to expand...

Yeah the internet banter is how all business should be conducted. B)This place is home of the "black helicopter society".
I would hope that Josh (and the rest of the CRB /ITAC) will operate the best way he sees fit.

And really.........You guys had your shot at running things, and did a nice job, but ya'll left, now some other bunch needs to have their chance, how about letting them have a shot before you PICK PICK PICK at every little thing. They seem to have broken down the stalemate and have things starting to get better as far as civil CRB / ITAC stuff goes.
 
Last edited:
I think it's GREAT that Josh is posting here, and I applaud it. I also agree that having 'town hall" conference calls would be awesome. I in fact, suggested a 'tent meeting" at the ARRC, but response to that idea was lacking.

But Kirk makes a fair point. Writing things in a public forum is a great way to have things on a public record, where anyone can see them...that is truths best ally. I see Josh's point about things being mis read or misunderstood. Well, choose the words carefully. Besides, IF that happens, a correction can be issued.

Mac, I'll tell you why I "left". I "left" because members, (like YOU) who were my bosses, were asking questions. To answer those questions honestly, I had to expose wrongdoing on the part of my superiors, the CRB. Perhaps 'wrongdoing" isn't the best choice of word, but, the information I needed to reveal was certainly something the CRB wanted to be unsaid. But, when you agree to do the job, you agree to abide by your superiors desired level of communication. Read between the lines: If they don't want you saying something, you can't. The CRB reached the end of it's rope with me when I was relating things that weren't complimentary about their methods and actions.

That's BS. My thinking is that if they don't want me posting stinky poop, don't let there BE stinky poop! Having a system that insulates itself in that manner propagates that behavior!*

I challenge you to read all my posts on the subject and find one item that was wrong.

The members deserve to know what's going on, what policies are in place that are creating the landscape on which they race, and they have a right to have a voice in those matters.

I applaud Josh's efforts, and I know he's working under a close watch. I hope he can see a way to ensure that what information he is allowed to disseminate is done unilaterally.
To the CRB: If he is allowed to speak with one, he must be allowed to say the same thing to all. It's just that simple.

* Further, Mac, you came on and posted "inside information" that you had heard that added information about the CRBs opinion of the iTAC that the ITAC didn't know! WTF is THAT all about!?!?!?! What kind of way to run a business is THAT!?! If one organization has something to say to the other, SAY IT, or examine your self and decide why you can't, or don't want to say it. But telling others "on the side". Hello? That's just BS. I'll add one thing...no CRB member ever read anything about my opinion on a board that wasn't mentioned on a con call.
 
JoshS said:
The roll cage question was a fun one.... ...so the owner was told he'd have to remove all of that extra stuff. Had he done so, and had an injury-producing accident, could the club be held liable?
Click to expand...

Personal responsibility in this country is at an all time low its seems, but don't open that can of worms. How many cars do we have running now that were required to disable their anit-lock brakes?
 
We have been over this plenty of times.
You guys worked hard and did a great job.
You guys and the CRB got crosswise.
The CRB & the ITAC sort of got in a stalemate.
The present ITAC seems to have regenerated interest in points you guys had been trying to get pushed through. Should be optimistic times for the internet IT crowd.


Jake, People will always have info that others don't just because as racers we are around different people. If I hear something and draw an opinion you can take it or leave it. It is just one opinion. I didn't post that I felt the CRB members were getting fed up with how the ITAC was presenting their case, as a knock on the ITAC. I posted it in hopes that you guys could work out a solution. Things were evidently too far gone at that point. Here is a take it or leave it. Six to Eight years is all anybody should serve on a committee. Blend in new people and new ideas with past history. Just one opinion.... could be right or could be wrong. A good talker might convince me tomorrow that committes for life are best....I am easily influenced.
As Rodney Daingerfield said while passing out twentys in Caddyshack, "Keep it Fair, keep it fair!"
 
IPRESS said:
The present ITAC seems to have regenerated interest in points you guys had been trying to get pushed through. Should be optimistic times for the internet IT crowd.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'd suggest just the opposite is true. Used to be all sorts of interest and chatter over new happenings in the ITAC, rules proposals, etc. Not any more. Boards are dead unless we're discussing something other than IT racing.

Look back at the period from 2006-2009 - The Realignment, ITR, new cars classed - many changes happened in IT during that period that I submit would never have occured without the open nature of the ITAC and the exchange of ideas between the ITAC and regular members. Now, it seems times have changed and open two-way transparent communication is not the norm for the ITAC / Member interface. Or, at least it seems that way to me.

Still, Josh's efforts are appreciated. I just hope more ITAC members choose to interact with the regular folks.
 
Last edited:
i would suggest that not-discussing the possibility of YET ANOTHER round of major changes to the category is a very, very good thing.

Writing things in a public forum is a great way to have things on a public record, where anyone can see them and interpret the same sentence ten thousand different ways, likely in the direction of whatever their personal bias may be.
Click to expand...
 
I agree with you that 3-4 years on a committee is enough.

On communication, I find the Internet to be the best way to stay in touch with IT racers across the country. If you care about IT, you read and post on rr.autox.com, or IT.com. I reach more people, and hear more about competing viewpoints, that way than any other.

Moreover, two of the biggest recent changes to IT -- the process and the addition of ITR -- were Internet based initiatives.

So, I have a hard time with those who think that the internet and communication via it are problematic. Sure, issues come up, but on the whole, the internet has been a positive for the development of IT.

I absolutely do not like the idea that committee work should be protected, etc. This is a club, with members, and they need to know what is going on. I do acknowledge that there needs to be some structure to that communication, and on occasion I and other ITAC members have crossed lines to inappropriate means of communication. But at the core, any attempt to cut members off from information or from the decision making process is very problematic in my view.

And, also, thanks to Josh for taking the lead on trying to come up with a communication method that works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top