ITAC News.

[IPRESS]

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!"

[Ron Earp]

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.

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.

[tnord]

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.

[JeffYoung]

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.

[JoshS]

Just to make it clear -- while there were a lot of proposed rule changes on our agenda this month, none of them were initiated by the ITAC, they all came in through letters from the membership. As I said earlier to Tom, we discuss every rule change proposal that comes in.

If the proponents of these proposals want to also take the concepts to public forums, they are welcome to do so (as Tom did with the engine mounts.) If that happens, we ITAC members might involve ourselves in public discourse about the merits of the idea. And if we do that, we're doing it as club members and drivers and car builders, not as ITAC members.

That would be a very different idea from taking an idea that comes in from a member as a letter, and then the ITAC post to some forums about that to get member input. The member input process for the club is already laid out -- the advisory committees and the CRB can either ask for member input via Fastrack prior to actually making a rule change proposal, or the CRB can make a proposal and member input comes before the BOD approval phase.

Maybe someday the member input process could involve the internet instead of Fastrack publications and letters, but as of right now, that's the process.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The present ITAC seems to have regenerated interest in points you guys had been trying to get pushed through.

Like what?

[IPRESS]

Like what?

OH I don't know maybe I was thinking that lately the CRB has opened back up consideration of things involving IT. Seems like some cars were classed or reclassed. Just from outside looking in it seems Josh and his crew have been able to overcome the "stop the presses" stalemate of late fall. I don't know if that is good or bad.


Travis I thought you quit and joined a country club.

[Andy Bettencourt]

OH I don't know maybe I was thinking that lately the CRB has opened back up consideration of things involving IT. Seems like some cars were classed or reclassed. Just from outside looking in it seems Josh and his crew have been able to overcome the "stop the presses" stalemate of late fall. I don't know if that is good or bad.

Using the Process was never a question for cars new to IT. The stalemate hinged on currently classed cars that were way outside their Process weight and the refusal of the CRB to apply the same measuring stick to both as well as the introduction of the concept of 'on-track performance' and 'like achitechture' to the classification equation.

I haven't seen any evidence that they have backed off that. Maybe the current ITAC believes in the concepts.

[IPRESS]

Using the Process was never a question for cars new to IT. The stalemate hinged on currently classed cars that were way outside their Process weight and the refusal of the CRB to apply the same measuring stick to both as well as the introduction of the concept of 'on-track performance' and 'like achitechture' to the classification equation.

I haven't seen any evidence that they have backed off that. Maybe the current ITAC believes in the concepts.

I wasn't talking about the process although it was the flashpoint. My view from afar was that the CRB & the old ITAC had come to a point that working together was not an option. Seems Josh's committee has the luxury of getting a fresh start. No reflection on past committtee members or their stance. As I stated before, I had quite the unhappy moment with the CRB myself one time. I was probably on the wrong side, but that doesn't mean you guys were, most on here think you were right, I think it was a little inbetween.

[Knestis]

I wasn't talking about the process although it was the flashpoint. My view from afar was that the CRB & the old ITAC had come to a point that working together was not an option. Seems Josh's committee has the luxury of getting a fresh start. No reflection on past committtee members or their stance. As I stated before, I had quite the unhappy moment with the CRB myself one time. I was probably on the wrong side, but that doesn't mean you guys were, most on here think you were right, I think it was a little inbetween.

I appreciate you acknowledging that the "old ITAC" had a lot of support for what it was trying to do. Ultimately, I see what went down as a conflict between what we heard the majority of members asking for and what the CRB was willing to do. I dare say that those of us who left the committee came down on what we saw as the members' side. The CRB does its job at the behest of the Board - that handful of people we all elect. That allows them to chase pesky ad hoc committee members back into the shadows but it doe NOT make them member-proof.

Josh is a GREAT consensus builder and he's pragmatic about things - probably the right qualities to unstick the situation - but we're asking for trouble, I think, if we mistake a lack of apparent conflict between the ITAC and CRB as IT being 100% AOK.

K

[tnord]

Travis I thought you quit and joined a country club.

well, i golf 2x/week and i am actually looking at a country club....and no racing thus far this year. i am headed back to the dyno this weekend though.

[JoshS]

The next ITAC meeting is coming up Monday, May 24, 2010.

The agenda covers:
3 topics on the IT Prep allowances (update/backdate, ABS, and crank-triggered ignition systems)
3 new listing requests
2 spec lines - data errors
12 spec lines - weight adjustments or reclass requests

I don't think it will be possible to get through all of these, but I hope we make good progress! I will summarize the results later next week and as always, please contact me directly if you have anything you'd like to discuss in more detail.

[quadzjr]

that is alot, hopefully some of it is cut and dry errors. Intereted in why crank trigger systems is even for discussion is beyond me.

[Marcus Miller]

that is alot, hopefully some of it is cut and dry errors. Intereted in why crank trigger systems is even for discussion is beyond me.

Duh, its cause the SCCA is run by Honda!
The Itac all got new S2K's...
:026:

M

[Chip42]

12 spec lines - weight adjustments or reclass requests

guilty - in part. the hondas are a mess. I'm sure some are volvos and dodges as per usual. I just started going through it all and the ITA/B line is not even blurry - it's just a grey region in many cases.

thanks to the ITAC for looking each of these through. - if I can help, add info, etc... please let me know. there's a lot more I see that needs cleaning and since member input is the starting point, I'm sending in what I find from what I know - I've got a newborn so I don't sleep anymore...

[JeffYoung]

No new S2k here....

Chip, the "out for member comment" on the crankfire rule came about this way. I've got a personal interest in it, so I may abstain from a vote, although I am opposed to it. Here's what I can tell you about the situation based solely on my opinion. I'd love to get you and others to comment on the situation. It's actually a more fundamental issue than it first appears.

The deal basically is that older distributor based (and some non-distributor) EFI systems do not work well with aftermarket ECUs. Essentially, the distributor based signal telling the ECU "where" the cam/crank are is weak -- much weaker and far less accurate than a cam or crank position sensor.

I spent a lot of time and money getting my distributor to work reliably with an aftermarket ECU. With a Haltech, I just could never get it right; with MSII, it works, although there is still signal drop out at lower RPMs. I'm working on boosting that signal -- all legal since it is distributor "guts" -- but the bottom line is it takes work.

The "easy" fix would be to allow the signal to come from the crank or a CPS. And that is less of a change to the rules than it might first appear. Basically, right now, your crank pulley is free, so you can load that sucker up with rare earth magnets and get it all setup to send a precise signal to the ECU....if you were allowed to add a pickup/sensor.

Now, the rule does say something like "sensors may be replaced" but it doesn't say moved. This particular discussiion came from a couple of letters asking if the position sensor inside the distributor that senses cam/crank location could be moved to the crank.

The ITAC's answer is no.

After spending a lot of time on this issue I agree. This is more than just moving a water temp or air temp sensor -- allowing pickup at the crank IS a peformance advantage and, if you work through it you can make the distributor based pick up work.

But that leads to the fundamental issue here -- should we allow "open" sensors to allow older EFI cars the same advantages as new? Note this was already done -- a mistake in my view -- for some cars (notably the Miata) to allow the addition of a MAP to make it work with some systems.

This opened up a can of worms I think. Open sensors would allow me to move my batch fired, distributor based system to running a full sequential setup off the crank. With a more accurate signal.

But that is the fundamental core issue I think: do we allow open sensors or not?

Moreover, the "rule" as sent out for comment goes even farther and would allow carb cars crankfire, (Electromotive has such a system) that would really clean up timing and spark.

My vote is no, but I'd love to hear what membership thinks although I think this one may have crossed the line over a "core IT philosophy" that we simply should not allow despite member opinion.

Current letters on this are solidly against, although I think there are only 5-6 or so of them.

[jjjanos]

They seem to have broken down the stalemate and have things starting to get better as far as civil CRB / ITAC stuff goes.

Well that's a no-brainer. German-French relations improved too with the move of the government seat from Paris to Vichy.

"A running theme during all of the discussions above was about the philosophy of IT and its place in the whole club racing program, with input from our CRB liaisons, of course. We discussed who our members are, who we want our members to be, etc"

I.e. If the ITAC does exactly what the CRB wants, there is no conflict. I question the competence of the CRB to discuss ANYTHING related to the philosophy of IT, who races IT and what IT racers want. They may be experts in where they want IT to fit into the entire program, but that simply means that IT is going to get screwed to save the FUBAR situation they have made of National racing and the Runoffs.

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.

Ummm, I see very little to nothing to suggest this. The mess of ITB weights/specifications has been kicked to the curb and the CRB has imposed a hare-brained, scattershot method of car classification/correction on the category.

The MR2 situation remains resolved incorrectly; there's an overdog in ITB; both situations are already hurting car counts in at least one series and the CRB has officially shut the door to corrections. Based on their interpretation of the rules, the MR2 weight issue is a closed issue.