Big Picture of IT - Share Your Opinions

[gran racing]

No, it's not the same thing at all. It's quite possible that some haven't read it here, but the process has evolved to further reduce subjectivity. The "process 2.0" is merely fine tuning what existed and was used in the previous alignment. It basically boils down to the following:

- Do you believe the previous great alignment and process used to accomplish this was a positive thing?

- If it were possible to further improve upon this process and reduce subjectivity, enable members to actually see how the results were arrived at and why, and ensure more consistent results are obtained now and in the future - would you support this?

- During the previous alignment, only a few number of cars were run through the process. One could easily say that while this was a fantastic step, additional cars needed to have the same opportunity to determine if there is a potential classification issue (too heavy, or to light). Basically, are you in support of additional cars run through the same classification process as used on others?

[BlueStreak]

Before I throw my .02 out there, I want to thank all of you that have worked so hard to get us to this point, especially the G.R. Then I have to remind you that no good deed goes unpunished

My .02
1) Have a rules season in the fall/winter. Keep the rules stable during the season
2) Publish the process in the GCR, have a downloadable .xls on the website
3) Refine the process during rules season every year.
4) Ten years from now the process should stabilize.

Allow AWD cars, but make them remove 50% of their halfshafts

I don't think it is unreasonable to ask everyone to be prepared to add or subtract 2% on their weight when the process gets revised each "rules season".

[StephenB]

No, it's not the same thing at all. It's quite possible that some haven't read it here, but the process has evolved to further reduce subjectivity. The "process 2.0" is merely fine tuning what existed and was used in the previous alignment. It basically boils down to the following:

- Do you believe the previous great alignment and process used to accomplish this was a positive thing? YES IMHO and one of the best things that has happend in SCCA! IMHO

- If it were possible to further improve upon this process and reduce subjectivity, enable members to actually see how the results were arrived at and why, and ensure more consistent results are obtained now and in the future - would you support this? Absolutly this would be AWESOME and exactly what I personally am looking forward to in the near future!

- During the previous alignment, only a few number of cars were run through the process. One could easily say that while this was a fantastic step, additional cars needed to have the same opportunity to determine if there is a potential classification issue (too heavy, or to light). Basically, are you in support of additional cars run through the same classification process as used on others? I would support this! I think this would make the best situation for all cars and members to be equally competitive!

Dave... these are actual questions that I can answer without knowing anything about v1.0 or v2.0 if this is what the rest of the ITAC members where asking they should hire you as a consultant! My answers are in Bold.

Well done!
Stephen

PS: I love everything the ITAC has done... it's just hard to say/vote with confidence on my part that they should do something if I know nothing about it. for all I know I may write to the CRB saying I support v 2.0 and in V 2.0 how do I know it doesn't say eliminate all cars that have not been driven in 1 yr? I don't know and that's why this is hard for members like me to support these "alignments/changes".

[lateapex911]

PS: I love everything the ITAC has done... it's just hard to say/vote with confidence on my part that they should do something if I know nothing about it. for all I know I may write to the CRB saying I support v 2.0 and in V 2.0 how do I know it doesn't say eliminate all cars that have not been driven in 1 yr? I don't know and that's why this is hard for members like me to support these "alignments/changes".

Thanks Dave. But Stephen, where did Dave get all that? By reading what has been written here. Same as you have.