Any news on ITB weights???

[Andy Bettencourt]

I honestly can't think of a project bigger than this ITB redo guys. I am sure they are in the midst of hashing out a huge spreadsheet car by car going over each one making sure that they are confident that they can defend any and all recommendations to the CRB once it gets into their hands. Give it time, it will be worth it.

[Knestis]

I honestly can't think of a project bigger than this ITB redo guys. I am sure they are in the midst of hashing out a huge spreadsheet car by car going over each one making sure that they are confident that they can defend any and all recommendations to the CRB once it gets into their hands. ...

...which, having put a lot of hours myself into that very process, I am confident is also the root cause of its inevitable failure.

(Note here that the spreadsheet we used while I was on the ITAC, and that I subsequently shared with replacement members, is actually an evolution of the first "MILLER RATIO" worksheet that I started when I was still at UVa working on my dissertation, and looking toward building another IT car - and when the World Trade Center was still a feature on the Manhattan skyline.)

The PTBs are going to object to some detail in that proposal and use it to scuttle the entire effort. The last harangue was catalyzed by the Audi Coupe but this time it will be SOMETHING - unless there's been an earth-shattering see change in the Club management.

If the culture of protectionism and micromanagement where the CRB meets the ITCS can't be changed, then there's no point in trying to perfect a "list" that is doomed to failure when a weight for one car on that list doesn't jive with one CRB member's preconceived notions of "on-track competitiveness."

The only viable solution will be, and always has been, to apply a repeatable and transparent system, with as few moving parts (variables, differences) as possible; and have it accepted by a Board that puts stability and consistency of the category above key individuals', well, individual differences - even if at the individual car level, it creates potential winners and losers. IF THE LATTER CAN'T BE ACHIEVED, THERE IS NO POINT TRYING TO PITCH THE FORMER and even less sense kidding ourselves - and wasting days, weeks, months, or YEARS of volunteer ITAC time.

Kirk (who's filling out Production VTS sheets knowing that as bad as Prod can get, it's really only different bad, not worse, than this)

[jjjanos]

1. Get list of every ITB car that has races in last 7 years. In theory, the home office should have this as they get copies of the official results. (IIRC)

2. Everything not on that list gets a contact SCCA note for its weight.

3. Everything else gets run through. No point wasting effort getting the correct classification weight on a car that hasn't raced since 1987.

4. Stand firm on list generated by #3. Make official the name of the higher-up and the specific objection. None of the double-dealing, two-faced, bullshit that created the Vichy ITAC.

[lateapex911]

4. Stand firm on list generated by #3. Make official the name of the higher-up and the specific objection. None of the double-dealing, two-faced, bullshit that created the Vichy ITAC.

Can you expound on that?? Not sure what you're driving at.

The first part, I get.
"Make official the name of the higher up and the specific objection".
Well, see, theres the thing. What if the higher up is the chairman of the CRB??? The king, whether he wears clothes or not, is still the king. (you like historical references, as I recall)

I can send you to the SCCA forum thread where the CRB chair Bob Dowie posted a 'explanation' regarding ITB the last go round. Now I LIKE Bob. He's a neat guy, and has gone WAY out of his way to help the SCCA, and lots of specific members, including myself.

But based on notes I had taken during ITAC meetings...and read back to Bob word for word during the meetings to be sure I had them transcribed accurately, Bobs explanation of the events surrounding the last ITB debacle, didn't line up with what I, Kirk, Andy, Scott, and...my notes....said actually happened on the con calls.

Bob said and did things of his own volition, and ignored previous protocols and procedures and promises.

Now, I am SURE he felt what he was doing was 'the right thing". And I felt I had to call him out on it, because I work for, ultimately, you, and the other members. I report to the CRB, but ultimately if I feel that the embers are getting screwed, then something has to give.

So anyway, I can link the thread, but I'm sure you've read it, even on SCCA.com...where NObody goes, LOL. Long and short of it was that I was told to GTFO, and it was obvious that I needed to resign. I called directors who looked into it, but it was really the first clearly scandalous thing on his watch, and he was done in less than a year anyway, so they "had a talk" with him, and that was that.

Half the ITAC resigned over the situation, but hey, it's just a dumb ole advisory committee. I'd wager 75% of the IT racers in the country had no idea that their advisory committee had been halved, and of those that did have some awareness, 75% of them were confused befuddled by whole thing.

So, while it's great to say (and I am 1000% behind 100% transparency) "name the names", in reality, you CAN name the name, you get fired, the ITAC has to regroup.....and 5% of the members you work for actually notice, and 2% actually care.

As Kirk says, we get the category we deserve.


Now, THAT said, I think that of all the categories, the ITAC has, under guys like Darin Jordan, and Andy Bettencourt, and Josh Sirota, done a HUGE job of moving a glacier, and while there have been some rifts formed along the way, the overall work done is tremendous. IT is in a MUCH MUCH MUCH better place today, than it was when Darin took over the ITAC, back at the turn of the century.

[Knestis]

...and I have an email (accidentally cc'd to me, though sent to someone who actually has a history of posting here) from Jim Drago, from about the same period of time, that completely misrepresents where the ITB classification process issues were coming from - again, directly to a member.

Paraphrasing (and this was after the preliminary ITB "list" was provided to the CRB through our liaison and concurrent with the cessation of all approvals of recommendations sent up by the ITAC), the explanation was that the ITAC was sitting on member requests, but that Jim would do what he could to personally help this member out with his problem...

Now, to be fair, it is an open question whether Drago - as a non-IT-focused CRB member - was getting a shaded/filtered view of the situation from those on the board who did manage IT business before that body. He may have been operating completely in good faith on bad information, but regardless it REALLY hammered the reality of the situation home for me. Color me glad to be gone at that point.

Kirk (who was pleased about Dick P's post-blow-up explanation that practice would change to assign individuals without vested interests to be CRB Ad Hoc liaisons; but wonders how that is working out)

[lateapex911]

.

Now, to be fair, it is an open question whether Drago - as a non-IT-focused CRB member - was getting a shaded/filtered view of the situation from those on the board who did manage IT business before that body. He may have been operating completely in good faith on bad information, but regardless it REALLY hammered the reality of the situation home for me. Color me glad to be gone at that point.

Kirk (who was pleased about Dick P's post-blow-up explanation that practice would change to assign individuals without vested interests to be CRB Ad Hoc liaisons; but wonders how that is working out)

I think Drago means well, and acts in good faith. BUT, there's a whole shit ton of back channel whos talking to who crap going on.
I was lambasted for "Speaking out of school" in regards to my public discussions regarding ITAC doings...
BUT, I'm of the mind that it is FAR better to be open and transparent with the members of a CLUB than it is to be discussing this stuff "in school" but behind committee members backs...the good ole boy crap.

And thats what the CRB at the time was doing. Sorry, it just was.
Members of the CRB with IT cars voting and forming ITB policy!?!?!?
Are you freaking KIDDING me!?!?!

Kirk, I'm right with you..thank the stars Dick Patullo is in position.....and while its unclear whether he's the catalyst for the change or reporting it, he's on the case and aware, which is a very good thing.

[JeffYoung]

Maybe difficult to believe but we really don't have the protectionist issues we had in the past, generally speaking. We got past the 30% issue in ITB, mostly fixed the MR2 and I *think* we can get past the other stuff with the Audi and others. As Kirk says, proof is in the pudding though.

"Vichy ITAC?" Jjanos is the Pants guy from the brown board right? That's about par for the course for him. Kirk/Jake/Andy did what they thought was right. I almost resigned as well and came close to being told to do so, but Josh impressed me with his leadership and impressed on me the need for us to stay on the committee to stay the course.

The result? Andy/Kirk/Jake made a statement and got attention of the higher ups, and got us the ability to do things like the Ops Manual.