ITAC News.

[gran racing]

I don't think anyone has said it shouldn't have some wiggle room. It's also recognized that it won't be perfect, but at least someone can explain how cars are actually classed. That's not too much to demand.

[erlrich]

That's not too much to demand.

...apparently it is

[JeffYoung]

My personal opinion is no wiggle room is best. In fact, I'd be in favor of a straight:

stock hp x IT gain (default of 1.25) x class multiplier.

I think that gets everyone close enough to have fun and be competitive.

Wiggle room causes problems (in my view).

[seckerich]

My personal opinion is no wiggle room is best. In fact, I'd be in favor of a straight:

stock hp x IT gain (default of 1.25) x class multiplier.

I think that gets everyone close enough to have fun and be competitive.

Wiggle room causes problems (in my view).

A straight 25% would create the BMW,RX7, etc overdog. Need to back up and see if that sounds like fun. You will not get much support for that view.

[JeffYoung]

I wasn't clear -- we change the multiplier when we have evidence to prove it.

The wiggle room I was talking about were things like the live rear deduct, the brake modifier, the suspension modifier, the FWD deduct, etc.

stock hp x. 1.25 default (but modified by actual dyno evidence of higher or lower gain if we have it) x the class multiplier.

That said, I am actually fine with v2 of the process and how we were applying it last year. The "process" Kirk mentioned by which we each documented how and why we agreed on a particular modifier was a clever tool that worked.

[lateapex911]

I am 100% in favor of publishing (and I think Kirk and I were in a minority on that point as late as summer of last year). I'll put in the agenda for the next call.

We are not yet to the point where weights are set by a single CRB member, but it is true that a lot of the procedural aspects of making weight decisions using the process seem to have been abandoned, which is not good in my view. Moreover, in my opinion, it is not clear to me that the existing ITAC believes an objective, repeatable, transparent process without wiggle room is the way to go. It will be discussed in July. Jake is correct we've gotten a lot of member input mostly in favor of the process, and if you continue to support its use, now's the time to write in on it (again).

THAT is a scary scary post. The GOOD news is that it will take awhile to undo 5 years of progress, but the bad news is that unless you are fighting the universal law of order to disorder, you can get there FAST.

Jeff, I love you, and thank the Patron Saint of IT that you, and presumably Josh are in there fighting the good fight, but....more letters? Man, it's clear to me that the CRB (as represented by those on the calls in my tenure) either COMPLETELY MISSED the fact that member approval was higher than EVER in IT, or, they get that but really think they know better, or, possibly, they get it, but they just want to do it their way.

While the ITAC is the first step in the procedure and it needs to know to use the process and be consistent, it's the CRB that derailed the ITAC in the first place, and really, the CRB should be saying, "Guys? You're not being consistent, the members have shown their support of your past methods, keep going in the direction you were going in".

But we all know THAT's not going to happen, LOL.

So while I'd like to think yet another letter writing campaign would be helpful, it's getting to be a case of the boy who cried wolf.

Jeff, I realize you are in a tricky spot from a communications aspect, but, how will a letter writing campaign help?
-Will it educate the newer members of the ITAC to the desires of the membership? (I'd HOPE that these guys KNOW the category and the members thoughts long before getting on the ITAC, but...)
-Will it hammer home to existing ITAC members the need to SERVE the public?
-Will it do the same for the CRB?

If so, then I'll take the time, but I'm sure ANYbody else's letter will be more effective than mine, I know how I'm regarded up the line, LOL.
(Which is fine, but I wish we could get honest and open debate from my detractors)

[JeffYoung]

My personal feeling -- and it is just my personal opinion -- is that after the Great Exodus (you, Kirk, Andy and Scott all leaving in a few months) there were discussions between the CRB and the BoD over the direction of IT.

The CRB folks have been very reasonable, easy to work with and open minded since those very difficult calls at the end of last year. I think they are listening to member input. While the decision is what it is, I can tell you they paid very close attention to the letters on motor mounts.

I think they will do the same to another set of input about the process.

I really hate that membership seems down on submitting letters as a result of the motor mount situation. While I understand the frustration in not getting what you (and I) wanted, I can tell you the letters were not ignored. They were read and considered.

P.S. Yes, I think it will serve all three purposes you list.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Congratulations, you are now part of the problem you fought against. Good luck on the CRB if you get appointed.

I disagree. When on the ITAC we were setting it up so it could be published. Since I am not on the ITAC anymore, I don't feel it is my 'right' to publish information I have just because I have it. It's out of respect for the people whose right is it to publish or not publish. To me, it's more about being a professional.

If there comes a day when I am on the CRB, I will fight to publish it then too.

[JoshS]

Last month at our April meeting we focused almost exclusively on rule change requests. This month at our May meeting this week, we focused on car classification. There are three open prep allowance rules change questions, one of which is out right now for member input (keep it coming!), and the other two (ABS and update/backdate) have not yet been discussed.

We made some pretty good progress on the car classification requests but there were several requests for which we needed a LOT more detail. In all, 14 letters were sent up to the CRB for review, and there are 3 others that I hope we can finish up with some post-meeting followup, and get those sent to the CRB for their upcoming meeting too. The rest were tabled.

For those of you writing in asking us to change spec lines or add spec lines, it would be really helpful if you included a VTS sheet. There is a link on the crbscca.com site for a blank form. When you include a VTS, include information about horsepower, torque, all of the information that would go onto a published spec line, and anything else that would be pertinent to classing decisions (such as differences between model years of a vehicle, etc.) Please include copies of shop manual pages and any other supporting info. When we don't have all of the info, we usually have to table letters in order to gather it. Everything goes quicker when we have everything at once and it's usually the interested parties who have easy access to the data we need. Just assume we'll need it. Too much information is way better than not enough.

Obviously, the issue of how to handle existing listings that seem to have some consistency issues is still the big elephant in the room. We are at a point right now where we are trying to follow the rules and the guidelines outlined during the period of the great realignment, which are the rules and guidelines that have approval and sanction from the BOD, but those rules really prevent us from adjusting pretty much anything.

Even though I've been hinting that a member letter asking us to change the rules that lock us down would be helpful, no such letter has arrived. So at one of our upcoming meetings this summer, we will not discuss specific letters, but instead, will dedicate the meeting to such a rules change.

Note that with the way the rules season has been structured, it is pretty much too late to change anything for 2011 at this point. A rules change would not take effect until 2012. This gives us a pretty good amount of time to consider what we're doing and hopefully get it right.

A lot of the letters coming in requesting adjustments to existing listings are of one of the following forms (all of which were present on this month's agenda):
- "My car can't compete at its current weight, please reduce the weight"
- "The weight my car was assigned doesn't look consistent with the weights that other cars were assigned." These don't typically outright SAY "I can't keep up at the current weight and I need help, and this is a way to justify a weight break" but I think that's behind at least a few of them.
- "My car was assigned a weight based on the most recent process, but there's no way I can make that much power."

In other words, there are definitely people out there who think we should be looking at racing results and adjusting weights based on that. There are others who think things just need to be consistent as long as some elements of the cars in question are similar. And there are some that have might have never gotten their car on the track, and are just challenging the assumptions used in the weight assignment process. It's pretty much all over the map.

I'd remind you all to look at the current rules. There is only one justification in the rulebook right now to change the weight of or reclass a car: "racing performance relative to other vehicles in its class". Changes are only permitted within the first five years of a classification, and then after that only "on rare occasion and after careful review of the actual racing performance of a particular vehicle."

So the rules actually do authorize what most would consider to be "comp adjustments" although as a practice, the ITAC has not used that authorization since I have been involved, at least, I can't recall any instances. The rules do *not* allow us to make changes due to rulebook inconsistency. In fact, specifically by the rules, it's pretty much pointless to ask for a weight change request without including a lot of event results, and then, only if the classification is less than 5 years old. It's easy to see why some people still think that's the way to get things done, and some think it's the way things SHOULD be done, even though on these forums that has not been the general consensus.

Speaking personally, I'm a bit baffled as to how there could be such a difference between what is codified in the rules (which is also what was pitched to the BOD and approved) and what the SOP was at the time that I got involved in the ITAC in early 2007, and is still pretty much SOP today. It's likely that my own personal history in the institution doesn't go back far enough to understand it (member for 22 years, but I've really only been paying attention to IT since 2005.)

Yes, even in the last couple of months we have been making changes that are not based on racing results, on the grounds that these are errors: in those cases when two "identical" cars are at different weights or in different classes, we have agreed that one of them must be an error. Even this is a stretch of the rules as written but I thought you all would have been happy that we're at least allowed to make SOME changes (clearly from reading above and on the other forum, some of you would rather having nothing than something though.)

In any case, this summer we will work through these rules and we will possibly propose some changes that would give the ITAC a little bit more to work with when it comes to existing listings. Along those lines, one question I'll put to the group is: do you think that the specific process that's used needs to be in the rulebook? Or is it okay to have it codified as an operations manual for the committee? Most racing rulebooks that I've ever seen do not describe how their rules-making bodies operate, but I'm open-minded.

As always, please feel free to call me if you want to discuss anything in more detail. If you need my phone number, send me e-mail through the forum and I'll give it to you (I just don't like to post it where search engines will find it!)

[Butch Kummer]

While the ITAC is the first step in the procedure and it needs to know to use the process and be consistent, it's the CRB that derailed the ITAC in the first place, and really, the CRB should be saying, "Guys? You're not being consistent, the members have shown their support of your past methods, keep going in the direction you were going in".

But we all know THAT's not going to happen in the next six months, LOL.

Editted for accuracy.

I obviously don't know the inner workings of the current CRB, but I DO know there are folks in high places that have urged me (and I assume Andy) to submit an application to be on the CRB. I have done so. And while the lack of communication about the FIA seat certainly caused me to reconsider, Andy's interest has renewed my enthusiasm for serving (so you could say I've re-reconsidered ).

As I believe I've shown during less controversial discussions on the various forums (mainly about group make-ups at the ARRC), I am a firm believer in transparency and accountability as expoused by the Process (both V.1 & V.2). We need to have open communication about WHY decisions are made as well at what was decided. Yes it takes more work on my part to put my decision-making process into complete sentences for the Miata drivers, but doing so both clarifies my thoughts and allows others to either (a) understand how I got to where I am or (b) point out possible errors in my logic. Either way, we end up with a better end product (an example being the better groupings we've developed for the 2010 version of the ARRC).

I know you guys want resolution (I almost typed "change", but that would push this into a political discussion ) immediately, but that's not the way things work. What I CAN say, however, is the calvary is on the way.

[JeffYoung]

Very positive posts, and thanks for the excellent summary Josh. Good job.

A CRB with Andy and Butch on board would be a great thing for IT I think.

[jjjanos]

I'd remind you all to look at the current rules. There is only one justification in the rulebook right now to change the weight of or reclass a car: "racing performance relative to other vehicles in its class". Changes are only permitted within the first five years of a classification, and then after that only "on rare occasion and after careful review of the actual racing performance of a particular vehicle."

Reduce weight of the 320i In 9.1.3, ITB, BMW 320i 2.0 (77-79), change from 2510 lbs. to

2340 lbs. -

http://cms.scca.com/documents/Fastra...strack-feb.pdf

That sir would invalidate your above statement unless you can demonstrate that the car has been listed for 4 or less years.

There is no allowance to adjust the weight simply because a car with similar specifications has a lower weight.

Yes, even in the last couple of months we have been making changes that are not based on racing results, on the grounds that these are errors: in those cases when two "identical" cars are at different weights or in different classes, we have agreed that one of them must be an error. Even this is a stretch of the rules as written but I thought you all would have been happy that we're at least allowed to make SOME changes (clearly from reading above and on the other forum, some of you would rather having nothing than something though.)

No sir - that is playing favorites. Car A and B are classified under one regime - both cars are classified "correctly" under that regime. Car C is classified correctly at a later date under a newer regime and receives a lower weight. Car C received a benefit of using a different regime, but all classifications are correct.

There is no error in any of the classifications, period. Two "identical" cars having different weights is not evidence of error or omission. It is evidence that inconsistent classification methods have been used and, as the CRB has painfully demonstrated, there is no recourse for such inconsistency.

Changing Car A is not applying an errors/omission clause, it is applying a different classification method to the detriment of all cars classified under the older regime. In short, if Car A is in error, then all cars classified under the older regimeare also potentially in error and should receive the same exact consideration of using the newer regime.

[lateapex911]

Very positive posts, and thanks for the excellent summary Josh. Good job.

A CRB with Andy and Butch on board would be a great thing for IT I think.

It would be a great thing for the CLUB.

Butch is right guys, he IS a guy who, simply, checks his ego at the door, and gets down to work. Old school, get it done with an open mind behavior. If I could vote, I sure would.

Josh, I considered sending such a letter, but, I know what would have happened to that letter.

My reaction to yourquestion regarding classing process is that sure, put it in the rulebook. V2 has the structure to be able to be documented, yet the internal flexibility to be effective.

IT would do WONDERS for member confidence.
Will you get letters telling you it's "wrong" YUP! But that's fine, people will ALWAYS write in with cloaked agendas...hey, most don't even know they have a cloaked, or hidden agenda, they've rationalized it out in their mind.

Oh, I think NASA publishes their method. (For the PT category)

[lateapex911]

There is no error in any of the classifications, period.

Jeff, Josh is trying to do what ever he can to make inroads in getting things consistent. I think the BMW 320 issue was that the same basic car, the 2002, has the same engine and suspension, essentially, and to the Process, they are the same car. So, both got examined, and one was considered to be right on the Process weight, so the other was adjusted to match.
Technically, you are correct, neither is an "error". But I have to tell you, my head was SPINNING each month after listening to the CRB define an "error". Each month I swore the answer was different, but honestly, I don't know what the operations manual states, so perhaps I was just not "getting it"...

Oh, there IS a REAL 'error' in the GCR...teh MR2. SOP at the time that car went to ITB was to use 25% for all basic process calcs, and it didn't get used on the MR2. That was my fault...I was traveling, taking the notes, running the meeting, all from a laptop, when usually I have 3 monitors open. Andy missed that call, and I blew it. Sorry to the MR2 guys, but don't stone me, who knows if we had done the math right it might not have been approved by the CRB anyway....

[JoshS]

Oh, I think NASA publishes their method. (For the PT category)

No, they don't. The base classing and weights are a mystery, known only to the PT committee (which to my last knowledge was 1 guy, but that was a couple years ago, don't know if anything has changed.)

[JoshS]

There is no error in any of the classifications, period. Two "identical" cars having different weights is not evidence of error or omission. It is evidence that inconsistent classification methods have been used and, as the CRB has painfully demonstrated, there is no recourse for such inconsistency.

That is the purist way of looking at it, and I actually agree if we're going to be precise, believe it or not. Except ... there is a recourse that is okay with all parties involved, which is the handling of these things as errors. Maybe less pure but I think you might be the only one who has a problem with at least making some changes under the current ruleset. At least, you are the only one who I have actually heard voice a concern. I'm sure if the ITAC proposes a rule change then during the member input phase we'll hear from more people who would like to see no changes at all.

[lateapex911]

No, they don't. The base classing and weights are a mystery, known only to the PT committee (which to my last knowledge was 1 guy, but that was a couple years ago, don't know if anything has changed.)

My mistake, I thought there was a base formula and a lot of 'points" and such that moved you up or down.

[JoshS]

My mistake, I thought there was a base formula and a lot of 'points" and such that moved you up or down.

There is. Each car is listed in a class with a minimum weight. You can run it 100% stock in the listed class. Or, you can make changes to your car which accumulate points, which might move you up or down. But the base listing is where competitiveness is really determined, and how that is determined is not public.

[Knestis]

Congratulations, you are now part of the problem you fought against. Good luck on the CRB if you get appointed.

... it appears that only ITAC members, mostly former, have the full story on how the cars are run through the Process, whatever it is. I recommend instead of alluding to this or that adder just post V1, V2 or whatever version we're currently on just post the Process. As with any model there are fudge factors, er coefficients, so it will never be a supremely precise model.

Then again knowledge is power, so those folks lose some clout if all is aired. How about it insiders? Care to share?

Not fair.

When I signed on to the ITAC, I agreed to certain organizational/behavior standards. One was that - unfortunately in my view - we were not empowered to share internal documents publicly. Regardless, that's the deal I agreed to. I adhere pretty fervently to what I think are professional standards of practice and "screw you, I'm doing what I think is best, regardless" is not in my DNA.

I busted my ass to work with other committee members codify standard practices to push for more consistency and transparency but the same ethical commitment that drove that makes it not OK to go back on an agreement as fundamental as that.

I daresay Andy likely feels the same in this regard.

K

EDIT - I have no "clout" to lose, in case you hadn't noticed.

[Knestis]

...Speaking personally, I'm a bit baffled as to how there could be such a difference between what is codified in the rules (which is also what was pitched to the BOD and approved) and what the SOP was at the time that I got involved in the ITAC in early 2007, and is still pretty much SOP today. It's likely that my own personal history in the institution doesn't go back far enough to understand it (member for 22 years, but I've really only been paying attention to IT since 2005.)

Yes, even in the last couple of months we have been making changes that are not based on racing results, on the grounds that these are errors: in those cases when two "identical" cars are at different weights or in different classes, we have agreed that one of them must be an error. Even this is a stretch of the rules as written but I thought you all would have been happy that we're at least allowed to make SOME changes (clearly from reading above and on the other forum, some of you would rather having nothing than something though.) ...

So far as I can tell, EVERY change that got made in recent years was done under the auspices of "error." That's the core of the resolution to the whole problem, and precisely where the powers-that-be in the CRB (with support of the BoD) will be most resistant - defining precisely how things should work, thereby defining what an ERROR actually is.

Right now, as JJJ points out, there's huge opportunity to play favorites, picking and choosing based on flexible personal definitions of that word. Mr. Keane will defend the process-derived weight of one car as being "without error" but will argue against applying that same process to a different make/model because, well, it would be "wrong."

Codify the definition of "right" to be "consistent with the following process...", get that process documented, and the problem disappears in a puff of logic. Of course, so does the opportunity for a few people to tweak things to align with their own little definitions of right and wrong...

K