Please help me understand the Audi issue...

[Bill Miller]

Nobody said it was good Kirk, what I was trying to say is that you KNOW it wasnt good, you could have validated with someone who was on the committee at the time the info - or posted that what you found and where you found it first, then we could come in and correct it, should it have been wrong. I just don't like it coming off as fact, when it indeed was not. Before you post what you have saved from your 'pre-tenure', do us all a favor and validate it as what you think it is.

The documentation process we have now is light years better than whatever was in play before. As you state, it was a DRAFT Darin did. Presented to the ITAC and final recomendations were taken directly by the CRB after debate.

The Feb addendum was tGR. We wanted to do more, we were convinced by the CRB that anything outside the +/- 100lbs barrier was going to raise flags with the BoD.

Andy,

IIRC, one of the main concerns when the whole discussion about a classing process (and the lack of one), was that there was NO documentation about how things were done. You were around during those discussions, as were most of the ITAC members. I'm genuinely surprised that you guys were so cavalier w/ the documentation even after those conversations several years ago.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

IIRC, one of the main concerns when the whole discussion about a classing process (and the lack of one), was that there was NO documentation about how things were done. You were around during those discussions, as were most of the ITAC members. I'm genuinely surprised that you guys were so cavalier w/ the documentation even after those conversations several years ago.

The process was documented Bill, that is what the discussions were about - no guidelines as to how cars were classed back before Darin and myself. In the 'Process Era', the debates were had, using the written process as a guideline and the results were documented. In the Kirk era, he really brought structure to that. Who voted how on what, each step of the calculation is written down, rules on how the process can or can't be applied etc. In the end, it's the lack of wiggle room that created, that got the rug pulled out from under us. I do not know any ITAC member who did not support the way we are documenting now as well as a lack of wiggle room it eliminated.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

And what IS documented is the entire SIR discussion on the SCCA board. March of 2006. It ends with Darin telling us it's effectively out of our hands as the CRB was going to place an SIR on the car because an ITS process weight would add enough weight that people would be running over 500lbs of ballast (we had limited balast space then). So again, the threads are there, the discussion is there. No official recomendation made it...but nobody wanted an SIR (Although Darin did buy into the technology at that time).

 

[Bill Miller]

The process was documented Bill, that is what the discussions were about - no guidelines as to how cars were classed back before Darin and myself. In the 'Process Era', the debates were had, using the written process as a guideline and the results were documented. In the Kirk era, he really brought structure to that. Who voted how on what, each step of the calculation is written down, rules on how the process can or can't be applied etc. In the end, it's the lack of wiggle room that created, that got the rug pulled out from under us. I do not know any ITAC member who did not support the way we are documenting now as well as a lack of wiggle room it eliminated.

Thanks for the clarification Andy. I guess, for some reason, I thought that you guys kept minutes of the ITAC mtgs / con calls. And I don't think that anyone doubts the lack of wiggle room (or to use Kirk's phrase, 'strategic ambiguity') is what got the rug pulled out on you guys. I think the CRB is cowardly hiding behind the BoD edict on E&O, as it gives them an easy 'out'. Not unlike how ITR gave them an easy 'out' on the E36 debacle.

And if back pre-tGR, the CRB was telling you that the BoD would shoot down changes that were w/in the +/- 100# thing, I think they were shining you on. Based on what I've seen over the years, and especially what I've seen lately, I don't have a whole lot of respect for the CRB. I think that for the most part, they are a bunch of political hacks.

 

[Knestis]

Sorry, Andy - you're right. Even though I acted on good faith, I should have assumed the information was incomplete or inaccurate. My intent was ONLY to document which cars got "fixed" at that point in history, and that looked like as accurate a record as was available re: that point.

K

 

[seckerich]

I would ask a few questions of the ITAC and the IT community in general:


Was there any car fixed by the ITAC that became an overdog and a class killer?
Did they help the balance of the IT classes?

I say they helped the balance and did no harm. Why is it now the CRB and BOD have no faith in their process? I fully agree there are some cars that are a little off, but most are on the heavy side. Seems with this track record we would get a little more support for our efforts.

 

[Knestis]

>> Why is it now the CRB and BOD have no faith in their process?

Some CRB member - Jim Drago, most vocally - voiced fundamental philosophical differences with the first principle of the Process, that weights should be spec'd based on physical attributes of the car. As he voiced it, his view was that it was simply wrong to not use on-track performance as the input for weight decisions. I had the sense that he was new to the idea and didn't know what we were doing, or why.

It's illuminating to me that the BoD might have kept the whole class in from recess based on the misbehaviors of a few CRB members who were playing fast and loose with the E&O loophole. The more I think about it, the more sense that makes if some of the stories coming out about changes right before the RubOffs are accurate.

K

 

[Bill Miller]

>> Why is it now the CRB and BOD have no faith in their process?

Some CRB member - Jim Drago, most vocally - voiced fundamental philosophical differences with the first principle of the Process, that weights should be spec'd based on physical attributes of the car. As he voiced it, his view was that it was simply wrong to not use on-track performance as the input for weight decisions. I had the sense that he was new to the idea and didn't know what we were doing, or why.

It's illuminating to me that the BoD might have kept the whole class in from recess based on the misbehaviors of a few CRB members who were playing fast and loose with the E&O loophole. The more I think about it, the more sense that makes if some of the stories coming out about changes right before the RubOffs are accurate.

K

So how does Mr. Drago suggest setting an initial weight on a newly-classed car? How do you set the weight based on on-track performance when the car hasn't been on-track yet? It's pretty scary when you've got people in that kind of a position, who seemingly have less common sense than a bag of rocks, and probably couldn't buy a clue w/ all the gold in Fort Knox. Not that hard to understand that you set an initial weight based on physical attributes, and then (and only then) look at on-track performance to see if a change is warranted. It's pretty well spelled out in the PCA section.

As far as pre-Ruboffs shenanigans, no big surprise there, that's been going on for years.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

It's not like that Bill. It has been posted here that the CRB will allow us to use the Process to class new cars. What they won't allow us to do is use the process to reset legacy cars for fear that we may impact the current competitive landscape. They like how it looks now and feel that there is little gain and high risk.

 

[Bill Miller]

"Little gain and high risk"???

I'm not sure how they can say that with a straight face Andy. Look at Steve's post again, if anything, what you guys did adjusting cars improved things and didn't create any overdogs or class-killers. I think your 'trial balloon' demonstrated that you had a good handle on it. I think they (CR are making it up to find some excuse to shut you guys down because they don't like to be made to look bad.

 

[seckerich]

Bill the general impression I got from most of the BOD members I spoke with was that everything in IT was great, no problems. If you are one of the cars that is classed correctly they are right. Where I differ from them is that the cars currently way off on the slow side do deserve to be looked at. They look at the class as a whole and as long as no car is upsetting the balance they are OK with it. I personally am not willing to go along with that. They are our elected representitives and need to listen a little more to the way we (the active drivers) want things done. We can get there working through the proper channels and not just taking no for an answer.

 

[Bill Miller]

Bill the general impression I got from most of the BOD members I spoke with was that everything in IT was great, no problems. If you are one of the cars that is classed correctly they are right. Where I differ from them is that the cars currently way off on the slow side do deserve to be looked at. They look at the class as a whole and as long as no car is upsetting the balance they are OK with it. I personally am not willing to go along with that. They are our elected representitives and need to listen a little more to the way we (the active drivers) want things done. We can get there working through the proper channels and not just taking no for an answer.

That's the key point right there Steve. Here's a thought, what would happen if you ran all the cars through the process, published the weights, and got the drivers to sign a petition (or agreement) that those would be the weights that they would go by?

 

[Ron Earp]

Some CRB member - Jim Drago, most vocally - voiced fundamental philosophical differences with the first principle of the Process,

Why would/should Mr. Drago's opinion carry more weight than the other CRB members or the ITAC collective?

 

[seckerich]

Why would/should Mr. Drago's opinion carry more weight than the other CRB members or the ITAC collective?

You must realize Ron that this is a group that is used to the constant changes and comp adjustments of the other catagories. They get letters weekly asking for 50 pounds on car A, - 100 on car B because it beat me down the straight at RA. It is an ingrained thought process that they watch cars on track and do knee jerk adjustments to the driver or car of the month. It is just that type of classing and adjustments that drove GT and Production to the brink of destruction. They are pushing back at IT because they do not want us going down that road. What they fail to see is that a repeatable, transparent process with very little room for influence from what X CRB member thinks is the real protection. Jim Drago is responsible for Spec Miata so his opinion does carry some weight with the CRB. It is however a little easier to balance 3 different Miatas than 300 plus IT cars.

 

[Knestis]

... It is just that type of classing and adjustments that drove GT and Production to the brink of destruction. They are pushing back at IT because they do not want us going down that road. ...

...and Mr. Drago et al. wouldn't hear ANY explanation of how the ITAC's practices PREVENTED that, rather than encouraged it.

Frankly Steve, I think you're being overly kind about this point - that you're actually flat wrong about that motivation, in fact. I think that some key decision-makers want to reserve the right to go straight down that road, if they think that at the micro-level a particular car needs to be faster or slower, absent any evidence beyond it "beat someone down the straight at RA."

Or I might be wrong.

K

 

[RSTPerformance]

CRB member wins ITB... What a suprise... Kinda looses any respect for ARRC winners IMO.

anyone know who actually won the ITB race (out of cars that fit the process weight?)

Raymond

 

[Bill Miller]

CRB member wins ITB... What a suprise... Kinda looses any respect for ARRC winners IMO.

anyone know who actually won the ITB race (out of cars that fit the process weight?)

Raymond

Raymond,

That wasn't Peter that won, it was his brother Deuce, last year's winner IIRC. Peter finished 6th, and his fast lap was 3 seconds slower than his brother's (1:49.050 vs. 1:46.023*)


* New ITB track record

But believe me Raymond, I hear you.

 

[Knestis]

CRB member wins ITB... What a suprise... Kinda looses any respect for ARRC winners IMO.

anyone know who actually won the ITB race (out of cars that fit the process weight?)

Raymond

I am COMPLETELY in your corner about the the "Audi Issue" (which is about a hell of lot more than one make/model) but you insinuation is equally COMPLETELY off-base. To suggest that Keane (or Albin for that matter) is simply trying to protect a competitive position is baseless BS.

Now, does the lack of a transparent process leave the door open for that kind of interpretation...? Yes. It's kind of like if a teacher and a student spent long hours in a private place studying together: There's no way for it to look good.

However, some of us who have been closer to the situation are pretty confident that there's no hanky panky going on in this case. It would be nice if you could focus on the issue rather than defaulting to the tabloid answer.

K

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

120*1.25=150*17=2550

-50 for FWD +50 for DW. Exactly on process weight.

Raymond - like Kirk, I agree with you on the Audi issue. Although we can see now why it can be considered dangerous to make changes on that car when the owners can't even agree on stock hp.

But to come on here, not even KNOW who won the race, and shout out stupididty, doesn't do you any good. Really. And the tone of your recent letter to the CRB is totally disrespectful.

 

[rcc85]

The point I think some members of the CRB and/or the BoD are missing is that there are some cars whose weight is way, way, way too high. There are also some inconsistencies between cars with the same engine. These are the weights that need to be fixed.

Example: ITB Ford Mustang II 74-78 2830 lbs (2.3L)
ITB Ford Pinto 2.3 74-80 2340 lbs (down from 2490 in 2008)

There's not a lot of difference, mechanically, between a 78 Pinto and a 78 Mustang II but the Mustang is 490 lbs heavier.

My favorite example (and it's not even a Dodge):
ITB Mercury Capri 2.3 79-86 2640 lbs
ITB Ford Mustang 2.3 79-93 2550 lbs

It's only a 90 lbs difference but this was the era when the Mustang and Capri shared a body. They are the same car!!

There are plenty of other examples (look at the ITA Ford 2.8 V6 cars and the ITA & ITB 2.2 Dodges & Plymouths). Some weights just defy logic. Those are the ones that really need to be fixed. The cars that are already competitive can wait.

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona (2630 lbs)