Big Picture of IT - Share Your Opinions

jjjanos said:
Eliminate Nationals entirely. SCCA holds club races, period. The Runoffs are open to any and everyone who wishes to compete and who has finished at least 6 races during the past 12 months at a minimum of 3 different tracks. No tow fund for anyone other than the top X finishers from the previous year.

Eligible classes will be the top 24 classes in terms of participating from the previous calendar year.

Drivers will be required to meet the 107% or the 105% rule. Those not meeting speed will need approval of the 80% of the drivers in their race to compete.
Click to expand...

I asked the question to get larger picture views, such as yours.

I've been beating the drum for the elimination of the "national" concept and the top 24 idea for years. I think your ideas are spot on.
 
lateapex911 said:
....it begs the question: Does the IT category owe it to the club to become a Nationally eligible category for the better of the club? Or should it defend it's own health first and foremost?
Click to expand...


Why would we owe it to them, When the powers to be above don't seem to care about us now, and not take effect on what the ITAC (that in my opinion seems to have there thumb on the heartbeat of current IT. I am in full agreement that the SCCA is the best car club in the country and possibly on the planet, however what is the basis of the IT community (blue collars workers, out there to have fun) going to get out of the SCCA?

Our numbers (atleast the popular ones draw huge IT crowds. Including all IT division at the daytona race we had something close to 80 cars!! Why mess that up? lets focus on more pressing issues.

as a more theoretical possibility.. IT goes to RO. Draws more wallets into the category.. it would be almost foolish for them to build cars other than a select few in each class that would be competitive at Road America doe to the fast nature of the course.

ITC Civic
ITB Accord, MKIII
ITA integra, 1.8 Miata
ITS RX7
ITR BMW

As it sits now we seem to build a car that we personally like that "could be competitive", maybe not 10/10ths, and run it. This creates diversity. Then we dump a crap load of money, and we are still not winning, But that is fine we still have fun.
 
Last edited:
As a PS to this thread, I have tendered my resignation from the ITAC, effective yesterday - essentially as a direct result of starting this thread.

A member of the CRB passed on to the ITAC chair that they were "frustrated with the public communication on IT.com about some of the issues we are working on," and that we should "cease any such comments, polls, whatever." That request was forwarded to me but I couldn't in good conscience comply, so I've left the committee.

This should NOT be construed as a criticism of Andy or the rest of the ITAC. They do a great job for the category, I was proud to have the chance to work with them, and I feel badly for being a quitter.

My "compelling need" to explain the source of the backlog of "please review" requests was set free here knowing that there was every chance that my action wouldn't be well received by the CRB. However, I tried *very* hard to make everything I said either factual or the expression of a concern of what might happen grounded in fact. I think I did a pretty good job maintaining that.

HOWEVER, Andy has pointed out that I conflated some cars that were spec'd outside the ITAC process (e.g., that Civic DX) with those set during the Great Realignment. He is absolutely correct that I misrepresented that situation. While that is an example of a car that got subjective weight added to it during its specification process, it was NOT done during the GR. I apologize for being inaccurate about that.

My tone went very negative in some of my posts re: the CRB's actions and the nature of what I was hearing from them but frankly, I was completely PO'd about the direction I saw the category being turned. I'm not going to apologize for being indelicate when explaining that I think we're on the edge of making a HUGE mistake for the category, going back to subjective additions of weight based solely on anecdotal observation of on-track activity.

Now, if history plays out that I'm wrong, that will be a good thing. I'm really bummed that it's come to this but there was only one option available to me that didn't require being disrespectful to Andy and the committee, ignoring the CRB's directive, or compromising what I believe the members deserve.

We now return you to your regular programming...

K
 
Sorry to hear this Kirk,

Sounds to me like the crb would like to move to back to smoke and mirrors and back room deals. Cars classed by the desire of somebody owning the car to have a competitive advantage. I think that asking for nobody to discuss possible class changes is kinda telling the members that they have no say in the club. Maybe i'm missing something. Sorry to hear you felt the need to leave the ITAC kirk. I'm actually more concerned now than I was before, I was pretty sure that between you and Jake Gulick we didn't have to worry about competition adjustments based on on track performances.

Brian,

Who doesn't think such actions by the crb are gonna improve anything and isn't sure why they made such a request. I can only assume they were getting letters/emails about possible changes and didn't want to deal with it.
 
Knestis said:
A member of the CRB passed on to the ITAC chair that they were "frustrated with the public communication on IT.com about some of the issues we are working on," and that we should "cease any such comments, polls, whatever." That request was forwarded to me but I couldn't in good conscience comply, so I've left the committee.
Click to expand...

Well that's complete and total bullshit. The member(s) of the CRB making such a suggestion should immediately resign. There is no place in this club for backroom deals and secret decisions. They aren't a bunch of freaking priests who, in secret conclave, decide whether we have to eat fish on Friday. Looks like its time to send a letter to the BOD.

Despite sparring with you, I thought you were doing a good job.
 
Kirk,

I'm well and truly sorry to hear this. I can't say that I'm surprised at the backlash from the CRB, just sorry that it came to this. I applaud you sticking to your convictions. The category has lost a significant advocate. I also agree w/ Jeff, that kind of action from a member of the CRB is total BS. The person should be outed.
 
Knestis said:
As a PS to this thread, I have tendered my resignation from the ITAC, effective yesterday - essentially as a direct result of starting this thread.

A member of the CRB passed on to the ITAC chair that they were "frustrated with the public communication on IT.com about some of the issues we are working on," and that we should "cease any such comments, polls, whatever."
Click to expand...


Kirk I'm really sorry to hear about that, all of it.

First off, I think your absence on the ITAC will be sorely felt. I always thought that you have had IT's best interests at heart. If you resigned from the ITAC, well, Danger Will Robinson! I'm worried. Thanks for all the hard work you did for all of us, much appreciated.

The public communication complaints from the CRB - that downright scares me. The great thing about the ITAC is that they are vocal, communicative, and actively seek member input. We don't want the opposite. What, they want you guys to go to the old "Thank you for your input (but we'll do what we bloody well like cause we're in charge!)" responses? Me thinks a big ol' black helicopter from HQ will be landing soon to take over IT.....resistance is futile

Clearly I'm not on the ITAC but I'll be starting some more polls in honor of your work.

Ron
 
Last edited:
For the record, the issue wasn't with the public comminication, it was the airing of the 'dirty laundy' while we were trying to clean it up internally. Right or wrong, the CRB wasn't excited about that.

Right now, IMHO, the CRB and ITAC are using one singular example of a classification to determine the overall philosophy of the class. It's an interesting excersize and will really mold how things are done in the future.
 
Very sorry to hear that Kirk. I would have preferred you told them to kiss your A** and kept telling it like it is. You have always had my respect, especially when we disagreed. See you at the track.
 
Damn, Kirk, just damn. I had hoped that the CRB would understand that response and input from its customers is a good thing. I hope we don't go back to the secrete car club of America.

Thanks for all your hard work...and for all hard work of the other ITAC members. See you at the ARRC. Chuck
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
Right now, IMHO, the CRB and ITAC are using one singular example of a classification to determine the overall philosophy of the class. It's an interesting excersize and will really mold how things are done in the future.
Click to expand...

Wunnerful. :( IMHO, this is precisely the wrong thing to do... not unlike using the results from a single race to determine whether or not a car is misclassified.

Come back, Kirk!
 
I'm also sorry to hear this, but not terribly surprised. The old addage about big ships turning slowly really does apply w/r/t the SCCA, and considering we still have a lot of "old school" members on the board I can't imagine they were too pleased with having their laundry aired in public, even if that public is their own family. It sounds like you probably rocked the boat just a little too much, and the skipper didn't like it.

Welcome back to the unwashed masses.
 
the last waltz

So sorry to hear this Kirk. You seemed to be one of the "elders" who would carry the flame of the essential IT concept and philosophy into the new millenium with integrity and creativity, preserving its greatness. This is a great loss to a community that is becoming increasingly reactive. Your reasoned and stable voice will be missed. I am not sanguine about the future, Phil
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
For the record, the issue wasn't with the public comminication, it was the airing of the 'dirty laundy' while we were trying to clean it up internally. Right or wrong, the CRB wasn't excited about that.

Right now, IMHO, the CRB and ITAC are using one singular example of a classification to determine the overall philosophy of the class. It's an interesting excersize and will really mold how things are done in the future.
Click to expand...

Andy is right on. There's NO question the issue was that I was communicating - it's about what I was communicating, and to be fair, how.

But this is NOT ABOUT ME. This is about what the membership wants the category to be. It's ironic that prior to getting word from the CRB, I had taken the position that there wasn't much more that I could say about the danger of competition adjustments (bleah!) and rules creep in the category - that maybe we were finally to a place where a critical mass of current IT entrants were new enough that they didn't know the historical traps, and that no amount of evangelizing would shift their first principles.

That's what this thread was supposed to be about. If the CRB demonstrates by their handling of the Audi case that they're sticking with the old-school SCCA orthodoxy of the "Peterson Effect," AND you all agree it's right for IT, then everyone's a winner. But you'd better understand what you REALLY want, what you have to give up to get it, and how you'll decide if it was worth it.

K
 
Last edited:
Gary L said:
Wunnerful. :( IMHO, this is precisely the wrong thing to do... not unlike using the results from a single race to determine whether or not a car is misclassified.

Come back, Kirk!
Click to expand...

Actually, it is a great thing. The way the CRB chooses to handle this one case will set precident for how they could - or will handle other examples like it in the future. It is by this outcome that a continued direction, or new direction will be set. I don't hesitate to say that it will also probably determine who makes up the ITAC...because - as it should be - the ITAC needs to help the CRB carry out their charter and vision for IT.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
Actually, it is a great thing. The way the CRB chooses to handle this one case will set precident for how they could - or will handle other examples like it in the future. It is by this outcome that a continued direction, or new direction will be set. I don't hesitate to say that it will also probably determine who makes up the ITAC...because - as it should be - the ITAC needs to help the CRB carry out their charter and vision for IT.
Click to expand...

This almost makes it sounds like none of the current ITAC will be around a lot longer. I'm almost tempted to write/email daily the crb complaining about secretive practices which seem to encouraging using ontrack performance and not the process to control IT classifications. If this is all about the audi... Then the CRB member that made this comment needs to relieve themselves of the position. Kirk wanted people to be informed about the possiblity that competition adjustments, based on, on track performance from a car that wasn't even known to be legal might be taking place. The process by which most of the IT cars have been classed and v2.0 will make sure that all cars have been processed was basically being thrown out the window and stomped on and kirk is ask to step down for telling? Fuck that, that isn't airing dirty laundry that is informing the members of the Club, and remember it is a club, how the club is being run. Without IT members the CRB can deciede whatever they want, and the silent invisible cars will abide.
 
It's just not as serious as you make it sound. It's not a secret, not going to be a secret or anything like that. The CRB is hopefully going to define for the ITAC how they will operate wrt classifications. It's ok, really. It may certainly impact the tenure of some current ITAC members but in the end, the CRB needs a team that will help them fullfill their charter.
 
Last edited:
Wait... wait... wait..

So the CRB says to the ITAC "SCREW YOUR WAY OF DOING THINGS, SCREW THE COUNTLESS LETTERS WE GET SUPPORTING IT, WE ARE GOING TO CLASS CARS THE WAY WE WANT."

And too get that to happen we put people in the ITAC who wont disagree with us, so everything is hunky doory.

(yes it is probably much harsher as i put it, but that seems to be the point of it)

WTF happened to "scca is a club. the club does what the membership wants. we listen to the members."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top