Well guys, I haven't been around for a bit, but I did read this whole thread. Lots of stuff to cover, and I'm sure I'll miss some points. Interesting stuff, that's for sure. Kirk is to be applauded for starting this. I'll try and hit this stuff in the order it was in the thread. But it will probably start to ramble and be all inter-twined and what not.
To Kirk's original request (at least I think that's what he was asking). In my opinion, IT is a MUCH better place to race today, than it was 10 years ago when I started in it. To those that weren't around then, trust me, it's a LOT better. This kind of open discussion w/ folks that were involved in the policy / rules process just didn't happen.
Ok, here goes. Kirk states that the CRB is sitting on action items that were sent up a while ago. He also states that the ITAC is being called in for a formal 'sit down'. To me, throwing the CRB under the bus like that can't be a good thing for the ITAC. I'm all for openness in the rules making process, but it's usually not a good idea to publicly tell people that your boss isn't doing their job. It makes them look bad, and nobody likes to be made out like that in public. Kirk, I applaud you for what you did, but it was a gutsy play, and I'm just saying that you shouldn't be surprised if there are consequences.
As far as the ITAC having to defend and justify what they're doing, I'm confident that they've got that one covered. That's not to say that the PtB haven't already formulated opinions and made decisions, and this may be a mere 'formality', but I sure hope that's not the case.
If on thing is evident in this thread, is that some things will never change. You will ALWAYS have people out there that are 'me-centric'. Do whatever you want, but don't do anything that may have a potential negative impact on me. Doesn't matter if it's better for the overall good or not.
Process v2.0. At the beginning of all this, many years ago, that's something I always figured would happen. It would be an itterative, evolving process, getting better and more refined w/ each itteration. That's exactly what looks to be happening, and that's a good thing, IMHO.
That being said, I never supported the "w/in 100# is close enough" approach. I understand that there were some valid reasons behind it (less changes having a greater potential for approval over changing everything, etc.). And it's easy to say in hindsight that the safe approach is now catching up w/ them (ITAC). Who knows, the whole thing may have been dead in the water if they (ITAC) tried to set every car at process weight from the outset. I would have liked to have seen that done, but it's not fair to, in hindsight, say they made the wrong decision at the time. I'll continue to believe that what was done, was really done w/ the best interests of the category at heart. And it's not a bad thing to now admit that maybe it should have been done that way. It's a learning process. Unfortunately the me-centric folks won't care about objectivity and repeatability, if it means they get lead. But I think these folks (ITAC) have tough skins and are up to the task.
One of the things I'm really surprised that no one has brought up in this whole discussion is the 'no guarantee' clause. To the ITAC folks, don't be surprised if that isn't raised by the BoD / CRB in your meeting. I personally think that the time has come for that language to be removed from the ITCS. At this point, it's just an easy 'out' for not wanting to deal w/ individual issues.
I like the 'rules season' idea. Fix legit mistakes at any time during the year, but rules evolutions should happen at one time in the year, and the end of the season (for most folks) is probably the best time to do it.
Andy, to your question about that car that came out of the woodwork, I'd say you go w/ what the process says. If the car is that good, others will build them. If all of the examples show to be top dogs, a closer look will be needed. There are cars now that get 'special treatment' because they're greater than the sum of the parts, this may be just one more example. I don't think you can toss out a process that you've put so much time into, and seems to work pretty well, just because you've got one unknown car out there that nobody even knows if it is legal or not.
The whole IT National thing. I advocated years ago that the whole National / Regional distinction needed to go away. If you want to maintain National and Regional races (for whatever reason), you re-label them 'Qualifying' and 'Non-Qualifying' (for purposes of going to the Runoffs) races. Other than the names, and the former National races having to slot the IT classes into their schedule, I really don't see anything else changing.
For those that say the cost for every IT racer will go up, I didn't buy it then, and I don't buy it now. As Kirk pointed out, look at the commitment levels of Regional Prod guys vs. National Prod guys. The same pretty much holds true for all of the National classes that run at Regionals today. Sure, you may get some folks that 'cross-polinate', but it's not going to raise the price of poker for everyone. And as Kirk (at least I think it was him) pointed out, pulling the top dogs out of the Non-Qualifying races, may make those events more palatable to people just starting out.
And for those that say that if IT goes National, you'll have guys only running 4 races, and waiting around for the RO. Do you really think that's going to happen? Maybe in ITC, but if you run an ITA car, and decide to only run 4 races, you're not going to qualify for the RO, you won't be high enough on the points list.
I honestly thinking having Process v2.0 in place actually facilitates IT's move to a RO-eligible category. The NG clause goes away, you've got a defined, objective process for classifying cars, and established 'rules season', off you go w/ a very stable category.
For the folks that say people would spend more to have a shot at that RO trophy, think about what's hidden in that statement. What is implied by that statement, if it is indeed true, is that an ARRC/IT-fest/TC championship really doesn't carry the weight of an RO championship. Sure, those things are nice, but they're really not the same as having that RO trophy. Another thing that is implied in that statement, is that even though those ARRC/IT-fest/TC champions have good programs, they're not spending as much as the would if it were for a RO trophy. As Greg and some of the other top IT folks if they feel that's the case. As someone else mentioned, I think you'll find that a lot of the top IT programs are more comitted than some of the top National programs, just because these guys run more races. And in many cases, because the competition is better, and deeper. And let's not even bring up the folks that go to the RO just becasue it is a big social event. They bring cars that wouldn't see the pointy end of the grid at a Regional.
To the ITAC, hang in there, you guys 'get it' probably more than most in your position (and above).
Hope I didn't miss anything, but I'm not going back and reading 9 pages again.
just messin.
