IT Process - Run All IT Cars Through it or not?

[Bill Miller]

Excellent analysis Kirk. The more things change, the more they stay the same. I wonder what it really is about IT that the PtB are afraid of? Is it really that if they follow the process laid out by the ITAC that they may end up w/ a couple of 'fliers' that upset the balance in the IT classes? I really don't think so. The BoD and CRB are well practiced in stone-walling requests and trotting out trite, flip responses to people's requests. I think what they're afraid of is that people will begin to see that there's a better way to do things. They're comfortable w/ their ability to pretty much do what they want, and don't want to have that taken away from them, or be constrained by any kind of objective process. Lord knows, people may want the same kind of objectivity and transparancey for other categories (the most obvious ones being SS and T). Speaking of SS and T, anybody know how they spec cars for those categories?

I think one of the first steps to 'fixing' things, is to change how CRB members are selected. Get rid of the political patronage appointments, and have each AC send a member to the CRB. Doesn't matter if it's the chair of the AC, or a member that is voted on by the rest of the committee. You end up w/ equal representation across all categories, and you (hopefully) eliminate the political pressure from above.

 

[gran racing]

Raymond if you still have this e-mail could you forward it to me. I am wondering if the 2 ITB cars driven by 2 current CRB members went through this process.

While I don’t think Chris had an influence on the Golf III not going through the new process. Oooops, that was replaced by a spin wheel with weights on it and “guess that feels right” process.

...aaaaand THERE'S the nugget of the issue: Without a repeatable, transparent process, we have the appearance of impropriety or inequity even if none actually exists. It's like if I took a vacation with a woman other than my wife. What would we expect people to think?

Oh, it’s starting to sound transparent alright.

I've repeatedly - and publicly - said that I believe the MkIII Golf is heavy but that's relative to other process-based weights for cars in the same class. I make my comparisons theoretically. HOWEVER, I have zero reason to believe (using the example with which I'm most familiar) that Chris Albin is influencing the CRB decision to his own benefit of some silly 50 pounds.

I have a huge amount of respect for you doing that; many would not have done that. It’s not just a silly 50 lbs. That value would be accurate if other vehicles were put up against the same measuring stick. But that hasn’t happened. In Ray and Stephen’s case, they’d argue that it’s a matter of 250 lbs for the Golf III. Others would have different values but in MANY cases it’s more than a silly 50 lbs. Now you class cars by the process that concludes it’s 50 lbs lite, then we can start calling it a “silly” amount. Till then though…

I still have a little bit of hope left. The BOD just held their meeting on the 18th. Maybe, just maybe something came from that and SCCA didn't want to publish anything till that meeting happened.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

I have no idea where Gran gets that the GIII hasn't been through the process. Of course it has. The GIII got classed with a -50 for the beam rear and that is a mitsake that has been submitted for action for a while now. The Accord has also been through and is spot on.

I committ that at our next meeting we will put forth all the recommendations again that we feel need to be taken care plus some new letters that seem pretty easy to take care of (like allowing Alternate hood material, battery type, hatch material for the 280zx...)

 

[924Guy]

So, for someone who hasn't been embroiled in the day-to-day bloody battles of this topic, and who's already got a foot out of the class, where does this leave us?

Is there still hope that we can get the CRB to understand that progress is good, and SCCA is well on its way to having the best show in town, period?

Or do our votes still just not matter, since we don't go to the Runoffs?

So, refresh my memory - what percentage of licensed Club Racers run an IT car?

 

[gran racing]

I have no idea where Gran gets that the GIII hasn't been through the process. Of course it has. The GIII got classed with a -50 for the beam rear and that is a mitsake that has been submitted for action for a while now. The Accord has also been through and is spot on.

Gran got it from Bettencourt's old posts who said that the Golf III wasn't classed by this ITAC and the weight was based upon some old process. But whatever. And where does the Accord being spot on come from? That's one car of many that were sent through with weight adjustments. This whole thing is a joke and the ITAC better start practicing their puppetary. You still have a little ways to go yet Andy.

 

[Knestis]

I have no idea where Gran gets that the GIII hasn't been through the process. Of course it has. The GIII got classed with a -50 for the beam rear and that is a mitsake that has been submitted for action for a while now. The Accord has also been through and is spot on.

I committ that at our next meeting we will put forth all the recommendations again that we feel need to be taken care plus some new letters that seem pretty easy to take care of (like allowing Alternate hood material, battery type, hatch material for the 280zx...)

Sorry, Andy but I don't think that, while we ran the Golf III through the current math, it was set aside during the "make a case for doing all of ITB" phase this spring. I don't believe it was ever "officially" submitted for a CRB vote, based on my spreadsheet.

K

 

[Bill Miller]

I have no idea where Gran gets that the GIII hasn't been through the process. Of course it has. The GIII got classed with a -50 for the beam rear and that is a mitsake that has been submitted for action for a while now. The Accord has also been through and is spot on.

I committ that at our next meeting we will put forth all the recommendations again that we feel need to be taken care plus some new letters that seem pretty easy to take care of (like allowing Alternate hood material, battery type, hatch material for the 280zx...)

Not for nothing Andy, but I recall one of the ITAC members saying, in another thread, that there was no 'negative adder' for a rear beam axle. And was it just coincidence that the Golf III ended up at the exact same weight it was when it was in ITA?

Not sure what good running cars through the process is, when you've got people that can just slap weight on w/o any supporting data. Could it have possibly been that the "VW guy on the ITAC" that claimed 100 whp out of a Rabbit GTI was also running an ITB car? What's that comment Kirk made about impropriety and inequity?

 

[Knestis]

There's no subtractor in the CURRENT process that would apply to the Golf's rear end, Bill. The suspension adder/subtractor issue was substantially tightened up in the last 9 months or so, documented, and pinned down. It may well have been a consideration at some point but I don't believe it was formal in the Golf's case, even if it DID align under the assumptions and practices of a few years ago...

K

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Gran got it from Bettencourt's old posts who said that the Golf III wasn't classed by this ITAC and the weight was based upon some old process. But whatever. And where does the Accord being spot on come from? That's one car of many that were sent through with weight adjustments. This whole thing is a joke and the ITAC better start practicing their puppetary. You still have a little ways to go yet Andy.

Show me the quote Dave. Maybe some definitions to help you:

'Some old process': The ITAC has no idea how it was done. No documentation, no history, no nothin'.

'The Process': Very much the current way of doing things except for probably the FWD subtractor.

'Process V.2': Couple tweeks, everything DEFINED and documented, largely the same as the original in concept AND application.

Where do you get the weight adjustment on the Accord? The old ITB to ITA move was pre Process, the current ITB listing is EXACTLY on based on 120hp, 1.25, -50 for FWD and +50 for DW.

Help me understand your history please.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Not for nothing Andy, but I recall one of the ITAC members saying, in another thread, that there was no 'negative adder' for a rear beam axle. And was it just coincidence that the Golf III ended up at the exact same weight it was when it was in ITA?

Not sure what good running cars through the process is, when you've got people that can just slap weight on w/o any supporting data. Could it have possibly been that the "VW guy on the ITAC" that claimed 100 whp out of a Rabbit GTI was also running an ITB car? What's that comment Kirk made about impropriety and inequity?

Like Kirk said, there is no allowance for a beam on a FWD car now but I remember it getting 50 off for it when it was classed under the orginal Process concept. In our review and documentation phase this past year, we changed the FWD subtractors and eliminated that option from the potetial adders list. So that car would get 'corrected' under the current process to get 50lbs.

Edit: Kirk, I will defer to your spreadsheet.

 

[seckerich]

I believe the reason we are seeing nothing in IT is because we are now 2 members light on the CRB. There are some changes being made and we might have a possibility to move towards some form of process in IT if the majority of drivers actually want it. A proposal is being drafted to change the GCR to give us some options other than errors and omissions. Now would be a good time to get together and have a positive impact on IT's future.

 

[gran racing]

The Accord has also been through and is spot on.

My question was why you mentioned the Accord in all of this and where that came from?

 

[RSTPerformance]

I believe the reason we are seeing nothing in IT is because we are now 2 members light on the CRB. There are some changes being made and we might have a possibility to move towards some form of process in IT if the majority of drivers actually want it. A proposal is being drafted to change the GCR to give us some options other than errors and omissions. Now would be a good time to get together and have a positive impact on IT's future.

Steve- No disrespect but how? Several good people and jerks like me have been trying for over a year now and we simply keep getting turned away. Please HELP!

 

[924Guy]

My question was why you mentioned the Accord in all of this and where that came from?

Maybe because it looked like they rocked ITB last year at the ARRC?

(not that they did, but running 1-2 can be taken as a sign of dominance, if not properly qualified - right, Ray?)

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

My question was why you mentioned the Accord in all of this and where that came from?

My apologies if I attributed that you you originally but someone questioned the Accord classification and the fact Keene drives one. Your comment about weight adjustments on the Accord threw me.

Bottom line? We don't know why there is some stuff on hold, will get the answers and let people know.