ITAC News.

JoshS said:
I don't really understand why you think it's all so sinister. Do you REALLY think that the ITAC sits around coming up with schemes to piss the members off? No one wants to piss the members off!
Click to expand...

I do not think there is a covert plot behind ITAC actions. I do think the ITAC action on the motor mount proposal pissed people off. I simply think it was a case of poor judgment, or lack of judgment, from the ITAC. I'd like to think the ITAC realizes a mistake was made and will exercise caution to insure it doesn't get repeated.
 
Last edited:
There are some on the ITAC who find member input to be very valuable and others who do not. I think submitting it, since it is so quick and easy now, is always a good idea and those of us on the ITAC who find it to be valuable appreciate the comments.

The motor mount issue is sort of a special case, with votes all over the place. And, the CRB actually left it "open" as we continue to discuss the future of IT. It's not dead yet.

Ron Earp said:
What is the reason for asking for member input?

I'm inferring from the underlined statement above to mean "the ITAC was not in favor of the motor mount change rule". I think that is the only reasonable interpretation of the ambiguous language you used.

Did the ITAC ask for "WDYT" on the proposal just to see if the member input aligned with their direction? A sort of, "let's see what they think and if it aligns with what we think then that lends a bit more credibility to our decision, and, if it doesn't align with what we think, well, we'll write that off as letter responses are not indicative of what membership really wants and not recommend the proposal anyway."

If the member input isn't going to be acted on by the ITAC there is no reason to request it.
Click to expand...
 
I thought the CRB already HAD a future planned for IT - see "STU/L"

hey, we can race in nationals!!! :017:

really, I like the basic concept but I only see it as an alternative (cost +) for the forgotten and forsaken IT cars. not the place for that thread though:dead_horse:
 
Josh, according to my recollection and notes, we took a vote on getting member input based on the vote of the ITAC on "If we can craft a rule that allays the fears of engine placement movement (a wordsmith issue), would you be in favor of opening the rule up?"

The vote was a majority were in favor. The request for input went out.

The ITAC lost myself, and Andy. The new guys voted differently than Andy and I when the ITAC went over it again, and the net result was a tied vote.

And ANY issue is "open" because all a member needs to do is write in. The CRB didn't table it, or return it to the ITAC, the merely rubber stamped what was perceived as a "No change" vote from the ITAC.

I think the biggest issue (other than a couple guys being happy to ignore the HUGE member input :shrug:) was the fact that the vote had the ability to be split evenly. Odd numbered committees work well for that reason. (And yea, I'm well aware of the fact that we rarely had a "full committee" (another pet peeve, LOL) on a con call, and that could result in an even/split vote)
 
jimmyc said:
thanks for informing me!! i had no idea
Click to expand...

The real reason that is an interesting car is because Phoenix Performance built several of them for SSC, there have been a handful at every Runoffs since '06. John Heinricy drove one of them at the '06 and '07 Runoffs. I think he won in '07. One finished on the podium in '08.

Always good to class already-built cars. It's more likely that those would show up than something that no one has ever built.
 
Isn't it a "tweener" car though??? With 160hp its a light its car.

Can it get that light I know the ga cars need lots of carbon to get down to 2400ish
 
lateapex911 said:
Josh, according to my recollection and notes, we took a vote on getting member input based on the vote of the ITAC on "If we can craft a rule that allays the fears of engine placement movement (a wordsmith issue), would you be in favor of opening the rule up?"

The vote was a majority were in favor. The request for input went out.

The ITAC lost myself, and Andy. The new guys voted differently than Andy and I when the ITAC went over it again, and the net result was a tied vote.

And ANY issue is "open" because all a member needs to do is write in. The CRB didn't table it, or return it to the ITAC, the merely rubber stamped what was perceived as a "No change" vote from the ITAC.

I think the biggest issue (other than a couple guys being happy to ignore the HUGE member input :shrug:) was the fact that the vote had the ability to be split evenly. Odd numbered committees work well for that reason. (And yea, I'm well aware of the fact that we rarely had a "full committee" (another pet peeve, LOL) on a con call, and that could result in an even/split vote)
Click to expand...
My money says if the ITAC was ambivalent, as indicated by the tie vote, the CRB should have looked at other factors such as member input etc, to decide if this request should be approved. Maybe it doesn't work that way, but it should.

Of course, I thought SCCA was club which to me means the paying members have some say in how it operates, but maybe I am a bit naive.
 
EV said:
My money says if the ITAC was ambivalent, as indicated by the tie vote, the CRB should have looked at other factors such as member input etc, to decide if this request should be approved. Maybe it doesn't work that way, but it should.

Of course, I thought SCCA was club which to me means the paying members have some say in how it operates, but maybe I am a bit naive.
Click to expand...

I too, think it should work the way you described.

How many member letters equals one ITAC vote? Five? Ten? One hundred? At what point does the ITAC vote in a fashion reflective to member input?
 
Ron Earp said:
I too, think it should work the way you described.

How many member letters equals one ITAC vote? Five? Ten? One hundred? At what point does the ITAC vote in a fashion reflective to member input?
Click to expand...

disagree.

what's worse, an uneducated vote or no vote? the ITAC/CRB should be granted to freedom to do what's best for the category and the club as a whole, not necessarily what the members want.

if your kids got to vote on what they had for dinner, it'd be cookies and ice cream every day.
 
tnord said:
disagree.

what's worse, an uneducated vote or no vote? the ITAC/CRB should be granted to freedom to do what's best for the category and the club as a whole, not necessarily what the members want.

if your kids got to vote on what they had for dinner, it'd be cookies and ice cream every day.
Click to expand...
Last I checked, my kids aren't part of a club where they pay dues.

If SCCA want's to remain solvent, they need to get with the times. People will vote with their feet, and I believe it's part of why things are slowing down a bit.

I stand by my statement, it's a club, and members input should be considered. Piss them off, and they will find another playground. SCCA is getting grayer every day. Soon enough, it will look like a vintage racing club. Honestly, it's sad.
 
The difference in average age between a NASA paddock and an SCCA paddock is something the SCCA should be very concerned about in my view.
 
JeffYoung said:
The difference in average age between a NASA paddock and an SCCA paddock is something the SCCA should be very concerned about in my view.
Click to expand...


For us in the NE NASA doesn't really exist. I was wondering if NASA has championships similar to MARRS or NARRC or even wwwproitseries.com in other parts of the Country? Or do they just host a. Inch o races throughout the year?

Do they have active forums like this?

Stephen
 
EV said:
Last I checked, my kids aren't part of a club where they pay dues.

If SCCA want's to remain solvent, they need to get with the times. People will vote with their feet, and I believe it's part of why things are slowing down a bit.

I stand by my statement, it's a club, and members input should be considered. Piss them off, and they will find another playground. SCCA is getting grayer every day. Soon enough, it will look like a vintage racing club. Honestly, it's sad.
Click to expand...

i didn't say member input should be ignored. but you shouldn't have to follow lock-step with their input 100% of the time either.

PS - i AM the target demographic for both SCCA and NASA. moderate income, joined/started racing at the age of 24. turning 30 this year.
 
StephenB said:
For us in the NE NASA doesn't really exist. I was wondering if NASA has championships similar to MARRS or NARRC or even wwwproitseries.com in other parts of the Country? Or do they just host a. Inch o races throughout the year?

Do they have active forums like this?

Stephen
Click to expand...

Every region has a "regional championship".

http://www.nasanortheast.com/

regional points can be found on that website.

Here is the forum http://nasaforums.com/

Some series have there own boards but most use that.
 
I'm going to agree with Travis in principla, but EV and Ron in secific.

IF the members thought adding tubes from the front A pillar downtubes of the cage to the shock/spring/strut towers was a good idea, I'd still be skeptical. I'd want to know, "Do they REALLY understand the Pandoras box they are opening? " The chassis will get stiffer by a huge amount, spring rates can now go up and damper costs will double or triple .....the law of diminishing returns in damper choice will have shifted massively.

But, I really didn't hear ONE significant and legitimate across the board downside to this change. One guy on the iTAC is deadset that you just need a CHAIN to control the engine. (Which, illustrates that he thinks it is OK to control engine movement, so "rules creep" is out the window, even though that's what he fell back on) It IS possible that there are members who are more open minded/more integrated into the actual scene/or just plain sharper than committee members. (I was one, and I KNOW there are brighter members out there than me,).

So I don't for an instance subscribe to the "committee knows best" in all situations.

They certainly didn't in this case.
 
lateapex911 said:
IF the members thought adding tubes from the front A pillar downtubes of the cage to the shock/spring/strut towers was a good idea, I'd still be skeptical. I'd want to know, "Do they REALLY understand the Pandoras box they are opening? " The chassis will get stiffer by a huge amount, spring rates can now go up and damper costs will double or triple .....the law of diminishing returns in damper choice will have shifted massively.
Click to expand...


Jake I've heard you say this a few time now... And I've got to interject with something.

As chassis get more advanced and times goes on a BIG difference between the older chassis and the newer chassis is created.

When comparing two cars i know say 90 ITA CRX SI vs a 04 Civic SI, the CRX is very floppy in comparison.

Beyond that, there are easy wasy to tie the shock tower sheet metal to the A pillar roll cage tubing on the honda/acura with out going through the fire wall. We saw a cage on a ITR prelude do this not long ago (car was sold and isn't ran in ITR now)

cage.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top