ITAC News.

Next ITAC meeting: 9/27/10

The next meeting of the ITAC is next Monday, September 27th.

On the agenda is one rule change request, one new car listing request, and requests to correct errors (not simple weight adjustments) for 5 listings. There are also requests to reevaluate weights of some existing listings, but those will be on hold until the rule change request published in the September Fastrack is reviewed by the BOD.

Any questions, please feel free to contact me directly! I am at Thunderhill this weekend and quite a few of the ITAC and our CRB liaisons are at The Runoffs, so ... probably not much availability until next week.

Josh
 
JoshS said:
............ those will be on hold until the rule change request published in the September Fastrack is reviewed by the BOD..........
Click to expand...

Josh,

i saw a general comment in fastrack about weight/comp adjustment but nothing specific to IT. is this the quote below what you are referring to?

also, i fail to see how my request regarding my first letter being within the 4 year requirement would not get a response regardless of these rule changes especially since i received specific notice that there would be a response in this issue of Fastrack.

and the comment of how well the system is working is a bit disappointing

CRB letter process is working well and keeping things documented and focused.
Click to expand...


Competition Adjustments​

·
Purpose is to modify by increasing or decreasing the performance of a specific make/model of a car in order to better
​
​
balance the class.
· ​

​

Every effort should be made to limiting competition adjustments during the competition year to small changes as early as
​
​
possible.
· ​

​

First year cars have the following exception. The one year starts at the effective date of the classification. More adjustments
to the newly classed car may be needed during this time for the good of the car or class. These adjustments include rim
size, springs, shocks, and bars.
​
​
· ​

​

Changes can be made at the end of the competition year effective January 1st of the following year, or any time up to the
July Fastrack of the current year with an effective date of no later than July 1​
​

st.
​
​
· ​

​

Changes limited to weight, tire size (not rim), and/or the diameter of the carburetor venturi or a restrictor in the throttle
body of fuel injected models.
​
​
· ​

​

These may be found on the appropriate vehicle specification line. Other than competition adjustments, spec line items are
subject to the rules change process.
​
​
· ​

​

Weight and induction changes may be considered a rules change if applied to a mature established class or one with
restricted specifications (SM, FC are examples of this)
​
Click to expand...

​
 
tom91ita said:
Josh,

i saw a general comment in fastrack about weight/comp adjustment but nothing specific to IT. is this the quote below what you are referring to?

also, i fail to see how my request regarding my first letter being within the 4 year requirement would not get a response regardless of these rule changes especially since i received specific notice that there would be a response in this issue of Fastrack.

...
[/LEFT]
Click to expand...
Tom:

I'll take the hit on this. Your letter (and a couple of others) supporting #1767 from the September Fastrack was processed, but in the rush to get things prepared, the actual response was not included in the October Fastrack. (My only excuse is that there was very little time to prepare the October minutes and tech bulletin because of the way the calendar worked out this month.)

The response you should have received is: Thank you for your input. The recommended rule change will be submitted to the BoD.

Dave
 
...which doesn't get at the point of Tom's FIRST LETTER, YEARS AGO having been appropriate for review.

Given what I know of the history of this issue, I'm astounded at Tom's patience.

K
 
i don't think anyone actually reads the letters we send in.

i plan to race in 2011 and then quit after something like 26 years of membership. take a year or two off and save some $$ for a hnr or just not bother to come back.

this is so asinine.
 
You'd be wrong. We read the letters.

Tom, we understand the issue with your car and your letters have been helpful.

The first request to "process" the car got hung up when the brakes got put on the process. When you revised the request to make it based more on a "like architecture" analysis, we studied it, but again felt we could not adjust given the CRB's position on corrections.

IF the proposed rule change allowing "process" corrections goes through, we will process your car and be done with it.

I understand your frustration, but also point out that we've seen examples of your car do very well on track as is (I believe Richard Floyd won a SARCC championship in one). That said, the right thing to do (in my opinion) is put your car at process weight.

I hope you will bear with us while we work through that process. In the interim, I don't think your is anywhere near uncompetitive as is. There are examples of other cars being raced (in some cases competitively) that are much farther off process weight.

Thanks.

Jeff Young
 
Jeff,

i have never claimed that myself and the car cannot be made better. part of it is reluctance to put money in it if the thing is not going to be classed similar to other "like architecture" cars.

my primary frustration right now is primarily in the response of saying effectively "you missed the window" when i did not. then i received letters saying there would be response in this Fastrack when there was not.

whether or not this last rule request is approved, my original 2008 request (before the four years was up) should be considered.

i have won several regional races but then decided to try to try to step it up. i actually invested into a built motor. so instead of winning races at the tracks closest to me, i decided to go where there were more competitors, primarily the IT Spectacular (where i blew up the motor and caught the car on fire)and the ARRC. and since i am laying out more money for that track time and fuel costs, it has actually further restricted my track time to just those two races per year. so less money into car development and less seat time for me.

but it really isn't worth it to tow to Road Atlanta for the ARRC and try to learn a track on a once per year visit when i am also giving up horsepower to weight (imo since there is no real findings by the ITAC/CRB/BOD, etc.).

and this has been compounded with what i consider to be inconsistent (and imo, poor) policy decisions by the BOD with regards to H&NR makes it that much more frustrating.

sorry for the misc ramblings/rantings but it just seems like we keep getting close and someone pulls it away again. i'll play charlie brown to scca's lucy only so many times. :blink:

tom
 
I understand your frustration.

You are missing one of the issues though.

Your 2008 request didn't go through -- Kirk is right, it was delayed longer than it should have been -- in time before we were effectively prohibited from processing older cars unless there was some sort of "gross error."

Sit tight and if the rule change goes through, we can process it. If the rule change does not go through, frankly, I doubt there will be a change. While I fully believe in an objective hp/weight process there are others who see more value in on track results and other types of analysis, and the car probably won't be changed.

Despite my belief that the car may be off via the process, I don't think it is off that much and is a potential front runner as is. That wouldn't stop me from voting to correct it, but it's not the end of the world for the car at this point (especially vis a vis cars like the ITB MR2 that is WAY off in my view).

tom91ita said:
Jeff,

i have never claimed that myself and the car cannot be made better. part of it is reluctance to put money in it if the thing is not going to be classed similar to other "like architecture" cars.

my primary frustration right now is primarily in the response of saying effectively "you missed the window" when i did not. then i received letters saying there would be response in this Fastrack when there was not.

whether or not this last rule request is approved, my original 2008 request (before the four years was up) should be considered.

i have won several regional races but then decided to try to try to step it up. i actually invested into a built motor. so instead of winning races at the tracks closest to me, i decided to go where there were more competitors, primarily the IT Spectacular (where i blew up the motor and caught the car on fire)and the ARRC. and since i am laying out more money for that track time and fuel costs, it has actually further restricted my track time to just those two races per year. so less money into car development and less seat time for me.

but it really isn't worth it to tow to Road Atlanta for the ARRC and try to learn a track on a once per year visit when i am also giving up horsepower to weight (imo since there is no real findings by the ITAC/CRB/BOD, etc.).

and this has been compounded with what i consider to be inconsistent (and imo, poor) policy decisions by the BOD with regards to H&NR makes it that much more frustrating.

sorry for the misc ramblings/rantings but it just seems like we keep getting close and someone pulls it away again. i'll play charlie brown to scca's lucy only so many times. :blink:

tom
Click to expand...
 
Knestis said:
...which doesn't get at the point of Tom's FIRST LETTER, YEARS AGO having been appropriate for review.

Given what I know of the history of this issue, I'm astounded at Tom's patience.

K
Click to expand...

tom91ita said:
i don't think anyone actually reads the letters we send in.


this is so asinine.
Click to expand...

JeffYoung said:
You'd be wrong. We read the letters.

Tom, we understand the issue with your car and your letters have been helpful.

The first request to "process" the car got hung up when the brakes got put on the process. When you revised the request to make it based more on a "like architecture" analysis,
Which, IIRC, was based on input Tom got from ITAC members relating what the CRB stance that month was....we studied it, but again felt we could not adjust given the CRB's then newest revision of their position on corrections.

IF the proposed rule change allowing "process" corrections goes through, we will process your car and be done with it.

I understand your frustration, but also point out that we've seen examples of your car do very well on track as is (I believe Richard Floyd won a SARCC championship in one). That said, the right thing to do (in my opinion) is put your car at process weight.

I hope you will bear with us while we work through that process. In the interim, I don't think your is anywhere near uncompetitive as is. There are examples of other cars being raced (in some cases competitively) that are much farther off process weight.

Thanks.

Jeff Young
Click to expand...
I added some bold parts ...

I certainly see Toms frustrations. As a friend likes to say, "He's getting the Dick sandwich"... His letters have found exactly the wrong time to land. I find it unfortunate that the capricious and seemingly random actions and...dare I say...policy decisions ...of the CRB reps have resulted in this.

Jeff, I wish the matter of the cars apparent competiveness wasn't brought up. Either the car gets processed, or it doesn't.

Kirk, I think Tom has been patient because of the dialog he has with members of the ITAC like Jeff who are doing their best at being straight and honest. You and I (and Andy) know, as does Josh and Jeff, that, if left to their own direction, the ITAC would have resolved this matter long ago.
 
Last edited:
It (competiveness) is brought up (by me) for this reason.

While I agree the car should be processed, it's not like it is 300 lbs off or something and has no chance as is. Yes, again, it should be processed but it's not the end of the world for the car at this point either. It can be raced and it can be competitive. There are more glaring examples out there right now of cars that need to be "process fixed" than this one.
 
JeffYoung said:
It (competiveness) is brought up (by me) for this reason.

While I agree the car should be processed, it's not like it is 300 lbs off or something and has no chance as is. Yes, again, it should be processed but it's not the end of the world for the car at this point either. It can be raced and it can be competitive. There are more glaring examples out there right now of cars that need to be "process fixed" than this one.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. You can either reprocess or you can't. And if you can, they should be done in the order they came in. Start building that list now because I have a feeling you are finally going to get the leeway you need...
 
The INSTANT the guidelines came from the CRB (I won't say "policy" because it implies too much), that the CURRENT reason it couldn't be adjusted is because "the window had closed," that implies that it could have been done had it been requested while the window was open.

IT WAS - but was not processed at that time because of other silliness.

I could be wrong but I'll bet that the paperwork indicates that Tom's original request is still open or unresolved. This is the kind of crap that I always thought should have never been an issue, even without a fancy web-based tracking system. It's an organizational problem where the ITAC and CRB bump into one-another, not a technology problem.

Tom - Was a Fastrack response to your 2008 request ever issued?

If not, it is still open and based on the current guidance from the CRB it can be resolved NOW rather than involving it in another bigger-picture muddle.

DAMMIT. I'm starting to give a shit again. I'm going for a donut.

K
 
...it's not like it is 300 lbs off or something and has no chance as is. Yes, again, it should be processed but it's not the end of the world for the car at this point either. It can be raced and it can be competitive. There are more glaring examples out there right now of cars that need to be "process fixed" than this one.
Click to expand...

Jeff, please becareful with this. I know you mean well but this is exactly what SCCA doesn't need. It's not about whether a car has a chance as-is. It's about our club treating us fairly and as of now, that's not happening. Quite frankly I and others including Tom have become fed up with this. While some people within SCCA may view this as "trivial and not like it can't be competitive", members are not viewing it in the same light. Please respect that.
 
You all know I am in favor of an objective process applied to every car.

However, I do think some of the frustration over 50 lbs here or there is a bit much. Some of IT is "shut up and drive." I'm confident we will get this fixed. I just think threatening to quit over situations like the ITB CRX is extreme (even though I understand Tom's frustration).


gran racing said:
Jeff, please becareful with this. I know you mean well but this is exactly what SCCA doesn't need. It's not about whether a car has a chance as-is. It's about our club treating us fairly and as of now, that's not happening. Quite frankly I and others including Tom have become fed up with this. While some people within SCCA may view this as "trivial and not like it can't be competitive", members are not viewing it in the same light. Please respect that.
Click to expand...
 
Memo to the ITAC:

ALWAYS remember, its not about whether 25lbs here or there makes a bit of difference. It's about a process that treats everyone the same, in a documented, repeatable and defendable way - for better or worse.

This produces 2 key things. First, your current membership feels like you care about THEM. Second, when someone looks at the class from the outside, they can see consistancy and a methodology...one that will make them feel like they have a chance and have the class be attractive to them.

Reprocess all cars that have not seen the spreadsheet. 5lbs or 500lbs...reset the weight and document.

It's simple and it's what the membership has been asking for for years.
 
Absolutely.

And memo to membership: we are trying to get this done. Packing up your ball and going home now in the 4th quarter doesn't make much sense to me.
 
JeffYoung said:
Absolutely.

And memo to membership: we are trying to get this done. Packing up your ball and going home now in the 4th quarter doesn't make much sense to me.
Click to expand...

In fairness Jeff, it's kinda like a 0-0 tie in the 7th overtime.

I am just trying to make sure you guys don't SETTLE.
 
Some of IT is "shut up and drive."
Click to expand...

Doesn't mean it's right or should be condoned. We already won the fourth quarter but got sh%# on, and now somehow it's gone into another overtime (using your and Andy's analogy).

For many it's not just the case of these issues, it's how other items are being handled.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top