ITAC News.

I'm not condoning it at all.

What I am saying is that if your choices are:

1. Be frustrated and drive a car that is 50 or 100 lbs overweight in IT, and still competitive, while we try to sort this out;

OR

2. Quit.

(2) doesn't get a whole lot of respect from me. We ARE trying. Andy tried. Kirk did as well. Jake and Scott too. We are close. If the answer comes back that no "old" cars will be processed, sure, I can understand packing it in.

But right now? Not as much. Tom is right to be frustrated. Kirk was too -- he put a lot of effort into this. Andy and Jake too. Me to a lesser extent. Quitting now doesn't make a lot of sense though; to me anyway.
 
Jeff, thanks for hanging in there. I "get" that there are other cars that have gotten even more screwed. I know we are on the same page as to the desire to treat them all with the same system and policy. I fear your bosses are more wishy washy on that aspect. "This guy AGAIN? Shit, what's he complaining about, he's close to where he should be, and who believes those numbers anyway!?"
That's the crux of it, but I'm hoping that they see that just letting the Process do it's job really has few if any downsides.

It sounds as though that's the case, judging from your 4th quarter analogy, and the recent recommendations the ITAC (via the CRB has published in Fastrack).

SO, exactly where do we stand on the issues.
The ITAC recommended the change we read. You got input on that*. It has gone up the line. Some questions.
1- what input did you get?
2- what changes did you make?
3- Has it been recommended to the CRB?
4- Has the CRB modified it?
5- Has the CRB finalized it and sent it to the BoD?
6- When will the BoD meet and decide the course of action to be taken on the recommendation?

* none from me. I didn't want to screw it up and piss anyone off, ;)
 
And while this is going on there is a mention in Fastrack about LENGTH OF SERVICE on the CRB and other positions. Now would be a good time to let your BOD member know how you feel about some new, more responsive members that are a little less set in their ways. We need more rules making power delegated to the people that actually race the cars and have some skin in the game. Don't get me wrong, there are some good people in these positions, but we need some new blood.
 
lateapex911 said:
SO, exactly where do we stand on the issues.
The ITAC recommended the change we read. You got input on that*. It has gone up the line. Some questions.
1- what input did you get?
Click to expand...

Not a huge amount of input, but double-digits, and universally positive. Many responses included a "yay, do this, because my car is getting shafted" while others were more general.

lateapex911 said:
2- what changes did you make?
3- Has it been recommended to the CRB?
4- Has the CRB modified it?
5- Has the CRB finalized it and sent it to the BoD?
Click to expand...

My understanding is that it is going to the BOD intact.

lateapex911 said:
6- When will the BoD meet and decide the course of action to be taken on the recommendation?
Click to expand...

It's on the agenda for their next meeting, along with all of the other rule change recommendations coming through the CRB, but I'm not sure of the date.
 
JeffYoung said:
I'm not condoning it at all.

What I am saying is that if your choices are:

1. Be frustrated and drive a car that is 50 or 100 lbs overweight in IT, and still competitive, while we try to sort this out;

OR

2. Quit.

(2) doesn't get a whole lot of respect from me. We ARE trying. Andy tried. Kirk did as well. Jake and Scott too. We are close. If the answer comes back that no "old" cars will be processed, sure, I can understand packing it in.

But right now? Not as much. Tom is right to be frustrated. Kirk was too -- he put a lot of effort into this. Andy and Jake too. Me to a lesser extent. Quitting now doesn't make a lot of sense though; to me anyway.
Click to expand...

I am doing option 1.

Not exactly competitive at all for a podium spot but if enough drivers show up I have a better chance of running with someone.

I hope that with the IT proposal goes through the BOD. question.. Does the IT proposal trump the 16 valve in ITB "rule"?
 
I'm taking option No. 1 also. If my weight is reduced to conform to the "Process" weight then I have to build another shell as my rollcage tubing options will most likely change (smaller tubing, less weight). Regardless I have little faith in the SCCA as a whole and I'm merely using the club and track time for personal enjoyment & development. If I want to really duke it out in a fair or seemingly fair environment I'll hit up NASA.

Anyone starting an SCCA Tea Party movement? It seems that the straight shooters in this entire "Process" weight ordeal are getting hung up on the rules and structure the other folks never adhered to in the first place. It's a Catch-22 situation with little hope of changing.

** I use "Process" as I have no idea what the actual "Process" entails and no one is willing to spell it out for us outsiders. So what exactly are we asking for with this mythical "Process?"
 
but we need some new blood.
Click to expand...

I agree, but we need new GOOD QUALITY blood. Ever look at how many people volunteer for other types of positions, even BOD positions? Not many.

NASA??? Not picking on them as both clubs have their positives and negatives but don't be fooled by the classification processes used. When I submitted my car for Honda Challenge, the whole deal made absolutely no sense. A part of the factor was "I heard you are pretty quick" and we want to be safe. Even people who were going to be competiting against me were surprised with how it was going to be classed. The grass ain't better over there.
 
Personally pet peeve of mine. I'm not sure (personally) why we don't publish the whole thing.

It's fairly simple actually:

Stock hp X expected IT gain in horsepower (25% is the default rate with the ability to move this up or down based on solid reliable evidence) X the Class Power to Weight Multiplier. There are then adders/subtractors of various types for suspension, torque and FWD.

So, say you have a 150 hp Schmorgwarp in ITS. It's a smogged up piece of crap and a good IT build gets you 35% gain. Process is:

150 hp X 1.35% X 12.9 (I think that is the ITS multiplier, would have to double check), which equals: 2612, rounded down to 2600 before any adders/subtractors. That's a fat Schmorgwarp.

But there you have it (essentially). If a car "straddles" a class, then we look to see in which class its race weight is most achievable given its curb weight.

rsportvolvo said:
I'm taking option No. 1 also. If my weight is reduced to conform to the "Process" weight then I have to build another shell as my rollcage tubing options will most likely change (smaller tubing, less weight). Regardless I have little faith in the SCCA as a whole and I'm merely using the club and track time for personal enjoyment & development. If I want to really duke it out in a fair or seemingly fair environment I'll hit up NASA.

Anyone starting an SCCA Tea Party movement? It seems that the straight shooters in this entire "Process" weight ordeal are getting hung up on the rules and structure the other folks never adhered to in the first place. It's a Catch-22 situation with little hope of changing.

** I use "Process" as I have no idea what the actual "Process" entails and no one is willing to spell it out for us outsiders. So what exactly are we asking for with this mythical "Process?"
Click to expand...
 
You are also missing one important point- Though there are MANY who'd like to see change, they are also many who don't.

Case #1- 5 years ago, I was part of the B/D Prod Task Force. We came up with a plan. We were told that it was "not really what the CRB meant". They then asked one of the good old boys to come up with a plan, and adopted that. The category fell on its face. Only now, since the rules have migrated towards our proposal, has there been any real participation.

Case #2- I ran for BoD, Area 2, about 3 years ago. Lost to one of the "old faithful" (who I have a lot of respect for overall). Did I lose because I was an "unknown"? Did I lose because people really didn't want *me* in there? Given the current atmosphere, did I really "lose"?

My point? We, as a club, keep putting people in charge that then put the people they know into positions of authority. Sure, they may do a decent job, but until we begin to balance things out (a combination of the "classic" SCCA mentality ALONG WITH those who are willing to think outside the box and push a little), we're going to get more of the same. Things like term limits for committees, though needed, will do no good until we somehow get more people across all leadership positions that are willing to try to change things. I've seen more of it lately (Formula F, FB, etc.) but we've got a LONG way to go.

Sorry for the ramble, but this discussion is indicative of a much bigger problem than just what we're trying to accomplish in IT. We can have the best ITAC proposal in the world, but if it doesn't get any farther than that, then we're still stuck here. I'd STRONGLY recommend that you all start voicing your opinions to your Area Director, in addition to the CRB. Hell, talk to Directors in areas other than your if you get the chance. Get them to start asking questions. Put them on the spot and say, "Where are we on this issue, and why haven't we made progress?"

BTW- if you've done that already (as I have), then I'm not lecturing you.

If you're reading this thread and you haven't even written the CRB or ITAC to express your opinions, then I have to ask- Why not??
 
JeffYoung said:
Personally pet peeve of mine. I'm not sure (personally) why we don't publish the whole thing.

It's fairly simple actually:

Stock hp X expected IT gain in horsepower (25% is the default rate with the ability to move this up or down based on solid reliable evidence) X the Class Power to Weight Multiplier. There are then adders/subtractors of various types for suspension, torque and FWD.

So, say you have a 150 hp Schmorgwarp in ITS. It's a smogged up piece of crap and a good IT build gets you 35% gain. Process is:

150 hp X 1.35% X 12.9 (I think that is the ITS multiplier, would have to double check), which equals: 2612, rounded down to 2600 before any adders/subtractors. That's a fat Schmorgwarp.

But there you have it (essentially). If a car "straddles" a class, then we look to see in which class its race weight is most achievable given its curb weight.
Click to expand...

Thanks Jeff. I'm familiar with the concept, I just want the specifics. If there is an adder, what is it? For me to be 100% on board with any "Process" I need to know what exactly it is. Not a Pelosi "... we have to pass the bill so you can figure out what's in it" line. The Process should get an approval vote from membership just as engine mounts and reclassifying older line items.
 
rsportvolvo said:
.........The Process should get an approval vote from membership just as engine mounts ...........
Click to expand...

no! not like engine mounts!

membership 42-3 for the change and we did not get it. :blink::)

this is partly why i think SCCA "management" just does not get it.

if we use the business analogy regarding picking up the ball and going home, if the bank made these kinds of "mistakes" in my checking account, i would have been gone long ago.

for the football analogy and end of the 4th quarter, how about a substitution and let someone else carry the ball for a while.

and NASA? forgetaboutit.
 
I can't say NASA is better/worse first hand. I can put my money where my mouth is and make a statement by parting ways with SCCA if it is necessary. Right now I'm following Josh's request to use the system and hope that the system works. Letters have been submitted and follow-up letters are waiting for the ITAC initiatives to get passed. Time will tell.
 
David, getting the facts of the process in the open is tricky.
Many of the guys in positions of power (CRB esp, as well as some on the ITAC) are very against the idea. Some feel that it will be questioned and it will open up a can of worms to membership debate. Version 2 was rejected by the CRb because it had "not enough wiggle room". So, I fear that there is a desire among some to "wiggle".

I don't know all the guys on the current ITAC, but I can say that Andy, myself, and Kirk would have been in support of V2 being published. I suspect a number of ITAC current members would have as well, and I suspect a couple were much against it. But, V2 was easy to publish, because it was very structured. Each step was clear, and the subjective aspects were well documented and robust. If any process allows looser ("more wiggle room") subjectivity, THAT becomes impossible to publish, because "We noodle it" isn't something that can be defined and written down.

I have V2 in my notes somewhere, but it's old history now, as the CRB rejected it.
 
Process V2 isn't dead, it's alive and well, the only real change is that the rule allowing for PCAs (which was already there!) is ... well, not changed. But the rules allowing PCAs aren't in conflict with the Process at all. The Process gets you "process weight". Actual ITCS weight might be different, and if it's different, it'll be due to a PCA, not due to "wiggle room in the process." Please know that the intent is to never use PCAs. The rule remains there as a safety valve.

In terms of the process itself, there was some more thinking around torque and displacement (both of which are ways of approximating "area under the curve") and there has been *more* structure placed around Fastrack communication, especially around PCAs. In other words, if a PCA ever gets applied, you'll all know it.

The most common issue that I hear is that people aren't sure if their car has been assigned a weight using a process that matches all the other cars. Should the rule change pass, the answer will be YES. If a PCA is ever applied, that will be clear.

This should appease most of the concerns.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's the important part: "A process that treats everyone the same". As of right now, there are cars that were reprocessed and cars that weren't. The effect is the same as if they hadn't reprocessed any of the cars and randomly added weight to others.

All I want is for all of the cars to be processed using the same method.

Bob Clifton
#85 ITB Dodge Daytona (2630 lbs)
 
Guys,

Lets not hammer the ITAC "pro process" members too hard for decisions made by others. I know it seems like it's taking for ever but from listeninging. to current and ex ITAC members it's not from lack of their trying..........
 
To the point of Tom's story though, there's nothing - I don't think - keeping the ITAC from running that CRX through the process, under the CURRENT guidelines from the CRB.

The reason it's been mired in the crap for so long, is that his specific request keeps getting caught up in strategic decisions - and it's happening again, based on what I'm hearing here. That's a fundamental problem that could be fixed today.

Or someone straighten me out by correcting my understanding of the facts at hand...?

K
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top