seckerich
New member
If you are really to the point where any deviation from the process, as well as the math used is public then we are finally where IT needs to be for growth of the catagory. Well done if you get it past the CRB.
ITAC News.
- Thread starter lateapex911
- Start date
If you are really to the point where any deviation from the process, as well as the math used is public then we are finally where IT needs to be for growth of the catagory. Well done if you get it past the CRB.
RacerBill
New member
Josh: Please confirm that my car is on that list. PM me if you don't remember our conversation many months ago. Thanks to you and the rest of the ITAC ahead of time for getting this resolved.
RSTPerformance
New member
Can a PCA be based on a cars on track performance?
When does the cars performance "expire."
How would on track performance be used/determined? As much as we all hate to admit it, winning races may or may not be a result of the competition we face. If it isn't based on position then is it based on lap times... what about weather conditions? What is more important dry cool days or hot rainy weather?
If we will have PCA's will we all start at a level playing field and make adjustments going forward or will a PCA be used in the classification process in the first round?
I really don't want to get involved again but I feel I should submit an e-mail to BOD and the CRB in support or not in support of this "process." I will base my decision on the answers to these IMO important questions, so please be upfront and honest.
As for Tom's letter, can you publish the request number, I would like to put in a request that this member is no longer screwed around and that he gets an answer be it good or bad... My BIGGEST issue with the CRB is that they are absolutely terrible at responding to members requests. The current CTRB is so tarnished with this issue that I personally have zero respect for any of them and really wish they would resign. As a result I fully support term limits, unfortunatly I am not sure that is the best in the long term of the club. We may someday actually get a "good guy/gal" in the CRB that we all like... ummmm yeah right, and we will all have an equal shot at winning races someday!
Raymond "lets institute Tom's Law, all requests must be responded to within 6 months" Blethen
When does the cars performance "expire."
How would on track performance be used/determined? As much as we all hate to admit it, winning races may or may not be a result of the competition we face. If it isn't based on position then is it based on lap times... what about weather conditions? What is more important dry cool days or hot rainy weather?
If we will have PCA's will we all start at a level playing field and make adjustments going forward or will a PCA be used in the classification process in the first round?
I really don't want to get involved again but I feel I should submit an e-mail to BOD and the CRB in support or not in support of this "process." I will base my decision on the answers to these IMO important questions, so please be upfront and honest.
As for Tom's letter, can you publish the request number, I would like to put in a request that this member is no longer screwed around and that he gets an answer be it good or bad... My BIGGEST issue with the CRB is that they are absolutely terrible at responding to members requests. The current CTRB is so tarnished with this issue that I personally have zero respect for any of them and really wish they would resign. As a result I fully support term limits, unfortunatly I am not sure that is the best in the long term of the club. We may someday actually get a "good guy/gal" in the CRB that we all like... ummmm yeah right, and we will all have an equal shot at winning races someday!
Raymond "lets institute Tom's Law, all requests must be responded to within 6 months" Blethen
By definition, a PCA is ONLY based on on-track performance.
That first assumption ignores your "As much as we hate..."
Tom's Law should really just require that every request is acted on, with a resolution published in Fastrack. If a member proposes something, then "Thank you for your input" is not an appropriate response:
- Yes
- No
- No, because no provision in the rules allows for your request
- Return to sender, insufficient information provided with your request
Sometimes, often due to a lack of substantiating information, a request is VERY hard to address. The members have a responsibility to provide appropriate documentation. When I was on the ITAC, we had more than a few requests that got tabled for ages waiting for documentation. Those should have been returned - positively acted on - and closed. Those that weren't in this boat always deserve a straight "up or down vote" by the ITAC, and referral to the CRB.
I have confidence in the current ITAC so I THINK we are getting closer to this level. However, it seems like someone could spend a little political capital to help out Tom's case...
K
That first assumption ignores your "As much as we hate..."
Tom's Law should really just require that every request is acted on, with a resolution published in Fastrack. If a member proposes something, then "Thank you for your input" is not an appropriate response:
- Yes
- No
- No, because no provision in the rules allows for your request
- Return to sender, insufficient information provided with your request
Sometimes, often due to a lack of substantiating information, a request is VERY hard to address. The members have a responsibility to provide appropriate documentation. When I was on the ITAC, we had more than a few requests that got tabled for ages waiting for documentation. Those should have been returned - positively acted on - and closed. Those that weren't in this boat always deserve a straight "up or down vote" by the ITAC, and referral to the CRB.
I have confidence in the current ITAC so I THINK we are getting closer to this level. However, it seems like someone could spend a little political capital to help out Tom's case...
K
JoshS
New member
The BOD meeting at which the rules change request will be heard is prior to the next ITAC call. If all goes according to plan, and right now I believe it will, then Tom's car could get addressed at that next call. If things do not go according to plan, then I might have to spend some political capital, if I still have any left at that point.
JoshS
New member
Two questions there. PCAs have been available via the rules since the great realignment, and they'll still be available going forward. That doesn't mean we'll use them. It's just a safety valve. Before assessing a PCA, every effort would be used to determine if there was an error during the application of the process (such as horsepower not accurately predicted by the process.) If no error can be found but it is determined that a PCA needs to be assessed in order to preserve the popularity and equality of a class, then yes, sure, all of those factors, including lap times, weather, level of prep, driver history, etc, could be considered.
The rules change proposal published in the September Fastrack explains that PCAs could be used in a first-round reassessment of an existing listing, since racing history has already been established. But for a new listing, where there is no IT racing history, a PCA could not be assessed at that point.
In any case, as explained in the rule change, after a weight change has been made, either due to an error or due to the assessment of a PCA, the "clock" resets to zero.
I'd encourage you to go back and re-read the rule change proposal before submitting your input ... but get your input in quickly.
RSTPerformance
New member
Kirk- I agree, lack of information is certainly a reasonable reason why a request is not acted on... prime example is my request to classify the Audi 4000 Quattro. I did not supply the additional information requested, and thus the appropriate action was done. Kudo's to heading in the right direction, however I still feel the CRB is tarnished, and I don't trust any of them to make good/decent decisions.
Thank you Josh for your quick reply, you certainly go above and beyond on your volunteering duties to the business.
I currently do not support the proposal based on the actions of the CRB in the past year or so. A cars performance 5 - 10 years ago does not work for me in setting PCA's. Add to that the current CRB members lack of understanding what competition is and how to understand weather, competition, track configurations, 16v, etc. leave WAY to much "wiggle" room and political influence. Sorry, I hope a more transparent, repeatable, thought-out process is requested by the BOD.
On Edit- I would like to see a step in the process that requires the ITAC and/or CRB to ask for member input on a PCA before it takes effect... That would make sure that members were involved in PCA's (classifications) and would ensure that everyone has the opportunity to educate or communicate with the ITAC and/or CRB members if they have specific concerns.
Please don't misunderstand my lack of support for this proposal, I do appreciate the ITAC's efforts.
Raymond Blethen
Thank you Josh for your quick reply, you certainly go above and beyond on your volunteering duties to the business.
I currently do not support the proposal based on the actions of the CRB in the past year or so. A cars performance 5 - 10 years ago does not work for me in setting PCA's. Add to that the current CRB members lack of understanding what competition is and how to understand weather, competition, track configurations, 16v, etc. leave WAY to much "wiggle" room and political influence. Sorry, I hope a more transparent, repeatable, thought-out process is requested by the BOD.
On Edit- I would like to see a step in the process that requires the ITAC and/or CRB to ask for member input on a PCA before it takes effect... That would make sure that members were involved in PCA's (classifications) and would ensure that everyone has the opportunity to educate or communicate with the ITAC and/or CRB members if they have specific concerns.
Please don't misunderstand my lack of support for this proposal, I do appreciate the ITAC's efforts.
Raymond Blethen
Last edited:
LMAO!
Josh,
don't expend personal capital for me and the one car. use it for the general use of "the Process V2" since addressing that should take care of my car/situation anyways.
outside of the IT issue, i have sent some rather pointed letters to the BOD / CRB regarding H&NR requirements and i have sometimes wondered if that was wise in the midst of requesting a "lighter" sentence on the weight issues.
tom
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Tom, I really don't think the two will cross each other up. Your request to the ITAC will get a recommendation from them to the CRB. If the CRB rejects it, without merit, it'll stick out like a sore thumb.
Your letter(s) have hit at precisely the wrong time. Yours is the perfect storm. ...it was on the list when we had some pretty strange con calls. Heck, as the guy charged with recording the actions and discussions in the meeting, i remember having to stop everyone and basically say, "WTF are you guys (CR
trying to say? I have NO idea what I need to write as a position on this?" Then, after more explanation, I'd write a summary sentence or two, and read it back to them for confirmation. Then, the next month, it seemed like a whole new ball game. Your letters found the middle of that mess. I have a lot of confidence in Josh's post above.
Raymond, you're painting the CRB with a wide brush. There are a number of members on it that, I think, have joined post Audi-gate. (I think that's a major bone of contention for you, right?). Further, I think there were members on the CRB at the time that had NO IDEA of the goings on of the ITAC. Kirk mentioned it first, (Correct me if I'm wrong, Kirk) at the time, and I've had further input as to the validity of the idea that the CRB vetted ITAC issues amongst a very small part of the CRB membership. I would imagine they might do this as a streamlining method. Or....? In any case, I think it unwise to paint every member with the same color and the same brush...
Raymond I DO like your idea of sending PCAs out for member input. It has downsides, but I still like it, I think.
I DO wish we had better transparency within all the Ad hocs. I was in favor of publishing meeting minutes, (I'm sure we could post it on the SCCA site, and link to it from here) as well as the process.The math used to set weights on cars, as well as a 'born on" date could go in the notes section of the ITCS.
Your letter(s) have hit at precisely the wrong time. Yours is the perfect storm. ...it was on the list when we had some pretty strange con calls. Heck, as the guy charged with recording the actions and discussions in the meeting, i remember having to stop everyone and basically say, "WTF are you guys (CR
trying to say? I have NO idea what I need to write as a position on this?" Then, after more explanation, I'd write a summary sentence or two, and read it back to them for confirmation. Then, the next month, it seemed like a whole new ball game. Your letters found the middle of that mess. I have a lot of confidence in Josh's post above.Raymond, you're painting the CRB with a wide brush. There are a number of members on it that, I think, have joined post Audi-gate. (I think that's a major bone of contention for you, right?). Further, I think there were members on the CRB at the time that had NO IDEA of the goings on of the ITAC. Kirk mentioned it first, (Correct me if I'm wrong, Kirk) at the time, and I've had further input as to the validity of the idea that the CRB vetted ITAC issues amongst a very small part of the CRB membership. I would imagine they might do this as a streamlining method. Or....? In any case, I think it unwise to paint every member with the same color and the same brush...
Raymond I DO like your idea of sending PCAs out for member input. It has downsides, but I still like it, I think.
I DO wish we had better transparency within all the Ad hocs. I was in favor of publishing meeting minutes, (I'm sure we could post it on the SCCA site, and link to it from here) as well as the process.The math used to set weights on cars, as well as a 'born on" date could go in the notes section of the ITCS.
Last edited:
I'm with Jake on where the issues were with the CRB.
It was a huge light bulb moment for me when I realized that we had all ITAC referrals to the "board" channeled through a couple of people, and that the board as a whole seemed to be deferring their decisions to those same individuals. That those people had a vested interest in the class opened the door for the appearance of shenanigans.
The entire CRB is NOT at fault in terms of specific decisions. HOWEVER the culture of that group is at fault more generally. I understand from Dick that they've restructured how the liaisons are assigned...? It would be really nice if changes like that were actually discussed with the membership broadly. It would do a lot for the Club's reputation.
K
It was a huge light bulb moment for me when I realized that we had all ITAC referrals to the "board" channeled through a couple of people, and that the board as a whole seemed to be deferring their decisions to those same individuals. That those people had a vested interest in the class opened the door for the appearance of shenanigans.
The entire CRB is NOT at fault in terms of specific decisions. HOWEVER the culture of that group is at fault more generally. I understand from Dick that they've restructured how the liaisons are assigned...? It would be really nice if changes like that were actually discussed with the membership broadly. It would do a lot for the Club's reputation.
K
JoshS
New member
October ITAC meeting summary
The ITAC met on Monday 10/25. Sorry that I forgot to post something before the call. You will have to wait until things are published to see the actual decisions, but we discussed one rule change related to alternate clutch lines, we discussed the '92-'95 Civic EX that was mentioned last week in the November fastrack thread, and also some new car classifications done recently that might not be able to reach their assigned weights.
The BOD met shortly before our call, and the results have now been published. The BoD action summary and the updated Recommended Rules Changes are now posted at http://www.scca.com/contentpage.aspx?content=44 near the bottom of the page.
As you will see, all of the IT items were approved, including the rule change request that will allow old listings to have their weights reassigned using the same process we use for new listings. We will start looking at that on our November call, shortly before Thanksgiving. We have a list of the cars that have come up for discussion in the last couple of years and those will be addressed first, so there is no need to resubmit requests that were previously denied on the grounds that the rules didn't permit us to make any changes. Please be patient as we work though the process, as there will be quite a lot of work to do!
As always, let me know if you have any questions, and if you want to get into a discussion, please contact me directly.
The ITAC met on Monday 10/25. Sorry that I forgot to post something before the call. You will have to wait until things are published to see the actual decisions, but we discussed one rule change related to alternate clutch lines, we discussed the '92-'95 Civic EX that was mentioned last week in the November fastrack thread, and also some new car classifications done recently that might not be able to reach their assigned weights.
The BOD met shortly before our call, and the results have now been published. The BoD action summary and the updated Recommended Rules Changes are now posted at http://www.scca.com/contentpage.aspx?content=44 near the bottom of the page.
As you will see, all of the IT items were approved, including the rule change request that will allow old listings to have their weights reassigned using the same process we use for new listings. We will start looking at that on our November call, shortly before Thanksgiving. We have a list of the cars that have come up for discussion in the last couple of years and those will be addressed first, so there is no need to resubmit requests that were previously denied on the grounds that the rules didn't permit us to make any changes. Please be patient as we work though the process, as there will be quite a lot of work to do!
As always, let me know if you have any questions, and if you want to get into a discussion, please contact me directly.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Great job Josh and TEAM!!!!
ITB MR2 fix please.
ITB MR2 fix please.
JeffYoung
New member
and many thanks to the guys who laid the groundwork for this: Darrin, George, Bill M., Kirk, Scott Giles, Jake Gulick...but not that secretary car driving Bettencourt fellow! lol..
Seriously, this is just as much your "win" as anyone else's, although Josh did a great job sheparding this thing through the wasteland.
Working on the MR2 now....
Seriously, this is just as much your "win" as anyone else's, although Josh did a great job sheparding this thing through the wasteland.
Working on the MR2 now....
gran racing
Super Moderator
What Jeff said.
Any chance of these previously reviewed cars being in effect during the 2011 racing rules? Or do they need to be re-evaluated and approved by the CRB?
Regardless, this is a huge leap forward. Nice job.
Any chance of these previously reviewed cars being in effect during the 2011 racing rules? Or do they need to be re-evaluated and approved by the CRB?
Regardless, this is a huge leap forward. Nice job.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
One thing I would request of drivers is that they DO NOT request a weight reduction if they know their car exceeds the standard 25% multiplier. Or, put a different way, if you know your car makes 30-35% more power, put that in your request, should you make one. Some call it gaming the system, but it's just as much cheating as anything else.
JoshS
New member
We aren't too late to make adjustments for the 2011 season, although we're probably too late to get any weight changes into the actual published rulebook -- they will come out in Fastrack form.
Weight adjustments can be done by the CRB as a "tech bulletin," but any cars that end up getting assigned to a wholly different class will have to go through the BOD, they are treated like rule changes.
Weight adjustments can be done by the CRB as a "tech bulletin," but any cars that end up getting assigned to a wholly different class will have to go through the BOD, they are treated like rule changes.
Good job guys!! I had a long talk with a BOD member on it. looks like it went through just as you wrote it. I surely hope people don't try to game the system. I guess it is almost inevitable, luckily we have people to look at it and realtiy check.
I already submitted a slew of data for Jeff to review about 4AGE's in general, and not specifically to the ITB MR2. I have some time to gather/edit/review data. If there is one instance that qualifies for a % gain less than the defacto 25% I believe it is the LP 4AGE found in the FX16/Corolla/MR2. We have till next month to work on it. I remain hopefull, as I have from day one, even after talks with people that disagreed with me over the years.
Once again guys good job, Hopefully with this won't create a mountain of requests, but it could and should.
I already submitted a slew of data for Jeff to review about 4AGE's in general, and not specifically to the ITB MR2. I have some time to gather/edit/review data. If there is one instance that qualifies for a % gain less than the defacto 25% I believe it is the LP 4AGE found in the FX16/Corolla/MR2. We have till next month to work on it. I remain hopefull, as I have from day one, even after talks with people that disagreed with me over the years.
Once again guys good job, Hopefully with this won't create a mountain of requests, but it could and should.
Last edited: