ITAC News.

[Chip42]

No new S2k here....
Chip,...
Current letters on this are solidly against, although I think there are only 5-6 or so of them.

Jeff, I don't think you were responding to my post, as I only mentioned having added a few honda error classification letters. having said that, the issue is pretty well understood on this end, but that's a good summary for anyone who isn't up on it. I deal with hondas and toyotas. the former would love to see the change, even the newer ones have a rather odd crank signal but the older, belt-driven cam-driven distributor bodies do weird things. on the MR2s it doesn't matter because the limiting issue is excess airflow, not ignition and fuel timing. it would make setup easier but it's not the secret to the other 25% gains we're expected to make.

but, WRT crank trigger,s I put my letter in on friday, #1476.

I am opposed to the allowance of crank fired ignition in IT. The allowance will add costs, yield unpredictable power gains unbalancing the IT field, and, I feel, violates the intent statement in the ITCS regarding stock basis.

No competitor is forced to run a specific car. If the stock ignition design is inadequate or sufficient pickups do not exist to permit the desired computer modifications, so be it. That is the basis the car chosen by the racer. The current distributor rules allow significant and sufficient, if imperfect, modifications to the needed signals.

While I feel that the club should endeavor to classify all cars equitably and fairly based on real world gains and abilities, so as to mitigate the imbalance of gains between models and years under allowed modifications, I do not feel the correct means to this end is by allowing upgrades to the benefit of all. It would only further widen any existing gaps in power potential while moving the class further from its roots, at the expense of its entrants.

 

[JeffYoung]

Chip, actually I was responding to your post. It was a good question -- the history of this important.

The post someone put up about how crankfire came to be in Prod is illuminating. Basically the same justifications.

THIS -- no washer bottles -- is (in my view) the "road to Prod."

 

[erlrich]

What difference do the letters make? They were solidly for the motor mount allowance but had no effect, the allowance was still turned down.

^ this...I've written my last letter/email/whatever to the ITAC/CRB/BoD; why waste your time/breath when they're just going to do what they want anyway?

 

[quadzjr]

^ this...I've written my last letter/email/whatever to the ITAC/CRB/BoD; why waste your time/breath when they're just going to do what they want anyway?

Beacause this is your only official voice in the current system. If you don't like it stand up to try to change it. Though you may feel it is a waste of time, and it may be, but you can't complain post decision like people that hold a similiar belief about goverment elections and don't vote as they see it as a waste of time, then complain afterwards about the result

 

[JeffYoung]

Earl, I personally wish you guys would continue to write in. We do read the letters, and they do matter. They just didn't carry the day on engine mounts.

Please don't stop voicing your opinion about IT, and the rules. With the new system it only takes a few minutes.

I will tell you that on engine mounts, the CRB was greatly impressed by the number of responses and -- speaking for myself only -- I think nearly overruled our recommendation/deadlock/whatever it was as a result.

I know things aren't going to everyone's liking right now, but keep the letters coming. They validate a critical part of what Kirk, Andy, Jake, Scott, etc. believed in -- that internet based member input is crucial to figuring out where the class should go.

^ this...I've written my last letter/email/whatever to the ITAC/CRB/BoD; why waste your time/breath when they're just going to do what they want anyway?

 

[erlrich]

Beacause this is your only official voice in the current system. If you don't like it stand up to try to change it. Though you may feel it is a waste of time, and it may be, but you can't complain post decision like people that hold a similiar belief about goverment elections and don't vote as they see it as a waste of time, then complain afterwards about the result

You're absolutely right, and that's about the only reason I vote in elections - so I feel like I have the right to bitch about the government

With respect to the SCCA, I'm done voting (i.e. writing) and bitching about it - from now on I'll just be like the majority of racers an shut up and do what I'm told. If/when it gets to the point that I think it's more trouble than it's worth, I'll go race somewhere else...or find a new hobby.

 

[Ron Earp]

With respect to the SCCA, I'm done voting (i.e. writing) and bitching about it - from now on I'll just be like the majority of racers an shut up and do what I'm told. I

Keep your head down and eat the grass.

I think many of us are frustrated with a system that doesn't appear to be following what members want or desire. But what is even more frustrating is that we're not discussing how we can fix the system, instead we're discussing to whether or not to continue to send letters into a broken system.

I assume the ITAC chairman sees the frustration that the IT racers are experiencing and agrees that the system is not ideal, but, I'm not hearing/reading that from the ITAC. What I'm understanding from the ITAC is to "keep on keeping on", have faith, and maybe things will change, and, maybe next time things might come out better. Maybe.

I just don't feel that the direction on the ITAC is all that strong, at least, it isn't as strong as it used to be with the outgoing ITAC. On the other hand, communication isn't what it used to be with the outgoing ITAC so maybe there is a heading for the ITAC the general membership just doesn't know about it.

 

[JeffYoung]

Continuing to send letters will help fix the system.

People listened. We may not have gotten what the "pro-Process" folks wanted, but higher ups did listen to the support for Jake/Kirk/Scott/Andy and there is (in my view) a new attitude about the ITAC/CRB relationship.

We had a lot of sometimes momentus change the last few years, all good in my view. Maybe a period of cooling off is needed, and that might appear directionless.

I do think the next "big step" for us is to figure out what we want the category to look like overall. To me, I think it is:

a. A category using an objective formula to set weights, and we need to convince the CRB that things like displacement or looking at cars with similar architecture are just POOMAs taht we need to avoid.

b. Define IT core philosophies. Allow membership significant leeway in rule changes that do not affect them (think water bottle, motor mounts, etc.). Draw hard and fast line with proposed changes that do.

 

[Knestis]

So the next "big step" will get us all to the place where the ITAC THOUGHT IT WAS 12 months ago...?

Against all of the same forces (people, processes, culture, procedural rules) that have been in place for ages...?

<sigh>

K

 

[JeffYoung]

Well, the fact of the matter is, like it or not, we weren't there. Whether it was miscommunication or something else.

And I think we all knew we were not 100% locked down with the Process. We knew there was an issue as to how to apply it to already classed cars, and whether we even could.

So while we were close, we were never 100% there. I understand what lead to the resignations -- and I came close to doing it myself. But I stayed because I do think there is a real chance we still push this one over the top.

 

[lateapex911]

Apparently the ITAC didn't support it. Reading on the brown board the ITAC returned a hung vote, which recommends nothing to the CRB.

Actually Ron, I was there for part of it. According to the notes I took on the con call, the ITAC discussed it, and the majority was for opening the rule up, and voted to ask for member approval. The CRB reminded us that a new rule needed to go out for member input. If it hadn't this would have been done, and alternate mounts would have been legal....

Then, a huge response, essentially unanimous in support came in.

Then, the ITAC, ignored it's previous position, ignored the clear and obvious one sided response, and sent a 'no decision" up the line, asking their bosses to decide.

I can tell you this, if Kirk had been on the con call that decided that, you'd have heard an earful, even if he didn't like the idea of alternate mounts! That's no way to run a committee....

Then, and this is rich, the CRB, knowing all that, decided to say "no".
(If the CRB thinks it was 'the right thing to do, to support the ITAC" as they have been given grief lately over NOT supporting the ITAC, I will remind them, yet again, it's not the ITAC that's getting no support, it's the wishes of the members. THAT is why we all resigned....the CRB was ignoring what we all KNOW the members want. It's time for them to pull their heads from the sand if they can not see that.)


Seriously? The ITAC changed it's mind AFTER hearing that the entire membership supported the idea? How ridiculous does it make the committees look in the eyes of the members!?

Josh, I'm sorry, you simply can not tell me that people are going to have the same faith in the leadership to listen and consider their input...it's not about dates/weekends, it's about consistency, and logic...and Earls point is not unique.

Jeff, I absolutely agree with your basic position...and I'm really glad you're fighting the good fight...so don't take what I say as as an arrow aimed at you, but... I think we WERE there, until capricious decision making on the CRB decided otherwise. When Bob Dowie, after supporting and being complicit with the Process, which used stock horsepower as it's cornerstone (while having 'modules' available to use when there were known issues with stock hp) said, on the con call before I resigned, "I have no faith in any system that uses stock hp as it's base, and I can't support it", I just about flipped. That's a fundemental change in the leaders voiced position on the cornerstone of the categories classification process.

That the CRB decides, after 5 years of doing things a certain way, that NOW, they don't like it....that's capricious, and I wish I was given a good explanation as to why. Yes, yes, " GCR/rules don't allow it" is the one that gets trotted out, but that's red herring, because they were fine with it for 5 years! I submit somebody got uncomfortable with certain suggestions, and decided to lock down the whole deal, claiming "The GCR says so". After being a party to 5 years of that activity strikes me as a cover.

Members see that kind of inconsistency, they see the "Unanimous support" that gets rejected...of COURSE they think they system is busted, and obviously writing in hasn't fixed it. Tell me, what WILL fix it?

 

[dickita15]

With respect to the SCCA, I'm done voting (i.e. writing) and bitching about it - from now on I'll just be like the majority of racers an shut up and do what I'm told. If/when it gets to the point that I think it's more trouble than it's worth, I'll go race somewhere else...or find a new hobby.

Maybe I a Pollyanna but when I read the following from fastrack I think that the CRB will bring this back to the ITAC for more discussion. There is no real rush as with the current rules season limitations this would not go before the BOD until November. I suspect this is not the end of it.

“The ITAC and the CRB are engaged in discussions concerning IT philosophy and the future of the category. The motor mount issue will remain as part of these discussions as will other issues such as crank fired ignitions. Members will be asked for their input on specific items and more general questions about whether members want the class to drift toward Production, or remain as a much more restricted category.”

Given this I think it would be shortsighted to stop offering input when requested.

 

[JeffYoung]

Jake, no problem at all. This should all be discussed.

I do think we are overstating the stituation though if we say "we were there" with the Process. I don't think we were.

I see it as two "prongs:"

1. Finalizing the process itself. Here we were very close. Stock hp, power multiplier, FWD subtractor, torque mod, and others , all worked out. In fact, basically all we had left to do was put it down on paper and then (I had hoped) publish it.

On this point, I agree my perception was there was a CRB "about face" that on, in particular, the use of (a) stock hp and (b) "what we know" from dyno sheets. All of sudden, that stuff became problematic when it wasn't before.

2. Prong 2 was far less developed, and turned on whether we were going to use the Process on ALL of the 300 some cars in the ITCs, or pick and choose, or "what." We knew the class bogeys and popular cars had been processed, and that new cars would be as well. What remained open was what to do with the rest.

Some wanted to process all cars.

Some wanted to process cars just based on request.

Some wanted to put in "suspension" older, problematic cars until such time as someone requested that they be relisted (Josh's idea, a good one).

We eventually decided, if I recall correctly, to do "all" of ITB as test case and then the shit hit the fan.

 

[tom91ita]

Continuing to send letters will help fix the system.

People listened. We may not have gotten what the "pro-Process" folks wanted, but higher ups did listen to the support for Jake/Kirk/Scott/Andy and there is (in my view) a new attitude about the ITAC/CRB relationship.

We had a lot of sometimes momentus change the last few years, all good in my view. Maybe a period of cooling off is needed, and that might appear directionless.

I do think the next "big step" for us is to figure out what we want the category to look like overall. To me, I think it is:

a. A category using an objective formula to set weights, and we need to convince the CRB that things like displacement or looking at cars with similar architecture are just POOMAs taht we need to avoid.

b. Define IT core philosophies. Allow membership significant leeway in rule changes that do not affect them (think water bottle, motor mounts, etc.). Draw hard and fast line with proposed changes that do.

i like what you have laid out. just one question, who are the higher ups? CRB or BOD?

 

[JeffYoung]

Both.

I embarassingly enough didn't know this even when I joined the ITAC.

"Chain of command" goes: ITAC to the CRB to the BOD.

 

[lateapex911]

Ah, Jeff, I love ya man, but you missed one. HERE'S the real chart.

MEMBERS
l
BoD
l
CRB
l
ITAC



As an ITAC guy, I felt it was my job to get into the members heads and figure out what they wanted, and think about how to distill that within the framework of the category. Then it was working to get that resolved in the ITAC, and communicated up to the CRB. At times, if I felt the message from the members wasn't transferring up the line to the BoD, I'd call my BoD guy. But, in the end all committees answer to the member.

We're on the same page on the Process, and the refined and documented version V2 WAS actually set to paper, but it gave the CRB bad feelings, because, as Chris Albin put it, it lacked "wiggle room". So we were told we could NOT use it on existing listings, but we could use it on NEW listings, or, as the CRB told us, "Use anything you want, or make it up, just make sure it makes sense", when it came to new listings. Existing listings were to use Process V1. For those just tuning in, V2 of the Process made minor tweaks to certain aspects, and didn't allow for "an extra 50 because we think that engine will need it", without bringing evidence and getting a committee confidence vote on that 'engine needs it" part, as well as very minor tweaks in the calculation of FWD breaks.*

Our SOP practice had been to process based on member request, and to do similar cars at the same time. So if model Q got adjusted, the same car with a different brand got a change as well. And I remembered we decided to study ITB and try to figure out some odd stuff there, while continuing to adjust the easy cases that were requested, and would not be affected by any Process changes that might come into play later. (the torque modifier was a delay, for example, but cars that were clearly not going to be affected were processed)

*Again, for those just tuning in, I should mention one other aspect. Peter Keane ItAC member, then CRB member, now ITAC member again) swears there was a 'deal' to allow 16V cars into ITB, but ONLY if they got a 30% factor. I can't recall any such "deal". BUT, in an early version of the Process, 16V DOHC cars DID get higher factors....in ALL classes, not just ITB. There is NO documentation that I can find that supports Peters assertion. However, that same document had, as a flow chart block, a "Check for sanity/if the numbers make sense" step. As we did more cars, it became obvious that we weren't using the 30% factor on 16V cars and it was changed to 25% as SOP. The early 16V cars in ITA ARE factored higher, but, those were based on empirical evidence of prepped power. So, in the end, the V2 also, in the CRBs eyes, was going to change the ITB landscape, because they felt that cars would be classed at 25% in ITB (only!) wrongly.

An example is the MR2, which was moved to ITB from ITA. I made a math error and we put it in at the wrong weight, but the CRB refuses to correct the error because of the legacy "deal" and they feel it's the 'right weight".

 

[Ron Earp]

Actually Ron, I was there for part of it. According to the notes I took on the con call, the ITAC discussed it, and the majority was for opening the rule up, and voted to ask for member approval. The CRB reminded us that a new rule needed to go out for member input. If it hadn't this would have been done, and alternate mounts would have been legal....

Then, a huge response, essentially unanimous in support came in.

Then, the ITAC, ignored it's previous position, ignored the clear and obvious one sided response, and sent a 'no decision" up the line, asking their bosses to decide.

What the hell?? So the ITAC asked for member input, as requested, the member input is positive, and then the ITAC can't make a decision and the request is turned away.

So alternative mounts would have been legal had member input NOT been solicited and considered? Yeah, makes you want to write a lot of letters to the ITAC. Now I'm not sure to write a letter FOR crank fire ignitions, or AGAINST crank fire ignitions because I'm not sure what input produces a given output.

If that isn't just damn broken I don't know what broken means. How do we fix this mess?

 

[JoshS]

What the hell?? So the ITAC asked for member input, as requested, the member input is positive, and then the ITAC can't make a decision and the request is turned away.

So alternative mounts would have been legal had member input NOT been solicited and considered? Yeah, make you want to write a lot of letters to the ITAC.

No, where did you get that idea? The committee was split, which is WHY we asked for member input. The member input came back and wasn't enough to change anyone's mind, so, the committee remained split. As there is (appropriately) a bigger hurdle to make a change than there is to maintain the status quo, the status quo wins.

 

[Ron Earp]

No, where did you get that idea?

Got it from Jake. Read his post. Here:

Actually Ron, I was there for part of it. According to the notes I took on the con call, the ITAC discussed it, and the majority was for opening the rule up, and voted to ask for member approval. The CRB reminded us that a new rule needed to go out for member input. If it hadn't this would have been done, and alternate mounts would have been legal...

 

[JoshS]

Well, Jake has the notes from that meeting, he was the secretary. But my recollection is that we never even voted on the specific rule recommendation. But we probably wouldn't have had the votes necessary to recommend the change. What we DID vote on was whether or not to go out for member input. That's not as high a bar to cross as it is to recommend an actual change, and we had enough support to do that.