ITAC News.

I recall the same as Jake. The first vote on mounts was in favor, when I think Kirk and Andy were still on the ITAC.
 
The reality here is that less than 15 people dictate what we as drivers get. Between the ITAC and those on the CRB that get involved, we get what they decree. You were asked for input on something most had made their mind up on. The fact you wanted it was irrelevant, because you did not change their minds. Tilting windmills to think you will change it under the current system. CRB should have to run for election, not selection. ITAC needs term limits to get rid of "log chain" mentality. To be clear that is directed at Lee Graser and his antiquated BS. I respect Josh big time for keeping us informed, but we are just being informed the scraps we are allowed to have. Until you are all ready to change that the vote or any other memories of meetings are irrelevant.
 
seckerich said:
The reality here is that less than 15 people dictate what we as drivers get. Between the ITAC and those on the CRB that get involved, we get what they decree. CRB should have to run for election, not selection. ITAC needs term limits to get rid of "log chain" mentality. To be clear that is directed at Lee Graser and his antiquated BS. I respect Josh big time for keeping us informed, but we are just being informed the scraps we are allowed to have. Until you are all ready to change that the vote or any other memories of meetings are irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Based on my observations there is a lot of truth in what Steve writes. I don't think this system will ever function efficiently and with the driver's best interest until it is completely changed, personnel and all.
 
JeffYoung said:
I recall the same as Jake. The first vote on mounts was in favor, when I think Kirk and Andy were still on the ITAC.
Click to expand...

FWIW, I don't believe I was ever involved in any substantial conversation about engine mounts. We talked about them in general terms but I don't *think* i was on the call when the decision was made to put it out for input.

Also, while opinions on this may differ, I don't interpret "soliciting input" as collecting votes - at least not in this context. I very much viewed my role while on the ITAC as being a bastion against creep. If 100 IT drivers wrote in enthusiastically supporting something that I thought was contrary to contemporary interpretations of the purpose and first principles of the category, I would vote equally enthusiastically against it.

That said, I support alternate engine and gearbox mounts, without reservation. They don't do anything that stayrods don't already do - which is to me the strongest argument FOR the new allowance, rather than against. The counter argument makes no damned sense at all... In addition, aftermarket or home-made engine mounts are completely consistent with a whole ton of other allowances that have been codified into the rules for ages.

But you know what? It's another one of those cases where we're arguing about the symptom rather than the disease. I have a lot of respect for Josh. He's a smart dude and I can picture that it would be easy to work for him - which is saying a lot with me. However, Josh, I'm afraid that you're hoping the actual problems will change, without anything substantial enough to CHANGE THEM being done.

I understand from Dick P. that a couple of procedural considerations are in the works, such requiring that at least CRB liaison the ITAC (and other ad hocs) not be a category "expert," heavily invested in decisions. This would theoretically have the result that "they might be more open minded to the [ad hoc's] positions and less likely to substitute their own opinion for that of the committee when discussing items with the CRB."

That actually addresses the topic of my dissertation - the idea of "transformation of intentions," whereby policy actors at the point of information hand-off (or resource control decisions) steer decisions their way. It's a start and I'm cautiously optimistic but with all of the same players involved, I fear it's not enough to counter some powerful organizational forces.

K
 
JoshS said:
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.
Click to expand...

I just read that again and now I'm scairt. Kirk and Steve probably already got it.

So the ITAC had made a decision and the member input, which was the largest ever received to date on a topic, was not able to sway the committee's decision. What would it take to sway the committee? 100 letters? 500 letters? 1000 letters? My guess is it doesn't matter - the ITAC is going to do what IT wants to do, regardless of member input. A sad state of affairs.
 
seckerich said:
The reality here is that less than 15 people dictate what we as drivers get. ...
Click to expand...

My huge "ah ha!" last spring was that your number is wildly optimistic, Steve. Ultimately, i think that the number is more like four where IT is concerned.

ITAC members - Is it actually the case that Peter K is your liaison?

K

EDIT - "Spring" is giving myself too much credit. While I *should* have figured it out then, I didn't actually get it until after I resigned, this past fall.
 
Last edited:
While elections bring a whole host of different problems, I think they are the way to go.

ITAC and CRB, or at least hte CRB, should be elected. All advisory committees should have a term limits. Continuity and finding folks to do this are an issue, but at the same time turnover -- especially to reflect current member demographics -- is important.

Kirk, I don't think anyone thinks that soliciting member input is the same as votes (and not digging at you). I fully believe that if we got 50 letters asking for alternate cams, everyone on the current ITAC, just like with the "old' ITAC, would vote no. IT first principles and all that.

As a fairly new guy to IT and the SCCA, the desire for closed door decision making and lobbying was a bit of a shock to me even though I probably should have expected it.

THAT part of the culture -- the idea that leadership knows better than members, and that decisions should be made in private because allowing folks to know how the sausage is made is bad -- needs to change.
 
No. Peter is actually on the ITAC. Jim Wheeler and Bob Dowie appear on calls (like right now) for the CRB.

Knestis said:
My huge "ah ha!" last spring was that your number is wildly optimistic, Steve. Ultimately, i think that the number is more like four where IT is concerned.

ITAC members - Is it actually the case that Peter K is your liaison?

K
Click to expand...
 
With regards to the engine mount issue Josh, it was discussed in committee, and the advantages, drawbacks, and issues were gone over. One item was a concern about creating wording that would be effective and not create unintended consequences. The question was posed to the committee: "Assuming such wording can be created, and i think that is a safe assumption, would this committee support the concept of alternative mounts?".

The committee was polled, and there was a majority in favor. Therefor, wording was created, and the item went out for member feedback.

Pure logic determined the course of action: if the committee would NOT consider it even IF the wording could be created, there would be no point in wasting time creating the wording, and it would be ridiculous to put it out for member comment. If we wouldn't consider it, why bother asking.
Further, had Any OR I remained on board, it would have passed the second vote, 5 to 3, or 6 to 2. (I'm betting the vote was: You: yes, Jeff: yes. Peter: yes, Lee: NO, Les NO, New guy #1 no. .......I'm not sure about Bob Thornton and new guy #2, but obviously they split) So remove two new guys, and insert myself and Andy and it's a whole different picture.

The failure here was that the ITACs original stance on the issue was allowed to be flushed, and the vote was taken again. I am confident that no new issues were brought up. The existing members who are VERY against it, may have influenced new ITAC members who were charged with deciding.

Further, I'm honestly perturbed that the ITAC still has a member who doesn't race in the category, hasn't raced in the category for what, 3 years, missed nearly 50% of the calls for years, and rarely took part in on line discussions, yet still votes. My notes show that he admitted the need for alternate mounts, admitted using alternate mounts, yet voted against them. I feel that his vote should be struck, as not being genuine.

How the committee (and the CRB) can "look the other way" is alarming, and it's things like that which keep the Secret Car Club moniker going, and generate the smoke which escapes from the back room occasionally.

Members have a right to representation, and to see how that representation works. There should be NOTHING to hide...this is club racing, not National security!:shrug:
 
Last edited:
lateapex911 said:
Further, I'm honestly perturbed that the ITAC still has a member who doesn't race in the category, hasn't raced in the category for what, 3 years, missed nearly 50% of the calls for years, and rarely took part in on line discussions, yet still votes. My notes show that he admitted the need for alternate mounts, admitted using alternate mounts, yet voted against them. I feel that his vote should be struck, as not being genuine.

Members have a right to representation, and to see how that representation works. There should be NOTHING to hide...this is club racing, not National security!:shrug:
Click to expand...


So this member is either Lee or Les, one of the two old timers that have been on the ITAC for like 10-15 years? And, the membership is to understand and accept that a self-professed cheater, who has a seat on the ITAC and hasn't raced in a few years, has a heavy influence on the direction of IT and is one of the few calling the shots? Ridiculous.

Term limits and participation clauses need to be put in place throughout the SCCA and effective at time of introduction. Five year term limit enacted now; you've been here fifteen years? Thanks for your service you're discharged immediately. Not five more years of service after the term limit clause goes into effect. Haven't raced in the class structure you oversee in more than a year? That is a sign of disinterest and you do not need to be on the committee. You can't understand what the racers' needs are if you aren't out with them participating in what they do.

Members do have a right to see how the club works. But I don't have much faith that members ever will get to see how the club works unless this system gets an overhaul.
 
Last edited:
You can't understand what the racers' needs are if you aren't out with them participating in what they do.
Click to expand...

I have some mixed feelings that a person needs to be an active racer in that category. This is where votes or their resume comes into play. If you have a person who has been involved with the category, isn't racing right now (could be for many valid reasons such as an injury, or financial), but wants to provide a meaningful contribution - don't automatically disclude them. These cases should probably be the exception, but would hate to close the door completely.

The system absolutely needs to overhauled. I'm not so sure that voting CRB and ITAC (or other ACs) members is the best approach. As previously said, another challenge is finding qualified people to volunteer for these positions. Heck, even look at how BODs come into power. This past round in the NE, there was only one person who ran. We are extremely fortunate who that person was and I honestly can not think of a better person for the job. But what happened if it wasn't Dick P. who ran and we had a much different person?

I can not think of an easy solution. Maybe we need to hire some of these members and treat them as employees?
 
Dave, good points. There are CERTAINLY reasons that people need to take a break from racing. Take Rick Pocock, who was the former head of the ITAC before Darin Jordan. He left the ITAC because he had to sell his trailer! Yup, he moved to a new house, and found out later that you can't park a trailer in the drive. His solution was to get a trailer (and therefor race car) that he could fit in the garage. I was sorry to see him leave, but he was pretty cool with it..."You don't want me if i'm not involved with the category", he said. Fair enough. BUT, if he had decided to sell the car and sell the house in two years and get back into IT, I think we would be cool with a 'participation break".

Smae goes for medical or financial reasons.

And there are advantages to long standing members on committees: Institutional memory. It's important to know where we came from, and why we got where we are. But, to have that institutional memory, the person needs to be active, open minded and on the ball.

Finally, the changes Dick Patullo (area 1 (?) Director) has listed are good ones. From what I've been told the new CRB liason has a top notch reputation. I think he is from the AS world.
 
One of the crucial issues for me, and one that I'd like to hear thoughts on, is how bound the ITAC should be by what was done previously.

Right now, we are looking at the Process and how to apply it going forward. One of the key principles of the "old" ITAC -- and one I firmly agree with -- was that we wanted to create a mechanism that "future" ITACs would objectively use to class cars.

Do most of the folks here agree wth that? That the process should essentially be made "rule of law" that can't be changed? Or is it just a tool that "future" ITACs can use/discard/modify?

Note the value of consistency here. One of the big problems we have is reconciling the fact that many of the cars in the ITCS had their weights set via the old "curb weight" formula, and a smaller number via the Process. That creates inequities and inconsistencies that are pointed out to us on a REGULAR basis.

It would seem to me that continuing to modify or alter the weight classification formula is generally a bad idea, as it undercuts consistency, objectivity and repeatability.
 
Jeff, over the past 5 years, the members have spoken up numerous times in regards to the Process. Most recently, I think the CRB got significant input on it over the Audi debacle. You can look up those letters, but, in general, of those that pay attention and notice, it's been a resounding success. It's turned some harsh critics around 180 degrees. I know there are a couple guys out there who are detractors, but even those guys are critical of certain aspects (notably the performance bogeys in ITB, for example) rather then the procedural methods themselves.

I'd go even further to say that public support has grown over the years, reaching a high about a year and a couple months ago, and I felt V2 was able to meet the members toughest critics and their loftiest goals.

Your question of making it a "rule" is a good one. Previous to the "Bettencout/Jordan era" (if you will, LOL) of the ITAC, it was universally agreed that any system or pattern used in the past was difficult to discern, and the results were somewhat ineffective. Heck, that's WHY guys like Andy and myself got involved in the first place. There was a clear and obvious NEED to right a listing ship. MY first reaction to "make it a 'rule of law'" (and by that I assume you mean something added to the GCR) was too severe, but, thinking about it more, why not? GCR rules can be changed...it just requires the wherewithal to suggest a different version, publish it and get feedback from the members. The more I think about it, the more I like it, as the members would be involved.

If that's what it takes to get it documented and shine sunlight in there, then by all means.
 
quadzjr said:
I think Chuck submitted hsi resume to the CRB and was posted in the last fasttrack, apparently no positions are open at this time.
Click to expand...

The CRB typically changes over near the end of the year, and that will increasingly come into play as the new "rules season" is implemented. Although the recent flip-flop on the FIA seats had me seriously questioning my interest in serving, the thought of working with Andy (whom I've never met except through the forums) has me enthused about the possibility again.
 
In my opinion Jeff you are correct in wanting to have a "paper trail" if you may. or written information on how cars were classed. There is a balance we all have to live with. We race IT now, and many have raced IT forever and a day. We do not have the right to screw it up for those that will race after us any more than those that raced 5 years ago. Finding the correct balance of preserving the catagory and meeting the current drivers wishes is a delicate balance. Right now there is a very lop-sided control on the part of the ITAC/CRB that needs to get fixed. Lets hope that is starting to happen.
 
Do most of the folks here agree wth that?
Click to expand...

Absolutely, but it can't just apply to cars classed going forward. The same process (there can be differences among classes to the process itself) should be used for all cars.

It still ceases to amaze me that we as a club are okay with using a tool only for future cars and potentially new members but give the shaft to existing members / customers. Really, it's a stupid business decision at best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top