When do you stop giving people what they ask for?

E

ekim952522000

New member
Edit: I cross posted this on the roadraceatuox.com after seeing the discussion there was headed this way anyway.
Click to expand...

Reading so many threads with people asking for things. This brings a question to my mind especially when someone suggest something and everyone seems to agree it's a good idea but it still does not happen.

When do you stop giving people what they ask for?

Seems like a simple question but then I've been thinking about it, and it's not. Is it the ITAC job to give the membership what they want?

If 20 people write a letter saying they would like wheel diameter to be unrestricted and the proposal is put into the Fastrack and no one writes in a letter saying no. Does that get sent straight to the CRB?

Does the ITAC get to simply reject what the members requested saying "nope we don't want open wheel diamter in IT" and never open it to to member comment?

How could I have a thread like this without bringing up the washer bottle thing, it seems pretty unanimous among IT racers that the thing does not need to be there so why not have the option to remove it? ( Isn't the ITAC job to represent the membership).

But all this bring back my first question.

When do you stop giving people what they ask for?

Should the ITAC step in and say NO even if all the current IT racers think a change should be made.

Disclaimer: This is not critisizing the ITAC this is just a question on how do you give the membership what they want with out letting a catergory end up like production? Does giving the membership what they want washer bottles/jacking plates/wheel diameter/cruise control/etc. really mean that IT ends up like production?

<----Mike who is bored at work and is just looking to have a good discussion and does not care that much about washer bottles and cruise control being in his racecar. :)
 
Last edited:
Funny article.
[Rant mode ON]

A guy I know, is got to be the most ego centric dude in the world. he updates his stupid "Bob is" thing three, four , or even more times a day. "Bob is having salad for lunch with oil dressing"....."Bob can't wait for his new model boat to arrive in the UPS shipment".... "Bob is sweating at the gym".

WHO CARES!!!!!!!!!!!!????????

"Bob HATES the new Facebook"

Bob, step away from Facebook.
Sheeesh.
[Rant mode OFF]


here's a discussion the centers around that issue from another board:

Quote:
Originally Posted by tom_sprecher
Basically, give me what I want and the system works for me. Otherwise, I see it as flawed and in need of a different basis to work from.

Like I said, selfish bastard, plain and simple.
Click to expand...
(Tom was suggesting that the ITAC be staffed with people wha are elected to the position, to better reflect what the racers want)

my response:

Tom, that's where it gets tricky. The ITAC tries to walk a fine line between giving people what they want, and giving people what they think they want.

The ITAC has an easy job in many respects. While the IT category is large by club standards, it's not National, and with that comes the freedom of being a bit off the radar. In other words, the CRb and the BoD are more likely to let us "try" things that haven't been tried before. (Like "the Process")

Secondly, we can look back at the history of other categories in the club, and learn from their mistakes.

Which is to say: Prod.

Prod is a category that has had lots of troubled waters, and many of the issues stem from giving people what they wanted. it seemed like a good idea at the time, but the long term effects have proven to onerous, and have changed the way racing in the SCCA/Prod world is done.

(I should add that time and technology pose real challenges to racing categories and must be dealt with effectively by organizing committees. )


Trust me, we on the ITAC are always "feeling the pulse" of the membership. I've been to races and talked to hundreds of IT guys from California to Georgia to New Hampshire in just the past year or two. Guys who don't frequent web boards. From all the interface, we've boiled out some cornerstone philosophies. It's those philosophies, and the consistent application of them, that guides the category.

Replacing the ITAc yearly would, in my opinion, create inconsistency, and would ultimately (and quickly) hurt the category. People would run on "Platforms" then spend their time trying to enact their particular platform. Committee members should, in my opinion, always remember the core philosophies that guide the category/committee, and never forget that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

I know the current system could be seen as un American and rather dictatorship-like, but I think the benefits outweigh the possible downside and perceptions.
(Further, every racing organization that hasn't been run by a benevolent dictator has failed. Every time.)
__________________
 
Last edited:
lateapex911 said:
Trust me, we on the ITAC are always "feeling the pulse" of the membership.
Click to expand...

And I might add you folks do so pretty well.

One comment about any ITAC crew I would like to suggest is that ITAC members be CURRENT IT racers, that is, having participated in at least one or two IT races in the last twelve months to remain on the committee. Seems that a vested interest would be a good thing.
 
A question that anyone representing a group whether appointed or elected is always do you enact the will of those you represent or do you owe those people your best judgment.
Usually the people in positions of power have spent more time thinking about an issue and listening to arguments than the average man on the street. For proof check out any news show man on the street interviews.
To vote against a populist opinion you need conviction, thought and a bit of ego, but I have more respect for someone with consistent convictions than someone who blows in the wind even if I disagree on a given issue.
 
Jeez, all I want is a couple of freakin' jacking plates. That, and a way to influence people to get what I want. Is that so much to ask? ;)
 
tom_sprecher said:
Jeez, all I want is a couple of freakin' jacking plates. That, and a way to influence people to get what I want. Is that so much to ask? ;)
Click to expand...

I feel your pain Tom. I got tired of waiting, when I retubed my car I built them into the front down tubes. I wish they were a little more to the rear but they work ok.
 
Jacking Plates

I agree we should be able to install jacking plates. I don't know about anyone else, but the underside of my car, no matter how careful we are, is a dented, distorted mess. Maybe some of you in other parts of the country do not have to jack up your cars in sandy paddocks like we do in the Florida, but it is always tricky getting the jack in the right location. I know several of my compatriouts tried to work the "jacking plates" issue when Enduros were initiated many years ago. And it fell on deaf ears then. To me it is absolutley ridiculous that something so functional, so necessary, so logical has been resisted in the past. But, like our Federal Government, logic and common sense will not be tolerated, David Ellis-Brown
 
>> ...logic and common sense will not be tolerated.

That's hyperbolic and not fair.

If the ITAC were "responsive" to the wishes of everybody, IT would no longer be IT in very short order. Everyone wants a different thing and the SUM of those things takes us way beyond the category as it's currently defined.

Now, if we required a majority of IT car owners to endorse a proposed change before we considered it, that would be one thing, but we tend to view a half dozen vocal members as substantial support. That's just not a good idea.

As an ITAC member, I very much view my first obligation as being to the long term health of the category, and that outweighs what current members want. (Remember that member turnover in the club is such that several HUNDRED THOUSAND have come and gone in the time I've been a member. Yes - that means that I (and the rest of the ITAC) have to apply what we think is our best judgement toward that goal, running the risk of being accused of neglecting "what the membership wants." But that's how it is.

K
 
Knestis said:
Now, if we required a majority of IT car owners to endorse a proposed change before we considered it, that would be one thing, but we tend to view a half dozen vocal members as substantial support. That's just not a good idea...

...K
Click to expand...

It's funny you mentioned this. I am in the process of putting together a ballot to allow internal engine coatings (Cermet) to be applied only to the wear surfaces of side and rotor housings of 12a Mazda engines in the SEDiv IT7 class. Every IT7 driver from last year and this will be mailed a ballot and personally called if it is not returned.

In SEDiv our CRB is composed of the Planning Committee and Class Advisory Committees (which unbeknownst to me until this Jan includes yours truly for IT7). The process is write a rule, gather support (ballots from class participants is preferred), present your case to the RE's at the mid year meeting where they will vote on passage or not.

After discussing the subject with members of the Planning Committee and IT7 Class Advisory Committees as well as with multiple IT7 drivers and a few RE's it would appear the rule change is a shoe in.

The funny part I mentioned came to me last night while doing a little drinkin' and thinkin'. If I polled every IT driver that registered for a Road Atlanta race, would the ITAC take that information into consideration on this jacking plate issue? Granted, it would not be a nationwide survey and you would have to trust my results, but is that kind of information helpful in deciding "on the fence" rule issues like this?

If so, I will try and help out along those lines. It will take a bit of work and to be honest I do not need the exercise if the long term health of the category completely outweighs what current members want. I understand that logic when properly applied and that in itself is not and easy task, but as anybody who works in the public sector knows, it is usually best to give your customers what they want or they tend to go elsewhere.

Let me know.
 
Last edited:
Ron Earp said:
And I might add you folks do so pretty well.

One comment about any ITAC crew I would like to suggest is that ITAC members be CURRENT IT racers, that is, having participated in at least one or two IT races in the last twelve months to remain on the committee. Seems that a vested interest would be a good thing.
Click to expand...

That is one of the reasons I stepped down from the ITAC , that and I have moved on to other duties within SCCA. I did not think it was right to make decsisions on a class I was not participating in very much.

Bob Clark
 
Force in Numbers

If I understand correctly, Might and Numbers may overcome the resistence to change. Well I am going to try something. In about a month, we will have an Enduro at Daytona. We usually have a very high turn out of IT cars showing up for the two Enduros. Maybe it is time to take the Jacking Plate issue to the competitiors. I generate and circulate a "survey / petition" that polls the competitors whether they want and request the addition of Jacking Plates to IT cars or Not. I beleive that the results would accurately reflect the views of IT competitors. I will not use phrases like "If Jacking Plates were permitted fro IT cars, do you think the cost would out weigh the benefits, or" , or "if your competitor had jacking plates on his car, do you think they would have an "unfair advantage" over your car if you did not have them, or "do you think that by permitting "Jacking Plates" to be Welded to the underside of the IT car, it would compromise the current IT philosophy or add "scope creep". I will ask a simple question, "Do you support, and are in favor of permitting, Jacking Plates, being added to the underside of Improved Touring cars. Yes or No. Just That simple. I will post the results of the polling after race. If the competitors do not want it, or feel it is un-necessary, then so be it. But if there is a majority, from this snap shot of a typical IT population, then I will pursue it further and make sure the CRB / ITAC have copies of the results, with names, membership numbers and the class of IT car they race. If they do not want it, then it is another dead issue. If I am in the minority, I will end this diatribe as I believe that the will of the minority should not rule the majority. Iif some of you feel the same way as I do, about this or someother issue, maybe it is time we take control, and poll the competitors in your area about an issue you might be passionate about. There is power in the "silent majority" . Thank you, David Ellis-Brown
 
When you submit your findings, please also add the following:

A proposed rule that allows what you want but also does NOT allow any additional stucutural enhancement to the chassis other than what is already permitted in the ITCS...

THAT is the issue. Write it so that it won't be abused and so that it can't have unintended consequenses. If you find that impossible, it might just not be a good idea barring any other issues weighing on the 'need'.
 
tom_sprecher said:
I do not need the exercise if the long term health of the category completely outweighs what current members want. I understand that logic when properly applied and that in itself is not and easy task, but as anybody who works in the public sector knows, it is usually best to give your customers what they want or they tend to go elsewhere.

Let me know.
Click to expand...

this REALLY bugs me. i think the "public sector" (read; government) is a huge catostrophic failure because of exactly this reason. they are so concerned about "giving the people what they think the want" in order to try and win the next election that they completely ignore the long term effects. well guess what, the overwhelming majority of the american public doesn't know what the fuck is going on with the economy, hasn't the slightest clue how we REALLY got to where we are, and has absolutely no grounds to be shouting from the roof tops how we should solve the problem, but that doesn't stop them.

i'm all for the ITAC considering what the members want, but i urge them to use their own brain to make the best decisions possible for the long term health of the class.
 
***but as anybody who works in the public sector knows, it is usually best to give your customers what they want or they tend to go elsewhere. ***

IMHJ, there are two choices now. Stay in Improved Touring with the rules as the are now written or move to Production where the rules have been so screwed over over the last 40 years that there are basically no rules. Oh, you want to build a car to no rules, how about you build a Grand Touring car. DO YOU SEE THE PROGRESSION?

:006:
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
When you submit your findings, please also add the following:

A proposed rule that allows what you want but also does NOT allow any additional stucutural enhancement to the chassis other than what is already permitted in the ITCS...
Click to expand...
Also David for the survey to be valid the wording of the proposed should be part of the petition. That does not mean the powers that be could not change the wording be in order to “vote” on a change the drivers should know the real effect.
If you need help vetting the wording this board is actually pretty good at picking apart stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top