Jump to content

How does the club want to determine when a car's VPI gets reviewed?


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, wvumtnbkr said:

To be fair, 2 of the 4 are swapped...  1 just had fast lap without winning. 

 

(Probably)

 

It does show an interesting bit of info about the number of BMW 3 series, and miatas.

Agreed. 

Then one NC makes it to the podium and an effort is made to knock it back out of contention. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ChampCar Staff
4 hours ago, Snake said:

 

Advantage, yes.   Disagree with only way to win and I think we've proven that not to be the case.   It's just not easy and most teams can't pull it off.  

True, but if they keep on raising vpi's on small tank cars that set FTD to make up that fuel stop then they will go away.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Grant said:

Between the 5-minute fueling minimum and slower traffic impacting faster cars more than slower ones, ChampCar strongly favors slower cars with greater fuel capacity. It's hard for me to believe we could get below a 1:46 mean stint time if we drove as fast as possible.

This should be no surprise Grant, it is the main way the series attempts to hold speed creep down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 55mini said:

One other point to make about new cars coming on board and again just my thoughts but if a new car is added with all the new technologies start it at 500 points until it is proved to be an overdog or not. Set a number of races as an example so data can be used.

This idea keeps being proposed and I don't like it. You can't just start every new car at 500, you have to make a reasonable effort to value the new car relative to established cars.

Lets say you add the new Kia Rio to the VPI table. It has all of 100 hp or so and it's a Kia. If you made it 500 points, it would never move off of 500 points because nobody would ever race that pile of garbage if it started at 500 points and you would never get the race data to say "oh wow, this thing is a pile of garbage and should be way less than 500 pts".

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, enginerd said:

This idea keeps being proposed and I don't like it. You can't just start every new car at 500, you have to make a reasonable effort to value the new car relative to established cars.

Lets say you add the new Kia Rio to the VPI table. It has all of 100 hp or so and it's a Kia. If you made it 500 points, it would never move off of 500 points because nobody would ever race that pile of garbage if it started at 500 points and you would never get the race data to say "oh wow, this thing is a pile of garbage and should be way less than 500 pts".

 

I think the idea has been more to just be conservative on any vpi assignments of new cars.  If it's debatable like somewhere between 500 and 520 the value would be 520.  That's my take on it. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ChampCar Staff
1 hour ago, enginerd said:

This idea keeps being proposed and I don't like it. You can't just start every new car at 500, you have to make a reasonable effort to value the new car relative to established cars.

Lets say you add the new Kia Rio to the VPI table. It has all of 100 hp or so and it's a Kia. If you made it 500 points, it would never move off of 500 points because nobody would ever race that pile of garbage if it started at 500 points and you would never get the race data to say "oh wow, this thing is a pile of garbage and should be way less than 500 pts".

What if TAC/TECH/BOD comes up with a value, say 350, we add X to the value for the first 6 months with at least one race ran and review it to see if it still seems right at the original value? X = 50? If the evaluation was correct instate that value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Snake said:

So you're saying Troy should stop typing 12.7 every chance he gets because that isn't accurate and the car really holds about 14.5?  

To be fair, the NC is not the only car that can get more than the rated capacity into the stock tank as has been discussed numerous times here. How else, beyond stint times, can various stock tank sizes be compared?

 

And yes, the tires comments do get tiring but it is a valid point as the contention is the NC in question is "optimized" while apparently the cars it is being compared to are not when it comes to tires among other things like weight.

 

It's hard, and frankly not fair, to compare max performance of a car when those it is being compared to are not optimized to the same level.

 

Edited by Bandit
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Bandit said:

 

It's hard, and frankly not fair, to compare max performance of a car when those it is being compared to are not optimized to the same level.

 

"Yeah, that (fill in the blank) didn't get FTD but put stickies on and a good driver would have easily gotten the fastest lap. Time for a review." 

 

Should work both ways... 

 

Edited by mender
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grant said:

As I've stated, I think the more important question is how is VPI reviewed? I think it needs to be based on objectively measurable criteria which take driver skill and luck out of the equation.

 

Since the outcome of this can involve some mixture of technical facts, practical experience and brand management I don't think the kind of pure logical explanation you are looking for exists.   

 

Look at the Cobra for example, if you swap in any 240 hp factory rates engine besides the stock cobra engine the car is 383 points according to the swap calculator. The cobra VPI is currently 325. This would suggest that that either the mustang value in that year is too high, the swap calculator weight is too low or the cobra is too low (or that the whole calculator process needs work). 

 

You would expect at least one of these to change if reviewed, but the decision was made to leave everything alone presumably because it wasn't believed to create an issue. Not saying this was the wrong outcome, just that not everything in the process is a pure analytical argument or mathematical formula. 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, mender said:

"Yeah, that (fill in the blank) didn't get FTD but put stickies on and a good driver would have easily gotten the fastest lap. Time for a review." 

 

Should work both ways... 

 

Not running hot tires is sandbagging. 🙂

 

That may sound ludicrous, and why run them if you don't need them to win, but the true capability of a car is not being shown on cycled RS4's.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bandit said:

It's hard, and frankly not fair, to compare max performance of a car when those it is being compared to are not optimized to the same level.

 

 

Your comparing different teams, build levels, drivers, etc....   What is the difference.

 

Claiming 12.7 constantly when you know it's almost 2 gallons more also makes you look disingenuous. 

Edited by Snake
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Snake said:

Claiming 12.7 constantly when you know it's almost 2 gallons more also makes you look disingenuous. 

True. And Grant has been more than open about every aspect of his car.

 

However, how much can be stuffed in an E30's stock tank? Is that the 17.2 that has been mentioned in this thread? It appears rated capacity is 16.4.

 

Either way, 12.7 or 14.5 it can't make 1:55.

13 minutes ago, Snake said:

Your comparing different teams, build levels, drivers, etc....   What is the difference.

I'll use some hyperbole to make the point;

 

Hendrick Motorsports builds a Tunaslapper to the limits of the rules, sets up the chassis on their shaker rig, brings a stack of the stickiest 200tw tires made (they are impervious to shame), puts Elliot and Larson in the drivers seat and proceeds to blow off not only the field but the other 20 teams running the same Tunaslapper so CC bumps the VPI of the Tunaslapper preventing them from doing that anymore.

 

Having deep pockets and being somewhat masochistic, HMS just goes to the next car on their list. Out comes the Tunaslapper2 and proceeds to do the same thing, beating everyone including the 20 teams that have been running the Tunaslapper2 for years.

 

Does CC raise the Tunaslapper2, penalizing 20 more cars as well, or do they realize that team talent, resources and ability play a huge role in performance and finishing position?

 

I'll repeat again, there were 6 E30's in the top 8 at VIR. There was a lap time spread of 8 seconds, and a lot of laps, between them. Shows there is a huge gulf in performance across the teams.

 

Not all of the various front runners/race winners are built to the same level either, so comparing them is not necessarily apples to apples. And that is the point.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Bandit said:

Hendrick Motorsports builds a Tunaslapper to the limits of the rules, sets up the chassis on their shaker rig, brings a stack of the stickiest 200tw tires made (they are impervious to shame), puts Elliot and Larson in the drivers seat and proceeds to blow off not only the field but the other 20 teams running the same Tunaslapper so CC bumps the VPI of the Tunaslapper preventing them from doing that anymore.

 

Having deep pockets and being somewhat masochistic, HMS just goes to the next car on their list. Out comes the Tunaslapper2 and proceeds to do the same thing, beating everyone including the 20 teams that have been running the Tunaslapper2 for years.

 

Does CC raise the Tunaslapper2, penalizing 20 more cars as well, or do they realize that team talent, resources and ability play a huge role in performance and finishing position?

Or does Champcar let them keep stinking up the show? ;)

 

Or does CC recognize the issue and review their Build Performance Index and/or Team Performance Index?  :)

Edited by mender
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, mender said:

Or does Champcar let them keep stinking up the show? :)

 

 

 

While I'm not a big fan of penalizing one team, I'm less a fan of penalizing 20 because of one team.

 

Throw 100 pounds in race winners? What else is there?

 

Stinking up the show hasn't really been an issue it seems with 2 or 3 platforms.

 

eta-

Quote

Or does CC recognize the issue and review their Build Performance Index and/or Team Performance Index?

 

Sounds like more committees.

 

100pounds>more committees.

Edited by Bandit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sooo, 17 cars.  Let's extrapolate that and say there will be 25 platforms that COULD be reviewed by years end.

 

Is that too many to REVIEW in a few months utilizing Troys suggestion?  I would think not.

 

The Porsche 944 and e30 have some extraneous circumstances (somehow the s2 is NOT the same platform even when swapping to that engine AND coilovers are somehow okay even though it is NOT a normal spec).  E30 have the swap weight fudge factor.  These will take more time to get through.  The others should be fairly straightforward.

 

If you got through that last paragraph without your head exploding....

 

Does this actually require a petition to adopt Troys ideas?  Seems like this is more about procedure and less BCCR.  Procedures, as I see it, are not ONLY changed through petitions.  

 

So, is 25 to 30 platforms too many to look over if we look at every winner and every fast lap vehicle?  Just for a REVIEW.  Not an automatic increase.  Should I repeat that?  

 

I expect most reviews to go...  it's fine.  No increase.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, wvumtnbkr said:

Sooo, 17 cars.  Let's extrapolate that and say there will be 25 platforms that COULD be reviewed by years end.

 

Is that too many to REVIEW in a few months utilizing Troys suggestion?  I would think not.

 

The Porsche 944 and e30 have some extraneous circumstances (somehow the s2 is NOT the same platform even when swapping to that engine AND coilovers are somehow okay even though it is NOT a normal spec).  E30 have the swap weight fudge factor.  These will take more time to get through.  The others should be fairly straightforward.

 

If you got through that last paragraph without your head exploding....

 

Does this actually require a petition to adopt Troys ideas?  Seems like this is more about procedure and less BCCR.  Procedures, as I see it, are not ONLY changed through petitions.  

 

So, is 25 to 30 platforms too many to look over if we look at every winner and every fast lap vehicle?  Just for a REVIEW.  Not an automatic increase.  Should I repeat that?  

 

I expect most reviews to go...  it's fine.  No increase.

And don't forget about us who need a decrease too please! 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At what point does one consider the fact that the driver plays an enormous role in all of this?  While I do not really know Grant, may have exchanged 15 words in an impound once, he appears to be pretty darn good at this driving thing.

 

I know our egos, myself included, often times cannot bear the thought that someone may just be better at something than we are......but it sometimes does happen.   I am discovering it also happens more frequently as the years add up.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ChampCar Staff
20 minutes ago, chip said:

Free SC300!!!

Already put a tech desk ticket in for just that.

 

8 hours ago, wvumtnbkr said:

Sooo, 17 cars.  Let's extrapolate that and say there will be 25 platforms that COULD be reviewed by years end.

 

Is that too many to REVIEW in a few months utilizing Troys suggestion?  I would think not.

 

The Porsche 944 and e30 have some extraneous circumstances (somehow the s2 is NOT the same platform even when swapping to that engine AND coilovers are somehow okay even though it is NOT a normal spec).  E30 have the swap weight fudge factor.  These will take more time to get through.  The others should be fairly straightforward.

 

If you got through that last paragraph without your head exploding....

 

Does this actually require a petition to adopt Troys ideas?  Seems like this is more about procedure and less BCCR.  Procedures, as I see it, are not ONLY changed through petitions.  

 

So, is 25 to 30 platforms too many to look over if we look at every winner and every fast lap vehicle?  Just for a REVIEW.  Not an automatic increase.  Should I repeat that?  

 

I expect most reviews to go...  it's fine.  No increase.

I personally do not think so at all as a good portion will be just quick exercises.  Car A won, did not set FTD (that seems that it is all that matters anyway), there are 20 others running the series not going too fast, put the specs in the excel vpi calculator and spits out the same basic number. Done, put notes down on what happened and move on. That is all of 3-5 minutes.

 

The ones that would take time I would think would be few, maybe 5-10 a year, if that, but those might pop up anyway. Those would take more research, discussion, review, back and forth. Are we not doing that now with with the Miata NC? I also changed the timeline on my suggestion. If we are using the last calendar year we can have TAC start reviewing the VPI in March and then make their suggestion in June

 

I agree on procedural changes should not need a petition, though people can petition for those I guess as I have in the past. Last year the ones I did as procedural were not presented to the board and were passed on to others in Tech and Dana and that made sense.

 

When I see the BCCR it does say members can petition for vpi reviews, that is fine and can and should stay the same. The reasons why a review happens now (FTD) is not in the BCCR at all so I would think we can change it as needed.  When I did ask this same question I was told no and for this process to change a petition needs to be put forth and reviewed, next year, and maybe adopted for 2023. To me that just seems like we are just pushing the issue forward for a very long time and just does not sit well with me. If I see a problem I like to fix the problem and not have to wait a year and a half to fix it when it can be fixed now.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ChampCar Staff

I have adjusted some of the timeframes and list of reasons with what people have brought up to evolve the document.

 

Champcar VPI review process.

Reasons to review a vehicles VPI annually-

·         New model added in past is reviewed after a full 2 years

·         VPI was adjusted 2 years ago

·         VPI adjustment requested- down

·         Vehicle won a race in prior year

·         Vehicle set FTD in prior year

·         Vehicle did not win, but top 2 or 3 more than once

·         Vehicle has not been reviewed in 5 years

·         Vehicle finished in bottom 50% of the field for FTD in all races entered (2 or more)

*Note-If VPI is adjusted it will not be reviewed for 2 years to keep vpi’s stable

VPI adjustment timeline

·         New vehicle request. Value will be set at 50 points above calculated value for the first 6 months from time of request. VPI will be published within 1 month of request. It will be reviewed at 6 months if that vehicle has been raced at least 1 time in that period. If not, it will be left at that value until 1 race is ran with that vehicle type.  Vehicle will be given the original VPI at that time if the value is still calculated as valid. If not then adjusted value will be given with reasons as to why.  

·         Feb 1st- TAC/TECH will review results from prior calendar year using above criteria and create a list of vehicles to be reviewed.

·         Mar 1st- TAC/TECH/BOD will publish list of vehicles that are being reviewed. TAC may request information from teams for data to help with the VPI review process.

·         June 1st- TAC/TECH/BOD will publish updated list of VPI increases, no change, decreases. Increased values will be published with reasons why the increase was suggested on a standard format.

·         June 1st -June 15th – Teams can appeal VPI adjustment/decrease/no increase to AppealVPI@Champcar.org. Appeal needs to be received in this timeframe to give enough time to evaluate the data/vpi.

·         June 1st-June 30th- Teams with that platform that have appealed the adjustment/decrease/no increase to the TAC/TECH/BOD  can present data/evidence as to reasons why it should or should not be adjusted to make sure all perspectives are viewed. TAC/TECH/BOD will share all data they used to make the increase to the team appealing.  

·         July 1st to 31st - BOD reviews VPI adjustments and makes their final suggestions.

·         Aug 1st- CEO will review recommendations and appeal process information/notes. CEO will approve or not approved VPI increases. CEO can keep the recommended adjustments increase, keep the VPI as is or set value in between the current VPI and suggested VPI increase.

·         Sep 1st- BOD will announce final VPI adjustments for the next year.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MR2 Biohazard said:

I have adjusted some of the timeframes and list of reasons with what people have brought up to evolve the document.

 

Champcar VPI review process.

 

Reasons to review a vehicles VPI annually-

 

·         New model added in past is reviewed after a full 2 years

 

·         VPI was adjusted 2 years ago

 

·         VPI adjustment requested- down

 

·         Vehicle won a race in prior year

 

·         Vehicle set FTD in prior year

 

·         Vehicle did not win, but top 2 or 3 more than once

 

·         Vehicle has not been reviewed in 5 years

 

·         Vehicle finished in bottom 50% of the field for FTD in all races entered (2 or more)

 

*Note-If VPI is adjusted it will not be reviewed for 2 years to keep vpi’s stable

 

VPI adjustment timeline

 

·         New vehicle request. Value will be set at 50 points above calculated value for the first 6 months from time of request. VPI will be published within 1 month of request. It will be reviewed at 6 months if that vehicle has been raced at least 1 time in that period. If not, it will be left at that value until 1 race is ran with that vehicle type.  Vehicle will be given the original VPI at that time if the value is still calculated as valid. If not then adjusted value will be given with reasons as to why.  

 

·         Feb 1st- TAC/TECH will review results from prior calendar year using above criteria and create a list of vehicles to be reviewed.

 

·         Mar 1st- TAC/TECH/BOD will publish list of vehicles that are being reviewed. TAC may request information from teams for data to help with the VPI review process.

 

·         June 1st- TAC/TECH/BOD will publish updated list of VPI increases, no change, decreases. Increased values will be published with reasons why the increase was suggested on a standard format.

 

·         June 1st -June 15th – Teams can appeal VPI adjustment/decrease/no increase to AppealVPI@Champcar.org. Appeal needs to be received in this timeframe to give enough time to evaluate the data/vpi.

 

·         June 1st-June 30th- Teams with that platform that have appealed the adjustment/decrease/no increase to the TAC/TECH/BOD  can present data/evidence as to reasons why it should or should not be adjusted to make sure all perspectives are viewed. TAC/TECH/BOD will share all data they used to make the increase to the team appealing.  

 

·         July 1st to 31st - BOD reviews VPI adjustments and makes their final suggestions.

 

·         Aug 1st- CEO will review recommendations and appeal process information/notes. CEO will approve or not approved VPI increases. CEO can keep the recommended adjustments increase, keep the VPI as is or set value in between the current VPI and suggested VPI increase.

 

·         Sep 1st- BOD will announce final VPI adjustments for the next year.

 

You may, quite possibly, be vastly underestimating the workload that the TAC and BOD already have in addition to their regular full time jobs and lives. 

While I completely agree with you regarding what has been attempted with the NC here, this proposal is going to very much add a not-inconsiderable amount of work on an annual basis to a group that already struggles with normal business to include reviewing 120 petitions a year (of which you personally write about 30 or more); updates to the BCCR from the PRIOR year's petitions; point values; Tech issues; internal business, etc.. I also think you will have people putting in "New Vehicle Requests" just "because I think I found a new minivan unicorn" (wink, wink). 

 

Two years ago, I submitted a petition that would limit, on an annual basis, how much a car's VPI could be raised or lowered in a given year. As I recall it was no more than 10% or 30 points. This would eliminate the ability of somebody to walk into a BOD meeting and work to point a particular car out of competition. It would also give that team time to work with the series to hopefully determine what the real VPI should be. Granted, there are gaps (cough...C3 Corvette...cough) but hopefully the days of those backdoor deals are gone. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ChampCar Staff
1 hour ago, Snorman said:

You may, quite possibly, be vastly underestimating the workload that the TAC and BOD already have in addition to their regular full time jobs and lives. 

While I completely agree with you regarding what has been attempted with the NC here, this proposal is going to very much add a not-inconsiderable amount of work on an annual basis to a group that already struggles with normal business to include reviewing 120 petitions a year (of which you personally write about 30 or more); updates to the BCCR from the PRIOR year's petitions; point values; Tech issues; internal business, etc.. I also think you will have people putting in "New Vehicle Requests" just "because I think I found a new minivan unicorn" (wink, wink). 

 

Two years ago, I submitted a petition that would limit, on an annual basis, how much a car's VPI could be raised or lowered in a given year. As I recall it was no more than 10% or 30 points. This would eliminate the ability of somebody to walk into a BOD meeting and work to point a particular car out of competition. It would also give that team time to work with the series to hopefully determine what the real VPI should be. Granted, there are gaps (cough...C3 Corvette...cough) but hopefully the days of those backdoor deals are gone. 

I disagree on adding that much work and think it would be easily manageable. Currently, per Chris's statement, but put through 20+ reviews on his own, he said some where down, fine, still reviews and those might need more attention that the ones based on the ruleset I put forth. Based on what Rob did he said it could be in the 30 range and a good portion of those are 2-5 minute quick exercises. They might actually have less work to do it Chris is not involved anymore.

 

I also gave a 3 month time frame for them to review and gather data. I would think that should be more than enough time to get it done. They could also be doing this ahead of time as you know the criteria. Say in December you could grab some of the ones that won earlier and get them out of the way. I also think after having the list, they could do the low hanging fruit ones in a day or two, the no change suggested because of X and Y. Then get to the discussion ones, which should be a handful at best.

 

On the petitions I only plan to put through, maybe 5 next year. I did a lot in the past, more than a dozen on tires last year alone, because the BOD said they would not accept ones with options. So I took all the ideas I had and ones that I saw had merit from members from the forum and put them through. I was hoping they would grab one and use it, but they accepted none and said they would not change the rules on that. I do not need to put those through anymore as a clear message was sent on tires. I do not like it, but accept that is how it is now. Maybe somebody else would like to make a crusade to do something about fast tires, I tired and failed, so I will let others try next time. I assume Chris will not be putting through lots this year either after all this. So if me and Chris only do a handful each it might be in the 50 petition range and easy to manage.

 

BTW- I did like your petition for a 25 point only increase and sure would have been nice with the NC, though they did raise the GBU vette a lot more than 25, but if they just gave them correct points on things it would have been fine also. I say put that petition back through again and maybe this time it will stick.

 

On that note, should we not do the right process because it will take more work and time? I get there is a limited about of time and most in the process are volunteers, but I still want to do the right thing. Or should we find a way to do it, spread the work out, be efficient to get it done?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been reading for 20 pages now; thought I would post.

 

Lets make this simple. 

1. Limit VPI changes in a single year to 15% (either direction). Unanimous board decision can override. 

2. VPI review by petition only

3. No changes without a petition

 

If anyone feels a vehicle has the wrong VPI they can write a petition. That way it is all out in the open. Nothing behind the scenes. 

 

I also believe we should limit 1 petition per member per year, but that is a different argument. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, MR2 Biohazard said:

I disagree on adding that much work and think it would be easily manageable. Currently, per Chris's statement, but put through 20+ reviews on his own, he said some where down, fine, still reviews and those might need more attention that the ones based on the ruleset I put forth. Based on what Rob did he said it could be in the 30 range and a good portion of those are 2-5 minute quick exercises. They might actually have less work to do it Chris is not involved anymore.

 

I also gave a 3 month time frame for them to review and gather data. I would think that should be more than enough time to get it done. They could also be doing this ahead of time as you know the criteria. Say in December you could grab some of the ones that won earlier and get them out of the way. I also think after having the list, they could do the low hanging fruit ones in a day or two, the no change suggested because of X and Y. Then get to the discussion ones, which should be a handful at best.

 

On the petitions I only plan to put through, maybe 5 next year. I did a lot in the past, more than a dozen on tires last year alone, because the BOD said they would not accept ones with options. So I took all the ideas I had and ones that I saw had merit from members from the forum and put them through. I was hoping they would grab one and use it, but they accepted none and said they would not change the rules on that. I do not need to put those through anymore as a clear message was sent on tires. I do not like it, but accept that is how it is now. Maybe somebody else would like to make a crusade to do something about fast tires, I tired and failed, so I will let others try next time. I assume Chris will not be putting through lots this year either after all this. So if me and Chris only do a handful each it might be in the 50 petition range and easy to manage.

 

BTW- I did like your petition for a 25 point only increase and sure would have been nice with the NC, though they did raise the GBU vette a lot more than 25, but if they just gave them correct points on things it would have been fine also. I say put that petition back through again and maybe this time it will stick.

 

On that note, should we not do the right process because it will take more work and time? I get there is a limited about of time and most in the process are volunteers, but I still want to do the right thing. Or should we find a way to do it, spread the work out, be efficient to get it done?

Of course you don't think it adds "that much work"...dude...you have typed probably 15 pages of replies in ITT. 🤣 So no, if you're dedicating hours each day to the forum, a few hours doing something else related to CCES isn't "that much work". Not everybody has that resource. 

 

The petition process is a disaster. The petition package last year was 99 pages. For 2021 it was 116. I will 100% be writing a petition (ironic as it is) to limit this process by member. We literally had 30+ petitions from a guy (and his brother) who never even built a car in the series. I don't even think he races in it anymore. 5 per member, or cap it at 50 total and first-come, first-served. Maybe people will put more thought into what they actually write and submit. 

 

I was disappointed there wasn't support for the VPI petition I wrote. But I 100% see the flipside of it and don't disagree at all. I'm open to suggestions for how to rewrite it for the next cycle. 

 

You believe your suggestion is the "right process", maybe everybody doesn't agree. And it's not a matter of just doing the "right process", it's a matter of what resources the series has and what they can reasonably accomplish without literally running everybody off the TAC. I absolutely do not support starting another group to evaluate VPIs or taking this process anywhere outside of the TAC and BOD. I don't even support how the TAC is named...my petition called for those seats to be elected by the members, not appointed by the BOD. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...