Traction Control

[desotoman]

Ken Walkey states "The rules committe that voted 14 to 1 in favor of TC, for the most part,are the same people (board members) Who voted in the following board meeting to disallow it."
 
 What does "for the most part" mean? 80% or 90% or 100%? Ken, funny I don't remember seeing you at the rules committee meeting. So how would you know who voted and for what. I was at both the rules meeting and the board meeting. I saw who voted and who didn't.
 
 People who are allowed to vote at the rules committee meeting are: Club reps, Club Presidents, and Board members. At the rules committee meeting there were more Club reps and club Presidents there that voted, than board members.
 
 Tom Gerardi

[KeithTurk]

Tom I thank you for your answer.. I don't agree with it but I respect your right to have it... As adults we have the ability to agree to disagree with no hard feelings.
 
 My opinion is that it's no different then having an automatic trans or the previous performance advantages I listed before.  Technology advances should be allowed in our sport and we as competitors should let the chips fall where they may.
 
 Again... Thank's for sticking your neck out here and answering your side of it...

[jimmy six]

Committee chairmen are also allowed to vote at the rules meeting. In the past the first order of business is to designate who the voters are ie: the list that Tom said. I would have liked to have been there as the Vintage Coupe and Sedan chairmman however, no mention of the meetings was in any Board and Reps minutes until the day prior at a Reps meeting. One the few meetings I've missed in 25 years..O Well..J.D.

[Ken Walkey]

Tom- please try to understand what is, or has been going on. The board members that were on the rules committe are the ONLY ones that really count. Those are the ones that changed their minds when it came time at the board meeting to vote. The rest of you were there for a so-called rules meeting, which when it came time to vote, you did not exist--you don't count. Remember, Board Members Rule!

[jimmy six]

Sorry Ken but I disagree with your statement. On TC subject that maybe true but on many others the non-elected (appointed) members have voted the same way as the committees have suggusted. The first question asked is normally "how does the 'whatever' committee feel on the subject" Most of them feel that each committee does it's job the best it can and they take the reccommendation....TC is alot tougher than all the rest and old predugices (sorry on the spelling) die hard..Glad I still don't vote. J.D.

[landracing]

Originally posted by desotoman:
  Now it is lets build the best car let the computor drive it and let the person who spent a couple of hundred thousand dollars go for a ride even if they don't have any driving skills.
 Regards,
 Tom Gerardi

Tom,
 
 Not a valid argument on TC cars. The SCTA already allows anybody to build a car and run it, even if its a first time driver with no driving skills with or without traction control.
 So if you build a large dollar car without traction control and no driving skills you can still run it.  Try again.
 
 Jon

[Ken Walkey]

JD-your right on some other subjects. On TC the board members present in the so-called rules committe voted for it. When it came time for the "offical" vote, they reversed their original stance.  None of us non-board members really count. We work, we try to contribute where we can, but when it comes down to what we have now, like I said,"Board Members Rule". And like it or not thats the way it is, you or I cannot change it.(my point of view only)

[landracing]

Its funny that I have learned that several months ago a letter went out to a select group of people who are SCTA-BNI members to state their opinion on traction control. How come I was not given the opportunity to state my opinion. I am a BNI member, the last time I checked anyway. I paid money to be a member.
 
 I am not a fast guy, but I have talked with several fast guys and 99% were in favor of traction control. Some said they would not use it, others said hell yes.
 
 Like Marlo T. I asked him a question, "If traction control was allowed would you use it on your new streamliner?" His response without even thinking was "Yes".
 
 Anybody else get his letter and was allowed to express an opinion on it?
 
 Jonathan

[landracing]

I guess we need to just ban everyone who runs a rev limiter, becuase that could be a form of traction control. Computer controlled ignition retard or fuel cutoff even when the drivers pedel is to the floor they can keep it there and run right off the rev limiter. Wait the computer is now not in control of the vehicle because the computer is now driving the car, right Tom your whole argument so far has been taking away the driving skills and letting the computer drive the car. Is this not the same thing??
 
 Jon
 
  <small>[ November 17, 2004, 10:14 PM: Message edited by: JonAmo ]</small>

[joea]

I dont expect SCTA to try to garner the opinion
 of every person that paid dues.....I respect their efforts to make the best informed decisions that they are able........
 
 this discourse is priceless, and as with all things in life, WILL work out as intended.......this process and banter is very educational, vital and needed.........
 
 life is good.........
 
 THANKS very much Dave for posting that rules
 submission data, it is a very strong piece for the SCTA to work with......
 
 Joe Amo  
 
  <small>[ November 17, 2004, 10:24 PM: Message edited by: Joe Amo ]</small>

[Bob Drury]

Jon, you got to realize, its hard to have a open mind and clear vision when your head is in the sand, er salt I mean................

[desotoman]

Ken Walkey
 Unlimited license to Drive Streamliner #122
 Member # 282
 
   posted November 17, 2004 02:15 PM                          
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Just to clarify one point, then I promiss to "shut up", The rules committe that voted 14 to 1 in favor of TC, for the most part,are the same people (board members) Who voted in the following board meeting to disallow it. frustrating --yes. Thats what got this whole conversation started.  
 -------------------------------------------------
 Ken, In a previous post I tried to give you a hint about the above post you made, in a nice way and you have not taken the hint. So now I will be blunt. You don't know what the hell you are talking about. You were not at the rules meeting. As far as I am conserned your credibility has gone down the toilet.
 
 I only remember 4 board members at the rules committee meeting, out of a possible 18 board members. That leaves 11 votes that came from NON BOARD members. You are speading lies that make it sound like the whole board was there. Why?
 
 Furthermore at the board meeting which I do not remember seeing you. One of the Board members that was at the rules committee meeting and who voted, was unable to attend the Board meeting since he was out of town. As I recall the vote for TC was 4 in favor, 10 against. Now you are down to 3 board members present at the Board meeting that voted at the rules committee meeting. It is quite possible no board member changed their mind (vote) from the rules meeting to the board meeting, after all there were 4 votes in favor of TC at the board meeting.
 
 Furthermore the rules committe meeting is a place where applications for rule changes are discussed. Once discussed a vote is taken and all clubs get to have 2 votes, one from the President of the club and the other from the club Rep. all tech committee chairs get to vote along with board members. What ever the outcome of that vote, it is only a RECOMENDATION to the board.
 
 If you started this tread because you believe what you posted above is true, God help the SCTA. You owe every board member an apology. You have really outdone yourself this time.
 
 Regards,
 Tom Gerardi

[landracing]

The plot thickens, and in current debate im spinning my tires because I have dont have traction control
 
 Jon

[KeithTurk]

Folks... this has been Very entertaining... I've got to take the Berkeley up to Michigan this weekend to get an engine fitted...( another long trip ).. So I'll be leaving in just a bit...
 
 I can't wait to read what you folks have to say when I get back...
 
 Can I recommend we focus on the subject and the process and maybe withdraw from the personal attacks on each other...  Somehow that just detracts from the enjoyment of the discussion on the topic...
 
 Jon... I thank you again for providing us this website... it's a joy to support...

[narider]

I have no dogs in this fight, but I would think it would be more beneficial to decide who's looking at this as a safety item and who's looking at it as a classification item(whether they know it or not, some are.. read on). Once you can get people on the same page, it's much easier to see the others point of view and move forward as a whole. The idea should not be to tell the board they don't know what they are doing, it should be to get them to see everyone's perspective in a rational manner so that decisions can be made of what type of ruling is being made.
 I don't think anyone is saying that it will not increase safety, I imagine the problem lies in if it will give an unfair advantage to those using it over those that are not. Maybe a seperate class(by adding a "TC" to the designator) might alleviatte the seperation? Isn't this how Streamliner classes(etc.) came to be? It was a way to go faster, safer.
 Just my 2cents(which is probably worth less then that to many).
 TD