...half the people I talk to want us to do anything we can to keep ITB/ITC alive (from full revamps of weights to allowing lexan winshields and aftermarket parts due to availability) while the other half wants to invoke some sort of age rule killing cars off.
I have a sneaking suspicion that both of those extreme positions are the product of individual racers protecting - or trying to bolster - their relative competitive advantage. One camp argues to have allowances for their old cars, while the other wants to make room for faster cars at the top of the class - both arguing disingenuously for "the good of the category." Bah.
Instead, some possible *strategic* first principles for helping ITB and ITC survive:
** It is desireable to offer options to potential entrants, to the degree that those options are attractive to them
** Current (relatively) low nation-wide participation suggests that the current options are not attractive enough
** Therefore, it seems like it would be helpful to list some additional cars
Along another train of thought...
** Many currently listed cars are getting old and parts are becoming scarce
** Absent this reality, there is no real reason to "unlist" a particular make/model of car
** Unless, that is, it has been available as an option for years and nobody has run one
** Given the above, it doesn't make any sense to keep an old car on the list, if nobody is currently running one and allowing someone to do so now will only create an entrant with a parts supply problem
** In itself, that is a problem because, in an effort to avoid alienating people who are already commited to older cars, it is often suggested that special allowances be made to mitigate parts scarcity - many of which are contrary to the evident first principles of the IT category in the first place (e.g., plastic body panels, different engines, Lexan windshields)
** It should be taken as a given that, if a rule needs to be addressed for the entire category, it should be based on the needs of the entire category - as opposed to the needs of owners of a specific car or group of cars
** Therefore, while it should not be a goal, in and of itself, to obsolete old IT cars, efforts to preserve the eligibility/competitiveness/whatever should equally not compromise other first principles of the category
Combining the above...
** It would therefore seem likely that the additional cars listed be as new as possible (ie. just within the eligibility age window), to allow them maximum life in the IT category before the age/parts availability problem sets in
** However, since those cars - particularly if they are popular with the driving public - may retain their resale value too well to make them attractive $$ options for racing.
** This suggests that there is a theoretical "sweet spot" age, at which point the cars are not too new to be expensive, but still a useful racing life away from looking "vintage"
On makes and models...
** It is NOT good for the category for new cars to be substantially better than already listed cars - creating a car-of-the-year is a bad thing
** It WOULD be good if the new cars listed were perceived as being close enough in potential that they are worth developing
** New cars listed should make some sense, in terms of dealer and aftermarket OE parts support, availability of donor chassis and parts, and popularity in the aftermarket perfomance sector
** Further, since people sometimes make their race car choices for irrational reasons, they should have some intangible attractiveness, to the extent possible, catering to brand loyalty, coolness, or other emotional factor
Note here that arguments for or against particular cars being listed are by definition NOT strategic. Nor are cases presented to allow individual models particular allowances.
Discuss.
K
Edit (to zooracer) - I didnt' get that out of this strand at all, by the way.
Toyota Tercel/Echo, Mitsu Mirage, Chevy Cavalier....
).
