...is it such a big deal to allow for simple and easy cross-over of a huge pocket of cars that allows car counts to rise and regional revenues to fill out?[/b]
Since I started this shitstorm, allow me to respond.
OF COURSE NOT, Andy. Of course not. But there are multiple levels to this "situation" that you are glossing over. The reason you are not "buying" what people are offering here is because you are trying to nit-pick the "good" stuff while overlooking the big picture and its long-term effects. Said differently (and clumsily), you are trying to approve specific trees while ignoring the forest. The vast number of people that have expressed disagreement with you should be a major clue-by-4!
When I was reading through those three seemingly innocuous lines, here was my thought process:
"Ok, let's zip over to Technical Bulletins, see what's up effective 6/1/07...GCR, uh huh...GT cars, blah, blah, blah...Ah, ITA. Huh, a VTEC in ITA...first one, I think, that'll cause some shit to fly; gotta check the specs out on that one...Miatas 90-93 can run SM spec...?...Don't they already do that...?...Wonder why the separate line...huh, did it for the 1.8L too...must be something incompatible with the IT specs, I should research what that's all about [editor's note: I had NO CLUE that they are starting to allow alternate final drives and stuff like like in SM...here we go on the SM letters for comp adjustments "welcome to prod racing"... ANYWAY...] ...WTF???
CLASSIFY THE '99 in ITA??? OK, what in the hell is
really going on here with these changes???"
That's when the gears started turning, and my first post to this thread. Why is one group of cars getting special treatment that others do not? Why are we creating a discrete level of prep for specific cars? How far can this be taken, given our history of rules creep? I slept on it overnight and came up with a HOST of reasons why this is a TERRIBLE idea, thus my third post. Then, Andy, you came out of the gates defending what I consider indefensible and attacking the messenger while ignoring the message, and the rest, as they say...
I've described my issues with this situation, ad nausea, on multiple levels, so I won't go into excruciating detail. But, had the CRB simply wanted to include Spec Miata within the existing structure/classification while allowing some SM mods that are currently IT-illegal - i.e., stopped after items #3 and #4 - it would have still caused a squeek from me simply because it should go out for membership feedback and consideration, but the general idea is a reasonable one -- on the surface. If instead of cramming it down our throats the CRB had published it for membership input while explaining its purpose it would have gone a LONG way towards avoiding this showdown. But that process wasn't followed.
But it didn't stop there, did it? The CRB careened down the rules creep road and went overboard with classifying the '99, creating a dual-classed vehicle, allowing it to run two different Improved touring classes with SIGNIFICANTLY different prep levels.
Problem is, Andy, it's a package deal now: take it all (but no leave it all). We won't have the opportunity for review and feedback, we won't have the opportunity for further consideration. We won't have the opportunity to let the CRB understand what a bad precedent this is (not just the '99s, but the whole ideal as previously argued), and how it can be misused and abused to "create" a situation that's untenable, especially given our lax attitudes towards self-enforcement. We got slapped in the ass, told, "this is happening, we decided it, it's not open to debate."
Unacceptable, and indefensible.
So, do I care that Spec Miatas race in ITA? OF COURSE NOT! Come on down and sign up! As far as I was concerned prior to this week, they were a good fit -- and, within the spirit of the rules, LEGAL. Sure, I knew that they could cap off their power steering and remove the vent windows, but WHO CARES? NOBODY of any consequence in Improved Touring cares (any IT competitors complaining to you about Miatas removing their vent windows?)
C'mon down, you're welcome to run with us. But don't ask us to change our culture, philosophy, and rules set just to accommodate you. You are welcome to compete with us under our existing rules structure(s) any time you wish, as long as you abide by our rules. That's REALLY not an unreasonable request. To expect otherwise is self-centered and narcissistic.
Finally, there's the "Miata" aspect of the whole thing. Find for me one other make and model that gets so much compromise and allowances, that has so many places to play now, and is competitive in so many places (Doc, you missed D Prepared on your list)? Do we REALLY need to change our rules to accommodate them in yet ANOTHER category? It's like the spoiled kids that barge their way to the front of the food line in the cafeteria; where does it stop? I say it stops here.
To directly answer your question: would I prefer "what is already happening...under the table instead of trying to proactively avoid issues should someone decide to throw weenie-paperwork"? Well, when given the choice between a fundamental change in philosophy versus the minimal risk for someone tossing weenie paperwork, I'll ABSOLUTELY take the risk of weenie paperwork
ANY DAY, EVERY DAY (someone actually
protesting a competitor's car in IT? Hah!) Then we'll drum that weenie figuratively out of the track, just as if they'd protested a washer bottle.
Come play with us, we're glad to have you. But you're using
our rules, not yours.
Greg
P.S. Andy, please don't bother parsing out this post and hitting it point-by-point. You just CANNOT defend this action in any manner to convince me otherwise. You're wasting time trying.
(Non sequitor: I'm getting a load of laughs out of the responses to my post on specmiata.com...I was told to "sit and spin" by one person and called a "troll" by another...these guys have absolutely no clue to the effects of this change - this time in their favor, unlikely so next time - and that SCCA existed long before Spec Miata was developed...they truly just "don't get it". But they will. Some day.)