Just a little test: Shut your mind off to the big issue and ask if the rationale for each of the following rule changes is as sound as those presented - in and of themselves - for the passenger glass and washer bottle:
"Turn signals and marker lenses may be removed" - We don't signal on the race track, and when they get hit (they're in the worst place - they get busted. This is expensive, particularly if I race an old car, and the pieces on the track are a safety hazard. The fact that we are supposed to tape them is proof of the above.
"Headlight assemblies may be removed" - Ditto. Air is going to be blowing in the holes, they may be used to provide air to the engine or front brakes.
"Alternate gear ratios available stock in other models of the car being raced may be substituted" - Front drive cars have to bust open the gearbox to change the final drive, it is reasonable to allow them to fit other commonly available individual gear ratios. Rear drive cars should get the same allowance to be fair.
"Aftermarket cams are allowed" - They often cost less than a new stock cam. This is also a common modification to street cars and will attract interest of new members who are used to this type of performance improvement.
"Power steering may be removed or disabled" - Cars would be more reliable, another source of fluid on the track would be eliminated, and it costs nothing.
"Stock windshields may be replaced with a polycarbonate version of the same shape" - Over several seasons, a plastic windshield would be far stronger, less expensive (not as likely to break), and would be far safer since it wouldn't leave glass on the track in a rollover incident.
"Fenders may be modified for tire clearance" - The danger of tires being damaged by fenders would be eliminated in cases where the current rule doesn't allow sufficient room.
"Inner bumper assemblies may be removed or lightened" - Cars that currently struggle to meet minimum IT weight would have a better chance to be competitive.
"Door reinforcement beams or bars may be removed if they interfere with the installation of door bars" - Additional space between the driver and door bars increases safety.
"The '8th pick-up point' of the rollcage assembly may be located anywhere" - Rollcage structures may be more effectively tailored to individual chassis designs, increasing safety at no difference in cost to the current rule.
"Compression may be increased 1.5 points" - Performance would be enhanced across the board without adding signficantly to the cost of building an IT-spec engine, making the cars more fun to drive and exciting to watch.
"Any number of bolt-on chassis reinforcement bars (e.g., strut bars) are allowed" - One is already allowed and this would prevent potential stress damage to the car's chassis.
"Door handles may be removed and latches disabled, provided that doors are securely pinned or fastened shut" - Safety will be increased in rollover incidents if doors can't come open.
"Larger diameter rotors and aftermarket calipers may be fitted, as long as they use the original mounting points" - Safety would be improved as consistent braking performance is assured over the distance of a race. Kits for this type of modification are popular improvements for street cars and allowing them on IT cars would better connect the catagory with the aftermarket and new IT participants.
How many of those options fit within any number of reasonable persons' definition of "common sense?" I've had to explain that IT doesn't allow most all of the above to someone, somewhere over the last year - to which the most common response was, "That's stupid."
K
