October Fastrack

[jjjanos]

What you want Scot, what I want, and what any other individual IT racer wants should be trumped by what is best for the category. And Jake is right - most people believe that rules stability is best for IT.[/b]

While I would agree that what is best for a competitor should not trump what is best for the category, I think you might be ignoring or downplaying an important factor -

The rules were made to satisfy the demands of the racers. The racers are not made to satisfy the demands of the rules. Simply because the founding fathers said that the best thing for IT was to require that sails must be original manufacturer equipment or the exact equivalent does not mean that this remains the case. At some point, what is best for the class is allowing sail material to be altered because the original hemp sails coated with asbestos just cannot be found.

I can find no section of the IT rules that say that rules permanance is the intent of the category. I can find no section of the rules that say car specific changes to accomodate a scarcity of available parts are against the philosophy/purpose of the class.

I think many people are upholding the sanctity of the rules as they are written and ignoring the ultimate justification for the IT category - "to provide the membership with the opportunity to compete in low cost cars with limited modifications, suitable for racing competition."

And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

 

[ScotMac]

What you want Scot, what I want, and what any other individual IT racer wants should be trumped by what is best for the category. And Jake is right - most people believe that rules stability is best for IT.

If you get what you argue passionately for, are you then totally OK with the ITAC and CRB granting every other racer who pitches the same heartfelt case getting exactly what he or she wants to improve his/her competitiveness, too?

K
[/b]

Right Kirk, go back and look who has been arguing for the best of IT all along in this discussion vs. who has been trying to selfishly protect the use of their existing 6" wheels.

Also, go back and look. I have NEVER once argued about a competitive advantage. I have argued the greater availability of 7" rims at a lower price, reduced tire wear (cost) due to better sidewall angles, and the side benefit of ease of moving between classes.

You are right, what is best for the future of IT is what should be considered here. Yes, rules stability is important. But we also must change w/ the times. The choice to use those 6" rims is based on a historical reason that is no longer applicable. And the greater availability of suitable rims in the 7" size, at a lower cost, is good for the future of IT.

In fact, this is very similar to the 15" rule change that was lobbied for heavily by *you* 4 years ago, despite the fact that it was against rule stability. Why? Because it was a change that was good for IT. Change can be a good thing.

15" diameter change discussion (note Kirks agreement w/ my point about the side benefit of easier class changes):

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...%20wheels&st=60

 

[RSTPerformance]

I just wanted to say that I agree with all those whom have said that they want rules stability... At this current point I would love to see ZERO rule changes, only adding/changing of specific cars in certain classes. The rules are fine how they are, and the process seems to be working when classing cars.

Changing this wheel width rule WILL have a negative impact IMO. Look up the numerose RX7 and MR2 debates on moving those cars from ITA -> ITB and you will see that people have said that they will not dominate if moved due to smaller wheels (6" vs 7") and more weight, making them competitive but not overdogs. These fights/arguments always seem to change from week to week... Fustrating

Raymond "Keep the friggen rules the way they are, or fix all of them already... " Blethen

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

And if the Shelby was such an anomaly, why weren't you guys already on it? Why did it take a member request for you to look at it again?

And really Andy, if the car was such a 'solid B car', why was there any need to hesitate on it?

It's all about perception guys.
[/b]

Bill,

What the heck is the matter with you? You sound more like MattBerg every day. You have a personal beef with Jake? You are bitching about semingly nothing - and you are also failing to read the post fully.

We did the correction and left cars that were questionable alone - vowing to act upon them as member requests came in. The Shelby was one of them.

AFTER the research was done, it was determined to be a B-car. 110hp, FWD and struts. It disin't trun out to be an under-rated, high-compression sleeper motor that some worried about. That gen was mostly an appearence package with a slightly uprated motor that was a prelude to the 146hp 2.2 turbos that fell into a ton of Chrysler products therafter.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Stock size rims or any size where the wheel/tire combo do not extend beyond the horizontal plane seem to be both concise and clear statements. I.e If I can shove 32" rims into my CRX, then I get to do it.


[/b]

I will admit that I don't fully understand what you are arguing. My point is that if a car comes with the 'abnormal' ability to fit huge wheels and tires where others in class can't, it provides a huge advantage within a structure of open wheel widths. It's complexity to a successful (yet flawed) classification model we don't need.

 

[shwah]

And why relegate ourselves to that almost non-existent supply of 10lb 6" wheels, allowing only those w/ the big budgets to get them, when we could instead open it up to the much larger supply of 10lb 7" rims? Oh right because you want to:
[/b]

Of course I want to keep using my wheels. Does that make me unusual? I would expect that a large majority of current IT competitors would like to keep their existing wheel sizes. I made that point when the argument being presented was that it does not hurt anyone to allow wider wheels in ITB and ITC. It does hurt people, lots of them, including me.

This has been hit from every angle (by different people - I know these are not all your positions) - 6" wheels are too narrow to be safe on cars that weigh 2400# or more (except lots of cars over that weight race at the front of ITB now) - there are no tires that can fit on 6" wheels (except that there are lots of available tires that fit on these wheels) - there are no 15x6 5x100 wheels (except they were oem on tons of cars and are very available) - there are no 15x6 wheels that are as light as I want (except you can buy any very light wheel you want - they are expensive for you, just like they are for almost everyone else) - cars moving from ITA to ITB will have to replace wheels and adjust suspension settings (we should not tailor the class rules to the very few cases that this will affect, and OH btw those cars are not competitive when in ITA and can be competitive in ITB, talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth...(and fwiw the majority of ITB competitors welcome these additions of potentially competitive cars - not exactly turf protection)).

At every step the underlying logic was that it had to be proved that changing the wheel width rule would hurt racing, and if this could not be proven, then it must be a great idea for all. This flies in the face of the very characteristic that most IT racers appreciate about our ruleset - rule stability. If rule stability is the goal, then the argument needs to be presented explaining why not making a change will hurt the current state of the category, and why making the specifically requested change is the best alternative for the ENTIRE class.

Funny how you have resorted to trotting out "ITB Protectionism" to discredit any argument made by an ITB competitor at this point, when the whole underlying purpose of your argument is personal gain for your racing effort. When I read your posts, I get the impression that you feel strongly that 10# wheels are keeping you from running where you want to in your 'pack', and you feel strongly that you should be able to buy those 10# wheels for real cheap so that you can continue to spend the remainder of your budget on other items to make your car as competitive as possible. Sounds like a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

As I said before, I would not support making a wheel width change for any IT class, regardless of where I am racing, without being convinced that the currently legal sizes were not reasonably available, or tires were not reasonably available for the legal wheels. IMO one specific application that has tons of available wheels, but needs to buy high end wheels to get ultra light versions, is not enough to support this argument.

Having a discussion with people who will only cherry pick select statements over and over is not very productive - I'm done.

 

[Knestis]

Right Kirk, go back and look who has been arguing for the best of IT all along in this discussion vs. who has been trying to selfishly protect the use of their existing 6" wheels.

Also, go back and look. I have NEVER once argued about a competitive advantage. I have argued the greater availability of 7" rims at a lower price, reduced tire wear (cost) due to better sidewall angles, and the side benefit of ease of moving between classes.

You are right, what is best for the future of IT is what should be considered here. Yes, rules stability is important. But we also must change w/ the times. The choice to use those 6" rims is based on a historical reason that is no longer applicable. And the greater availability of suitable rims in the 7" size, at a lower cost, is good for the future of IT.

In fact, this is very similar to the 15" rule change that was lobbied for heavily by *you* 4 years ago, despite the fact that it was against rule stability. Why? Because it was a change that was good for IT. Change can be a good thing.

15" diameter change discussion (note Kirks agreement w/ my point about the side benefit of easier class changes):

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...%20wheels&st=60
[/b]

Well done, Scot. I always appreciate when someone does their homework.

Where I'm internally inconsistent, I believe it's because I can see multiple sides of an issue. In THIS conversation, I argued my own interests rhetorically in an effort to illustrate that others are doing the same thing. Yeah, I have an interest - an investment - there but that's not the entire issue.

Point being (yet again) that if I want one thing, and you want another, the ITAC has the unenviable job of doing what is right for the long-term health of the category. They are left to decide which is the lesser of two evils - leaving the wheel solution options tight for some drivers, or making fundamental changes to the rules category:

** Different widths for different models in the same class
** Wider wheels for entire categories
** Weight penalty plus wheels for anyone who chooses
** Etc.

Up sides and down sides. I FIRMLY believe that in this case, any of the options presented is a problem. Anything that promotes differences within categories (the first and third choices above) is particularly bad so of those, a shift to bigger wheels all around is the least awful.

On the 15" issue, *I* argued (and still believe) that that particular change didn't have the down sides to keep it from being a good way to help resolve the wheel availability issue (which I've never denied exists). It's very difficult for me to conceive of a way that an ITA guy who goes from a 14x7 wheel to a 15x7 wheel is going to automagically inherit a relative competitive advantage. Wheel/tire rotational inertia is higher, tires of the same OD are more expensive, and it takes the gearing the wrong way. On the plus side, some may like the increased sidewall stiffness. It's a wash.

That is not the case - to my mind - of allowing another inch of width. And I'm NOT going to endorse differential specifications for cars within a category - spec line allowances, etc. - because despite anyone "rejecting" it, I KNOW FIRST HAND what those damned camels will do to a perfectly good rule set.

And finally - and read this carefully, Scot - you are either being disingenuous or just not thinking about your own case critically, if you don't recognize that all of your arguments are about your own competitive advantage.

I have NEVER once argued about a competitive advantage. I have argued the greater availability of 7" rims at a lower price, reduced tire wear (cost) due to better sidewall angles, and the side benefit of ease of moving between classes.[/b]

You are talking about saving money one wheels (so you can spend it elsewhere going faster), and saving money on tires (so you can buy more and run them in newer, faster condition more often. It's handy that you can make this case for the Fiero in the context of cars getting moved but do this test - would you endorse the idea of wider wheels being allowed on cars moved from A to B, if the rule included a clause restating the philosophy that "it is contrary to the first principles of IT and the wishes of the founding fathers, so cars currently in B will NEVER EVER, EVER BE ALLOWED TO RUN 7" WHEELS." Ever?

Say "yes."

I have never been about preserving the rules for rules' sake. I am - despite my best efforts, sometimes - adamantly against rules creep and competition adjustments, defined in the subtle and complex ways that I spent more than a quarter freakin' century learning to define them. And I get very worried when people won't even consider that their own competitive hopes and desires can't be put ahead of the big picture.

K

PS - as a footnote, I don't think I WOULD realize any significant performance advantage on my car, with 7" wheels. We've just gone to a 225 front, 205 rear package, supporting my belief that it is very possible to go too wide. And BTW, 14x7's are less available than 14x6's - that was the poster child for the +1" diameter case, meaning that I'd be facing, along with a lot of others, the question of going to a 15x7...

 

[lateapex911]

Name calling? Get over yourself. When you float a line of crap like that out there, don't get your panties in a knot when someone calls you on it.

And please, after the morass that you and the rest of the ITAC have spent the last couple of years 'fixing', I find it downright laughable that you give the original IT rule-framers credit for that kind of foresight.

And if the Shelby was such an anomaly, why weren't you guys already on it? Why did it take a member request for you to look at it again?

And really Andy, if the car was such a 'solid B car', why was there any need to hesitate on it?

It's all about perception guys.
[/b]

Bill, when you get your anti-crumudgeon/chronic malcontent drug dosage fixed, (It's obviously slipping), I'll discuss this. But now such discussion is a waste of my time, and I have more things to do than the day has hours.

OK, on the wheel issue- Comparing the width vs the diameter issue is a bit of a red herring. Not 100%, but still significantly different.

Allowing alternate (larger) diameters was done as our info showed that there was considerable difficulty in sourcing such wheels and tires.....and......the performance differences were rather minor. Most often cited advantage of the difference was "better feel", and some wheel/tire packages could weigh a tad less.

The ITAC decided...after considerable debate, that the time had come, and the long term cost of the rule change was minor compared to the long term benefit.

This is different. As pointed out by Andy, the classification process uses a set width in the calculation. If the width was to be changed, how do we reclass? Because we know that those rims won't fit on all cars...
We also know that it would be an advantage for certain cars. More so some than others. That's adding a lot of complexity to the process procedure. And IF we hit the "new" process on the head of the nail, we're cool, but if not, we may have destroyed the class balances we've worked so hard to acheive. (Because, most reasonable people seem to feel that IT is the most balanced, and most "fair" that it's been in years.....I would hate to mess with that needlessly)

..........And we have a nation of racers holding stock in these wheels.

Again, I don't see a compelling reason TO make a change, and I see a lot of compelling reasons NOT to.

Simply, the costs far outstrip the benefits in my eyes.

 

[ScotMac]

Kirk, thanks for thinking about this a bit more, and a good thought out response.

This situation is actually very similar to the one for the 15" wheel rule change. That is, a change that increases the supply at a lower cost. You are correct that the supply of 14x7 wheels is almost just as bad as the supply of 14x6. You having done that search means that you know what i am talking about. But it is key to note that the supply of 15x6 wheels is also bad. Therefore, the B and C drivers are not able to take advantage of your 15" diam change, because of supply. The supply of 15x7 wheels, on the other hand, is comparably much larger (which was the impetus of the 15" diam change), especially when considering race suitable under 12-13lbs wheels.

It bears repeating, the B and C drivers are really unable to take advantage of te 15" diam change, because it is only really applicable to the 7" and greater rim widths. Kirk, this is about supply.

Let me give you a bit of short-term history. I needed a new set of wheels (was buying new tires, and needed a set of wheels to allow me to "cure" the new tires). Started looking on the web. Now, i work in the software industry. I am very good at doing web searches. I probably called 50 (not an exaggeration) different vendors who listed 14x6 or 15x6 wheels, over a duration of an day-in-day-out 2-week search. Every lead dried up because of lack of supply or too heavy of wheels. The vast majority was just not available because the company had stopped producing them, due to lack of market demand.

Also, you are correct, it doesn't necessarily result in a performance change going to 1" wider rims. In fact, in some cases it is worse. In other cases it doesn't change much at all, since 225 tires are already being run. Therefore, the racer is already running the wide tires, and this just allows him to run a little better sidewall angle, and get a little more rigidity or feel, w/ little change to overall performance. Again, very similar to the arguments for the 15" diam change.

This change is exactly in line w/ the philosophy of IT, as you and others argued in the 15" diam change. It allows more of the (low budget) B and C drivers to utilize lightweight racing wheels.

-Scot

PS: I have already sent in my letter requesting this change, and encourage anyone who feels the same way to send in theirs. Send it to [email protected].

 

[rlward]

Bill,

What the heck is the matter with you? You sound more like MattBerg every day. You have a personal beef with Jake? You are bitching about semingly nothing - and you are also failing to read the post fully.

We did the correction and left cars that were questionable alone - vowing to act upon them as member requests came in. The Shelby was one of them.

AFTER the research was done, it was determined to be a B-car. 110hp, FWD and struts. It disin't trun out to be an under-rated, high-compression sleeper motor that some worried about. That gen was mostly an appearence package with a slightly uprated motor that was a prelude to the 146hp 2.2 turbos that fell into a ton of Chrysler products therafter.
[/b]

Andy- it appears a lot more discussion was in order before the committee made the change. That may be hindsight that can be used later. You had sain in an earlier post the notice was in SPROTSCAR mag...I can't find it. What issue? Another thind to consider that might make any class change DOWN is to let the car run in the original class for a period of 1 or 2 seasons or make the mandated changes and run in the new class. The information gained in both classes would indicate if the change was for the good of the series or not. I, myself would rather run ITA in what you call a non compertitve car for just that reason..it is less cometitive. so I have to try harder to be in the top 5. I have done it iITB and I can/will get better. Just because the can has 110hp and struts doen't in itself make it uncompetitive. If I am not mistaken someone still has to drive that thing, someone still has to set suspensions, etc. What is the definition of "competitive"? Heck, when I first started racing, I couldn't have come in in the top 5 with the best prepared car in any class. Now I hope I have a few more skills...time to work on the car - not reclassify it. I bought the car to race in ITA, not ITB. I knew it was an underdog, but it still has potential for development within the rules..Also please elaborate on the "research"; I am still at a loss on where this all took place.

 

[spnkzss]

What if a certain car comes with huge fenders that allows for huge wheels and tires? Wheels and tires that are above and beyond what anything else in the class can realistically fit? Does this just become an 'adder'? Do we have to know what width tires can fit under what fenders? How wide is considered wide enough for additional weight? How narrow is considered a subtractor?

If you require each class to run on a standard rim width, you take away a variable that is difficult to account for in the 'process'.
[/b]

That has been one of the best/acceptable answers I have seen yet. I can accept that.

Now my question is, why is there a difference between ITA and ITB/ITC. If you argue that ITA needs the wider tire, more power blah blah blah, then why isn't there a difference between ITB and ITC. I think ITB/ITC should be allowed the option of 7" wheels. At a bare minimum any cars that are transfered from ITA to ITB should have a line item added in teh GCR allowing them to run 7" wheels.

Everybody is worried that 7" wide rims may speed cars up. When you look at some of these ITA cars taht you want to move down to ITB you look at it's current state as comparison. You move them to ITB, you take away the 7" rims, and you have now changed it's potential. You could even use the 7" wide wheel for those ex ITA cars as an adder if you feel it necessary, which seems to be counter productive.

Those of you that are also concerned that you put a 7" wide wheel on an ITC car and making it faster, you might be surprised to see it slow some of them down. My ITC car with 70hp miht not like the added contact patch.

 

[Knestis]

I'm trying, Scot but I'm still struggling to see past the presentation of what's in it for you. I do this policy and evaluation stuff for a living so bear with me if this sounds pedantic:

You are correct that the supply of 14x7 wheels is almost just as bad as the supply of 14x6. ...[/b]

Actually, 14x7 options are WAY less common than 14x6. Fact.

But it is key to note that the supply of 15x6 wheels is also bad. Therefore, the B and C drivers are not able to take advantage of your 15" diam change, because of supply.[/b]

Point granted. In fact, 15x6 wheels are clearly a hell of a lot LESS common than 14x6, since they are less common than 14x7. So far, the most common size under discussion - setting aside issues relating to the influence of bolt pattern - is without question 14x6.

The supply of 15x7 wheels, on the other hand, is comparably much larger (which was the impetus of the 15" diam change), especially when considering race suitable under 12-13lbs wheels.[/b]

Again - you are right. However, the argument for the increase in diameter was made based on the "14x7 problem," as it particularly impacted ITA cars that can already run 7" wheels.

It bears repeating, the B and C drivers are really unable to take advantage of te 15" diam change, because it is only really applicable to the 7" and greater rim widths. Kirk, this is about supply.[/b]

...and here's where your case goes completely sideways, to my mind: You want to "take advantage of 15" wheels" - why, because you think they handle better? You CAN'T have assumed that "taking advantage" meant "taking advantage of the huge supply of 15x6" wheels on the market, because as you correctly point out, there just aren't any.

... I probably called 50 (not an exaggeration) different vendors who listed 14x6 or 15x6 wheels, over a duration of an day-in-day-out 2-week search. Every lead dried up because of lack of supply or too heavy of wheels. The vast majority was just not available because the company had stopped producing them, due to lack of market demand.[/b]

And I contend that your problem isn't with wheel size - it's with the relatively uncommon bolt pattern and/or offset that you need for your car. THAT - unfortunately - is a model-specific challenge that you inherit with your choice of car. And you made your life harder by trying to find 15x6's in that pattern, where 14's might well be more common. The IT rules simply CAN'T afford to be reactive to those kinds of individual needs.

You compound the problem by actually wanting LIGHT and STRONG racing wheels, in a rare size and pattern. The ITAC has absolutely no obligation to make sure that Racer X can find parts that improve his chance of being competitive. If we could do it without any downside, maybe but that just isn't the case.

Also, you are correct, it doesn't necessarily result in a performance change going to 1" wider rims. In fact, in some cases it is worse. In other cases it doesn't change much at all, since 225 tires are already being run. ...[/b]

However, you completely discount the possibility that some cars WILL benefit significantly from more wheel. If I were running an ITB Daytona, which is almost certainly rubber-limited because of its weight (which is a result of its greater power) I'd be pretty interested if I could fit 245-50-15 Hoosiers on the front, given another inch of wheel to work with. Blanket change = inequitable distribution of benefit and the need to go back to the calculators with another variable in The Process, which is already criticized by some for having too many variables.

It just doesn't hang togehter, man.

K

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy- it appears a lot more discussion was in order before the committee made the change. That may be hindsight that can be used later. You had sain in an earlier post the notice was in SPROTSCAR mag...I can't find it. What issue? Another thind to consider that might make any class change DOWN is to let the car run in the original class for a period of 1 or 2 seasons or make the mandated changes and run in the new class. The information gained in both classes would indicate if the change was for the good of the series or not. I, myself would rather run ITA in what you call a non compertitve car for just that reason..it is less cometitive. so I have to try harder to be in the top 5. I have done it iITB and I can/will get better. Just because the can has 110hp and struts doen't in itself make it uncompetitive. If I am not mistaken someone still has to drive that thing, someone still has to set suspensions, etc. What is the definition of "competitive"? Heck, when I first started racing, I couldn't have come in in the top 5 with the best prepared car in any class. Now I hope I have a few more skills...time to work on the car - not reclassify it. I bought the car to race in ITA, not ITB. I knew it was an underdog, but it still has potential for development within the rules..Also please elaborate on the "research"; I am still at a loss on where this all took place. [/b]

Here is the point: The competitiveness of the car IS NOT A CONSIDERATION when running something through the process. The trigger for the sender may be, but on-track results aren't factored in when running these things through. It is what it is - they are what they are.

Dual classifications is not in the near future for IT from the vibe I get from the CRB.

I am not sure I understand your first sentence. A lot more discussion? We learned and we classed appropriately given the paramaters we currently use. We don't define your on-track performance, you do.

 

[Bill Miller]

We did the correction and left cars that were questionable alone - vowing to act upon them as member requests came in. The Shelby was one of them.
[/b]

And that's where things get sideways Andy. You guys worked very hard to develop an objective process that pretty much took the 'Me! Me! Me' out of it. You state that you know that you've got oddballs that don't fit the normal process, but you're not going to take the initiative and do the legwork, rather you'll wait until someone asks. To me, that does more to tear down what you guys have worked so hard for than anything else I can think of.

Getting things out in the open, and making them more objective was a quantum leap for IT. To let things slide through like this, and open it up to dealing w/ individual requests for corrections/adjustments/re-classifications flies in the face of all that you guys worked so hard for.


Kirk,

I don't want to speak for Scott, but my interpretation of his comment about the B&C folks not being able to 'take advantage' of the 15" wheel rule is similar to some cars not being able to 'take advantage' of the open ECU rule. You can't take advantage of something if it's not available to you. Not entirely the same, but that's the way I took his comment.

Oh, and is someone's going to play the safety card about heavy cars on 6" wheels, the New Beetle should have never landed in ITC.

I'd like to see how many people that are against allowing 7" wheels in B&C, because they want rules stability, also support the open ECU rule. That, more than anything else, is one of the biggest deviations from a stable ruleset that we've seen in IT yet. And none of this 'but it was already opened up' nonsense. It totally goes against the IT philosophy, and was a weak cop-out by a group that didn't want to do their job. And it could be reversed. There's a track record that shows that things can be undone.

Bill, when you get your anti-crumudgeon/chronic malcontent drug dosage fixed, (It's obviously slipping), I'll discuss this. But now such discussion is a waste of my time, and I have more things to do than the day has hours.[/b]

That's pretty funny Jake. You admonish me for 'name calling' (which I didn't actually do), but don't want to hold yourself to the same standard. No problem (and no surprise). And, if you're so busy, maybe you don't have enough time to devote to the ITAC. But then again, if you weren't on the ITAC, I'm not sure what you would do to get your attention-whore fix (BTW, THAT was name calling).

 

[rcc85]

If I were running an ITB Daytona, which is almost certainly rubber-limited because of its weight (which is a result of its greater power)





Not a good choice as an example, Kirk, since it's only 99 hp stock. However, the fenders are pretty big


Bob Clifton
ITB Dodge Daytona

 

[Knestis]

If I were running an ITB Daytona, which is almost certainly rubber-limited because of its weight (which is a result of its greater power)
Not a good choice as an example, Kirk, since it's only 99 hp stock. However, the fenders are pretty big
Bob Clifton
ITB Dodge Daytona
[/b]

Really? That's pretty messed up...

K

EDIT - it strikes me that the fact that I'm surprised by this is a really excellent indicator of how our expectations have changed in just a very few years. Look back at that thread Scot cites (2004) and it's clear that there are a lot of things that hadn't been done yet. The Egg was still an S car, and the equivalent replacement part rule hadn't been added, to name just two that I noticed...

 

[JoshS]

I'd like to see how many people that are against allowing 7" wheels in B&C, because they want rules stability, also support the open ECU rule. That, more than anything else, is one of the biggest deviations from a stable ruleset that we've seen in IT yet. And none of this 'but it was already opened up' nonsense. It totally goes against the IT philosophy, and was a weak cop-out by a group that didn't want to do their job. And it could be reversed. There's a track record that shows that things can be undone.
[/b]

That is incredibly insulting ... the current ITAC clearly has the best interest of the future of the category and the club at heart, and tries very hard to balance that against member's wishes. And every member of this team is also very clearly dedicated to doing his job.

Anything can be reversed. On this one, there was SIGNIFICANT concern that if the current rule were reversed, that the result had MANY MANY issues. That decision was not taken even remotely lightly and many many many hours were spent discussing it and researching it. Please. Give us some credit.

Unbelievable. Hard to believe anyone volunteers given "customer" attitudes like that.

PS: I was one of the ITAC members that initially wanted to go back. It was after a lot of research, a lot of discussion, and a lot of listening to members that I changed my mind. I don't change my mind easily. I'm very stubborn. Ask my wife. And I don't get insulted very easily but you just managed to do it.

I frankly think you owe the entire committee an apology.

 

[Bill Miller]

Hey Josh,

Were you one of the people that originally implemented the open ECU (anything in the stock box) rule? If not, you've got nothing to feel insulted about. I don't know if ANY of the current ITAC members were part of the committee then, and IIRC, they weren't the ones that initiated it.

 

[lateapex911]

........................ also support the open ECU rule. That, more than anything else, is one of the biggest deviations from a stable ruleset that we've seen in IT yet. And none of this 'but it was already opened up' nonsense. It totally goes against the IT philosophy, and was a weak cop-out by a group that didn't want to do their job. And it could be reversed. There's a track record that shows that things can be undone.

That's pretty funny Jake. You admonish me for 'name calling' (which I didn't actually do), but don't want to hold yourself to the same standard. No problem (and no surprise). And, if you're so busy, maybe you don't have enough time to devote to the ITAC. But then again, if you weren't on the ITAC, I'm not sure what you would do to get your attention-whore fix (BTW, THAT was name calling). [/b]

Josh typed what was on my mind, the only difference being in the timing of the change of heart regarding the issue. I came to the conclusion a bit earlier than he, but we travelled down the same road, and have the same reservations. So, thanks Josh, that saved me a bit of typing.

And Bill, your comment above clearly shows your intent to blame the current group, otherwise you wouldn't have included the qualifier that I've boldened. Sidestep not accepted. Can't have it both ways.

 

[pfcs49]

Bill-I find you wrong-minded, obnoxious, confrontive, and unpleasant at times.
This is not one of those times.
A fair question.
phil