Simply moving this car is a competition adjustment. So, since we've already decided to lose our virginity, shouldn't we jump in with both heels up and enjoy it?[/b]
Mostly wrong. This action lacks some important substantive attributes of competition adjustments (bleah) as they get played out in other categories, and that we should try very hard to avoid in IT.[/b]
Oh no! We've already determined the lady is for hire. At this point, all we are doing is haggling over price and whether she'll throw in a Hong Kong Hiccup on the house.
1. Every classification of a car involves a competition adjustment, otherwise the minimum weight we would have to run would be the curb weight. Case in point - first generation CRX in ITC: 1955 lbs. CRX Si in ITB: 2130. (difference: 175lbs) Curb weight Dx/HF: 1819lb Si: 1890lb. (
Source). No adjustments would suggest that the difference in weight - 71lbs - should be maintained in the minimum weights. Either the C car should weigh 2059lbs or the B car should weigh 2026lbs. Ergo, the minimum weights are competition adjustments.
2. Changing a class for a model is an admission that the original classification was wrong and is done entirely for competition adjustment reasons. I.e. that '85 CRX Dx really isn't an ITS car. It needs to go somewhere else.
3. Changing weights, either in isolation or in conjunction with moving the car's class is an EVEN bigger competition adjustment.
4. I see nothing inconsistent with class philosophy with relaxing the strict prohibitions of 9.1.3.D.7.a.6.
5. In fact, 9.1.3.D.7.a.6 is, itself, a violation of the IT class philosophy.
It is the intent of these rules to restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car. Any change from stock rim size should be prohibited unless a case can be made that running the stock rim size is unsafe
and if this is indeed the case, the stock rim size itself
should be prohibited as being unsafe for competition. We have CRB members participating here - what is the justification for 9.1.3.D.7.a.6? Why cannot I use any rim size I wish that fits on my car provided that the tires do not extend beyond the horizontal plane of my fenders?
And I have to believe that any attempt to make listings more consistent - within and among IT classes - is good for the health of the category as a whole.
[/b]
It is unclear what you mean by consistent within and among IT classes. As it stands now, 9.1.3.D.7.a.6 simply is a means of reducing redundancy on the specification line. In its absence, the NOTES: column would simply repeat - maximum rim width 6", maximum rim width 6", maximum rim width 6".....
Simply changing one of those implied restrictions to maximum rim width 7" (particularly because the people who have been running that car already HAVE those rims) is not an inconsistency.
I have yet to hear a valid reason why forcing these drivers to purchase new wheels is good for IT. I have yet to hear a valid reason why letting these drivers use their current wheels is bad for IT.
I recognize the nose-of-the-camel argument and I reject it. The fact that this car has moved classes and had its weight adjusted already means that, not only is the nose in the tent, the entire head is too.
