...the question is whether it is good for the long-term health of the category. Of course, I may just not understand how carefully this policy was examined before it was tacked onto the ITR proposal.
[/b]
Kind of sad when it comes down to quoting one's self but I don't KNOW that it is bad for the club. I just think it's a little precipitous to make a change that substantial without a LOT of consideration.
Your SM/ITA example: If that rationale works in that case, how about applying the same thinking to the occasionally-suggested idea of simply listing all IT cars in the Production classes, in their current specifications, where they "fit" competitively? Seriously - if I proposed that, would you support it? Why or why not? We'd have ride-sharing, cross-over opportunities galore, and I'll bet that revenues from Nationals would go up substantially.
If THAT is OK, how about listing all LP Prod cars in IT, too so we can share some more? Yes or know? Why? What is different?
At some point, fundamental principals of the system get out of whack to accommodate some policy intention that might, in a vacuum, be a completely reasonable thing. Why have classes based on levels of preparation AT ALL? You've looked at the NASA PT thing, where you can race a GenII RX7 in one of about 9 classes, right? Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
Yeah, I look a few steps down the conceptual road in these cases but thought experiments help us understand WHY we are implementing particular changes - or why NOT. What's reasonable, where dual classing is concerned? May I please have the option of running the Golf in ITC at, say, 2700#? Would that be within the vision coming out of the discussions you describe? Again - why or why not? **
And what potential downsides were identified - and then accepted - during discussion? If there were NONE, then it's certain that something's been ignored or missed. That's the problem with "unanticipated consequences" - they're not anticipated.
Curmudgeonly yours,
K
** EDIT - and critically, if I ask some future member of the ITAC, after Joest has shopped Andy out from under us, will the answer be the same? Given the freedom and discretion to apply a non-rule like "on a case-by-case basis," what mechanism is in place to help assure that the New Guy doesn't apply it to further his own personal intentions for the policy,
that might be COMPLETELY different than those in place this month with this ITAC and CRB? You can't put that toothpaste back in the tube.