This last exchange reminds me that, unless there is agreement on the PURPOSE of classification changes, there will never be agreement on the implementation. Is the intent of moving outclassed A cars into B to...
A. Increase category participation overall by giving existing owners of poopy A cars a shot at a trophy?
B. Make reparations to people who bought Toyota Corolla GTS's (et al.) back in the 1908's, thinking they would continue to be competitive?
C. Increase the size of ITB, relative to ITA to balance class participation or group sizes?
D. Encourage people to build fewer IT7/Spec7 cars?
E. Give new racers more options that have a shot at being cometitive in SOME class, to accommodate brand loyalty or other factors?
F. Make racing cheaper? (Hah!)
G. To allow trickle-down economic effects to save ITC from dying?
Hmm?
Dick's point about defining C to finish bracketing the entire cateogory is a good one.
Darin's never going to get his list of C cars under threat because (a) there are only a few die-hards out there still willing to deal with something that's too slow to compete in C, (
racing Darwinism has already discouraged the building of new, bad C cars, © rust is an ally in making this process happen, and (d)
the list already exists in the GCR - take the entire ITC field of options and subtract the four or five that appear on the podiums around the country.
K
