I can certainly see your point on this one - the rule certainly needs to be reevaluated. I, for one, will be bummed if we eventually allow ABS, since I took all of that stuff off my car and threw it away...
I completely understand your point about one having to re-plumb the braking system even if you're a newbie to racing - This seems like a lot of work, not to mention the fact that brake plumbing requires a certain amount of mechanical finesse to get right.
I used to race a '93 Camaro in World Challenge, and we ran the ABS - It was incredibly better in the rain, not to mention the rear wheel hop that it helped to eliminate. But I do recall that the ABS master cylinder was a different part than the non-ABS version - I've got to go back and look at my notes and see if I wrote down what the difference was - but Mr. Chevrolet doesn't make two different parts if he doesn't have to - there must have been a reason that the ABS cars had a different MC than the non-ABS ones. It really could be that the MC piston and port sizes were different in ABS cars because it was not expected that the MC would ever be connected directly to the brake calipers, and the piston and/or port sizes are in some way inappropriate together. But then again, I could be completely wrong about that.
I will certainly at least admit that we are creating a braking system other than the one that the manufacturer had in mind. But, as Darin already pointed out, we are doing that anyway by changing pads, adding ducting, changing the weight distribution, springs, shocks, and a host of other items, so this might be a small difference in the grand scheme of things.
If we were to allow ABS in IT cars, it would completely change the competitiveness of those cars that don't have it, at least in the rain, IMO. So this is sort of a big deal compared to, say, allowing a different pulley size on the crankshaft.
All I can say is, write your letter....
Cheers,
Chris Camadella
ITS Porsche 944S
