If I happen to be the only guy running a Capri, Corvair, Fiero whatever or even thinking about building one then it should get the same treatment as the all popular 7.
............Regarding the RX-7 "treatment"...what treatment?!?! Right now, it's mired in ITA, putting down nearly 30 ft lbs less torque than the CRX, and about 75 less than the biggest torquer in the class.....while it's power is well down from the class leaders, and not quite on par with the CRX...and the CRX weighs 240 pounds less. 240!!! Thats a
lot of cinder blocks they don't need to carry around! Better suspension, brakes and on and on... not sure what this "treament" you are referring to is, but as far as the 7 is concerned, it isn't favorable, thats for sure.
But you know what? It could fit the class better, AND so would the MR-2, the Capri, and a host of others,
IF the performance parameters of the class are revised...
I reject the "You knew that when you built the car" philosophy, (AKA, the "tough nuts" philosophy) in this case, as the RX-7 and all of it's kind were classed long before the bar was raised with the unfortunate mistake...the CRX. Sorry to put it that way, but the CRX was a blunder, and the many of the ensuing cars have been added to keep ITA from being a one car class. But, in so doing, the class has been broken into two parts...the "haves" (CRX, et al) and the "have nots"..the rest of the cars.
If you are saying that even discussing it (the RX-7) is unfair because we aren't discussing other cars, like the Fiero, well, thats not quite fair either. The RX-7 has long been the "poster child" for the issues of class equity in IT. A car so mistreated, racers have left the fold to race amongst themselves by starting theri own class.
From the ITAC view though, the RX-7 gets no more attention than any other cer. I have phone records to show that I've spent over 9 hours ( over the course of only 2 calls) discussing nearly every car in the ITCS with the ITAC. Fieros were talked about, as were MR-2s, and Proteges and Jettas and Z-cars and Mustangs.
No car is getting better "treatment" than another...the results might not be perfect, with a dead heat of every car at the finish line at track, or even ideal from an empirical point, but given the constraints, each car will get the best shake at the front possible.
We can't control parts availability, reliability or other items, we may miss the exact target due to the inability to get the complete and total picture on every car, and we have hard issues such as existing cages, and conflicting information to deal with, but we are trying to look at the big picture, and each car gets the same attention..
