Quote:
And there we have one of the finest examples of how the rules creep mechanism works. A 'questionable' (bad?) rule gets put in the books. It's not corrected. Then after a certain period of time, its existence is used to justify opening things up even further. People accept the original mistake as correct, and then will move forward from that position.
That's how it works folks.
As somebody said, sometimes you just have to say no, because it's the right thing to do.
Mistakes happen in the rules evolution process. When they do, they should be corrected. Preferably sooner rather than later, but nonetheless, still corrected. It happened w/ engine coatings and RR 3x adjustable shocks in IT. It happened w/ sequential gearboxes in Prod. Things can be fixed, it just takes courage to do it.
Full-blown stand-alone engine mgmt systems are so far outside the IT philosophy it's not even funny. [/b]
Well, Bill, I'm not privy to info of the ITACs and the CRBs workings 4 or 5 years ago, (or more) when the "in the box" thing hit the rulebooks, but i can tell you I wasn't pleased. It was one of my main reasons for pushing for the whole process and adjustment thing so hard. I saw it as a post classification competition adjustment.