Originally Posted by
lateapex911
Jeff, you are the reasonable guy of reasonable guys on this matter.
I appreciate your views on the MR2 thing. Heck I don't give two hoots personally about the car...I don't own one, I don't race against one, and I never plan an ITB effort, so I'm not sure why I should care about it.
But I do. Your view is similar to mine, 15% EXCEEDS the most aggressive builds we've seen. So 15% is a reasonable juncture between accurate and conservative.
But 25%? Ridiculous. Is it POSSIBLE? Well, the ITAC is saying yes, because the public hasn't built 3 or 4 (!!!!) full tilt engines to the ITACs level of satisfaction to prove it's not. (Insert the old proving a negative comment). And guess what, tehy WON'T. because they've been dicked over for so long on this matter, and because they haven't gotten a good reason for the current classification, that tehy have no faith that if they DID spend $10K, that they'd get the result from the ITAC that would make it worth it.
Whoever on the ITAC it is who thinks that's a fair and reasonable plan is somebody who cares nothing about classing the car correctly, or has other motives. Really, when you think about it what's the harm in classing it correctly? The RX8 was handled properly, and last I checked, nobody's ripping it up and dominating in THAT car. Nor is there a land rush to build them!
The 10% represents what, about 10hp? Thats 170 ITB pounds. A pretty significant amount.
And even if the car were to dominate at 15%, ...you have the mechanism to fix it.
So I really don't get it. Makes NO sense why the ITAC is being so stubborn about this. And those who voted against won't stand up and explain themselves.