Quote:
Andy,
Comments section:
First, thanks for trying to make a difference and putting up with attacks to your effort. I understand that its a professional handicap.[/b]
No problem. We wouldn't be out here if we didn;t have thick skin. Tough questions are fine.
Quote:
Second, you're right...one of the first statement in the GCR deals with giving us a place to race our cars, but not guaranteeing them to be competitive.[/b]
And to be more specific, we want to have a system that allows everything that runs through it a reasonable chance but we understand the cream will always rise to the top. A very peaky car with excellent HP potential and 'smallish' brakes may never be able to 'fit' into ITS as it is currently made up.
Quote:
Third, why do you repeatedly say not to include the ITS BMW in our posts? Is it because you're tired of talking about it, afraid of talking about it, or don't really know what to do about it? Or is that just dust being kicked up by the black helicopter?[/b]
LOL. The problem some people have is that they compare 'their' car to the E36 and say "WTF?". That car is an anomoly and the CRB is adressing the problem. You guys have been great but I try and make sure it doesn't go that route.
Quote:
Four, what business to SIR's have in IT? I can see it in pro racing, but isn't this the base level of club racing?[/b]
That is a question better asked of the CRB. I am personally against SIR's in IT.
Quote:
Five, why are competitive, semi-competitive, and non-competitive cars labored by unsafe ballast?[/b]
Can you site any instances where a properly installed ballast (in a sound, rust-free car) has harmed anyone? While I understand the concern, I think the rules are written in such a way so that you can mount it safely. What proof do you have to use the word 'unsafe'? Mounting plates can be installed, loads can be spread out and you can mount with a ton of fasteners.
Quote:
Plus, you always seem to be brave enough to wade into the swamp.
[/b]
Most would call me stupid.