Originally Posted by
JeffYoung
I've tried to stay out of this to let membership weigh in, but I have to speak on this one.
Yes, we have an ITAC that is resistant to some form of rule change, but in my view, not others.
We've added a FWD modifier based on a simulation, we've added a live rear axle deduct without any real understanding if there is a penalty and we spent a lot of time arguing about torque.
In my view, we should have as much simplicity and resistance to change in the process as we do with washer bottles, because, frankly, the process has a whole lot more to do with how things play out on track that "dual purpose vestiges."
That said, my basic position on Ron's proposed changes is that (a) if membership wants them and they don't violate IT core principles, we should consider them and (b) Bowie is right, we've had a lot of change in the last few years and we should probably let everything settle for a few years and see how things play out (including any push to remove dual purpose vestiges).