Originally posted by Harry:
Your right, I am using you to debate with to get my views read since I'm for Compitition Adjustments and Parity in IT. You voiced enough anti-old cars ("Do we want to be like Production") that's why I I chose you plus your position on the ITAC.
Fair enough.

Originally posted by Harry:
Guys with FI are always for the new rules ECM rules period. They always did complained before that the carbed cars had an advantage to begin with which is crap.
I also agree with you (surprise!). As I've stated in the past, I don't think we can police ECUs, but I'm all for giving carbed cars a one-time across-the-board weight break. I don't know what the right weight is, but I'd venture it's between 50-75 lbs. That's just a guess, so don't anyone hang me on that. I think the carbed guys got unintentionally screwed (not that I believe the CB intentionally screws anyone).

Originally posted by Harry:
I could see allowing a unbias source to make aterations to eliminate the Rev limitaion of the ECM but now it's Haltech ect. ect.!
I've also stated, both here and in private ITAC discussions, that IMHO the rule should be changed to require the original circuit board to remain in place in the stock location. This would prevent gutting and installing a stand-alone system, while still allowing chip replacement and in the case of somce cars, daughterboards, to remap the otherwise stock ECU. I believe this would bring the letter of the law in line with the intent here.

Originally posted by Harry:
Would you opposed to port matching at the carb to carbuator manifold flange on DGV carbs. because we're having to run restictor plates now?? There's no restrictor in the modified EFI system.
I have no opinion on this since I don't have enough knowledge of the particulare nuances of the issues in play.

Originally posted by Harry:
The following statement you made really upset me, "What I am opposed to is rewriting rules just because it's harder for older cars to find parts. Sorry. For me that doesn't fly." Please explain why.
Because the rules are the rules. As we make allowances for older cars to substitute alternate, non-stock parts (or official supercession parts), we hop on the slippery slope and start pissing contests. IMHO, if you can no longer source the required parts for your old IT car you are faced with a choice: find another class for your car to run in or find another car. Is this harsh? I guess that depends upon what side of the equation you fall on. I think it's the only way to keep it fair.

Originally posted by Harry:
The rules have always allowed parts superceding ie. G cam in ITC Rabbits. Are you against this written rule in Section C that allows IT to Supercede? Yes or No?
Again, I don't know the particular nuances here so it's hard for me to say. The manufacturer specifying superceding parts for a given car are certainly fair game. Substituting newer design parts that are not an official supercession is not IMHO. If that is what has occured, all I can say is that I did not vote yes for it and would not. The ITAC was faced with a similar request for cams for the Datsun 510 and my answer is/was a firm "no."

Originally posted by Harry:
I took surveys at several races and passed out letters to IT members to respond to the Competition Adjustment issue and it was 90% for 10% against in the paddock. I was total shock when I saw the results.
Well, we (the ITAC) were a bit shocked by some of the results. After some asking around by a number of members of the ITAC it became clear that exactly how the question was framed was important. It is very clear the bulk of the IT community does not want Production style comp adjustments. Something along the line of what we proposed seems to have rather strong support however.

Originally posted by Harry:
I apoligize for targeting you and if I've offened you.
Not at all Harry. As a member of the ITAC and a active member of this on-line community, I expect to be put on the spot, asked hard questions, have voodoo dolls made of me, etc. It comes with the job and I don't think anyone on the current ITAC feels any different.

I do wish more people would write to the CB rather than just complain here. Most requests will not fly, but well framed, well researched requests always get serious consideration, I assure you.

Lastly, while I was and am not offended, my biggest concern was being branded like so many other SCCA volunteers based upon misunderstanding and bad information.

Keep writing the CB.

------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[This message has been edited by Geo (edited October 02, 2003).]