Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Bill, again the only thing I can add is the formula is untested in the real world. My guess is we will see with this first batch of cars how it is gonna work.....Lord forbid they did a complete reshape of IT only to find out they screwed the pooch. I actually based on what Darin posted here think this can work and work well ony because I personally did a complete spreadsheet years ago based on most of this type of data and a couple of other real world items. I commend the Adhoc and the CRB for having enough sack to give it a shot. Can't be any worse than it has been with no option but to cheat if you had one of the rule bound back markers.....

Joe,

I totally agree that things shouldn't get turned upside down, but if they're going to use a process to classify new cars, going forward, then I think that process should be applied to all the cars in the ITCS, to see how close the current spec weights are to what are predicted by the process. The way I see it, that's only fair to everyone.

I'm guessing that, for some of the cars that were moved down, the process was applied, and the weight in the higher class was deemed too low to be legally achieved (ala the NB in ITC rather than IT.


This statement bothers me a bit though

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Can't be any worse than it has been with no option but to cheat if you had one of the rule bound back markers</font>
Makes it seem as if only those that were 'rule bound' were cheating, and that if you had one of these cars, and did well w/ it, you were obviously cheating. I'm not crazy about the picture that paints.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608