So we don't clutter up Ron's thread about what people want to remove, how about equal time to present the case against that kind of initiative?

Warning: Some of the following may be construed as intolerent but is put out in the interest of reasonable discourse.

In no particular order...

** The suggestion that removing stuff is "free" ignores the very real cost of time. Taking out my AC was NOT free - it cost two long evenings of hours for two guys, two pizzas, and - in this case - different belts and pulleys. While the degree of cost is much less with other items, it isn't "free" until it takes NO time at all. Leaving things ON takes NO time at all.

** The argument that we will make a lot of non-compliant cars legal by not requiring all of those useless parts is, while perhaps accurate, a dangerous precedent. It is NOT a stretch to suggest that the same language could be wrapped around illegal gearbox ratios, cams, or compression ratios. A large majority of college students believe that "everyone" plagiarizes web content for reports. Does that make it right?

** The belief that real race cars don't have those parts is perhaps the most dangerous rationale for additional allowances. "Real race cars" don't have any OE parts, cost huge pots of dough, and are expensive to run and maintain. I've had enough of them to know that I don't WANT a real race car: I want an IT car. This position gets summed up in the shorthand, "go run Production" - which is not a bad suggestion for someone for whom this is a big personal motivator, even if it does get slapped down with reactionary comments about chasing people away.

** Using the argument that IT cars are no longer dual-purpose cars is perpetuating a self-fulfilling prophecy. (Is that a mixed metaphor?) Rationalizing a purposeful decision to liberalize the rules based on the presence of de facto allowances largely the result of unintended consequences seems terribly dangerous to me.

** The most popular argument - "I just can't find one" - must fairly be translated into either (a) "I just don't want to find one," or ( "I just can't afford to find one." I don't care WHAT you are racing: There is one of every part you could possible want out there. If you have to spend $100 to buy it and it cuts into your tire budget, that is a reality for a minority of entrants, for which the rules for an entire category should not be held hostage.

** Rationalizing the removal of parts on safey grounds has always been popular - that's where headliners and passenger seats went. Again - this can be logically applied to everything from Lexan windscreens (I've seen big things go THROUGH stock windshields) to bigger brakes. Any argument that can logically be applied incrementally until we "lighten and reinforce" the entire car away, to be built from scratch, should NOT be accepted as valid. (That is a reference, by the way, to the old TransAm [then GT1] rule that made it OK to make the transition to "real race car" suspension parts 25 years ago.)

** That they just have to be replaced once wrecked? Of course they do. Nobody WANTS to break anything but we all go into this deal with our eyes wide open to that possibility - I hope - and it seems fair to assume that we've considered those costs in advance.

I realize a couple of things, here. First, I am officially a old fart. I'm OK with that. Second, I'm probably pissing into the wind on this front.

Rules creep is glacial - slow and completely irresistable. It will always happen because those genies pretty much can't ever get put back in their bottles. Well meaning people make little changes, each of which makes perfect sense in isolation but the sum of them can be pretty huge - and every one has unintended consequences.

I'm more than a little worried that, by pulling a big stick out of the IT rules logjam, the hard work and successes of the ITCS will be seen as an invitation to go hog wild.

K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited February 21, 2005).]