I won't pretend to answer for Bill M. but, having been around in the very early days of IT (before it was a "national" regional class), I might have an interpretation - if not THE answer.

Originally, the category was intended to literally be a "put safety equipment, shocks, bars and a seat in it and go racing" kind of thing. The "no automatics, no wagons" rule was included as a gesture to the notion that the SCCA was about real racing cars!

The "purpose", if there was one at that time, was to introduce people to racing, get them licensed and out onto the track. Since so little could be done to the cars, there was no provision for any "competition adjustment" (the source of that current problem, I think). This wasn't a problem however, since (and this is going to sound odd) there was dominant paradigm in place that said that these were NOT real racing cars. We live with the vestiges of this in the "no guarantee of competitiveness" clause.

As much as I think things are dorked up, I think that there is a chance that quibbling over individual makes/models/weights/classes is going to be counter-productive unless a couple of fundamental issues are clarified, specifically:

1. What is the "purpose" of IT? If the CB is applying a "misson statement" that differs from the folks running the cars, there will never be any accord (hah, get it?).

2. How, in a general sense, are cars classified and are specs set, and is the process aligned with the "purpose" or philosophy of the class?

I have made enough noise about the power/weight ratio games that I have been playing so will not bore anyone with that stuff again but, whatever system gets applied, it needs to be clear enough that you can figure out for yourself - in advance of submitting the request to the CB - where a new car will be classified and how much it will need to weigh.

Sorry - short answer to the actual question? I would be stunned if anything was ever put in writing, formula-wise.

Kirk