I may have been hyperbolic about the CRB dumping on you guys but my opinion on the SIR decision being driven by politics remains unshaken.
I don't know what process you all used to come up with those two options but there was a motivation somewhere for the CRB to choose the one that is frankly outside of the established framework for classification and specification, by defining the e36 as a de facto "most extreme situation," and imposing an air restrictor on them before the minimum weight was ever raised. The simplest remedy for maintaining equity, prescribed by the ITCS in a section less than two years old, was not applied in this case. There is a reason and by definition, it is driven by other considerations of governance - the definition of politics applied in the business of examining policy.
Put differently, if something looks goofy, there's usually a reason for it. I tend to assume that decisions like this don't get made by accident, so there MUST be some motivation to tackle this issue differently than ANY other classification question in the category. That motivation comes out of the CRB's desire to achieve some end. That is politics.
If your response is the result of thinking that I was using the contemporary, derisive definition of "politics" - of smoke-filled rooms, indian casinos, golf trips, and (in NC) PAC checks with the payee's name left blank - you are making an inference that I didn't intend.
Why DID the CRB choose the SIR option? FInd the real answer to that question and we know the motivation, which should illuminate the desired policy outcome. It would be nice for the ITAC'ers to know what that intention was, because they have now (had dumped on them, inherited, joyfully undertaken, whatever) the detail responsibility for activating that policy. What if the testing yields findings that are contrary to the first principals, desired outcome, or hoped-for externalities of the CRB's policy decision? I'm afraid that you're going to be left flapping in the wind.
If nothing else, this isn't such an auspicious step for the PCA concept, that was REALLY looking rosy for while here.
K
EDIT - It SHOULD go without saying but since I may have been misconstrued earlier, I am most certainly NOT suggesting that any of the ITAC members are guilty of any sneaky dealing here. I have a ton of faith in them and their hard work, which is frankly why I'm kind of pissed off about this most recent development.
Reply With Quote
and all I got were people telling me to buy a car that's already classed or race ITE 
. It seems that those who responded feel there's already too many classes to deal with as it is. That's why I dropped the subject, even if it's in the national regs doesn't mean they'll run it here as IT IS a reagonal class. I've resigned myself to just running ITE and being run over by the Vette/Viper crowd 
Unless the SIR can be made to work, then we'll see if the 2.8l Z3 can be classed in ITS, the 2.5l Z4 is almost old enough to class, why can't I get my car classed?
Bookmarks