Seems to me it's all about drawing a line, and creating a policy that is institutionalized.

One thing about a move like this, is that any ITAC can do it at any time. If this ITAC says OK to DC for a certain subset of cars that meet certain parameters, (Like only DC-ing cars that move up to new classes), thats great, but future ITACs don't have to respect that.

Further, if this ITAC says no DC, now or ever, future ITACs can choose to ignore thatand do as they see fit.

I DO, I really DO, see how one thing leads to another, but.....just because it isn't done now is no guarantee to won't be in the future. As a matter of fact, it is conceivable that it could be done now, and be done right, and future ITACs won't feel the need to change it...whereas if it hadn't been done they might decide to do it, but go much further. Point is that there is no guarantee.....

I appreciate Kirks comments...he has a very long institutional memory (esp considering his actual age). I've spoken with him and he knows a tremendous amount about SCCA policy history. Thats important info. We can guide our future from lessons learned in the past.

My questioning of this concept has been to challenge the critics to dig deep in their collective reasoning and come up with predictions and possible scenarios. I fully agree that an inability to come up with a scenario is NOT the same as saying there arenone and that there is nothing wrong with the concept. But by the same token I think it's important to really explore the options.

I thank those who have comments....it's a good discussion and the decision will be better for it.

Thinking out loud, what if verbage describing the conditions and requirements for a car to be DC'ed were part of the IT philosophy statemnt and added to the GCR??
(Yes, I know that future boards can strike or chage that, but it does create a much larger hurdle)