Kind of sad when it comes down to quoting one's self but I don't KNOW that it is bad for the club. I just think it's a little precipitous to make a change that substantial without a LOT of consideration. [/b]
For someone who is against the concept, I have to wonder why you can't come up with a negative or two...

Your SM/ITA example: If that rationale works in that case, how about applying the same thinking to the occasionally-suggested idea of simply listing all IT cars in the Production classes, in their current specifications, where they "fit" competitively? Seriously - if I proposed that, would you support it? Why or why not? We'd have ride-sharing, cross-over opportunities galore, and I'll bet that revenues from Nationals would go up substantially.[/b]
Because the core rules are the same. In most cases, a simple ballast and wheel swap is all you have to do. Cross category movement like IT to Prod is not practical. There are manditory things in Prod that are not allowed in IT...so no, I would not support it.

At some point, fundamental principals of the system get out of whack to accommodate some policy intention that might, in a vacuum, be a completely reasonable thing. Why have classes based on levels of preparation AT ALL? You've looked at the NASA PT thing, where you can race a GenII RX7 in one of about 9 classes, right? Is that a good thing or a bad thing?[/b]
It's a good thing for NASA, and part of the reason we are losing entry fees to them. PT is a true run-what-ya-brung class. I don't like it personally because it is virtually impossible to build a car to the limit of any of those classes. But it attracts drivers because you can build a car how you want it, THEN race it. The SCCA will never be NASA and NASA will never be the SCCA...they are very solid in their own niches, yet I think over the next few years, you will see both of them sliding more toward the 'middle' to lure the tweener dollar.

Yeah, I look a few steps down the conceptual road in these cases but thought experiments help us understand WHY we are implementing particular changes - or why NOT. What's reasonable, where dual classing is concerned? May I please have the option of running the Golf in ITC at, say, 2700#? Would that be within the vision coming out of the discussions you describe? Again - why or why not? **[/b]
Maybe a section needs to be added to the GCR limiting the exposure of the dual classification (DC). This would work just like the PCA's that caused your first heart-attack. "Thank you for your request, car is currently classified properly". Every request will get consideration, but precious few would actually be viable for a DC.

And what potential downsides were identified - and then accepted - during discussion? If there were NONE, then it's certain that something's been ignored or missed. That's the problem with "unanticipated consequences" - they're not anticipated.

Curmudgeonly yours,

K[/b]
Why would I feed you my info? :P If you can't come up with one or two downsides, then why resist your A3's triple classification? 1625 in ITS, 2000 in ITA, 2350 in ITB....

** EDIT - and critically, if I ask some future member of the ITAC, after Joest has shopped Andy out from under us, will the answer be the same? Given the freedom and discretion to apply a non-rule like "on a case-by-case basis," what mechanism is in place to help assure that the New Guy doesn't apply it to further his own personal intentions for the policy, that might be COMPLETELY different than those in place this month with this ITAC and CRB? You can't put that toothpaste back in the tube. [/b]
You could say that about any rule in the GCR.