Quote Originally Posted by Chip42 View Post
We have also discussed the massive process failing of ITC but decided to just leave it alone. Means that slow ITB cars have no where to go, but keeps the very good balance that exists in C now, where C exists, anyhow.

Edit: and I gripe about the agnosticism of the process and the committee to the benefits of torque.
Thanks Dave. Yea, jeff, in my 5 years I don't think I missed a call. Sadly, I fubar'ed the MR2 from a hotel room in Watkins glen when Andy had to miss a call, (read the wrong weight line) and NObody said boo, (Cough peter Keane, cough). Maybe I should missed that one! Also remember towing the trailer home once in a construction zone and I kept losing the call...my GF was the dialer-in-er.

Yea, Chip, ITC is, well, ITC. IT seemed like it was working where it was working, and messing with it to benefit ITB etc would mess it up. So we kinda left it sorta as is. (IIRC)

And torque was struggled mightily with as well. Lot's of viewpoints on that one!

The ITR thing is interesting in hindsight. ITR would NEVER have happened (well, probably not for years and years) if not for the issue with the E36. necessity is the mother of invention and the issues that car caused was the straw that allowed us to sell the class to the higher ups. Ironically, it's what constrains the class. We realized that, to a degree, but, it seemed like a "better that than nothing at all" kinda deal.

I think the main issue we kept running up against was how close to perfection do we want to get, and at what costs...and how realistic is it?? And everyone, and everyone's friend had a different tolerance and opinion on that.