Are you saying that you would like to outlaw all "replace" items in the current ruleset?
[/b]
After all the time I spent on the ITAC, and everything we got done, you'd think that some of you could give me a little more credit than that... FOCUS ON THE BALL guys!

The word "replace" should have NEVER BEEN INCLUDED in the current ECU rule... Couple that with the mentality you guys have that when something is difficult to define, just give up trying and open it up... "Heck with it... just replace the whole thing..." REPLACING the ECU is NOT part of the INTENT of IT... IMPROVING on it is... People have gotten so lazy... all they want to do is bolt it on a go drive... Heck with understanding their car... the technology...

Had those words NEVER been put into the rule in the first place, this would be an entirely different discussion. Maybe not a discussion at all... You have all gotten comfortable with this allowance, and now want to push it further open "because it's already being done"... You might just as well have simply posted in Fastrack the following question:

"How many of you are in favour of HAVING to spend $1,000 more to field an IT car? It won't make you any more competitive, but will be necessary to maintain status-quo."

Opening this up will simply make EVERYONE have to spend more money to even build a BASELINE IT car...

The rules need to be more restictive, no less...

I've said enough on this... The small subset of people here fighting to move IT to Production by opening up these rules toward the higher prep level end of things can keep hashing it out... When this comes out in Fastrack and the rest of the membership sees it... the majority of which do NOT post here, I'm confortable that the right thing will be done...