If you have your way, some will be allowed full control, others will have some control, and other will have none. I guess writing a rule that is fair for everyone is less important then guarding the original (unwritten) intention of the rule.
[/b]
There's something to be said for car choice. Some cars are better choices than others. You can't expect the rules to equalize everything. The rules don't let cars with solid axles or struts somehow get double wishbone suspensions. If equality was the goal, then the rules would let RX-7s put in some custom independent rear suspension.
I just do not understand why you (the collective "you", not "mom'sZ" specifically) want equality for ECUs but not for other parts of the car. I don't think that this concept of "equality of opportunity" is really within the spirit of the IT rules.
But playing devil's advocate with my own argument, Andy Bettencourt did tell me once that classing mentality of "new replaces old" does not apply in IT. I suppose all of you with old cars are trying to protect your competitiveness against newer technology that came from the factory on newer cars. Is that it? If that's it, are you all ready to continue to spend money to improve your cars as newer technology gets added to IT? And do you recognize that if you give these same allowances to the new cars as well as the old, then it does nothing but raise the costs of preparation for ALL cars in the category?
Josh Sirota
ITR '99 BMW Z3 Coupe
Bookmarks