I normally don't jump into this type of conversation but as a driver of a 1st gen RX7 (ITA) I have a dog in this hunt. My car is definitely a 'tweener'. It wasn't that way a few years ago but has now become one. With the Acura being moved from ITS and the Hondas getting faster the car has been moved down the field in ITA. Despite trying to get my car to go faster (spending $$$$), losing part of the extra 100 lbs that it has been given (thanks but we can't make the weight legally) and learning to drive even better; it is still losing ground. I'm not surprised this has happened as the car is now 25 years old and running against new technology. I have great races with the ITB cars (upper mid pack) in sprint races and the only way I can win in ITA is by running 12 hour enduro's waiting for the others to break. Make no mistake the car is very well developed and we continue to improve it every week. Now as no surprise either Mazda has discontinued the 12a engine parts. Unlike piston engines we can not legally under IT rules repair our housings unlike piston engines can with a reboring of the cylinders. I bring this fact up as future options for this car will be for me to run a 13b engine and change to ITS. At this point the 1st gen ITS car is out classed just like the ITA car in the field. I'm now at the point of: Do I continue to try and develop this car and change classes down the road just to be in the same position I'm in now? Not very good incentive, so I would like to have some options of classes available to me, adding weight is indeed easier and cheaper in the long run. This also allows us older and over weight drivers to continue to eat and drink beer. I don't expect to be up front but I would like to have a choice to drink real beer rather than light beer ....that would definitely change my perspective on continuing to wrench on my elderly car. My vote for the future would be to let us make the choice on weight. I see nothing wrong with the formula; cars just naturally become slower to the field with time. I would also suggest that from time to time (if this isn't already being done) for the ITAC to look at the potential 'tweeners' and see if it's time for them to move.

Roland [/b]
OK, I would like to use this post as a point of discussion. There has been some good debate on the topic from the last thread and I want to keep the dialogue open. The ITCS doesn't guarantee competitivness but I sure as hell want everyone to think they have a chance - at least on paper. That is about as good a job as the process can give right now.

So Roland says he can't make weight. Maybe his car can't, but I know of a prominant poster here on IT.com who just busted his balls all winter to prove the exact same thing. Guess what? He can make the minimum. BUT - he has done so at considerable time and expense - all legal mind you - but not easy or cheap. So now I have two opposing data points. One guy who can't, a bunch of people who say it can't be done but one guy who did it.

Then there is the engine issue - parts availability. That would seem to make the class change issue moot but it's still there. The ITAC/CRB has refused many requests for special allowances due to part availability over the past 4-5 years.

So, the item(s) for discussion:

When is a car REALLY a tweener?

Should it be the responsibility of the CRB to find a place for these tweeners when they 'fit' the process currently within reason (ie: make them more competitive)?

Do we just let cars die a natural death when parts become obsolete and unobtainable?

Do we 'throw these cars a bone' as some have suggested - with the understanding that it would get pulled if it was 'too much'?

What is too much?

Is that fair to cars that have run through the 'regular' process?

Does that mean we have two processes? One for regular cars and one for underachievers?

Do we just rely on the process and allow the chips to fall where they may?

Is this reliance on the process just a cop-out to those that own cars that can't compete on track when the 'paper' model shows they could/should?

IT has made significant changes over the past 5 years. Most would say for the net good. How static do we want the rules/classifications going forward? When do we tell people no and when do we make a change?

Discuss.