Kirk,
You do know that you're making a pretty strong case for dual-classification w/ posts like this, don't you?
I admit, it's a tough call. Are people more likely to build a car that they know they can't get close to the spec weight on, or are they more likely to build one that's seems to be overly bloated? And I know it's not as simple as that. There's the issue of exactly which classes are in question. I don't think you'd have the same issues w/ ITS vs ITA as you would ITB vs ITC. By that I mean to say, I don't think the class would come into play (much) w/ the ITS/A case, as it would w/ the ITB/C case. ITS and ITA are pretty healthy, regardless of where you go. The same can't be said for ITC. So, people may be less inclined to build a car for ITC, regardless of the other factors. Having something that's carrying a bunch of extra weight doesn't help sway them in a positive way (assuming that you want them to build the ITC car).
So, why not class the cars in both places, and let the 'market' decide? I know it gets stick on the ITA/B side, because of the wheel issue. And I know it gets sticky when you have class weights that are on either side of the cage size boundaries. That means you probably won't get a lot of cross-over cars running both classes, but if you're looking at new cars, it becomes less of an issue, as people will build the cars for the class they want to race in.
I'm trying to get my hands around the resistance to dual-classification. Or at least what people see as major reasons not to.
Bookmarks