May fastrack is up

[jimmyc]

There's little question that the rationale for prohibition of RR shocks and struts was cost - that's a matter of recent memory. However, there are a lot of current ITAC members who don't adhere to the assumptions behind that logic. And the price of that technology has come down a bunch in the ensuing years. AND there are lots of ways to spend pee-lenty of money on shocks, even without buying RR units.

K

So pretty much you are saying that the ITAC would agree with the RR don't equal more money?

But there are other reason they don't think they fit the IT class

[JoshS]

So pretty much you are saying that the ITAC would agree with the RR don't equal more money?

But there are other reason they don't think they fit the IT class

The ITAC isn't unanimous on this topic. We decided to clarify the existing rule while we continue to debate whether or not there's merit to proposing a change.

[Knestis]

I try VERY hard to say what I mean - particularly where ITAC questions are concerned. I hope I get close and I'm willing to

I meant that "a lot of current ITAC members don't adhere to the assumptions behind the logic that prohibiting RR shocks will keep people from spending money on shocks." Maybe "a lot" isn't precise enough. How about "more than a few, but not all?"

To expand on Josh's point: In my short - but very positive - experience with this body, I've been reminded that there is NO SUCH THING as a truly representative committee that speaks with one clear mind on any important topic. And what any one of us believes gets moderated by the necessity of translating beliefs into policy. Even if there were 100% agreement with this principle, there are indeed other issues (as jimmyc points out) that deserve consideration - including respecting the fact that the current prohibition didn't happen all that long ago.

K

[lateapex911]

I find it interesting to try to crack open the minds of people and discover the reasons behind their beliefs...and often I learn a thing or two.

Look at the RR damper poll. In it, there were 6 choices. Two were throwaways, frankly, two were "extremes" and two were middle ground. Of 100 or so responders, FOUR options were plus or minus 3.5% from each other. Lot's of ways to spin THAT result!

Now, think about 9 guys on the ITAC...and toss in a few CRB guys....think you'll see a vast majority in that group either?

And there are other issues on the subject that haven't really even been discussed here (or on the RR thread,) which muddie the water even further...

[ddewhurst]

***(come on, we're smart enough to read complex sentences, and if we're not, we can call a brighter friend)***

I don't have any friends. Didn't want to wake any of the sleeping giants. The friken rule/spec line should be no different than a engineering drawing. ALL the pertinent info is on the drawing so that whatever is on the drawing may be completed with no one asking any questions. There is never (should never be) 40 pounds of BS on a drawing that requires a second or third party to decipher.


***It's in the rules.
No tech bulleting, no research for the actual date, no exception line writing that gets the date wrong in a typo, or anything equally goofy.***

Please point me in the correct direction so that I may read these written ^ rules.