Quote Originally Posted by erlrich View Post
Seems to me this would be an easy one to write, but then I'm not devious (experienced) enough to think of ways to twist the rules to get an unintended advantage. How about something like:

"The following items may be removed:
- Windshield washer bottle and attached hoses
- Windshield wiper motor, wiper actuating arms, wiper arm and blade
- Horn
- Heater core, its housing, and heating & a/c controls & their operating mechanisms
- Headlights may be removed; any opening in the body created by the removal of the headlights must be completely covered by a permanently attached metal or plastic cover
No wiring, bracketry, or body work may be removed or modified to facilitate removal of allowed items."

This could all be dealt with in a single, one-time only allowance. I think with the talent we currently have on the ITAC writing the rule would be the easy part; agreeing on what to allow would seem to me to be the tough part.

For the record, I did vote yes on this one - the items in question seem to me to be much less prod-like than the allowances for interior/door gutting, open ECUs, adjustable coil-overs, or about a dozen other things we're already allowed to do. I do also understand the resistance to these changes, the whole slippery slope argument, unintended consequences, etc. I also understand the "leave it alone" attitude, I just am one of those who tends to think there's almost always room for improvement. What I think a lot of you, including a few ITAC members, are failing to take into account though, are the changes that have occurred over the past few years w/r/t attitudes about the class and the rules making process. Knowing what I do about who makes up the ITAC, their attitudes, experience, and dedication gives me pretty high confidence that they aren't going to let things get out of hand.

This isn't a really big deal; I doubt very seriously anyone will not build or race an IT car because these things are required. At the same time I don't see how these items could be the beginning of the end for IT. It seems to me we've already passed these things on the way down the slope...
I second Earl's post. I am for these allowances, not for the purpose of being able to remove the items, but for the purpose of not having to replace them, if they become unavailable.