Is this airdam legal for IT?

[Greg Amy]

Really Greg? Honestly the last person here that I thought would ever stretch the rules this far.

"Stretching the rules"? Really? "Stretching the rules"? Are you feakin' kidding me?!?

- Given the old rules for suspension bushings - before the CRB unilaterally changed the rule to match what people were doing - how in the hell did we come up with spherical bearings in control arms?

- Given the old rules for ECUs - before the ITAC/CRB changed the rules to match what people were doing - how in the hell did we come up with adding additional sensors, such as a MAP sensors, in these "factory housing" ECUs and added vacuum lines from the intake manifold, into the car, and through screw holes in the case to feed this newly-installed sensor?

- And, given the current rules for "air dams and splitters" - which, as of this point have not yet been changed to match what people are doing - how in the hell did we come up with aerodynamic splitters and undertrays?

And you accuse *me* of stretching the rules on freaking mounting brackets?!?!?

These are but three examples of the hypocrisy being displayed in this thread and others like it. Words mean things, and if rules are to be "interpreted" - instead of simply read - for what they were intended to be, then that must apply across the board, not just against what you like and what you don't like. Just because YOU didn't read the rules for what they say, not with using your pre-conceived assumptions to read what you THINK they say, don't accuse me of stretching the rules.

It's historically been made patently clear by the Improved Touring racing community - and codified by the ITAC and CRB in subsequent rules changes to reflect reality - that these rules are to be read for what they SAY and not for what they may possibly have MEANT when written. "Intention" is not part of the rules, nor is it even available to the competitor to disseminate; words are.

"Stretching the rules"? Hardly.

GA