Rory makes some good points, that helped clarify some things for me.

Despite the fact that I don't think "field fillers" are a good policy solution, the concept of SMs (and IT) running in STL doesn't really give me any major concern. They should, indeed, not be competitive. And the "fun to race with while developing" point is a good one. I said the same thing when explaining to someone (Eric maybe) about why I chose the Civic in STL over continuing with the STU Jetta.

It WAS helpful to be reminded that the question about 2-seaters in PROPERLY PREPARED STL CARS is a separate issue from the SM/IT crossover allowance. Basic chassis architecture of "real" cars built for the class is the primary issue I'm worried about, and it's one that I still think we might nip in the bud when only a few cars in the nation actually qualify as such.

Also (because it seems to have been assumed somewhere along the line) please note that I don't think the "touring" model has got be exclusively FWD. We should be able to quantify and accommodate with adjusters the differences there. The sum contribution of being an entirely different type of tub, not so much.

Andy - with respect, you're making some pretty broad generalizations here based on one race. None of my arguments are based on lap times.

K