Originally posted by lateapex911:
Your point is good in that it would open a population of existing chassis up for use that is not available now.

IF the reason is the research involved, I wonder if the current organizational structure (the Advisory commitees) would be more open to such a rule? Perhaps as a line item allowance?
It makes sense in the micro. In the macro it's another story entirely. There are over 300 classification lines in the ITCS and IMHO it's asking too much of the techs, the ITAC, the CRB, and others to be experts about all chassis classified (and many more that may not be but people want to use them).

Another example is the Nissan B13 Sentra. The shell is the same whether it's an SE-R or a base model. But would I expect the CRB, ITAC, and all techs to know this, or more importantly that some seemingly similar shell is almost the same, but there is an important difference?

I have a good example of this. The lower models of BMW E36 (like specifically the 325i) does not have the suspension mounting reinforcements of the M3. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples in those 300+ classification lines, some of which are over 30 years old. It could become a true nightmare.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com