Hmm.
This issue REALLY makes me itch. I hope that the ITAC has some system in place to preserve their first assumptions, the process, decisions already made (and not made), and their INTENTIONS for the benefit of future ITACs.
Robin Miller is famously quoted as saying, "We're only one plane crash from having a single open-wheel racing series in the US," and similarly, we're only a trailer-towing incident, a massive MI, and a fall in the shower from losing the entire core of the current ITAC position on adjustments.
We talk about rules creep. What about implementation creep?
1. "Please 'run my car through the system,' because you didn't do it during the great realignment of 2006."
2. "Please revisit the results of the weight-setting process for my car, because you didn't use the right figures, and therefore got the wrong result."
3. "Please check that the weight for my car is correct, because even though it got adjusted, it's ended up at a disadvantage because the formula is skewed against my car."
4. "Please consider changing the race weight of my car despite what the formula says it should weigh, because it can't be competitive at that weight."
5. "Please decrease the race weight of my car becaue nobody I know is beating the (insert car-to-beat here)."
6. "Please decrease the race weight of my car because I just can't seem to be competitive..."
We can already see examples of all of these arguments here, and the realignment has just been approved. The distinction between a "1" and a "4" is quickly lost in arguments, particularly when the motivating factor for any presentation might simply be a desire to get a competitive break.
If "1" is OK, what is the response when someone tosses the ITAC a "2?" Observers may not make any distinction so, if the answer's different, there's squawking. If the answer's the same, then how about a "3?"
Where does the line get drawn (he asks, showing his bias that there SHOULD in fact be one)?
K