It is not your position on the ITAC it is the fact that you say things as fact and your position can make some falsely think you are speaking fact. [/b]
Fair enough. Let's review:

I'm not familiar with any rule making this legal. Have I missed something?
[/b]
I don't see a statement of fact there.

Technically however there is no allowance for it unless it's listed in the FSM, "standard" repair or not. Same with spark plug threads. Same with nitrogen in the tires and a whole lot of other things.
[/b]
You got me. Stated as a fact when indeed it's my interpretation. Good point Joe.

Yet, here is something that I can't find anything even remotely allowing this (unless specifically called out in the FSM) and folks are willing to accept it? I don't see this as pushing crap. I see it as pointing out there is no allowance for this in the ITCS. Period.
[/b]
The first part is no statement of fact although the second is. Again, my interpretation. Good point.

If you show me where it's allowed in the ITCS I will happily recant. Heck, if you can point to wording in the ITCS that can even be interpreted in some way to allow this I'll happily recant.[/b]
And in that vein, I'll say this.... I think simply saying repairing a crank with a sleeve is OK because a repair is defined in the GRC is a pretty liberal interpretation, but I can see where you are coming from. I don't interpret it as being legal, although I'll certainly grant you that it's nit-picky and as such I personally wouldn't care if someone did it. I'm not sure I'd tell someone that it's perfectly legal. I know you have a different interpretation and I'm fine with that.

Just as a matter of course, I agree with you 100% that folks should not post opinions as facts. You're absolutely correct that I did so here and I shouldn't. I will have to be more careful about that. Just because I interpret a rule one way doesn't make it fact. I sincerely thank you for pointing this out because I don't like when others post opinions as facts and you're right to call me on it and I'm also glad you did.

You guys need to figure it out. It is not rules creep that pushes people out nearly as much as the BS nitpicking crap like this and these websites. You start something over a method that does nothing more than stop an oil leak and people start to wander why the hell we do this.
[/b]
Joe, I think you and I are more in agreement on this point than you may think. I think our interpretations of a number of matters may be opposite, but there certainly are matters of interpretation out there that simply go unresolved in IT. In national classes I think these probably get resolved much more often because of the Runoffs and the fact that people actually do protest more in national classes. The protests and appeals tend to resolve matters of interpretation. Wouldn't you agree with me on this point?

I think there are many nit-picky issuses that get argued here. It used to drive me crazy, but I'm realizing more and more it's because of unresolved interpretations.

I don't care (personally) about:

Sleeved crank repairs
Welded QR hex/splines
The allowance of SBs (as long as everyone is on the same page)
Nitrogen in tires
Removing speakers (although I think removing the wiring is going too far if the car never came w/o it)
Fasteners (someone argued they are not free)
0.040" overbore pistons for all
Several other minor issues that have been debated here that don't pop immediately to mind