Jake,

It doesn't matter if it's a new class or an existing class, ...

[/b]
It does when the new class is higher....and cars will have to be de-engineered and rebuilt at great possible expense.

I'm not taking a 'touch $hit" approach, I'm just trying to avoid special-case treatment again.
[/b]
But when a small subset of a class gets pulled from that class and has to go backwards in the development cycle, they ARE "special cases"

Nobody worried about the ITA cars that got moved to ITB having to buy all new wheels. In fact, some said (and IIRC, you were one of them, but correct me if I'm wrong) that they would more than likely be happy to do that because now they wouldn't be back markers.
[/b]
Actually people on the ITAC DID worry, and discuss the consequences of the downward move. It was a concern that they would be forced to buy new wheels, and, it was also discussed that they would have to add weight. In the end, after discussig it with each other and considering member input, it was decided that it was the right thing to do. It's considered that the move was to fix a classing mistake, that while painful to a degree, it would result in happier members, it seemed the fairest place for the cars, and it was the best remedy available.

You could just as easily make the same arguement about having to re-cage a car that had an under-sized cage for its new weight. [/b]
Lines get drawn, and in that case, the line got drawn on the non recage side. Those cars stayed put.


I think terming it "Special case" is a misnomer...we're looking at categorical policies. IT's not about the XYZ 2000R...it's about anY car that falls under a specific set of guidelines. We have discussed certain cars here, (and I didn't want to) to help illustrate the situation, but those cars could be anything....if we write the policy correctly.