"The "intent" in the rulebook doesn't say anything about the "expense" of modifications.... you are taking that out of context... It says "inexpensive cars", which, you are correct, is relative to the consumer of said car... but has NOTHING to do with what is allowed to be modified on said car.
Andy, w/ all due respect, I have to differ w/ you on this one. To say that the intent in that rule is that "inexpensive" applies only to tubs, and not mods, simply defies logic. It means that IT cars are to be (relatively) inexpensive AS RACED.
"The intent says specifically that the rules are to "restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car." Open ECUs are neither "necessary to construct a safe race car", and serve no "usefulness", in constructing a safe racecar... Their modification is purely a performance related allowance. Increasing/modifying the performance of a car, or otherwords making modications "for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage", is not mentioned anywhere in the rulebook of this class as something that is within the intent of IT as a class.
So, what is being done is to take a bad rule, which essentially was outside of the intent of the class to start with, and use it as a basis to further open up the class..."
I apologize for being preachy on this but I have said it over and over and it keeps rearing its ugly head. Previous divergences from the class philosophy should not be used to define the philosophy or serve as precedents for new divergences. The open ECU rule was a divergence. Allowing stand-alones can certainly be argued to be a divergence too. I asked a few days ago what the purpose of a new rule was and I was referred back to the start of the thread. But, either expressly or implicitly, people are still asking that question. If I were on the ITAC/CRB that would be the first thing I would want to do - define exactly what the objectives are. Then set about crafting rules that will achieve those objectives. Otherwise you are just shooting in the dark. If anyone wants to take a shot at a CONCISE set of objectives, I think it would be helpful to all.
[/b]
Bookmarks