You are totally allowed to disagree with proposals and decisions, and to voice concern but...

With the current opening of the ECU rules, I contend that you have created a situation that will make EFI cars more competitive than carburated cars. ...[/b]
Objection, your Honor - proceeds from facts not in evidence. I've yet to see any explanation of how the proposed change gives anyone any performance that we aren't already allowed. Is the fact that those advantages are not limited to the super-rich under the new rule the real problem? That more people will be able to take advantage of an allowance already in the books?

...Please either allow unlimited alternate carbs for carbureted models or allow carbureted cars to use an aftermarket EFI system. ...[/b]
With whatever size air holes you want, eh? The limiting factor in most engines is how many O2 molecules can get in there before fluid dynamics shuts down the intake system. The proposed ECU (and existing one, not accidentally) both limit EFI cars to the mechanical constraints of the stock intake. You're proposing whatever venturi or throttle body (bodies?) diameter you want on cars that came with carbs? REALLY?

... If these are not acceptable choices then please rerun to formula used for classification to include 100lbs for all EFI cars. [/b]
I love the strategy of presenting two unacceptable choices (see above), then leaving only the option of misusing the existing classification/specification process! If a blanket 100# penalty is assessed on every EFI car, then that isn't a "rerun of the formula used for classification."

Now, if your contention were that the existing "shove it in a black box" EFI rules upset the balance of weight/classifications in IT and that the assumptions behind that system should be examined, THAT idea moves from a sound set of assumptions. It should also have done so when that allowance happened. Or propose that cars not processed in the Great Realignment have their day under the ITAC's calculators - no problem.

K