OK, I've read 8 pages on this subject, and I still can't decide which side of the fence I would land on.
This here is my opinion and only mine and I am not passing judgement on anybody elses argument, logic etc.
BTW, my car is 1983 and carburated, so any decision that is made will only effect me when I decide to retire or move to something else. Add the fact that my car will be more obsolete and therefore the even less desirable except to some other nut who likes Shelby Chargers.
Probably, the least probable solution is to put the cat back in the bottle, or the genie back in the bag, whatever. It's the solution I would like to see, but realize that it is a
I've read all the arguments about costs, and I do agree that the proposed rule change would make the same performance improvements that are available today available to more cars at a lower price. Whether or not this is a good thing is another issue. I've changed my own mind five times just writing this!
I am not sure if this rule change is really going to effect as many cars as we thought. How many cars are out there with the ECU mods that are allowed today (you know, the kazillion dollar jobs in the stock housing). Are you losing to these cars? If you are, then you are probably going to take advantage of the proposed change. If not, are you going to break open the wallet just cause you can afford it now? Or are you going to wait until the guys who ran behind you this year bite the bullet over the winter and now you feel you have to go this route just to keep the status quo?
In any event, yes, the decision to spend more money is an individual one. So, will the proposed rule cost everyone more? Absolutly not. Will there be more money spent? Absolutly yes! Keeping up with or getting ahead of the Jones's has been around since the first family named Jones!
I think the real issue to condsider in deciding to support or oppose this change is what effect it will have on IT racing in general. Will the ability to use these aftermarket ECU's attract new drivers or will it turn them away? Will it attract more drivers than will decide not to race anymore? I don't know and don't pretend to.
I see three things with the proposed change. One - this effects only certain cars, and not all of them. From that standpoint, I guess I am against the change. Two - this change brings us closer to Production/Prepared level of preparation which is against the spirit of the class. And three - more people are going to spend more money even though it might be less than what they would have spent, or even because it IS less than what they would have had to spend.
OK, again. I had to step away from the keyboard for a minute here at work, and look what you guys do, post some arguments that make me change my mind again. So, if there are cars currently classed in IT that go into limp mode if sensors that are required by the GCR to be disconnected are, then they need ECU's that allow that function to be disabled.Can this be done by any other means, at a reasonable expense? If there are no currently classed cars with this need, then we need to address the issue when a popular car attempts to be classified. Would it be feasable to include a list of authorized replacement ECU's to limit the number of functions controlled in order to minimize the unintended consequence of performance gains (that is if you really support the proposed rule change on the basis of eliminating the 'limp mode' by its self?
I am really open to all arguments as long as they are friendly. I am very willing to listen to all points of view as long as you are willing to listen to mine. This thread has brought up many good points. But there has been a lot of bitterness and disrespect. Free expression of ideas benefits everyone.
They do and its about resolution. Its also about aftermarket ECUs having the ability to do more than the OEM stuff ever thought of. GO do a search on the web.
As far as threaded body shocks go they effect all cars about the same (all cars have shocks) Not all cars get the benefit on fine tuning that aftermaket ECU's bring.
[/b]
There you go again - two more reasons why I am against the proposed change!!!!! (I agree with you, Joe on these two issues).
But keep up the good work. I don't want to make a decision about the resolution and then later say "I never thought of that!!!!!"