Andy, not a personal attack, but I believe your base logic is flawed. Allow me some leeway here without getting offended.

...given the fact that we DON'T DO comp adjustments.[/b]
Let's start a little out of order here and address this one. A big one.

This statement is out-and-out false. The elephant in the room here is the Honda CRX: you have decisively comp-adjusted this car. Ergo, the process is in place for it to be done for other cars. Horse out of the barn, cat out of the bag, Pandora's box, whatever allusion/metaphor you want to use. It's already a done deal.

Please don't counter that it's a "unique" situation and 'that car would be over-dominant at 1100 pounds' or "how'd you like to race against that car". I agree with you there, that it would be dominant, but that's not the point. The POINT is that comp adjustments ARE done, and this is the one big example that I'm currently aware of.

So, since it's already happening, there's nothing - other than ITAC and CRB backbone in willing to be honest with the membership - to keep it from being hard-codified.

Yes, you have to prove a negative - but how else do you do it?[/b]
Through a continuation of the comp adjustments process that's already in place.

In order to encourage competition of specific vehicles, such as the AW11, you need to offer them a carrot, an incentive. Most cars that are in ITA today showed flashes of brilliance even before full prep, such as the handling potential of the CRX and Miata, the power potential of the NX2000, and the overall goodness of the Integra. Each of these examples showed promise prior to someone sinking in a sheizhole of money. As of right now, the MR2 does not have that.

So, toss them a carrot, see what happens, with the listed caveat that if shown to be excessive it will be dialed back in the future. Ergo, instead of asking them to prove their negative, you're giving them the opportunity to prove your positive.

No one is going to reasonably spend money to prove a negative, but many, many folks have illustrated they're willing to sink family fortunes to prove a positive.

We CAN NOT just take peoples word for these things. We need to see proof.[/b]
Wait a sec: you do this already, but only on the positive side! How do you know my NX2000 can't actually put out 175 horsepower? Have you actually seen my car get dyno'd? Were you there when Kessler was building the engine and potentially chose to leave out some mods for fear of getting one of those non-existent comp adjustments? Have you actually seen my suspension design in detail, and verified I can't do more? Were you present at all test days to ensure I can't significantly run faster than I already am?

Of course not. So, why is it you're so willing to accept positives, yet so loathe to accept negatives?

Bottom line: you (ITAC/CRB) don't have the resources to verify all claims. You just can't do it. Therefore, you should be as willing to accept negative comments as positive ones, yet you choose to cherry-pick what you wish to accept/believe.

One MR2 CAN make weight and the owner says that isn't the issue.[/b]
And you've personally reviewed all aspects of that car to ensure it's 100% completely and totally legal? You know for a fact that this one single example is truly an all-out 100% legal possibility, with no illegal removal of any weight? (No insult intended to Peter, I'm simply using it as an example.)

Of course not. Yet you are quick to accept this example as "proof" of possibility while ignoring numerous other claims of impossibility. What's up wid dat?

I don't know Jake all that well but I know that he classes his car in PTF when he runs NASA. That means it basically has nothing done to it except...[/b]
I understand that, but doesn't that prove my point? Why would Jake spend the money to try and do an all-out IT effort - and thus get moved to PTE or D - when 1) there's no reason to believe the end result would change in ITA and 2) he doesn't need to make those changes to compete effectively in NASA PTF?

Toss him a carrot, Andy, and you might get your answer.

If the car was popular enough to actually have some data that could be considered a trend (like the 9448V)...[/b]
Yet another poor example. Both NASA and PCA tossed that car a bone with their spec series, encouraging people to do 100% builds on the car. With that encouragement, you have hard data to use for deciding who well the car will perform.

With the AW11 you gots squat. Rumor, innuendo, expectations, cold formulas. But really no hard data.

Carrot.

...we aren't set up to use ONE GUYS dyno sheets to make a change.[/b]
But, yet, you're willing - indignant, even - to use "one guy's data" to stand pat on weight...?

...in NASCAR, GAC, SWC - they ALL have to prove a negative before the sanctioning body makes a change.[/b]
A HORRID, HORRID - and terribly insulting - example, Andy. In "NASCAR, GAC, SWC" the competitors are being PAID BY MANUFACTURERS to prove that negative.

You get me sponsorship from Toyota and I'll have your AW11 data for you in about 4-6 months, Andy. Until then I encourage you to remember we're amateur club racing and, unlike most, not in this with a profit motive...

Greg