OH MY GOD, V8's in ITR

[JeffYoung]

Fair enough. Thanks Andy.

[Knestis]

I'm not afraid to admit that I support the limited inclusion of V8-powered cars that fit the ITR parameters, regardless of make or model - as a member and in my role on the ITAC.

If one were to go back through this (and related) threads, a bundle of cons have been surfaced. However, Jake's point about cloaking concerns in arguments that might not reflect motivations is a great reminder that the issues run deep on this, at all levels.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'm not afraid to admit that I support the limited inclusion of V8-powered cars that fit the ITR parameters, regardless of make or model - as a member and in my role on the ITAC.

As am I....

[shwah]

I can theorize that a case against might go something like this...

Hey we had IT for V8 pony cars (which is essentially what AS used to be, and what it decidedly is not any more), and the members that raced in that class wanted to change it into what AS is today. Why would this go around be any different? If folks wanted to run IT style V8 pony cars AS would still be that class. The fact that it evovled into something different suggests that folks do not in fact want to run IT style V8 pony cars.

I can't really come up with any other ideas on how it could be argued.

[spnkzss]

I can theorize that a case against might go something like this...

Hey we had IT for V8 pony cars (which is essentially what AS used to be, and what it decidedly is not any more), and the members that raced in that class wanted to change it into what AS is today. Why would this go around be any different? If folks wanted to run IT style V8 pony cars AS would still be that class. The fact that it evovled into something different suggests that folks do not in fact want to run IT style V8 pony cars.

I can't really come up with any other ideas on how it could be argued.

The difference now is all those people that would race IT and want to turn it into what AS is today would then go race AS. All of those that want to race IT with their "muscle car" (cause it really should count) can stay IT.

[Ron Earp]

. The fact that it evovled into something different suggests that folks do not in fact want to run IT style V8 pony cars.
.

Except for the fact that impromptu voting here shows people do indeed want to run V8 Pony cars in IT....

[Knestis]

The AS history clouds conversation around this issue but is one that we should ALL understand, as a cautionary tale. THAT is creep in action.

"Members wanted" lots of incremental allowances (ditching washer bottles were probably first on the list) and the folks making the decisions gave it to them. It was probably aggravated by the fact that there were basically two camps, separated by an ancient hatred - Fords and Chevys - motivating perceptions of performance differences along manufacturer lines, and corresponding lobbying efforts to make things "fair."

We do NOT want to become that, but if we really fear that can happen in IT, we should have far greater worries and be far more diligent than we sometimes are, regarding new allowances.

K

[lateapex911]

As mentioned, AS used to be ITGT. That was before the inception of the Ad hoc committees. Unlike ITA or ITS, ITGT was essentially a two model class. And those models were rather alike. Nearly a spec class. Thus, it was far easier to allow incremental change (the same carb for everybody, to allow more years in more easily, the same intake manifold, etc etc.)

Each change seemed to make sense at the time.

The CRB didn't attach the IT principals to the class either, it was renamed and made National sometime in the early/mid 90s, IIRC.

As we all know, it morphed into a much different animal, one that lots of people steer clear of.

This current concept is far removed form the first go-round. There are several key differences. First, and most important is the fact that these cars are one of many in the proposed class. That fact alone provides protection in terms of changes. Secondly, IT principals are better defined I think, and better defended by the ad hoc.

The way I look at the big picture is that we have categories, and they are divided by rulesets, or "work levels". ....the amount of work and changes it takes to go racing. In each category, I feel there should be freedom to class all different cars. You want a Camaro but want it stock? SS is for you. Moderately tweaked? IT is the choice. More of a heavily modded car? AS is your hone. Full on tube frame? GT is the place.

In my eyes, IT is the missing stepping stone.

[lateapex911]

I can't really come up with any other ideas on how it could be argued.

That's a good theory, but you're clearly a supporter of the idea if that's the only arguement you can come up with

[shwah]

You are correct sir.

I guess I should have stated that is the only argument I could come up with that had a thread of logic to it. To be totally clear to the group - that's not my argument, just the one that imagine could be made.