Quote Originally Posted by shwah View Post
So the reason to force retention of the stock air dam is that it will open pandoras box with unique interpretations of the rule, but when faced with the fact that the very situation you are citing exists right now (and has since air dams were allowed), suddenly it's just easier for some than others?

That's a pretty poor piece of justification of your position right there. Changing tune mid stream. ...
Sorry you feel that way, Chris. I'm pretty confident that the rationale has been consistent, even if I didn't do a great job of explaining it consisntently.

Some things are always going to be easier for some than for others. I know some of you think ITAC members sound like broken records on stuff like this but we simply can't use that reality as rationale to try to make each thing equally easy for everyone. If we did, everyone who struggles with their specific make-model challenges would use the same rationale to "fix" their inequity, and we'd be obligated to do it: If it's right for airdams, it's right for unobtainable windshields being replaced with Lexan, etc., etc., etc.

One thing for sure, though: Leaving the rule the way it absolutely prevents any new wrenches in the works. We'll have all of the issues we currently have but none more. And unless we KNOW that the new rule will be better - and we can't - the potential downside risk isn't warranted.

Kirk (who gets to go to Portillos for lunch today and thinks Chris might recognize the value of that)