Kirk.... I thought that I had command of the king's english, I must be wrong........ No where am I suggesting restricting any car from being included in IT!..... The ITAC has added, and will add new cars... great.... add whatever.... it makes no difference..... I beleive words mean something.... in the current "Purpose" are the words..."low cost".... correct, what does that mean?.... When IT was established, the initial cars identified were low cost, econo-boxes, correct?.... The term is no longer applicable to the purpose of IT, correct?.... Then why not remove it? .Period.... Now for the intent.... I have two significant interests.... 1. a general statement that permits, allows, modifications to the stock vehicle that do not alter performance. Example-- change and add switches, replace relays for switches, change/ alter both the location & configuration of the fuse panels, remove all un-necessary wiring, permit reinforced jacking panels under the car to faciltate "enduro" pit stops, and to reduce some of the damage that is being done to the bottom of the "sheet metal" frames from floor jacks not being placed on the right spots, and damaging welds , etc, etc, I could go on, but I hope that makes some of my points. 2. I am recommending adding rules guidance to the ITAC,, by including a statement within the Intent, to think about rules that are being considered to consider "cost containment" as a factor in the rules change process of IT.... Before a rule is made, does it add cost, to the category, but adds little or no value. , or would a change help reduce costs, say maintenance costs, such as the electrical issues that I mentioned above..... Think about the newer cars that are being added..... there is alot of stuff in the cars that have value in the salvage market, could be sold on e-Bay, that do not add value to the IT car, but the say of the item could help offset some of the construction costs for the car. Many standard options, cruise control, expensive switch assemblies, GPS systems, etc.... that are not identified in any shape form or description within the current rules. Does the CRB or ITAC want to address each item on a model by model basis, or begin to "think outside of the box" and permit general modifications that do not "alter performance" Kirk, sorry for the long reply, but from looking at some of the reponses, that do not deserve a civil reply, I felt I should respond to your note. Sincerely, David E-B
)
