Well, I always find it interesting the responses that come out when something is suggested. I will respond to some of the responses addressed back to my posting to "Poll the IT Competitors at Daytona"..... To Kirk Knestis..... yes I have submitted some 8-10 change requests---- 2 were adapted, most were rejected..... I do not suggest, or even think for a moment that all will be adapted. If you don't ask, you won't get. Not everyone agrees with me, that's fine. I believe there are 3 types of people in the world... Those who make it happen, Those who watch it happen, and those who wonder what happened. I prefer to try to make it happen. I have no tolerance for the other two. Since you, and your other ITAC members have accepted the responsibility to solicit change requests, and maintain the rules to some level, then you have to do what you feel is best. I reserve the right to disagree. I do not know what your (ITAC) real charter is?.... I get the distinct feeling that there are numerous issues that the membership has submitted, the "What", that the ITAC feel are rationale and should be permitted. But the "How" seems to be the stumbling block. Am I right?, Yes?, No? Like the issue of the Jacking Plates. It's implementation (How) seems to be at issue. No matter "How" the request is implemented, not everyone will be pleased. That is a fact. But don't overengineer the How. A simple "it is permitted to weld up to 4 plates to the underside of the chassis, for the sole purpose of facilitating the jacking of the car. No single plate can exceed more that 6" X 6" . Here is an approach. Or there could be verbage to permit two points, attached to the roll cage and extend to the underside of the floor panel maybe added to facitate the jacking of the vehicle A statement must be included that this jacking point shall no other purpose. If the "How" is the issue, then come up with some verbage, request inputs, discussion, limit the discussion time frame, poll the IT competitors, and get it done. Do not permit decision paralysis keep good, rationale ideas from coming to fruition. Maybe a process for "user inputs" needs to be revised that will facilitate getting good ideas from dying. But remember, no matter the verbage, not everyone will be pleased. PS... I did submit my resume' to the ITAC, but I race an ITB car.


To Tom Specher.... we in the south must be a different breed, but I could not support a "divisional only" rule change, no matter how frustated I get with the CRB /ITAC. I am a revolutionary, and beleive the South was right in 1861, but it would be only at the last resort that I would suggest to break out on own. I would go to NASA before I would go in that direction. Fortunately, all of the folks that I race with and against here in Florida do think differently than some of the folks, ( that I have only read about) in other divisions. If the guy who beat me, did not have a windshield washer resevoir, horn, or heater core hoses, I would never consider protesting them. If I thought they were cheating, in the engine area or transaxle, I would talk to them first.

To Jake..... I can not answer why so many of the Florida guys by pass up the ARRC. Don't know....We have the SARRC championships in Savannah, .... we start racing in January / February and our last race is on Thanksgiving weekend. We have some 4 World Class tracks in the state, Sebring, Daytona, Homestead, and PBIR. All within 4 hours of almost all of us in Central Florida. I had entered the ARRC this year, only to see a huge financial loss in stock market that necessitated a cancellation. Fortunately Deuce and Pete Keane from CFR showed what our ITB cars were like, and I think Kip Van Steenburg also took honors in ITS in his 944. But as inferred, I don't beleive it is because we could not pass the tech shed.
Sincerely, David Ellis-Brown