Oh, trust me Travis - we TOTALLY understand the motivations behind any information provided to us. It's usually not too tough to suss out what someone wants, based on what they provide.

This is an opportune moment to share a few hints with anyone who cares about this issue...

** Car A beats Car B is not evidence that A needs to be slowed down or B needs a break. Travis is right on that you might reasonably use that as the basis to go looking for evidence, or that this will likely be the motivation behind requests that specifications be reviewed. It is not however "evidence."

** Hypothetical power estimates - like when street car guys figure out how much power they have by adding up the advertised gains from the "mods" - are weak evidence at best.

** It's perfectly reasonable to share your support - or lack thereof - for any potential rule change. You are empowered to say, "I understand that the Borgward is being considered for classification in ITC and am vehemently opposed to that idea!!! I raced Borgwards in the Olde Country so I KNOW that they will ruin the category." But please remember that we're trying to make the IT weight specification process as objective as possible. It might be that NOBODY wants [whatever race weight] but we will still recommend it to the Board if it's what we get out of our collection of practices and processes.

** If you have input that you want considered, it is best if it is (a) in a web-enabled form we can archive, (b) attributable to an actual live human being, and (c) not super secret. Something you heard from someone, have no physical documentation of, and can't tell who told you isn't going to be particularly compelling.

The ITAC (I will take the risk of speaking for them on this) takes the task of separating conjecture and opinion from fact very seriously, and is pretty smart on the issue. VERY importantly, the committee membership also represents a wide range of priorities and experiences. That slows us down at times but I think you all can be pretty confident that we're not a group of Yes Men.

K