Wow. interesting...ummm.. reactions. Lets think big picture.

Back in the day, as Kirk explains, we did the big reorg. (the Great Realignment) But, it was a HUGE deal to dink with IT cars, and the BoD was dead set against the idea going in. The CRB championed the cause, and changes were made. Now, we tread very lightly at the time, because of the internal resistance.

So, yea, some (a LOT) of cars never got touched. The idea, at the time, was that 90% of IT's problems were caused by 10% of the cars. Changing that much was a MAJOR deal, and really corrected the path.

Now, post GR, we've used the Process, but it's had, as Kirk points out, some susceptibility to tinkering. Adders can (could) be subjectively applied. That can result in things like "Give it a bit extra for brakes to counter the possibility of it being an overachiever in the engine" ...

The REFINEMENT of the SAME process, that we have been hammering out recently, seeks to avoid such subjectivity. IF we have DATA that the committee can document, and can vote individually with confidence on, we will alter the standard parameters. But without that, there's not any 'winging it' based on our knowledge/experience/eye witness accounts/suspicions/hunches and or, but not limited to, feelings.

Now, what Kirk is saying, is that the CRB is holding back our recent work on cars that have been requested to be reprocessed. Why? Well, they are not happy, one must conclude, with the refinement of the process.

To me, it's ironic, because I see the new 2.0 version as merely a sharper and more robust version of the 1.0 version that we've been humming along with for a few years now.

Andy will go on a con call tomorrow night, I think, to try and illustrate the similarities, and the differences so that they understand what we're doing.

You, the interested IT racer, can, no, should weigh in.

If you think the FIRST PRINCIPALS (in the classification procedure) should be consistency, transparency, repeatability, and that subjectivity should be used only with hard data as a back up, and that on track performance should be used as a trigger to go get hard data, well, tell them that.

If you prefer that we continue to use the process as before, but use our intuition when the numbers it spits out don't look right, tell them that.

To boil it down REALLY far down, if you like the basic direction the ITAC has tried to take, and think it's on the right path, say so. If you think we're driving the category off the cliff, speak up.

The CRB and especially the BoD are guys who have been in the game for a long time, and they are used to the ship running a certain way. That's normal. Doing it differently raises eyebrows and makes people very nervous. Tell them it's ok. Or not. But let them know you exist, you care, and you're a member who's watching and in the game.

If you are wanting to know how it all affects YOUR car before you do anything, well, that's rather missing the point.