Quote Originally Posted by Chip42 View Post
[STL]

argument = "makes no sense."

[/STL]
My personal opinion on the matter - please reread the bold part, and if you missed that, please read my signature - is that it makes absolutely no sense to classify an alternate-category car in Super Touring that may have a chance to be competitive. As much as 99.99% of the people on this board wish otherwise, the Super Touring Category prep specs are the whole point of Super Touring, and everything else is "grid filler".

[waving finger] Oh no you didn't say that!!! [/waving finger] Yup, I did. Tell me you're shocked. We - sorry, I - really do mean that part where it says:

While IT cars may not be competitive in the ST category,
their inclusion in the category will allow regional competitors to
participate in national events.

Improved Touring was, as I recall, the very first "inclusion" category added to the STCS, and we've consistently added more upon request since. Note that each one of those has more than a sprinkling of "sure, come play in the sandbox, but please don't expect to have a big chance of winning." This cannot be news to you...

The deal with the ITR cars is simple: I blew it. I personally authored and sponsored changing the rules last year to explicitly allow 2L IT cars into Super Touring Light, knowing that the performance level STL is probably going to be around ITR times. At the time, I was thinking about ITS-level performance and completely and totally forgot to look through ITCS and see that there was, in fact, three ITR cars of less than 2L displacement.

Simply put, it is not my personal intention to classify alternate-category cars into Super Touring that have a reasonable chance of winning against full-up-built ST cars. I can't think of any other category in any other organization that would stand for that.

I am speaking only for myself and can only infer that the rest of the STAC and the CRB is on board with that intent.

Hey, "my bad".

GA