Wheel width, ITB, again

[jjjanos]

1. All constraints in the rules are arbitrary if you want to view them as such, or if one completely ignores context.

Well, no. Arbitrary - Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle.

I believe that you have said that the rule was in place because those were the general maximum size when the category was formed - which fails on necessity, reason and principle. The rule waass overly complex for limiting to stock width - wheels simply could have been limited to the stock rim width. The rule grants an allowance to lighter cars without a corresponding adjustment in the weight setting process. It fails to consider the case of newer cars that came with larger wheels stock and does so without a corresponding adjustment in the weight setting process.

Now, if you are talking about saving money for a few, individual racers in specific unusual situations - like I completely appreciate Rodger and his Mopar bros are in - you are right. But it would be HORRIBLE policy to make categorical rules to satisfy the neeeds, even urgent needs, of a few people.

I'm in favor of giving the orphans a spec line adjustment. I'm in favor of classifying new cars with their stock sizes as their max and adjusting the process weight to account for any perceived competion advantage. You, however, have taken precision strikes via a spec line adjustment off the table, thus leaving carpet bombing as the only weapon in the arsenal.

Some members of the ITAC seem perfectly willing to modify the FWD adjustment, thus there should be no doctrinal reasons to take a stock wheel size adjustment off the table for the orphans and newly classified cars.

I quote - "to restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car." The die is cast for already classified cars, but requiring that drivers buy smaller wheels than stock for newly classified cars fails on both useful and necessary.

I'm a little amazed that this is seemingly so hard to understand.

I return the above statement to you

[Knestis]

Well, no. Arbitrary - Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle.

Right on. A LOT of the current IT rules are the result of chance, whim, and impulse, by a large number of individuals, constitutions of committees, and frankly by neglect and default for a couple of decades. That alone does not make changing them worth the cost. There is value in stability and we hear from members all the time that this is an aspect of the category that they value.

Now, situations and context DO change so the ITAC has to weigh the benefit/cost of any idea, but against costs associated with change alongside others.

... I'm in favor of classifying new cars with their stock sizes as their max and adjusting the process weight to account for any perceived competion advantage.

It might surprise you to find out that I (personally) don't necessarily see a general rule that allows a make/model case to use the stock size wheel if it's larger than the general allowance as a spec-line allowance. I'm WAY less worried about any broad statement of practice in the rules than I am about something that applies to just a couple of cars specifically, even if in operation the general only actually translates to a few cases. It's about leaving room in the process for shenanigans, to my way of thinking.

The rotaries are an example of this: It's just not possible to think of them using the same practices as piston engines, 'cause they're just freakin' different. That does not however mean that we can generalize ignoring standard practice more broadly, on the argument that we do it for the rotaries.

Some members of the ITAC seem perfectly willing to modify the FWD adjustment, thus there should be no doctrinal reasons to take a stock wheel size adjustment off the table for the orphans and newly classified cars.

The two don't have anything to do with one-another really but I won't argue with either clause separately...

All that said (and I think mostly I was agreeing with you, right?), none of this makes even the allowances I describe here effective at categorically decreasing costs for IT racers. For SOME, yes. For MOST, no. For ALL, not even remotely.

K