Quote Originally Posted by Ron Earp View Post
Isn't this philosophy different from what many of us here, including yourself, have advocated over the years - set rules with a repeatable classing process?
It is. But in my defense remember I'm not a committee of one...and other members have made compelling arguments for such allowances.

My primary beef with STx was an apparent lack of a clear philosophy, and thus no clear way for either the STAC or the competitors to make reasonable competition decisions. I was a big proponent of getting that done even before I joined the committee. Toward that end, a lot of good things have come out of the committee this year, we've had a lot of good long-term strategy discussions, and we are now polishing off a new philosophy that we will reveal via Fastrack shortly. It will replace the entire "A: Purpose" section and will define what the committee sees as the philosophy of the category as a whole, as well as the perceived philosophy of each class. This will be the basis for competition decisions going forward and in my mind each and every decision made by the committee will be weighed against this stated philosophy.

As part of this philosophy, we will encompass some of the 3+L engines within a hard-and-fast engine size limit, yet also welcome the existing V6 pushrod engines on case-by-case approval (as is now).

This will all get discussed next concall, so I'm hopeful to get our proposal to the CRB/BoD/membership in the next Fastrack. Be patient, I'm hoping you'll like what you see.

GA