Pony Car Proposal for ITR

Ron Earp

Ron Earp

Administrator
Any more news on the Pony Car proposal for ITR? I read in the last FastTrack that the proposal was still under discussion. I'm assuming it is dead or rejected, but thought I'd ask around before pronouncing time of death.

Thanks!
Ron
 
Who was the famous guy who said, "Rumours or reports of my death are greatly exaggerated"???

relax..the fat lady aint singing yet.
 
It's not dead. It's not even on life support.

The best analogy is that it's sitting in an overcrowded waiting room, reading old issues of Road & Track, with the subscriber's address blacked out in marker. Sicker patients or those with easy diagnoses keep getting put in front of it in the queue but its number WILL come up.

K
 
Knestis said:
It's not dead. It's not even on life support.

The best analogy is that it's sitting in an overcrowded waiting room, reading old issues of Road & Track, with the subscriber's address blacked out in marker. Sicker patients or those with easy diagnoses keep getting put in front of it in the queue but its number WILL come up.

K
Click to expand...

.......And it's already seen the docs, once for Xrays, and then again for an MRI, the docs are discussing things as the R&T pages get flipped........
 
lateapex911 said:
.......And it's already seen the docs, once for Xrays, and then again for an MRI, the docs are discussing things as the R&T pages get flipped........
Click to expand...

I think the docs have moved on to other things, like National IT.

Where do things stand on the RX8?
 
Ron Earp said:
I think the docs have moved on to other things, like National IT. ...
Click to expand...

...and while it might be a little counterintuitive for folks, the IT Goes National discussion isn't even really an ITAC agenda item. Frankly, the only committee discussions we're having are of the nature of "what is our role?"

Obviously, as individual members some of us are more involved than that...

K
 
That will be in the FasTrack, Jeff. Since the ITAC sends a recommendation to the board; and they can take it, adapt it, or act contrary to it; even we won't know for sure until it's published.

K
 
This is one of those times when you're all going to need to be a little patient.

Besides, the car isn't even eligible until next season (5-year rule). Don't worry about it!
 
Hmmmm..if the ITAC has made a recommendation on weight, I'd publish it for comment. There is going to be controversy about this one one way or the other and the more transparent you are, the less flack you will receive. I think.....
 
JeffYoung said:
Hmmmm..if the ITAC has made a recommendation on weight, I'd publish it for comment. There is going to be controversy about this one one way or the other and the more transparent you are, the more biased, personal agenda driven input you will receive.
Click to expand...

fixed.
 
JeffYoung said:
Hmmmm..if the ITAC has made a recommendation on weight, I'd publish it for comment. There is going to be controversy about this one one way or the other and the more transparent you are, the less flack you will receive. I think.....
Click to expand...
Based on the letters we got, which DEMANDED weights between 2700 and 3400 lbs, I'm pretty sure that no matter what, we'll get flack.

Everyone's letter was very clear that there was only one right answer, yet the right answer apparently had a huge range. Fun.
 
I've got no dog in the fight guys. I did write the proposal because I thought the car should be in the class, but I honestly don't care where the weight comes out and I have 0 intent to build one. It will also be a long time before I build a R car, if at all.

That said my research on the numbers was in the 2800 lb range, but I could be wrong and I through that out simply as a full disclosure.

You guys are right, you are not going to avoid flak altogether over this. But I'm telling you, you need to make the process as transparent as possible because this is one that has potential for disaster both ways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top