Originally Posted by
Knestis
Before this misinformation grows legs, I've got a complete record of every recommendation and the math that led to it, from Feb 2008 to the end of my tenure on the committee. During the period of Version 2, between its documentation and the schism, records were even kept re: individual members' call and confidence on non-standard factors (e.g., the RX8).
There is no such thing as a "confidence decision" on the FWD deduction. We used Lapsim to arrive at our best assessments of what that deduction should be, based on anecdotal observations that lower-hp cars suffer less from FWD syndrome than do higher-hp cars. The resulting numbers are applied without judgement.
Beyond those minor issues, I think you're spot-on with your observations and inferences, Jeff. However, regarding...
... the ITAC is only as stuck with it as they want to be. If a majority of that committee's members think it's the right thing to do, just say so. You all have the right - and the responsibility - to do what you think is best. However, nobody seems to be saying that. "Stuck with it" is not a ringing endorsement.
If on the other hand you are being told by someone else that it's non-negotiable, well - they are wrong because you all, again, are empowered to make whatever recommendations you think are best for the category. And if it's going to be an issue, those member-thingies out there deserve the right to know who's pushing the agenda so they can direct their lobbying power correctly.
On a different issue, thinking back I can recall conversation when I first started of the 1.3 multiplier, although on reflection I do NOT think it was in the context of application to only two classes, however.
K