Quote:
Its just a concern I have... No doubt, I DO think that you guys are doing a great job creating the class ITA. You also did well moving a few cars into ITB, and you have done well getting ITR off the blocks. However I do get concern as ITS is now dead, and maybe it was before, we just didn't see it cause cars like the 944 and (Absolutely no offence) Greg in the egg were finishing in respectful positions even though they were several seconds off the front runners.
I do like the new process and maybe I am worrying to much... All I ask is that everyone is very hesitant before moving any tweeners, just because someone has invested lots of $$$ and prove that a car can't win and wants to become a front runner dosn't justify making a car competitive in a "slower" class. NOT all cars will be, no matter how much we all want them to be (even I wish that). We can not deny that several of the cars that have been re-classed have been instant front runners, and this car I certainly think could fit into that catagory.
Raymond "When the RX-7 and MR2 get moved to ITB (Its a matter of time), add 200lbs to my Audi and move me to ITC..." Blethen
OH PS: Sorry for getting this off topic, If I did so... Didn't mean to. [/b]
Why do you say ITS is dead? At last check it was the second largest IT class in your region...well ahead of ITB.
Ray, you know as well as anyone that in Regional IT racing where driver ability and car prep vary so much that you can come in the top 10 and be 5 seconds off the leader. Just because Greg had some top 10's in ITS doesn't mean it was an ITS car.
The ITAC and the CRB do NOT move cars based on results. You need to read this thread in full to find out how the discussion progressed.
The WHOLE POINT of the process is that IN THEORY, a top developed car with a top driver has a shot at the win. Greg's car was a 4-year project with more development than almost any IT car in NER. It adds up perfectly. This isn't Production where we class cars conservatively and 'inch' them toward the peak - then handicap them when they win. We class them with a goal of equality - and changes don't come.
And I will add that if the RX-7 and MR-2 go to ITB - and they have the same hp/weight numbers as the current cars in ITB (with additional consideration for out-of-the-ordinary charateristics: as in any class) why would you want to move?
Quote:
No, no, a thousand times no.
Andy and the ITAC'ers keep demonstrating that they are being faithful to the process, while all around them IT entrants keep demonstrating that they can't get past the presumption that classing and weights should get (or are getting) set based on what they have done on the track.[/b]
Correct. 1000 times correct.
Quote:
Now that said, I am NOT particularly comfortable with the "engine builder X gets this power" approach. Back when we were first talking about doing a formulaic system, the assumption was going to be that generally, IT prep got X% and driveline losses were like Y%.[/b]
Well unfortunately, I disagree. When we 'know' something, we know it. Otherwise, the 101 stock hp 12A RX-7 would be running rings around everything in ITB at about 2150lbs. NO WAY!
Quote:
We've progressively tried to get more accurate, going through phases of "'70s technology cars gain X%, more modern ones gain Z%," to now where we start to see things like, "I would think that ~160whp is doable with the full-tilt boogie" - for specific car models. Just like, "if the process says 2800, it should be 2800," if the general math says "160whp," that figure should be used in the math. If it's "Builder Bob says 160," THAT I am a little anxious about...
K [/b]
Remember, the Process is not predicated on WHP numbers - it's built (albiet flawed) on crank numbers. My comment on the 160whp was an estimate based on the 'known' max from one of these motors at 185-190 crank hp. Guys claim a 20% loss so 153-155whp may be more likely but it's a moot point WRT the Process.