Originally Posted by
Chip42
the problem, however you slice it, is that the ops manual and the "old" ITR cars classing maths don't agree.
newer ITR cars have been processed using the ops manual, as we have all agreed to do. asking helps us ID why the ops manual math doesn't work, but I think the math should work, it's based on sound principles. I also think that we should rerun the class with the math we said we would use, because this class is growing and the unblance will get worse in not much time.
I'd say the same about ITS-C but they are much better established and some cars "work" without being "right" by process, and that is understood and we just have to recognize that these guys seem to be appropritately classed by whatever circumstance or happy accident and move on. anything not properly classed should be addressed via the ops manual.
I say keep the DW adder in R, but apply it to all "advanced" deisgns (be they FWD, RWD, or AWD) and document that decision as we document all of our decisions.
so you will have
RWD +50 "advanced suspension"
RWD "neutral" suspension
RWD -50 RWD live axle
FWD -6% +50 "Advanced suspension"
FWD -6% -50 Strut. I'm willing to update the ops manual to remove this adder if the rest of the ITAC agrees with me. the other adders make it irrelevant.
yes, you could do -50 for "neutral" and FWD strut suspensions but then you have a functionally different adder schema through the ITCS. I prefer this way, and as an aside it adds a touch of weight to the FWD guys who are having trouble getting down (I'm looking at you, celica).
sorry if this upsets any one in the membership and/or old guard. I think the long term effects will be positive and the short term will be minimal.