Good commentary here. you guys are much better behaved than those in the other thread. Thanks for not calling all the ITAC guys names, LOL

I'm not an expert in things honda, so I will keep my comments general.

First, the Type R wasn't classed mainly because, (and I know you won't like the reason, LOL) because of it's handbuilt components. Proceduraly, it creates issues with enforcement. It will be impossible to prove in a protest situation, what was done by the competitor, and what was 'stock'. Now I know that the presumption is that anything we bozos (kidding, kidding!)would do to the car would actually hurt it, but, I am sure that you can see the potential for issues down the road on that one.


Some good arguements have been presented here, and it highlights the issues with a formulaic approach. Our "model" is not as sophisticated as the engineers at McLaren use for their predictive lap times. One of the struggles with the E36 has been that the proposed weight would have been significantly outside the "sweet spot" vis a vis the other cars in the class. The CRB felt that it wouldn't race well with the other cars, simply because it weighed so much more. Also, and more relevant to this discussion, is that the proposed weight fell outside the process's linear range. I think that might be what is going on here, but with the other components of the process, to a degree.

Perhaps, at the increased speeds that are found in ITS (vs the other classes) FWD, brakes and TQ need to be accounted for differently than the current "Adder/subractor" aspect of the process allows.

FWD is considered a "subtractor" in ITS. Based on cars like the 944 and the RX7, weight is removed from the number that the process spits out.

My question to you all is, should that weight be a fixed amount, like 50 or 75 or 100 pounds, for example, or a percentage of process weight, like 2.5%?? (Keep in mind that suspension design is a consideration as well, so the FWD aspect can be considered independently)

Keep in mind that the process needs to be kept simple, and somewhat flexible, but if the consensus is that the numbers aren't ending in an equivilent potential (Lets not dive in the "results pool) then perhaps a letter suggesting slight modifications would be in order.