Quote Originally Posted by Knestis View Post
Because we do the weight/power math based on post-IT-improvement power, the differences between generations of "theoretical" VWs are smaller than the values you illustrate, Eddie.

Policies and practices don't really allow you to ask for less weight on the MkI or more weight on the MkII. You can ask that we "run it through the process," but that's about it. Problem is, the "can it reach minimum weight?" part of the process kind of presumes that "average" size driver, which you already recognize is problematic.

We've had some spirited conversations (in the ITAC and more broadly) regarding philosophies about minimum weights but general practice seems to be to disregard how HARD it is to get to minimum weight, if it looks like it's doable. Some cars struggle to get to their process weight, some are right on without ballast, and some have to add weight. We get complaints from two of these three groups but as long as we have to hit the class guidelines we've got, this is how it will be.

>> At its current weight, the car is an overdog in C.

FWIW, the difference between an ITB MkI Golf and a theoretical ITC version of the same thing - with all pertinent assumptions being equal - is about 200#. Remember that if someone requests a review and their Borgward or whatever lands in a lower class, it's unlikely that it will be at the same weight as it ran the higher class.

K
So here's the letter I'm thinking about writing:

Please run all vehicles classed in IT through "the process". Because of the volume of work involved, I would suggest setting a completion date of Jan. 1, 2010.


All in favor?