FWD vs RWD: Adders, Subtractors, and Weight, Oh my...!

[Knestis]

you're making ne nervous kirk.

i feel like "we're" going to find a way to help out certain cars until they start winning races and are on a witch hunt for others and will back into a justification to knock them down however "we" can.

<_<

I asked at the Sandbox and will do so here, too - How do you think that would work?

And frankly, if you REALLY believe that is true, you need to contact the Board and present them with your evidence, 'cause the entire lot of us should get sacked if it is.

On the other hand, if you're just pissing and moaning, you need to do it in a less insulting way.

Truly hurt by this,

K

[tnord]

I asked at the Sandbox and will do so here, too - How do you think that would work?

And frankly, if you REALLY believe that is true, you need to contact the Board and present them with your evidence, 'cause the entire lot of us should get sacked if it is.

On the other hand, if you're just pissing and moaning, you need to do it in a less insulting way.

Truly hurt by this,

K

i didn't mean to be insulting, sorry if it came across that way. for the most part i have nothing but respect for the members of the ITAC, which includes you Kirk.

how i see it could go down is by the general population of IT coming together to campaign to the ITAC that the still subjective power adder is out of whack using any means necessary until the number and subsequent weight is changed. all the while the ITAC would believe 100% that they are doing what is right just the same as with this FWD adjustment by using "what we know."

[Knestis]

In order to use a power factor other than a default-across-IT value, the ITAC has to review whatever evidence can be collected, with each member required to record their level of confidence in that evidence. That is then considered in the process if, and only if, we agree that it rises to a sufficient level as a distinct step in the process.

And this is an "innocent until proven guilty" kind of deal - it's necessary for data to make a case for doing anything besides the same exact thing that would apply to any other car under consideration. Not enough evidence? No variation.

The entire process moves forward at that point, with all members required to vote again, this time up or down on the final result. That last step is kind of an anachronism in some ways - I personally think it would be REALLY hard for someone to vote against something that's followed established procedure, but it DOES require that we commit individually to give our support - or lack thereof - for each action.

Members can campaign for anything they want, using "any means possible" (not sure what that means) but we require actual evidence on which to base a trip off the beaten path re: a specific request. And on-track performance, wins, lap times, or other results will NOT be considered to be "evidence."

Now, if it is the judgment of the committee that sufficient evidence to use a power factor other than the standard number DOES exist, we can do that. We do retain the option to apply our collective experience to problems but it's way tougher than it might have been under previous protocols for someone to fudge numbers simply because they think they "know" what they should be.

K

[tnord]

In order to use a power factor other than a default-across-IT value, the ITAC has to review whatever evidence can be collected, with each member required to record their level of confidence in that evidence. That is then considered in the process if, and only if, we agree that it rises to a sufficient level as a distinct step in the process.

And this is an "innocent until proven guilty" kind of deal - it's necessary for data to make a case for doing anything besides the same exact thing that would apply to any other car under consideration. Not enough evidence? No variation.

am i correct in thinking that the same procedure was followed that led to the 50, 100, and now % base weight break for FWD cars?

Members can campaign for anything they want, using "any means possible" (not sure what that means) but we require actual evidence on which to base a trip off the beaten path re: a specific request.

it's meant to mean "lawyering" more or less.

And on-track performance, wins, lap times, or other results will NOT be considered to be "evidence."

disregarding my overall discomfort with using lapsim......the aforementioned items may not warrant formal review by the ITAC, but they do serve as motivation for the general public to seek out "evidence" that supports their position. through the collective efforts of the IT public a case can be presented that can look convincing, and garners support from the casual observer. political pressure is then upon the ITAC to do something to fix the "problem" via informal (interwebz) and formal (letter writing) avenues. to "give the members what they want" if you will.

this makes me nervous, as it's akin to how i see this thing went down. first it was that the 50lb break wasn't enough, then the 100lb break wasn't enough, then it was that it should be on a % basis, but when that didn't yield the result the FWD guys wanted it changed into higher percentages for each class.

....i had a better response typed up but it was lost.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Trav,

At the end of the day each ITAC member, to a man, will tell you the process is not perfect. Not sure there is ANY classing method in ANY organization that gets it 100% right, hence the consistant changes year to year. What we are looking to do is make sure the WAY we do things is consistant, repeatable and transperant. I think everyone has heard this before.

I have NO problems with a member coming forward with a theory like...hmmm, 'FWD cars seem to be much less prolific in the higher HP classes. I suggest it's because the compensation for their driveline layout is not enough'. OK, interesting. Let's prove it. Especially when what we HAVE been using is effectively a SWAG of 50-50-50-100-100. Simple yes, correct? Who knows.

So then someone introduces some actual simulation data. We look at it, we hash it out and we theorize that 175-150-50-50-0 are much better numbers than what we have been using.

Then we think to ourselves, -175 on a 3000+lb Legend and -175 on a 2500lb Celica doesn't seem equal - or 'right'. So we take those number, convert them to percentages for each class and figure we have something even 'better than our better than before'. Perfect - nope, but something we believe is as good as we can get given the granularity of our process and teh amount that our members want us to actually dork-up the system.

So in the end, it works how I think it should work. Idea, research, vote, reject/accept. EVERY request has some sort of selfish reasoning - but that doesn't discount the potential merits.

[lateapex911]

The black helicopter is always hovering, isn't it?

[tnord]

Trav,

I have NO problems with a member coming forward with a theory like...hmmm, 'FWD cars seem to be much less prolific in the higher HP classes. I suggest it's because the compensation for their driveline layout is not enough'. OK, interesting. Let's prove it. Especially when what we HAVE been using is effectively a SWAG of 50-50-50-100-100. Simple yes, correct? Who knows.

So then someone introduces some actual simulation data. We look at it, we hash it out and we theorize that 175-150-50-50-0 are much better numbers than what we have been using.

this is the part i don't like. to me this really feels like we're going to just keep taking weight off of certain cars until they start winning, and i think that stinks. there's nothing out there to PROVE that 175 is a better number than 100. the category is stronger than ever, the current?/old? process may miss the target on a couple cars but overall works very well and changing it in this way creates risk. Which i guess basically comes down to how much merit i put in LapSim vs how accurate you guys think it is.

[Andy Bettencourt]

this is the part i don't like. to me this really feels like we're going to just keep taking weight off of certain cars until they start winning, and i think that stinks. there's nothing out there to PROVE that 175 is a better number than 100. the category is stronger than ever, the current?/old? process may miss the target on a couple cars but overall works very well and changing it in this way creates risk. Which i guess basically comes down to how much merit i put in LapSim vs how accurate you guys think it is.

I disagree. I can't explain it any better than I did above. *I* feel there WAS enough information to prove that 175 was better than 100. Seeing as how 100 was a SWAG back in the day doesn't discount it's initial effectiveness but it doesn't mean we can't do better - and we think we have.

One important thing to note on the ebb and flow of the rules process in IT...it may seem unstable to some but because the changes are CATEGORICAL and not individual, there should be some solice in that. Things are looked at on a grand scale, not under a microscope.

In the end, I know that people will be resistant to anything that seemingly takes away a perceived advantage their car, engine, chassis (insert the reason you chose your car here) as it is human nature....but we ARE trying to make things equal. Just not trying so hard that we look at on-track performance and make individual adjustments.