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

[JoshS]

What about the existing V6 Mustang and Camaro? They are live axle cars already in ITR, have been from the beginning.

Good point. Thanks.

As Kirk mentioned earlier, it's still a topic of discussion about what to do about existing listings when the process changes (and these 'refinements' really are changes.) If we manage to reassign weights, we'll take the axle into account for those listings.

[ekim952522000]

Good point. Thanks.

As Kirk mentioned earlier, it's still a topic of discussion about what to do about existing listings when the process changes (and these 'refinements' really are changes.) If we manage to reassign weights, we'll take the axle into account for those listings.

I think it is a good idea to hold off on any more re-classing until you guys have the whole thing hammered out since I know you guys have said there are a few more things you are trying to lock down, so future ITAC's will be able to follow exactly what you guys did.

[Jeremy Billiel]

Interesting the GSR would be the exact same weight before adders?

[JeffYoung]

I am pretty sure the GSR was run through the process and the subtractor was used in calculating its present weight (or at least -100 lbs, which isn't far off from what it would get using the new formula).

[lateapex911]

Interesting the GSR would be the exact same weight before adders?

There may be more surprises for GSR owners....if they are good boys and Santa is nice.

Regarding cars "in the works", (that is, cars we have requests to reprocess) ...we've held back on those cars that have characteristics that might be affected by our refinements. Some cars however don't, and those we are trying to do.

And just to reiterate what Kirk mentioned. Some cars might not get what the owners feel they deserve, and others might get a tiny gift. None of this is F1 level science. We're not trying to balance every car in every class on the head of the pin. There will be winners and losers.

BUT, we're hoping the range between the winners and the losers is kept in check, and we want, more than anything, to be consistent.

We want you guys to have faith that your car got a fair shake, and it was the same shake as a car a year ago got, and one a year from now will get. There may be things intrinsic to certain models that result in better race cars, but we hope our system mitigates those to manageable levels.

On edit: Looks like Kirk has made my point redundant..he types faster!

[ekim952522000]

.........

BUT, we're hoping the range between the winners and the losers is kept in check, and we want, more than anything, to be consistent.

I can only speak for myself but that one word means more to in regards to classing race cars than any other and it is what I want to see the most.

I also appreciate the ITAC letting us know this information I like to hear the updates of what's going on.

[Jeremy Billiel]

I can only speak for myself but that one word means more to in regards to classing race cars than any other and it is what I want to see the most.

I also appreciate the ITAC letting us know this information I like to hear the updates of what's going on.

X2.

Thanks for listening!

[Knestis]

We go around and around about that, Mike - it's a real puzzle.

We decided to do a couple of new listings last night even though we are still working on a final aspect or two of the new system, but only after estimating that they would come out pretty much the same even if/when we change what we're looking at changing. On the other hand, we have a basketful of other reviews that we want to be sure we do with everything in place, because we think revised practices ARE likely to influence the outcome.

We feel like we can't simply stop doing our business just because we're working on HOW we do it, but it's a balance that we make decisions about.

K

[tnord]

On the other hand, we have a basketful of other reviews that we want to be sure we do with everything in place, because we think revised practices ARE likely to influence the outcome.

K

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.

<_<

[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