What determines the mid engine adder?

[Greg Amy]

Mid-rear engined car will brake better and more cosistantly than the other front-engined layouts, everthing being equal.

OK, Andy, your turn: separate in your mind where the engine is located.

You state these cars brake better and more consistently; why? Is it solely because the engine is behind the driver, or is it because they have better F/R weight balance (trust me: this isn't a trick question)? Do these cars brake better because there's an engine in back, or do they brake better because of an advantageous weight distribution?

Do these cars brake better because there's a better F/R weight distribution, or is there a better F/R weight balance because they brake better? What is the root reason here? You're tunnel-visioning on the mechanics of the result, rather than the result.

If a car had the engine behind the driver, but still had a 60F/30R weight balance, would it still get the adder? And - key point at hand here - if the car had better F/R weight distribution, but the engine was in front of the driver, would it get the adder?

Root cause -- > result.

If there is a contingent that feels the mid-engined, better under brakes adder of 50lbs for ITC-ITS is bogus, feel free to write in.

Note that I am not arguing whether or not it should be applied as an adder; I'm simply arguing that it should be applied consistently and fairly using the features it's now purported to apply (despite its mis-naming): better braking, which is due to advantageous F/R weight distribution. - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

OK, Andy, your turn: separate in your mind where the engine is located.

You state these cars brake better and more consistently; why? Is it solely because the engine is behind the driver, or is it because they have better F/R weight balance (trust me: this isn't a trick question)? Do these cars brake better because there's an engine in back, or do they brake better because of an advantageous weight distribution?

Do these cars brake better because there's a better F/R weight distribution, or is there a better F/R weight balance because they brake better? What is the root reason here? You're tunnel-visioning on the mechanics of the result, rather than the result.

If a car had the engine behind the driver, but still had a 60F/30R weight balance, would it still get the adder? And - key point at hand here - if the car had better F/R weight distribution, but the engine was in front of the driver, would it get the adder?

Root cause -- > result.

Note that I am not arguing whether or not it should be applied as an adder; I'm simply arguing that it should be applied consistently and fairly using the features it's now purported to apply (despite its mis-naming): better braking, which is due to advantageous F/R weight distribution. - GA

It's frustrating Greg that you argue and nit-pick and then don't take a position. All I am doing is telling you how tha adder is applied in it's most simple form because that is what has been asked - yet you inply that we don't have the brains to understand the fundamantals. Doing it or not, it's how it comes off.

I feel they brake better because that have a weight distribution that facilitates better braking. Typically a rearward bias...not a 50-50. It's about weight distribution under decelleration. I would love to see the car that had a 60-30 (60-40 or 70-30?) balance that had a mid-rear layout...and I would NOT vote for the adder. I would go on record as explaining that even though the mechanical characteristic is there, the physical characteristic we are applying for is not. We can never take 100% of subjectivity out of the process, especially when the improbable is proposed.

So in the end, there are always checks and balances and rechecks. It's why the con-calls go for 5+ hours and a straight formula isn't used.