Please help me understand the Audi issue...

[frnkhous]

And that's where I see a big issue with that approach. Ask yourself this question, would you even consider spending a bucket of cash to build a serious, 10/10ths effort with a car that was that grossly mis-classed? You can't really use info on other builds (non-IT), as who knows if they're legal or not. So, you need IT examples to know if something other than a 1.25 power factor is appropriate, yet nobody's building full tilt examples because the car is 500# heavy. No real-world data to know that 1.25 isn't appropriate, but concerns (which are possibly valid) that 1.25 is low. That's why every car in the ITCS should have been run through the process, and set at process weight. I know you guys were trying to do that w/ ITB, and got the rug pulled out from under you (maybe that's a better visual for Kirk ). The tools are in place to correct those cars that show to be dominant, or warrant a power factor other than 1.25. I don't understand why the CRB doesn't want to use them.

I have no problem w/ different cars getting different power factors, or different adders, my biggest thing has always been to treat all cars the same. If some show that they're better than the sum of the parts, add weight. It's a lot harder to know if they're lesser than the sum of their parts, due to what I said above, but if the arguement is compelling, you can correct those as well.

BTW, if a 99hp Daytona lands in ITC @ 2280#, a 90hp Rabbit GTI should land in ITC @ 2135# (and that's w/ a 1.30 power factor).

Bill,

You do realize that the ITB civic makes 90hp from the factory as well and gets a 35% multiplier. Your split to the civic in theory wouldn't change if you were moved to ITC, you'd just screw up a class. If you think you should be moved and the civic shouldn't, well now your just playing give me what I want, not what is best for everyone.

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

You do realize that the ITB civic makes 90hp from the factory as well and gets a 35% multiplier. Your split to the civic in theory wouldn't change if you were moved to ITC, you'd just screw up a class. If you think you should be moved and the civic shouldn't, well now your just playing give me what I want, not what is best for everyone.

Well, if they're supposed to be evenly matched in ITB, you should be able to make them evenly matched in ITC. How does the Civic / CRX Si in ITB get to 2130#? Does it get additional adders for the front & rear suspension? My math puts it at between 2035# and 2040#, using the published 91hp, a 1.35 power factor, and the -50# FWD adder.

So yes, if you're going to move one, move the other. But this is where an open, documented process would answer a lot of questions. Like why a 99hp Dodge Daytona would be in ITC, but a 90hp Rabbit GTI and a 91hp Civic/CRX Si would be in ITB.

[frnkhous]

Bill

I guess my point is it doesn't. ITC is the place of 70 crank hp shitboxes. I own one, fortunately it's a 90 civic so if this madness took place i'd be an engine and transmission away from being back in a car that made sense for the class. 99chp cars have no business in ITC unless they can't get under 2500lbs(New Beetle) or they literally make almost zero gains in IT trim. My civic is TB injected and they make 35% gains. If they actually would move a car without evidence that it couldn't make power i'd be shocked. And I definetly don't defend the process, I think ITR is all jacked up personally. And it likely won't ever be straigtened out now. Hell a member of the ITAC won't build a newly listed car because he freely admits it is too heavy.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Hell a member of the ITAC won't build a newly listed car because he freely admits it is too heavy.

That probably needs to be clarified. 'Too heavy' is perception. Just because you have to ballast it up to meet the target power to weight ratio doesn't mean it's too heavy in comparision to other cars and power levels. It may mean it's too heavy 'in my mind'. I fully feel that way about the 330 BMW. I like less weight but damn that car could make some power.

The great thing about ITR (and what I think is holding it back as well) is that there is no obvious choice. The Bimmers are built and the recipe is known so they fill the grids. People are wary of an 'investment' without a known chance.

[seckerich]

That probably needs to be clarified. 'Too heavy' is perception. Just because you have to ballast it up to meet the target power to weight ratio doesn't mean it's too heavy in comparision to other cars and power levels. It may mean it's too heavy 'in my mind'. I fully feel that way about the 330 BMW. I like less weight but damn that car could make some power.

The great thing about ITR (and what I think is holding it back as well) is that there is no obvious choice. The Bimmers are built and the recipe is known so they fill the grids. People are wary of an 'investment' without a known chance.

To clarify that a little farther Andy, people are smart enough not to make the investment on a grossly misweighted car compared to what it races against. The weight is not an issue if it is relative to what it races. Everything about an ITR build is more expensive. Tires, motors, base car, etc. It is a huge investment in a class that has serious classing issues.

[Bill Miller]

People are wary of an 'investment' without a known chance.

Andy,

I think that holds true for all the IT classes. ITR is just newer, and they're aren't that many cars that have been built yet (BMW's notwithstanding). What actually makes that more relevant for the rest of IT, is that you've got cars out there that people KNOW don't have a chance. You get a few people building them because that's the car they want to run. But most of those folks are just happy to race, they aren't committed to running at the pointy end of the grid. That's why the CRB needs to get their heads out of their butts (didn't someone request this in FasTrack?) and put all of IT on a level playing field, and go from there.

[gran racing]

Post the great alignment, how many cars had weight adjusted in total?

[Bill Miller]

Post the great alignment, how many cars had weight adjusted in total?

It's in FasTrack. I know I looked it up, and thought I posted it in one of the other threads where we were discussing it. I think shortly after Kirk announced his resignation, and the info about the CRB's new position on adjusting cars being in violation of the GCR.

[Knestis]

Post the great alignment, how many cars had weight adjusted in total?

Is the question how many got changed during the GR (or not-so-great, as the case may be) or how many have been reviewed SINCE then? Note that the latter category includes some that were not recommended by the ITAC for a change based on the process, some that were and got changed, and some that were recommended but stalled out at the CRB.

K