Proposed change to TIR table....

[Greg Amy]

Add another column to the same table showing either:

No, I don't think we want to get into that (IMO). That table is purely to spec baseline TIR vs weight; if we added in another column then we need to add in all the other class adders/subtractors such as struts, moved suspension points, and so forth.

I may, however, look into summarizing all the adders/subtractors into a common area at the end. - GA

[Matt93SE]

I think you're overhtinking it at that point. the chart was (and still is) the baseline weight for each particular chassis.
want to make absolutely clear on it? then stick a big bold disclaimer above or below the table mentioning these are the baselines and all other adders/subtracters still apply.

[Greg Amy]

[QUOTE=Matt93SE;342955the chart was (and still is) the baseline weight for each particular chassis.[/QUOTE]
The TIR/weight chart? That has absolutely nothing to do with any specific engine or chassis. That chart simply says that if you're running a turbocharged engine, you must weigh XXXX pounds when running a YY mm TIR. You get to pick. All the new reg does is reduce that TIR by 2mm with a RWD or AWD car. - GA

[Z3_GoCar]

Here's an idea instead of singling out two types of drive systems, why not single out the lone exception. IE... reduce the sizes in the TIR chart by 2mm and then state the Fwd chassis get to open up the TIR size by 2mm, for a given weight?

[Matt93SE]

we're splitting hairs here, guys. make it simple, make it obvious.

[JIgou]

we're splitting hairs here, guys. make it simple, make it obvious.

Send the turbos packing?

[jmac36]

So, Greg, tell me, if Marc was running a 32 mm already @ xxxx weight, that means he will now have to be 32 and xxxx plus the 200 lbs or so( two steps up the table)?

[Z3_GoCar]

Send the turbos packing?

So, if we get a repeat performance of turbo run-away at the run-offs again would you consider sending the turbo's packing?