ITS e36 BMW

[Bill Miller]

development is only penalized if the end result makes attempts to put developed and undeveloped cars at the same laptime. the goal here is to put developed cars back into the strata we define as "correct as classed" or move that definition to fit them. if "we" really believe that 25% gains are a real nominal expectation (and it's as resonable a value as one could use to blanket a mix of cars like this) then that value is the one to use. anything exceeding gets pulled back, stuff that can't get there gets a bump. with data, when agreed upon, etc...

or like I said earlier, we could hold ourselves to a higher standard of discovery and do some real footwork to see what an engine might gain. it's difficult, and a real known answer on a new car would be imossible to determine exactly, but we could get a better feel for it, and make better assumptions than just throwing 25% (or 30, or 35) at everything that comes accross the "desk".

the point is to get a developed car into the right range. right now as you describe it, there are many above the indicated potential, so reset the goal. added development should get you higher in that box, lack of development means lower inside or below the box. make decisions based on what we know from actually well developed builds and expect the same work for any car (i.e. not lowering the target to make it more accessible). yes, that can put off new development for some, but those people still have the option of riding coat tails to a great degree using a known platform, and I'm sure that the OPMs, Flat Outs, and ISCs of the world will be more than happy to help them do so.

Chip, you're essentially talking about competition adjustments. (I'll save Kirk from saying it. BLEH!). But, I'm not sure what other way there is around correcting cars that don't make a 25% gain (either too high or too low). And using 'what we know' during the classification process is a defacto comp. adj., and yes, it punishes development. I guess the important question is, how close do you want the cars in IT to fit the regression line for their given classes? If you're trying to level the playing field, then yes, development gets penalized. And using whp gets at not only engine development, but driveline development. You have to ask yourself if that's the ultimate goal of IT.

I see both sides of the argument. On one hand, you want things to be balanced, and the competition to be good, but on the other, you penalize the folks that spend the time, money, and effort to improve their entire package. Tough spot.