Any news on ITB weights???

[Andy Bettencourt]

I just wish you wouldn't claim that the "porking" of the ITR Corvette (a car you had a vested interest in) is some sort of evidence that the Process/Ops Manual isn't working. It is. The real issue is consistency and manipulation during the original development of the ITR classifications.

How do I have a vested interest in a car I don't own that a friend built in his garage on his own? I guess I am emotionally vested because we talked about what car to build and about what weight it could have been if it was classed at 25% and no DW adder (roughly 3035lbs with the 150 for tq)

So according to the Ops Man, it should have gotten 25%. It didn't. Why? Because there was a consistency issue to deal with. Again, I can buy that. Class everything like whats there then fix the WHOLE thing. I agree with that to some degree. But then the opposite happened with the DW. Ignoring consistency (or just the ignorance of ITR classification parameters) the Ops Man was followed (also largely to to a transcription error) to put weight on. See how that isn't right?

The Ops Manual only works if 1. it's correct and 2. you use it 100% of the time. I just don't see what the argument is here...and let's not mention 'it's only 50 lbs'. It's either 'right' or it's not.

Also, the term 'porking' sounded harsher than it was meant. It was tongue-in-cheek for weight that shouldn't be on the car, it any quantity 1lb or 100lbs.

on edit: I went back to look at why I even used the term...and it was about applying the rules evenly. We may disagree but I feel the Corvette could have gone in at 25%/no DW and should have gone in at 30% and no DW but it got both which to me is a simple 'can't have it both ways' scenario.

ITR will get cleaned up in due time but I can tell you that if you just go in blind at 25% the class is toast. I am sure validation on HP estimated will be done and not many changes will be made.