ITB - what a bunch of crap

[Knestis]

(NOTE - make sure you read critically so you understand what is my understanding of how things are, vs. what I PERSONALLY think.)

Next - and it makes some people's heads hurt when I do things like this - I'd like to propose that we get clearer on a couple of terms. (And this is in response to those of you who asked me to PM/email you the "process.")

The PROCESS is the actual math and accompanying steps that determine from a limited set of factors, what the race weight of a car should be.

I'd propose the addition of a distinct term - call it the PROCEDURE - that is the sum of the practices around how the process is applied.

* * *

The process is pretty simple: Take the quoted stock horsepower, apply an "IT power multiplier," and multiply it by a class-specific adder, to get the "base weight."

To that are added or subtracted a very limited number of incremental amounts for specific mechanical attributes - FWD gets a minus weight (50 or 100), brakes a plus or minus (50, but that's been applied pretty rarely), suspension (+50 for A-arms, the base presumes struts; -50 for "bad designs"), gear ratios (I don't think I've seen that in my time on the ITAC yet), and "other" - which as far as I know is mid-engine layout or good/lousy torque).

The engine power multiplier is typically 1.25. We have a tendency to make adjustments to that based on "type" (e.g., "smogged up '70s POS"). There ARE other multipliers that have been applied for special cases. I PERSONALLY think that some of them are not particularly well grounded in evidence but all were determined by people who were very confident in their numbers. Further (personally), I'd prefer that we (a) document and codify these "types," and add them only grudgingly; and (b) require a really huge standard of evidence to do anything "special."

The class multipliers have been shared here before - 11.25, 12.9, 14.5, 17.0, 18.84, for R to C.

NOW, we have this clause that says, "Review the resulting classification weight and determine if the results are acceptable. Some adjustments may need to be made, but in general, the final result should be VERY close to what the recommended specification weight should be." My PERSONAL opinion is that this has been used too liberally in the past, but it tends NOT to be currently.

* * *

The procedure is a different thing, and frankly this is where many of the issues seem to be hiding. The obvious example is the "how close is close enough" question. It's NOT entirely silly to accept the notion that ANY change has costs. I personally think that the costs are small where changing a spec weight are concerned. Equally though, I think the cost IS great enough to not make it worth doing if nobody cares enough to make a request. (It's a close thing because the magnitudes are tiny.)

Another "procedure" question is, "What triggers review?" 2nd Great Realignment? Something else? One issue that I don't *think* has been mentioned is that when the first great realignment happened, it was granted by the board based on a promise that it would only be done once. (Remember this was in the day when there was NO way to address the problem of a maladjusted IT car, other than moving it to another class.)

I'm NOT going to get in the business here of making the case for why +/-100 pounds is the right answer, because I frankly don't believe that it's a good answer.

* * *

In short, I think it would be a VERY good idea if we could separate the issues of process from those of procedure. One problem we have with complex policies like this is that people say "no" to one little piece of the puzzle because they hate just that, while other people say "no" to a different piece. If they tried to figure out what aspects of the policy they agreed on, they might move forward and could work out the differences later.

K