Quote Originally Posted by JeffYoung View Post
I agree it's probably not accurate, assumptions rarely are 100% of the time.

I just see anything other than going with a "roughly fair" default until we know better from actual dyno numbers (which we all do understand are to be closely scrutinized) as being "wild guesses" based on on track performance that aren't repeatable and consistent.

At least with the 25% default, until there is actual data, there is repeatability and consistentcy, which for IT is I think a paramount principle.
That is where we differ in opinion. It is not a wild guess to look at a car that has been competitive and conclude that it can compete (given many other variable conditions) in it's current state. However since I recognize the difficulty in defining or agreeing what a percieved competitive car is, and all of the potential negative side effects of trying to do that I suggested ignoring that fact completely.

What I proposed is essentially limit how dramatic of a weight change that we allow in a single step - regardless of percieved competitiveness. Make a smaller move, I suggested moving it 1/2 the distance, and don't make another move without obtaining more data to confirm that it needs to move (and conversely make darn sure you do make a 2nd move should any appropriate, acceptable data be presented to support it).

The idea is to act as a throttle on the rate of weight change, without preventing it from ending up at the initial process number - if appropriate. I think taking too large a step in weight change presents a risk to 'upsetting the apple cart' of a given IT class, which we all seem to agree are, from a macro view, giving us good competitive multi marque racing. I also think someone that has a car that was grossly mis classed in years gone by should not have to wait for data to prove the negative that their car can not make enough power to justify the old weight. It's a compromise of sorts.