Originally Posted by
Knestis
Sorry - late to the party. Long day of meetings etc.
So Josh isn't hanging out here by himself, here's the details on how we documented the specification process.
238*1.15*11.25-100=2979.13
And here's a request: Please consider that it is possible for the ITAC to get multiple "real world" data points for a single make/model under consideration, each of which is submitted by someone who has absolute confidence in his figures, and all of which are different. I am NOT pointing a finger at Steve - he clearly has a ton of experience and I've met nobody who's said he's anything besides a completely straight shooter - but are you all sure that you want us making classification/specification recommendations to the board based on our subjective judgments of the merits and qualifications of the various "experts" submitting data to support particular positions?
How do we resolve to an entire IT class field that we made a weight classification for the 2004 Putzmobile based on the most expert input possible, when that guy happens to be building them for customers?
YES - he is in the best position to know what's what about his car.
NO - we can't "Know" (with a capital K, like the capital T in "Truth") if he's fibbing to us or not, even if he's the most trustworthy guy in the paddock.
BUT - he doesn't have to be fibbing to us for it to create a problem for the entire process, the ITAC, and the Club. Just the simple appearance of impropriety is enough to mess things up far worse in the long term than if we miss the weight of a single classification by 100#.
We got the MR2 listed in B - FINALLY - at its process weight of 2525 pounds. The reason that took MONTHS is that we got sucked into trying to use "real world evidence," motivated by the desire to make the best decision possible. I think that by the time we were deep into it, we had "proof" from people that seemed knowledgeable and trustworthy, that the car COULD make its ITA minimum weight, that it could NOT, that it didn't make "predicted IT gains" with a full build, and that it did. We clearly can't believe everyone so what do we do?
It's terribly dangerous to step on the slippery slope of putting cars on dynos. Jeff asks about a 325-to-RX8 comparison using "proven" horsepower but we don't have any protocol in place that we can use to "prove" anything in any way that is beyond reproach. While that process might well have gotten this one closer to it's "correct" weight, is it a process that we can use for all future classifications? And can apply retroactively to all currently listed cars, so they are getting the same "fair" treatment?
Do you really want the ITAC to solicit input from any and all interested parties (that tend to break out into two camps - the drivers who want to race the car in question and those against whom they'll be racing) and give the nod to the ones who make the most compelling presentation?
At the end of the day, clarity, repeatability, and transparency were the priority. We have some areas where we can tweak (e.g., the 1.15 multiplier, 100# torque subtractor) and in this case we used those tools as we believed best. I'd hope that you'd at least grant your ITAC members that they're trying to maintain the integrity of the process, and respect the fact that they put that ahead of trying get the weight of this particular car adjusted to closer than the 3-4% difference in weight that we're talking about here.
Finally, I'll echo the concern that we don't yet have an completely satisfactory way to account for torque. Having some experience with it, I believe that this is the Golf's "secret weapon." It's other cars' Achilles heel. In neither case do we adequately consider that as a variable (I don't think). But until/unless we adopt a revised process, I'm still very confident that sticking to the one we have is best for us all over the longer term.
K
Bookmarks