ITB - what a bunch of crap

[Andy Bettencourt]

It doesn't even appear that the A2 Golf is accurate:
105x1.25x17=2231
-50 (fwd)
+50 (tq)
= A process weight of 2230. Current spec is 2280 so even it is 50lbs overweight.

And a good example of why the crap hits the fan if everyone runs their car through the 'process'. You say it's 'innaccurate'. I am not sure the A2 was classed during the process tenure but it could have easily been this:

105 x 1.3 x 17 = 2321
-50 (fwd)
2271 or 2270.

We have been documenteing everything over the past year...another reason why going in a checking (and correcting) everything is a good idea IMHO.

I took ITB last night and 'corrected' all of them. There are easily 25-30% of the cars that don't make ANY sense because of old HP ratings. Do the excersize and tell me that you would be happy with the result - AND be able to defend your position.

I think now my position has changed. I think we reset about half of the cars and wait for requests on the ones that have little info. When someone requests a looksie, that person had better have a metric-shit-ton of info to help us help them...or else its all just a huge SWAG.

Example: Plymouth Fire Arrow @ 110 hp. 2.6L and rwd. Go for it. Currently at 2360.

Dave Gran - front suspension type?

[dazzlesa]

is scotts's calculations right?

[shwah]

is scotts's calculations right?

If Andy's are right, I need to get a quote from him to build a new engine.

[shwah]

Yes what is really missing is the documentation of when the cars were classed and/or reviewed. That is a great improvement that you guys have made.

More likely IMO, the car was classed in the early/mid 90s, Chris Albin won the ARRC 3 times with it, and no way no how was weight going to come off during the realignment. We like to say that on track performance does not impact performance. It appears that a similar effect has taken place with the Civic.

Again, this is all just fun interwebdebation unless the ITAC or CRB will actually be permitted to make changes on a larger scale. If not then it will be as current status quo - review on a as requested basis, and leave the giant tolerance in place.

[jjjanos]

I took ITB last night and 'corrected' all of them.

No fair keeping secrets.

There are easily 25-30% of the cars that don't make ANY sense because of old HP ratings. Do the excersize and tell me that you would be happy with the result - AND be able to defend your position.

"These are the rules underwhich new cars are classified. Consistency and fairness requires that all cars be classified under the same system. Your car received an unfair advantage/disadvantage because it was classified using a system that was deemed inaccurate. If your car no longer is competitive/an underdog, please refer to the IT section of the GCR where it clearly states that we do not guarantee the competitiveness of any car."

I think now my position has changed. I think we reset about half of the cars and wait for requests on the ones that have little info. When someone requests a looksie, that person had better have a metric-shit-ton of info to help us help them...or else its all just a huge SWAG.

I like that solution, but I'd like to suggest an adder - if the car hasn't been raced in the last 3 years, delist it if the information isn't available. When/if a request to classify it occurs, either the required information is produced or the factors used are the most disadvantaged. (i.e. if 35% is the max HP multiplier for any car, then no info = 35% HP multiplier).