ITB - what a bunch of crap

[tnord]

Didn't ignore it, Nord, simply rejected it. Multiple times. As have most other logical people that have read it...

so you're rejecting that we end up in the same place even if the car is broken out on a separate line?

or are you rejecting the idea that we should use "what we know" to adjust the power multiplier?

[Xian]

so you're rejecting that we end up in the same place even if the car is broken out on a separate line?

or are you rejecting the idea that we should use "what we know" to adjust the power multiplier?

If they're broken out on a separate line then the earlier car will make more then 25% in gains... later 133hp car based at 25% gains... result: more but equivalent weight for both cars.

Use "what we know"... 128hp car makes more than 25% gains... result: more weight.

I think a reasonable thing to do would be to use the "maximum factory output" to spec the weight on these (and all!!) cars. The ITAC has already gone down the road of using "what we know" on the Honda's no reason to stop now...

[tnord]

If they're broken out on a separate line then the earlier car will make more then 25% in gains... later 133hp car based at 25% gains... result: more but equivalent weight for both cars.

Use "what we know"... 128hp car makes more than 25% gains... result: more weight.

um, no it doesn't.

[Andy Bettencourt]

If they're broken out on a separate line then the earlier car will make more then 25% in gains... later 133hp car based at 25% gains... result: more but equivalent weight for both cars.

Use "what we know"... 128hp car makes more than 25% gains... result: more weight.

I think a reasonable thing to do would be to use the "maximum factory output" to spec the weight on these (and all!!) cars. The ITAC has already gone down the road of using "what we know" on the Honda's no reason to stop now...

I think you could easily argue that the 96/97 car is more optimized. Why would you assume you should add to the 25%? Maybe the later cars are LESS than 25%.

They are the same in IT trim. 128hp is the more accurate power number. There is no data to the contrary given the IT rules.

I appreciate the debate. Dead Horse - beaten.

[Xian]

I think you could easily argue that the 96/97 car is more optimized. Why would you assume you should add to the 25%? Maybe the later cars are LESS than 25%.

They are the same in IT trim. 128hp is the more accurate power number. There is no data to the contrary given the IT rules.

I appreciate the debate. Dead Horse - beaten.

True... dead horse. The basic disagreement we have is that I think the earlier car is making more than 25% in gains. You don't.

Assuming a 25% gains on 128hp and 15% driveline loss this means that none of these cars should be making more than mid 135's at the wheels... that's below the figures I've heard. Assuming the same gains and losses on the 133hp cars, they should be making a touch over 140. This is more in line with the figures I've "heard" and would imagine they can make in IT trim. If you don't mind sharing, what sort of power have you seen out of a 10/10ths built car?

[Greg Amy]

so you're rejecting that we end up in the same place even if the car is broken out on a separate line?

I don't know from what rock dug this red herring; as far as I know that option is not on the table (nor should it be). What I'm rejecting is the "logical" course of action that ended up with the 1.8L Miata being formulated using the lower of the two available weights (despite evidence of other cars being treated wholly differently.)

The base problem here is that you are trying to have your cake and eat it too: on the one hand you state we should base weights on stock factory listed power (but only when applied to the earlier 1.8L Miata), yet on the other hand you support adjusting weights based on "what we know" (e.g., CRX and later 1.8L Miata). In the specific case of the Miata, you want the car weighted based on its earlier (lower) rated horsepower. What you're TRYING to (unsuccessfully) convince us is that the actual "known" output of both engines is the same as the 25% adder to the 125(?) hp engine, that the later engine only gets ~18% increase in IT trim. That, my friend, is "known info adjustments", not basing decisions on manufacturer's data and standard formulas.

Absent all that "knowledge", you know that any other car would be - and has been - classified using the higher of the two horsepower figures. Any confusion as to why people see this as favorable treatment...?

If you want to propose breaking out the two cars on separate lines, be my guest! My prediction - a silly-easy one to make - is that the later one will be initially ignored, but in the end the earlier one will eventually get adjusted based on "what we know", just like what happened to the Honda CRX, and they'll both be put back on the same line, this time with the weight calculated using the standard formula on the later car's horsepower figures.

Go ahead: prove me wrong.

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Absent all that "knowledge", you know that any other car would be - and has been - classified using the higher of the two horsepower figures. Any confusion as to why people see this as favorable treatment...?

GA

But we have the knowledge. Again, it was formulated using the ONLY available rating at the time. When the higher rating was requested, we used facts and common sense to determine that it was 100% the same car as what was aready listed. Hence the weight. Can't explain it any better or any more. YMMV.

Philisophically, I agree and it is the general rule. But when you know something, you know it.

[Greg Amy]

When the higher rating was requested, we used facts and common sense to determine that it was 100% the same car as what was aready listed. Hence the weight.

Had you considered that, given new evidence facing you of a factory rating of 133 hp form a "100% same car" that you were 100% wrong on the first car, just as you were with the CRX (and any/all other cars you've subjectively adjusted)? Or, that, absent the existence of earlier car (to paraphrase you, had Mazda "gotten it right" the first time), there would be zero (as in, none, nada, zip) consideration to classifying the car at a lower factory horsepower rating?

No one's convinced by the description of the sequence of events; in fact, hanging your hat solely on that excuse just comes across as reaching. Are you willing to come outright and tell us that if there had never been a 125 hp car that you'd classify the Miata at its current weight? Then I'll buy your line of thought.

LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR: I, Greg Amy, am not accusing you, Andy Bettencourt of a conscious conflict of interest. I know you far too well for that and I consider you a personal friend. I truly believe that you believe what you're saying. I'm simply pointing out that were the tables turned on another vehicle your choices may/would be different.

Done. I know it's a dead horse because there's just no interest in the ITAC in revisiting this issue again (a pity). But this albatross, as well as the outstanding "dark" issues of weight classification and formulation, will always be hanging around the neck of the ITAC, as a constant reminder of the "deals" going on in the closed-door sessions of classifying cars in Improved Touring.

GA