FWD vs RWD: Adders, Subtractors, and Weight, Oh my...!

[JeffYoung]

Kirk, thanks. That is exactly what I would like to see.

Greg, not trying to turn this into a Jeff Young v. Greg Amy thread, truly I'm not, and I don't think you are either.

But, this can't work this way: "accept my theory, and then I'll give you my math to back it up."

Like Kirk said, assume we agree with your theory -- because we mostly do -- and run some numbers. Show us what a non-linear subtractor would look for B cars v. A cars v. S cars v. R cars.

Kirk, question for you. If we allow this, then as a matter of theory and consistent practice, what do we do with the guy who runs similar formulas for brake performance based on swept area and weight? Do we start generating deducts for him? Or aero?

I don't disagree with Greg's theory. But I see a slippery slope here in classification rules creep that is in my view far more dangerous than removing washer bottles and passenger glass. If we end up with a 10 page classing document on how to class cars with various formulas, we are in big trouble.

Okay, Greg - I'm really into this idea.

Let's assume, in the very broadest terms, that more mass exacerbates the issues you've described. (I think that's a fair starting point.) Make whatever other assumptions you want, and see if you can get your line to hit a couple of common examples at their current FWD-adder adjusted weight (e.g., the GolfIII in B, and the GSR in S, maybe?).

How might the math look...?

K

[Knestis]

...Kirk, question for you. If we allow this, then as a matter of theory and consistent practice, what do we do with the guy who runs similar formulas for brake performance based on swept area and weight? Do we start generating deducts for him? Or aero? ...

I'm not proposing we consider any new variables in the process (either here or in the other discussion):

** We already use "big chunk" FWD subtractors, applied objectively (Y/N) but the values were picked subjectively - I'm looking here at figuring out a way to be more granular about it.

** We already apply different "IT power factors," based on "what we know," best guesses, informal standards of engine architecture, history, etc. In the other thread, the "Nordquist Proposition" suggests that we could make those completely objective, based on physical attributes of the car. That's always been my gold standard.

I'm on record as believing that diminishing returns sets in pretty damned quickly after the factors we already worry about. That doesn't change.

K