And that's where I see a big issue with that approach. Ask yourself this question, would you even consider spending a bucket of cash to build a serious, 10/10ths effort with a car that was that grossly mis-classed? You can't really use info on other builds (non-IT), as who knows if they're legal or not. So, you need IT examples to know if something other than a 1.25 power factor is appropriate, yet nobody's building full tilt examples because the car is 500# heavy. No real-world data to know that 1.25 isn't appropriate, but concerns (which are possibly valid) that 1.25 is low. That's why every car in the ITCS should have been run through the process, and set at process weight. I know you guys were trying to do that w/ ITB, and got the rug pulled out from under you (maybe that's a better visual for Kirk
). The tools are in place to correct those cars that show to be dominant, or warrant a power factor other than 1.25. I don't understand why the CRB doesn't want to use them.
I have no problem w/ different cars getting different power factors, or different adders, my biggest thing has always been to treat all cars the same. If some show that they're better than the sum of the parts, add weight. It's a lot harder to know if they're lesser than the sum of their parts, due to what I said above, but if the arguement is compelling, you can correct those as well.
BTW, if a 99hp Daytona lands in ITC @ 2280#, a 90hp Rabbit GTI should land in ITC @ 2135# (and that's w/ a 1.30 power factor).
Bookmarks