Before my time, but that wasn't the only bogie car right? Wasn't the A2 Golf used as well, and maybe others?

The present power to weight ratio for ITB seems to slot in appropriately between A and C, and doesn't "look" off although I agree that should not be the end of the analysis.

Did the use of the Volvo numbers really cause that much of an error? Or was it mitigated by the use of other bogie cars?

Quote Originally Posted by JoshS View Post
Charlie, I don't think the process needs fixing, but some classifications do, especially in ITB. Here's what I think is going on:

The process is based on a power-to-weight formula. To pick the right power-to-weight ratio, each class had a bogie car or two picked, and then the right ratio was reverse engineered from those cars' specs. However, ITB got messed up because the Volvo 142E was picked as a bogie, however, it's horsepower was never published in SAE Net terms, only SAE Gross (Volvo switched to SAE net a year later). So, when other cars had the same ratio applied, they ended up lighter than they should have. Meaning that cars that were considered equal to the Volvo are now slower than more recently-classed cars. Two possible fixes there -- alter the ITB target ratio and make the newer cars heavier, or leave the ratio and make the old cars lighter. No decision on that point but I've been assuming we'd do the latter, as the newer cars are generally the more popular ones at this point. It's clear you'd prefer the former, and I understand that.