Wow, I go away for a couple of weeks, and I miss all the fun!

Really nice to see the Process documented, codified, and published. Hard to believe it's taken almost 10 years to get to this. Regardless,

I would like to see a clause in there that would require a note on the spec line as to the reasoning behind why a deviation from the process weight is used. For example "Power factor set a 1.29 based on dyno results of x (minimum 5) cars."

Looks simple and straight-forward, which is a good thing. I still think the 30% factor for multi-valve cars only in B & C is BS, but I'm guess that there are enough folks out there that feel the same way, so letters should be forthcoming. I honestly don't see how it can stand up to any kind of rigorous analysis as to why it was done.

I still laugh when I hear the "But it's an Atlantic motor" line. Funny that people only trotted that out for the MR2, but you never heard a peep when they moved the FX16 to ITB (which also runs a 4A-GE motor).

I feel for the Volvo guys, nothing solid to go on. Good thing nobody in ITC is running a Cortina! But, that's just one more reason why you need to be able to process cars where you have any kind of reliable, comparable published data.

I'm guessing that this guide was not in place prior to the issuance of the March FasTrack. Otherwise I would have expected more detailed explanation as to why the 2.3L Audi GT's lost 50# and the 2.2L version didn't change at all, yet both appear to be 200# above the process weight as determined by the formula in the Operations Guide.

As far as the main operations manual compelling people to remove themselves from discussions that would directly impact them (and to me, that's either their car, or a car in the their class), I think it's safe to say that that doesn't always happen.