Despite how some of my posts might be read (or even state) I tend to agree that FWD is in a technical sense (all else being equal) a disadvantage to RWD in most situations.
The problem is, was and will be quantification.
We can't say that Bosch Motorsports Engineering and Lapsim was "unbiased" and a "math expert" because we have absolutely no idea how they calculated the FWD deficiency. None.
And it absolutely was used as part of the Process. It was used to justify the "guesses" we made on what percentage deduct we should use for R, S and A.
Each of the 'subjective' adders and deducts are problematic to me. That applies to the ones that would affect my car negatively -- the torque adder -- and those that would help, like the live rear axle deduct, or the brake deduct.
Again, this is all water under the bridge. I'm not advocating we do away with this adder. It's been in use for too long and it's clearly not overly disruptive. But I do think the whole story on how it came into being needs to be trotted out as an example of what not to do for "objective" car weighting.
Originally Posted by
Knestis
4. As has been demonstrated here to good effect, any guesstimates from the crowd are going to be disputed by someone else, so an external, unbiased, math expert was called in - Bosch Motorsport Engineering and their LapSim software.
5. LapSim was not used as part of the Process (as has been incorrectly stated around here). It was used to establish cut points for the IT classes, using estimates of the upper and lower HP limits likely in each, to arrive at the percentage deducts codified by the ITAC.
NC Region
1980 ITS Triumph TR8
Bookmarks