ITAC News.

[Andy Bettencourt]

the problem, however you slice it, is that the ops manual and the "old" ITR cars classing maths don't agree.

newer ITR cars have been processed using the ops manual, as we have all agreed to do. asking helps us ID why the ops manual math doesn't work, but I think the math should work, it's based on sound principles. I also think that we should rerun the class with the math we said we would use, because this class is growing and the unblance will get worse in not much time.

I'd say the same about ITS-C but they are much better established and some cars "work" without being "right" by process, and that is understood and we just have to recognize that these guys seem to be appropritately classed by whatever circumstance or happy accident and move on. anything not properly classed should be addressed via the ops manual.

I say keep the DW adder in R, but apply it to all "advanced" deisgns (be they FWD, RWD, or AWD) and document that decision as we document all of our decisions.

so you will have
RWD +50 "advanced suspension"
RWD "neutral" suspension
RWD -50 RWD live axle
FWD -6% +50 "Advanced suspension"
FWD -6% -50 Strut. I'm willing to update the ops manual to remove this adder if the rest of the ITAC agrees with me. the other adders make it irrelevant.

yes, you could do -50 for "neutral" and FWD strut suspensions but then you have a functionally different adder schema through the ITCS. I prefer this way, and as an aside it adds a touch of weight to the FWD guys who are having trouble getting down (I'm looking at you, celica).

sorry if this upsets any one in the membership and/or old guard. I think the long term effects will be positive and the short term will be minimal.

Thanks for the thoughts Chip. Questions:

asking helps us ID why the ops manual math doesn't work, but I think the math should work, it's based on sound principles.

Why doesn't it 'work' - because everything wasn't locked in at 25%? That's not how the process is supposed to work. Otherwise it's a formula.

What other cars besides the Vette have been processed in ITR with the 'new' Ops manual? Curious. Can't think of any.

the problem, however you slice it, is that the ops manual and the "old" ITR cars classing maths don't agree.

I disagree wholeheartedly. The OPS manual shouldn't say 'use 25% in every case no matter what'. ITR had a shit-ton of thought put into it to really try and estimate potential on the front end because they were so different that cars that were getting classed just 3-5 years prior. Tremendous specific outputs and such. When the weights were done, a lot of it was done using internet research and COMMON SENSE. The S2000 for example. 15% gains predicted. 240hp out of a N/A 2.0L. You change that, the Type R etc, and you will murder them. Yes, process first, THEN you look to see if it makes sense. Drill that into our heads. If it doesn't pass the smell test, research is done. You guys know but it seems to be getting lost in the wash somewhere. Yes, the class is growing. Say that again. Agree or disagree with the %'s used during classification no problem, but the ITAC needs to define what is right, then codify it...not lock in on 'but this is what the manual says we have to do'. Change the manual if it's wrong (see Josh's posts).

RWD +50 "advanced suspension"
RWD "neutral" suspension
RWD -50 RWD live axle
FWD -6% +50 "Advanced suspension"
FWD -6% -50 Strut. I'm willing to update the ops manual to remove this adder if the rest of the ITAC agrees with me. the other adders make it irrelevant.

I guess I don't see the reasoning to slice this up into a million pieces. PLEASE DON'T ADD WEIGHT...just subtract it. Cars over 3000lbs now are going to gain more.

Why not (if you really want to add stuff):

Base car has 'Advanced suspension' TBD by ITAC, must be defined (no matter FWD or RWD, no need to clarify)
-50 for solid axle
FWD -6%
FWD -6% - 50 for strut

Soup.