FWD vs RWD: Adders, Subtractors, and Weight, Oh my...!

[JeffYoung]

Ditto, and I'd like to see the math.

[Greg Amy]

Ditto, and I'd like to see the math.

Well, ironically, the problem with the objective math in this application is...it's subjective. The end failure of such an exercise - and the root of my comment in another location stating it's likely pointless - is that it has to pass someone's subjective sniff test.

It's "easy" to use math to describe a natural phenomena: you measure many points of observation and use appropriate mathematics to predict it. Continue with enough points and eventually you're proven right or wrong. Math is nothing more a descriptive/predictive tool.

Using math in vehicle classifications is no different, except now you're asking me to predict in advance of observation, and at the same point of changing the observations from the existing norm. Said simply, for example, I'm telling you I want to make the subtractors higher for ITS, and possibly even higher than that for ITR, so I can assure you my mathematics will fit that premise. You can bet that any formula I provide to you will fir that base assumption. Problem is, I have no doubt my premise varies widely from yours, so you will, no doubt, reject the idea of formulation rather than rejecting the specific formula itself.

I presented the above treatise for two reasons: one, it's snowing outside and I'm bored; and two, I want the idea breached that the FWD subtractors in ITS and ITR need adjustment. "How much" is open for discussion, and once we have a few of those specific observations I'll be glad to provide to you a mathematical formula through which to remove subsequent subjective decisions.

For reference, provided as a subjective example, I think any FWD car with over 160 hp should have a minimum of a 150# weight advantage over a comparable RWD car if not more (and I'm talking in terms if dynamics only, given I cannot illustrate that premise with any reasonable and comparable on-track performance). Given no experience with ITR cars, I cannot speak to that; but I suggest given similar dynamics a formula can be derived using existing ITA/B/C examples, the above-suggested ITS example, and have that extended forward to ITR.

As I said, this could very easily go back to the whole ideal of stepped subtractors per category or horsepower bracket, especially given our tendency to "round down" to the nearest hundred (a different issue within itself). But the idea should be given consideration. - GA

[Knestis]

Well, ironically, the problem with the objective math in this application is...it's subjective. The end failure of such an exercise - and the root of my comment in another location stating it's likely pointless - is that it has to pass someone's subjective sniff test. ...

But that's a policy issue, not a technical issue.

We HAVE to make some operative assumptions if we're going to have a repeatable process. We KNOW we won't be perfect. We've demonstrated that the membership we've heard from want us to be "more accurate" than we currently are. The policy question is, "How do we get appropriately close?"

I'd WAY rather make ONE set of assumptions, then let the numbers fall out for the individual cases, than to keep making new assumptions specific to make/model cases as they come up.

K