300Z
Type R
S2000 (except 1)
Only cars I see in the class that are sweetheart weights are the E36 and Porsche. I am on the outside looking in now Josh because it is now very clear the majority of the ITAC will keep the status quo. Too many ITR BMW guys on the ITAC to be objective.
First, understand please that there were *zero* BMW drivers on the ITAC when the weights of all of the original ITR cars were assigned. None. I personally didn't even know about ITR until after it was practically a done deal. In fact, one of the reasons I was told I'd be a good fit for the committee was because it would be good to have some BMW representation and knowledge because the BMW drivers in IT, in general, felt persecuted. Now you are saying that the BMW drivers have all of the control of the ITAC. I think the rest of the ITAC would agree that we (all both of us) don't. And we don't outnumber the Mazda drivers, BTW. And I'm an ex-Mazda driver. Mazda was so good to me that I actually feel guilty not driving one, I almost feel like I'm playing for the other team. But none of that has anything to do with the way weights get assigned, there's no personal bias.
Second of all, I personally know of at least two built S2000s, one 300ZX, and one Type R. Compared to other cars listed in the class, that's AT LEAST average, if not more than average.
You can tilt the smoke and mirrors all you want but it is spec BMW for years to come if it lives at all.
You know as well as I do that the reason that there are so many more E36s running right now is because there were plenty of IT-legal cars already in the SCCA community at the launch of the class. That can't be said for any of the cars you listed. It's unrealistic to expect anything that wasn't already listed in IT to match that.
I guess I am just jaded after the goat screwing you guys gave the RX8 because of BS numbers. You will continue to ignore the fact it can not make even the rear wheel power of the E36 and way less torque and you somehow think you got the weight right.
I never said we got the weight right for ultimate competitiveness. All I said was that we got the weight right with respect to the process. I'm relatively new (newer than you) to this process business, and I personally think there's a lot of room for improvement. But unfortunately, it's not possible to change the process without doing another huge reassignment of all of the weights of everything listed ... everything ... and that's too disruptive to do at this point.
Just in case it's not clear, the reason I say that is that because if you change the process mid-stream, then cars that were classed pre-change will not look like cars that were classed post-change, and that sort of inconsistency is worse (yes, in my opinion) than getting some outliers wrong.
In the meantime, we simply have to stick with the process we have. If some cars don't fit the existing process very well, they will just have to wait until the process can be changed.
I personally think that we should change the process to account for torque better. It'll help low-torque high-revvers, and it'll make it easier for us to include low-revving high-torquers like the pony cars as well. But as I said, we can't just change the process mid-stream without another great realignment, and I don't think the community has the intestinal fortitude to put up with that right now, not when most people feel things are better than ever.
Pissed off but still
Good thing you said that, because the tone sure doesn't come off that way!