As true as your corollary might be, there should be NO consideration of cost when classifying/specifying IT cars.
It sounds like a 2800+/- pound 944 fits in A. If it got moved, the next question would be, "How many people are interested in building one?"
[/b]
Actually, per the GCR, it should (low-cost cars and all that).
And while it may not be exactly the same situation, look at the New Beetle in ITC. Has anyone seen one of these things yet? Granted, a Porsche 944 donor probably costs a ton less, and is almost certainly considered closer to a 'real race car' than a New Beetle, but you get my point.
Kirk,
To your earlier comment re: dual-classification, we've already got it. In some cases it's codified in the ITCS (the ex-ITS cars now in ITR), and in other cases it's codified at the Regional (or Divisional) level (e.g. IT7). The first-gen RX7 folks were just lucky enough to have the 'critical mass' to pull it off. At this point in time, I'm inclined to agree w/ Dick. Dual-classify the cars that are close, and let the market decide where they want to race. You mentioned running your car in ITC at a higher weight. You've already got essentially that, w/ a different skin, in the form of the New Beetle.
When the whole NB classification issue came up, I asked where the G/J IV 2.0 cars were going to end up. As of now, they haven't been classified in IT (not sure why, the earlier versions are eligible). At the time, I ran the numbers on curb weights, and IIRC, the J IV actually weighed more than a NB.
I think dual-classification is a win-win situation, all the way around. It gives people the option of where they want to run their car, it has the potential to create more entries for the Regions (run the car in both classes at the same race, provided that those classes are in different run groups, thereby adding another entry fee), and it mitigates issues like the 944 and lets the ITAC focus on more strategic issues for the category.
As far as using on-track performance as inputs, I pretty much agree w/ you. But, as you know, when building a model (or process, or formula, or whatever we're going to call it), you need something to validate your assumptions. The adjustment of the FWD adders is a perfect example. Process said one thing, but looking at overall results made Andy et. al. say "maybe these things aren't the same for all cars". Which IMHO, is a good thing. I advocated an evolving model all along.
And while I know you don't like the idea of comp. adjustments, you can't argue w/ the fact that setting the granularity level at make/model will produce the best 'curve fit' of the model (process, not car). If you're truly trying to equate the cars, that's where you have to go. That being said, I have no problem w/ the ITAC drawing the line and saying that they're not going to slice it that fine. As long as it's stated up front, I'm cool w/ that. We've gotten SOOOO much better than where we were just a few short years ago, I think letting the dust settle a bit is a good thing. Kind of like two people that start dating, things go really well for a few months, and the next thing you know, they're moving in together. More often than not, they're breaking up after a year. Why? Because they were all caught up in how great their new relationship was, and didn't see how it all played out (you know, that 'cap-off-the toothpaste' and 'leaving the seat up' kind of stuff).
Anyway, I'm up early because I have to start cooking, not typing here. Merry Christmas everyone.
