Originally posted by robits325is@Sep 14 2005, 06:37 PM
If Nicks blue RX-7 was maxed out (10/10ths to quote) last year at the ARRC when the restrictor plate topic really heated up then how did he set new lap records around the NER this year?
[snapback]60148[/snapback]
It's funny to me how people think that 10/10ths only involves putting parts on the car...
You guys want to know why SM is SOOO much faster than it appears it should be??? Because there are HUNDREDS of them out there tweaking, tuning, adjusting, and then SHARING that information with each other... finding the EXACT correct tire pressures, the EXACT right caster/camber combo, etc., etc.... The same might be said about the CRX... Lot's of them out there, usually driven by friendly guys who talk to each other...
Also, we are not ALL "excellent" drivers, regardless of what our egos might tell us... Just because someone has a car that they feel is built "to the limit", that doesn't mean that the car is being driven there... Development involves the driver as well, and when combined with what I mentioned above, it's possible that the driver has discovered new limits, or made a tweak which extended the limits a bit...
In reality, there is NO such thing as "Fully Developed"... Built to the max of the rules, maybe, but as I think I've shown that this does not equate to "fully developed"...
These are reasons why ON-TRACK data is NOT the basis for making IT decisions... It is, as Bill mentioned above, a good check of the process, but it's a TERRIBLE way to make decisions on adjustments... Just look at Production, where they truely penalize those who make the all-out effort by adding weight to those that are winning, regardless whether the mechanical parameters of the car warrent such adjustments...
If you run the numbers on the RX-7, both theoretical and actual dyno numbers, you'd find that it's classified as the process defines. The same is true of the 240Z. The 944 is too heavy... The 944S is a bit too light... The 240SX is close, but will require an 10/10ths effort to make that weight... Several cars are overweight at this point, some are slightly underweight at this point... Some are in the wrong class all-together... The same pattern exists in all the classes...
The BMW in question, using the exact same process, is considerably under weight... PERIOD... That's what the numbers show... both teoretical AND Actual Dyno numbers... These have NOTHING to do with BMW owners, a bias against BMWs, the fact that BMWs are expensive, or any other contrived argument as to why this car get's talked about...
ALL of the ITAC recommendations and adjustments over the past two years have been made using this process, and we will continue to do so, so long as the CRB continues to entrust us with this responsibility... And yes... getting things balanced out will take a bit of time (has taken a bit of time...), but we are working on it... We will continue to push to get these classes into a condition where the classifications make sense, and the compeition is as balanced as possible... from a mechanical parmeters standpoint, anyhow... (we can't and won't adjust classifications based on a "racing program" or, in other words, on-track performance)...
So, all this being said, the BMW IS too light, and has been since it's current weight was finalized a while back... Let's not forget that it was originally classified at 2950, and then, through some loophole in the rules and a claim that it couldn't meet that weight due to ballast not being allowed, it's weight was lowered to 2850...
This car is singled out because it IS the problem with ITS... It's an outlier on the classification list. Real data shows this... Theoretical data shows this... and on-track performance validates this... the same can NOT be said about any other car in ITS... RX-7s may perform, but the data shows they are classified correctly... the 944 does not compete... the data shows us why... 240Z... competes, data shows why...
This is about as UNBIASED a decision as the come...