Kirk, no worries. Here were my (personal) concerns about where V2 was going. We had a discussion once about how we would both like NO subjective adders/subtractors, since that was the cleanest way to do this:
1. The "suspension" modifier got changed. I think at one point there was a deduct for struts, etc., and "beam axle" deduction for a beam on FWD cars was dropped.
There always has been a deduct for struts. And the beam axle thing did get droped, but I don't think it was applied often ayway. I THINK there are few legacy cars with it, although there is one significnt one.
2. We had a tranny modifier at one time, essentially for the 1:1 ratios in the BMWs.
3. We had a basically "I know it when I see it" brake adder/subtractor that spooked me.
That's what I liked about V2, it put down in writing what subjective things like that were, and when they could be utilized. Before, we had teh infamous 'negotiation" of some Honda where one guy would debate the power and another would "give" 25 for brakes. Wrong, even if the weight that resulted was a good one, we could never reproduce the same result without resorting to notes and memory. Very bad.
4. The use of Lapsim to try to quantify the FWD deduct REALLY spooked me, and we ended up going from a straight 50/100/150 lb deduct to a percentage. Cars have been classed both ways.
Wait a minute...the lap sim thing was used to confirm out subjective feelings about the basic amounts each class gets for FWD. The percentage was based on a median car and that basic amount. So, a lighter car gets less off, and a heavier car gets more, but it's directly proportional to the mean car. That's a awesome refinement, with no drawbacks. yes older cars may have been slightly different, but the differences are in the 15 or 30 pound range, for most of the more significant cases. no biggie, just more consistent and proper. And for the median cars, : NO difference.
5. We tried all sorts of formulations of torque, and I like how we ended up - only cars WAY outside the norm (like mine) get a modifier.
Again, a much better guide was created to know WHEN it was to be used.
6. The default power multipliers. It at one time was way more complicated. 25% for most, 15% for Porsches, 35% for rotaries, 35% for inline sixes (that one always mystified me), 30% for 16v cars in ITB, etc.
Actually, V2 made things simpler, AND it freed up the ITAC to go outside the box when it needed to with the confidence vote on non standard multipliers. BUT, it couldn't go outside the box on a whim, or a negotiation. That's GOOD.
But the biggest problem for me was that for a time I sensed no end to the tweaking of the process, and that (implicit) thought that we could come up with something that balanced all cars on the head of a pin. I'm glad we didn't go that far, and I too felt very comfortable with V2 as it was, essentially, finalized before the Great Exodus.
My wish list for the V2 had little to do with balancing cars on the head of a pin, and everything to do with rational methods, repeatable methods and a protocol that I could explain to anybody. No having to answer why some guy added weight "because I KNOW it needs it, and I scream louder and talk over EVERYbody".
What concerns me though is we never (a) locked V2 down as a rule (and there was still ongoing debate over things like when we used the 25% default and when we didn't) and --- this one was critical to me -- (b) we published V2 to membership.
I still see the Process as being in jeopardy, and not yet "static," which I don't like. More change and instability to it will just cause (in my view) more issues.
Hey, we tried, but, well, you know, the PTB didn't like the goals, clearly.
