Ah, thanks for making a great point for me guys.
The A1 Golf. A car I don't know. I was brand new on the ITAC when it got it's weight, and honestly, I can't remember too much of the specifics. But, yea, we took the word of our experts at the time. Of course there's no record of the data (if there WAS nay data), or any vote on the data.
I mention this to bring up the current situation: Some say, that our proposed and rejected V2.0 (calling it V1.2 would be better, but whatever), doesn't have enough "wiggle room".
Since none of you have seen it, here's how it differed from 1.0 in that area.
Sometimes, we (the ITAC) KNOW a stock hp rating is wrong, or that a certain car will make more, or less than presumed standard process power. In the early days, like in the case of the Golf 1, our experts said X, and it got accepted/discussed/debated. But in this case, it appears it stuck. (or maybe somebody said 105 but settled on 100, or somebody said 97 but it was rounded up for conservatism, I honestly don't remember, but those are possibilities).
(Obviously, there's room there to 'game' the system.)
Further along, we tightened that kind of methodology down, and became stricter. The RX8 is an example. Stock power says X, it HAS to gain SOMEthing, so it got X+Y as a weight. In reality, many on the ITAC didn't like that weight, but we felt powerless to change it. We wanted to be consistent, and repeatable. So that future ITACs would spit out the same weight. To the detriment of the car though...
So, for V2.0 we developed what I'd call 'managed wiggle room'. When we know a stock rating is wrong, or some car doesn't/won't match the presumed power factor, we can adjust accordingly. Here's how it works: One ITAC member acts as a presenting voice, and lays out the case. He brings research and lays it out. Could be builder dyno sheets, could be reports in publications, could be individuals dyno sheets. Or all of it. Once he builds the case, the entire ITAC would vote a 'confidence level", in a percentage form. If he convinced the entire ITAC to a certain level. (A vast majority), the data and position was accepted.
The advantage to this method (which I'll admit is still not 'perfect", is transparency, documentation, and the removal of politics to the greatest degree possible, and other 'negotiations' from the process, while still allowing the needed 'wiggleroom' and flexibility.
But, V2.0 has been rejected, so, we're back to square 1.
Too bad, I think the transparency and documentation, repeatability and robustness of V2.0 served the members like nothing before it, perhaps in the history of IT, and certainly was ideal in a category with 350 cars on the books.
*I should ammend this. The CRB wasn't impressed with some of the refinements, and left us with this framework: old listings won't be adjusted, unless overdogs, and if so, V1.0 will be used. On new listings we are free to do anything we want, as long as it 'makes sense'. So, we CAN use V2.0 for new listings, as long as it passes the CRBs sniff test and scrutiny.
). The tools are in place to correct those cars that show to be dominant, or warrant a power factor other than 1.25. I don't understand why the CRB doesn't want to use them.
