Kirk your mixing topics. You and I never once discussed whether the Golf 2 was used as a standard, or reference for the ITB class (or at least I don't remember that). In the past I always did assume that to be the case. Some have told me that it was not, AND a small weight change was just recommended, which would be unlikely if it were in fact the class target. I just presented it as evidence that the previous poster should not assume it was a reference car.
I do still appreciate your explanation of what happened. Please understand that the cars I know and understand the best are the ones that I will talk about.
We did. Whether it was in a public forum or one-on-one through one of the offline PM systems, I can't say at this point.
Regardless, there is ZERO question from the IT BB written record and talking with key folks who were involved then, that the Golf II was used as a "bogey" car for ITB during the GR. That meant that it's then-current weight (along with the Volvo 142 and a couple of others) was left unchanged. The idea was to use the opportunity for alignment to reset the weight of some additional cars - but NOT all cars - such that the
anticipated on-track performance would end up at the same place as the bogies.
Note here,
Big Great Realignment Fallacy #1: Because the Golf II, 142, et al. were used as the bogies, they "went through the process." This is absolutely not the case. The Process is based on physical attributes of the car. No such comparision was ever made. Further, ask anyone who purchased a used 142 about what they've found in their engines (start with valve springs). The bogies were picked, from a very small sample (if one does the math), because they were frontrunners. Nobody made any comprehensive effort to determine WHY they were frontrunners.
Hot on the heels of that reality is
BGRF #2: The cars that WERE adjusted during the GR all got treated equally by the then-new math of The Process. THEY DID NOT. There is plenty of evidence in the internal ITAC record that, when the resulting weight of a given car seemed out of line with the then-ITAC's beliefs of what should be fast and what should not - when The Process spit out a weight that "felt wrong" - they simply, and completly subjectively, changed it. The Giles/Underwood generation of Civic DX is the poster child for this. Prevailing fear of the CRX dictated a bunch of weight got added, ignoring the fact that the engines are substantially different.
Of cousre, BGRF #3: All cars went through the process, has (I think) been well discredited but I STILL see people base arguments on that assumption. Following the GR, we had in essence three types of car:
1. The Bogies - left unchanged because they viewed as "competitive"
2. The Realigned - based on often subjective predictions of how fast they "should be"
3. The Completely Ignored - mostly cars that for whatever reason were not popular, they were left with their then-current race weights, which might have been set by any number of philosophies, by any of a large number of members/committees, going all the way back to when minimum weights were introduced to the class (in the late '80s?).
As the ITAC pinned down the details of the now-current practices around the Process math over the past 6 months or so, it addressed requests by members that cars be reviewed. Chris asked us to look at the MkII Golf, which we did. Running it through the math and the policy standards that dictate how we USE the math, we recommneded a 10# decrease in the race weight - a great example of
Current Fallacy #1: The ITAC thinks the process is so perfect, that 10 pounds is greater than the tolerances - the sloppiness - among the factors, our ability to measure them, and the math we do with them. Wrong. We absolutely recognize that, while 10 pounds over the course of a 30 minute race probably does might a difference in performance (irrespective of whether it's measurable), there's no way that we can have that much confidence that the resulting weight is "right." No way. No how.
The point of recommending that small change was to demonstrate that we were going to be consistent - that we weren't going to impose our own subjective judgments about "how close is close enough." This was a reaction to the unwritten - so inconsistenly enforced - rule that if a car was within 50 pounds (or 100, depending on who you asked), it was close enough. That policy had the potential to yield a 100 (or 200) pound delta among cars that HAD been re-examined. That was viewed by the ITAC as simply not good enough for the membeship, AND as a yet another opportunity for committee members to impose their own biases on the outcome: Almost but not quite a big enough difference to make the change? No problem if we just tweak one of the not-carved-in-stone "adders" somewhere.
Back to the Golf - we also recorded the factors considered, including the 1.3 power multiplier in the Golf's case (a figure in which we had substantial confidence based on the evidence provided), ensuring that the next time someone asked, we'd get the same number. Any process that yielded different outputs at different times (even from the same members) based on the same inputs is NOT a process.
The CRB voted to not make the 10 pound change that was based on Chris's request and the ITAC's recommendation, citing Current Fallacy #1. By doing so, it resoundingly dismissed the assumption strongly (though not absolutely) held by the current ITAC, and equally not accepted by most expressing opinions here:
That it is better to be consistent and predicable than "right" where IT spec weights are concerned, if "right" is measured directly by observations of competitiveness on track.
That's the bottom line right there, and it's about a fundamental belief. If you look at at a "too-fast" example of a make/model and assume it needs weight without asking about mediating variables like legality, driver talent, etc., etc., etc., then there's no way you'll ever accept what the ITAC has tried to do. And if that's the prevailing belief among members, it's probably time for those damned elites who think they know what's right for the category to let the majority Joe Racers of the Club have what they want.
We call those "
competition adjustments" [bleah!] - defined simply
as different specifications based solely on observed or anticipated on-track performance. The Golf II has, by the CRB's rejection of the ITAC's process-derived recommended race weight, received a 10# competition adjustment. ITB Audi GT Coupe got one approximately equal to one large man in the passenger seat, for the same reason.
I am absolutely positive I know what will result when we go down this path, but am all-but-absolutely-positive that we've finally reached the point where there's not a damned thing that can be done to keep us from heading that way.
HOWEVER, if your ("you" as in everyone, not Chris) support for the position that on-track performance is in and of itself evidence enough for weight adjustments is based on one or more of the fallacies above, your argument is based on incorrect facts. It makes no difference if those adjustments are
a priori,
post hoc, at least display the intellectual honesty to argue from what is really motivating the position, rather than by invoking untruths.
You'll LOVE competition adjustments [bleah!] when they fall in your favor but you'll hate them a lot more when they don't. And if your goal is "stability...?" LOL. Good luck with that...! You'll REALLY know what it's like to chase a moving target, particularly if you put together a good program and go fast.
So long and thanks for all the fish!
K
