looks like Kirk and I hit on the same thought process regarding the competition adjustment quotes, as we were replying concurrently, but he types faster!
Interesting stuff here.
Some comments;
1- "Competition adjustments". I've read some posts that seem to qualify an "adder" (say the FWD adder) (which is actually a subtracter and varies by class) as a "competition adjustment" Well, no, I don't think so. Heck, if THAT is a competition adjustment, then so is anything we do to set a classification weight. The alternative would be to set the weight at curb weight minus X amount for items removed in a build like seats, etc, plus Y amount for the cage. Every car would weigh curb minus the net of X and Y.
And racing would suck, unless we got lucky with a few models.
The
entire point of setting weights is to create competitive parity.
Now, in my eyes, adders that are assigned to architecture items like FWD or double wishbone or rotary engines are categorical, and get applied to ALL cars, and can't be considered "competition adjustments". To me, a comp adjustment occurs AFTER the car is racing, and is a result of that car performing in a manner that doesn't align with it's class.
I want to avoid those at all costs.
I see the need for post weight setting adjustments when:
- -new information comes to light that shows the input to the process was originally wrong, and the new info creates a different output.
- -an error was made in the use of the process.
- -the car wasn't reviewed since it's initial weight setting in the Grand realignment
Now, in my eyes, I fell the current "line in the sand" for "close enough" is excessive, and I'd like to make changes for less weight. I feel that if one car is under, and another over, the delta could be significant.
I WOULD like to try to have set standards/protocols for adders. It's easy with FWD, the car either has it, or it doesn't, but it gets foggy when it's an adder for trans ratios.
As this process matures, it is getting fine tuned. It's successes are highlighting issues like that. It's a pretty good place to be actually. I think the ITAC will continue to refine it, but it gets pretty difficult to do, and the payoff gets smaller. Diminishing returns. I recall the original concept behind the Grand Realignement/class performance envelope/process concept was that 80% of the problems were being caused by 20% of the cars. I think we've taken care of that, and more. But hey, we're racers, we are always lookign for ways to improve and fine tune.
Torque is an issue thats been discussed and we've played with different power factors internally. I've come up with a few of them, but it's a work in progress. (The RX-7s are interesting anomalies. In ITS, the car was one of the "bogeys" for the performance window, and it got no change made to it. In ITA, the car has a conservative power number applied that is tough to reach. Porting has run rampant over the years in that car, and it's colored the masses, I think. Because that car wasn't the bogey for ITA, it's dismal torque (105 ft lbs) is it's undoing. Even applying a process that accounts for that is pointless, because the car can go no lower weight-wise. It's just one of those things, and the needs of the many are being served well by the process, so, se la vie)
In the end, I agree that tq could be folded into the process, but, it's complicated, and lets not forget that HP is merely a product of tq, and transmission ratios play am important role as well, and both are being accounted for.
