My posts on the subject concerned the "philosophical" differences as well, Tom. For instance, how are safety requirements integrated into their classification system? Where are our rollbar, 5-point belts, steel lug, driving suit, fire extinguisher requirements, etc. integrated into their classification system? Are they required in GT classes only, or somewhere further down? Are they different for autox than for DE/TT events? Are you even maintaining their two-tiered class system (different points for autox vs. TT) with your new hybrid proposal? I don't see that mentioned anywhere. What about our update/backdate provision vs. theirs?tb911 wrote: However, most of the complaints I've heard on the forum are not about the philosophy of the rules, rather they are nitpicking this or that points amount for one particular modification or another.
I have to agree with Greg that you have omitted the tire size penalty points from your calculations of base points for cars in your examples, and that it is an essential part of their system. A car that comes stock with 6" rims and 195 tires can end up in the same class with one that comes stock with 11" rims and 295 tires in their system. There has to be a way to balance that performance benefit. Your proposal to use our 2 or 4 point penalty for rim width (multiplied by some factor yet to be determined) does not do that equitably, because classes are no longer limited to similar car configurations, as they are in our present system.
I like your suggestion of using some modification of our performance penalty points with their class structure, but I think it would need a lot of work still, and is not as simple as you suggest--i.e., just applying a multiplier. I don't like the way they deal with the weight issues, because they simply penalize all weight savings and offer no benefit for weight ADDED by installing safety equipment. Retaining our weight penalties in some form (penalized for deviation from stock weight) is better, I think. Of course, I've always thought it should include driver weight, but that's another argument...
It may seem like a simple solution to classify according to HP/weight ratios, but this is more difficult to do than to say. It would require everyone having to submit current, certified dyno sheets and weight slips. Are we ready to do that? I don't think so.
If I had to make a SWAG as to which multiplier would work best at this point, I would choose 7.5, but I don't really have enough info according to what you've proposed here to actually analyze the question accurately, so I would reserve final judgment until I had a better understanding of the full proposal.
My $.02,
TT