@Todd Bellew wrote:
OK so if you wanna go there. They dyno tested an after their testing the weight have moved three times. What good was that dyno info?
Now you read and don’t comprehend. Where were we going to start with Tag weights? Dyno testing was the quickest and least biased of any testing that SKUSA, remember it was SKUSA who was doing the testing, could have done at the time. EVERYBODY in the industry supported it. The results were published for anyone who wanted to look at it on SKUSA’s web site. It was the most extensive and comprehensive testing that anyone has done on Tag.
But as we all know and we all knew at the time, the dyno testing would only be a STARTING point, not the final, end all, cast in stone forever weights. Only those off in some unreal world could have thought differently. The real test would only come once the rubber hit the track. As I hope you well know, the money to do independant track testing was not forth coming. Who wants to step up and do it now? What track should we use? Who’s paying for tires?
What I object to is your comment that testing was not done when in fact it was and by your organization. The fact that there have been adjustments, so what? As we’ve seen, new engines have been introduced, engines have been updated and some just flat perform differently on the track than on the dyno. You somehow want to make the case that just because dyno testing wasn’t the end all, be all solution, you want to discredit it all together. I for one am glad changes were made and actually the latest weights you made aren’t bad at all.