Jamz - with zero budget there is no way that the SMAC do this scientifically. We will always rely on data, video, and most importantly, drivers opinions.
From what we are observing, the 1.6NA parity is very close. Some think we have gone too far, some think it is just right and others are still asking for more. We will continue to monitor the results and canvas the drivers.
Understood and that is reasonable. In light of that though, SCCA should be more nimble in approving changes ( it took Bench years to build the support to get them considered), and just as swift in removing them if proving to be too much. But with what it took to get the new rules in place, why should we not expect that it would take just as long to rewrite to a different spec?
And even if we use a process less than scientific, a reasonable declaration and ballpark assessment of what parity would look like if the changes were effective would seem doable and reasonable to ask. I don't mind that that assessment is less than scientific, but something.
Why is it not possible to have each model year taken to the same track on the same day and have a qualified test driver drive all platforms back to back and give an assessment of parity? To double check, have two qualified test drivers running them back to back. Finish off with both test drivers running nose to tail laps back to back. I am sure that the major garages have the ability to offer up a equally prepped version of each car. And even if they don't have one in their fleet, have individuals offer up their car to be prepped ( setup, dyno tuned, engine health verified) by these shops that have the experience on each platform? Then draft a recommendation to SMAC and BOD. This could all be funded independently of SCCA and wouldn't cost an arm and a leg to do.
I have said more than once that we should all be willing to make month to month BOP plate and weight changes to flush this stuff out. But like as stated in my previous statement, I feel individual drivers consider the cars at parity as long as they are winning. The second they are not, it is a parity issue. If that statement is true, you will never get accurate anecdotal feedback on parity. And that is why it is so important to make a statement on what you are trying to achieve and what success looks like ahead of time even if that declaration is less than scientific. It will help you guys a lot with drivers complaining that it isn't enough or is too much if you force the people asking for an adjustment to make a declaratory statement of success before giving them the change. It will force them to think more about why they are asking for it.