2012 Minimum Weight

#61

Gents, SpecE30 is about cheap, easy and equal. Just keep repeating to yourself…
Cheap, easy and equal.
Cheap, easy and equal.
Cheap, easy and equal.

It’s not about fast. Until a person understands that, they won’t understand SpecE30.

#62

If it aint broke…

#63

I’m kind of new here, I’ve only one one race, but as a group we were soundly trounced by the Spec Miatas. I’d be in favor of a weight reduction just so we can keep up with them a little better. Yes, we’re for cheap, equal racing, but it’d be nice if there was MORE cheap, equalish cars to race against =)

#64

[quote=“cosm3os” post=61147] but this is racing so it doesn’t make sense to “punish” those who choose to build a car to the max of the rules.
[/quote]

Um, color me confused, what is this punishment you speak of? :huh:

#65

It’s a relative punishment (let’s call it a reduction in benefit). As said many times here, if Driver A does the work to get all allowable weight out, but has to put it back in as ballast because the weight rule is “dumbed down” so that Driver B doesn’t have to make the effort to take out his power windows and heater core, then Driver A doesn’t get the whole benefit of his legal work.

If we are going to use a weight that easily allows most drivers to leave alot on the table (ie in the car), its essentially a showroom stock class. In other words, the rules allowing removal of all the items is made moot by the high min weight.

I’ll admit I’m still the noob here. For all I know, 2700 is the best number. But I’m all for the smallest number that still allows every body habitus to participate, without allowing folks who chose not to take full advantage of the rules to not suffer the consequences of that decision (sorry, that’s like a quadruple negative).

#66

[quote=“Elephant4” post=61156][quote=“cosm3os” post=61147] but this is racing so it doesn’t make sense to “punish” those who choose to build a car to the max of the rules.
[/quote]

Um, color me confused, what is this punishment you speak of? :huh:[/quote]
They are punished in that they become forced to put ballast wherever they want it to optimize F/R weight ratio and corner weight, and reduce polar moment, I bleed for them.

#67

[quote=“cosm3os” post=61157]It’s a relative punishment (let’s call it a reduction in benefit). As said many times here, if Driver A does the work to get all allowable weight out, but has to put it back in as ballast because the weight rule is “dumbed down” so that Driver B doesn’t have to make the effort to take out his power windows and heater core, then Driver A doesn’t get the whole benefit of his legal work.
[/quote]

Actually in this example Driver A would want the weight to be higher so he has more flexibility in moving weight around. If you lower the weight Driver B is going to do the work as well. Unless of course you are proposing lowering the weight to a point where everybody can’t get to it which would the dumbest spec class of all time :lol:

#68

And if driver C has stripped the car down to the legal limit (removing every ounce possible) and winds up carrying less than 50lb of ballast (or none at all) to meet the 2700lb minimum weight you’d readily penalize that driver by a lower minimum weight?

If you have a car that needs ballast, use it to get your corner weights and front/rear balance correct. That is to your advantage.

As Ranger said, Spec E30 isn’t about fast. It is all about equal!

#69

And if driver C has stripped the car down to the legal limit (removing every ounce possible) and winds up carrying less than 50lb of ballast (or none at all) to meet the 2700lb minimum weight you’d readily penalize that driver by a lower minimum weight?

This is too my point, I have no ballast to work with!

#70

As I said, for all I know, 2700 may be the right number. I’m more interested in the discussion about how the number is derived then the actual number. What I’m hearing is that it’s set high so as not to risk loosing drivers who are “fluffy” or don’t have the money/time to gut to the limit.

Good discussion.

#71

Ouch, I’m fluffy, lazy and poor.

Let’s add to that old, cynical and slow on the track. And to the “old” descriptive, you could probably say I am racer #5 in this series. Since numbers 3 and 4 aren’t around any more I’ve moved to racer #3 status. I’ll find Harrington and we can duke it out for the coveted #2 position…It has been a long time.

All in jest.

RP

Ps How the numbers and rules are derived?
Look at the history of this series (back in 2003) and give due respect to the benevolent dictators that originated the series. It wasn’t the stubborn BMWCCA. Mr. Hunt for the idea,Mr. Mills for the administrative insight and NASA for the race series. All three are a reason that the rules are so stable.All thre are still the pillars for its success.

It is the benevolent dictator concept that really makes this thing work well. Granted, at the start is was Hunt and Mills. Now it is a group of series directors. For the most part the forum is here for racer entertainment.

#72

I believe the 2750 weight was taken directly from the SCCA GCR because that is the weight for an ITS E30.

Drive-gear.com

#73

[quote=“jlevie” post=61160]
And if driver C has stripped the car down to the legal limit (removing every ounce possible) and winds up carrying less than 50lb of ballast (or none at all) to meet the 2700lb minimum weight you’d readily penalize that driver by a lower minimum weight?

If you have a car that needs ballast, use it to get your corner weights and front/rear balance correct. That is to your advantage.

As Ranger said, Spec E30 isn’t about fast. It is all about equal![/quote]

You’re saying that Driver C has removed every ounce possible within the rules, and has barely managed to get it to 2700lbs? I find that hard to understand.

#74

i am failing to see how lowering the minimum weight could cost racers money. The only way i could see gutting your car costing you money is if you paid someone to do it. Please explain how this rule change could result in costing you money. for me i would just spend a weekend in the garage pulling shit out. as it is i already need to do this as id rather get my cars as light as possible and run ballast.

#75

Not everyone is going to be comfortable removing their sunroof and fastening some alternative solution in place. Not everyone goes into their garage to tinker at night and decides to remove their windows, motors and tracks. Folks are different. If more work has to be done to bring the car’s weight down, than it either consumes people’s time or money.

We got 50lbs because it was painless and theoretically reduces conflicts with the Miatas in the twisties. Can’t we just move on?

#76

I don’t work on my vehicles because I enjoy it. I work on my vehicles because unfortunately my time is worth less than 200$ an hour. Anyone is capable wrenching on their car and prying off sound deadening. Getting the sunroof welded in shouldn’t cost more than a case of beer. You just have to find the right neighbor.

#77

[quote=“Speedracer” post=61176]Please explain how this rule change could result in costing you money.[/quote]If all the easy weight removal tricks have been exploited, it gets more involved [read: expensive].

There are a great many cars built to the 2750 spec in place for many years until the drop in 2011 to 2700 pounds. To get to 2650 and still be able to run a cool suit and heater core (I like to be able to run in the rain in February or the melting heat in August), I would have to alter my cage - which was built when the rule was 2750. Cage mods cost money.

When we discussed and lobbied for the change last year, the consensus was that almost everyone could easily drop 50 lbs. and race at 2700. Therefore, it was acceptable to the powers that be.

Take into consideration those folks who have already built cars. Last year we did and they said “Sure, I can remove my [spare tire/ballast/trunk tar] cheaply and easily.” So the rule changed.

The move from 2700 to 2650 would cause significantly more effort for many folks.

Personally, I think a lower weight would only serve to further penalize folks who don’t shave to 2/32nds.

#78

Ding ding ding.

#79

OK, y’all…you are building a race car. To build it to run up front, you will remove anything that does not look like a race car, including heater/air unit, ps pump, sun roof, all glass legal, all sound deadening, etc. Then you corner weight your car putting required ballast in the most advantageous place. If you don’t want to run up front, leave all that stuff in the car, but don’t complain about where you are running because someone else is doing everything legal to go fast. NOTE…WHAT DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND ABOUT [color=#ff0000]RACE CAR[/color]??? Chuck

#80

While i don’t think this rule change will fly simply because there are a large number of people opposing it, i completely agree with this statement. We are racing, and this series is beginning to sound more like a club than a racing class. I am not saying that i am not hearing the complaints and they are all reasonable, Trying to shave weight out of a heavy cage is no easy, or safe, task. However, We are racing. We should be taking these cars to the limit. I hate to make this comparison, but look at spec miata, they have coil overs and intake mods available and they are also running the largest tire their stock fenders can handle. Us on the other hand are running on horrible springs, can’t really do anything to the engine and our tires are horribly undersized for the car.

All I’m saying is that this series has effectively taken a 6cyl sports car and made is slower than a 4cyl sports car. just wrap your head around that. These e30 are far more capable then what we are allowing them to be. My personal belief is that we should have a racing class, not a club, of cars that are faster than miatas. There is no reason an e30 should be slower than a miata, leave it to NASA

/rant