2012 Minimum Weight

#161

[quote=“ddavidv” post=62299]
…aside from our tire durability issues, stop trying to fix something most of us feel isn’t broken.[/quote]
+1

#162

[quote=“FishMan” post=62303][quote=“ddavidv” post=62299]
…aside from our tire durability issues, stop trying to fix something most of us feel isn’t broken.[/quote]
+1[/quote]
+1000

[sarcasm]To many frequent posters in this thread: By all means, come into a series and propose a lot of rule changes before you’ve run your first race. The changes must be the right call because they make perfect sense to you. Everyone who is already racing the series was just too f*cking stupid to think of these great ideas, which obviously are free of any downsides or unintended consequences.[/sarcasm]

#163

Hell must have frozen over…well,it is cold in the SE. I agree with Steve!!! Its not broke…don’t fix it. Chuck

#164

[quote=“turbo329is” post=62294]E30, cheap, simple and competitors are what attracted me to spec E30. The ideal class for me would be cheap E30 RACECARS. I would like to keep the mods as is and cut the car to the bare bones to make weight while still accounting for the 150lb weight variance in drivers. I don’t understand why we need the class to make everyone happy. There are a dozen classes in NASA or more. I think Jim or Scott said a few days ago that getting hit was inevitable. If you’re car really is street legal it’s not very safe or competitive. Not to mention the car is uninsurable during a competition. It seams like everyone that I disagree with on this forum uses the “what about the guys who can’t afford it” argument. I am that guy. If I had money I would have been racing a year ago. The biggest expense is tires am I right? They will last longer if our cars are lighter and an extra 20mm of tread would be worth it also. If your motor makes 140 on a Dyno-Jet it is worn out and if it’s a junkyard motor it probably leaves a puddle of oil anywhere you park it. Why the rules should be adjusted to make that competitive I don’t understand.

If you’re motor is worn out then rebuild it. I don’t see how a blueprinted motor and a homebuilt motor can be that different on power. There aren’t any tricks allowed in the rules other than optimizing tolerances. Most of them are measured in thousandths and I doubt the manufacturers or your local machinist are off by a thousandth on anything. You could of course blow a bunch of money on forged pistons which I don’t know why it is allowed in the rules.

I finally sell a bunch of stuff to build a new motor and now someone wants me to add weight because they’d rather sleep in an RV at the track than have a decent motor. My tow vehicle has body panels in three different colors from three different vehicles. I’ve slept in the E30, I’ve slept in the truck and my best track accommodations were when I borrowed my brothers tent. Next thing that happens is maybe I’ll sell my truck and borrow my dad’s when I need to tow. You can stop with the what about the people who can’t afford it BS because I don’t want to hear it anymore.[/quote]

It is obvious you have never had a really nice race motor.

Take it from the other side for a second, just a second. I know I can buy a 170-175hp motor that is legal for the class. I can plunk down the cash right now. NFW am I going to do that for 2 reasons:

  1. I don’t even have the cash to drop on it.
  2. It is more than my car is worth.

Spent years chasing down the latest and greatest, and the best parts I could find. At one point it came down to buying 10-15 sets of shocks and having each one dyno’d. The manufacturing tolerances were large enough that the shocks needed to be hand picked to be the best of the best. I’d return the rest, and I just happened to have a guy who would dyno them for free. You think there isn’t a difference? Try back to back at the same venue on the same day with a 1.4 second a lap difference. My typical deviation is .3 to .4 per lap. That’s a damn eternity for a spec class. Ragged edge race motors don’t last long, cost a fortune, and make quite a bit more power.

I have lots of tricks like that. They are all legal and represent some serious homework for someone that really wants to win. I don’t have that time anymore, nor do I have the cash. I CAN get a loan (which means I don’t really have the cash) for an RV. This ends up costing less than the cost of hotels. I’ve done what you do now. I hated it after a while. Now that I’m married with a 2 year old, I have no intentions of popping up a tent and having her scream while someone is tinkering with a blown motor at 2am.

No problems rebuilding a motor. I’d much rather check compression and leakdown, refresh a head and have a good season. I don’t want to start buying cams, rockers etc to check for max tolerances. I don’t want to send all the valves out to get them done EXACTLY to the spec of the book, and if there is no spec…

Don’t really care what you guys decide to do at this point. All I was trying to do is help. I don’t believe that the street car philosophy is correct either. Race cars are race cars.

And BTW, I raced for 9 years with 0 body contact except for mirror contact. Didn’t have any body contact before that either, mostly because it was an open wheel class.

And you were right. Tires usually are the most expensive piece of the puzzle. However, simply throwing a wider set of tires on is a complete shot in the dark and only may be a band-aid for underlying problems. I’d rather just have reduced weight, but there is so much bitching about people having these ridiculously heavy cars, which seems odd. Poll shows lots of people want a weight reduction, but no reduction will be likely to happen.

And even with your obtuse post, I’ll still vote Ron Paul.

#165

[quote=“ddavidv” post=62299]16 pages on how to ruin my favorite spec series. :dry:

I’m curious to know where the guys who so adamantly want to change things are finishing? Frustrated mid-packer, or potential front-runner who can’t quite seem to make it happen?

I’m a mid-pack guy on a good day (or if it’s wet, haha!). I’ve watched the front runners in my regions. I know why they are faster, and it’s not because of some magical motor. They are better drivers, plain and simple. My car prep is not what theirs is. I don’t bring my own portable alignment ‘rack’ to the track (you know who you are :wink: ) nor spend hours fussing with tire pressures. I accept that these things will keep me from the front. I haven’t heard anything from the other mid-pack guys I’m racing with, and I’m guessing it’s because we like where we are; just racing with a bunch of guys with a similar talent and prep level for fun. When you want to implement new complications to the series, all you do for us (the bulk of participants, I’d wager) is create hassle and expense. The cars run fast enough for my level of skill and handle darn well, IMO. Learn to drive. Learn to tweak your settings, if that’s what you’re into. But aside from our tire durability issues, stop trying to fix something most of us feel isn’t broken.[/quote]

Couldn’t have said it better myself. As one of the n00bs who finally got to race SpecE30 this year, why do you guys want to ruin this great series. I like the rules the way they are, and I think what we need is some rules stability for awhile. I also agree tire durability is really the only thing I would like fixed.

#166

I think that the consensus is that the power to weight balance idea is dead. Let’s bring this thread back to conversation regarding a reduction in minimum weight. The survey is currently at 24 in favor, 10 against a weight reduction.

#167

Wow. I hope I’m not one of the “newbies” or “guys that don’t race in SE30” that are being referred to here, but I was one of the ones that chimed in with the power to weight thought. I have raced for 15 years in total, have raced my SE30 in many, many events, and am probably one of the very few people who commented in this thread that have actually raced a spec car that also has a power to weight rule built in. For reasons totally unknown to me, people seem to like the engine arms race and want to be able to spend $6k+ on a “race” engine in a SE30 car, a car that purports to be cheap to run, with the goal being car equality and an emphasis on driver talent. I have put my 141hp special on the podium in SE30 in the Southeast several times before, and that is a region that I consider to have a lot of talent in it, but its frustrating to know that I really do need 160+ horsepower and the aformentioned “race” engine to get a win. And I realize I’m far from perfect in the driver’s seat, but I do have 3 national championships and I know which way to turn the wheel, so it isn’t that I’m terribly short on driver training.

The 302 Ford engines in the FFR series are all over the place on power despite being “identical”, and we have a tight set of rules on what you can do to an engine - essentially nothing. That said, cars dyno anywhere between 220 hp and 235 hp in otherwise identical configuration in that series. The rules have a really easy to understand and apply formula on weights for different horsepower and torque levels. If you polled the racers there, everyone loves the idea. Noone in the FFR series has spent a dime over 1500 on an engine. Mine actually came straight out of a junkyard, had the accessories put on, oil pan put on, and dropped in the car with a new balancer. It does not leak oil anywhere as suggested, and my ride is no POS. Its just a good affordable way to control the spending in a race series.

I find it interesting in this series and in SM that the rules go so far as to dictate what spring rate, down to the part number, that you must run. This is obviously done so that racers do not need to worry about changing spring rates to be competitive. That said, after regulating the $40 spring, you are free to empty your wallet at the machine shop to find as much power as you can “legally” find. It just doesn’t make sense.

Anyhow, those are all the comments I have on this threat. Obviously, the thought isn’t going anywhere, so I’ll refrain from further comment.

#168

Scott - You are among the commenters who have actually raced in SE30. At first blush, I am not in favor of the power/weight thing. From my SM experience, I know how much bitching there is over the (perceived? real?) differences between the 5 flavors of SM: 1.6 cars, OBDI 1.8, OBDII 1.8, 99 1.8, 2001+ 1.8s.

There is tremendous carping about the ~100 lbs difference between those chassis.

One great thing about SE30 is we have one spec line. One motor. One chassis (once the 'verts are gone :stuck_out_tongue: ). A free-for-all motor rule backstopped by a power-weight rule opens the class up for bad development trends IMHO.

Going back on what I said, if we had a tight range like this (227.5 hp +/- 3%) AND a power-weight sliding scale within that tight range, I’d see that as a decent solution. If the limits are broader, then you have the problem of the spendy guys setting up their cars for power tracks (RA) differently from finesse tracks (MidO).

I dare say if we had everyone in a +/-3% hp range, we wouldn’t even need to adjust further with weight.

I think I just found my next class. :woohoo:

#169

[quote=“Steve D” post=62322]A free-for-all motor rule backstopped by a power-weight rule opens the class up for bad development trends IMHO.
[/quote]
That wasn’t the idea being discussed. The current motor rules would still be in effect.

I’ve no god in this fight, pun intended. The idea is just a strawman for discussion. But for criticisms of the idea to be fair, they need to be accurate.

#170

So let’s have some names to go with these mega-dollar builds. I would like to know who these rich guys are. Because I certainly can’t recall seeing any of them. I do know a couple of guys with restoration quality car builds. One is quick; one isn’t. The quick guy hardly dominates. These phantom motors seem to exist more in fantasies some of you have than in reality. This isn’t Spec Miata (thank gawd). I can’t see droves of people spending mega-dollars on engines to be in our little series. Our cars are too old, too boxy and too non-SCCA friendly to ever reach the disappointing level of SM. But if it really is going on, and people know about it, let’s name names. That way I can dismiss those drivers from being better drivers than I and just having deeper pockets.

But back to weight, as that is the topic: I’m only 170 lbs these days and have to be darn sure I’ve got a half tank + in my car to not be too light. OTOH, I don’t know where I can take out more weight unless we allow for plastic side/back glass, because everything else is gone from mine. I like my seat to stay dry, so I’m not taking the glass out permanently. I’d be more excited about less weight if I could figure out where to take it from.

#171

There is a bunch of data from Nationals. No one made over 160 hp. The strongest cars were in the high 150s. Is someone going to build a $6k 170hp engine and NOT bring it to Nationals?

#172

no but they might bring it to nationals and leave early. what, too soon?

#173

Thought you were getting back to the weight debate?..

#174

no but they might bring it to nationals and leave early. what, too soon?[/quote]
LOL. Yeah, that still burns.

Foglght, I’m trying. I had kept my mouth shut for a while. Please forgive my last transgression.

#175

Man, I don’t know how you guys can’t reduce weight. I’m sitting here racking my brain as to how I can corner balance the car without adding massive amounts of ballast. I’ve still got parts of my AC and my PS pump in there as well as right side glass and all of my trunk tar and I STILL have to run a spare tire and minimum half a tank of fuel just to get up to the minimum…2700 is HEAVY for a race car. And reducing weight doesn’t cost a thing.

#176

I don’t know if some cars are just heavy or what. My car has a single RaceTech seat, a 4L AFFF system, and a 986 System cooler. All (really all) tar and sound deadening material, the power steering system, all parts of the AC system, the sunroof, windows & regulators, and such wiring as the rules allow have been removed. It does retain the headlights and heater core, but there isn’t much weight there. The cage is well more than the minimum (rear diagonals, NASCAR bars, dash bar, foot protection) and does weigh more than some cages. Being an 88 is does have the 63L tank. The driver weighs 150 and starting from a full tank the car only carries 10lb of ballast. Finding another 40lb to take out would be a struggle. I could start with less than a full tank of gas, but that is hard to get just right trackside. And it would leave the rear wheels lighter than they are now (not good).

Be thankful that your car is light. See that as a opportunity to use the ballast to balance the car.

#177

no but they might bring it to nationals and leave early. what, too soon?[/quote]
LOL. Yeah, that still burns.[/quote]
Anthony - I think Jason is cleverly referring to my early departure from Nationals, not your motor’s early departure from Nationals.

It is a fair criticism - at least of my leaving early. I assure you that if I had 170 hp I would have stayed the whole time. Heck, if I had looked at the weather forecast and seen rain I would have stayed.

Getting knocked off track in both qual races dampened my enthusiasm a bit.

I could have been worse. I could have wimped out and not shown up at all coughtower and evancough.:laugh:

#178

[quote=“Ranger” post=62324][quote=“Steve D” post=62322]A free-for-all motor rule backstopped by a power-weight rule opens the class up for bad development trends IMHO.
[/quote]
That wasn’t the idea being discussed. The current motor rules would still be in effect.[/quote]Ahhhh. That is more palatable.

Still, take a look at the kvetching in SM over the use of weight and restrictor plates to balance cars that are +/- a few HP and +/-50 lbs.

The biggest issue with weight/power rules is that you need a dyno to tech the cars unless we can all agree that the Traqmate data is close enough.

#179

Start a list here of years and whether your car is heavy or light (before ballast). Lets start somewhere.

#180

1989 - 2700 as raced (195 lb driver, tank on E, cool suit, robust cage w/nascar bars on both sides & x on rear downtubes, everything stripped except undercoating and rear package shelf and speakers)