car weight

#21

Ranger wrote:

what does formally submitting entail though? let your regional series director know? mine’s on the thread :wink:

#22

kishg wrote:

[quote]Ranger wrote:

what does formally submitting entail though? let your regional series director know? mine’s on the thread ;)[/quote]

I’m just talking out of my ass here (no, really?), but I’d say that if a person wants this sort of thing they need to submit a real proposal to their Regional. Since it’s late, I’d CC national. For example:

I request that you consider a spec weight of 2700 lbs.

Justification:

  1. Cost savings measure. Reduced weight will reduce wear and tear on all drive train and suspension components, but especially tires and brake pads. Since this is a cost savings measure it is a change that is entirely within the spirit of SpecE30.

  2. Ease of build and more equal cars. The current high weight spec rewards drivers who go to the extra trouble of removing window glass & motors, and removing trunk tar. Then the driver can put ballast low and near center mass in the passenger footwell. Lowering the spec weight will make it a little harder to gain a competitive advantage by manipulating weight distro.

There. But again, it’s not my issue. I’m neutral on this one.

#23

I emailed Chuck and Carter this morning. Here’s my letter in case anyone wants to use it to support - or oppose - the rule change. :wink:

[quote][i]If it isn’t too late, I’d like to propose that the minimum weight be lowered from 2750 to 2675 pounds. My reasons for this are:

  •      with the 318 no longer eligible, we don't need to carry 150 lbs more than them to maintain parity

  •      virtually everyone I know runs a cool box, spare tire, full trunk tar and/or ballast to make weight

  •      even at 2675 there will be no incentive to skimp on the cage to save weight

  •      the safety factor would be increased by 3% since the kinetic energy carried in an collision would be decreased by 3%

  •      cost of consumables (tires, brakes, gas) would decrease

  •      those running window glass to maintain weight could remove a hazardous condition from their cars

  •      our cornering speeds would increase (albeit marginally) allowing for less conflict with our lighter (Miata) trackmates

The only argument I have heard against lowering weights is that some people have fuel starvation issues below half tank. However, I don’t believe it is necessary or appropriate to penalize everyone because some people have not repaired their cars to proper operation.

Since compliance with this rule is voluntary and cheap, I hope that you and the others will seriously consider it.[/i][/quote]

#24

Steve, nice letter. You moved the issue from mind-numbing chatter (this board is not a place for rules appeals) to the position of consideration by those that matter.

For those that have not completely stripped the car (sits outside and real functioning windows are nice) the 2750 number with the 210 pound driver is ideal. So, I could argue the other way.I could also remove glass and such that really should not be in a race car.

But, I don’t care, either way is fine.

RP

#25

good job steve.

#26

Steve D wrote:

[quote]

  •      our cornering speeds would increase (albeit marginally) allowing for less conflict with our lighter (Miata) trackmates

[/i][/quote]

Now that’s an interesting angle.

#27

Drivers:

We (the Spec E30 Regional Series Directors and me) are adding this to the current discussions and will consider it.

We do check the forums periodically but if you want to formally propose an issue for discussion among the Spec E30 Officials, submit your idea to your Spec E30 Regional Series Director and he/she will send it to the Spec E30 Officials.

And if you want to get an idea about what your fellow drivers think about your issue, prior to submitting it to your Regional Series Director, post it on the forums. We want you guys and gals to discuss your ideas openly.

Also, there is no rush on a proposal. After a thorough discussion among the Regional Series Directors and me, and per the Spec E30 Rules, I can send a change to NASA National (to get their final approval) anytime.

We still have a few issues to work through so adding this will extend the process some. However, we should have an answer to the drivers within a week or so.

Thanks to everyone who has offered thoughts and ideas. Spec E30 gets stronger every year and 2010 is looking good already.

Carter Hunt
Spec E30 National Series Director

#28

Carter,

I’ve been searching around on the discussion regarding reducing the minimum weight. It seems that it was considered for 2010, but turned down. I couldn’t find a reason why, or if it was still being considered. I’d like to see the reduction to 2675 for 2011 and was just inquiring with Michael Osborne on how to proceed. I have yet to see anyone opposing this rule change, but haven’t polled every SE30 driver, either.

Could the 2675 lb Min Weight be considered again for 2011? What were the hurdles to overcome when it was last considered?

Thanks

#29

Z3SpdDmn wrote:

[quote]Carter,

I’ve been searching around on the discussion regarding reducing the minimum weight. It seems that it was considered for 2010, but turned down. I couldn’t find a reason why, or if it was still being considered. I’d like to see the reduction to 2675 for 2011 and was just inquiring with Michael Osborne on how to proceed. I have yet to see anyone opposing this rule change, but haven’t polled every SE30 driver, either.

Could the 2675 lb Min Weight be considered again for 2011? What were the hurdles to overcome when it was last considered?

Thanks[/quote]

+1

I’d like to second or third or whatever the head count is on this. There are lots of good points of view on how weight reduction will have a positive impact on both safety and savings. But the best argument I’ve heard - is to lessen the advantage Miata’s have in turns. If you’ve ever run at Road Atlanta with 15+ Miata’s, you’d realize that that alone will save the Spec E30’s in the southeast about $3,000 - $4,000 a year in bent metal. :S

Carter & the Spec E30 Regional Series Directors… Please, please, PLEASE take this rule change under consideration for 2011 rule changes.

#30

Poll creation attempt #4 seems to be working.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/LMHYN8S

I voted for 2700lbs. I have a passenger seat that I don’t want to remove, and I have to start races with a full gas tank or the car might start hiccuping before race end.

#31

scottmc wrote:

[quote]Z3SpdDmn wrote:

[quote]Carter,

I’ve been searching around on the discussion regarding reducing the minimum weight. It seems that it was considered for 2010, but turned down. I couldn’t find a reason why, or if it was still being considered. I’d like to see the reduction to 2675 for 2011 and was just inquiring with Michael Osborne on how to proceed. I have yet to see anyone opposing this rule change, but haven’t polled every SE30 driver, either.

Could the 2675 lb Min Weight be considered again for 2011? What were the hurdles to overcome when it was last considered?

Thanks[/quote]

+1

I’d like to second or third or whatever the head count is on this. There are lots of good points of view on how weight reduction will have a positive impact on both safety and savings. But the best argument I’ve heard - is to lessen the advantage Miata’s have in turns. If you’ve ever run at Road Atlanta with 15+ Miata’s, you’d realize that that alone will save the Spec E30’s in the southeast about $3,000 - $4,000 a year in bent metal. :S

Carter & the Spec E30 Regional Series Directors… Please, please, PLEASE take this rule change under consideration for 2011 rule changes.[/quote]
And during a bad year, +$10,000.

#32

also voted for 2700lb. my car is 2500lb with passenger accommodations, but no tar or door glass so there’s not a lot of “easy” mass left to take out. have to add 50lb ballast to make min weight.

#33

Steve D wrote:

[quote]leggwork wrote:

I am still puzzled why we don’t drop 50-75 lbs. from the minimum. I don’t know anyone who couldn’t drop that much weight easily. I have a stout cage and still have to run a full cool suit box, trunk tar and spare.

Less weight would mean longer lasting tires and brakes, better fuel economy, better handling. But for some reason, the idea never seems to gain any traction with the powers that be.[/quote]

It is a conspiracy by the guys who own the track records:unsure: :huh:

#34

Voted for 2700 as well. Only easy weight is about 2/3 of the trunk melt sheet and the spare tire. Could go lower on fuel but I know some people have issues with their tanks so that shouldn’t be where the weight comes from.

#35

Ranger wrote:

[quote]Poll creation attempt #4 seems to be working.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/LMHYN8S

I voted for 2700lbs. I have a passenger seat that I don’t want to remove, and I have to start races with a full gas tank or the car might start hiccuping before race end.[/quote]

1st let me say thanks for setting up this poll. I hope everyone will vote…

For what it’s worth… I voted 2675 because I think that is a more natural weight for our cars without adding weight. Plus I think it’ll prove to have some cost savings, performance gains, and most of all… much added safety

Now ROCK the VOTE, People

#36

The vote is evenly split between 2700, 2675, and 2650. 9 votes total.

#37

What do Pro 3’s run at 2450, 2500?

2650 would make enduros easier to complete at min weight. I’d also like to echo the cost saving aspects as well.

Guys, getting a car down to 2650 is not all that difficult. :wink:

#38

rrroadster wrote:

it’s not the car i’m worried about

#39

Getting the car to 2650 is easy, I’d vote for that, but I would settle for 2700. :slight_smile: It’s tough making weight for enduros in addition to the 180lbs driver (I’m 210, so I have to make up another 30lbs in ballast :slight_smile: )

#40

Let’s make some improvement (aka 2700) for 2011 and make sure no one has any issue then we can talk about a further reduction for 2012.