car weight

#61

cwbaader wrote:

[quote]Steve, I just finished my third car at this weight.[/quote]OK, but the appropriate rule change IMHO takes into consideration how difficult compliance is for EXISTING cars. Clearly, with additional rules allowances and racer creativity any of us could get 200 pounds out - with a fresh build.

[quote]You are taking weight off the whole car, not just the front. Therefore, you are not stiffening only one end, per your opine, you are stiffening the whole car, which is a good thing.[/quote]My point is that since the front bar is unadjustable, by lowering the weight the unintended result is even less adjustment in the bars. Most folks I know already run the rear bar full soft.

Less weight means both bars are effectively stiffer. Not a problem for smooth southern tracks, but some of our northern competitors may not want even stiffer bars when trying to tune around mid-corner bumps.

In a nutshell, we can lower the weight 50-100 pounds with our existing ruleset without creating a ton of work. 200 pounds would necessitate new rules - or at least major rebuilding.

With a 100 pound drop, many folks would have to invest in a new fuel tank, lines, pumps, etc. to avoid starvation. To me, that is enough of a flinch point.

#62

cwbaader wrote:

No knee jerk reaction here. There are 5 E30s registered: two (Corbin, Reppert) that are full ITS builds, I believe. There’s a 318 in ITB. Your car is an e motor. Don’t know about John Newcomb’s ITA car but I don’t believe I have seen him on a SE30 entry list.

I am really not trying to be argumentative, but I think it does us all a disservice to frame the argument about weight reduction with information that has no true bearing.

I agree with you. Tires can help a ton. Provided they are connected to triple adjustable shocks and driven by a motor with open intake, exhaust and ECU rules. :wink: :laugh:

#63

Steve D wrote:

[quote]Less weight means both bars are effectively stiffer. Not a problem for smooth southern tracks, but some of our northern competitors may not want even stiffer bars when trying to tune around mid-corner bumps.

In a nutshell, we can lower the weight 50-100 pounds with our existing ruleset without creating a ton of work. 200 pounds would necessitate new rules - or at least major rebuilding.

With a 100 pound drop, many folks would have to invest in a new fuel tank, lines, pumps, etc. to avoid starvation. To me, that is enough of a flinch point.[/quote]

less mass also means increased ride height. that would probably have as much or more of an impact on handling than the slightly higher “effective swaybar stiffness” that steve mentions. but i agree that a 50 to 100 pound reduction in min weight is plenty.

#64

Vote total as of now…
Stay 2750, 0
2725, 0
2700, 7
2675, 9
2650, 10

#65

Ranger has set up a poll to gauge what Spec E30 drivers think about changing our Minimum weight.

[color=#0000FF]http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/LMHYN8S[/color]

There’s no guarantees the rule makers will change the rules, but it would be nice to get everyone’s input.

Remember if you don’t vote, you have no right to complain. I voted, so I can complain :lol:

#66

Ok, Steve…the current car is the 7th or so I have built or set up. There will be no change on bumpier tracks…I run much stiffer springs and bars that the spec setup and do just fine. I call BS.

Neither SCCA or NASA allows a builder to swiss cheese the chassis. I only remove things that are legal to remove during a build. Actually, NASA is much more lenient than SCCA.

If you don’t know how to compensate for increased ride height, park your car. It won’t amount to over 1/8th inch.

I was giving an example based on my experience in building several e30s. The weight is attainable without unreasonable measures being taken. What ever the rules makers decide won’t be a problem with an existing car or a new build. Steve, chill. CB

#67

2650 10 <-- sweet!

#68

Just curious, where do we stand with the poll now?

#69

the weight chosen as far as I can remember was that it allowed people to run in ITS with the same car with no adjustment - the idea was to pull drivers from the ITS field, as the car are uncompetitive there.

There was no other reason for the weight chosen.

But shit… if we do this I have to re-design my cage and get rid of the airco… :slight_smile:

#70

I’ll stand by that the weight reduction should not go too far. You shouldn’t have to take out heater core to make weight, shouldn’t have to replace a fuel tank/pump to not starve, shouldn’t have to worry about those extra cage bars you’d like to run, etc…

Don’t forget the negative effects of a more forward weight bias.

BTW, are later cars heavier than earlier cars?

#71

The only car I have found to be lighter are the 318’s converted to 325… People tell me- I haven’t done the research that the old style bumpers are heavier than the new… but that’s hearsay.

#72

jlucas wrote:

[quote]I’ll stand by that the weight reduction should not go too far. You shouldn’t have to take out heater core to make weight, shouldn’t have to replace a fuel tank/pump to not starve, shouldn’t have to worry about those extra cage bars you’d like to run, etc…
[/quote]
+1

Add window glass and sunroof.

The series is supposed to be about equal, cheap and easy. I think that folks are getting excited about the idea of removing a bunch of weight because they’d be faster. It ain’t about faster.

Stay 2750, 1
2725, 0
2700, 9
2675, 14
2650, 16

#73

jlucas wrote:

[quote]I’ll stand by that the weight reduction should not go too far. You shouldn’t have to take out heater core to make weight, shouldn’t have to replace a fuel tank/pump to not starve, shouldn’t have to worry about those extra cage bars you’d like to run, etc…

Don’t forget the negative effects of a more forward weight bias.

BTW, are later cars heavier than earlier cars?[/quote]

+1, in my case 2700# is fairly easy, 2675# would take some effort to achieve but doable. at 2650# things get a lot tougher, remember that quite a few of us have passenger accommodations that add 25 or 30# between the seat, mounts, and harnesses (i can’t imagine being an instructor w/o the ability to take people for ride alongs). plus camera/mount, data ack, cooler loaded with water/ice - these are things that no one should have to sacrifice just to make min weight.

#74

Ranger wrote:

[quote]

The series is supposed to be about equal, cheap and easy. I think that folks are getting excited about the idea of removing a bunch of weight because they’d be faster. It ain’t about faster.

Stay 2750, 1
2725, 0
2700, 9
2675, 14
2650, 16[/quote]

I don’t know that any of this has anything to do with being faster. For me it’s a safety issue that stems from all the weight we have to add to make weight.

2750 is just a lot heavier than we ought to be.

In order to make weight I have to have a fairly full tank and add 40+ pounds… more if I don’t run a cool suit. I have a spare tire, window glass and my heater core.

Would it be nice to pick up a little more speed to gain more separation between us and the Miata’s?.. you bet you’re ass. But that isn’t a reason to change rules.

#75

scottmc wrote:

[quote]
I don’t know that any of this has anything to do with being faster. For me it’s a safety issue that stems from all the weight we have to add to make weight.

2750 is just a lot heavier than we ought to be.

In order to make weight I have to have a fairly full tank and add 40+ pounds… more if I don’t run a cool suit. I have a spare tire, window glass and my heater core.

Would it be nice to pick up a little more speed to gain more separation between us and the Miata’s?.. you bet you’re ass. But that isn’t a reason to change rules.[/quote]
I’m ok with dropping weight, I’m just not ok with 2650. It’d be a pita for me to drop 100lbs.

#76

Just my 2 cents.
I am building a SPECe30 because it is very affordable and I have always applauded the essentially unchanged ruleset. Theres not even a NASA region close to me so I will be traveling to play - I like the concept of the cars that much.
If you start lowering the weight of these cars, IT WILL make some of the already built cars a bit more difficult to put on a diet, creating further headache for their owners.

It seems in racing that rule changes often open the door for other rule changes. “If we allow this, then we ought to allow that…”

Long story short, quit getting your panties in a wad over the 2750 weight. Yes lighter is faster and better tire wear and blah blah blah. In our tightening economic times, this is probably about the only class of race car ANYWHERE in any series that has an increase in car count year to year. Its a proven formula that is working - don’t screw with it. If a driver has to sit out a year or two because of his family or economic reasons he can at least rejoin at a later date knowing his car should still be competitive.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

#77

cranknpiston wrote:

[quote]Just my 2 cents.
I am building a SPECe30 because it is very affordable and I have always applauded the essentially unchanged ruleset. Theres not even a NASA region close to me so I will be traveling to play - I like the concept of the cars that much.
If you start lowering the weight of these cars, IT WILL make some of the already built cars a bit more difficult to put on a diet, creating further headache for their owners.

It seems in racing that rule changes often open the door for other rule changes. “If we allow this, then we ought to allow that…”

Long story short, quit getting your panties in a wad over the 2750 weight. Yes lighter is faster and better tire wear and blah blah blah. In our tightening economic times, this is probably about the only class of race car ANYWHERE in any series that has an increase in car count year to year. Its a proven formula that is working - don’t screw with it. If a driver has to sit out a year or two because of his family or economic reasons he can at least rejoin at a later date knowing his car should still be competitive.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.[/quote]

agree with the rules stability but there’s a lot of cars carrying ballast, not to mention spare tire, extra gas etc. to “make” weight so dropping 50-75lbs shouldn’t be hard work for anyone.

#78

I agree with most of the statements on this page. That is why I voted for 2700 as everyone seems to make it sound like that should be done very easily even for the guys with cars already built. I had another unrelated question since multiple people mentioned the heater core. I thought the heater core was the small thing that comes out of the side of the big blower box under the dash. I know we are allowed to remove that part as it poses a safety issue with hot coolant coming inside, but it doesn’t weigh much. Are you guys talking about removing the big blower box instead? I don’t see anywhere in the rules where it says we can remove it. It says we can remove the heater core and hoses. It says we can remove the air conditioning. I noticed some cars have it removed and some don’t. I didn’t remove it because I didn’t think we were allowed to remove it.

#79

King Tut wrote:

9.3.5.3.3. Heater core and heater core box, and the related hoses, may be removed. An
electric windshield defogging system may be added.

I believe the above covers it. I checked before removing mine and received confirmation that it is legal to remove. It’s really nice to have that thing out of the way.

#80

scottmc wrote:

Sorry, I just don’t buy that. If your weight is properly fastened, there is no safety issue.

For example, I have 250lbs of lead in the T3 S2000 that I also race. Last year one guys in the same car turned it into a pretzel at the kink at Road America (high speed off into a concrete wall) - no problem with the lead.