Some pre-season work on GRM project Spec E30

#41

Keep it light. I can remember when racing was (is) fun in the Southeast. Scott, come see us. I’m in agreement with Skeen.

Pantas wants to talk about exhaust. Shall we? :blush:

Regards, Robert Patton

#42

I’m glad this has sparked some discussion, and I’m all for a future pondering of the ballast rules. Naturally, we’ll abide by whatever the tech or race officials say at the upcoming Roebling race and any future events. Now I gotta stop lurking on this thread and get back to proofing the next issue of GRM. Pesky deadlines.

Really looking forward to seeing and racing with you guys this weekend!

#43

I forgot to add that I’m feeling like a humorless bastard today and I’m right even if you beat me.

Sasha

#44

Ex36 wrote:

[quote]I forgot to add that I’m feeling like a humorless bastard today

Sasha[/quote]

Sasha - that is probably just the residual brain damage talking. We won’t hold it against you.

#45

ctbimmer wrote:

This is the correct answer. It’s Pantas’ fault for leaving too much downtime in between… has absolutely nothing to do with the rules. How do I know you ask?

Because I live downtown Atlanta. You see, on “payday” (the day a crackhead stumbles into a suburbanite lost downtown, asks for money and he or she hands it to them), a crackhead will go on a two day bender and be happy as a clam not to have a place to sleep, food, a shower or the correct weighted spare tire in his or her race car. Now once the crack hangover starts kicking in, and a few days pass, said crackhead becomes figidty, irritable and if sober long enough, downright mean. He or she starts walking in front of cars begging for money, typing things on the internet he or she didn’t mean, or if long enough, cheats (and steals) to get another fix.

It’s going to be a rough couple of days until this weekend apparently. Even Skeen’s getting antsy (lmao Steve). Settle down Skeen.

#46

[b]TheRedBaron wrote Even Skeen’s getting antsy (lmao Steve). Settle down Skeen.[/quote]

That’s funny, Skeen watched 100k fly out through a hole in his intercooler and showed less emotion than his post;)

#47

ctbimmer wrote:

Tom and I were just talking about this. His car is light, mine is heavy. He’s skinny, I’m a fat-ass! Aside from that, Tom points out that my cage is very over built and his is very minimal. I don’t even need a spare to make weight.

This is fun, right?

#48

Well I’ll throw in my 2 cents. First I applaud everyone for keeping the discussion light hearted because amateur racing, at least for me, is firstly about fun and then about competition. I’m in the camp that it is not within the spirit of the rules. Based on how the rules are written I could see it how you might see it as legal but I always read the rules and then use my own head to figure out what they mean. I’m pretty sure they didn’t envision this when they allowed running a spare. Either way you look at it I think it does bring up a valid concern of the current weight limit allowing a lot of flexibility as to where the weight can be placed. I think the ultimate solution is to drop the min weight by 25lbs – 30lbs and require all sound deadening to be removed and no spare. I’m right at a weight where I can play around with the use of the spare. I ran the spare for the Nationals race because it is a longer race (I weighed in 20lbs over at the end), some of the shorter sprint races I ran without. I’m still undecided what handles better. It evens the weight distribution, might help traction, but it is pretty near the end of the car. In theory is should help reduce understeer and maybe help the car trail brake better. Of course I can’t really tell the difference but there has to be a right way. I’m sure with enough testing I could figure it out.

#49

It’s interesting we seem to have just as many people that are underweight as there is overweight, so perhaps the 2750 is a good weight for this series. I’m sure there is a lot of owners here that would support a freeing of the ballast placement rules tho - just change it to require a minimum weight and leave as is.

#50

Age wrote:

you make some very good points. Seems to be an easy way to try to make everyone happy…

#51

All:

This is certainly an interesting discussion. And I have to applaud Scott and the GRM staff for their “creativity.” And I appreciate them being upfront and honest about it.

After looking at the pictures and reading the article at GRM online, I agree that this really isn’t within the spirit of the rules. We clearly did not envision this scenario (man, you guys are good at thinkin’ things up) but after re-reading the rules, I cannot say that it’s 100% illegal. If Scott wants to run his “spare” this weekend, we’re not going to make him take it out. And honestly, he can be protested but I can tell you now that he won’t be found to be illegal. Also, let’s all remember that one driver (ahem Mr. Patton) doesn’t make a ruling for his region regarding the legality of a modification.

:wink:

Let’s also all remember that the rules can be changed at any time, while keeping in mind that the rules will be stable and that a change will occur only when an error is found or when it is in the best interest of the series and the drivers…and their wallets. The spirit of the Rules is clear and if a driver comes up with a creative modification, it might result in a rule change. My advice; don’t spend a lot of money on a questionable modification because you might not get to use it very long.

The Spec E30 Regional Series Directors and I will discuss the spare rule and after getting their thoughts, the rule might change.

I don’t think that Scott’s finishing position will be greatly affected by this but Spec E30 will have an official announcement on this, after considering what is best for the series and the drivers.

And it’s interesting that the “tinkerers” like this and the “keep the cars simple and low cost” guys don’t.

Carter

#52

I can’t believe what I just read.

#53

Why not? He stated your point, that its not within the spirit of the rules and will more than likely result in a clarification of the rule. However, as it currently reads, its not illegal.

Please correct me if I’m off base Carter.

#54

As far as I’m concerned the rules on this subject are empathically clear. This isn’t a debate about a grey area. Unless the weight is added to the passenger area ahead of the passenger seat, it is not legal…period. If you want to make it legal…fine, I have no problem with it. But you cannot say this is legal by saying it isn’t totally illegal. That is bullshit.

Mark you calander, today is the day we invited rule creep into spec e30.

#55

Man, I hope you guys don’t make me remove that trunk mat. It looks like a real PIA to get out.

JOhn

#56

drumbeater wrote:

[quote]Man, I hope you guys don’t make me remove that trunk mat. It looks like a real PIA to get out.

JOhn[/quote]

It’s a piece of cake, heat gun and scraper and it will come out in no time.

#57

drumbeater wrote:

[quote]Man, I hope you guys don’t make me remove that trunk mat. It looks like a real PIA to get out.

JOhn[/quote]

actually it’s not.

After slapping my tail against the wall at VIR (not the recommended method) half of mine popped up and was loss in the trunk.

After that, I figured it wasn’t a good idea to be racing with something that wasn’t truly fastened down. Had the hit to the rear been more direct and any of those pieces found there way into the drivers area it could have been pretty ugly.

What didn’t come up, was removed simply by pulling it up on a hot day. A heat gun will work just as well.

As for the rest of the bickering… lets give it a rest. The powers to be are on it. Give them some time to work it out.

I’ll see all you antsy bitches at the track!

#58

I guess I better get some sheet metal screws and fender washers to hold it in place. I’m not as good as a welder as Per. :stuck_out_tongue: I’ll have to suffice with the trunk mat to add rear end weight.

John

#59

Carter: Sorry to add to your work load! We’ll look forward to a clarification when it comes down the line. I suspect we’ll see a rewording of the bit in 9.2.2 that says: “Alternatively, a spare tire may (3.1) be placed in the spare tire well and appropriately secured.”

I’m all for the current weight minimum of 2750 with driver; it seems to be a good zone that covers all the participating cars and doesn’t penalize those drivers who might not be the aforementioned Danica Patrick body type (lamentable though that may be.) Personally, I’m not crazy about the idea of 50 to 100 pounds of ballast riding along with me in the passenger compartment at 120mph; Grade 5 bolts are lovely, but I doubt the average 50 pound barbell weight is designed for impact-level g loads.

Perhaps loosen the ballast location restrictions and specify a legal range for front/rear weight bias?

Oh, and for those attending the Roebling event, you can get your photo taken with the suddenly infamous Chromepocalypse wheel in its trunk for just $5 a shot!

#60

GRMScott wrote:

[quote]Carter: Sorry to add to your work load! We’ll look forward to a clarification when it comes down the line. I suspect we’ll see a rewording of the bit in 9.2.2 that says: “Alternatively, a spare tire may (3.1) be placed in the spare tire well and appropriately secured.”

I’m all for the current weight minimum of 2750 with driver; it seems to be a good zone that covers all the participating cars and doesn’t penalize those drivers who might not be the aforementioned Danica Patrick body type (lamentable though that may be.) Personally, I’m not crazy about the idea of 50 to 100 pounds of ballast riding along with me in the passenger compartment at 120mph; Grade 5 bolts are lovely, but I doubt the average 50 pound barbell weight is designed for impact-level g loads.

Perhaps loosen the ballast location restrictions and specify a legal range for front/rear weight bias?

Oh, and for those attending the Roebling event, you can get your photo taken with the suddenly infamous Chromepocalypse wheel in its trunk for just $5 a shot![/quote]

for $5 I want to pose with it on my car :laugh: