STUPID RULES V2

#1

Ballast…why do we need to require it to be in one place other than to copy SCCA? Discussion:ohmy: Chuck

#2

If you can’t figure out how to add weight without it being classified as ballast you have no business racing. :wink:

#3

Enough about being fat

#4

I would think any weight above that supplied with the car is “ballast”. So, a 165# driver in a car that has had no stripping what so ever needs an additional 100# to make weight. (Yes, I have scales) So, Steve, how would you add additional weight and not have it called ballast? Chuck

#5

Spare tire, cool suit, multiple fire extinguishers, big battery…

RP

#6

And those are the easy ones. How about:

  • 6 lb battery mount
  • robust cage
  • keep the parking brake
  • ‘custom’ finned differential cover
  • stout :wink: differential catch tank
  • “Dang that right rear quarter took a lot of bondo to get smooth…”
  • audio “data” recording device to complement data acquisition (I am a traditionalist, so I prefer analog recordings best produced with my 20 lb reel-to-reel)

Am I up to 50 lbs yet?

#7

Shave the front right wheel ( © Steve DeVinney 2010 ) down by .03 lbs, then add wheel weights to the other wheels to corner balance ( © GrassRootsMotorsports 2009 )

By the way Chuck, who is this “we”? Are you racing in SE30 now?

#8

TheRedBaron wrote:

Actually, you could shave the Team Dynamics Pro Race 2 about 1.5 lbs each from what I understand (6.4 kg down to 5.7ish). But you want the weight off the left front.

#9

PS - Grassroots’ spare would have been legal per the letter of the 2009 rules if they had only used two weight plates. See “Elimination of Imbalance” below from the shop manual. :wink:

Just be careful if you have more than two balancing weights (e.g. like the strips of 1g weights). Technically illegal according to the factory manual.

#10

Steve D wrote:

Cool. I knew I kept that old reel-to-reel for something. FOUR tracks of data, baby! :woohoo:

#11

Not that my car is anywhere near under weight, but my Harness is bolted thur the floor and backed by 1/4in steel plate, good for ~15 lbs. :slight_smile:

#12

Back to the original comment/question in post #1

Yes our ballast and weight rule is “stupid”

I think there are far more pros than cons to lowering our minimum weight by 100-150 Lbs

#13

Also re: the original post, my guess is the rules guys (Carter, Chuck, etc.) don’t take too kindly to calling their rules “stupid.”

Chuck T. made a pretty good point IMHO that guys with operable windows and good cages are close to minimums without having to add ballast (much less non-ballast creativity weight).

I made a reasonable, rational argument in favor of dropping the minimum weight. But they turned it down. Oh well. There’s still fun to be had with the rules. :laugh:

#14

I can think of eight legal ways to add weight to the rear of the car that are in violation of the spirit of the ballast rule. And almost as many illegal ways that would require a tear down of the car to prove. That means that the rules either have to become very complex to cover all of the cases, or we need a different rule. I’d propose that the ballast rule should read:

At the end of a race the car with driver must weight at least 2750lb (or other mandated weight). Any amount of ballast can be placed anywhere in the car, provided that it is securely attached to the car’s structure.

That is a simple rule that is easily enforced and does not affect the cost of the car.

#15

Am I missing something. Why the sudden rule debate? It seems they’ve been discussed time and time again.

#16

No, I’m not racing a SpecE30…I still run my SCCA ITA 325e.

Yes, the cars could loose 200# to 2550 very easily. But then you would not be able to run SCCA ITS so that weight change will probably happen just so you can’t run with SCCA:laugh:

There are only two logical places to put weight in an e30…one is the REAR passenger foot well.

Do the rules allow the weight of a cool shirt to be talleyed in the overall weight…SCCA does not, so one would assume…:woohoo:

Egregiously large mounting plates were outlawed in SCCA…then why would you want weight on the left side of the car.

Were I running a Spec car, I would remove the trunk tar and add weight to the REAR passenger foot well. Little things…cB

#17

cwbaader wrote:

Huh? :blink:

…from the 2010 SCCA GCR…
9.3.50. WEIGHT
All cars shall meet or exceed the minimum weight specified with driver, exactly as they come off the race circuit, at the conclusion of a race or qualifying session.

Little things like that would get you DQ’d. Unless you build a “Levie Frame”. The rules is the rules.

Why why why do you have an axe to grind about perceived rule changes that make it more difficult to run in a class and with a sanctioning body that these cars were not designed to run? SE30 rules are just not compatible with IT rules. The modifications and substitutions possible in IT make it impossible to have a competitive cross-over car from SE30 to IT. I simply don’t understand the agenda.

#18

cwbaader wrote:

And M20 pistons are melting…

The rules guys checked with lots of people, discussed this at length, and decided that the weight was OK. To suggest 200 pounds is laughable. Yes, you can get an ITA E30 to 2550 with driver. You can’t get a SE30 there without using muffler tubing for the cage. At least in the experience of a lot of people who have built one.

#19

Steve, I have no axe to grind since I have no dog in this fight. I am trying to point out things that will make building the cars easier and cheaper. That is the agenda. Until you have spent the time to totally strip two cars and build winning e30s, you won’t understand. BTW, I make 2550 without ballast…in my ITS car that Michael Osborne bought, I had to add 200# of ballast to make weight…that is two cars prepared the same with the same results. If you don’t wish to expend the time and effort don’t criticize us that do.

The addition of a cool suit in previous GCRs specifically listed its weight not be used to make GCR weight. May have changed in the 2010 GCR but I doubt it…there is more than one rule that governs race weight.

One last thing: I like to run with multiple organizations…my personal preference. I have raced my car with 4 sanctioning bodies and enjoyed all. There are other people who wish to do the same, so, if the rules are similar, you can cross race. You only learn when you do this. NASA, in some classes, has attempted to structure the rules so the car can only be run in NASA…GTS is a good example. I personally do not agree with this as I think it dilutes the race participation for all sanctioning bodies.

Spec E30 can cross over to ITS quite easily…all you really need is R compound tires…I don’t think you could win, but a podium is certainly not out of the question. It boils down to choices…I like lots of choices. Maybe in the next year or two I’ll build a Spec car but for now I will race my winning ITA car. Chuck

#20

cwbaader wrote:

Huh? OPM built my car under my general direction. I guess that doesnt’ count, eh? Believe me, I got several paper cuts writing those checks. It’s harder than it looks.

This reminds me of that Happy Days episode when The Fonz was trying to say “I’m so… I’m sorr…” :laugh:

But it won’t be competitive.

Congratulations. Clearly your victories carry more weight than mine. :blink: