loudes13 Posted September 19, 2007 Share Posted September 19, 2007 Here’s my take about the weight rule. I’ve read the suggestion to allow people to get pts back for excess weight. I can understand this idea when I see examples like the Mustang and Robert’s C4 being a couple hundred lbs overweight. I don’t like the idea that many cars need to gut the interior to be competitive. …but I am also worried that someone will run lots of ballast, to get pts back. More pts means more dollars spent. Let me repeat that, more pts means more dollars spent. There’s already a couple classes where good cars with well used pts are crushing the competition. Do you really want to run against someone that gets 7 extra pts for using 95lbs of ballast down low on the passenger side or rear? That could be the difference between go fast Hankook’s or 75hp on some turbo cars. I believe it’s a slippery slope. I was able to run and win a Championship spending less than $3k – including the purchase price of the car. Open weight pts, will only increase the cost to be competitive. Also ballast could be a safety factor. Your brakes weren’t designed to stop that extra 200lbs you choose to run. I didn’t even mention that those pts allowed you to boost HP by xxx. That weight could also come loose in an impact. What I prefer is cleaning up the curb weights on some cars. I also think the current weight rule should be tightened some. Many cars have a tough time cutting the weight of the driver plus fluids. People with street cars shouldn’t have to gut them. Maybe a maximum amount of ballast, or at least limited amount of pts back could work. Thoughts… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IGZOSTD Posted September 19, 2007 Share Posted September 19, 2007 Lets face it , This is not a cheap hobbie . If we start giving points back for over wt. with no ballast , how about points back for low income . I think this is a step in the wrong direction . Tires are on pointed on the bace class, wt. should be the same , and stay as it is . we have to let the course run on the current rules . I run a wt. challanged car and this would help me greatly, but I am not for any point back system on wt. More power, more wing, more tire ,more brakes, no thanks . 230lbs , would give me 16 pt's back , Not good .1 point shy of tires for free. and I already run in the top 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IS300 Posted September 19, 2007 Share Posted September 19, 2007 I agree with Allen and Steve, my car is definately over weight, but giving points back for weight will become a mathmatical nightmare for Directors and Tech Inspectors. I think the rules are good, not great, but good and I agree they should be left alone for the most part and see how they work themselves out. Remember, Greg said to e-mail him any rules questions/requests as opposed to just posting it on this forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L98Terror Posted September 19, 2007 Share Posted September 19, 2007 I think it's a bad idea to change the rules year to year, if you see a big loop hole than change it, otherwise let it be. By changing the rules it makes people spend more and more money to make their car complainte year after year and it makes all the track record invalid. JMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BQuicksilver Posted September 19, 2007 Share Posted September 19, 2007 Or you could just not give points back if the extra weight was in the form of a ballast. Still, that's not terribly easy to police, but little of TT is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iflyadesk Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 What if we just instead targeted specific vehicles which are clearly never going to make weight. For example, my Boxster S is listed as 2855. It weighed 3107 with an empty tank of gas when I started. I gutted the interior, the front and rear trunks, removed the entire stereo system, and the convertible top, the hardware, the motor and transmissions for the convertible top, and got down to 2840. With driver, I was 2985 while the winner in my class was within ounces of his minimum weight. I posted on Porsche forums, and people couldn't believe that I had actually gotten the car down to 2840 without removing A/C and door panels. This particular car should have a new base weight and be reclassed to TTD. I know there are others cars like this out there where the manufacturer's listed weight is a joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RACER-X Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 I think we should get points back for heavy cars. NO ballast should be allowed to make a car heavier so it could get points back. It should be based on the cars weight as it comes from the factory. We who drive street cars should not have to gut our cars if we choose not to. They give points back for running smaller tires, why not weight. This wouldn't be drastically changing the rules, just fine tuning them as they should be from year to year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgobey Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Some of these rules need legal representation to understand... And this one, will require that representation to go with you to the track. My Car is listed at 2185 - seems perfectly fine, but I am running Azeni's at the moment and a bigger wheel that is heavier than the stock lightweight wheel it came on... as it stands, the car is 100lbs overweight... a Reasonable number to extract from it to get to "legal" weight. for the few points I can get back... I am not sure what to do... Is this a rule that even remotely matters? I guess this rule would allow me to do something expensive to the car... Why does this rule exist? Are our racers with Law Degrees writing these rules? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosm3os Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 This wouldn't be drastically changing the rules, just fine tuning them as they should be from year to year. You call purchasing and reinstalling my interior "not drastic"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varkwso Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 I prefer the weight to be less than the actual car. It is tough to get either of mine to min wt (within 150 pounds) with driver. But that is better than having to strip the stock car. My 02 ZO6 is rated at 3118, my 99 Vette FRC is rated at 3246 - one is heavier and one is lighter - the cars are the same basically. They both scale in at 3145ish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 eh, I don't see whats so hard to understand about the current rule as its written you either take item-by-item points, or you take points for every so many intervals you're under your car's weight listed in the rules....contesting that stated weight is another matter altogether I'd like to see the amt of points-free ballast tightened up to avoid people really going crazy with weight reduction and adding ballast to get back to points-free minimum weight for their car. Sure on the scales they weigh the same, but relocating weight can drastically improve some cars.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ooldguy Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 I agree with no added ballast. I agree that the current rule set is very complicated. But, I still don't get how if negative weight = more points/performance ( true ) then the inverse is not also true. scales are at each event and the weight's are published. the verification of positive weight would be the same as verifying negative weight. I'd say, to grow the TT series, we should be inclusive rather than exclusive. Keep cost's resonable as there are people out there that choose not to run in TT due to the expence. I'd say we're ( NASA ) missing a bet by making many " stock " class car's uncompetitve and making the price of admission ( cost to be competitive, not just entry fee as all other cost's are still there - hotel, fuel, brakes,, etc. ) more than some are willing to pay. It's not easy to justify spending the $ for a TT weekend and know you're going to get " smoked " before you get there. I've run W2W for 20 years and hi-speed open track events for the last 15. I run with group's other than NASA and talk to a lot of people. This isn't just a personal opinion. Robert Dudek NASA Midwest Instructor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 and this is where the online classifier becomes an INVALUABLE tool its much easier for some of these guys to click little boxes than it is to add stuff up on paper for some reason.... but back when the classifier was up and running we rarley had people show up and not have a clue what class they were in... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ooldguy Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 the on-line classifier is nice, but, doesn't address the ? of increasing participation in TT as a result of enabling more car's/racer's to be competitive. knowing how many points you have doesn't lend to enthusiasim to run the event if you're getting run over by 40 or more point cars . there are a bunch of un or lightly modified car's out there that won't run with NASA due to that fact. just trying to offer idea's to grow the series. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveh Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 I think we should get points back for heavy cars. NO ballast should be allowed to make a car heavier so it could get points back. It should be based on the cars weight as it comes from the factory. We who drive street cars should not have to gut our cars if we choose not to. They give points back for running smaller tires, why not weight. This wouldn't be drastically changing the rules, just fine tuning them as they should be from year to year. ditto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosm3os Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that you can't make a change that would force guys who followed the rules and gutted the car and used the ballast allowed to "rebuild" their cars. That is too drastic a change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that you can't make a change that would force guys who followed the rules and gutted the car and used the ballast allowed to "rebuild" their cars. That is too drastic a change. guys at the pointy end of the field tend to get burned from time to time as loopholes get closed on them thats racin' for ya... I doubt there was intent to pressure everyone into pulling out that much weight and adding ballast... but I've been wrong before Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RACER-X Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that you can't make a change that would force guys who followed the rules and gutted the car and used the ballast allowed to "rebuild" their cars. That is too drastic a change. Nobody wants you to re-install your interior!!!! Or take your ballast out!!! Your fine the way you are. Nobody would be forced to do anything like this!! Cars like mine which are over weight, along with the driver, LOL We could get some points back for being heaiver. You chose to gut your car and that's fine but I chose not to. Why should I/we be penilized for that? Just like you run a smaller tire size and get points back for that. The lighter car would still hold the advantage. The ballast their talking about would be if I took my already heavy car and added ballast to make it even more heaiver to get more points back, and that's not right! A car that would be eleigible to get points back for being overweight would have no ballast. The following was in an EM I sent Greg......... Nobody should be allowed to run ballast to increase their weight so as to get points back!!! The cars should be weighted at the track with 1/4 or less tank of fuel. This would just be for the initial weight in so no one could fill their tank to use this as ballast. Spare tire, jack and accessories should be removed as well as all personal items. Just as you would if you were going on the track. For every 20 Lbs over the Min. weight limit we should receive 1 point back. We shouldn't have to strip our street cars just to make weight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RACER-X Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that you can't make a change that would force guys who followed the rules and gutted the car and used the ballast allowed to "rebuild" their cars. That is too drastic a change. guys at the pointy end of the field tend to get burned from time to time as loopholes get closed on them thats racin' for ya... I doubt there was intent to pressure everyone into pulling out that much weight and adding ballast... but I've been wrong before That's fine if us overweight guys get some points back. A street car will never be able to compete with a purpose built car. Kyle did a fine job building his car to the letter of the rules as did others. This is not about just him but includes everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IS300 Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Ok, I have been thinking about this, and what if competitors who use the points method for weight reduction get to use the tire size of the class they bump to, i.e. IS300 starts in TTF=215mm, bump to TTE=225 no points assessed. If the competitor uses the alternative method for weight reduction, the current rules apply. This way the heavier cars get a free tire size or two and the light cars are prepped where they need to be. This would also be easy for tech inspectors to verify since the tire sizes have already been established and would not create a take back situation for the cars already prepped using the alternative method. Discuss. See Ya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GooRoo Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Hmmm... I just calculated it out and if we could get points back for being overweight I could probably drop 2 classes into TTB, where I would have been .038 off the winner's time at Nationals this year... So hey, I'm all for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbyevo Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 Interesting thought Chris, that would give me back enough points to have power on par with the fast guys in my class, and equal tires. Very interesting.... Ok, I have been thinking about this, and what if competitors who use the points method for weight reduction get to use the tire size of the class they bump to, i.e. IS300 starts in TTF=215mm, bump to TTE=225 no points assessed. If the competitor uses the alternative method for weight reduction, the current rules apply. This way the heavier cars get a free tire size or two and the light cars are prepped where they need to be. This would also be easy for tech inspectors to verify since the tire sizes have already been established and would not create a take back situation for the cars already prepped using the alternative method. Discuss. See Ya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 then you'd have that pesky AWD advantage over them and they'd whine about it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BtwoG Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 Here is something else to consider. I would guess that the major factor in coming up with the base classificatioin is the power to weight ratio. My 98 Mustang Cobra has a TT rules weight of 3393 lbs, but a stock car (w/driver) is probably closer to 3770 lbs. Thats nearly 400 pounds difference, meaning the base classing is likely too high. I know there is usually a few hundred pound difference, but 400 pounds in huge. Anyway the point I'm trying to make is that if we gave back points for being overweight, then the penalty for the initial mis-calculation of power weight can be corrected for. It wouldnt matter if the base class were wrong, because we'd get points back if it were. And BTW, I agree that the amount of ballast should be limited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varkwso Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 Here is something else to consider. I would guess that the major factor in coming up with the base classificatioin is the power to weight ratio. My 98 Mustang Cobra has a TT rules weight of 3393 lbs, but a stock car (w/driver) is probably closer to 3770 lbs. Thats nearly 400 pounds difference, meaning the base classing is likely too high. I know there is usually a few hundred pound difference, but 400 pounds in huge. Anyway the point I'm trying to make is that if we gave back points for being overweight, then the penalty for the initial mis-calculation of power weight can be corrected for. It wouldnt matter if the base class were wrong, because we'd get points back if it were. And BTW, I agree that the amount of ballast should be limited. At least you do not have to sweat making weight.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.