2008 weight rule starts here

[kbrew8991]

I wonder if Greg has some formal procedure in place were you could contest your car's factory weight and from there if the difference is enough you could get the car a new base class...?

[Greg G.]

It would make more sense to re-class car models that for whatever reason are grossly over their curb weights as listed by the factory than to allow for weight points back. I'm still not sure why (as an example), there is one Corvette in the Midwest/Ohio region that weighs much more than the factory listing, and much more than similar cars that other TT competitors have. I suppose that one issue could be tire and wheel size/type, and the other issue could be options (stereos, power this and that, etc).

 

For those of you that think it would be easy to control the ballast requirement--think again. While it may not be too difficult to find ballast in a gutted racecar, it would be much different in a "street" TT car that has full interior, carpet, etc. Even an aftermarket seat could be ballast. Some of you may recall that we found illegal ballast in a Miata in '06.

Edited September 26, 2007 by Guest

[Mac11]

It would make more sense to re-class car models that for whatever reason are grossly over their curb weights as listed by the factory than to allow for weight points back. I'm still not sure why (as an example), there is one Corvette in the Midwest/Ohio region that weighs much more than the factory listing, and much more than similar cars that other TT competitors have. I suppose that one issue could be tire and wheel size/type, and the other issue could be options (stereos, power this and that, etc).

 

For those of you that think it would be easy to control the ballast requirement--think again. While it may not be too difficult to find ballast in a gutted racecar, it would be much different in a "street" TT car that has full interior, carpet, etc. Even an aftermarket seat could be ballast. Some of you may recall that we found illegal ballast in a Miata in '06.

 

 

I think because of this the rules should be left alone. If you want to get into policing every car down to every lb i think the other association is calling your name. Either that or you need to get a comp license and go to a full race class or a spec class.

 

I completely understand wanting to be competitive, in the car you currently own, in its base class. I'm currently working my way up to TT and I've already used the current rules to plan my modifications accordingly from a completely OE equipped car. But I still think there becomes a point at which you have to realize you set out to do this for the FUN of it and if you want to take it beyond that you should be in a full race format.

[BtwoG]

I think because of this the rules should be left alone.

 

Actually I think this betters the case for changing the rules. The rules are complicated enought without modifying them for optional equipment. Imagine the number of different configurations we could have if we considered optional equipment on each vehicle. If you make weight the only "option," this greatly simplifies things.

[loudes13]

not sure why that mustang is sooooo heavy. Maybe all options vs a stripped one will add up to 100-200lbs but 400??? It's not conv't is it?

 

I assume Robert's vette is heavy because it was the latest C4 made, best engine, biggest rims, better sound insulation, and more options. It would make sense that the '96 GS weighs more than a base '84-87 car.

[Varkwso]

not sure why that mustang is sooooo heavy. Maybe all options vs a stripped one will add up to 100-200lbs but 400??? It's not conv't is it?

 

I assume Robert's vette is heavy because it was the latest C4 made, best engine, biggest rims, better sound insulation, and more options. It would make sense that the '96 GS weighs more than a base '84-87 car.

 

84-86 C4's are the lightest ones of the series - I think they still do well at autoX because of it.

 

'96 GS will weigh more - just based on tires and wheels alone (275 front & 315 rear - stock) there is a few pounds...

[BtwoG]

not sure why that mustang is sooooo heavy. Maybe all options vs a stripped one will add up to 100-200lbs but 400??? It's not conv't is it?

 

I wasnt really trying to make this a thread about the Mustang, but just was using that as an example. I'm sure there are many vehicles that fall into a similar situation. The point is that if we both give and take points for weight, it all works itself out.

 

BTW, NASA allows the weight to be w/driver, whereas curb weight is w/o driver, so thats 200 pounds right there. So it is conceivable the options are 100-200 pounds, as you say.

[IGZOSTD]

First off , to be competitive you need to get to min. wt. Serious competetors go light . Sorry but thats what it takes

fact is ,giving points back for pork will not work, take my car as an example , 06 Stang Gt , 3450" , with all mods I move from ttd** up to ttb with 42 points, and I feel the car is very competetive in the b class . I plan on doing a roll bar this winter , I weight 235 , the bar will be close to 120" thats 355"

Now to make this whole thing about over wt. fair , the point back has to be the same as wt. reduction. So this now gives me 24 points back . so now I'm down to ttd agian with 18 points wow sounds like a class killer to me and I run dot slicks .(ttb class leader times in NORCAL are about 5 to 7 sec faster than ttd class leader depending on the track) now let me take some more advantage of this and run a full cage , that should be about another 100" so now I'm 455" over and get 31 points back , ttd with 11 points , how about some downforce , or bigger meats , or a cam and compression . or how about guttin the car and cagin it back up to overweight , I like that one hey maybe I'll change my mind on this overweight thing.

I hope you see where this would go . I don't think it would fair to the d guys . I don't think that a 120 " bar would slow my car down . Lets not distroy the TT program that many have worked so hard to build .

My thanks to you all .

[Mac11]

I think because of this the rules should be left alone.

 

Actually I think this betters the case for changing the rules. The rules are complicated enought without modifying them for optional equipment. Imagine the number of different configurations we could have if we considered optional equipment on each vehicle. If you make weight the only "option," this greatly simplifies things.

 

That is what I am saying. The "option" as set right now is weight. Leave it alone.

[RodeoFlyer]

I have a 06' Mustang as well. If the ** were to go away I would be happy as could be.

 

I like the suggestion of making your base tire size the size of the class you end up in. In my case I will be in TTB and STILL take the hit for running 275's. A light car on 265's is one hell of an advantage over my 3800lb car on 275's.

 

Possibly even a base tire size in relation to weight would be an idea?

 

I fully understand the difficulty of making everyone happy and that writing the rules is very complicated, but I do agree that there needs to be some way to level the field between the street cars and race cars. TT is explained as a way for HPDE drivers to get a taste of real racing. It's not a race group, but is being dominated more and more by racers as near as I can tell. It's the difference between the "rules" and the "spirit of the rules".

[iflyadesk]

Did ANYONE read my post?

 

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.

 

We all agree that some manufacturer's listed weights are unrealistic. We also all agree that cars are base classed loosely on power to weight ratio. Instead of getting into a points per weight war, why don't we just leave the rules alone and change the base weight and class of specific vehicles whose listed weights are simply inaccurate?

[Mac11]

Did ANYONE read my post?

 

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.

 

We all agree that some manufacturer's listed weights are unrealistic. We also all agree that cars are base classed loosely on power to weight ratio. Instead of getting into a points per weight war, why don't we just leave the rules alone and change the base weight and class of specific vehicles whose listed weights are simply inaccurate?

 

 

I think its a great idea, but how do you determine which car's don't match their mfg specs?

 

any solution you come up with to that question will take a lot of time and effort.

 

And what about guys like me, who think's the car is shown as a bit too heavy? That means I can't do as much - or any - weight reduction from a full stock interior. With full interior plus my body weight I am very close to my cars weight classification. My friend with the same car who is ~60-80lbs lighter than I am may have to ADD weight to his completely stock car to not have to take points.

[kbrew8991]

A light car on 265's is one hell of an advantage over my 3800lb car on 275's.

 

that doesn't take into account power (or a few other less important but still relevant factors).... remember this isn't autocross guys there are some pretty crazy straights at Mid-O

 

as for the weight issue, fixing individual listings is the way I'd like to see it done. For those cars with alot of variance within the same year, engine, etc..... maybe a few listings for the same year, engine, etc to catch the variances in the sport packages vs luxury packages?

[Varkwso]

.......And what about guys like me, who think's the car is shown as a bit too heavy? That means I can't do as much - or any - weight reduction from a full stock interior. With full interior plus my body weight I am very close to my cars weight classification. My friend with the same car who is ~60-80lbs lighter than I am may have to ADD weight to his completely stock car to not have to take points.

 

Too heavy of a classification is a real problem and a punishment...

 

My ZO6 is listed as 3118 - with 17x11 GS (repro) with NT01 315s on back and 17x9.5 (A Mold) with worn 275/40 NT01s on front, 7/8s tank of gas and a 135 pound driver it scaled 3243 at Roebling on Sunday - so the weight is about right on. If I read the rules right I can go down to 2968 with no points penalty - but I have to watch the HP ratio (341 HP max at that wt) to stay in TTA. That is hard to do without stripping the car pretty heavily.

 

My '99 FRC with a base class of TTB is listed as 3246 and it scales the same as the ZO6. 3096 is its min weight (355HP max) - I think. That requires close monitoring so we do not get points for weight...

[markfw]

"just leave the rules alone and change the base weight and class of specific vehicles whose listed weights are simply inaccurate"

 

I think that is the best idea!

 

If you start giving points back for being over weight you make it an advantage to run the heaviest car possible. 200lbs has a big effect on a 2000lb car, but not nearly as much of an effect on a 4000lb car. It will completely change the class structure if we start giving points back for being over weight.

[Greg G.]

 

My ZO6 is listed as 3118 -.... it scaled 3243 at Roebling on Sunday - so the weight is about right on. If I read the rules right I can go down to 2968 with no points penalty....

 

You read the rules wrong. You can go down to 3113 lbs without a points penalty.

 

Guys, how am I supposed to determine which cars have an incorrect manufacturer rated curb weight. Obviously, we would only have to deal with the ones that are grossly incorrect. But still, how am I supposed to verify that? I can almost guarantee that most (not all, Sam) of these cars that are overweight are due to larger wheels/tires than OEM, and both OEM options and aftermarket options. Most of these manufacturers have no incentive to list their cars as lighter than they actually are, because they need to pay overseas (and US) shipping costs based on weight. I can see how some of these manufacturers could find that they built a heavy goat , and try to make it appear lighter than it is for marketing purposes, though.

 

But, I can also foresee that as soon as I raise the weight on some model, that makes one or two competitors satisfied, that I will get the e-mail from the other guy(s) that did get down to the prior minimum weight, and now have to take weight reduction points. One thing to also remember is that I only can base class cars in increments of *'s (ie 7 points). So, there would undoubtedly be some cars that I may be asked to raise the curb weight on, that wouldn't be high enough to actually change the base class (now, that would be a burn!). So, any increase in curb weight listing on these FEW cars that I am asked to reconsider, like the Boxster, would have to be high enough to at least lower the base class by one *.

[roadracetransam]

I quess I am the only one that would like to see a lower curb weight listed for my car.

I got 250 lb of blast, my skinny 160lb and 3/4 tank of gas struggling not to go under my minimum weight, of 3500.

My stock brakes are also struggling stopping my fat pig too. I use up/crack 2 rotors, and a set of race pads every weekend.

[cosm3os]

I quess I am the only one that would like to see a lower curb weight listed for my car.

I got 250 lb of blast, my skinny 160lb and 3/4 tank of gas struggling not to go under my minimum weight, of 3500.

My stock brakes are also struggling stopping my fat pig too. I use up/crack 2 rotors, and a set of race pads every weekend.

 

Not to kick you when you are down, but 250 lbs of ballast is illegal isn't it? Limit is 150 and I don't recall any provision for points for ballast above 150.

[RACER-X]

Yes 150 LBS is the limit. I wish my car weight 3500 LBS. I think that I have the heaviest car out there. I laughed when they told me at Nats that I had to weight in, not once but twice!! 3938, with only fumes in the tank. If your cracking rotors every race there is something wrong. Check your pad wear. Sounds like your calipers are flexing and need to be replaced.

 

The fact is some of our cars are very overweight and we need to address this. I'd like to hear something from someone at the top who could adjust the rules for this. Be it a one on one basis or a blanket rule to cover everyone.

[roadracetransam]

I quess I am the only one that would like to see a lower curb weight listed for my car.

I got 250 lb of blast, my skinny 160lb and 3/4 tank of gas struggling not to go under my minimum weight, of 3500.

My stock brakes are also struggling stopping my fat pig too. I use up/crack 2 rotors, and a set of race pads every weekend.

 

Not to kick you when you are down, but 250 lbs of ballast is illegal isn't it? Limit is 150 and I don't recall any provision for points for ballast above 150.

 

from the rule book:

"6) Up to two hundred and fifty (250) lbs. of added ballast is permitted—All ballast must

be of solid material (no fluids or shot pellets) and safely secured in any location on

the vehicle approved by NASA safety technical inspectors. The preferred method is

to use at least one (1) 3/8-inch grade-5 bolt, two (2) “fenderâ€

[RACER-X]

Isn't that for TT-U and TT-S only

 

6.2.3 TTU and TTS Vehicle Modification Restrictions/Limitations

 

6) Up to two hundred and fifty (250) lbs. of added ballast is permitted—All ballast must

be of solid material (no fluids or shot pellets) and safely secured in any location on

the vehicle approved by NASA safety technical inspectors. The preferred method is

to use at least one (1) 3/8-inch grade-5 bolt, two (2) “fenderâ€

[Greg G.]

Whoops. I guess I have a Trans Am to inspect at Buttonwillow in two weeks.

[Varkwso]

 

My ZO6 is listed as 3118 -.... it scaled 3243 at Roebling on Sunday - so the weight is about right on. If I read the rules right I can go down to 2968 with no points penalty....

 

You read the rules wrong. You can go down to 3113 lbs without a points penalty.

 

.......

 

Thanks for the clarification - with me driving the FRC we have no problems. With Jake in it may require ballast to make min wt....

[roadracetransam]

Isn't that for TT-U and TT-S only

 

6.2.3 TTU and TTS Vehicle Modification Restrictions/Limitations

 

6) Up to two hundred and fifty (250) lbs. of added ballast is permitted—All ballast must

be of solid material (no fluids or shot pellets) and safely secured in any location on

the vehicle approved by NASA safety technical inspectors. The preferred method is

to use at least one (1) 3/8-inch grade-5 bolt, two (2) “fenderâ€

Edited October 2, 2007 by Guest

[roadracetransam]

Whoops. I guess I have a Trans Am to inspect at Buttonwillow in two weeks.

 

You just checked me in Ohio.