2006 TT RULES published 1-5-06

[Greg G.]

Is there a weight difference between the turbo and non-turbo chassis? If there is, we need to figure out if there is a weight reduction point assessment for your swap.

 

The fwd turbo chassises and fwd nt chassises are identical in weight and equipment. In fact the only change in weight between the two is related to the additional weight of the stronger turbo transmission and turbo components which I've installed as well. That said, my car is a fwd turbo model for all intents and purposes outside of the actual vin number.

 

 

Sounds good on the swap--approved swap with base class adjusted upward to turbo car's class (TTE*)

[mavisky]

Greg, thanks for being so prompt to answer questoins, but I had one clarifying question on the update/backdate rules.

 

My car is (and I think we agree now) a 1992 fwd eagle talon tsi, but I've upgraded to the brakes from a 1993 awd eagle talon tsi which are another .5" on the rotor and a dual piston caliper instead of single piston. Is this a legal update/backdate since its the same vehicle, but different model? from 1990-1992 the awd's themselves had the same 1 piston brakes as mine did stock, but the fwd's never had 2 piston brakes in any model year. Would this fall under a Big Brake Kit in the same way a mustang gt would be penalized for using a set of brakes from a mustang cobra?

[Neon2dmaX]

About Car Weight

It is important to remember that Base Classifications were determined based highly on Horsepower to Weight ratios. Be careful what you wish for:

 

Example: You are upset that the curb weight used to classify your car is 3,000 lbs. You believe it should be closer to 2,900 lbs. You are upset because you will be penalized because after mods, your car now weighs 2,800 lbs.

 

If you insist that your base weight should be 2,900 lbs, you would not be penalized for being underweight. HOWEVER........... now your base H.P./Weight ratio has changed for the better. Therefore, now your base class will need to be bumped up any number of points.

 

In essence, you break even. This example also works in reverse.

 

John

 

All the more reason to publish the curb weight information.

 

BTW, what other factors were used in determining the base classifications?

[Greg G.]

Greg, thanks for being so prompt to answer questoins, but I had one clarifying question on the update/backdate rules.

 

My car is (and I think we agree now) a 1992 fwd eagle talon tsi, but I've upgraded to the brakes from a 1993 awd eagle talon tsi which are another .5" on the rotor and a dual piston caliper instead of single piston. Is this a legal update/backdate since its the same vehicle, but different model? from 1990-1992 the awd's themselves had the same 1 piston brakes as mine did stock, but the fwd's never had 2 piston brakes in any model year. Would this fall under a Big Brake Kit in the same way a mustang gt would be penalized for using a set of brakes from a mustang cobra?

You've got it right in the second case. Even though they are in the same class, the AWD and FWD are not the same car/model, so you will need to add the +3 for the brake mods. Also, since we didn't actually classify the AWD, and I'm ok with the earlier year parity. Are there other differences in the '93 AWD (and later models if there are any) beside the +3 bigger brakes. Because I might have to bump the later model AWD a * if there are. If you know, great, otherwise, I won't add the '93 AWD to the provisional list at this time.

Thanks

[Markus]

I sure hope that these rules and rulings are stable for a few years. One of the reasons that so many things were changed this year was to try to avoid making changes every year. I, you, and just about everyone else wants some stability in the classing. We haven't had it so far, but the goal is to try for 2007 (and beyond).

 

Awesome. That is what I was getting at in a roundabout way. I'm not totally as concerned with where my car ends up as I am with it staying there (at least until I dump more money into it). Once again - great job on the rewrite and work you put into the rules.

 

Just to clarify - I want my car to end up in TTE. It starts out in TTF* so I get up to 39 points of modifications minus 7 for the base classification asterick and 3 for the engine swap = 29 available points for additional modifications, 2082 lbs competition weight, can update to '95 suspension bracing/brakes at no point charge.

 

As long as these above parameters are followed I will have a TTE car eligible for NASA Nationals in September - correct?

 

- Mark

[Greg G.]

I sure hope that these rules and rulings are stable for a few years. One of the reasons that so many things were changed this year was to try to avoid making changes every year. I, you, and just about everyone else wants some stability in the classing. We haven't had it so far, but the goal is to try for 2007 (and beyond).

 

Awesome. That is what I was getting at in a roundabout way. I'm not totally as concerned with where my car ends up as I am with it staying there (at least until I dump more money into it). Once again - great job on the rewrite and work you put into the rules.

 

Just to clarify - I want my car to end up in TTE. It starts out in TTF* so I get up to 39 points of modifications minus 7 for the base classification asterick and 3 for the engine swap = 29 available points for additional modifications, 2082 lbs competition weight, can update to '95 suspension bracing/brakes at no point charge.

 

As long as these above parameters are followed I will have a TTE car eligible for NASA Nationals in September - correct?

 

- Mark

Sounds good. Have fun.

[Gumball]

Neon,

 

Re: Classifications

Many attributes were taken into consideration beyond the HP/Weight ratio.

 

Would you like to discuss a specific car that you believe was classed incorrectly?

 

I would also be happy to give you the base weight of any car you wish.

 

However, I will respect the National Director's wishes and not post the list in its entirety for reasons that he has already outlined.

 

Regards,

 

John

[Eric J.]

I have a question about licensing: If I have a NASA competition license do I also need a TT license to compete in TT?

 

Elsewise it looks like I'll be in TTD, TTC if I'm not careful about more mods...

[Greg G.]

Yes, you will need to get a NASA TT license still. But with your NASA Comp license already, all you need to do is fill out the application, have your regional Director sign it, and send it in with $10. TT is a privilege that is granted to racers, but can also be taken away if on-track behavior is too aggressive.

Thanks.

[mavisky]

You've got it right in the second case. Even though they are in the same class, the AWD and FWD are not the same car/model, so you will need to add the +3 for the brake mods. Also, since we didn't actually classify the AWD, and I'm ok with the earlier year parity. Are there other differences in the '93 AWD (and later models if there are any) beside the +3 bigger brakes. Because I might have to bump the later model AWD a * if there are. If you know, great, otherwise, I won't add the '93 AWD to the provisional list at this time.

Thanks

 

93's had different engine internals. Gnat's ass lighter, but not as strong. Most guys opt for the early 6 bolts instead.

 

1990 turbo's have an air to oil cooler from the factory. Alot of guys run this I know. Update/backdate here for all turbo cars of all models.

 

92.5 - 94 awd's all have the 4 bolt rearend which is tougher and has an lsd in it, but the 90-91's with the weaker 3 bolt rearend often had the lsd in them as well, it just wasn't guaranteed. I think this would fall under the update/backdate rule as it only takes a swap of the rear pumpkin and axles.

 

Now the 95-99 fwd's (nonturbo and turbo) have an independent rear suspension. These motors have a smaller stock turbo but higher compression as well. Little bit larger side mount intercooler, but not many swap from 2g to 1g since the routing is different, most go fmic or custom smic. 2g blowoff valves are weak but they often replace them with aftermarket.

 

Largest problem for the 95-99 turbo guys is thrust bearing failure. Alot of them backdate to the 1g engine with larger stock turbo and lower compression.

 

Another thing to watch is piston swapping, ala 95-99 pistons in the 6bolt motors, never offered from factory, but a common practice back in the day and still happens. Also need to watch out for the 2g guys running the larger 1g turbo (2g = t25, 1g = 14b), easy to spot though as the compressor outlet and oil/coolant lines are different.

 

2g's do weigh more as well for whatever that's worth, but not by an obscene amount. I'd say maybe 100lbs more per model line than the 90-94 cars do. But then again their suspension is of a better design so I think it fairly offsets.

 

I'm not too concerned as I'm currently sitting with 67 points on top of my TTE classification (60 mod points + the 7 point asterisk) but still need to get started on my HPDE's first this year.

[Bart Carter]

...I was expecting a dry sump question from you (+20 ). This rule also came down from the heavens because of the very huge gains that can be obtained by: lowering the engine to within a few inches from the ground and lowering the roll center of the car, putting the oil tank in the perfect location to help balance the car, increasing engine performance, and allowing an engine builder to go wild with power and not worry about "kaboom". So, the big number of points will discourage their use except in the unlimited classes. But, they are not illegal

 

So, if you are not using a dry sump to any advantage (not lowering, not weight shifting, increasing engine performance), can we talk about an adjustment on those 20 points?

 

I have a dry sump for only one reason. One of the best Shelby Cobra Spec preparers in the country said that a sustained corner will cause loss of oil circulation and blow a motor. I would love to lose 18 lbs of weight and belts and oil drips and other problems concerned with a dry sump. As far as engine mods, I have a new engine. It has about 100 HP LESS than my old one, hydraulic lifters instead of solid, milder heads, lower compression, HP peak at 6,000 RPM, not 7,500 RPM. But I want the most reliable oiling system when going through a turn. It is not a performance advantage on my car, it is so I won't have to worry about an engine being blown.

 

If there is a penalty for using a dry sump for an advantage, penalize the advantage, not the dry sump. Why should there be a penalty for making your engine reliable?

[Wanna-Be Racing]

I will chime in now on the Dry Sump. I agree with Bart on this one. I wanted to install a dry sump simply for my engine. With my stroker crank controling windage and keeping the oil cool is a problem. I have no intention on lowering, weight balancing, or going to canted valves and higher compression for a performance benifit. I have alot of investment in my engine and only want to protect it with the best oil control around. I don't think 20 points is resonable just for protecting your investment.

Just my 0.02.

Later!

[Shawn M.]

I will chime in now on the Dry Sump. I agree with Bart on this one. I wanted to install a dry sump simply for my engine. With my stroker crank controling windage and keeping the oil cool is a problem. I have no intention on lowering, weight balancing, or going to canted valves and higher compression for a performance benifit. I have alot of investment in my engine and only want to protect it with the best oil control around. I don't think 20 points is resonable just for protecting your investment.

Just my 0.02.

Later!

 

 

I agree with you Keith and im pretty sure the 20 point idea was purely Gregs idea.

(Get him!!)

[marty f]

I'll chime in with thanks to Greg and all the others who obviously put in a great deal of time to research the bejesus out any number of cars and put these rules together. A quick run through of the points game for my ex-Bondurant Mustang and I'm opting for the AI alternate racecar classification putting me in TTA. Think of all the fun (and $$$) I'll have adding (and removing) bits and pieces while staying within AI spec rules!!

 

Marty (TTA 107)

[Neon2dmaX]

Re: Classifications

Many attributes were taken into consideration beyond the HP/Weight ratio.

 

That is what is called a nonresponsive answer. I believe the question asked for a list of the attributes that were considered. I fail to understand any reluctance to list those attributes that were considered.

 

Would you like to discuss a specific car that you believe was classed incorrectly?

 

Actually, without understanding the attributes that were considered as well as the "published" weight that was used, it would be a bit premature for me to formulate a well reasoned belief (i.e. one that is not limited to speculation) that a car has been classed incorectly. But as long as you have asked, I think the Shelby Charger (turbo) may be overclassed. So what were the attributes that were considered when classing this car?

 

I would also be happy to give you the base weight of any car you wish.

 

Top of page 2, I posted the following: "Rather than everyone ask separately, can you publish the curb weight of those cars that are in your database? Otherwise, what weight do you show for a Neon SOHC? How about the Shelby Lancer?" As long as we are at it, how about the Shelby Charger (turbo and NA)?

 

However, I will respect the National Director's wishes and not post the list in its entirety for reasons that he has already outlined.

 

I am not asking you to disrespect the National Director's wishes, I am only inquiring as to why this information should not be made available to all participants, current and potential, particularly since the information has apparently been published in what are, thus far, unidentified sources.

 

I personally have no objection to any competitor doing anything he (or she) can do within the rules to maximize the car's potential within the target class. It makes sense the the competitor should consider the weight reduction alternatives before bringing his (or her) car to the track, particularly since the alternative plan allows for the substitution of safety equipment in lieu of other items. In other words, if any competitor needs to limit his weight reduction, he should know this before he takes the parts off and heads for the track.

 

It there is an objection to the published weight, it should be resolved sooner rather than later. If using a lighter weight that happens to be more accurate, results in a particular car being pushed up within a class, or to another class, so be it.

[Neon2dmaX]

The curb weights are the ones published by the manufacturers and then spread around the world since then. So, I imagine that all cars that had standard AC have it included, and cars without standard AC don't have it included. We can work that out later if we find a specific issue with a car.

 

FWIW, the static weight of my Spec Neon (95 DOHC coupe) was 2443 with slightly less than 1/2 tank of fuel. Carpet in intereior and trunk were removed. OEM seats removed and two light seats installed in front. A/C removed. Battery weighs about 10 lbs. less than stock. Side glass still in place.

 

By comparison my 95 SOHC (sedan) with A/C in place weighed 2450 with slightly more fuel on board (about 5/8-3/4), and with about 16 extra pounds attributable to the wheels and tires (I had 15" wheels and tires on this car when weighed). Published information that I have seen says 2470 for the 95 sedan. So, that is the number I will use for the sedan.

 

As for the Shelby Lancer, I don't recall ever seeing any published information on this car. Of the 800 made, half were auto tran, and the other half were manual trans. All had A/C as I recall. Again, I know that I can find one to weigh, although mine would not be a proper candidate for establishing curb weight.

 

Retraction: I have now found other published information that I can cite... says that the curb weight of 95 Neon coupe is 2385 and 95 Neon sedan is 2416. See: http://auto.consumerguide.com/Auto/Used/reviews/full/index.cfm/id/2140/act/usedcarreviewspecs/

 

So, unless advised otherwise, I will use 2416 as the curb weight for the Neon sedan.

[PtBy]

Question on suspension. I'm running a set of Penske coilovers on my Audi. I anticipated that these might get bumped into the new race shock classification but after reading the new rules I'd guess not.

 

They have adjustable rebound damping and threaded bodies for height adjustment. No remote reservoirs and no adjustable compression damping. Will these be:

+7 points for "Non-OEM adjustable shocks/struts with theaded strut body coilovers" or...

+12 points for race shocks. Since they don't have external dampers it seems like they should be +7 but I'd appreciate some clarification of what "more than two ranges of adjustment" refers to.

And they get...

+1 point for being upside down.

 

In any case I should be well under the limit for the next class upgrade.

[Greg G.]

FWIW, the static weight of my Spec Neon (95 DOHC coupe) was 2443 with slightly less than 1/2 tank of fuel. Carpet in intereior and trunk were removed. OEM seats removed and two light seats installed in front. A/C removed. Battery weighs about 10 lbs. less than stock. Side glass still in place.

 

By comparison my 95 SOHC (sedan) with A/C in place weighed 2450 with slightly more fuel on board (about 5/8-3/4), and with about 16 extra pounds attributable to the wheels and tires (I had 15" wheels and tires on this car when weighed). Published information that I have seen says 2470 for the 95 sedan. So, that is the number I will use for the sedan.

 

As for the Shelby Lancer, I don't recall ever seeing any published information on this car. Of the 800 made, half were auto tran, and the other half were manual trans. All had A/C as I recall. Again, I know that I can find one to weigh, although mine would not be a proper candidate for establishing curb weight.

Retraction: I have now found other published information that I can cite... says that the curb weight of 95 Neon coupe is 2385 and 95 Neon sedan is 2416. See: http://auto.consumerguide.com/Auto/Used/reviews/full/index.cfm/id/2140/act/usedcarreviewspecs/

 

So, unless advised otherwise, I will use 2416 as the curb weight for the Neon sedan.

 

1) How can the curb weight of the '95 Neon Sedan be 2416, if you own one, and weighed it, and found it to weigh approximately 2430 (after wheel weight correction) with less than 3/4 tank of gas? It would seem that your car must have a curb weight of about 2460-2470 with a full tank of gas, which is also consistant with the prior number that you found. The numbers on the website you posted are sometimes correct, and sometimes not. Obviously, in this case, it is wrong, unless you had 50 pounds of junk in the car when you weighed it. This same website lists the late model (2000-2004) 4 door Neons as 2559, and shows the SRT4 engine on the same page. If one didn't know better, they might assume that the SRT4 also weighs 2559 (I wish). Now, you happen to get lucky in this case, because we used the coupe's weight to class the SOHC's, and because you have the same hp as the coupe, you get to use that weight also if desired. We figured that most of them that we would see at the track would be coupes. So, the weight for the SOHC is 2376. We used the sedan for the DOHC's because many of them only come in sedan form, and we are more likely to see sedan DOHC's. The weight we used is 2507 for the DOHC (non-ACR).

 

2) I take it that the weight you posted on your Spec Neon is with a cage? Otherwise, that car must have a curb weight of about 2550+ (which is close to the weight that we got for the DOHC ACR at 2567). Obviously, your '95 DOHC coupe never weighed anywhere close to the 2385 lbs you found on that website, because there is no way that your cage weighs over 150 lbs. And, it would have to for your car to weigh 2443 with only 1/2 tank of gas, and the weight reduction items you listed.

 

3) I'm not really sure why you asked me to class the Shelby Lancer about a year ago, with only 400 cars with manual transmissions ever built. Are you planning on running in TT with one, or was this just an exercise for me to try and find information that as you mention above is about impossible to find? "I don't recall ever seeing any published information on this car" Well, I did find some, but I don't know how accurate it is. And the weight that we used to class it was 3000 lbs. If you, or anyone else brings one of these cars to run in TT, we will weigh it, and determine if it is in the correct base class or not. If it is lighter than 3000 pounds, it may end up in TTE base class.

 

4) The Shelby Charger turbo is classed in TTE with other cars of similar hp, weight, wt/hp ratio, suspension and handling characterics. Is this another car that we needed to class, but we'll never see?

 

5) I've already explained once why we are not publishing the database of car weights, I'm not sure why the question keeps coming up. If each driver sticks to their own vehicle(s) that they will be running in TT, I and the other TT Directors will be happy to assist them if they have questions about their car's classification. There have been over 12,000 models of cars (by year) produced over the past 50 years. If we have 1000 TT drivers this year (and many of them driving the same, late model cars), we don't need to waste our time on the more than 11,000 other cars out there--Unless drivers would like to start paying a $100 surcharge per year for running in TT so we can research more cars that we will never see at the track--didn't think so?

 

6) While our research spanned probably about 4-5 thousand cars, in some fashion, we have only about 600 model "groups" listed in our base classifications. Our database lists a typical weight and hp for a car in that group. It does not list the weight and hp for every car by year in that group. (That would bring us back to the extra $ for research issue.) My estimate is that there are over 350 hours of research put into our base classes between this year and last year's work. It would have doubled or tripled that time to document all of the info investigated, and list every possible year, subtype, upgraded version, etc. At times, we were able to investigate every other year or a model that has been produced for 25 years and look for any substanial changes, then focus in on the year between if needed.

 

There are many models classed, and grouped together under the single model name, that had gradually increasing hp and weight at the same time over the years, but the wt/hp ratio remained relatively constant. The cars were otherwise substantially unchanged in regard to suspension/aero. In those cases, we will have one hp, weight, and wt/hp ratio listed in our database for the slew of them. Often it will be the car with the highest hp (and therefore the highest weight), but not always. So, that is why each driver needs to investigate their own car's curb weight if they wish to use the alternate method. Most non-caged cars will not see any benefit from using the alternate method unless the parts they removed were lighter than a "usual" part of the same type. Cars with cages may benefit. Often the car's curb weight is listed in the car's manual. So, if a driver that wishes to use this method presents us with their curb weight, we can check to make sure it jives with our numbers. If not, it may just be that they have a higher or lower hp version of one of the cars listed, and we can check for them. If it is a matter of a car model that hasn't varied in hp, and we just have different numbers, then we will use our numbers (which are probably the correct ones anyway). But, as you can see, if we just start sending out weights, it will confuse more than help.

[Greg G.]

Question on suspension. I'm running a set of Penske coilovers on my Audi. I anticipated that these might get bumped into the new race shock classification but after reading the new rules I'd guess not.

 

They have adjustable rebound damping and threaded bodies for height adjustment. No remote reservoirs and no adjustable compression damping. Will these be:

+7 points for "Non-OEM adjustable shocks/struts with theaded strut body coilovers" or...

+12 points for race shocks. Since they don't have external dampers it seems like they should be +7 but I'd appreciate some clarification of what "more than two ranges of adjustment" refers to.

And they get...

+1 point for being upside down.

 

In any case I should be well under the limit for the next class upgrade.

 

I need to check into this. Penske's, Ohlin's, Moton's, JRZ's, DSM's, etc. where intended to fall under the +12 class. High performance "street" coilovers like Tein, Tokico, Mopar, KW, Koni, etc. were to fall under the +7 rule. I need to check and see if the Penske's you have are a "street" version, or are "race" shocks (but I thought that all Penske's were race shocks). The difference between them has to do with the valving, adjustability, precision, quality, and charge method. We were going to also state "nitrogen/gas charged" until we found a bunch of "ju..--uh, not race" shocks that were also gas charged.

[Markus]

Hey thanks again for all the work on the rules in general as well as their specific application to my Miata. This is why I like NASA so much - regardless of how the rules work out for someone personally you can at least take comfort that they were well thought out and fairly applied.

 

This is just a random question I'm curious about. Last year, the TT rules specified TTD for Spec Miata but if you added up the mods to the car by points they could still come out TTE. It looks to me like it might be the same thing this year. So how does it work - if someone is prepping an SM is it a TTE car? Then once they get it logbooked as an official SM does it become TTD?

 

Otherwise I'm not sure why someone would choose to run one in the higher class? (Unless they are worried about getting beat by me, but then they'd have to be a pretty slow driver!)

 

- Mark

[firehawkclone]

Question on suspension. I'm running a set of Penske coilovers on my Audi. I anticipated that these might get bumped into the new race shock classification but after reading the new rules I'd guess not.

 

They have adjustable rebound damping and threaded bodies for height adjustment. No remote reservoirs and no adjustable compression damping. Will these be:

+7 points for "Non-OEM adjustable shocks/struts with theaded strut body coilovers" or...

+12 points for race shocks. Since they don't have external dampers it seems like they should be +7 but I'd appreciate some clarification of what "more than two ranges of adjustment" refers to.

And they get...

+1 point for being upside down.

 

In any case I should be well under the limit for the next class upgrade.

 

I need to check into this. Penske's, Ohlin's, Moton's, JRZ's, DSM's, etc. where intended to fall under the +12 class. High performance "street" coilovers like Tein, Tokico, Mopar, KW, Koni, etc. were to fall under the +7 rule. I need to check and see if the Penske's you have are a "street" version, or are "race" shocks (but I thought that all Penske's were race shocks). The difference between them has to do with the valving, adjustability, precision, quality, and charge method. We were going to also state "nitrogen/gas charged" until we found a bunch of "ju..--uh, not race" shocks that were also gas charged.

 

NewB ?'s

 

So Bilstein "race" shock's I take it are +12 even though thier non adjustable?

 

And I have been looking all over the web for an accurate curb weight for a 95 firebird. I came up with 3311lb, but the car weighed 3450lb(w 3/4 tank no driver) last year at WSR. With 150lbs removed from the car all ready.

EDIT:GVWR is 4239 max passenger load is 701, So 3538lb is my curb weight?

 

One more ? on tire width, my car came with 245/50/16 im running 315/17 so thats a 70mm increase, which is +5 right?

 

Thanks for puttin up with a newb

John

Edited January 8, 2006 by Guest

[Gumball]

Neon,

 

I am finished answering your questions. You have already taken up enough of our time and I'd rather spend it on the hundreds of drivers that have actually driven in our series or those that truly intend to participate in the future. My belief is that you are on this forum to simply "stir the pot". I hope you prove me wrong.

 

John

[GAC]

 

This is just a random question I'm curious about. Last year, the TT rules specified TTD for Spec Miata but if you added up the mods to the car by points they could still come out TTE. It looks to me like it might be the same thing this year. So how does it work - if someone is prepping an SM is it a TTE car? Then once they get it logbooked as an official SM does it become TTD?

 

- Mark

 

The way I understand it, a car which is FULLY prepped to extent of the race class rules would class out as Greg has listed the cars. Some drivers haven't built their cars to the full extent of the rules, and, in that case, it may be advantageous to declare a car class based on adding up all your points.

 

Are you sure you tried to calculate an SM car that was built to the FULL extent of the race series rules?

[Markus]

The way I understand it, a car which is FULLY prepped to extent of the race class rules would class out as Greg has listed the cars.

 

That's fine, I'll trust those calculations - I think it was a little off last year and I only eyeballed it earlier tonite. No big deal!

 

- Mark

[Neon2dmaX]

Neon,

I am finished answering your questions. You have already taken up enough of our time and I'd rather spend it on the hundreds of drivers that have actually driven in our series or those that truly intend to participate in the future. My belief is that you are on this forum to simply "stir the pot". I hope you prove me wrong.

John

 

In you first post directed to me you stated: "I would also be happy to give you the base weight of any car you wish." I have asked for three specific cars, and instead of providing a simple answer, you respond that you are finished answering my questions. Hmmm!

 

"Stir the pot?" Not at all. It is just that I fail to see any reason for keeping the "published" information that purportedly has been used to class the cars secret, or releasing it in a piecemeal fashion. I fail to see why any competitor should have to take the chance on being disqualified for having used a "curb weight" that may be lighter than the "official curb weight" when tha "official" information is readily available.

 

BTW, I have actually driven your series. But even if I were only an HPDE driver or an outsider, expressing a casual interest. I think it is reasonable to expect a response to a direct question, especially after you had already indicated a willingness to provide the information.

 

As for proving you wrong... I have no interest in proving you or anyone else wrong. I do have an interest in obtaining as much information as I can; in providing my opinion in an atmosphere that is tolerant of other's opinons; and to the extent that you or any other person are operating with erroneous information, to advise accordingly. I will even try to cite my source, if possible. And in the event that you or anyone else on this form have a different opinion, I will try my best to be tolerant of your viewpoint, even if I disagree.