Weight Placement

[dj10]

To the ITAC:
I hope I'm not alone on this, I think it's time to be able to use the passanger side for weight placement instead the foot well area as now written. I believe this would help front wheel drive as well as rear wheel drives. If any proposals have been sumitted please get them pushed through.

[ddewhurst]

jd10, if I was asking the ITAC or CRB for support I would include my name & SCCA member number within the post. Better yet, I would send a letter to the ITAC & CRB. ;)

[bldn10]

I could be wrong on this (I wish I had saved my old GCRs over the years) but I think that the ballast rule may have pre-dated the allowance to remove the passenger seat so forward of the seat was the logical location. I certainly don't think it was meant to favor or penalize any particular car configuration. Does it?

I carry a lot of ballast and I would like to move it aft as much as possible but why should the SCCA care? Unless the rule is patently unfair to some cars, why the change? I don't really care but I have to point out that the rules are not supposed to be changed just to make all cars theoretically faster across the board. Competitively, that just cancels out and we are right back where we started.

[lateapex911]

Bill, that's a great point, and one to remember in all rules discussions.

However, the item did come up some time ago, and as far as I know, it was on the way to becoming changed to allow the use of the seat mount area, or something along those lines. But for some reason, it hasn't been turned down, approved or tabled. So it is being looked into.

I imagine we should have some feedback on it in the near future.

[mlytle]

Bill, that's a great point, and one to remember in all rules discussions.

However, the item did come up some time ago, and as far as I know, it was on the way to becoming changed to allow the use of the seat mount area, or something along those lines. But for some reason, it hasn't been turned down, approved or tabled. So it is being looked into.

I imagine we should have some feedback on it in the near future.
[/b]

sure would be nice if they approved it.....just in case a certain car is forced to put a significant amount of lead in a legal location...... B)

[joeg]

Cripes if you have the luxury of being able to add weight, there are lots of ways to do so without ballast.

Spare tires, stainless steel exhaust systems, accusumps, more cage trube--down low--all come to mind.

Cheers.

[dj10]

sure would be nice if they approved it.....just in case a certain car is forced to put a significant amount of lead in a legal location...... B)
[/b]

Marshall, this is why I posted this ;). Now everyone get off your asses and email CRB to approve what they have ad sitting on there plate for some time. :D I believe this is fair for everyone who has to carry weight.

[bldn10]

Guys, why so cryptic? Just come out and say what you mean. Is it not possible to put lead in the legal location in that certain car now? If it is, then there is no reason to change the rule. But if there are cars that are indeed penalized by the current rule I will support the change.

FWIW I run w/ the spare tire, a full tank of gas, and at least 50# of weight.

[JeffYoung]

Bill, for me for example, it would be easier (and in my view safer) to run the lead where the seat was as this area is flat. The floor in the footwell is sloped and it is harder to mount my 50 lbs in that area. I'm probably border line illegal at the moment, as the weight is JUST forward of where the original passenger seat rails end.

I'm in favor of this as well. If you write, you may add my SCCA No. (304971).

Thanks guys.

[mlytle]

Guys, why so cryptic? Just come out and say what you mean. Is it not possible to put lead in the legal location in that certain car now? If it is, then there is no reason to change the rule. But if there are cars that are indeed penalized by the current rule I will support the change.

FWIW I run w/ the spare tire, a full tank of gas, and at least 50# of weight.
[/b]

what we mean? we would like the rule changed to allow placement of ballast somewhere other than just the footwell. my guess is that this would help more than just us. it would be a bunch easier to use some of the factory seat mounting locations for ballast rather than the sheet metal floor of the footwell. i would guess the original rule writers were not thinking 300lbs of ballast would be needed.

why? well, the thought of stacking (7) 45lb plates in the footwell just doesn't sound good... :P

i already have 40lbs there and i run with a full tank of gas.

[DavidM]

Mounting 300lbs in a single place to the floor anywhere inside the car would scare me. Go do a search in the tech section and read the thread that links to some posts from one of the World Challenge builders. He talks about a 30lb brick deforming the floorpan 90 degrees in a wreck. Imagine what 300 would do.

I'd actually like to see the ballast mounting rule opened up more to allow something like mounting anywhere to the passenger compartment floor. I'm putting on my flame suit since I'll now be accused of commiting rules sacrilige, but if you're gonna add a lot of weight to cars then I think they should be given more options on how to mount it. Please don't talk about stainless exhausts, accusumps, and whatever else could be added for weight. Last time I checked that stuff cost a lot more money than a plain old chunk of lead or steel.

I already have my 100lbs bolted to my passenger footwell (and tethered to the roll cage). I hope to remove a lot of that over time as I beef up the cage and do other things, but putting in a 100lbs of ballast was the easiest and cheapest thing to do given that I had less than a month to add weight before my first race. Being able to mount the ballast in a different location might have made things easier. It was a pain in the ass putting the ballast in the passenger footwell.

David

[dj10]

Mounting 300lbs in a single place to the floor anywhere inside the car would scare me. Go do a search in the tech section and read the thread that links to some posts from one of the World Challenge builders. He talks about a 30lb brick deforming the floorpan 90 degrees in a wreck. Imagine what 300 would do.

I'd actually like to see the ballast mounting rule opened up more to allow something like mounting anywhere to the passenger compartment floor. I'm putting on my flame suit since I'll now be accused of commiting rules sacrilige, but if you're gonna add a lot of weight to cars then I think they should be given more options on how to mount it. Please don't talk about stainless exhausts, accusumps, and whatever else could be added for weight. Last time I checked that stuff cost a lot more money than a plain old chunk of lead or steel.

I already have my 100lbs bolted to my passenger footwell (and tethered to the roll cage). I hope to remove a lot of that over time as I beef up the cage and do other things, but putting in a 100lbs of ballast was the easiest and cheapest thing to do given that I had less than a month to add weight before my first race. Being able to mount the ballast in a different location might have made things easier. It was a pain in the ass putting the ballast in the passenger footwell.

David
[/b]

[email protected]
tell them it's on their plate.

[dickita15]

[quote]
Please don't talk about stainless exhausts, accusumps, and whatever else could be added for weight. Last time I checked that stuff cost a lot more money than a plain old chunk of lead or steel.

[quote]

David while I do not have a strong opinion on the ballast mounting option this statement kind of got to me. count yourself lucky. Adding weight in this manner is a whole lot cheaper that what those of us are going thru who are trying to get to a weight that is almost imposible.

it is a lot cheaper to add weight than to add light.

[lateapex911]

Dickita has seen the light about adding light, LOL

Not only that, (removing weight is very tough), but you have to take it where you cn find it. If you can find it, it is often in a spot that hurts balance. Ading weight allows you to actually balance the car better...if you're creative, and while this isn't a total engineering category like Prod and GT, it sin't SS either.

[gran racing]

David while I do not have a strong opinion on the ballast mounting option this statement kind of got to me. count yourself lucky. Adding weight in this manner is a whole lot cheaper that what those of us are going thru who are trying to get to a weight that is almost imposible.

it is a lot cheaper to add weight than to add light.[/b]

Dick, I'm not sure anyone is disputing that adding weight can be cheaper / easier for many cars. I believe the point was referring to how / where weight is added. I.e. adding a 25 lb plate further towards the rear vs. adding "additional support bars to an existing cage".

[seckerich]

It would be much safer to allow weight to be anywhere in the passenger side floor area. It would also give the cars that get weight a chance to still have good chasis balance. The weight is to slow acceleration and reduce corner and brake ability--not kill the balance all together. It also lets us use the strong area of the seat mounts to better secure the blocks. We should also be allowed to tie the weight box to the passenger side cage if needed. A drop down mount like we use for the driver seat would be very safe and offer no real stiffening to the chasis. just an opinion. My letter will go out this week.

[zracre]

Oh yea? I bolted 90# of lead to the pass footwell area with beefy brackets, a pass seat and a spare tire...i still need 1/2 tank to make weight. I havent had the time to weld cage pieces in good locations or the funds to buy accusumps cool suits etc...The idea of all that lead coming out does go thru my mind though...i just hope the lead doesnt! :P I did write an email requesting the pass seat bracket area for lead as it would definitely be safer as the seat can hold a fat passenger and not fly off its mounts...seems logical and safe...

[Joe Harlan]

I don't think there is anything in the rules that prevent putting factory parts back in the car. I am sure the E36 came with a nice heavy factory option electric leathe seat. The down side to making location free is that weight no longer is a equalizer. on some cars free location will make the car better.

[zracre]

Free location is a little much...just with in the pass seat mounting bracket holes would be sufficient. The free part comes with roll cage and spare tire B)

[charrbq]

The simple way is my method. Just get lazy in the off season, don't work out, eat and drink way too much, and you can get there easy...and in the seat area. I used to run right at the exact weight...now I'm 30 lbs over. Bad part is I had to get a new driver's suit for my fat butt! However, the "ballast" is right where I needed it!

[Bill Miller]

I agree that free location is a bit much, but I think anywhere on the pass. side floor area would be fine.

[bldn10]

"I believe this would help front wheel drive as well as rear wheel drives."

That was the only reason given for the change in the proposed letter that started this thread.

Then we got this little tidbit: "sure would be nice if they approved it.....just in case a certain car is forced to put a significant amount of lead in a legal location" I asked if there was a "certain car" but did not get an answer. And then this: "my guess is that this would help more than just us" The implication of this is that drivers of a particular car configuration think their cars are being competitively penalized by having to put the weight in front of the seat location. All I'm saying is that if that is going to be the basis for a requested rule change, you need to be able to prove it because the Club should not change the rules just to make all cars a little faster.

Now, if we are talking safety, that's another matter. I agree that the seat mounting holes, spars, etc. would be more secure and I would support that. If you are going to write the CRB, that should be the strategy - not some vague suggestion of unfairness. "I want to be safer" is infinitely more appealing to the CRB than "I want to be faster."

[tom91ita]

i'll jump in and send a note also. although it does not really matter since i am making mods this year to better reinforce for the ~150 #'s I need to add.

the seat area is good except that with the rules the way they are, we will still need to add the two 1/2" bolts per 50# block. one would think that the four mounting bolts for the seat and passenger would be good but i think that there is an assumption that the seat does not actually do any stopping of the passenger in an accident because the seat belts are taking up that force. the seats and mounting are mostly just taking the static load of the weight, right? and the suspension i have in the car makes for a much more forceful ride when the metal is bolted down to metal than the softer suspension and seat cushions.

my ecu is right under the seat mounting area so i can't hardly mount anything over it without other difficulties but i'd still be willing to pen a note.

what and where are the specifics of who/where to write? is an e-mail as good as regular mail?

tia, tom

[mlytle]

I don't think there is anything in the rules that prevent putting factory parts back in the car. I am sure the E36 came with a nice heavy factory option electric leathe seat. The down side to making location free is that weight no longer is a equalizer. on some cars free location will make the car better.
[/b]
yup, could do that if we knew we had to weigh more when we built the cars. now a factory seat won't fit due to cage bars, fire systems, radios, etc. it is too late to add back in many of the factory parts we took off.

i'd agree with you if this was a new car being classed. it isn't. people built them to the rules that were in place at the time. some weight adding options won't work "after the fact".




Then we got this little tidbit: "sure would be nice if they approved it.....just in case a certain car is forced to put a significant amount of lead in a legal location" I asked if there was a "certain car" but did not get an answer.
[/b]

yo bill,

you have made a couple of comments to imply we are being secretive... B)
did ya miss the smiley at the bottom of my first email? did ya miss the avatar of an e36 its race car in my posts? does anyone on this board not know that dj10 and i drive e36's?

ain't no mystery or hidden agenda here! anyone can see that we are totally transparent.... :D

marshall
I DRIVE AN E36! I HAVE AN OPEN AGNEDA! underprepared and poorly driven bmw's shall dominate the world!!!! :lol:

[lateapex911]

A point of clarification:

The timing of the proposed change, which, as I mentioned previously, seems to have "fallen thru the cracks", and was long before any E36 potential weight additions. It wasn't conceived with the E36 in mind, but rather to facilitate the addition of weight to any car that needs to add weight. The concept of utilizing the stouter construction of that area on a lot of cars has obvious benefits, and the possible change in competitive advantage that could be resultant from one type of car to another is negligible. And the cahnge would be offered category-wide.

(A note on the E36: Remember that the CRB released a statement detailing the reasons for their SIR implementation, and the addition of weight in the form of stock components was seen as a hurdle for precisely the reasons our BMW friends have stated above.)

To my eye, the downsides and unintended consequences are minimal, and the advantages great.

There have been no discussions of "free" placement, nor do I think they are needed.

[dj10]

A point of clarification:

The timing of the proposed change, which, as I mentioned previously, seems to have "fallen thru the cracks", and was long before any E36 potential weight additions. It wasn't conceived with the E36 in mind, but rather to facilitate the addition of weight to any car that needs to add weight. The concept of utilizing the stouter construction of that area on a lot of cars has obvious benefits, and the possible change in competitive advantage that could be resultant from one type of car to another is negligible. And the cahnge would be offered category-wide.

To my eye, the downsides and unintended consequences are minimal, and the advantages great.

There have been no discussions of "free" placement, nor do I think they are needed.
[/b]

Guys & or Gals, I want to be completely honest, If you believe it fine if not fine. I started this posted because I was told by someone one the ITAC that this exact recommendation was already sent to the CRB & for some damn reason it slipped through the cracks and was never acted upon. Without any other agenda, other than of all the recommendations I've seen sent to the CRB this one made the most common sense! Not because I drive a BMW, but because I know of the other makes that do have to carry weight. Would it of helped the BMW if it has to carry weight, yes, but it would help everyone else as much.
Last year one of the ITCA members I won't reveal his name, but his initials are Banzai240 :D posted pictures of his race car, it already had weight brackets welded in where the passenger, btw the was no weight in them.hehe. So I think he was expecting the CRB rule to go through. He also does not have a BMW. When I pointed it out to him, I think is response was woops, if I remember. :lol: My point is send the CRB a letter telling them you want this pushed through, not for any advantage for anyone but because it's a good common sense rule.

[Andy Bettencourt]

DJ is right. The rule needs to be opened up, within reason - for safety. He and I talked about some issues and I did tell him that this was an item the ITAC had proactively put in from of the CRB and it got lost in the shuffle. We had a meeting last week and Darin found the original wording and resubmitted it. I would think it would get an go/no-go very quickly.

AB

[lateapex911]

I think Darins car is not an issue...he didn't add that expecting the rule to be changed, but I think he got the car that way...its and older car from some pro series, IIRC.

[Joe Harlan]

Guys & or Gals, I want to be completely honest, If you believe it fine if not fine. I started this posted because I was told by someone one the ITAC that this exact recommendation was already sent to the CRB & for some damn reason it slipped through the cracks and was never acted upon. Without any other agenda, other than of all the recommendations I've seen sent to the CRB this one made the most common sense! Not because I drive a BMW, but because I know of the other makes that do have to carry weight. Would it of helped the BMW if it has to carry weight, yes, but it would help everyone else as much.
Last year one of the ITCA members I won't reveal his name, but his initials are Banzai240 :D posted pictures of his race car, it already had weight brackets welded in where the passenger, btw the was no weight in them.hehe. So I think he was expecting the CRB rule to go through. He also does not have a BMW. When I pointed it out to him, I think is response was woops, if I remember. :lol: My point is send the CRB a letter telling them you want this pushed through, not for any advantage for anyone but because it's a good common sense rule.
[/b]
DJ, I will tell you this, Those brackets were welded in that car long before Banzai240 owned it.:)

So to ASS U ME that he welded those in thinking the rule would change would be just wrong.

[dj10]

DJ, I will tell you this, Those brackets were welded in that car long before Banzai240 owned it.:)

So to ASS U ME that he welded those in thinking the rule would change would be just wrong.
[/b]

Joe and Jake, I just thought of this as a funny story, I know his car is not the or an issue I just meant it as a funny story and a funny opinion :D . I was trying to make it humerous, guess I didn't do so well. sorry :(
Thanks AB & Darin for shooting that over to the CRB.

[mlytle]

DJ is right. The rule needs to be opened up, within reason - for safety. He and I talked about some issues and I did tell him that this was an item the ITAC had proactively put in from of the CRB and it got lost in the shuffle. We had a meeting last week and Darin found the original wording and resubmitted it. I would think it would get an go/no-go very quickly.

AB
[/b]
thanks ab!!

[dave parker]

Guys,
Weight should be added 12 to 16 ounces at a time.

Light is much more expensive.


Cheers (in the 12oz. form)
"dangerous" dave parker

[AntonioGG]

I'd like opinions please.

Is it better to add the weight closer to the RR corner (e.g. passenger seat) and thereby adding more weight to the RR/LF diagonal? Or is it better to add it in the footwell and with the coilovers in the same positions, you don't need as much change to balance the diagonals?

In other words, are we trying to guess at dynamic balance by making the diagonals equal or are we trying to make the static weight perfect 25% at each corner even though dynamically they may be farther off?

This is something I've struggled with in concept myself.

Thanks,

AG

[mlytle]

I'd like opinions please.

Is it better to add the weight closer to the RR corner (e.g. passenger seat) and thereby adding more weight to the RR/LF diagonal? Or is it better to add it in the footwell and with the coilovers in the same positions, you don't need as much change to balance the diagonals?

In other words, are we trying to guess at dynamic balance by making the diagonals equal or are we trying to make the static weight perfect 25% at each corner even though dynamically they may be farther off?

This is something I've struggled with in concept myself.

Thanks,

AG
[/b]
depends upon a number of factors. primarily the number of 12oz weights you have applied to the biomechanical devices used to corner balance the car. the result can seriously affect the dynamic balance of the chassis and the biomechanical devices.

i am going to have to struggle with this some more. hmmmm....





:birra:

:lol:

[AntonioGG]

Let's assume I've "used" plenty of 12oz weights on such mentioned bio-mechanical device and thus it is impossible to get anywhere close to 25% at each corner within the rules.